Summary:

All articles in House section

AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT
(House of Representatives - February 28, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1415-H1490] AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 366 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2854. {time} 1310 in the committee of the whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2854) to modify the operation of certain agricultural programs, with Mr. Young of Florida in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] each will be recognized for 1 hour. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at long last the House of Representatives will now consider a farm bill, and in this regard I would like to make some commentary as to the reasons why we on the Republican side adopted the policy approach that we have. In that regard I think, unfortunately, during most of the debate in this regard to this year's farm bill, much of the rhetoric has ignored several basic facts. There are dramatic changes taking place that involve U.S. agriculture. Farmers are competing for increased demand in a growing global marketplace. The Congress is serious, finally, about a balanced budget. The political climate will not permit any rubber-stamped acceptance of status quo policies in agriculture or anywhere else. Farmers and ranchers know, boy do they know, the current farm program is outdated and in need of reform. So the question is, what kind of policy takes these givens into account and makes sense? After conducting 19 hearings, traveling over 60,000 miles, and listening to over 10,000 farmers and ranchers, agribusiness men and women, and many others involved in agriculture, this is what farm country told us: One, they are sick and tired of regulatory overkill and demand regulatory reform; two, they strongly support a balanced budget. They know a balanced budget will save agriculture and farmers and ranchers $15 billion in lower production costs. They also requested a consistent and aggressive export program, and they want more flexibility and ability to respond to market signals and to make their own financial decisions. So taking all of these points into account, we have proposed an innovative approach to farm program policy. It has received the most debate of any farm program proposal in modern history. It was originally called freedom to farm, and is now before us as the Agricultural Market Transition Act. Let me explain the policy rationale. The original New Deal farm programs over 60 years ago were based on principles of supply management. If you control supply, you raise prices. Over the last 20 years, the principal justification for the programs has been that farmers received Federal assistance in return for setting aside a portion of their wherewithal, that is, their acreage. {time} 1315 That assistance was largely in the form of something we called deficiency payments to compensate farmers for prices below a Government-set target price for their production. Today, unfortunately, that system has collapsed as an effective way to deliver assistance to farmers. Worldwide agricultural competition takes our markets when we reduce production. The more we set aside, the more our competitors overseas simply increase their production by more than we set aside. They steal our market share. In short, the supply management rationale not only fails under close scrutiny by the many critics of ag policy, it has enabled our competitors to increase their production and we lose the market share. As I have indicated, the Freedom to Farm Act, Agriculture Market Transition Act, was born of an effort to create a new farm policy from an entirely new perspective. Acknowledging that budget cuts were inevitable, that we must meet our budget responsibilities, freedom to farm set up new goals and new criteria for farm policy. No. 1, get the Government out of farmers' fields. No longer do you put the seed in the ground to protect your acreage base to receive a Government subsidy. Return to farmers the ability to produce for the markets, not the Government programs. And to provide a predictable and guaranteed phasing down of Federal financial assistance. By removing Government controls on land use, freedom to farm effectively eliminates the No. 1 complaint of farmers about the programs: bureaucratic redtape, paperwork, all of the regulations and the Government interference. Endless waits at the county ASCS office or the SCS office will end. Hassles over field sizes, whether the right crop [[Page H1416]] was planted, or the correct amount of acres would be a thing of the past. Environmentalists should be pleased that the Government no longer forces the planting of surplus crops and what we call monoculture agriculture. And a producer who wants to introduce a rotation on their farm for various environmental or agronomic reasons would be free of the current restrictions. This bill builds on the conservation compliance requirements, the environmental requirements, if you will, of 1985 and 1990, of the 1985 and 1990 farm bills, and positively impacts 300 million acres. This bill is the most environmentally responsible farm program in 60 years. We will have more to say about that in the future debate. Under freedom to farm, farmers can plant or idle all their acres at their discretion. They are in control. The restrictions on what they