[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4771-4774]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 2646, FARM SECURITY ACT OF 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The pending business is the further 
consideration of the motion to instruct conferees on the bill, H.R. 
2646, offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  The Clerk will rereport the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Smith of Michigan moves that the managers on the part 
     of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of 
     the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2646 
     (an Act to provide for the continuation of agricultural 
     programs through fiscal year 2011) be instructed--
       (1) to agree to the provisions contained in section 169(a) 
     of the Senate amendment, relating to payment limitations for 
     commodity programs; and
       (2) to insist upon an increase in funding for--
       (A) conservation programs, in effect as of January 1, 2002, 
     that are extended by title II of the House bill or title II 
     of the Senate amendment; and
       (B) research programs that are amended or established by 
     title VII of the House bill or title VII of the Senate 
     amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed earlier 
today, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) had 9\1/2\ minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) had 14\1/2\ minutes 
remaining; and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) had 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
the time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) be returned to my 
time to be yielded to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) upon 
his arrival.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Just to review from where we were an hour ago, I think it should be 
made clear to all of our colleagues and the American public that the 
purpose of subsidies since the beginning, since back in the 1930s when 
we tried to make sure that the agricultural industry was going to 
survive, the purpose has been to protect family farmers. Unfortunately, 
over the years, we have had programs that made it tough for any farmer 
to survive, because part of the farm policy in this country has been to 
encourage a little more production than what we need.
  The effect of that increased production a little over and above the 
current market demand meant that prices tended to stay down. So there 
was an attempt, of course, to keep those prices somewhat low for 
consumers and what happened in the evolution and the pressures that 
were put on farms in the United States over these years was that the 
small farmer was backed up against the wall, the medium-sized farmer 
felt like if he added a few more acres, then he might be able to send 
his kids to the same music lessons and schools and have the same 
benefits as their country cousins, so that medium-sized farmer said, 
``Look, well, I'll buy some more land, I'll spend a couple of hours 
extra a day and try to make it.''
  What we have done is had programs that encouraged larger and larger 
farms. That is part of the reason that we have this motion to instruct 
today, is to give a little greater relative advantage to the smaller 
farms by, in effect, saying all of your production is going to be 
eligible for the price support payments that we have in farm programs.
  Where the big, larger farms, the very big farms, we are saying, there 
is going to be a limit to how much of your commodity that you produce 
that is going to be eligible for this price protection. Therefore, it 
is going to have the effect on these larger farmers to think twice 
about what the market price is going to be if there is no support 
subsidy price.
  The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I, we both want to have a 
situation where we expand markets, where we have better farm prices and 
hopefully the kind of farm prices that the support payments that are 
guaranteed in this farm bill will not even be applicable because that 
is what we are looking at, is better farm commodity prices to keep more 
farmers in business.
  Unfortunately, today about 82 percent of all of our farm subsidies go 
to just 17 percent of the farms. By providing unlimited subsidies, we 
have encouraged huge corporate farm operations to get bigger and 
bigger, squeezing out family farmers. With this we have encouraged 
excess production that has tended to reduce prices paid to farmers.
  That is why I think it is so important that we have some kind of 
price limit, that somehow, someway, someplace, whether it is a limit of 
$275,000 as suggested by the Senate or maybe a half a million, but it 
is bad for farmers, it is bad for the support they get from the 
American people to have these exorbitant millions of dollars given to 
some of these megafarm operations.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Once again, I want to say how much I appreciate the opportunity to 
stand before this House and proclaim what a wonderful job and what an 
extraordinary thing the American farmer is. I know the gentleman from 
Michigan is a good fellow. I know he means well. He does not intend to 
hurt anyone. And I have great respect for him. Unfortunately, I would 
have to say that he just simply does not understand the food production 
system in this country and as hard as I have tried to explain it, we 
still seem to be hung up on this issue.
  Let me just tell you what would happen if this motion to instruct 
were honored by the conferees. We would

