members please remove their conversations from the well let members take their seats and remove their conversations from the floor michigan this recommit the bill h r fifty five twenty two to the committee on education and labor with instructions to report the bill back to the house forthwith with the following amendment at the end of the bill insert the following section five such standards or standards will not increase is the best of prices such food grain house will be in order house will be in order will members please remove their conversations from the floor the gentleman from michigan mr wilder has recognized for five minutes thank you madam speaker this motion to recommit a simple and straightforward it maintains our commitment to safety and it does nothing is simply a way for us to tell our constituents the working family gentleman will suspend the gentleman is correct the house is not in order as members and staff to please remove their conversations from the house floor members please take their seats the gentleman deserves to be heard jonathan from michigan is recognized thank you madam speaker this motion is simply a way for us to tell our constituents the hardworking families who are struggling with the rising cost of living an uncertain cut in qana me that we're sensitive to their concerns that we recognize that the rising food costs in particular are difficult burden to bear for many families and we know that in these difficult times the very last thing we should be doing is driving up the cost of food for our children our families rules for facilities the motion i have offered makes that clear that new mandates include in this bill will not be imposed on food grain production until we have determined that it will not cause an increase in prices at the grocery store bank today's debate we heard numerous objections to this bill including its impact on the grain and feed industry that is so intricate all to food production and distribution in this country i know that members on both sides of the aisle have heard directly from the grain industry on this measure and many of us have wondered how we could enhance worker safety without unnecessarily driving up food costs the answer madam speaker is to pass this motion to recommit by voting yes on this motion osha will still be required to begin immediate development of a combustible dust standard by voting yes on this motion there will be no delay in implementation of these new rules for facilities that do not handle food grains and le anyone be concerned about the workers at the city's producing the grains wheat if we pass this measure these workers will continue to be protected as well under the same standard that has already produced a sixty percent reduction in grain facility explosions feed corn and flour mills are already covered by existing osha grain handling regulations as a member of both the house education and labor committee and agriculture committee i understand that food manufacturing industry is affected by combustible dust as much as any other industry really regulating and duplicating existence federal regulations on american family farmers and small rural businesses could seriously impact commodity prices and drive up the cost that everything from a loaf of bread to a gallon of gasoline i find it ironic that at the same time the leaders within the majority party are advocating for up to three hundred million dollars in additional spending for international food aid in the supplemental these same folks are simultaneously considering legislation that could further drive up the price of food here at home my motion to recommit ensures we conduct a thorough economic analysis on the impact of h r fifty five twenty two on food prices this motion to recommit will ensure we do not unnecessarily cause irreparable harm to family farms agriculture producers and american consumers by driving up the price of food the gentleman is correct the house is not in order members please bring their conversations off the floor members please take their seats gentlemen is entitled to be purposes the gentleman from california arise in opposition to the amendment gentleman is recognized for five minutes chairing members of the committee this is a very serious piece of legislation and a very important piece of legislation the idea that we would delay this until some time that the secretary of labor could make some certification about its impact on food cost is really unacceptable let's look at the record of the secretary of labor says january one thousand nine hundred eighty until two thousand and six there were two hundred and eighty one explosions in these kinds of facilities due to dust seven hundred eighteen people were injured and one hundred nineteen died in those explosions one hundred one thousand breadwinners were killed in those explosions at that time that's the result of the study from the chemical safety board of whose members are all appointed by president george w bush and then dependent agency that may be the gold standard in terms of independent review of the accident they then recommended that th osha adopt the standards osha did nothing did nothing no in forcible standards were adopted by that by that point no one forcible standards at all and then in february in two thousand and eight inch imperial sugar plant exploded in the meantime sixty seven explosions took place since the chemical safety board recommended the standard seventy five injuries and fourteen deaths took place before osha did anything and the chemical safety board recommendations continue to say there are no enforceable standards with respect to dust not only does it devastate these lives of these individuals and their families in the community it devastates the facility a facility here this is key to the commerce of that area so talk about an impact on price in a tight market when these facilities start pumping up the feeding grain people there under their own standard and what is their analysis of that standard that it drove technologies it drove better design better productivity in their markets that's they're finding they're not implicated in these standards what happened there eight people were killed in the explosion twenty were put into a medically induced comas for a number of weeks five of those died and three are still in the hospital since since the chemical safety board made its recommendation there have been sixty seven explosions and osha never found the urgency to protect these workers now to come along and be so cynical as to suggest that if we could just keep killing the workers the price of food will stay down you know it's funny i read the papers read the business journal read the wall street journal and they're talking about how the price of food is driven the profits of the grain companies but when they talk about why it's going up it says a cris from a combination of heightened demand of food from a fast growing developing countries like china and india low grain stockpiles caused by bad weather prices increasing amounts of land used to grow crops for ethanol and others killen american workers nowhere in this paper wall street journal mind you know where in this paper when you read about food prices do you see any mention that we have to continue to subsidize food prices by blown up processing plants and killing  injuring workers nowhere do you see that except perhaps and this amendment we are not to accept this amendment these workers in this critical industry are entitled to this protection and the facts on the ground are the last time we put in a standard was for the feeding grain industry and it's turned out to be wildly successful why is that wildly successful because injuries went down forty percent say tallies went down sixty percent explosions went down sixty percent don't you think we know enough now to think that these other workers in this industry are entitled to this protection congress never on their own never on their own and they suggested that they were going to go out and do this even after the recommendation of a presidential appointed commission to look at these kinds of accident pointed by this president they've chosen to do nothing and it's important it's important to these workers it's important to the commerce i have john john barrow and and i put together legislation that works for consulted with the industry we've sat down with the industry we've sat down with the ocean and we had zero posed this motion to recommit in the name of the workers in the name of their family in the name of our nation we owe it to protect these workers expired without objection the previous question is ordered the question is on the motion to recommit those in favor will say i those opposed will say no depending on the having risen a recorded vote is ordered members will record their votes by electronic device this will be a fifteen minute vote first because nine of rule twenty the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage so the house now voting on a republican motion to recommit the bill with instructions a last chance to make changes in the bill before final passage the underlying bill itself requiring more safety rules to prevent industrial explosions due to dust you've heard on the in the debate today many references to the february explosion at a georgia sugar refinery that resulted in the deaths of thirteen workers the bush administration opposes the new rules and senior advisers say they would recommend a veto that's from an executive office statement from the president yesterday again we're in a motion to recommit a vote on that motion and then we expect a final passage vote to follow the should be