can plant are greatly reduced. Response to the market would assume a larger role in our farmer planning. And divorcing payments from production and, by the way, we already started that when yields were frozen in 1985 and we went to flex acres and we froze target prices and we cut target prices, that has already happened, that would end any pressure from the Government in choosing crops with which to pursue. So all production incentives would come from the marketplace and the individual farmer. In return for this, we proposed a guaranteed payment, the guarantee of a fixed, albeit it declining, payment for 7 years would provide the predictability and consistency that farmers have wanted and provide certainty to creditors as a basis for lending. Listen up, Mr. and Mrs. American farmer and your banker and your farm credit troop, any other lending institution, sit down with your banker, your lender, 7 years, you know what you are going to get. You can plan on it. It is a risk management account. You do not have to wait on the Congress. The current situation in wheat, corn, and cotton country, under which our prices are very high but we do not have any crops but large numbers of producers have lost their crops due to weather or pests, that would be corrected by this kind of a payment system. These producers this year cannot access the high prices. They do not have a crop. And instead of getting help when they need it the most, the old system really cuts off their deficiency payments and even demands they pay back the advance deficiency payments. What a time. We are blowing away in the Great Plains. We are bone dry. We have prairie fires. We do not have any crops. The current farm program says pay back advanced deficiency payments, and we get no payment, no disaster payments or no help. The freedom to farm ensures that whatever financial assistance is available will be delivered regardless of the circumstances, because the producer signs a contract with the Federal Government for the next 7 years. High prices, high payments, oh, we have heard a lot of criticism about that. First, the payments will not be high. You cannot cut annual spending in half compared to the last farm program bill over the last 5 years and have high payments. That does not work. No farmer, let me repeat this to all of the critics and you will hear it in this debate, no farmer is going to take his market transition payment and retire. Farmers will continue to farm. Second, under freedom to farm, the payments made to producers must be looked at from a new perspective. It is a transition to full farmer responsibility for his economic life, a risk management account. Just as farmers will need to look to the market for production and marketing signals, freedom to farm will require that farmers manage their finances to meet all the price swings. It is true that when prices are high, farmers will receive a full market transition payment. It is equally true that if prices decline, farmers will receive no more than the fixed market transition payment. That means the farmer must manage his income, both market and Government, to account for weather and price fluctuations. But under this plan, he makes the decision, not Washington, not Congress, not the ASCS office, not the SCS office. He makes that decision. In short, under freedom to farm, we authorize the market transition payments to farmers as opposed to the current program's deficiency payments, to serve as a form of compensation as we move U.S. Agriculture from an economy heavily influenced by the Federal Government to one in which our Government role is substantially reduced and the primary influence is the marketplace. The old program did provide market insulation for each bushel of production. But that system is collapsing under the weight of budget cuts. You have heard the former chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas, the Hon. Kika de la Garza, chairman emeritus of the committee. You have heard the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], a leader in the farm community, a spokesman for agriculture. You have heard me, you have heard others talk about how farmers have already given at the office in regards to their budget responsibilities and that $65 billion in budget authority has already been cut from farm programs over the last 10 years. True. Nobody knows that in Washington, or very few know it in Washington. Not many people in the press understand that, that we have already cut ag spending 9 percent a year for about the last 9 or 10 years. Well, what is to prevent the continued slow asphyxiation in regards to budget cuts and the amount of money that we should have in regard to a responsible farm program? Under freedom to farm, we enhance the farmers' total economic situation. In fact, under freedom to farm it results in the highest net farm income over the next 7 years of any of the proposals before Congress. You represent farmers. Under this plan you have more investment in production agriculture, more farm income than any other plan. We lock it up, and we still meet our budget responsibilities. Now, if you believe there will be no more budget cuts and no more budget reconciliations and no more budget battles, freedom to farm is not for you. If you believe that if farmers just hang on a little longer, their prospects for more Government support will improve in this climate, freedom