WASHINGTON, D.C. – United States Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), today entered into a colloquy with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, to secure her commitment to the full and immediate elimination of direct payments during any Farm Bill conference with the House of Representatives. During the exchange, Senator Flake promised to oppose any extension of existing farm bill legislation that would permit direct payments.

Sen. Flake continues to fight to eliminate direct payments. He introduced with Sen. Claire McCaskill a bill – S. 334 – to terminate agricultural direct payments beginning with the 2013 crop year. During the 112th Congress, he introduced H.R, 2487, the Reducing the Deficit through Eliminating Agriculture Direct Payment Subsidies (REAPS) Act. Both bills sought to eliminate direct payments. 

The text of Sens. Flake and Stabenow’s exchange, as delivered, is below:

SEN. FLAKE: “I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with Senator Stabenow.

As the two chambers prepare to go to conference on the farm bill, I rise to request a commitment from the distinguished chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee to protect the Senate farm bill’s vital provision to end direct payments outright.

While I commend the chairwoman for her leadership in facilitating the full and immediate elimination of direct payments in the Senate pass farm bill, many of my colleagues may be surprised to learn that section 1101 of the House-passed farm bill contains a carve-out that would actually continue direct payments to cotton farmers at a rate of 70 percent in 2014, and at a rate of 60 percent in 2015.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, this House-passed extension of direct payments would cost taxpayers an estimated $823 million.

Already a poster child for federal largesse, direct payments have more recently become synonymous with waste, fraud and abuse. As the Washington Post put it, recent analyses of the program have found that it subsidizes people who aren’t really farming: the idle, the urban, and occasionally…the dead.

Investigations have uncovered taxpayer-backed direct payments being paid to billionaires, to New York City condo dwellers, and to non-farming homeowners who happen to live on former farmlands.

Direct payments have also been the target of a series of scathing reports published by the Government Accountability Office; the most recent of which went so far as to question the purpose and need for direct payments, stating that they did not “align with principles significant to integrity, effectiveness, and efficiency in farm bill programs.” That report went on to recommend that Congress consider eliminating direct payments outright.

I ask the distinguished chairwoman: Was the unsustainable cost and the pattern of waste, fraud and abuse associated with direct payments the impetus for the chairwoman to ensure that this subsidy was fully and immediately eliminated in the most recent Senate farm bill?

SEN. STABENOW: I thank my colleague from Arizona for his passion on this issue. Yes, it has been my goal from the beginning of this Farm Bill process to end unnecessary subsidies and clean up areas of waste, fraud and abuse, starting with the Direct Payments Program. The program is indefensible in this current budget climate. It makes absolutely no sense to pay farmers when they don’t suffer a loss and to pay people who aren’t even farming.  That is also why we have included the strongest reforms to the commodity programs in the history of the farm bill, eliminating payments to people who are not farming and tightening the AGI requirements and the amount any single farmer can receive.  We even have reformed the crop insurance program.

The number one thing we’ve heard listening to farmers all across this country is that they need market-based risk management tools. Farming is an extremely risky business. Farmers plant seeds in the spring and hope that by the time the harvest rolls around, there will have been enough rain, and the right temperatures, to give them a good crop. That’s why we strengthened crop insurance and made that available to farmers growing different kinds of crops – because we want farmers to have skin in the game. As I always say, this is about farmers paying a bill for crop insurance, not getting a check from the direct payment program.

SEN. FLAKE: To the chairwoman’s credit, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry has maintained a sustained effort to eliminate direct payments. In fact, between the 2012 and 2013 Senate farm bills and the majority’s sequester-replacement legislation, 76 current members of the Senate have voted for the full and immediate elimination of direct payments.

Does the chairwoman agree that even the limited, $823 million dollar extension of direct payments found in the House-passed farm bill would be at odds with the recorded votes of a supermajority of the Senate?

SEN. STABENOW: My friend from Arizona is correct - the Senate has repeatedly voted to end direct payments.

SEN. FLAKE: To that end, I respectfully request that the distinguished chairwoman make a commitment that she will protect the Senate’s vital provision and work to ensure that any conference report brought before the Senate achieves a full and immediate elimination of direct payments.

SEN. STABENOW: Yes, that is my intention. In fact, I sponsored legislation earlier this year to fix the sequester for this fiscal year in part by ending the direct payment program. I strongly agree we should not be spending taxpayer dollars to fund these direct payment subsidies and I will do everything I can to make sure the conference committee adopts the Senate version on this issue.

I would also say to my friend from Arizona that if we don’t get the Farm Bill signed into law by September 30, then direct payments will continue. So I hope I can count on your support to make sure that we pass the Farm Bill in time and eliminate direct payments.

SEN. FLAKE: I thank the chairwoman for her commitment. To be frank, I believe the Senate farm bill leaves much to be desired. To gain my support, the farm bill would need to undergo dramatic changes to reduce the taxpayer cost of federal crop insurance, remove market-distorting price supports, and limit the scope of the federal government in U.S. agriculture.

That said, the chairwoman is right to point out that as uncertainty continues to surrounds the House farm bill, Congress appears poised to pass yet another extension of the 2008 farm bill and, in turn, direct payments.

In terms of direct payments, such an outcome would be a costly regression in light of the Senate’s bipartisan efforts to eliminate this multibillion dollar subsidy. After 17 years, three extensions, and more than $92 billion paid out, it is time for direct payments to come to a full and immediate end. On this point, the chairwoman and I are in full agreement.

To that end, the chairwoman has my commitment to do everything I can to ensure that any legislation that should come before Senate containing an extension of direct payments will be met with my fierce opposition.

I thank the chairwoman again for her commitment and for her attention to my concerns."

                                                                          ###