the last record of votes of the day in the house over on the other side of the capitol the senate to continuing work on the f a a programs and policy bill you can watch that debate live on our companion network c span to the economy also in the news today the associated press reporting that the federal reserve has cut a key interest rate by a quarter point a smaller move than the aggressive easing it under undertook earlier this year the fed action pushed the federal funds rate down to two percent its lowest level s late two thousand and four the a p also reports that the economy limped along through the first quarter growing at just point six percent that pace as housing and credit problems forced people and businesses alike to hunker down according to the a p story the country's economic growth during january through march was the same as in the final three months of last year the commerce department reported today as a spoken to news we get more on the economy from today's washington journal seem to feel the same hurt the president said it doesn't matter whether a holiday a recession or tough times what matters is congress and the president working on some of these solutions well it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't to the guy who has to figure out how to feed his children it does for policymakers when we have to come to some can conclude it because how we define things determines how we pass legislation here in the congress so hopefully what we can do is get everyone on the same page to recognize that hard times means recession or not that we need to act in dealing with the gas prices senator mccain has proposed a tax holiday for the summer members of congress looking at that as well which could save sixteen eighteen cents per gallon for the price of gasoline is that a good idea it's like taking money from peter to give it to paul if i need to pay for my kids to issue i take it by not paying my mortgage what do we do with all those repairs that have to go on in our highways if you take money out of that trust fund that is based on those gas tax dollars i think it becomes very difficult you can the same results by simply suspending purchases of the strategic strategic petroleum reserve which has been proposed before which president bush has done before president clinton did it before him and president bush sr did it before him as well and the results are as good if not better than suspending the gas tax which ultimately as i said hurts american families who need to be able to drive on decent roads and have the the revenues available to do other things as well in the new york times this morning tom friedman says that what we need are energy solutions and the gas holiday is not a solution it's not a it's not even a temporary band aid it's it's a quick fix way of saying to people you're you you've done something when in fact you will have done more harm to the economy than good but if you suspend the strategic petroleum reserve we have we have almost a ninety seven percent capacity in the reserve you suspended briefly you put tens of thousands of barrels of oil out there now and what that does is it brings down the the price speculators go out there and try to bargain for price and if you do that you send a message to the the market we're going to intervene if you continue to raise the price in a speculative fashion present yesterday in his rose garden news conference addressing the issue of anwar and gas in this country and the overall supplies here's what he had to say i will tell you this that if congress is truly interested in solving the problem they can send the right signal by saying we're going to explore for oil and gas in the u s territories starting with anwar we can do so in environmentally friendly way and they ought to say you know why don't we were guy proposed you might remember taking some abandoned military bases and providing regulatory relief so we can build new refineries and if we're generally interested in moving forward with an energy policy that sends a signal to the world that we're not we're going to try to become less rely upon foreign oil we can explore at home as well as continue on with our alternate fuels program congressman as you know the president been talking about this for the last eight years as a candidate and as president so why not in a an environmentally friendly way drill in that area well first the president has shown us that there's an environmentally friendly way to do it but secondly even if we had passed this initiative to drill in the arctic when he first took office we would still not see any oil from that drilling it would take more time and so it does resolve the issues we face today but now as we take it to market but as we speak in two thousand and eight it's yet another ten or twelve years before we would see that i will sum it indicated in if we started in two thousand and one in two thousand and two we'd see that  and ten or twenty twelve the difficulties this thieves we still wouldn't see it even when we see it it's only temporary maybe a seven year supply and more importantly we do nothing to deal with the long term problems we have with energy what we need to do is conserve more the president rarely talks about conservation in real ways the president still has not talked about taking away the windfall profits that have been made by these oil companies that while we suffer they're the only ones that seem to do very very well and secondly i'm not sure why an oil company today needs an incentive to go drill for oil they get about twelve to fifteen billion dollars in tax cuts to go out and search for oil maybe in two thousand and one when the price of a barrel of oil was about thirty dollars a barrel we need to get to give them an incentive to do that but today the price of oil for a barrel isn't about one hundred twenty dollars and so we think that twelve to fifteen billion dollars could be better used by incenting the solar energy industry the wind energy industry get out there and produce more energy so we don't have to be so dependent on foreign oil agribusiness air represents california's thirty first congressional district our phone lines are open you can also e mail us journalists the spend orde the rebate checks in the mail totaling one hundred seven billion dollars to stimulate the economy the fed meeting today likely to lower interest rates by a quarter point the seventh rate cut in seven months so could this result in a shallow recession or are we headed for tough times for the next year and beyond we're hoping for a shallow recession we are planning here in the congress to do another stimulus bill because it's clear that this is a recession and so we're trying to act quickly on the mortgage crisis we're hoping to provide some unemployment insurance benefits for those people who find themselves long term unemployed we're trying to make sure that we do things that are very targeted temporary in their protests and also will have an effect that will keep people not only in their homes but hopefully in the on the way to getting that job back again but if there is a nother economic stimulus bill that congress passes and hypothetically the president signed how do you pay for that with rising deficits there are some things that are emergencies crises that you have to deal with it now and we many of us in congress believe that this is a crises but could that result in spending cuts in other areas in the future it could but that's where we're trying to keep it very targeted and small and very timely do it now versus in the next six months we want to do it so that it has an impact now the little little effect that we have on the budget today will hopefully be offset by the economic  productivity that it creates to do nothing is to allow americans to deep to go deeper into this recession and we we figure that it's time to try to do something to try to keep a very very shallow recession but again you do have to go into some deficit spending to do bipartisan basis we all agreed that that was something important to put those rebate checks out because we figure that the cost of that rebate check will hopefully be made up by the economic activity it creates by putting money in the hands of americans our guest is also a member of the house ways and positive and i hope you two gentlemen and the rest of america listen i just want to say this reverend wright this guy only reason he's gone is because he wants whites and blacks to come together but if you don't understand the inside of the churches and it's all eternity if we don't know about catholic church and what it is to go to a catholic church but if you just give us a chance if you just give us a moment and look at the whole tape and to see that he wasn't trying to put a race down he was trying to say a different is not the fish color going to happen because we really do want to focus on the economy and gas prices do you have a question along those lines you know i do have a question the question i would like to say is i heard that once we get these release packages or whatever we supposed  we are going to get three hundred dollars thanks for the call no let me make sure i lay anyone spheres this is a rebate on top of anything you would have got in your taxes when you file your tax return so please understand that and that's the purpose of the money is to give you a little bit more than you expected to have in your pocket real quick comment steve on the on the caller's remarks with regard to reverend wright i think again the goodwill that the caller is expressing is i think the goodwill that senator obama is trying to express to the american people about where