On the recordMay 22, 2008
Most of my colleagues know that I opposed the farm bill when it originally came up, and I opposed it because it was filled with earmarks. There was a $250 million earmark for a ranch in Montana, there was an earmark for $170 million for salmon fisheries on the West Coast, and a number of other earmarks in the bill. And as has been pointed out, the more that this bill has lain around, the more that we have found other provisions in the bill that Members, let's say, it may have not caught their eye when it went through the House or the Senate. The point that I am making is that given the commodity prices that we have in America, we can do better with this farm bill. I understand the need for a farm bill and a need to ensure that America's farmers and ranchers have the kind of program that will ensure that America has a sufficient food supply and, frankly, a sufficient supply of food to export to many countries around the world. But having said that, when we have over $5 a bushel corn, over $13 a bushel for soybeans, wheat in double digits, to be spending some $287 billion on this program I think is unwarranted. As I said when we considered the conference report on the farm bill last week, we can do better. This is the same old-same old that we have been doing for some 50 years.
Source
govinfo.gov




