Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2419) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1189 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This point of order is about whether or not to consider the rule and ultimately the underlying conference report. In my opinion, it is simply an effort to try to kill this bill without any debate, without an up-or-down vote on the conference report itself. It is nothing more than procedural roadblocks, something the other side has been using a fair amount recently. I don't believe it will work.

The gentleman has talked about the fact that he is not able to speak in opposition. The gentleman had an hour's worth of debate the other day on a motion to recommit. It is also my understanding that the chairman is working with the opposition to allow them time to discuss the bill within the rules that were set up.

This conference report is far too important, Mr. Speaker, to be blocked by a parliamentary tactic. We have worked on this bill for nearly 2 years and have accomplished what many of us thought was an impossible feat by bringing it to the floor.

Make no mistake about it. The Republican obstruction will ensure that a farm bill will not pass during this Congress. So despite whatever roadblocks the other side tries to use to stop this bill, we will stand up for America's hardworking farmers, for the hungry and for the millions of other Americans who will benefit from this farm bill.

We must consider this rule, and we must pass this important conference report without further delay.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding I have the right to close. But in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to my friend from Arizona with regard to the PAYGO issue, even though that is going to be addressed in the rule and not in this motion that he has brought forward now.

I didn't raise a point of order in your motion so you can have plenty of time to speak.

Let me tell you also that the chairman and the ranking member have, in my understanding, provided 10 minutes to both the Republic and Democratic opposition to this bill out of their time today. So we will be complying with the rules of the House. It is my understanding there will be 20 minutes in opposition.

With regard to PAYGO, the Senate and the House have adopted different rules. In the 1990s when the House and Senate had statutory PAYGO, both Chambers had the same rules with regard to PAYGO. The House rules talk about one issue with PAYGO. The Senate rules with another.

In this rule, we have tried to reconcile, we started this bill and actually passed it in a conference report, or we passed it out in chief from the Agriculture Committee to this floor and to a conference committee in 2007. That work was not completed in 2007, and thus we have this bill on the floor today.

There are many reasons why this bill didn't get finished in 2007. But because we have different rules in the House and Senate, we have decided that in order to make this bill work and achieve a conference report that we can bring to this floor that we will be discussing this further as we discussed the rule. But we have dealt with that in the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We have accommodated the Senate PAYGO rules as we have moved forward. And it is my opinion that this is a technical situation because we started this bill and passed this bill off the floor in 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.

I believe we are supposed to be talking about the unfunded mandates in this bill. If the gentleman would like to talk about the PAYGO rules, we should talk about this when we bring up the rule which that is germane to.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we will deal in the debate on the bill chiefly with regard to what the level of reforms is.

I would just like to tell my colleagues and my friends from both Arizona and Wisconsin that there are, in fact, significant reforms. In fact, if you take the ratio when this bill was first brought up in 2002, you have a situation where the nutrition part of this bill, versus commodities, was by a ratio of 2-1, $2 for nutrition for every dollar of commodity payments.

In this particular act that we are going to be bringing to the floor later today, it is my understanding, and my work with regard to the reforms, that there have been so many reforms put into this bill that the nutrition title versus the commodity payments is actually a 5-1 ratio at this point. I would say that indicates, as just one of many indicators, that you will see as we conduct this debate the significant reform that has happened in this bill.

I believe this is good work. I am very proud to be a part of bringing this bill to the floor. I believe it complies with the House Rules, and, I, again, want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider, so that we can pass this important piece of legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As my colleague knows, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and the underlying conference report for the farm bill. This point of order today is just another effort, in my opinion, by the other side of the aisle to block this critical legislation that we have worked on for nearly 2 years.

They don't want to debate, and they don't want to vote on this conference report. They simply want to obstruct through a parliamentary tactic.

I want to make it very clear that the farm bill fully complies with the earmark disclosure rules contained in clause 9 of rule XXI. I would suggest to those raising the point of order that they look in the statement of managers, and they will see a list of the earmarks. If they can't find that list, we will be happy to provide it for them.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and to consider this important rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the committee, who I believe has done a fabulous job in bringing this bill to the floor, Collin Peterson of Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman raised a point of order with regard to earmarks, not with regard to the issue of PAYGO. That will be discussed in the rule itself. It will be germane to that later discussion.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman says we talked about other issues in the last point of order, I was trying to be gracious with regard to the time and the discussion and allow the gentleman to speak. I raised an issue on the point of order on PAYGO because we are going to discuss that in the rules discussion, in the discussion of the rule.