he stands or not someone else someone else may stand reverend wright or anyone else as a supporter of senator obama i agree with senator obama that what we have to do is look at his record of what he's done on sunday in his interview with  chris wallace again the question of how do you define the middle class where do you draw the line what is middle class in this country if you talk to someone from life los angeles like me obviously it's a lot higher than it is for someone income wise and it is for someone in middle america in rural america and so what you have to talk about is what is important to that particular part of the country you should have a rigid standard because that just doesn't work middle classes the american working class the american working class it has found a way to help achieve the american dream for their kids what that actual dollar amount is i don't think is so important so much so long as we understand that our policies here in washington d c should be directed principally at the middle class so could you have a middle class it could be hypothetically seventy to one hundred thousand in cities like des moines or sioux city iowa and one hundred thousand or hundred twenty five thousand in cities like new york or los angeles where the cost of living is so much more expensive it certainly would be higher i don't know if i would say one hundred twenty five thousand is the starting point for the middle class or the ending point because what he said is that a hundred thousand above is is  wealthy well remember that the average income in america throughout the country is somewhere around forty six thousand dollars so one hundred thousand does seem high in the eyes of some but i can tell you in some places of los angeles you would not survive on forty six thousand dollars simply because the cost of your housing your transportation would be prohibitive and so you've there's no clear definite ition of what makes you middle class but i think that misses the point if we focus too much on  dollars keep in mind that what we're trying to do is have a policy that hits the middle of america in the right way next call is from all in pennsylvania good morning for congress and the sarah best of my name is dan dan from al their own whatever i think he controls a lot of that and then those are the bill and on the other day when they had to conference with the next to go in and canada understood that one of the comments was they were supplying us with the oil and everything we're about is saudi arabia and we're in bed with canada and mexico if we're alone too much money why haven't our prices come down because our prices are linked to the economy thanks for the call from pennsylvania congressman dan i just say continue to stay in informed i think it's critical that people are reading watching listening to as much news as possible because this will be a very important election i would agree with you that we see nothing but more of the same from the president when it comes to policies on energy remember the energy crisis of two thousand and one when we were told that we couldn't find any electricity and natural gas to take care of our our energy needs at home all of a sudden two or three years later after inaction by the commission that supposed to regulate energy prices we find out that there was gouging going on well what have we seen happen so far on petroleum and gasoline prices at the pump we've seen the increase to now close to four dollars a gallon in some places like los angeles i know it's over four dollars a gallon at some gasoline stations same thing happening again and yet we're getting the same thing from the president more of the same things he could have done during the six years that republicans were in control the congress and he had to obviously the white house next call is from nashville tennessee good morning welcome to washington journal  that comment is how can you tell how could congress sit by and let this president accused of something that he calls  plus on top of that you look at the economics in america there is no food production hardly there is no war still work this industry over what do we have this man has go it's your own situation you know you are tired you currently work when you do know i'm a registered nurse ok and like i you know i'm just barely get out on this vote the are one eighty seven and the names are two twenty five the motion is not adopted the question is on passage of the bill those in favor say  a recorded vote is requested those favoring a recorded vote will rise a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered members will record their vote by electronic device minute vote so the motion to recommit fails and we're on to final passage vote now on the combustible dust bill a measure requiring more safety rules to prevent industrial explosions due to dust earlier we spoke to a capitol hill reporter to learn more about the bill thirteen people died and it's something that's gotten a lot of traction in the house since then as as a an area in which osha has not issued specific regulations but the house wants them to go forward and do this moshe's the occupational safety and health administration how have they responded sorts of regulatory provisions they're already covered in their general base of workplace regulations and they say those apply to industries that produce combustible dust that are potentially flammable and catch fire in the result in the explosion the other side of it is that most of those it's also been you know having its own programs underway there is a national emphasis program that was founded in october two thousand and seven that has picked up a little bit of the pace now since this last explosion in georgia and with all the increased scrutiny and seek you right that house democrats are seeking to assert themselves more frequently into the regulatory process by bringing up bills like this what's behind that strategy well it's a little bit of a pattern of this politics that you  see the democrats this is a bill that pretty much split right down the aisle you've got really really strong democratic support and republicans you know kind of sticking up for the businesses that are going to have to adopt and and put into play these new standards and regulations and so basically what you're seeing is the democrats saying the bush administration has been if you think under the bush administration has been rather lackadaisical about doing issuing a sions and doing its job in terms of issuing regulations and new standards and making sure that these areas that aren't covered yet specifically are and it's saying well if you're not going to do your job and you're going to wait until every business in line is ok we're going to step in and do that and so there's been a bit of a pattern it's not in every single bill but there's been two bills before this one on combustible dust that are kind of keeping with this pattern one being a bill that passed the house last year to regulate the presence or the amount of diastole that workers can be exposed to and i ask you know is a chemical that appears in artificial butter flavor and it's also known to cause a lung condition known as popcorn long which is has the administration threaten a veto they certainly have it just came out yesterday and the ministrations you know is basically arguing that the house's measure would be both premature and unrealistic and those are words that came straight out of the recommendation that white house is basically saying that it's inappropriate to try to issue legislative one size fits all standards when these reviews of the explosion in georgia and also this national service program that is already underway with o have not been completed and they're basically saying that if you pass sleeping regulations that are good effect hundreds of thousands of businesses will have to hustle to put these new regulations in place that you know we may end up just creating more problems because what if the standards are inappropriate the standards that we're talking about of course have been have gotten it was meant as the national fire prevention association but have not gone yet through the normal ocean question and  have to go through we've been talking to karen demerge in of congressional quarterly about the industrial dust bill that the house is working on today thanks for joining us  on this vote the yeas are two forty seven the nays are one sixty five the bill is passed without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the table the chair will receive a message r fifty five twenty two the clerk be authorized to correct the table of contents section numbers punctuation citations and cross references to make said such other technical and conforming changes may be appropriate to reflect the actions of the house without rule twenty one the rule the form of the motion is as follows mr ryan of wisconsin moves of the managers on the part of the house on the disagreeing vote the two houses in the senate a member in the bill h r twenty four nineteen be instructed within the scope  conference to use the most recent baseline estimate supplied by the congressional budget office when evaluating the cost of the provisions of the report the gentleman motion will appear in the record for what purposes the gentleman from indiana mr contained in section twenty four a one day of the house bill relating to funding for the environmental quality incentive program to insist on the amendments containing section twenty one all four of the house bill relating to the grassland reserve program and reject the amendment contain section twenty four hundred one two of the senate