Despite my favorable vote, I wish to express my deep concerns about the form and level of spending included in this amendment. The Grassley amendment will add an additional $63 billion in mandatory spending to agricultural programs over ten years, which is assumed to be paid from projected budget surpluses. This is above the amount proposed by my Republican colleagues on the budget committee. By designating the extra $63 billion as mandatory spending, much of this funding will be targeted toward farm subsidy programs. The needs of American family farmers are not being ignored. Congress is in the process of drafting a new Farm bill to reauthorize USDA programs, which many would view as the appropriate vehicle to tackle necessary reform and address farm crises. In the past few years, Congress has approved more than $20 billion in emergency farm aid for crop losses and disaster assistance.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns about the Grassley amendment related to agricultural spending during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Susan Collins
The straightforward bill keeps the administration of important landmark education programs at the Department of Education — where Congress specifically put them and where they belong.
Alzheimer’s is one of the greatest public health challenges of our time, affecting more than seven million Americans, including more than 29,000 people in Maine.
While I agree these principles should guide the administration and oversight of Federal funds, the rule would impose new, burdensome requirements on award recipients … and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process.
He’s the one that needs to respond to the reports. I’m not going to comment on them. But I will say that based on widespread reporting it appears that he struggles to control his temper.





