Stimulating Leadership in Limiting Expenditures (or 'SLICE') Act of 2007

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I want to thank our chairman, Collin Peterson, for his leadership. I want to thank the minority ranking member, Mr. Goodlatte, in supporting this historic farm bill which I strongly support. As Chair of the Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee, I am strongly supportive of this bill that increases nutrition by $10.364 billion.

Right now, there are 38 million Americans who do not have enough food to eat. This farm bill helps these people. It fights hunger in America by making an historic investment in nutrition programs that will help 13 million American families. This will help an additional 10 million Americans, including 320,000 working poor families, 380,000 elderly and disabled, plus our veterans. This will help put food on the table for many individuals that don't have food.

This farm bill also ensures that low-income elementary school children will have access to fresh fruits and vegetables in schools by expanding the USDA snack program to all 50 States leaving no child behind who is left hungry.

I ask you to support this farm bill. It is an important farm bill. I urge everyone to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, the nutrition title in the Conference Report for the 2008 Farm Bill is a monumental achievement for the millions of Americans who struggle to put enough healthy, nutritious food on the table. I know it's not always easy to make ends meet and to put food on the table each day. I've walked in those shoes, and I've sat at that table. But with this bill we start to fulfill our responsibility to our neighbors. We have improved and strengthened food stamps and other important nutrition programs for our children and seniors. I want to take a few minutes to expand upon some of the accomplishments that are in this nutrition title.

First off, we have updated the name of the program. The new name will be SNAP: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. We needed a new name because there are no places left in this country where food stamps actually are ``stamps.'' Instead, like with other modern transactions, people swipe their cards at the store to access their benefits. This has been a huge success for reducing fraud and stigma in the program. We hope and expect that the new name and new image for the program will help us to continue to chip away at the stigma that keeps some proud people, especially senior citizens, from signing up for help in paying for their groceries and puts them at risk of hunger.

The name reflects the fact that the program provides a ``supplement'' to help people afford an adequate diet when their own resources are not quite enough. We also say ``nutrition,'' instead of ``food,'' because the program is about more than just food. It has got a vibrant nutrition education component to help our low-income population learn about healthy diets and make the choices that will improve their health status over their lifetimes. So I'm very proud of this new name for food stamps: an established program that is one of the best Government programs we've got. Let me be clear, however, that in changing the name and eliminating food stamp coupons we did not intend to make any other policy changes to the program.

I think the biggest single accomplishment in the nutrition title is to end the decades of erosion in the value of food stamp benefits. We're all aware of the rising gas and food prices of recent months and the bite they've taken out of the pocketbooks of most Americans. But for many low-income Americans the squeeze has been getting tighter for decades, as the value of their food stamps has been able to purchase less and less food with each passing year. Food stamp benefits average only $1

per person per day. It's not easy to purchase a healthy, nutritious diet on such a limited amount.

So in this bill we have addressed this problem. We made critical improvements, and, for the first time in the program's history, we have ensured that, in every aspect, the food stamp program keeps its purchasing power over time. We raise the standard deduction from $134 to $144 and index it for inflation. That is an important accomplishment. It helps about 10 million people afford more food-- families, seniors, people with disabilities--all types of low-income food stamp recipients are helped by this change. We raise the minimum benefit, and index it for inflation. We uncap the dependent care deduction so that families can deduct the full cost of the child care they so desperately depend on to hold down their jobs. And we index the asset limits. We don't know what the future will hold. Hopefully, the high inflation of the past months will shortly subside as the country gets back on track. But we now can rest assured, as never before, that if there is substantial inflation our low-income families and senior citizens won't lose out on food.

For me what this bill really is about is people. It's about our senior citizens who have worked hard their whole lives and deserve better than to face the fear of hunger in their last years. It's about children, who come home from school and look to their parents to put a nutritious meal on the table.

One of the groups that will be most helped are our Nation's senior citizens. We were able to increase the minimum benefit, which goes predominantly to senior citizens, from $10 to about $14 a month. This is the first increase in almost 30 years in the minimum benefit. I would have liked to have increased it even more, but this change will help make it worthwhile for some of our seniors who qualify for a low benefit to participate in the program. We did this by setting the minimum benefit at 8 percent of the thrifty food plan for a single person. Because USDA adjusts the thrifty food plan every year for increases in food prices, so too will the minimum benefit now adjust. In addition, because of higher food prices in some places, like Alaska, Hawaii, and some of the territories, seniors in these places will now also see a modestly higher minimum benefit. For example in some parts of Alaska, the minimum benefit will be as high as $25 per month.

In this bill we've also excluded retirement accounts from assets and indexed the asset limits to inflation. These changes will help seniors and working families to save for the future. It makes no sense to require people who fall on hard times to virtually liquidate all of the savings they've managed to put away in order to get help paying for groceries for themselves and their families. Our seniors, especially, may have no ability to replace these savings, and as a result, no cushion to deal with unexpected expenses. And a working family who is forced to spend down savings now will be that much closer to poverty in their older years. So this is an important change for the long-term ability of low-income individuals to move toward financial independence and for our senior citizens to be able to retain an ability to support themselves in their retirement.

But I also want to reaffirm that we did not take away, as President Bush proposed, the State option in the food stamp program to design a more appropriate asset test at the State level. In my home State of California the legislature and Governor have been working together to design an ``expanded categorical eligibility'' program that will revise the asset limit for many food stamp recipients and make it easier for them to save for the future. I hope that other States consider this option, and I urge USDA to work with other States to promote this important policy.

In another major improvement for senior citizens, we have expanded to seniors a State option from the 2002 farm bill that dramatically reduces paperwork requirements. This policy is known as ``simplified reporting'' and it will allow seniors to participate without filing paperwork for 12-month periods, unless they have a major increase in their income that makes them ineligible for food stamps. I urge USDA to make this option as simple and streamlined for seniors and States as possible, and to find ways to insulate food stamp benefits from interactions with other programs that low-income seniors participate in, particularly Medicaid.