amendment relating to funding for the grassland reserve program three insist on the amendments contained in section twenty one of two of the house bill relating to the wetlands reserve program and for insist on the amendments contained in section twenty six away to the senate bill relating to crop insurance in eligibility relating to crop production native side thank you madam speaker the gentleman motion will appear in the record for what purposes but gentleman from massachusetts writes mr speaker i move to suspend the rules and pass h r seven hundred seventy seven that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration i also ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the record a without objection pursuant to the rule of the gentleman from massachusetts mr delahunt and the gentleman from texas mr smith each will control twenty minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts i yield myself as much time as i ma consume thank you mr speaker first i want to thank the chair of the judiciary committee for allowing this important piece of legislation to move forward and i particularly want to thank the ranking member of the judiciary committee mr lemmas smith for the opportunity to work with him on this significant legislation and for his outstanding work on this issue throughout the years the need based execu educational aid act of two thousand and seven as its name suggests is aimed at making college more affordable and accessible to qualified students something that this congress has repeatedly shown its commitment to with all the well ming bipartisan majorities with passed such legislation as the college cost reduction and access act and just last week the ensuring continued access to student loans act we've also increased transparency in the higher educational financial aid system by passing the student loan sunshine act h seven hundred seventy seven will further that commitment to enhance educational opportunities these successes are rooted in clear recognition on both sides of the aisle that access to higher education is vital to our national economy and central to america's promise a level the need based educational act differs from those are just a numerated in two important aspects first this bill addresses institutional aid only that is aid provided to students from a college and university own funds not federal dollars second this bill is about increasing access to grants as opposed to loans given the current cost of higher education the financial sacrifices families make to send their children to college in the amount students all when they graduate grants as opposed to loans play a vital and unique role in maintaining access to higher education this will permanently extend the current anti trust exemption for colleges and universities that admit all students on a need blind basis without regard to a student's ability to pay and provide institutional a that is strictly need based this safe haba from the antitrust laws allows to a more of these schools to agree on a common aid application and a common system of analysis of financial needs and to exchange information on commonly admitted students it does not permit discussion a comparison of institutional was for individual students the current exemption expires on september thirtieth of this year why is this bill necessary beginning in the one nine hundred fifty s a substantial number of our most prestigious private colleges and universities agreed to award institutional financial a to students certainly on the basis of demonstrated financial need the student the schools recognize that without such an agreement and without a uniform analysis of need the schools would spend all of their money competing with each other to offer the largest aid package to a small select group of elite students as a practical matter the schools would be an able to fill the available spots in each incoming class because the select top students who may on may or may not need such a were few and number in addition though there would be many highly mature eous students who would be forced to forgo their admission because of limited economic exterior ixed circumstances and insufficient financial aid the school's decision was made in service of a social goal that the antitrust laws do not address namely making financial aid available to the broadest pool of students solely on the basis of demonstrated financial need congress responded quickly passing the first temporary anti trust exemption in one thousand nine hundred two and we have reauthorized the exemption three times each time improving and extending the exemption of the previous iteration the current exemption allows the schools to agree on this system of need blind admissions and need based aid and allows a one time exchange of student financial information through a third party however any further information sharing is prohibited since the last extension both the in the anti trust modernization commission and examine the exemption and have found it consistent with antitrust principles the schools themselves have a lot of exemption for increasing access to need based aid if a bringing greater transparency to financial aid allocations a level without a safe haba the schools fear that the collaboration on financial aid policies would subject them to prosecution many of the many studies show that our nation's poorest students benefit the most from attendance at a prestigious school and converse we stand to lose the most from lack of access fortunately the schools were impala to continue and expand upon this truly american ideal that no individual should be denied a real chance to succeed because he or she was born pull and i urge my colleagues to join myself and mr smith first of all i'm glad we are considering this timely legislation tonight h r seven hundred seventy seven the need based educational aid act of two thousand and seven i also want to thank the gentleman from massachusetts mr delahunt for his tireless efforts in promoting this legislation and also for his leadership because if it were not for his leadership we would not be here tonight considering this important bill and it was good working with him and i appreciate the success that he's had and getting us to this point this issue has long been of interest to me personally as well i also sponsored the bill that extended exemption one nine hundred ninety seven and in two two thousand and one beginning in the mid one thousand fifties a number of private colleges and universities agreed to award financial aid solely on the basis of demonstrated need the schools also agreed to use common criteria to assess each student's financial need and to give the same financial aid award to students admitted to more than one member of that group of one that all that ended the practice in one thousand nine hundred ninety two congress passed the first exemption to that any trust laws for these colleges as part of the higher education amendments that temporary exemption codified the settlement and allowed colleges to provide aid on the basis of need only to use common criteria to determine need to use a common financial aid application form and to allow the exchange of the students financial information through a third party currently are members of the so called president's group which utilizes this and trust exemption several other colleges including yale and harvard participate as advisory members of the group this exemption expires on september thirtieth two thousand and eight common treatment of these types of issues makes sense and to my knowledge there are no complaints about the existing exemption in fact a recent g a o study of the exemption found that there had been no abuse of the exemption and stated that there had not been an increase in the cost of tuition as a result of the exemption the any trust modernization commission studied this exemption found that it provides quote limited immunity for limited conduct that is it is narrowly tailored to meet  goals of promoting access to need based financial aid this bill would make the exemption passed in one thousand nine hundred two one hundred ninety four nine hundred ninety seven in two thousand and one permanent it would not make any change to the substance of the exemption itself the need based financial aid system serves worthy goals that the any trust laws do not adequately address namely making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis demonstrated need no student who is otherwise qualified should be denied the opportunity to go to one of the colleges involved because of the limited financial means of his or her family this bill helps protect need based aid and need blind admissions mr speaker the last time the house considered a permanent extension of us an interest exemption it passed by a vote of four hundred fourteen does erode the bill is supported by the american association of community colleges the american association of state colleges and universities the american council on education the association of american universities the national association for independent colleges and universities the national association of state universities and land grant colleges and the president's group i urge my colleagues to support this bill as back the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h r seventeen seventy seven those in favor say aye those opposed say no and the opinion of the chair two thirds being in the affirmative the rules  suspended the bill is passed and without objection the motion reconsider is laid on the table house at the conference on the disagreeing those of the two houses on the senate amendment to the bill in