I would just remind the gentleman that in the time he has taken on these

two points of order, he will probably have discussed this bill more than any other Member on the floor, even after we agreed to give him 20 minutes of debate on this topic. So I think that the gentleman thus protests too greatly, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that this conference report fully complies with the earmark rule. In my opinion, it fully complies with the spirit of PAYGO.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to the chairman who would like to respond on that question as well.

Mr. Speaker, I control the time under the remainder of my motion, and I believe the gentleman is discussing the rule.

I don't yield, and if the gentleman from Washington would just suspend for a moment, I just would like to say that I do not yield because we are talking about a whole different topic here. I would like to make sure that we consider the point of order that has been raised directly by the gentleman from Arizona and not make this a wide-ranging debate with regard to the rule.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on consideration on this point of order, and I yield back the balance of my time.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1189.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1189 provides for consideration of H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, the continuation of the Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2007 which we passed off this floor in September of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, the conference report rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, and it also provides one motion to recommit.

It should also be noted that despite the blanket waiver, the conference report does not violate clause 9 of rule XXI.

Furthermore, I want to point out that the conference report uses the CBO 2007 baseline, the year in which the bill passed both the House and the Senate, and under that baseline, CBO has determined that this conference report will not increase the deficit in either of the years 2008 through 2012 or in the years 2008 through 2017 scoring window.

Therefore, while there is a technical violation of clause 10 of rule XXI, this

conference report complies with the rule by remaining budget neutral with no net increase in direct spending. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not increase the deficit and it is PAYGO compliant.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of a subcommittee on the House Agriculture Committee, and as a member of the Rules Committee, I'm pleased to offer the Farm, Conservation, and Energy Act conference report for consideration today. This bipartisan conference report represents the blood, sweat and tears of many Members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees, including myself. I would be remiss if I did not single out a few individuals at this time.

First, I must recognize Chairman Collin Peterson, without whom this farm bill would have never been completed. His unwavering dedication to seeing this bill through to completion should be an example to us all, and I am indeed grateful for his commitment, especially in the face of tremendous adversity.

I also want to thank Ranking Member Goodlatte, Leader Hoyer, and certainly, not least, our Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, for their steadfast commitment to creating a farm bill that we can all be proud of and to stand behind, and because of her leadership, there is, in fact, significant reform in this bill.

It is hard to believe, but we actually started this process nearly 2 years ago, starting with traveling to nearly every corner of this country to hear directly from farmers and ranchers from all walks of life about what they needed in a modern farm bill. We took these wide- ranging comments to heart and crafted a fiscally responsible, equitable and unparalleled farm bill.

I wish I could say that it was all a walk in the park. The House and the Senate passed their respective bills in 2007, and since January of this year, Members of the House and the Senate have been hammering out a compromise. There have been many battles, but in the end, this conference report is something I believe this House should be very proud of.

While people didn't get everything they wanted, the country got what it needed. That speaks volumes about the quality of this bill and tells me we ended up in exactly the right place.

The Farm, Conservation, and Energy Act builds upon the past successes of Federal farm policy by maintaining the farm bill's safety net, while at the same time providing for substantial increases in conservation, nutrition and energy.

However, I'm most proud of the $2.3 billion in new Federal investments for specialty crops, an industry that has been uniformly neglected in previous farm bills despite comprising nearly 50 percent of total farm gate value.

Furthermore, this farm bill contains unprecedented reforms to commodity programs by revising program eligibility and strengthening payment limitations.

Through major changes to the crop insurance program, we have also increased government efficiency and reduced the waste, fraud and abuse identified in the current farm programs.

More importantly, this bill is completely paid for. Through PAYGO, Democrats are fulfilling our promise to live within our means like every household in America is forced to do, and I believe the PAYGO rules, Mr. Speaker, made this a leaner, meaner and better bill, despite the complexities that the new rules presented at times.

We pledged to stop writing blank checks with reckless abandon and shouldering our country's needs on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, this legislation adheres to the spirit of PAYGO, proving that it can be done.