to farm is not for you. If you believe that farm programs will not continue under the budget gun, that we will not have our fingers, our arms, our legs on the budget chopping block, freedom to farm is not for you. If, however, you believe that there will be more reconciliations, that the heat on farm programs--and you will hear amendments about that in the debate on down the road during the amendment process--if you think that this heat on farm programs will only increase and that Congress needs more than deep budget cuts to present to farmers and not so slow asphyxiation, then freedom to farm makes sense. Now, the severest, the severest critics of farm programs in the press, on television, major newspapers, have hailed the freedom to farm as the most significant reform in ag policy since the 1930's. We have received national acclaim from our critics of farm program policy that this is long-needed, long-awaited reform. Our congressional critics have also decided that our freedom to farm program represents the kind of reform that they can support, and they believe that it is the kind of reform that is needed. Nearly every agriculture economist who has commented on freedom to farm has supported its structure and its probable effect on farmers in the ag sector. We are at a crossroads now, folks. We can either sink deeper into Government controls and rapidly sagging Government support and a lack of investment in regards to our ability to feed this Nation and the troubled and hungry world, or we can strike out in a new direction that at least holds out the prospect of assisted transition to a private marketplace, a market-oriented agriculture. The Freedom to Farm Act is that new direction. We need to seize it. Now is the time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2854 as currently presented to the House, and in [[Page H1417]] support of three en bloc amendments which I will be offering. Let me preface this by saying that my opposition is in no way indicative of the actions of the chairman of the committee but, rather, Mr. Chairman, in past years we have had the opportunity to prepare comprehensive farm policy in a deliberate, all-inclusive manner. When we have been required to comply with budget reconciliation instructions, the House Committee on Agriculture has complied to the tune of $50 billion in savings from 1981 through 1993. However, in this particular farm bill, if you call it a farm bill, national farm policy for the next 7 years was developed by the Republican leadership. Mr. Chairman, Americans are the best fed people in the world. They have a stable and abundant supply of nutritious food and pay a lower percentage of their disposable income for food than any other of the industrialized nations in the world. I would like to think that the House Committee on Agriculture, on a bipartisan basis and in spite of what editorial writers say, has played a constructive role in this success story. But that is no more, unfortunately. For example, last year Speaker Gingrich, the Republican leader, and the Republican whip wrote a letter to the gentleman from Kansas, Chairman Roberts. That letter dictated to the Committee on Agriculture, in no uncertain terms, the specific policy option that the committee was to choose in order to meet its reconciliation savings. No room was left for the committee to deliberate, for the committee to obtain views of farmers, of consumer groups, of the administration. That leadership-dictated policy was the foundation of what is now included in H.R. 2854. Mr. Chairman, the policy included by decree of the gentleman from Georgia, Speaker Gingrich, in the bill now before the House was first introduced as a bill in August. In a blatant rejection of our sacred principles of open government, our committee did not hold one single hearing on this proposal and still has not to this day. There were other hearings held to gather information, much before this time, but none on the proposal itself. Mr. Chairman, farmers in every region of this country have very grave concerns about the agriculture provisions before this House. They represent a sudden and dramatic abandonment by the Government of its role in sharing the farmer's risk. Farmers are particularly concerned that a sudden withdrawal of the Federal Government may make the difference in their fight to stay on the farm. Yes, they may know that each year they will get a cash payment, but if prices collapse next year, will that payment be enough? If wheat prices fall to $2.50, how many wheat farmers will be out of business in Kansas, in the Dakotas, in Washington States? If cotton prices fall back down to 45 cents, how many cotton growers spread out all over the South and areas of the Southwest will survive? If corn prices are under $2, where will the corn belt be? What if milk prices fall to $9. How many of New England's dairy farmers make it? Mr. Chairman, farmers will hope for the best. But if the best does not materialize and a substantial base of our food and fiber production capacity is lost, will we feel that it was worth the risk? All these questions, Mr. Chairman, and we have no answers; not even opinions. All we had in the Committee on Agriculture this year were a few votes. No discussion. No consideration of the views of farmers, the consumers, the businesses that thrive on the products of agriculture, those hearings on which we have always