charge twenty four night scene an act of advise with the continuation of agricultural programs through physical year twenty twelve be instructed to agree to the proficiency contained in section seventeen zero three b two of the senate and then that relating to forty thousand dollars limitation on direct payment conferees is simple it would simply urge farm bill conferees to accept the senate provision on the payment limits for annual direct payments which is the same as current law again we're simply asking to accept current law rather than increase payment limitations let me explain under current law farmers and eligible landowners can you see forty thousand per person in direct payments a year not including the loophole that currently exists that enables that amount to be doubled the house pass farm bill seeks to raise this limit to sixty thousand per person while the senate passed bill keeps the limit at forty thousand at the forty thousand dollars level as in current law in essence this motion to instruct conferees would simply say retain current law don't increase the limit on how much a farmer or land owner can receive in direct payments direct payments are one of the three primary subsidy programs available for commodity crops along with counter simple cyclical payments and marketing loan payments direct payments are paid to farmers and eligible landowners that have had so called base acreage which as that was historically farm for program copse crops like wheat or cotton or corn direct payments go to farmers and landowners whether the farm or not whether they farm or not on the property and are independent of crop prices simply put these checks are in the mail to eligible for recipients no matter what the price of commodities while these payments were originally intended to transition farmers away from subsidies it's unfortunate that they've come they come to up to take a permanent place in the entitlement spending landscape and that congress is on the verge of upping the limits on how much recipients can receive these payments cost taxpayers more than five billion dollars a year under the last farm bill that is and while the bill under concert consideration might cut them by a minuscule amount taxpayers will still foot a staggering bill these handouts are often distributed to landowners landowners who don't farm i've even heard anecdotes about rice farmers who later subdivide the land and then subdivided for many mansions even and real looters will advertise that direct payments will come to the new landowners the lucky them get a house on land that was previously a rice farm you're going to be getting direct payments now how is that how can we countenance a system like that continuing according to a recent analysis by the environmental working group with the present loopholes that are available to recipients quote a total of one thousand two hundred thirty four recipients collected direct payment subsidies worth one hundred twenty thousand or more costing taxpayers two hundred twenty six million dollars total one hundred forty nine recipients got more than two hundred fifty thousand in direct payments the top ten percent of direct payment subsidy recipients in two thousand and seven collected about sixty percent of this government money now these are these are the payments on which the house passed bill would increase it would increase the limit by fifty percent now we have a strong agricultural economy at present unlike the countercyclical and marketing loan programs which if you have a good agricultural economy don't get paid out this program keeps paying out no matter what these are independent of crop prices it is unfathomable that u s farmers that are enjoying historically low debt to asset ratios and consistently high cash receipts and robust farm export values under this scenario that conferees would need to look increased the limit on direct payments beyond the current forty thousand dollars limits it's unfortunate it looks like two thousand and seven farm bill will be a missed opportunity to reform the wasteful farm subsidy programs like the one i've spoken about as approved by the house the best that can be achieved in terms of reform is a reduction in the income cap for payment eligibility programs from two point five million to one million or two million for married folks even though the administration has sought a two hundred thousand dollar income cap both the house and the senate it seems and it seems the conferees appear content to continue to allow millionaires to receive farm payments while acting if as if real reform had made been made on the income cap the house pass farm bill actually relaxes the limits on how much a recipient can receive in farm payment we simply cannot go this direction we've been told again and again and again by both sides of the aisle that we won't have a farm bill that has the generous subsidy payments that we've had before that there has to be reform this is not reform now some people may try to sell it say we're getting rid of a loophole there so we have to increase that's probably what we'll hear we'll have to increase this and then we'll phase it out at some other time when you hear that hold onto your wallet you have to remember that this program that we're talking about this direct payment program was instituted in the ninety's as a way to transition farmers out of away from subsidies yet here it is still a decade later and we're talking about increasing it so if anybody tells you we're increasing it so we can actually phase it out easier or somehow less than payments that will go out don't believe it don't believe it let's the vote for this motion to instruct i reserve the balance my time we will have significant reform in the final package that comes out of the conference committee i can assure people of that apparently the issue this for us today is is one small part of that whole package and frankly the discussion has not really focused that much on this part of the the payment limit issue it's been more on the a g i issue but just so folks  understand what happened here we in our bill that passed the house made the most significant reform in this area that has been made in a long time and that is to get rid of the triple entity role and to require direct attribut n if you told people two years ago that you were going to accomplish that they would have thought you're crazy so we did that in our bill we're going to do that in the conference report and the reality of how this all works with the limits the internal limits that we have in the house passed bill sixty thousand on direct payments sixty five on counter section call it keeps the direct payment level for folks that had a triple an idiot the same amount that it is under the previous system so i will agree that we did in certain cases keep the direct payment limits the same as what they were in the past before we eliminated triple entity and there are other factors in here like limitations on countercyclical payments and so forth so you know there's a lot of disagreement about how this should be done and so forth there's a lot of statistics put out about who's getting what and what percentage they are farmers and i would just like people to know that according to u s d a  we have two point one million farmers in the country but people would be surprised to find out what it takes to qualify as a farmer under u s d a rules it says that all you have to do is have a thousand dollars of income from farming why doesn't it say that it says you just have to be able to to have had a thousand dollars of income so you don't even have to sell a thousand dollars if you could us all the thousand dollars you would qualify as a farmer so all of these statistics are based off of two point one million farmers when the real reality is the true commercial farmers that produce ninety percent of the food in this country amount to three hundred fifty thousand so you've got of culture in this system that really aren't farmers you've got a lot of people that are hobby farmers that farm on the we can and they're all every day that are commercial farmers that produce eighty five ninety percent of the food in this country and to provide them a safety net that they can get a loan from the bank in the spring and they can survive the bad years and keep farming and that's not an easy thing and it's a very risky business and it costs a lot of money to to be in this business on a commercial scale  we have unfortunately in my opinion a others will disagree with us and we got this system put on us in one thousand nine hundred six under a thing called freedom to farm which i opposed as a member of the agriculture committee and the idea was we were going to have direct payments that were not tied to any production and they were based on past history because prices were good and the all wanted us to do this and this was ideology run amok and i said at the time this is not going to work this is a bad idea that these prices are going to go down and we're going to have to rescue farmers and that's exactly what happened spent thirty billion dollars two years in a row to bail out farmers that's more than the entire cost of these direct payments over five years we spent that every year for two or three years to bail farmers out ninety eight ninety nine two thousand so we get to the two thousand to bill and people figured out while we got put the safety net back and they kept the direct payments so now we want back to the old system but we kept the direct payments well if i had to do it i'd do it different but that's the system we have and that's suspicious to the people want especially in the south because