[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 21, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E994]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2419, FOOD, CONSERVATION, AND ENERGY ACT OF 
                                  2008

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. TODD TIAHRT

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 14, 2008

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my reluctant 
opposition to the Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. This 
legislation is a real mixed bag for Kansas farmers. While there are 
many provisions that will benefit them, it contains many provisions 
that I believe will hurt them in the long run.
  The latest information from the Congressional Budget Office indicates 
that this bill will cost us $714.2 billion over the next ten years--a 
pretty significant increase over the last farm bill. In fact, the only 
reason we are having this debate on the floor today at all is because 
the rule that provided for consideration of this bill waived points of 
order against violations of the pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, rules, which 
require any additional spending to be offset by tax increases, or 
spending cuts.
  House rules require the use of the most recent budget numbers 
available from CBO. And although we have numbers for FY 2008 available, 
the bill before us today is based on FY 2007's numbers. Why has this 
legislation not been updated to reflect the current fiscal year? 
Because doing so would reduce the baseline of available spending. If 
the Farm Bill followed the rules and instead used the updated baseline, 
it would violate PAYGO by $3.1 billion over 10 years. Ignoring the most 
recent budget numbers is like going to the gas station, and instead of 
paying $3.66 a gallon to fill up my car, I decide that I liked the 
price of a year ago better, and only pay $2.60 a gallon. Someone ends 
up getting stuck with the extra cost, and in our case, it's the 
American taxpayer. Time shifts and budget gimmicks hide another $8.5 
billion. That's $11.6 billion worth of hidden costs in this bill, all 
born in the backs of American taxpayers.
  Yet, with all of the extra money that seems to be magically available 
in this bill, the majority could not find enough money to avoid cutting 
$300 million from direct payments and $6 billion from crop insurance. 
These are the two programs that benefit Kansas farmers the most. We 
couldn't find the money to help them, which seems strange, as there was 
plenty of money available for pet projects.
  During the debate today, several of my colleagues have mentioned two 
programs that were airdropped in conference. One would provide for the 
purchase of 400,000 acres of forest land for the preservation of fish, 
and allow the Nature Conservancy to receive a $250 million tax refund, 
even though they are a non-profit organization, and pay no taxes. A 
second program provides $170 million--more than we provided for the 
victims of Hurricane Katrina--for the restoration of salmon fisheries.
  By themselves, these are rather ridiculous and unnecessary programs 
that should have been subject to House approval. Instead, they were 
inserted into the Conference Report without undergoing the scrutiny of 
this great body. That alone is disconcerting. But what makes these 
provisions especially painful for the farmers in my district is the 
fact that, if these two programs were eliminated, there would be more 
than enough money to restore the $300 million cut from direct payments. 
The cuts to crop insurance and direct payments remove the two most 
important aspects of the farm bill for Kansans. Taking money from these 
programs is unacceptable given the significant spending increases 
elsewhere.
  There are, however, good provisions in this bill. The conference 
report addresses many of the concerns voiced to me by Kansas livestock 
producers. Especially of note are the country-of-origin labeling 
provisions that will allow producers to transition into compliance in a 
smooth and cost-effective manner while providing consumers with more 
information about where their food comes from.
  This bill creates, for the first time, limitations on income for 
those receiving federal farm assistance. It provides for nearly 49 
million acres to be enrolled in conservation efforts, preserving the 
land for future generations.
  Another positive provision included in the farm bill is the tax 
incentive for cellulosic ethanol production. Cellulosic ethanol has 
great potential for helping lower the cost of fuel for American 
consumers while lessoning the strain on food prices.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the third farm bill I have had the privilege of 
considering here on the House floor. As a Kansan, I take pride in the 
work it does to help Kansas, its farmers, ranchers and producers. It 
saddens me, however, that for the first time, I cannot vote for the 
original bill or this conference report before us today. I cannot 
endorse a bill that follows the same song and dance we've seen all too 
often in Washington--a disregard for the rules of this House, coupled 
with large increases in wasteful Federal spending.
  This farm bill leaves farmers in the dust and sacrifices Kansas food 
producers on the altar of special interest fish projects. It is a shame 
some have forgotten the ``farm'' in our consideration of the farm bill.

                          ____________________