Finally, we have heard reports that despite the overwhelming success of the electronic benefits, some seniors can find the technology confusing. For those at the minimum benefit who receive maybe only $10 to $20 a month, we've heard concerns that if they don't use their benefits fast enough those benefits can be taken away--or moved ``offline''--sometimes in as short a period as 3 months, with the senior citizen not understanding why this has occurred. I don't think this is a very common problem, but it is understandable that a senior citizen might want to store up small benefits to use at one shopping trip every few months, rather than have to keep track of the card every month. This bill allows States to move benefits off-line after 6 months of inactivity, but requires them to notify the household and restore the benefits within 48 hours upon request. This benefit reinstatement should be a simple process, and States should aim to help seniors navigate it, so we don't have our seniors being bounced around an EBT call center trying to figure out what happened to their food stamp benefits.

For children and families, the biggest change we make is the increase and indexing of the standard deduction which will significantly boost the ability of low-wage workers to afford food for their families, especially over time. More than $5 billion of the nutrition title's 10- year investment go to this change, which primarily benefits families with children.

We also lift the limit on the dependent care deduction. This change will help about 100,000 families who pay out-of-pocket child care costs above $175 per child per month, or $200 for infants, by recognizing that money that is needed to pay for child care so that a parent can work is not available to purchase food. On average, families who are helped will receive an additional $40 a month, or $500 a year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The dependent care cap has not been raised since the early 1990s, despite the increases in the costs of safe, reliable child care. Families incur all types of costs in order to secure child care for their children, and USDA should continue to allow all of these expenses to count toward the deduction-- such as transportation costs to and from day care and the cost of informal care. Finally, as States roll this out to the 100,000 families currently on the program, it is important that they make it easy for eligible families to claim the new deduction. Families shouldn't have to make extra trips to the food stamp office or be at risk of losing benefits if they fail to claim a new higher deduction. A household should never have its benefits cut or reduced because of a failure to document child care expenses, but should be given a full opportunity to receive the higher deduction if they have expenses above the current capped amounts.

We hear all the time that despite the importance and success of the food stamp program, for most families the benefits run out before the end of the month. That is why it is so important that we provide more than $1.2 billion in this farm bill for additional food purchases for emergency food organizations, like church food pantries and soup kitchens, to feed our families and seniors. We provide $50 million in additional funds this year to help meet food banks' needs in light of rising food costs. And, we increase the basic Emergency Food Assistance Program annual funding level to $250 million. That amount will be adjusted for inflation in future years to ensure that this program does not lose any of its food purchasing power.

Another important provision for our children is a provision that ensures that children who receive food stamps can automatically, or ``directly'' be certified as eligible for free meals. The eligibility rules for the two programs overlap: Virtually every child who receives food stamps is eligible for free meals. So making that connection in an automated way can save the family from falling through the cracks or from having to file duplicative paperwork. Unfortunately, too many States and schools don't currently make the connection adequately. So this bill requires USDA to report to Congress annually on each State's progress in directly certifying food stamp recipients for free school meals, and asks for USDA to report on best practices among the various States and school districts. This is a provision that is about good Government--there is no reason the Government can't make these connections, instead of requiring school administrators and families to be responsible for duplicative paperwork.

In addition to my role as Agriculture's Sub-committee Chair on Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry, I also have the great pleasure to assess this bill from the perspective of my role as the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. More than 5 million Latinos, or more than 10 percent of the Latino population, receive food stamps each month. Food stamps constitute 25 percent of total monthly income for a typical Latino family that participates in the Food Stamp Program. All of the changes that I have just described will benefit low-income Latinos who rely upon this program.

I must take one moment to express my deep personal disappointment that we were not able to restore food stamp benefits to all legal immigrants who are currently ineligible for the program. Keeping food assistance from hard-working immigrants with whom we live side by side is simply wrong and I will not stop fighting until we fully repeal the benefit cuts to legal immigrants enacted in 1996.

In spite of this major setback, we have achieved a number of important improvements for the Latino community. First, USDA will conduct a study on the possibility of bringing

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico back into the national Food Stamp Program. Since 1982 Puerto Rico has received a fixed block grant amount for food assistance, rather than be a part of the U.S. program like the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. This block grant does not take into account changes in economic or demographic conditions, such as unemployment or the number of people who are in need of food assistance.

The poverty rate in Puerto Rico, 45 percent, is more than three times the national poverty rate. However, because of the block grant, Puerto Rico cannot afford to provide benefits to all households poor enough to qualify for benefits using Food Stamp Program standards. Instead, they have been forced to impose rigid eligibility criteria. For example, a family of four with net income above about $600 a month, or 34 percent of the Federal poverty level, cannot get any food assistance in Puerto Rico. The same family living in California, or any other State on the mainland, could have almost three times as much income and still be eligible for food assistance. An elderly person living alone faces an income limit of $192 per month--just 23 percent of the poverty level.

Clearly, some of our most vulnerable American citizens are at risk of being denied food assistance they greatly need. It seems just plain wrong to knowingly leave some Americans with insufficient food. With this study we hope to get a better understanding of what the local conditions are in Puerto Rico, in terms of food costs, poverty and other programmatic factors so that we can figure out how to address the issue in the next farm bill, or earlier if possible.

Another important achievement of the bill is to ensure that both Federal statute and regulations have the full force of law, ensuring that clients who do not receive adequate service under these rules and standards may bring suit. Recently, a district court in Ohio dismissed a case brought against the State to enforce the Department's regulations for serving people whose primary language is not English. I can't speak to whether the case had any merit, but my colleagues and I were surprised and disturbed to learn about the court's dismissal. We felt that it was critical to clarify in this bill that it has always been Congress's intent that the program's regulations should be fully enforceable and fully complied with to the same extent as the statute. The farm bill, therefore, clarifies that the Department's rules on serving non- and limited-English speaking people have the force of law and create rights for households.