Mr. Speaker, our farmers have the capacity for immeasurable innovation and success, and they deserve the Federal Government's commitment that's included in this bill by supporting this farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to telling my constituents of the 18th District of California that the United States Congress has accomplished what many thought was an impossible feat in coming to an agreement on a farm bill.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly and wholeheartedly urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington complains that nearly 75 percent of this bill goes to a nutrition program. I would submit to the House that if Republican policies with regard to the economy weren't what they were we wouldn't have to be increasing the nutritional support for our citizens.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from California. I would just like to reiterate that this bill and this rule fully complies with the Senate PAYGO rules and it is totally in keeping with the spirit of PAYGO by complying with the 2007 PAYGO baselines as my Republican colleague, Mr. Neugebauer, said last night when he presented the rule to the committee as the Republican ranking member at that time, and his words were that this bill is fully PAYGO compliant.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, without which we could not have done this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who absolutely has been an undying advocate on behalf of those who need it the most, those who are going hungry in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I was remiss when I introduced my colleague, Alcee Hastings from Florida, for his undying support and work with regard to specialty crops. He was joined in this effort by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney) who has been just a stalwart in helping me get the specialty crop title into this bill. And I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I ask how much time is remaining on either side.

At this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman without whose leadership on the bill we simply would not be bringing the bill to the floor today, the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, this is a once-in-a-lifetime bill that will meet our country's needs. Every major group, commodities, specialty crops, nutrition groups, conservationists and others support this bill. A ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill is a vote for America's hungry, a vote for our environment, a vote for United States' energy independence, and a vote to deliver on our long-standing commitment to rural America.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of our colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1189 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. That upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker

shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the

House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the

state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5984)

to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the

limited continuation of clean energy production incentives

and incentives to improve energy efficiency in order to

prevent a downturn in these sectors that would result from a

lapse in the tax law. The first reading of the bill shall be

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. General debate shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and contolled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. All points of order against

provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill

shall be in order except any amendment which the proponent

asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the

national average price per gallon of regular unleaded

gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of

oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge. Such amendments shall be considered

as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,

shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject

to a demand for division of the question in the House or in

the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such

amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been

adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1189 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the conference report which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order realizing that it is a bit of a stretch. The reason that we have this point of order in law is to guard against unfunded mandates being levied on the States. In this case, there are a lot of unfunded mandates being heaped upon taxpayers. I realize, as I said, this is a stretch. But I have to do this today because the rule that is before us does not allow anybody opposed to the bill to claim time in opposition to the bill.

Now how is it that a bill of this import, a bill that will spend over the next 10 years about $300 billion, is not important enough to allow those who are opposed to the bill to claim time in opposition to it? Instead, the structured rule before us today allows time to be split between the majority and the minority. Now those who will be controlling that time are people who are in support of the bill. How is it that we can discuss a bill this large, this important, that spends this much money, and that heaps this kind of burden on the taxpayer, yet again, without having a real discussion?

When we have a bill before the House, we have time called ``general debate.'' In this case, general debate is between those in the majority who support the bill and those in the minority who support the bill. Now how is that debate? Why is it that the Rules Committee can't see fit to actually allow people who are opposed to the bill to claim time in opposition to it?

With that, I would love to hear an explanation from the Rules Committee why we have a structured rule that does this.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, I realize this bill has been in discussion for a couple of years. And I will come to that a little later as we talk about why earmarks had to be airdropped into the bill at the last minute. If we have been discussing this bill for 2 years, then couldn't we actually discuss these earmarks that were to be added to the bill instead of airdropping them into the conference report when nobody in the House or nobody in the Senate had even seen them? So it is hardly a defense to say that we have been discussing this for 2 years, nor is it a reason to deny those who are opposed to the bill an opportunity to actually claim time in opposition.

Let me read from the House rules. If the floor manager for the majority and the floor manager for the minority both support the conference report or a motion, one-third of the time for debate thereon shall be allotted to a Member, Delegate or Resident Commissioner who opposes the conference report or motion on demand of that Member, Delegate or Resident Commissioner.

We waived that. And we are not doing it. And let me tell you why I think that is the case. Now if I were supporting this bill, and I had been touting this bill as some big reform to our farm programs, I would flat be plumb embarrassed to bring this bill to the floor in its current form. I would be embarrassed.

What has got most of the attention, the problem that we all note, that everybody across the country realizes, is how in the world can we have a situation where multimillionaire farmers are collecting subsidies courtesy of the taxpayer?

