[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 78 (Tuesday, May 13, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H3756-H3757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 2000
OPPOSE THE FARM BILL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, tomorrow we're going to be voting on a very
important piece of legislation. This is the farm bill, something that
we reauthorize every 5 years or so, and I would
[[Page H3757]]
have hoped that we could have a good debate tomorrow. But I just
learned a few minutes ago that the bill will come to the floor under a
structured rule which will not allow anybody opposed to the bill to
claim time in opposition.
So, if you can believe this, this is one of the most expensive, most
important pieces of legislation to come before this body in years, and
it will come to the floor under a structured rule that does not allow
those opposed to the rule to claim time in opposition. This is a bill
that the President has said that he will veto. This is a bill that has
opposition. But those who favor this farm bill do not want those who
oppose the bill to be heard. Imagine that.
There is time under the rule, as with any bill that comes to the
floor, for what's called general debate. If you can think of this,
general debate tomorrow will mean that time will simply be split
between the majority party, which favors the bill, and those on the
minority party who also favor the bill. If you oppose the bill, you
cannot claim time in opposition, and you must go and get time, which
you may or may not be able to get from your respective party officials
or those who are controlling the time.
That is simply wrong. We shouldn't run the House this way, under
Republicans or Democrats. A bill of this importance should be debated,
should be debated fully.
Let me explain a few parts of the bill that I think led to the
decision to make this a structured rule where those opposed to the bill
cannot claim time in opposition.
We have said we had heard that we were going to have some reform in
this farm bill. Those who are on farms making millions of dollars on
farms in the past have been able to claim massive subsidies. We were
told that this was going to change. In fact, what the President said is
that we should have a limit of $200,000 adjusted gross income, or AGI.
Anything above that and you should not be able to receive subsidies.
That sounds reasonable.
But instead, in this piece of legislation, you can make in farm
income $750,000 in adjusted gross income. As an individual, a single
farmer can make that. Remember, that's adjusted gross income. That's
your income minus expenses. That's after all expenses are taken out.
You can still make as a single farmer $750,000 and receive subsidies.
If you're married and you structure it properly, your spouse can also
make $750,000. That means you can have adjusted gross income as a
couple of $1.5 million and still receive thousands and thousands and
hundreds of thousands of dollars in subsidy payments from your
government.
What's more, if you're a farmer and the farmer's spouse making up to
$1.5 million in adjusted gross income, if you have non-farm income,
that can amount to $500,000 in addition, and then if your spouse has
non-farm income, that's another $500,000. So you can have a couple
making $2.5 million in adjusted gross income. Again, adjusted gross
income is your income minus your expenses.
People will point out farming's an expensive venture. There are a lot
of expenses, but those are taken out, and you can still have adjusted
gross income of $2.5 million and collect subsidies under this bill. Is
it any wonder that those who favor this farm bill didn't want anybody
to be able to claim time in opposition to the bill tomorrow when we
debate it?
A few other things that should be discussed here. I should mention
that over the past couple of years, since we passed the last farm bill,
farm incomes have shattered all kinds of records. We have net farm
income that will reach $92.3 billion in 2008. That's a 56 percent
increase over 2006.
Average household farm income significantly exceeds the national
average. In fact, average household income for farmers is $89,434. Why
do we have these kind of subsidies for those who are far better off
than the average American? It simply doesn't make sense.
There are also some pretty severe budget gimmicks in this bill to
make it look like it's coming in under budget when it really isn't. The
Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, identified numerous gimmicks in
both the House and the Senate versions of the bill that, for example,
they shift costs outside the 10-year window and unrealistically assume
that some of these programs will be ended in 5 years, and we know that
they won't, just to fit them under the budget window.
Also under this legislation, for the first time that I've seen this,
those writing the bill were able to go baseline shopping where you
basically say I don't like this year's baseline funding or baseline
limit so I'm going to go off last year's baseline limit; that will
allow me to spend more. It's like if I were filling out my taxes and I
said, well, you know, I could pay less if I claimed last year's income
instead of this year's and I would be able to choose that.
That's what the sponsors of this legislation have done. They've
shopped for a cheaper baseline so they could fit more spending. That
gimmick should be exposed, and it's no wonder they didn't want anybody
to claim time in opposition.
Madam Speaker, I don't know how anybody in America thinks that we're
going to be serious enough to address the entitlement problem we have
in this country with Social Security and Medicare if we can't say no to
millionaire farmers. How will we ever address entitlements if we can't
say no to millionaire farmers?
____________________