heavily relied. The policy before the House was not aired out in the Committee on Agriculture, it was dictated by the Republican leadership. When a bipartisan majority of our committee defeated this bill last fall, the Republican leadership nevertheless packaged it with tax cuts and health care program changes and forced it on the floor. {time} 1330 Mr. Chairman, it was inevitable that the President would veto that bill and he did, and I agree that it should have been vetoed. Rather than acting quickly to move farm policy forward, our committee sat until the end of January and did nothing. Only in the hours before a 3- week congressional break did our committee finally act, and again I respectively state this is through no fault of the chairman of the committee. The actions were held in other areas by other people. Mr. Chairman, a further frustration to us is that farm policy continues to be driven by outdated decisions. The Republican leadership continues to insist on cutting over $13 billion from agriculture programs. We know that these cuts were not conceived in the context of any consideration to good farm policy. We were cutting acting with numbers in a vacuum only. We have to attach faces and places to legislation. This has not been done to this day. Rather, the decision to cut the very heart out of farm programs was integral to the radical Republican policy of cutting $270 billion out of the rate of increase in Medicare and providing for a $245 billion tax cut. This has fluctuated, it has changed up and down, and the administration has become involved in these overall considerations, all of it outside of the realm of the members of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, all parties have now conceded that any tax cut will be for less, as will reductions in health care program spending as we move forward to a balanced budget. No committee in this House has provided more for a balanced budget than the Committee on Agriculture. Had every committee done what we have done, we would not be worrying about a balanced budget at this point in time. If the enormous tax and Medicare cuts have been abandoned, is it not also time to recognize that the size of the cuts ordered for agriculture should be reexamined? Those policies were after all the driving force behind the Republican decision to cut $13 billion from agriculture. Mr. Chairman, we are in a difficult position. Time is not available to fully address the errors that have been committed in this flawed process. There will be some who would say, well, there will be a conference. Conference has limitations, limitations that restrict activity by members of the conference. Farmers who should have already made crucial farming decisions are kept waiting. The very fact that we have not acted yet has jeopardized agriculture. Action in farm policy for 1996 must be taken and taken quickly. In that light, our No. 1 priority is to make what changes we can in this flawed bill to strengthen our farm economy and its rural base. Mr. Chairman, the bill is titled the ``Agriculture Market Transaction Program,'' and we believe that few have escaped the meaning of the term ``transition'': That the Federal Government will withdraw completely from its partnership with the producer in providing for the food security of our Nation. And I have just come back from my district and other parts of Texas, and they now say that ``this bill is not what we were talking about.'' We want to reduce regulation; we want to reduce needless spending. We did not want to say ``take the Government completely out as we act in unison, together, for the betterment of America.'' So they did not say that we should withdraw completely from the partnership with the producer in providing for the food security of our Nation. However, if such a transition is to occur, we believe that now is an appropriate time for investments to be made with the posttransition period in mind. Regretfully, the rule does not provide for that. It is limited in scope, it is limited as to how many amendments, what type of amendments. Many of you heard the chairman of the Committee on Rules: We did this because we did not want this many more amendments from Wisconsin, and so on. Toward the end, Mr. Chairman, we proposed to increase the Department of Agriculture's authority to invest in the rural infrastructure, water deliveries, sewage disposal. We propose to increase this authority to make investments that conserve and protect our natural resources, and we propose to make crucial investments in agriculture research, education and extension. Yesterday I was in my district, for a meeting of rural housing representatives and all you need to do is go down there and you will see the immense need in rural housing, and as I told them and I repeat to you today, the creature of G-d has a certain level of [[Page H1418]] dignity mandated by laws beyond, beyond our country and beyond this Chamber. The human dignity that needs to be addressed includes decent housing so that those of higher intellect have a decent place to live. Only within government can we form a partnership. Earning a minimum wage is not going to allow someone to buy housing for them and for their family, and we have hundreds of thousands of those people, but yet we are not addressing those areas. We propose to ensure that our highly productive oilseed industry, which will receive no benefit