And the real effort in here, what the President wanted, what others wanted, and what many of us here in the House argued for, was to put a cap on how much income you can have and still receive subsidies. The President suggested $200,000 adjusted gross income.

Remember, adjusted gross income is your income minus expenses. All of us here collect a salary of about $169,000. By the time we deduct things for mortgage interest, medical expenses and charitable contribution, it brings that down by at least one-third, maybe even one-half. Under this legislation, a farm couple can have farm income and nonfarm income totaling $2.5 million and still receive direct payments under this legislation.

Now, if I were bringing a bill to the floor and had touted this bill as reforming, man, I would want to hide that as well. I would not want somebody to be able to stand up and say, how is it that a multimillionaire farm couple can still collect subsidies from the taxpayers? So I commend the Rules Committee and those who are in support of the bill for actually putting a rule together that minimizes opposition that can be raised and that the only way people can stand up and oppose and be guaranteed time in opposition is to use a maneuver like raising a point of order against the bill.

I should mention there are other problems with this and other reasons why this rule should not go forward. We are waiving PAYGO rules. Now one thing the majority said when they came into power is we will not waive PAYGO. We are going to live by PAYGO. When we give money out, we have to make sure that that many money is in the Treasury or we won't do it.

This waives PAYGO because there is simply no way you can be in compliance with PAYGO and pass a $300 billion farm bill. And in this case, the writers of the legislation did something very creative. They actually went baseline shopping. What PAYGO says is that you have to take the current baseline, the most current baseline of spending, and total up your spending in the bill based on that current baseline.

Instead, what the authors of this legislation did was said, oh, let's go to last year's baseline because we spent less money then and it means we can spend more money in this legislation. Baseline shopping. It is as if I were to say, I don't want to pay so much in taxes this year. So I am going to use last year's wages that I was paid, and I am going to report that instead. Now if I did that, I would be thrown in jail. But we are allowed to do this here. We are allowed to say, we will take whatever baseline we want as long as it allows us to spend more money in the legislation. And then when the bill comes to the floor, we will just waive the rule that required us to be honest in terms of bringing legislation that complies with PAYGO.

I would love an explanation from the Rules Committee as to why PAYGO was waived in this regard.

And I would reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining.

I will gladly yield to my colleague from California on the Rules Committee for a question.

Did we waive the PAYGO rules in this rule?

Reading from the House rules after the beginning of a new calendar year----

I can well understand why the other side does not want to talk about PAYGO and why I should confine this debate to unfunded mandates because PAYGO was, in fact, waived here. PAYGO was waived. And were it not waived, it would be subject to a point of order, the same point of order that the gentleman is lodging against this debate right now. So I can understand that. And I guess we will have to go with the flow.

There is another point of order that will be raised shortly with regard to the waiver of the earmark rules that we have in place as well.

So let me get back. This is an unfunded mandate on the taxpayers, of course. According to the Environmental Working Group, the Federal Government handed out $13.4 billion in farm subsidies to 1.4 million recipients, $11.2 billion of which related to various commodity support programs, programs that the underlying bill simply does not change.

The taxpayers have a huge unfunded mandate here that we are going to be paying off for a very, very long time.

With that I will gladly yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1189 under clause 9 of rule XXI, because the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against the conference report and its consideration.

Mr. Speaker, this second point of order, and I will be calling for a vote on this one, is raised because of earmarks that have been airdropped into the legislation.

As the gentleman mentioned, this is not a new bill. This is not something that just popped up last week and that there was a need to add $1 million for the National Sheep and Goat Industry Improvement Center, but that was something that had to come up at midnight and be dropped in when nobody had seen it in either the House or the Senate.

This bill has been under consideration for a long, long time, and yet, still, we have earmarks that have been airdropped into the legislation, a number of them. Now, the gentleman may say in defense, we have listed the earmarks that have been airdropped in.

It is true that some have been listed. If all of them were listed, why would we waive all points of order against the bill? If the majority was confident enough that all earmarks have been listed, then we wouldn't have waived the points of order against it. I will speak specifically about a few of these earmarks.

But let me just mention some of them that are in the bill. There is authorization language for a National Products Research Laboratory. Again, this was airdropped in at the last minute when it hadn't been in the House version of the bill, hadn't been in the Senate, it was airdropped into the conference report. There is authorization language for a Policy Research Center, authorization language for Housing Assistance Council.

