[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 80 (Wednesday, May 16, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H3983-H3984]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FARM BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague from 
California talk about his deep concerns and reservations about the farm 
bill that is slowly grinding its way, perhaps, toward the floor being 
considered today by the Rules Committee.
  While we have somewhat different perspectives and different 
districts, we are united in the fact that this farm bill does not 
remotely reflect the needs of the American public. One of the problems 
is that we fail to address the disparate array of subsidies under the 
farm bill, benefiting a few States, a few districts, a few types of 
farming operations, and ignoring the rest.
  The famous nutrition professor, Marion Nestle, of NYU has written a 
great essay, ``The Farm Bill Drove Me Insane,'' dealing with her 
attempts to try to understand and rationalize it.
  One of the most memorable portions is how she describes what an 
American diet would look like if it was based on the way that our farm 
bill subsidies are arrayed. The diet would consist of a giant corn 
fritter because 78 percent of the farm bill resources goes to the 
production of industrial corn and soy, not fruits and vegetables, which 
would be a tiny microscopic part of that plate. There would be a little 
hamburger patty because that is less than 5 percent, and there would be 
a little cup of milk. And she points out that that meal, based on the 
farm bill allocation, would be accompanied by a giant napkin because 13 
percent of the farm bill is allocated to cotton subsidies.
  The farm bill shortchanges the vast majority of American farmers and 
ranchers, who are not heavily subsidized, who produce food--the fruits, 
vegetables, and orchard, products that deal with nurseries. The 
majority of States and the majority of farmers and ranchers are shut 
out.
  There is an area of crop insurance subsidy. I will tell you, I was 
stunned when I read the Statement of Administration Policy because they 
are concerned with two areas, one dealing with a necessary subsidy for 
people with nutrition assistance. They are afraid that a few poor 
people would have access to lower cost food through the Food Stamp 
program. They want to crank that down, limit it, and force people to 
work.
  Well, if you look at the farm bill that they are supporting, they are 
doing nothing to encourage wealthy farming interests to rely less on 
subsidization. They are concerned about expanding the subsidizes for 
people under the SNAP program.
  At the same time, we are given a farm bill that explodes the limits 
on the amount of subsidy that can flow to wealthy farming and ranching 
interests, and it expands the subsidy so that nieces and nephews and 
cousins are eligible. People who aren't working on the ranch are 
somehow eligible for Federal largesse, but they would deny hungry 
people, or near hungry people, low-income people, that same sort of 
benefit.
  There are also concerns that they want to crank down on the 
environmental programs; they want to make them more productive. Yet 
this farm

[[Page H3984]]

bill ignores the fact that we right now do not have enough money for 
the conservation programs to help farmers and ranchers who want to 
improve the environment.
  Only one in four grants gets funded, some of them swallowed up by big 
industrial agricultural interests that could afford to take care of 
their own environmental problems. But more telling is that they allow 
payment for things that don't even improve the environment.
  Why allow large agribusiness to compete for scarce environmental 
funding for things like hog lagoons and fences. That is the cost of 
doing business. That doesn't improve the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation that would correct this in 
terms of cutting down, capping, and containing unnecessary subsidies; 
reducing overly generous crop insurance; and making conservation 
programs performance driven. I hope the day will come when we might be 
able to debate something like that on the floor of the House.

                          ____________________