Conference Report On H.R. 2419, Food, Conservation, And Energy Act Of 2008
Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. This version of the Farm Bill bears significant improvements over its predecessors. I fully support the inclusion of an…
Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. This version of the Farm Bill bears significant improvements over its predecessors. I fully support the inclusion of an unprecedented 10.4 billion dollars over 10 years for the Nutrition Title that has been included in the Conference Report.
Funding for the Nutrition Title will have a strong impact on efforts to prevent domestic hunger by increasing the Food Stamp Program's minimum monthly benefit and the Emergency Food Assistance Program's mandatory funding level. Participation in the Food Stamp Program has increased over the last several years, with an additional 1.3 million people participating in the program in the last year alone. Portions of my district, including Lakewood, Fairview Park and Parma, have experienced a 74 percent increase in participation in the Food Stamp Program between 2002 and 2007. The bill also provides assistance to food banks by $1.25 billion. I have been a consistent supporter of efforts in the House of Representatives to strengthen Food Stamp Programs, nutritional assistance programs, and other programs to increase the quantity and quality of food available to those most in need. I will continue to do so.
These programs help to address a severe short term problem. The purpose of the Farm Bill is to set long term priorities. However, this bill maintains the very policies that are driving several underlying problems.
For example, the single biggest share of subsidies under this bill goes to corn. Yet this bill continues massive subsidies for ethanol production from corn at only a slightly lower level than was previously the case. Corn-based ethanol is a well-known driver of recent increases in food costs. Some are predicting that 25 percent of the corn crop in the U.S. will go toward ethanol by the end of the 2008 crop year. That is great news for corporate agribusiness that produces most of the corn in the U.S. But it's bad news for food prices and those families for whom food costs are a large portion of their budget.
The vast majority of corn goes to cattle feed, which has health implications. It increases stomach acidity in the cattle, which makes them more susceptible to infection by E. Coli H:0157, the source of many food recalls. A corn-based diet also increases the level of saturated fat in the meat.
The ubiquity of corn in our diet is further implicated in various health problems like the obesity epidemic and diabetes. Abundant corn means that high fructose corn syrup, HFCS, a food sweetener, is cheap and abundant. Most Americans would be hard-pressed to get through a meal without consuming it. It is high in calories, with little to no nutritional value. Between 1970 and 1990, HFCS consumption increased by 1000 percent, which is roughly the same period in which the obesity epidemic accelerated. This bill continues to subsidize HFCS, while taking only baby steps toward promoting healthy, locally grown fruits, vegetables and meats. According to writer Michael Pollan, ``the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (aka liquid corn) declined by 23 percent.'' Unhealthy food is cheap. Healthy food is expensive. The obesity and diabetes epidemics affect low-income Americans more often and with more severity.
The bill contributes to a host of environmental problems. It shortchanges conservation programs that can reduce global warming pollution. It removes the sod saver program which would have discouraged the alteration of valuable native grasslands and rangeland into crop production. It includes cuts to the Conservation Reserve Program and Wetland Reserve Program, which respectively substitute crops for resource conserving plantings on highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land and encourage restoration of lands to their original natural conditions.
It continues to encourage factory farms where our antibiotics are rendered weak or useless because of overuse on cattle, where cattle are treated inhumanely, where toxic runoff contributes to contaminated drinking water, and where employees suffer the highest rates of workplace injuries of almost any other industry.
Finally, this Farm Bill maintains massive giveaways to corporate agribusiness and rich families instead of helping the vanishing family farmer. Though the thresholds have been lowered compared to the past, this bill allows families with up to $2.5 million in income to get subsidies. The result is that the top 10 percent of all the benefactors will get about two-thirds of the payments. This bill continues the failed policies that allow the profits of agribusiness to skyrocket while pushing family farmers off their farms, forcing them to sell their farms to survive.
Increasing funding to buy more nutritional foods is a good idea in the short term. But we need to stop perpetuating the very policies that cause food prices to increase and cause unhealthy food to be cheap. We need to move away from corn-based ethanol. We must shift subsidies toward healthier foods, like locally and regionally grown fruits, vegetables, grains and meats if we ever hope to address nutritional deficiencies. And we need to come to the aid of the family farmer. The Farm Bill does little to address these problems, and I could not vote for it.