Now, what that has to do with the farm bill, I am not sure, and the problem is, we will never know until the bill was passed because it was airdropped in at the last minute.

That's the problem that the majority party correctly identified when they took control of this body, that we have a problem with earmarks, and they are being dropped in at the last minute without notice.

That's why decent rules were actually put in place to try to curb this abuse. The problem is, in this rule, we are waiving those rules. We are waiving those rules so the old practice can continue on just like it always has.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that we are being accused on this side of trying to stifle debate on the bill, that we don't want debate on the bill when I am here to argue against a rule that waives these points of order and a rule that also does not allow opposition to claim time.

Now, the majority will say, well, we will yield you time now. Now that we have been caught on this, we will yield you some time. That's not the same as controlling time.

When I control time, I can yield time to my colleagues. If I am yielded time, I can't do that. I don't control time in opposition.

Our House Rules say that if both the majority and the minority are in favor of the bill for the leadership, that somebody opposed to the bill has a right to claim time in opposition.

That was not done here. With a bill this important, you wonder why that has happened.

Back to the earmarks, the gentleman mentioned that there is a list of earmarks that was listed, it's right here, a number of them. Now why in the world we had to have more than a dozen earmarks airdropped into a bill that has been under consideration for the past 2 years, I simply don't know.

But when you read some of them, you kind of wonder why, like I said, Housing Assistance Council, Sun Grant Insular Pacific Sub-Center, Desert Terminal Lakes, Nevada. This is all we know about them.

If you dig into them, you might find something untoward, you might not, but the fact is we don't have time to do that. That's why we have earmark rules that give us time to actually vet them. Those rules are being waived here, and we should not be doing that.

Let me mention also, the gentleman said they are all listed. They aren't. There is quite a controversial earmark in this legislation that does not show up on the list. It's a $250 million tax refund to the Plum Tree Timber Company. Now, this is an earmark that allows the Nature Conservancy to purchase that from the Plum Tree Timber Company.

Now, the Plum Tree Timber Company, as I understand, is not mentioned in the legislation, it is simply described. It would be like saying I am going to give a subsidy to the gentleman who stands 6-feet tall, weighs 175 pounds, has blue eyes and his middle name is John, but we won't say the rest of it.

That's exactly what we are doing here. In an effort to get around the scrutiny that might come if somebody actually said now why is a subsidy actually going to the Plum Tree Timber Company.

It is no wonder that the rules have been waived here. If I had something like this in this bill, I would waive the rules too, because I wouldn't want anybody to talk about it. I would also not want anybody who is opposed to the bill to claim time in opposition to it.

If I were sponsoring this legislation that I said reformed the farm subsidy program to make sure that multimillionaire farmers don't continue to get subsidies on behalf of the taxpayer, I would hide it as well. I would do exactly what the Rules Committee has done here and the supporters of the legislation have done.

Because under this legislation, a farm couple earning as much as $2.5 million in adjusted gross income, that's your income after expenses are taken out, can still receive direct payments under this legislation.

Also, the other subsidy programs, rather than reform or to get rid of the loopholes that were allowing people to get extra subsidies, we simply waive the limits there. This is called reform?

I mean, is it any wonder that the rules have been waived and debate has been stifled here on this critical legislation?

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

The gentleman mentioned the National Marine Fishery Service earmark. It was added at the last minute. It may have been in a 2006 bill, but it wasn't in this bill until it was air dropped into the conference report. Now $170 million, that may well be a disaster there, but why in the world, if it is a disaster, why isn't it covered?

I would.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for the clarification. I still would point out we have a $3.8 billion permanent disaster title added to the bill; and still, in addition to that, we are funding these kinds of programs directly and specifically.

The gentleman can argue that it is not an earmark. I think that a casual or a tortured reading of this would both say this is an earmark when you are naming a specific entity to receive a specific amount of money and when it wasn't in the House bill, that is an earmark. So there is a good reason for this point of order.

The gentleman said, and let me go back to the PAYGO issue. The gentleman mentioned that this rule he thinks is in compliance with PAYGO. Let me read what this conference report says and see if anybody can decipher this.