it's in their financial structure and it's how they organize everything i had my way we take those direct payments we'd raise alone rates we'd raise a contraceptive call target prices we'd have a stronger safety net but the consensus is that we do some of each so these direct  serve as a basis for farmers to go get a loan at the bank and for those folks that are concerned about food prices going up the folks that have been pushing payment limits what the effect of that will be is to raise food prices and so if that's what you want to do you know that's probably not going to be broke popular but whenever you get the government mucking around in deciding how big a farm should be it which is what you're doing you are to make the farms more inefficient and you're going to drive up the cost of farming that's what you're going to do and it's going to increase the cost of goods to consumers so  we have consider this the committee has looked at it we are looking at the limitation on direct payments and there will be some changes in that area  but you know we've had this debate on the floor of the house they've had it in the senate we appreciate mr blake's import but we think that what we're doing here now in the committee in the conference committee will  i thank the chairman and my friend from arizona and i agree many times on many issues but this is one which i must disagree but there's been a lot of discussion about reform  in the farm bill and i think before i go down and list some of the reform that's being considered in this current form bill i think we have to step back and look at what has transpired with the two thousand to farm bill the two thousand two farm bill actually cost twenty five billion dollars less than what was originally projected to cost let me repeat that this is a federal program that actually came in twenty five billion dollars less than what it was budgeted and i would ask my friend from arizona name me a nother mandatory program in the last five years that come in under what was originally projected additionally the congressional budget office  projection for what the foreign policy cost has imposed a it's the beis line going forward is a sixty billion dollar reduction over what was originally planned in two thousand and two and the reason that that reduction is in place and the reason that this bill came in twenty five billion dollars or less than what it was projected is because it was working the way it was supposed to and it was designed when commodity prices were low for there to be a safety net so that we could preserve that farm infrastructure when the commodity prices are high in the safety net was not available because there was no need for that safety bill additionally in the so when you look at it reform sixty million dollars sounds like a lot of reform to me now i don't know well about in arizona but sixty million dollars in texas is a lot of money additionally one of the things that i think the chairman alluded to this is that both in the house and the senate bill the three entity rule has been allayed eliminated bring some transparency to that in other words are being able to boil it down who is actually farming and making sure that the farm safety net is i actually available to those people that are involved actively engaged in farming the other thing that is going on here is that with the elimination of that three entity rule it's estimated that some fifty percent reduction will be  some of the operations that we're currently under this bill so that's that's a fairly good reduction when you look at fifty percent for some of those operations compared to the house and the senate version quite honestly ten thousand dollars reduction has been on the table is over over the original house version now is the chairman mentioned these discussions are still underway we don't know what that final final number is going to be the other thing and the chairman also alluded to this in because there's been a lot of discussion about you know are these payments going to millionaire farmers and so one of the things that we've taken his steps to reach materially reduce the adjusted gross income figure some seventy percent reduction now i think the point that the chairman was trying to make and it's a very important point thirty forty years ago farmers across america could farm a small piece of land and make a good living today in a global economy where they're competing with producers all over the world what they're faced with is how do they get to a size that makes sense with the day's cost of production a day's cost of tractors and all of the equipment necessary and the days of the small farm being able to support a family are gone and so today many farmers are in my district for example are farming three in four and five thousand acres and this is still a family farm this is not a company that has a lot of employees this is a family form and so when you look at those numbers it takes a lot of money takes a lot of capital and in the investment for them to produce this many acres farmers are taking a big risk today yes the commodity prices are up and that's a good thing for farmers and producers the bad news for them though is that their costs are up as well looking across fuel and fertilizer and all of those in just the last few years production cost for commodities is up almost twenty five percent one of the things that as we look at this farm bill i think we have to step back and look at all i think sometimes i get kind of amused is that we talk about this farm bill but only about twelve percent mr speaker twelve percent of this farm bill is actually has anything to do with production agriculture  good portion of this farm bill has to do with food stamps and nutrition programs and conservation programs while those may be worthy i'm not here to debate those when we look at the production agriculture part the part that actually allows american agriculture to produce food and fiber for the americans we're talking about a twelve percent of this bill having anything to do with that so when you step back now why is that important to america why should america be concerned about having a good strong agricultural industry in this country well i'll tell you why amish baker right now we are watching with amazement as we look at people are americans across america having to pay three dollars and fifty cents a gallon for gasoline we have seen tremendous increases this country today is energy dependent that means that we dip in way to wake up every morning we're looking for somebody other country to furnish the energy that it takes to run our country's economy it's quite honestly and it's a security risk to our country is well as an economic security risk for our country and so how did we get in that situation is because we let america's infrastructure for producing energy fall of the white house that we did not make it a priority my greatest fear here to die is that as we move forward if we begin to undermine american agriculture who will then feed and clothe americans in the future do the american people want to wake up every morning and wonder where we're going to get our next mule meal what country is going to feed us because we've let american agriculture as for digital two minutes two minutes because we let american agriculture infrastructure fall of the wayside our producers are competing on an unlevel playing field i wish the playing field was level if the playing field was level we wouldn't need any of these programs because american producers can compete with anybody in the world on a level playing field unfortunately the deputy discussions that we've been involved in have not yielded much fruit and so many countries that our producer can competing with all across the world are competing against other countries that provide subsidies that a much greater level in american then that we're providing end of this underlying bill so while i appreciate the gentleman from a arizona's a concern about being fiscally responsible  understand it he would like to see some reforms out here to not detail him that there are a lot of reforms in this bill but if the same time is it important to have a balanced bill that makes sure that we have a strong agricultural economy in this country from this point forward so that when we're not talking about the food stamp program here we're not talking about nutrition programs or conservation programs we're talking about direct payments this is a different program this is simply an effort to say let's not increase the amount of money going to direct payments at a time when commodity prices are so high and when the farm community is so doing so well it just does not make sense to reform by increasing the subsidy but that i  minutes the gentleman from wisconsin i think a gentleman from arizona feeling this time me this time and i commend him for this motion to instruct mr speaker let me be clear we need a farm bill and we need want to soon as possible you know it's planning season back home in the upper midwest in the district i represent in western wisconsin and our farmers need some predictability they need to know what the rules are that they're going to be operating under and producing under in the coming fiscal year in the coming five years but we also need a good farm bill not a bad farm bill one that's responsible to the american taxpayer and one that does well by the american farm and those of us who have been talking about much overdue and needed reforms under the commodity title these subsidy payments to a handful of commodity producers in this country have been saying let's give farmers help when they need it but let's not when they