[[Page 4772]]

resurrect the marriage penalty, something we did away with last year. A 
divorced couple would be eligible for $175,000 more in government 
subsidies than a married couple. It discriminates against women. It 
disenfranchises women. Women would get one-fifth of what a man gets 
when they qualify for farm programs. There is nothing right about that. 
But one of the worst things it would do, and I cannot imagine that the 
people that wrote this really knew what they were doing when they wrote 
it, it would basically impose the death tax.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Point of order, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Hart). The gentleman will state his 
point of order.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Was that a derogatory remark towards the 
Senators that wrote this language in the farm bill and is that 
appropriate in the Chamber?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to make improper 
references to the Senate.
  Mr. BERRY. Madam Speaker, if I may reclaim my time, I do not remember 
saying anything about the Senate.
  But having dealt with that issue, it resurrects the death tax. In the 
First Congressional District of Arkansas, people work hard. They save 
their money. They try to accumulate a small farm. They are able to do 
that in some cases, and they have been able to do it in the past 60 to 
70 years because we had a good, strong farm program. And they pass it 
on to their widow. That land takes care of that widow until she is gone 
from this earth. If this motion to instruct were honored by the 
conferees, we would lose that ability for the widow to benefit from 
farm programs, because they would not be eligible anymore the way this 
is written. That is the reason I question the way it was written.
  It has been said over and over today that these farm programs cause 
overproduction. I would try to explain one more time the only reason we 
need to have farm programs and a safety net for our farmers in this 
country is to ensure the adequate production of food and fiber so that 
the American people do not have to depend on production offshore to get 
enough to eat. If this program is so bad, why do we not have a great 
accumulation?
  We do not have overproduction today. I would also make the point to 
have enough to eat, you have to have too much, because there is no way 
to gauge accurately how much crop to plant so that you produce exactly 
so much that the American people have enough and that they have a 
reasonably priced food supply and a safe food supply.
  What the people that support this motion to instruct do not 
understand is, if this were allowed to stand, if the conferees accepted 
this, it would be a dramatic move toward bad conservation, it would 
cause even more consolidation. The consolidation of American 
agriculture has not been driven by farm programs. It has been driven by 
technology. It just simply does not take as many people to produce a 
pound of food anymore than it did 50 years ago. That has changed. It 
takes a lot more equipment. It takes more expensive equipment. That is 
what is driving the consolidation of American agriculture.
  We have heard people talk today about how bad conservation needs to 
be dealt with, and I agree with that. But the fact is poor folks have 
poor ways. When our farmers are nearly broke, they cannot take the 
necessary conservation measures that they would like to take and that 
they know they need to take in some cases.
  They are forced to take bad shortcuts. They are forced to do things 
that they do not even want to do in an attempt to be an efficient 
producer. Over and over again, we have heard that these payment limits 
that have been talked about so much, and the fact is we have payment 
limits today. We have had payment limits since 1985. This is not 
something new. We have complied with those laws all along.
  We will comply with whatever law is written and whatever the House 
and Senate come out with for a farm bill, out of the conference 
committee with. But the fact is, that has nothing to do with the size 
of the farms. What we are talking about here is penalizing the most 
efficient producers in the world, the people that are really, really 
good at what they do, we are talking about making it much more 
difficult for them.
  We have to have a safety net, as I said, because it is a national 
security issue to have enough food supply within our own country. If we 
do not have a safety net in times like this when the value of the 
dollar is so high that it takes American producers out of the market 
through no fault of their own, it is not because of overproduction. It 
is because the value of the dollar is so high that you can go to 
Argentina or Brazil and buy half, again, as much product as you can in 
the U.S. for the same amount of money.
  When our farmers are caught in that situation, they have to be 
protected. This is the only way we have of doing that. That is why we 
need a farm bill. That is why you have to have payment limits set at 
least high enough so that you can have an economically viable unit and 
so that that producer can be economically efficient enough to be the 
provider of the cheapest food and fiber supply in the history of the 
world.
  I would also point out that if this motion to instruct conferees were 
passed, it would ignore that there is a lot more to farming and to 
being a successful farmer and a successful producer than just sitting 
on a tractor. It would be denying benefits to farmers who may not labor 
but handle finances and risk management. It would create a situation 
where it would be very difficult for some of our producers because they 
do not spend all their time in the field. It would put in question 
almost any producer. I think one thing that has been missed by the 
upper Midwest is that the rules that this would put in place for many 
producers of corn and soybeans in the Midwest, especially the ones that 
use no-till technology, would not even qualify themselves if they were 
required to put in a thousand hours before they were eligible.
  Many of those producers that this bill is intended to help very 
likely would not qualify under these rules. I think that they need to 
be studied much more carefully before we even think about adopting 
these.
  There are many things that have been said that just simply are 
inaccurate. I would go back to my original statement. The people that 
support this motion to instruct simply do not understand the food and 
fiber production system in this country, and they certainly do not 
appreciate the incredible productivity of the American farmer.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. Let me just say that a Senate that quite often is partisan 
in trying to come to agreement overwhelmingly supported this idea of 
some kind of a payment limitation. The gentleman from the other side of 
the aisle suggests that this kind of a limitation hurts a lot of the 
hard-working family farmers. Let me just report to you the following 
information that comes from the Congressional Research Service, 
prepared by Jasper Womach, Agricultural Policy Specialist. The report 
calculates how many acres of the different commodity crops would have 
to have been grown to reach the $150,000 limit that we put in this 
suggestion of instructing conferees.
  Allow me to go down through them. Wheat based on the price of wheat 
last year, you would have to exceed 60,000 acres of wheat. Corn, it 
would take over 27,000 acres of corn to get close to the $150,000 
limit. Soybeans, it would take over 5,000 acres of soybeans to get 
close to the $150,000 limit.