If I might respond, the gentleman, after he raised his last point of order went on to talk about the reforms in the bill which clearly didn't have anything to do with the unfunded mandates language that I had raised or that I had talked about or that he had raised a point of order for. Clearly, I understand that they don't want to talk about this. I understand that. That's why the rules are waived. But to stand now and to raise a point of order against my point of order because I am not addressing specifically the question that they want to address or that they would rather dispose of is, I think, a little spurious.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the other side. You notice the words used, that we have graciously agreed to give them. Under the rules, the House rules, those who are opposed to the bill are required to be given the chance to claim time in opposition, not to be at the whims and graciousness of those who support the legislation. That's why we have rules, and that's why in this case the rules have been waived.

I understand completely if I had waived the PAYGO rules, when so many on that side of the aisle, bless their hearts, have been diligent sometimes on raising the issue of PAYGO and saying we shouldn't violate it, if I had violated PAYGO and waived it like this, I would want to waive every rule as well and stifle all the debate I could because it is embarrassing, frankly.

I don't have time to yield.

I would just say in my remaining 15 seconds, we have a bill that deserves a lot more debate than it is getting. This is important legislation. We are waiving PAYGO rules, and let me just say what this rule says: Therefore, while there is a technical violation of clause 10 of rule XXI, the conference report complies with the rule. It says there is a technical violation, but we have complied. It simply doesn't make sense.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we've detailed many of the problems with this rule, one of the worst aspects of which is that, as has been mentioned, it allows a bit of time travel here for the purpose of going back and choosing another baseline that allows you to actually comply with PAYGO rules. That should not be allowed under the rule, and that's why the PAYGO rules are actually waived in this bill. For all the talk on the other side about PAYGO compliance, if this bill was PAYGO compliant, the PAYGO rule would not have been waived.

The same goes with earmarks. More than a dozen earmarks were added, airdropped into the bill; yet we still have a waiver because we know there are likely other earmarks added in the bill as well. So we want to protect against that.

Also, I mentioned about the rule. It stifles debate. I don't know of another example where a conference report has come to the floor, particularly one of this magnitude, where those who are opposed to the bill have not been given the opportunity to claim time in opposition. Instead, we have to rely on the good graces of those who support the bill to actually be yielded time to actually speak in opposition to the bill.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have a real problem in this country in terms of entitlements. We're going to have to reform Social Security and Medicare. Tell me how, tell me why anybody out there, outside of the beltway, should believe that we are capable of doing that kind of reform when we can't tell a farm couple making up to $2.5 million in adjusted gross income every year, that's income after expenses, if we can't tell them that the subsidy party is over? How are we ever going to reform entitlements? I asked that of my party; I ask that of the Democrats. How in the world can anybody take us seriously here if we can't have a farm bill that reforms the subsidy program?

Would the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I would just like to make this point. This rule provides for waivers of other rules. Last night when we were up in the Rules Committee----

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that each side receive an additional 2 minutes so we may discuss this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California (Mr. Cardoza) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a final farm bill, a farm bill that is over 7 months late. It was supposed to be completed last September when the old farm bill law expired. It's long past time for Congress to be voting on a final farm bill, and the one the House will consider today is far from perfect.

It spends billions more than it was supposed to. Mr. Speaker, in fact, despite this being called the farm bill, nearly 75 percent of the spending in this bill doesn't even go to agriculture or farming. It goes to pay for government food assistance programs. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that. In fact, despite this being called a farm bill, nearly 75 percent of the spending in this bill doesn't even go to agriculture or farming. It goes to pay for government food assistance programs. To me, that is very concerning.

There's also considerable dissatisfaction with the income limitations being too high for farmers who may receive payments under this bill.

There are also concerns that while commodity prices in the marketplace have risen since the last farm bill, the guarantees in this farm bill have also gone up.

There are also special interest provisions that are unrelated to farming or food stamps that have been stuck on this bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I agree that this farm bill is very far from perfect, but like many of my colleagues in the House, I must measure this bill by the impact on my constituents in my district.

And as the representative of one of the most diverse and productive agricultural areas in this country, I will vote for the farm bill because it does more to support the specialty crops that are grown in my district than any other farm bill in history.

I must point out that the assistance provided for the specialty crops grown in my district are not direct subsidy payments or handouts. What matters most to farmers and growers in central Washington are research dollars and help in opening up new markets abroad. Specifically, I'm pleased that the farm bill includes a new initiative to fund research projects for these specialty crops.