Beyond the issue of bilingual access rules, this legislation makes clear that the Department's civil rights regulations are among those which have the full force of law and which households have the right to enforce. Discrimination is not acceptable in any form or at any point in the food stamp certification process. Households should not be assisted, or not assisted, approved or denied for any reason other than an individual assessment of their need for help or their eligibility by the state. I am pleased to be playing a role in making clear that the Committee and the Congress wish the program to be administered in compliance with the Food Stamp Act and its regulations.

I'd like to also talk about a somewhat related matter that we did not manage to agree to include in this farm bill, much to my disappointment. I worked hard to include in the House bill, and shepherd through the conference negotiations, a provision that would have strengthened the longstanding policy in the food stamp program that certification and eligibility decisions should be done by State employees, rather than private companies. We would have added to the traditional restrictions around merit systems and provided specific exceptions for certain activities, such as outreach. In recent years the Bush Administration has let two States, Texas and Indiana, experiment with using private companies to collect and review food stamp applications and conduct the sensitive eligibility interview. In my view, these projects are not consistent with current law or good sense. These experiments have been disastrous to the States' treasuries but, more importantly, to the vulnerable families and senior citizens who rely on food stamps and found their applications delayed or improperly denied. Some people even had their private, personal information shared inappropriately. The activities involved in determining eligibility--and ineligibility--for food stamps should be public functions and should not be governed by profit motive or a company's responsibility to its shareholders.

While the House voted to include this provision in the Conference agreement, the Senate did not because of opposition from the other party and a veto threat from President Bush, I regret this outcome and I am determined to not drop this issue until we have restored the proper balance to food stamp administration.

But I urge my colleagues to not forget, that separate from this ``privatization'' issue, in recent years States have been experimenting with a wide variety of changes to food stamp policies and practices that incorporate new technologies and modern business practices. For example, some States are using technology to create new pathways to apply for and retain benefits such as food stamps, health insurance, and child care, including online applications, online program redetermination or recertification, phone interviews, and call centers where changes in circumstances can be reported.

On the one hand, creating ways for families to participate in these programs without having to travel to a human service office can expand access and save time and money for States and families alike. In fact, in this bill we've created a new option for States to accept food stamp applications over the telephone. No doubt technology offers numerous opportunities for improved customer service and simpler application and retention processes.

On the other hand, if these processes are not well-designed, evaluated, and implemented, then families can face new access barriers. Moreover, some States are exploring these options at the same time that they are reducing human service staffing and closing local welfare offices. These steps can create new access barriers for certain groups of families and need to be carefully monitored. And I am concerned because neither States nor USDA appear to be asking the important questions about what has been the effect of these technological changes on access for food stamp households, particularly vulnerable populations like seniors, people with physical or mental disabilities, or people who do not speak English proficiently. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) last year published a report that found that USDA has not sufficiently monitored the States' ``modernization'' efforts in terms of their effects on program access, payment accuracy, or administrative costs.

So in this bill we have included several provisions to require that States that are eager to pursue modernized systems are pausing to ask the necessary questions about how to ensure that the new systems are designed in such a way that they are effective tools for connecting eligible families to benefits. In this bill we require USDA to establish standards for when States are making major changes in program operations and to monitor the effects on households, especially the types of households I just mentioned. I urge USDA to do this in a way that yields useful information so that States can refine and improve their systems to make them as accessible as possible to all clients.

Another provision requires States to adequately pilot test new computer systems before they go full-scale. This responds to situations where States have implemented new computer systems without adequate testing. This occurred even though some at USDA knew that there were weaknesses in the system and that serious benefit delays and errors were likely to occur. We also included a provision the Administration suggested to require States, instead of households, to repay any overissuances that occur because of one of these preventable major systems failures.

Finally, in light of all of the modernization changes and the potential access to sensitive information that new players may have, we strengthened the Act's privacy protections to ensure that anyone receiving confidential information for appropriate program purposes cannot then share that information with a third party. In addition to our fears that too many people may have access to private food stamp information as a result of new technology, we were also concerned that clients have not been able to access their private records. We heard about clients in Texas who had their benefits cut off, or who never were able to obtain benefits, and could not get access to their case records in order to pursue claims against the State. That is unacceptable. We also clarified that despite all of the changes in how States are storing and maintaining client records, clients can access these records in litigation. These changes are not in conflict because confidential records would continue to be unavailable to the general public and others not having a legitimate reason relating to program administration.

Another concern I have is about two new provisions that would disqualify certain people from food stamps for misusing their benefits. One relates to situations where a recipient of food stamps intentionally uses food stamp benefits to buy a product, like water, that is in a disposable container that can be redeemed for cash, then discards the product and redeems the container in order to obtain the cash deposit. The other new disqualification addresses individuals who intentionally purchase food with food stamp benefits in order to resell the food for a cash profit. I agree that both of these practices are contrary to the purposes of the food stamp program in assisting people in obtaining an adequate diet and it's appropriate to address them in this bill. However, I caution USDA to implement them in a way that ensures that only those who intended

to defraud the system in these manners be disqualified. I do not want to see innocent people--who may simply have bought groceries for a neighbor or relative be caught up as somehow engaging in fraud under this provision.

My concerns here are not completely without precedent. In this bill we are revisiting and clarifying a different disqualification rule that was enacted in 1996, and that has, in fact, ensnared innocent people and denied food stamp benefits in inappropriate ways. The intent of the law was to aid law enforcement and prevent criminals who are fleeing to avoid prosecution from receiving food stamps. Unfortunately, in practice, the provision has disqualified innocent people who had their identities stolen, or who have outstanding warrants for minor infractions that are many years old and where the police have no interest in apprehending and prosecuting the case.