                              {time}  1730

  Cotton, it would take 11,000 acres of cotton to reach the $150,000 
limit. Rice, it would take over 2,600 acres of rice to reach the 
$150,000 limit.
  Let me stress this: whether it is 27,000 acres of corn or whether it 
is 2,600 acres of rice, we are dealing with

[[Page 4773]]

an average commercial farm operation in the United States of 460 acres. 
So I think suggesting that this measure has a limit or cap on anyone 
except the very, very large farmer is not being fair in terms of 
communicating what this legislation does.
  Let me just suggest that you may have heard from some of the big 
international commodity traders or farm groups in opposition to this 
idea; but make no mistake about it, they do not speak for the majority 
of farmers and ranchers in the United States. Here is how I would back 
up that statement.
  Last year, 27 of the Nation's land grant colleges from all of the 
Nation's regions came together to poll their farmers and ranchers on 
their opinion of the farm bill. On the issue of farm payment caps there 
was enormous consensus, and that was, nationwide, 81 percent of the 
farmers and ranchers agreed that farm income support payments should be 
limited and targeted more to the small farms.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time for a 
comment or reaction from the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. BERRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, as I have already said repeatedly this afternoon, we 
already have limits. No one disagrees with that. I guess what we are 
having a problem agreeing on is what defines a small farmer.
  I can tell you that when combines cost $250,000 to farmers, when 
tractors cost anywhere from $100,000 to $250,000, when everything else 
that we use is in the same price range, it does not make any difference 
what a group of people that come together and declare that they think 
there needs to be a limit applied to some of these things, it does not 
matter whether they think there should be a limit or not. It becomes a 
matter of economic reality that we have to deal with those high prices 
of our production input. It does not matter where that takes place, 
whether it be in the upper Midwest, or in the mid-South, where I come 
from.
  I would also make the point that the numbers that have just been put 
out here are just a part of the story. I do not think that the $150,000 
on loan deficiency payment has been in question. I think it has been in 
everybody's bill, and I certainly do not have any problem with it. But, 
as I said, that is only a small part of the story.
  I would go back to what I said in the beginning a few minutes ago. To 
run the risk of disqualifying a widow that very likely is something 
over 70 years old and disenfranchising her just because she is not 
physically able anymore to manage her property and she is not going to 
be able to take advantage of the estate that her husband passed on to 
her, to run the risk of doing something like that I think is shameful; 
and I think it is terrible that that was put into this bill that way.
  Now, the gentleman from Michigan has said that there is no question 
in his mind that everybody that was involved in this knew what they 
were doing, and I will take him at his word. I would make the point 
that if you look at the entire bill, what this limit really does in 
California, a cotton farmer would hit the limit at 355 acres. In 
Georgia, a cotton farmer would hit the limit with 682 acres. So that is 
a considerable difference from the numbers from the CRS that were just 
put out a few minutes ago.
  I also think that we cannot stress enough the fact that this 
particular motion to instruct and the amendment that it supports 
disenfranchises women. I have never understood, I still do not 
understand, I do not think I will ever understand, why we would treat 
women differently under a farm bill than we do men.
  I can tell you that until the time when I came to Washington, D.C., 
my wife and I were full partners in my family farm. She was every bit 
as much responsible for any degree of success that we had. She worked 
