[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 102 (Tuesday, July 10, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H4688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       PATH TO THE 2012 FARM BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week, the House Agriculture 
Committee will consider not just the farm bill, but also one of the 
most important pieces of health legislation, environmental legislation, 
and vital economic development for rural America. It should be on the 
radar screen of every Member of Congress, whether one represents rural 
or urban districts. All of our constituents benefit from a vibrant 
agricultural sector.
  The House is looking at its own legislation. The Senate has passed a 
bill. I must say, the Senate bill was a start. There are some 
provisions in it which I think are worthy of support, but it falls 
short in overall reform. There is no reason in an era of great concern 
about reducing Federal deficit spending, about improving nutrition and 
strengthening rural America that we can't do a better job. Currently, 
the majority of farmers and ranchers get no support from the Federal 
Government, and the assistance is concentrated in the hands of a few. 
This is an opportunity for us to look carefully at the House draft and 
to, hopefully, improve upon it.
  One particular area deals with the cap on commodities and risk 
management. The Senate bill has at least a modest reduction in dealing 
with direct payments, but the House draft would increase those 
provisions to $125,000 and to $250,000 for married couples--an 
incredibly high limitation. And sadly, the House draft would leave 
intact current loopholes that would allow many wealthy, nonfarm 
investors to collect multiples of the existing payment cap.
  Another area of significant agricultural subsidy that cries out for 
reform is the area of crop insurance. This is something that 
independent analysts have looked at for years. Too much of this is 
concentrated for a few. It puts too much burden on the individual 
taxpayer, and there is too much benefit for those who need it the 
least. In the House proposal, there is no requirement to link the 
recipient of crop insurance to the protection of soil and wetlands, 
thereby compounding future losses; and it does not reduce the subsidy 
rate for wealthy farmers and investors with high adjusted incomes.

                              {time}  1010

  Most concerning is the new provisions that are termed ``shallow-loss 
revenue,'' where they're creating new, long-term protections that 
really come at a potentially high price tag. Instead of moving forward 
with this being an area to reduce subsidy, it has been noted by 
independent analysts that if commodity prices fall over the course of 
the next decade significantly, all of the purported savings would 
disappear under this enhanced shallow-loss provision.
  There are unwise reductions in the conservation and energy titles. In 
fact, there's no funding whatsoever in the energy title in the House 
bill, unlike, at least, the Senate bill with $800 million. But more 
significant is a reduction in the conservation stewardship program. It 
would limit the enrollment to 9 million acres, as opposed to the 
current 12.8 million acres that are available. This is despite the fact 
that currently with a 30 percent higher acreage level, 50 percent of 
the farmers who want to take advantage of this to protect the land and 
promote habitat for wildlife and water quality are turned away.
  Another provision that looks like an improvement is actually a 
problem. It increases the EQIP program, the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program. It increases the limitation by $450,000, a 150 
percent increase. What this does is open the floodgates for very large, 
confined animal feedlots that are going to end up swallowing most of 
this money and not making it available for others. At the same time, it 
reduces the amount available for organic farmers.
  I hope my colleagues will look carefully at this legislation because 
we need to do better for America's farmers and ranchers, for wildlife 
and the environment, and for the taxpayers.

                          ____________________