The conference report also expands the successful fresh fruit and vegetable SNACK program to children in all 50 States. This worthwhile program provides fresh fruits and vegetables for schoolchildren.

The Market Access Program is also very important in central Washington and something that I've worked very hard on to support for many years. The Market Access Program, or MAP, assists our agriculture community in expanding access to markets overseas.

For far too long, American farm products have had difficulty getting into foreign countries, and sometimes are unfairly blocked outright. Fair market access and fair trade agreements help our farmers compete, and the MAP program has proven this to be very successful.

While I will vote to pass this farm bill, Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this unfair rule because it shuts down fair opportunities for debate and votes on the House floor and because, Mr. Speaker, it waives new anti-earmark and PAYGO rules written just last January, a year ago last January, by the Democrat majority.

And already today, Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of discussion on PAYGO and the ramifications. We heard it says it complies with the spirit of PAYGO and so forth.

Let me just make a point of what happened last night in the Rules Committee. In the Rules Committee, there is a provision in this rule that waives all points of order. We had discussion up there on PAYGO. So the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, offered an amendment to keep all the waivers, all the waivers in the farm bill with the exception of the

PAYGO provision that was adopted just a year ago last January by the new majority. That amendment simply said if there's no problem with PAYGO, then why not keep that provision in there. It was voted down, Mr. Speaker, on a direct party-line vote.

So it appears what has happened here in this instance--because I think the rules are very clear. I think Mr. Ryan from Wisconsin pointed out exactly where we are on this and what the procedures are. Apparently what we have done--and this to me I think is probably unprecedented--we have adopted Senate rules in the House for consideration of the farm bill. Maybe that's a pattern that we will see hopefully in other things that we'll debate, like, for example, maybe having more debate on issues because the Senate does have unlimited debate under their house rules. So, if we're going to start adopting Senate rules, maybe we ought to do that on the debate area.

Mr. Speaker, a conscious decision has been made to break the PAYGO rules to increase spending by several billions of dollars.

The farm bill, Mr. Speaker, is long overdue, and I'm disappointed that a bill that provides new levels of recognition to specialty crops, as I pointed out in my earlier remarks, from central Washington is coming before the House with so many other questionable provisions within the bill.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased my friend from California said we are complying with Senate rules, but I believe this is the U.S. House of Representatives, and the fact is we have waived the House PAYGO rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I am at this time pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

If the gentleman would yield, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can amend the rule, not replace the rule, amend the rule so that we can discuss energy prices and legislation to bring the price of gasoline at the pump down.

It would be based on supply and demand. The gentleman is exactly correct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire again how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my time to allow more equity in the time.

Once again I will continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

I will continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, who, along with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, their persistence was such to bring this product to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for a farm bill that is 7 months overdue, and I want to again commend Chairman Peterson and Ranking Member Goodlatte for their persistence in bringing this product to the floor.

But there is another concern for farmers in our country that this Democrat Congress is totally neglecting, and that's addressing skyrocketing gasoline, diesel and energy costs. The cost of running a tractor, trucking products to market, and running a farm has risen dramatically since Democrats took control of Congress, and they have done nothing to help farmers, truckers or millions of Americans hurt by rising fuel costs.

One of the principles of the farm bill is ensuring that America does not become dependent on foreign nations for our food supply. We, as a country, have fertile fields that can produce as much food as our country needs to eat and even export billions of dollars of foodstuffs overseas. But we, as a country, are not using our energy sources like farmers use our fields.

For decades, our country has been handicapped by not tapping into our existing oil reserves. The effort to develop just a tiny portion of ANWR has been fought and blocked to the detriment of America's energy independence and with high prices that we are now paying at the pump.

Today I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so this House can finally consider solutions to rising energy costs. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule, not rewrite it, just amend it, to allow for consideration of H.R. 5984, the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008, introduced by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, as well as ``any amendment which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel by increasing the domestic supply of oil by permitting the extraction of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.''

With diesel and gasoline prices going up and American farmers having to cope with these skyrocketing costs, it's time for Congress to act. The Democrat majority has refused time and again to act. We can act by defeating the previous question.

Defeating the previous question will be simply to allow the House to debate rising energy prices. The farm bill will still be considered and voted upon.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do something about rising fuel costs, and the way to do that is by voting to defeat the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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.