So in this bill we direct USDA to clarify that people should only be subject to disqualification if they are actively fleeing law enforcement authorities who are, in fact, interested in bringing them to justice.

In addition to the very important changes we have made to the food stamp program and new funding for food banks through TEFAP, the bill would expand and improve the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. This program has been receiving $9 million a year in mandatory funds and operates in 14 States. (Three Indian tribes also operate the program.)

Under the conference agreement, mandatory funding would increase to $40 million for the 2008-2009 school year and continue to grow. By 2012, the program would be funded at nearly eight times its current size: $150 million each year, with annual adjustments for inflation in years after that.

In addition to providing increased funding, the conference agreement takes important steps to target program funds to elementary schools with a significant share of low-income children. Our goal is to provide free fresh fruits and vegetables to all elementary schools in the country where more than half of the children are eligible for free or reduced price school meals. This program should expose a whole new generation of children to a healthy way of eating.

To sum up, I am extremely proud of the work that our Committee and our Congress have undertaken in the nutrition title of the farm bill. With these changes, we are building a healthier better fed population. As a result, we are taking a few important steps towards a stronger future for our children and our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it's been a long road to get to this point, and I want to start off by thanking Mr. Goodlatte, the ranking member of the committee, again for his great work; my subcommittee chairmen, who started this process off; the ranking members on the Republican side; my friends on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel especially, Mr. Pomeroy, for their hard work to get to this point; the Speaker for backing us up and helping us keep on track here to get to a final consideration; and for all of my colleagues in the House for being patient and working with us and giving us your input.

We have come to a point where I believe we have a good bill that should be supported by all Members of this Congress from both urban, suburban and rural areas.

I have here a chart that shows how the current farm bill spending is going to be allocated on a 10-year basis, which is what we have to go by.

Nutrition in this new Food, Conservation, and Energy Act is 74 percent of the spending over the next 10 years in this food bill, commodities are 16 percent. Back in 2002, these numbers were 65 and 35 or something. Conservation is 7 percent; and energy and the specialty crops, the other items, are 3 percent.

This shows on another chart how we got to those numbers. We had a $58 billion reduction in our baseline. What happened, before we started because the prices were up and the amount of money going out to farmers was down, so we started off $58 billion in the hole. We were provided $10 billion from our friends in the Ways and Means Committee of additional spending over the baseline, and this is how that spending was allocated out.

Nutrition was more than the $10 billion of new money that was put in the bill, $10.3 billion; conservation, an additional $4 billion; specialty crops, $2.3 billion; and in the commodity title, we actually had a reduction. In addition to the $58 billion that we reduced, we had another $3.6 billion that we took out of the commodity title to help put money into these other areas.

Having done that, we still have an adequate safety net for farmers. It's very much like the current law that we have been operating under. We have made some minor changes, and we have brought the AGI limits down from $2.5 million to $500,000 on non-farm income, $750,000 on farm income. So we've made some reform, not as much as some people would like, but more than others would like. We got both sides a little bit upset so I think we're doing something pretty close to what we should.

And to show you how the allocation is based on what the 2002 bill was and what the current bill is, this shows in yellow the 2002 bill and in the kind of purple color the current bill. In nutrition, you can see there's a substantial increase. Conservation, the commodity title is down, and energy is up a little bit.

So we have I think a balanced bill that maintains a safety net. It includes a new disaster program that is paid for. This bill is paid for. The $10 billion comes out of a custom user fee extension which is not a tax increase, which has allowed us to have a bipartisan bill.

We've put a bill together here that I think addresses what people are concerned about in this country. It has a loan guarantee program for cellulosic ethanol.

I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

It has a bioenergy reserve program to allow us to learn how to grow switch grass and how to harvest it and store it and move it; woody biomass so we can get cellulosic ethanol going.

We have for the first time significant money in for fruits and vegetables, which are 50 percent of the agriculture in the United States.

We have country-of-origin labeling. It's going to be mandatory on fruits and vegetables and meats starting September 30. We have interstate meat shipment, another issue that's been hanging on for 20 years.

We've solved a lot of problems in this bill. We have a bill I think that covers all the interests in the country, and we have a bill that we should all be proud to vote for in this House.

Again, I want to thank all my colleagues for their hard work and look forward to having a strong vote on this and encourage you all to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to recognize my good friend, Mr. Rangel, but before I do I would like to recognize Mr. Hall for a colloquy.

I would be happy to engage in a colloquy with my friend from New York.

I thank the Congressman from New York for his remarks and his work on this issue.

These are, indeed, some serious concerns about the implementation of the New York CREP and its impact on the gentleman's muck farmers. It is my understanding that USDA and the State of New York have taken steps to ensure that any new enrollments will not have such negative impacts.

The conference report under consideration directs the Secretary to work with the producers in New York's muck soil areas to use existing programs to help implement farm bill conservation programs on acres still under production.

I look forward to continuing to work with the Congressman from New York on this issue in the future.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, without whose tremendous work we wouldn't be here today. So, Mr. Rangel, we very much appreciate, on the Agriculture Committee, your effort, and you, Mr. Pomeroy, as well, to help us get this bill to the final end.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my vice chairman and the distinguished chairman of the Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research Subcommittee, Mr. Holden from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the chairman of the Specialty Crops, Rural Development and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) for 1 minute.

(Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize the distinguished chairman of the Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Subcommittee, who is responsible for having the first-ever livestock title in the farm bill, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) for 1 minute.

(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize the chairman of the General Farm Commodities and Risk Management subcommittee, the outstanding chairman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) for 1 minute.

(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize the distinguished chairman of the Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry Subcommittee, one of our outstanding chairmen, Mr. Baca of California.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize one of the members of the conference committee, a valuable member of our committee, Mr. Scott of Georgia, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth Sandlin), a valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa), another outstanding member of our committee, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to recognize for 1 minute the distinguished Speaker of the House without whose support and backing we wouldn't be here today. From the start when she came to Farm Fest a couple years ago until now, she has become an agriculture expert. We appreciate her involvement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo Mr. Goodlatte's comments. I have a list of all of the staff members, majority and minority, that I would like entered into the Record to honor their work. You think we've been through a process here. It's nothing compared to what the staff has done, and so they deserve our thanks. And they're going to, hopefully, get a little bit of rest now once we get this over with.