just as hard as I did, and she was not entitled to anything.
  Now, this bill corrects that a little bit, makes it so she is 
entitled to one-fifth of what I would be entitled to. But why would we 
want to intentionally disenfranchise women and create a situation where 
the widows in farm country that were left with a nice farm to help take 
care of them the rest of their days and have a decent standard of 
living would be disenfranchised to the point where they would lose the 
benefits that helped them have a decent standard of living? I just 
simply do not understand why we would want to do that.
  I would also once again emphasize that the whole purpose of a farm 
bill and a safety net for our agriculture producers is to ensure that 
we have adequate production and processing capacity in this country, to 
be sure that we are able to feed ourselves for a reasonable portion of 
our disposable income. That is an incredibly important part of our 
national security.
  Over and over and over again we stand on this floor and belabor the 
point that we have not taken care of business as far as our energy 
supply is concerned, and I hear them talk about overproduction and I 
hear them talking about big farmers taking advantage and big farmers 
getting too much.
  We are talking about doing something in a farm bill that would 
severely damage the most incredibly successful production system that 
has ever existed in the history of the world. The United States farmer, 
the American farmer, has done the greatest job of producing a commodity 
of any industry that has ever existed, and very likely ever will exist; 
and we are talking about a system that has worked, a system that has 
served the American people so well. In my part of the country they have 
a saying, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Well, this ain't broke, 
and it does not need to be fixed.
  I agree, there should be limits; but they should be set at a level 
where our producers can have an economically viable unit, and where 
they can have the opportunity to be successful and to do so well what 
they do best.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Hart). The gentleman from Michigan has 5 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the 
gentleman from Arkansas when he states that this proposal limits the 
participation of retired farmers or retired farmers' spouses or widows 
of retired farmers. The Senate proposal provides exemptions. For 
example, retired farmers and widows of farmers can have their labor and 
management requirements met by a relative. If you have additional sons 
or relatives on the farm, if they are actively participating, they are 
also eligible for the $150,000.
  I think we should remind everybody that up until the last 2 years, 
the limit on LDPs and marketing loans was $75,000. The year before 
last, because prices were so low, we upped that to $150,000. We are 
facing a situation now where when we passed this bill through the 
House, unfortunately, in the bill we passed through the House it was 
stated that there were limits on commodity loan payments, marketing 
loan payments.
  Technically that is true, but it is not totally honest, as I pointed 
out, because there was a loophole, and the loophole was the ability of 
farmers to use certificates and forfeitures.
  So they went and got a non-recourse loan. They were given the lending 
money. They gave title of that commodity to the government. Then, if 
they wanted the same benefits as a loan deficiency payment or a 
marketing loan, they simply kept the money and told the government to 
keep the commodity.
  Moreover, this bill fails to address the use of generic commodity 
certificates that I think are so important, and that is why we are 
suggesting to this body that we look very closely at closing this 
loophole and not hoodwinking the individuals and people that might 
think there is some kind of a limit simply because there is a limit on 
part of that price support payment.
  Farmers are going broke. We need help to the smaller family-sized 
farms. When I say smaller family-sized farms, maybe it is 1,000, 2,000, 
5,000, 10,000 acres; but it is not the 80,000 acres, it is

