Collin Peterson: “we had a debate similar to this not too long ago, and I'll say it again, that while we've added several billion dollars…”

“we had a debate similar to this not too long ago, and I'll say it again, that while we've added several billion dollars to the conservation baseline, we still have backlogs in most of those programs. And the question to me is the same: if large farms shouldn't be eligible for title I payments, why should they be eligible for title II payments? If these operations are diversified enough to have problems with farm income exemption, same question, do they really need Federal payments? So I'd like to hear the arguments against because, to me, a strong title I is necessary to even carry out our conservation programs. If the farmers don't have a strong safety net, that work on conservation is going to be the first thing that's sacrificed. So with limited Federal funds for conservation, we need to make priorities, and providing funds for larger producers and folks with lots of off-the-farm income is a tough choice; but it's a choice we have to make. I'd just like to say that one of the most important reforms that people have pointed to in this bill is that we have finally put a hard cap on adjusted gross income, and this has caused a lot of pain for a lot of people. So it just is not right to have a hard cap on the commodity title and not have a hard cap on conservation. So I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.”