To follow on Mr. Goodlatte's comments, there's a lot of reform in this bill that I would call real reform, as opposed to ginned-up reform that's been done by different folks. We have made huge changes in the conservation programs that are going to make those programs work a lot better in the future, work for more different parts of the country.

We have a new revenue-based countercyclical program that we're going to try out on an optional basis for the next 5 years that may be the new future direction of the farm bill, depending on how it works out. So we've got a lot of reforms in this bill that never get talked about because all anybody wants to focus on is AGI.

Well, I don't have any problem putting an AGI limit on nonfarmers, because, frankly, I don't think they should be in farming in the first place. We've got enough capital in agriculture. We don't need folks from outside of agriculture coming in and being involved. That's my personal opinion.

But, you know, we've got a $500,000 limit. We'd have gone lower, but that's as far as we could get.

We put a limit on farmers, on farm income for the first time, in spite of the fact that this is the only part of business people in this country that are getting benefits from the Federal Government that are requiring an AGI, that I know of. I don't know why farmers get singled out and nobody else does, why we don't have an AGI on oil companies and whoever else is getting benefits from the Federal Government. That continues to mystify me.

But I just have to clarify, you know, people keep manipulating these statistics. We've fixed some of that in this bill as well, which I would call reform. But as to what Mr. Goodlatte said earlier, we have a $500,000 hard cap on nonfarm income. So I suppose that if you earn $500,000 as a doctor or something, your wife earned $500,000 as a doctor, and then you had a farm and you earned $750,000 as a farmer, and your wife had a real farm and earned $750,000 you could get to $2.5 million. But I think you need to understand that, in order for you to qualify for that, you're going to have a real genuine farm, and it has to be your income, certified by a CPA or a lawyer, and if it's not, if they do it wrong they're going to go to jail and you are, too.

So I think the likelihood of anybody getting to this $2.5 million limit is almost nonexistent. That is a bogus argument that's being put out there, being ginned up by people that want to keep this fight going on.

So if you want to put a $200,000 cap on everybody that gets money from the Federal Government on AGI, then we'll be right there with you. But I don't think that's going to happen.

Just like we tried to put AGI limits on conservation. We had a revolt. Some of these conservation groups that have been pushing these payment limits, as soon as we said we're going to have the same limit on them as farmers, we had a revolt.

This is a good bill. It's got a lot of reform. I thank everybody. We'll appreciate a good vote to get this over with.

Majority Staff: Andy Baker, Christy Birdsong, Wynn Bott,

Aleta Botts, Claiborn Crain, Jack Danielson, Nona Darrell,

Adam Durand, Nathan Fretz, Alejandra Gonzalez-Arias, Chandler

Goule, Tony Jackson, Craig Jagger, Tyler Jameson, Keith

Jones, Martha Josephson, John Konya, Scott Kuschmider, Rob

Larew, Merrick Munday, Clark Ogilvie, John Riley, Sharon

Rusnak, Lisa Shelton, Anne Simmons, April Slayton, Cherie

Slayton, Debbie Smith, Kristin Sosanie, and Jamie Weyer.

Minority Staff: Patricia Barr, Brent Blevins, Bryan

Dierlam, Mike Dunlap, John Goldberg, Alise Kowalski, Kevin

Kramp, Scott Martin, Josh Maxwell, Pam Miller, Rita Neznek,

Bill O'Conner, Pelham Straughn, and Pete Thomson.

Fellow/Intern: Rob McAfee, Rachel Huhn, Randi Hughes,

Jennifer Spraberry, Olivia Vickers, Melinda Cep, and J.D.

Hale.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of the time allocated to me be granted to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) so that he can manage that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I rise today in support of the farm bill conference report. I thank the chairman and all of the other members of the Agriculture Committee on both sides of the aisle for working in such a bipartisan spirit to produce good legislation. I also thank my staff and the majority staff for their hard and, I know to them, seemingly endless work on this legislation.

This farm bill contains solid reforms while addressing a variety of issues including forestry, rural development, renewable energy, nutrition, conservation, research, specialty crops, and livestock and still maintains the safety net necessary to ensure a safe, reliable and affordable domestic food supply. This farm bill is a good work product, and I am proud of the work we have done.

The bill contains more reforms than any previous farm bill, eliminating payments to millionaire farmers, eliminating the three- entity rule, and increasing the efficiency of the crop insurance program among numerous other reforms.

It's 100 percent PAYGO-compliant and is fiscally responsible, scoring $4

billion less than the House bill and $5 billion less than the Senate bill. I think you would be hard-pressed, Mr. Speaker, to find a conference report in the history of this body that came back scoring less than the House and Senate bills. That is a significant achievement, and I think it would be foolish to overlook the positive changes this farm bill has undergone.

When we talk about the farm bill, many believe that the Congress is voting on a $288 billion bill that goes directly to farmers. The truth is that only 17 percent of the farm bill spending is devoted to farm programs, while nearly 70 percent goes to the nutrition title alone. In fact, there is very little farm in a farm bill anymore.

In 2002, the farm program funding comprised just three-quarters of 1 percent of the Federal budget. Today, farm program funding accounts for just one-quarter of 1 percent of the Federal budget, a twofold reduction in just 5 years.

Agriculture policy is essential to the lives of every American, and it is important that the policy we formulate is responsible, effective and at a low cost to the taxpayer.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

This bill meets those requirements. I support the farm bill because I believe American agriculture is vital to our national security, health and way of life, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a ranking member of one of our subcommittees.

(Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a ranking member on the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my friend from Arizona that if you know of the farm couple where each person has $500,000 in off-farm income and each has $750,000 in farm income, the two limits we have imposed, down from $2.5 million to $500,000 for nonfarm income and never before limited to $750,000, I would like to meet that couple, and then we will fix that problem.

I yield to the gentleman from New York 1 minute.

(Mr. KUHL of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer) who is a subcommittee ranking member on the Agriculture Committee.

(Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said about whether or not there is reform in the legislation.

Let me point out that there is very substantial reform. We have caps on adjusted gross income limits on farmers and on nonfarmers. We require direct attribution of benefits. We reform the dairy and sugar support programs. We create revenue-based countercyclical programs. We address the beneficial interest problem. We reform the crop insurance program, and we eliminate the three-entity rule.

Those of you who are not in agriculture may wonder what some of those things are. They are all significant reforms resulting in this. For those who say we are not making cuts in the commodity programs, this orange bar represents payment for commodity programs under the last 3 years of the so-called Freedom to Farm Act, which some have touted as being more reform oriented in agriculture, $24.7 billion a year.

During the last farm bill, the 2002 to 2007 farm bill, it averages $12.1 billion per year. The projected average cost for the current farm bill that we are debating right now, $7.6 billion a year, less than one-third of what was spent per year under the Freedom to Farm program. This is real reform, these are real cuts in the commodity title for America's farmers and ranchers.

This gives you an illustration of what we are talking about, what we are debating about. This thing that looks like a pin, this little tiny slice of overall total Federal spending, is what goes to commodity programs, one-quarter of 1 percent of the Federal budget, down from three-fourths of 1 percent during the first year of the 2002 farm bill.

You might say we are dancing on the head of a pin when we have this much debate about reform for one-fourth of 1 percent of the farm programs.

I urge my colleagues to support this reform legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give one of my minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the Speaker just mentioned the bipartisanship in this legislation, and that is very true. But this legislation is not bipartisan because many Republicans will be supporting a Democratic bill, this legislation is bipartisan because it was crafted by both Republicans and Democrats throughout the conference process, and this legislation is very, very different than the legislation that passed the House last summer which I voted against primarily because there were tax increases to pay for the legislation. There are no more tax increases paying for this legislation. In fact, this legislation is paid for by a means that is acceptable to both sides and acceptable to the administration.

But there are more reforms in this legislation that Republicans prevailed upon our Democratic colleagues on in the conference. The effort to prohibit States, most particularly the State of Indiana, from being able to seek outside help to reform their flawed food stamp program was removed from this bill, and so now not just Indiana but all 50 States will be able to continue to use appropriate means to modernize their food stamp programs.

Davis-Bacon provisions in the Northern Border Economic Development Commission, the Southeast Crescent, and the Southwest Border Regional Commissions, those Davis-Bacon provisions have been removed from this legislation.

An effort to undermine the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 by providing increased food stamp benefits to adults, able-bodied adults without dependents was removed from this legislation.

And anticompetition livestock provisions, which were very troubling to many Members on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle as well, were removed.

So while there are certainly advocates for each of those provisions in this bill, this bill is bipartisan because we worked together to give on both sides to make sure that we came up with a good farm bill that could command strong bipartisan support.

This bill promotes energy independence by expanding investment in cellulosic biofuels and helping move away from corn-based ethanol. It cuts the ethanol subsidy by 12 percent. It's fiscally responsible because it contains no tax increases and is PAYGO compliant. It boosts conservation programs benefiting our environment. It aids food banks and nutrition in our schools in its nutrition programs. It preserves the farm safety net and assures that we continue to have the safest, most affordable, most abundant food supply in the world. This is real reform. This is a real farm bill for the 21st century.

I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation.

I want to thank, again, the chairman of the committee, the chairmen of the subcommittees, the ranking members on my side of the aisle, but most importantly, the staff on both the majority and the minority side who worked many, many, many weekends over the last 2\1/2\ years, but particularly in the last few months, to craft this legislation, to address all of the concerns that were raised, to go down blind alleys, find that something didn't work, come back up, find a different way to make it work, and to reach this point today, the staff has helped make that possible.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Speaker. I am today introducing another bill intended to help reduced waste and inequity in the Federal budget.

There has been much discussion of individual spending items-- ``earmarks''--requested by individual members. They are not all bad, but I agree that some need closer scrutiny. That's why I have introduced a bill, H.R. 595, the Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures, or ``SLICE'' Act, to give the President a constitutionally sound version of a line-item veto that can force Congress to reconsider individual spending items.

But we need to recognize that earmarks are not the whole story. Much waste and inequity in the budget results not from 1-year spending items, but from ongoing tax breaks and subsidies that are built into the budget and will persist unless and until there are changes in relevant law.

Like earmarks, not all tax breaks and subsidies are bad--in fact, I think many are good for our country and deserve to continue or even be expanded. One example would be the tax breaks and other provisions to promote renewable energy and to help Americans become more efficient in their use of energy. And there are other examples as well.

But there is also an array of direct subsidies, tax breaks and indirect assistance created for the special benefit of a relatively small number of beneficiaries, sometimes at the expense of others.

Too often, such provisions have persisted because of the phenomenon that once made it nearly impossible for Congress to close unneeded military bases--the cost of each one is relatively small in overall terms, but very important to a few States or Congressional Districts, with the result that the potential budgetary benefit of a reform is not great enough to overcome the strong opposition from its defenders.

So, the bill I am introducing today would resolve this dilemma in the same way that an earlier Congress resolved the similar problem of eliminating unneeded military bases. It would do that by establishing an independent, bipartisan, and expert commission to review special- interest tax breaks and subsidies to see which should be ended or revised.

But this would not be just another commission to produce another report fated only to gather dust on congressional shelves. Instead, like the special commissions that have reviewed military bases, it would be key to a

process that would require Congress not just to read the report but to vote on whether to adopt its recommendations.