[[Page 4774]]

not the 100,000 acres, where land bearers have these lands, they have 
tenants, where they can divide up this money. That is why we have these 
press reports of these enormous amounts of millions of dollars that 
some of these farmers and farm operations were receiving, is because of 
that particular loophole.
  Madam Speaker, in closing let me say that we often hear that farmers 
and ranchers are too independent to agree on anything, but on this 
issue there is remarkable agreement. We have a list of 32 farm and 
rural-related organizations that have endorsed this effort to instruct 
conferees, and we are proceeding with a ``Dear Colleague'' tonight. We 
will hand it out tomorrow when we vote.
  We have to start asking ourself, when is enough enough? How long will 
the American public put up with programs that send out billions of 
dollars to the biggest farm entities? All this does is damage our 
ability to help people we originally intended to help, the small, 
average, medium-size farms, and even now the larger family-size 
operations.
  Look back at the intent of our first farm bills. We have never 
intended to subsidize every single acre of every single bushel. We need 
to move back closer to having the marketplace be part of that decision 
on how much of what crop a producer produces. So to say to these giant 
farm operations that we are going to subsidize you at a level that is 
going to protect however many bushels or pounds that you produce of 
whatever commodity, then we encourage that additional production.
  I say one of the effects of this kind of limitation is to have that 
big farmer think twice and look at the marketplace, look at the demand, 
and put some effort into expanding our international markets, expanding 
our ability to sell our products in foreign lands.
  So I would ask, Madam Speaker, that we support this effort to have 
some kind of a limit on payments. I am so convinced, spending my life 
in agriculture and as a farmer, that if we continue to have this bad 
publicity of these huge million-dollar payments, I think we are going 
to, if you will, jeopardize the future of farm programs.
  This bill also says let us make a greater effort in conservation and 
in agricultural research that can help all farmers.
  Madam Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

       The following table, prepared at your request, shows the 
     number acres it would take to reach $150,000 if LDPs were 
     made based upon actual past marketing loan prices and season 
     average farm prices.