don't and the market conditions today are something we've never seen before they're talking about ten dollars corn by this summer  rice at an all time high in the marketplace yet instead of trying to really tighten up the subsidy programs and rein them in for some possible savings so we can address the other priorities in the farm bill what's being proposed to our understanding and we haven't been privy to the conference negotiations that been going on is actually expanding direct payments from the current maximum level of forty thousand dollars up to sixty thousand dollars and allowing dual entities operating on the same farm to qualify for the same amount of these direct payments and to be clear that direct payments bear no relationship to commodity prices nor relationship to production there's something that go out automatically regardless of what the marketplace and quite frankly it's the least justifiable aspect of this farm bill today in light of the record commodity prices that exist but we also need a farm bill that this president is comfortable in signing and the administration has been clear from the beginning that they feel there's more room for reform under these commodity programs we're not talking about the two other subsidy programs alone deficiency program of the countercyclical program although there are two of the ramping up the target price in the loan rates under those programs we're only talking about the drug payments right now that which goes out automatically to only five principal a commodity crops at the expense of everything else that we're trying to accomplish in this farm bill having a strong conservation title in light of the increased pressure that crop production is placing on sensitive highly rollerball land and we're seeing that now with a lot of c r p acreage being taken out of c r p and put back into production and what does that mean for the average person that's going to affect quality water supplies throughout the nation it's going to affect habitat wildlife populations all of which depend on good land stewardship of these lands and knowing what land is highly eroded boy and what isn't and that was the whole basis behind c r p to begin with and yet that now is in jeopardy because of increased commodity prices i don't begrudge and i don't think anyone here begrudge is family farmers getting a decent price finally in the marketplace but where i am from in wisconsin and talking to my producers for years they kept saying you know we don't like the subsidy programs either we wish we didn't have to rely on it and if we could only get a decent price in the marketplace we wouldn't have to well guess what that day has come and now is an opportunity never better in the history of the congress to start reforming these commodities subsidy programs then right now so that at the end of the day we're not painting this big bull's eye on the back of our farmers with more subsidy payments they're going to be challenge to the w t l and possibly taken away through the w t o challenges just as brazil is done with the cotton challenge that they successfully prevailed on and this is only the beginning instead we could redirect funding for what are called green box payments conservation payments that also go to family farmers to help them be good land stewards but do not distort the marketplace and they do not distort trade policy and it doesn't get us into trouble by these outside challenges that we may be facing in the future so that's why i think this gentleman's motion to instruct is important we understand it's in the eleventh hour i appreciate the hard work that the chairman and everyone involved in the conference has been doing putting together a farm bill is trying one of the toughest things to do in this place given the parochial interests given the different ideas and opinions that go into deliberations but we have an opportunity right now of maintaining an important safety net for family farmers and case things dougal self in the commodity market but at the same time starting to reform the subsidy program so we're more responsible to the taxpayer but also helping our farmers modernize so they can be more competitive both domestically and abroad otherwise again we're setting them up for future  again hard negotiations we're getting into the final details of it there's still an opportunity of producing a bill that the president feels comfortable with and signing and that way the farmers know what they're operating under but again these direct payments dry the least justifiable program of going forward today and light of what the market place is producing and the futures market right now is looking astounding when it comes to these commodity crops and that's going to be good for farming come in that the ass ratio for family farms has never been better and that again speaks to what we think is a reasonable and justifiable goal of trying to reform these commodity programs so we can deal with the other priorities still maintain an importan recognize a gentleman mark and i just like folks should know that these prices that everybody talks about if you're a rural farmer out there and goes your elevator you cannot get a contract at these prices and if you really wan do something here on this floor that would do some good it would be to keep this wall street had far money out of the commodity market which is run these prices up and created a well bill and you people need to remember that these direc payments came about because of high of high prices quote back in one thousand nine hundred six we heard the same speeches that's how we got these direct payments in the first place and what happened it collapsed and i'll tell you one thing i know about farming is that whatever you have good prices farmers are the very good at creating low prices and they will do it again and that's why we need a safety net so with that i had the old gentleman from arkansas have exhibited as they have pursued this farm bail and the great job that they have done and continue today to get us a farm bill as i listen to these discussions and and i've heard him year after year we have to hear we go through this when we do the appropriations we always have those that consider that they are more knowledgeable than the people that are actually in the business and have to make these businesses work and make them profitable they know more about how to make this happen then the people that really do make it happen one thing that we know the only reason for a farm program and our farm bill is to guarantee adequate production and processing capacity so that our people have a reasonably priced food and power supply in a global marketplace and we are certainly in a global marketplace and i called today every country that has food security has a stronger farm bill than we do they have a better safety net than we do in this country we absolutely know just like the chairman say it these prices come up and they go down right now the price if you can say on chicago board or try is in some some cases twenty five percent higher than a farmer can actually receive and even then the prices that are available to them aren't too bad but it is as the gentleman from texas recognized production cars when some of these numbers were put in this bale or in the other bales that we have had they so fuel is thirty cents a gallon it's forward alors today are over four dollars and you can say that about all the production costs that a farmer has to face the cost of machinery has gone up a great deal in the last couple of years all of these things are necessary to have a face it production of food in fiber in this country the same thing can be said about a farm bill with a farm bill as a citing that this system cannot continue to function and i offer as evidence that it has functioned successfully for a long time that the american people fade themselves far less of their disposable income than any other country in the world now you can't pick up a newspaper today are here broadcast news story for very long that doesn't talk about the high price of food if you really want to say some catastrophic prices just keep doing what they used guys have tried to do over and over year after year and continue to chip away at the siphon it like the chairman said of labor might be it was a gentleman texas that wants the government to decide how big your farm can i don't even want you to be able to decide that i'll farm part of it my son a farm part of it that you want to use every tool that there is to try to mix that up and make it less efficient in the sile in the ration cut in country two thousand i care is no longer a viable economic unit you cannot be prepared to put in a crop on two thousand i cars for a million dollars worth of machinery and another nearly another million dollars worth of fuel and  chemicals and there are those that don't think he ought to use paralyzer and there are those who don't think you ought to use chemicals but if you do those things just be ready to produce whatever you're going to aid in your family's gone a your own backyard because we're not going to have the efficient production machine that we have in this country today that farm bales have made possible and these people might have huge dollars invested but they don't make huge profits this is a very dangerous thing we all know the damage fuel cost and higher g cost to bring in our economy today that is going to be and then significant event when we lose the ability to be the most efficient producers of food and fiber that has ever existed in the history of the world the american farmer doesn't have to take a second place to anybody in their ability to