Here's how my bill would work:

bipartisan cuts commission

The Commission on Unfair Tax Breaks and Subsidies, or ``CUTS Commission'', would consist of five members. Its chair would be a person named jointly by the Speaker and the Senate majority leader. The Speaker and the majority leader of the Senate would each pick one other member, and so would the minority leaders in each Chamber. Members would be chosen on the basis of their expertise and to represent a fair balance of views.

The Commission's job would be to identify and evaluate payments, benefits, services, or tax breaks to see if they meet the test of a reasonable expectation that they will bring a return to the public at least equal to the value of the cost to the taxpayers.

Scope of Review

The scope of this review would not include payments made to or tax breaks benefiting individuals, to state or local government or Indian tribes, or Native corporations organized under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, or to nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations.

It also would not cover support for research and development based on peer-reviewed or other open, competitive and merit-based procedures where the subject is in the public interest and the work is not likely to be done, or done with equal benefit to the public, by the private sector.

Similarly, the review would not include payments or tax breaks primarily benefiting public health, safety or protection of the environment; the development and use of renewable energy; improved energy efficiency; or education.

Finally, the Commission would not review matters of national security, including homeland security, compliance with trade agreements or treaties, or procurement contracts--and could not propose new programs or taxes or the termination of federal agencies.

Recommendations

The Commission would have a year to complete its work. Within that time, it would first prepare a preliminary report for review by the Government Accountability Office, GAO, and then a final report to Congress.

The Commission's report would specify which changes in subsidies the commission is recommending--and any recommendation supported by at least four of the five members of the Commission would be assured of prompt consideration by Congress.

Legislative Action on Recommendations

Under the bill, recommendations with that high degree of bipartisan support on the commission would have to be introduced as bills, and each committee to which they were referred would have a 20-day deadline to reporting them.

A committee could consider only amendments that would terminate or reduce an inequitable subsidy, except that the tax-writing committees could offset revenue increases with broad-based tax cuts, they could not use limited tax breaks of the kind that would have been subject to a line-item veto under the Line-Item Veto Act of 1996. If a committee failed to meet the deadline for reporting, it would be discharged.

Bills reported from committees would go to the Rules Committees of each Chamber. If more than one bill is reported, Rules would consolidate them into one measure which would go to the floor. After 5 days, excepting weekends and holidays, a motion to proceed to its consideration would be privileged and not debatable and, if adopted, the bill would be considered under procedures limiting the time for debate. Similar procedures would apply to conference reports after each Chamber had acted.

In short, Congress could not ignore consensus recommendations by the Commission. It would have to debate them and then vote on whether to adopt them.

Potential for Savings

It is not possible to say exactly how much this bill will save the taxpayers--that depends on what the Commission might recommend and how many of their recommendations Congress would approve. I have seen estimates that the kinds of subsidies and tax breaks covered by this bill could be costing tens of billions of dollars annually just in terms of special-interest spending programs, not to mention special tax breaks--such as provisions to suspend the tariffs on certain items-- many of which are of particular benefit to just one or a few companies. So, I think the potential is considerable.

Equity and Accountability

And as important as the savings that could come from enactment of my bill is the increased budget equity and congressional accountability that it would promote. Special-interest subsidies, whether through spending or tax breaks, are great for the beneficiaries but they aren't always great for the taxpayers and they often are harmful to competing companies or other entities that don't get the benefit of the subsidies.

So, trimming or eliminating that kind of subsidies could save money and would remove inequities--and requiring those of us in Congress to stand up and be counted on whether to trim or eliminate some of them would increase our accountability to the taxpayers, to those hurt by the subsidies, and to the American people.

For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I think this bill deserves the support of our colleagues. For their benefit, here is an outline of its major provisions.

Outline of Commission on Unfair Tax Breaks and Subsidies (``CUTS'')

Bill

Commission--5 members: chair appointed jointly by House

Speaker and Senate Majority Leader, plus one each appointed

by House Speaker, Senate Majority Leader, and House and

Senate Minority Leaders. Members to be chosen on basis of

expertise and to reflect diverse views. No Federal employees

on the commission, but agencies can detail people to provide

technical expertise.

Duration--Commission would have one year to complete its

review and report to Congress.

Scope of Review--Commission would review payments,

benefits, services, and tax breaks provided to companies,

joint ventures, associations, etc. but not to individuals,

state or local governments, Indian tribes and Alaska Native

Corporations, or tax-exempt nonprofits. Review would not

cover support for research and development based on open,

merit-based competition if it is consistent with public

interest and federal agency purposes and private sector

cannot reasonably be expected to do it as well. Also outside

scope of review: matters involving public health or safety or

the environment; development or use of renewable energy;

greater energy efficiency; national security (including

homeland security); or education. Review also would not

involve matters needed to comply with international trade or

treaty obligations or federal procurement contracts.

Report--Commission's preliminary report would be reviewed

by GAO; final report would go to Congress with

recommendations for changing or eliminating subsidies covered

by commission's review. Any recommendation backed by at least

4 commission members would have to be introduced as

legislation.

Action by Congress--Committees would be limited in amending

bills to adopt recommendations by at least 4 of the 5

commission members and would have to report them for floor

action with time limits on debate. So, Congress would have to

act on those recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it's planting season back home in Wisconsin. I still represent one of the largest agricultural producing districts in the entire Nation. Our farmers need a new farm bill. They need to know what the rules are that they have to work and live under.

But we need to do a farm bill the right way, not the wrong way, one that maintains an important safety net for family farmers across the country and is also responsible to the American taxpayer.

Unfortunately, I kind of feel like Paul Harvey here in the well today about to give the rest of the story. This farm bill could be summed up in simple words, it's a missed opportunity. In fact, it could be summarized by the phrase: Where's the beef? Where's the real reform?