                 ACRES NEEDED TO RECEIVE $150,000 IN LDP BENEFITS BASED ON SEASON AVERAGE PRICES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Season                  Acres
                                                             Average  Marketing    ave.   Hypothetical     for
                    Commodity crop year                       yield      loan     price   LDP pmt. ($/  $150,000
                                                             (units/  (price $/    ($/        unit)      in LDPs
                                                              acre)     unit)     unit)                  (acres)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheat (bu):
  2001/02 Forecast.........................................     40.2     $2.58     $2.80      -$0.22          na
  2000/01 Estimate.........................................     42.0      2.58      2.62       -0.04          na
  1999/00..................................................     42.7      2.58      2.48        0.10      35,129
  1998/99..................................................     43.2      2.58      2.65       -0.07          na
Corn (bu):
  2001/02 Forecast.........................................    138.2      1.89      1.90       -0.01          na
  2000/01 Estimate.........................................    136.9      1.89      1.85        0.04      27,392
  1999/00..................................................    133.8      1.89      1.82        0.07      16,015
  1998/99..................................................    134.4      1.89      1.94       -0.05          na
Sorghum (bu):
  2001/02 Forecast.........................................     59.9      1.71      1.85       -0.14          na
  2000/01 Estimate.........................................     60.9      1.71      1.89       -0.18          na
  1999/00..................................................     69.7      1.74      1.57        0.17      12,659
  1998/99..................................................     67.3      1.74      1.66        0.08      27,860
Cotton (bu):
  2001/02 Forecast.........................................      706    0.5192    0.3140        0.21       1,035
  2000/01 Estimate.........................................      632    0.5192    0.4980        0.02      11,195
  1999/00..................................................      607    0.5192    0.4500        0.07       3,571
  1998/99..................................................      625    0.5192    0.6020       -0.08          na
Rice (cwt):
  2001/02 Forecast.........................................    64.29      6.50      4.20        2.30       1,014
  2000/01 Estimate.........................................    62.81      6.50      5.61        0.89       2,683
  1999/00..................................................    58.66      6.50      5.93        0.57       4,486
  1998/99..................................................    56.63      6.50      8.89       -2.39          na
Soybeans (bu):
  2001/02 Forecast.........................................     39.6      5.26      4.25        1.01       3,750
  2000/01 Estimate.........................................     39.6      5.26      4.54        0.72       5,261
  1999/00..................................................     36.6      5.26      4.63        0.63       6,505
  1998/99..................................................     38.9      5.26      4.93        0.33      11,685
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The calculations in this table assume LDPs are made on the difference between the marketing loan price and
  season average price. In practice, farmers are able to choose the day to receive the LDP. Years where the
  season average price is above the marketing loan price, payments are not applicable. Estimated prices are from
  USDA, World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates, April 10, 2002. Forecast prices for 2001/02 are mid-
  points of forecast price ranges.

       Senators Grassley and Dorgan want to help the family 
     farmers! The fact is, so does the Senate. In a body that 
     exhibits a lot of partisan disagreement, the amendment for 
     payment limitations showed a large bi-partisan support! 
     Quotes follow:
       ``When is enough enough? How long will the American public 
     put up with programs that send out billions of dollars to the 
     biggest farm entities?''--Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA)
       ``Many of the benefits provided through current ag programs 
     are being funneled to large, non-family agriculture 
     corporations while family farmers are being shortchanged. 
     That's just plain wrong.''--Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
       ``The amendment would remove the loopholes that allow a 
     handful of large farmers to receive unlimited payments . . . 
     without real payment limitation reform, we will continue to 
     weaken the same farmers we claim we want to help.''--Senator 
     Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
       ``This is a modest amendment. I stress `modest.' . . . 
     there were 98,835 recipients of farm subsidies in Indiana 
     during [1996-2000]. There are 6, out of 98,000, who would be 
     affected by this amendment.''--Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)
       ``I am very pleased that we were able to pass this 
     important payment limitation amendment.''--Senator Tom 
     Daschle (D-SD)

  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of 
the motion to instruct conferees on the issue of payment limitations 
which the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) has 
offered.
  It is clear that strong payment limitation language would improve the 
integrity of the farm program payments and help to retain public 
support for these programs essential to rural areas. Making this change 
will also help prevent the overwhelming consolidation of farms that has 
resulted in a decrease in small- and medium-sized family farm 
operations. The savings achieved from this provision could then be 
directed to other worthwhile agricultural programs.
  A survey conducted by 27 land grant universities found that 81 
percent of the agricultural producers across the country supported 
placing limits on support payments thereby directing dollars to where 
they are actually intended. Furthermore, a 2001 General Accounting 
Office report found that in recent years, more than 80 percent of farm 
payments were made to large- and medium-size farms. In 1999, for 
instance, 7 percent of the nation's farms--those with gross 
agricultural sales of $250,000 or more--received about 45 percent of 
the payments. With Congress facing so many spending priorities, we must 
demonstrate to our constituents that we are using taxpayers' money more 
efficiently.
  It is important to note that this motion to instruct expresses 
support for redirecting these funds to agricultural research and 
conservation. Our choice is clear--we can continue to funnel millions 
of dollars to some of the wealthiest farms or we can make an investment 
in the future of agriculture which will benefit all producers and all 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly supports the motion to instruct and 
encourages his colleagues to vote for it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________