feed our people they do it is the hardest work in the world all i ask is a fair chance all i ask is enough safety net so that i get a loan from the bank and continue to do what they love to do and what they're really really good at we should be doing most or to allow these wonderful entrepreneurs to do what they have to do to basic sasseville and to produce food that is inexpensive enough for us to buy there is no shortage of food in the united states for america to but what they just proposals will do is create a shortage that you can't fix it will create a situation that you cannot re are our take care of in any kind of a short timeframe you just get one crop up here so i would ask this congress and i would ask the gentleman i know they have good intentions unfortunately they got bad ideas this is something that we should not gamble with it we've got a system that we know works i think it's an adequate but at least give us they us so that our producers can have the ability to is recognized i think the chair you know sometimes i think that we're just talking completely in a vacuum here that that inside the beltway here in washington  see it somehow differently than the rest country the notion here the debate on the other side you think this is just one crazy guy from arizona another crazy guy from wisconsin who think that we're out of balance here and at that that's hardly the case  and i'll read some of what the rest of the country is sane in just a minute but i want to yield two minutes jennifer in wisconsin jump i'm from wisconsin is recognized for two months and i think the gentleman for yielding and i've got great respect for the gentleman the minnesota the chairman of the agriculture committee my friend from arkansas in their depth of knowledge when it comes to foreign policy in this country they've invested their career into trying to understand these programs and how they work but i have as much respect and admiration for my family farmers back home in wisconsin two gentlemen from arkansas is exactly right these are hard working individuals playing by the rules in the market that set up for them but when i have producers in my district in western wisconsin coming up to me and saying ron why are we still receiving these direct payments when the market price is so good right now i say you know you're right we should be looking at this a new and the gentleman from minnesota pointed out that the first time drug payments were introduced in the farm bill was back in  transitional program to get away from these direct subsidy payments to the farmers now we're into the third farm bill and instead of at least holding in concert as a gentleman's motion would have a still we're talking about increasing the reliance on these direct payments over the next five to ten years but in my conversations with farm experts from australia new zealand they said they heard the same arguments down there when they wind up their producers from direct government subsidies with a culture production but this would spell disaster for the entire farming community in australia new zealand and now you'd be hard pressed to go down to either one of those countries and find one producer one farmer that wants to go back to the government subsidized system that they were operating under all these years they say that with the change of the subsidy programs it's made them more efficient and more competitive especially in the global marketplace and whether we like it or not that day has arrived for our producers the world is at our doorstep and i don't think we're doing them any more favors by propping them up with these artificial subsidy programs with strong market prices that receiving and at the same time telling them you can go out and compete with everyone else around the globe there's a better way of doing this while still chair you know it was mentioned i appreciate the words of the gentleman from wisconsin i have to travel to new zealand and to australia and talk to the farmers there and they've heard the same horror stories they're they they worried about the same thing when they got rid of subsidies in new zealand and as the gentleman from wisconsin mentioned you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who wants to go back to do that because just as the gentleman from arkansas on the gentleman jim from arkansas just mentioned they don't like government telling them what they can and can't farm and let me tell you a main element of this program we're talking about right now is that if you were to receive payments these direct payments you can't farm subs y specialty crops you have to farm corn or wheat or are or rice you can't do it and so for all the talk about we don't want government telling us what we can and can't plant that's the central element of this program that you accept those restrictions that's there's something wrong with that argument when we say we don't want government to tell us but yes ok you can tell us as long as we can collect these direct payments now the gentleman from arkansas said that prices are up popeye now but they'll go down yes they will but these direct payments will remain the same that's the problem here these are no safety net these are just a direct subsidy in many cases whether you farm or not that's the problem with this and we aren't saying get rid of it i'd like to frankly if it were up to me but we're not saying that all we're saying is keep it the same don't increase it and yet we're harried the argument that somehow everybody all family farms are going to go away unless we increase a direct payment that had bears no relationship to crop prices at all there's something wrong with that argument and so we're competing here in a vacuum yes i'll yield to the gems in wisconsin one of the things that i've noticed back home in wisconsin with the direct payments but the overall subsidy programs that exist for these commodity crops crops is leading t greater consolidation as we know that these subsidies have been primarily skewed to the larger entities and they're using that to gobble up smaller family farmers around them but they're also having up land values by artificially inflating these land values with the with the subsidy guarantees that attach to them and it's making it virtually impossible now for newer beginning farmers to have the capital in order to invest in order to enter this very honorable out work and profession so that's the unintended consequence is that the subsidy programs in putting the squeeze on smaller family farmers throughout america and i think it would be reasonable as well of all we can address it in this motion but they have some reasonable means testing attaching to these direct subsidy programs it's tough to justify to the american taxpayer that if someone's earning one hundred thousand dollars in adjusted gross income that's profit that's after you back out the expenses and all the deductions of doing business that you still qualify for  subsidy payments now i understand the course in the go changing there's been some movement and hopefully that's a good thing but nevertheless that's a pretty hefty adjusted gross annual income for anyone and then to say they're still qualify for american taxpayer subsidies at the end of the day that's that's pretty tough to explain back home i yield back i think the gentleman i mentioned that that it's often said for the other side you know it's just a couple of guys who don't know what they're talking about that the rest of the country feels differently let me tell you what some people around the rest of the country are saying about this farm bill the minneapolis star tribune wrote the senate passed a two hundred eighty six billion dollar farm bill that makes only minor changes to the bloated agricultural subsidies system that rewards rich farmers for being farmers burlington vermont free press quote the farm bill making its way through congress congress is a good example of what's wrong with the way major legislation gets passed in washington the boston globe the kind of calculation that kind of calculation is just the sort of special interest politicking that is making voters nationwide question what was gained by giving the democrats power these brunswick new jersey home news tribune the farm bill is sort of a confounding public policy document that too often wins approval in washington it's stuffed full of pork and mis directed at the same time i mentioned with the last one this is not a democrat issue or republican issue that republicans passed i thought was a far too generous bloated farm bill back in two thousand and two and i believe the gentleman from arkansas and i had a debate at that time so this isn't a partis debate at all this is a debate about what taxpayers should be required to pay the orlando florida sentinel the system whose lawmakers would perpetuate dumps billions of dollars a year in taxpayer subsidies on the farmers of a few crops whether they need it or not the largest commercial farms reap the bulk of the subsidies while most growers get little or nothing the charleston south carolina pulls post career so far the impulse to reform has been overwhelmed by the efforts of those representing the beneficiaries of farm program large s the winston salem north carolina journal the legislation that was designed to put american family farms back on their feet has now become a massive giveaway program to major corporations that manage family farms the farm bill is hopelessly bloated and outdated the pittsburgh pennsylvania tribune review the u s senate has once again failed to slow the nonstop nonstop pig out in multibillion dollar family farm subsidies the bismarck north dakota