Greg Ganske: “I commend the objectives of the Grassley amendment in the Senate and I believe we should encourage Members of the House…”

“I commend the objectives of the Grassley amendment in the Senate and I believe we should encourage Members of the House serving on the farm bill conference to accept the language as it was adopted in the Senate version. The Grassley amendment would place a cap of $275,000 on the amount that could be received in Federal farm support payments in a year. This is in contrast to the House bill and the Senate bill as it was introduced. Both pieces of legislation would have actually increased the cap from the current level of $460,000. During the previous House debate on the farm bill, I did not support an amendment which dealt with only one aspect of the problem and which would have left the increase in the cap to $550,000 intact. I believe, however, that the comprehensive approach of the Grassley amendment is a more balanced and fair way to address the growing problem. I have on many occasions commended Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm for the civil and nonpartisan fashion in which they have conducted their approach to the House farm bill. That has been in sharp contrast to the sometimes bitter process in the other body. However, in this instance, the Grassley amendment was passed with a bipartisan coalition of 66 Senators.”