Conference Report on H.R. 2419, Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, sometimes here in Washington, we tend to drink our own bath water and believe our own press releases. And to hear some of the debate here, you would think this is the best bill in the world and that everybody out there has got to support it.

Let me just read a couple of editorials from around the country to give you an idea of how this bill is being played outside of Washington:

The Columbus Dispatch: ``The current compromise version of the farm bill includes little retreat from the subsidy program that for decades has bled taxpayers, fattened the already fat, distorted market incentives, soured U.S. trade, hurt the environment, and done little for family farmers.''

The San Francisco Chronicle: ``From the fiscal watchdog perspective, this bill is a sign that the new Democratic leadership is as profligate as the Republican leadership it replaced. Make that more profligate ..... The $286 billion farm bill is good politics only because the millions of taxpayers who are paying the bill are not pushing as hard as the relatively few who benefit.''

The Albany Times: ``Corn prices are up. Same for flour. That means farmers are enjoying boom times ..... So why would Congress even think of giving more generous subsidies?'' That's a good question.

The Spartanburg Herald-Journal: Ð`` ..... The fact that reform has failed, and Congress is about to pass a renewal of the same failed, wasteful subsidies, is a testament to all that's wrong with politics in Washington ..... Congress has reached a House/Senate compromise bill that will continue to take money from you and other families struggling with high food prices to further enrich big corporate farmers who are already earning record prices for their crops.''

The Dallas Morning News: ``The legislators negotiating the new farm bill evidently don't do their own grocery shopping. Otherwise, they'd have seen the dramatic rise in food prices. And they'd have done more than trim only $400 million from the $26 billion in direct-payment subsidies they're planning for farmers .....''

We can do a lot better than this. I want to associate myself with the comments of Mr. Kind from Wisconsin. Taxpayers expect more.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

We have mentioned the generous subsidies that still flow to multimillionaire farmers. Let me just put that in perspective in this legislation. With this legislation, a farm couple earning $2.5 million in combined on-farm and off-farm income is still eligible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm payments. Yet an urban couple earning a little more than $17,800 or owning more than one vehicle can become ineligible for food stamp benefits.

Now I am not making an argument that we should raise the threshold for food stamp benefits. But look at the difference here. How in the world can you justify having a farm couple with on-farm and off-farm income of $2.5 million still eligible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsidies? It is simply indefensible.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, in my very short time remaining, let me simply say that we have a huge problem with entitlements in this country, one of which is the entitlement, direct payment system for farmers. This is not serious reform, when you are still paying farmers that make up to $2.5 million in subsidies from the taxpayer.

I urge a "no" vote on the bill.

Source