Why do I say that? Let's take a look for a second at the so-called reforms under the commodity subsidy programs. By the time you include off-farm and on-farm income and allow double entities, dual entities on the same farm, and their adjusted gross income, you have adjusted gross income up to $2.5 million and you still qualify for taxpayer subsidies. That would constitute approximately two-tenths of 1 percent of farm entities throughout the country that might be affected by these so- called reforms under the direct payments.

Now let's remind ourselves, these direct payments are $25 billion, that go out over the next 5 years, regardless of price, regardless of production. It's not a safety net. It's an entitlement program that each and every one of us will have to go home and look our taxpayers in the eyes and try to explain to them why some of their tax dollars are going to go to a farm entity with an adjusted gross income of $2.5 million.

If you look at the loan deficiency program and the countercyclical, the two other subsidy programs that currently exist, we went in the wrong direction rather than the right direction with reform.

There will still be allowed double dipping under the loan deficiency program. And the loan rates are being increased rather than decreased. And under the countercyclical, the target prices are going to be increased. What does that mean? It means that they will be triggered much earlier and will cost the taxpayer much more if prices start to decline.

One of the reasons there is less funding under the commodity title is because we're at a record time of commodity prices throughout the country. In fact, since the last time the farm bill was on the floor last year for consideration, you look at the five major commodity titles, and they have gone up tremendously since that time: Wheat, an additional 126 percent; soybeans up 57 percent; corn up 45 percent; cotton, 32 percent; and rice, 31 percent. Those are the main subsidized crops that we have throughout the country. Yet, instead of going forward with some reasonable and imminently justifiable reform to tighten up these programs so it is more justifiable to the taxpayer, they're going in the opposite direction.

I always believed that we had the capability, in light of current market prices, to produce a farm bill that maintains an important safety net for our family farmers but in a way that's less market and less trade distorting and is also justifiable to the American taxpayer.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Unfortunately, this farm bill falls short on that worthwhile goal. And unfortunately it's the American taxpayer who is currently facing increased costs of food and fuel that will be paying more over the next 5 to 6 or 7 years by the time we get a chance to look at the next farm bill and talk about the reforms that may be needed.

I led an effort 5 years ago under the last farm bill for some commonsense reforms. People back then said wait for the next one, it's coming. Well, I've been here long enough to understand that tomorrow never comes, and today is the opportunity we have, in light of current market prices, to do the right thing.

I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I represent one of the largest agriculture districts in the Nation, western Wisconsin. We do a lot of corn, a lot of soybeans, a lot of beef cattle, obviously a lot of dairy. I've got a 200-acre farm myself, and we rotate corn and soybeans, have some beef cattle on it. One

of the additional concerns I have with the subsidy programs is how skewed it is to the very biggest entities.

Over two-thirds of these commodity subsidy programs are going to the 10 percent largest entities in agriculture today. Why is this a problem where I'm from? Well, a lot of these big entities are using the additional subsidy money to gobble up the family farms that exist around them. It's driving up land prices in Wisconsin and making it virtually impossible for new beginning farmers to enter agriculture.

If you look at the reforms that are being touted in this farm bill before us today, they just don't meet the test of time. The income limits that apply currently to direct payments, by the time you count dual incomes on the same farm go as high as 2.5 million in adjusted gross income. That's after expenses. That's after all the cost of doing business is deducted out. And according to last year's tax returns, for those who filed a Schedule F Farm Income Report for tax purposes, these reforms that are being touted today might affect two-tenths of 1 percent of farm entities throughout the country, two-tenths of 1 percent. Give me a break. And the income limits have been lifted for the other two subsidy programs, the loan deficiency program and the countercyclical program.

And to top it all off, they've created the granddaddy of all earmarks in this Permanent Disaster Fund, which we all know, based on past history, is going to be a very targeted, very regional dispersion of this new Disaster Relief Fund.

Now, when you think about the fact you've got three existing subsidy programs already, LDP, counter-cyclical, the direct payments, you throw on top of that the crop insurance subsidization that goes on in the farm bill, why do we need to add another layer of entitlement funding with this new disaster relief program? But we all understand how these farm bills come together. They usually go above baseline. They have to come to the Ways and Means Committee to find offsets in order to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

They come up with enough money to throw at enough groups, at enough individuals, at enough programs in order to buy people off around here. And it's the reform effort that's the first casualty in this entire process. We saw it 5 years ago. We're seeing it today. My fear is we're going to see it 6 or 7 years from now when the next farm bill is up for consideration.

It is a missed opportunity. The President is right. We ought not be giving taxpayer subsidies to wealthy individuals at a time of record- high commodity prices in the marketplace.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to a strong advocate of reform and for a strong conservation title in this farm bill, my good friend from Oregon, Earl Blumenauer.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from Virginia, he really is an expert on these programs, but he knows as well as anyone the reason commodity spending is down is because commodity prices are up.

Two of the three subsidy programs are based on the amount farmers are getting in the marketplace. But that can all return in a heartbeat, and he knows it.

The fact is that you need a few Members of Congress here today to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes. As I said from the beginning, where's the beef, where's the real reform?

When you still allow taxpayer subsidies going to a farm couple with an adjusted gross of $2.5 million, that's not reform. When you lift the income limits under the LDP and the countercyclical program, that's not reform. When you increased the loan rate and the target price, it's not reform.

You have marginal reform with the crop insurance. Instead of having a farm bill today that has reasonable reform for taxpayers throughout the country, and has the great conservation title for the 21st century, or the healthy food bill of the 21st century, it's more status quo. It's more wait for 5 years, we will do it then.

Well, those 5 years never come. The time has never been better today, and the President is right. We should not be spending taxpayer subsidies for wealthy individuals at a time of record prices in the marketplace. When people are facing increased food and fuel costs, let us not do this to the American taxpayer and use their money needlessly.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' We can do better. I know we can do better in producing a bill that provides a safety net for family farmers but is also responsible to the American taxpayer.