Tom Harkin: “There was objection on the other side. Why would there be an objection to that? We have a farm bill, and we have worked…”

“There was objection on the other side. Why would there be an objection to that? We have a farm bill, and we have worked hard. The leader is right. We reached a bipartisan agreement. I daresay none of us like every little bit in the farm bill, but that is the art of compromise. You compromise on these sorts of things and you move them ahead. I don't know, for the life of me, why there would be an objection to saying that all amendments should be relevant to the farm bill. Let's move the farm bill. I hope people in farm country are watching this. I hope agribusiness is seeing this. I hope people know what is at stake in this farm bill for rural America for specialty crops, for our dairy farmers, for rural development, and I might add the nutrition programs, food stamp recipients, things that we have done good work on in this bill, to provide an underpinning of nutrition and support for some of the least among us. We have done good work in that area. Now it is held up because some people want to offer nonrelevant amendments. For the life of me--and this is my seventh farm bill, counting my time in the House, and my second as chairman--I don't understand why we cannot have a bill. Yes, open it to amendments on the farm bill. If people have amendments on the bill and want to change this, add this, or subtract that, fine. But why should we now debate, as I said, the war? Can the leader think of any reason we should not just stick to the farm bill?”