from the bill's contract payments, is able to continue to compete effectively in world markets. We would delete the set level for the oilseed market loan in the bill, which is set at an arbitrary fixed amount, dealing in a vacuum, and replace it with a formula based on actual market prices. Finally, we believe that our agriculture sector is so important to our Nation that we deserve a farm policy debate in 2002. To ensure that debate, we propose to retain permanent farm support authority. Therefore, on behalf of Democratic members of the Committee on Agriculture, I will offer three amendments en bloc, the first, authored by the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. The amendment would provide the Commodity Credit Corporation with the authority to dispense $3.5 billion of its funds for rural development conservation and research, education and extension. The second was written by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], who has been a tremendous inspiration in this endeavor. It would set the loan rate for oilseed marketing assistance loans at 85 percent of the 5-year average price for oilseeds, excluding the high and the low years. The third would strike the provision of the committee substitute which repeals the permanent farm law. Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed over this process. Our people deserve better from this Congress. We have been the partnership. The experts and the major periodicals in New York and San Francisco and Orange County; I keep reading editorials form Orange County about the farm, farm products, farm process, farm policy. We have in my family seven grandchildren who know more about farm policy that the editorial writers from Orange County, CA, Mr. Chairman. Also, I ask the committee and the Members to stay with us on the amendments that we will be opposing. Many of those amendments that were granted are aimed at satisfying the needs of major media. They have not spoken to agriculture. They have not spoken to rural America. They have not spoken to the people. They are looking at that headline in the major periodical. Would you trust a newspaper in New York City to set the policy for the farmers and ranchers of America? And, needless to say, Mr. Chairman, of all of the matters involving the budget, we have met our commitment. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, let me say that everything that we do as far as production in this country, manufacturing, industrial production, everything is in deficit as far as international trade is concerned. Everything is deficit. That is the free market. It is in deficit. Dollars are flowing out, dollars we do not have. The only thing that is bringing money back, green back, green dollars back, is agriculture. The only thing that is positive is agriculture. And yet they say subsidy, subsidy, subsidy. Look at this chart. You cannot see the line at the bottom. That is how much of an impact we make on the budget, seven-tenths of 1 percent is agricultures share of the trillions of dollars we spent on the budget. And then here is a major one. The green is agriculture. The red is everything else. The red is in deficit, has been. Except for selling a few high tech items and airplanes, agriculture is the only one bringing money back from abroad. So saying we need a new direction, we need another this, another that, what we need is, with the help of the good Lord, a little more rain here and less rain there, and a policy that manages, I do not care how you slice it. Every company, every industry manages, manages, and we cannot go and face the world because all other countries, most of them camouflage support of their agriculture and we would be the only one that does not support agriculture under the guise of satisfying our New York newspaper who says the free market. The free market has never existed. There has always been some manipulation. There will be more manipulation, and we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we yield to those pleas for liberators so that we can be eaten by those that camouflage their intentions and their agriculture. We need strong agriculture, we need to have a program where the government participates, and this program unfortunately phases out. Yes, you will get a little money. If somebody goes to Las Vegas and they win the first thing on the machine and second thing on the machine, they say we got it. Stay there long enough and you have lost it all. This is what this is going to do, show a little money, show a little candy up front. Eventually, 7 years, we are off and away and we will be as loose as that satellite that broke from the tether up in the skies the other day. It is loose out there and heaven knows where it is going to be. We do not want American agriculture to be in that condition. So I urge Members to support those amendments that might make this a little better, oppose those that try and destroy programs that have worked. We are the best fed people in the world, we spend less money than everyone else in the world, and, oh, the sugar, sugar, sugar. We are talking about jobs, jobs for Americans, and if you open up and the world unloads all the sugar, we are not going to have a sugar program and the people are not going to have lower prices in sugar. Even now when we did not have a sugar program the prices skyrocketed, skyrocketed to the consumer. When we have held it down to a level, when we have reduced, the product at the retail store did not come down, the product that they talk about the consumer as being gouged, that did not come down at all, the soft drinks, all of the cookies, all of the candies. They did not come down at all. We kept paying the same. But yet they blame it all on the program. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members that have listened will agree with us also that we need stability. Stability can only be done in a partnership. That partnership has worked and is working, and I hope that we continue it. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the observation to my dear friend and colleague from Texas that the New York Times editorial board did not sit in our offices when we constructed the Freedom To Farm Act, and we would not want them to sit there, but at least in terms of their opinion, it would be helpful if they would not perjure agriculture as he has indicated. Let me also say that the gentleman from Texas is affectionately called the chairman emeritus of the House Agriculture Committee for good reason. He has been a champion of agriculture, he has furnished us outstanding leadership, he is regarded all over the world as a Secretary of State of Agriculture. {time} 1345 Mr. Chairman, I checked with his seven grandchildren, who have mentioned they are going to have an appreciation night for Kika, pardon me, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], as of tomorrow in his home State of Texas. Of the seven grandchildren, four have endorsed the freedom-to-farm concept. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis]. Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the farm bill, and am proud to say I was one of the nine original sponsors of the first freedom-to-farm bill. Last year, Mr. Clinton killed freedom to farm when he vetoed the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. But make no mistake about it. Today's bill still lives up to that nickname. It still lets the folks who actually grow crops decide what to plant--and how much. They know their own soil better than all the Washington Bureaucrats combined. It cuts Government intrusive paperwork and provides the needed safety net for farmers. [[Page H1419]] In less than 2 years of representing Kentucky's Second District, I've spoken with hundreds of farmers. From the Second District alone, more than 45 members of the Kentucky Farm Bureau are here today, waiting for us to pass this bill. If there's one thing nearly all of them agree on, it's that they'd rather spend time planting and harvesting crops than filling out Government paperwork. Or drawing lines on maps. I think they may be even more excited about our crop insurance reform. After the President signs this bill, farmers won't be forced to buy crop insurance just to participate in Government programs. I think many of them will continue to but it, but these businessmen and women didn't appreciate being told to do so. They're pretty independent folks, and they're looking forward to getting some of the burden of big government off their backs. They're also pretty conservative folks. They care about the future of their children, and grandchildren. And they've told me they're happy to help balance the budget if they can spend more time in the fields and less at the ASCS office. They're still looking for further regulatory reform, and tax cuts that will help them stay in business, or pass on the family farm. We need to continue to pursue these farmer- and family-friendly measures. Mr. Chairman, today we begin to overhaul our Nation's 60-year-old agricultural policy. I congratulate Chairman Roberts' courage and vision on this matter. This is truly the most sweeping change in farm policy since the New Deal. It's good for farmers, it helps us move toward a balanced budget and it doesn't pull the rug out from under the people who feed our Nation. Mr. Chairman, let's continue to lead, let's pass the farm bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to what has been called by the author of this bill as freedom to farm. I call it freedom not to farm, because if anybody reads this bill, they will find that farmers are able to get payments, and they are not little payments, able to get payments and they do not even have to farm. That is right. I will repeat it. Farmers get payments and they do not even have to farm. It is not just 1 year, it is for 7 years. It is not for a few dollars, like a recipient of AFDC or food stamps gets. We are talking about $80,000 to some farmers. We are talking about some farmers over a period of 7 years getting well over a quarter of a million dollars, and they do not have to farm. Many of those farmers are not the little farmers. These are medium- size farmers, but they have a lot of farmland. The amount of farmland they have gives them the number of acreage that they have been farming, at least 1 out of the last 5 years, the amount of payment. They can get $80,000, and then if they have cotton and a marketing loan program, they can get another $150,000. That is $230,000 in 1 year. They can also make a half a million on the farm operation and still get the $230,000. There is something wrong here, folks. This is not getting government off your backs. This is high-priced welfare. This is not cheap welfare. This is real high-priced welfare. This is not a little $300 a month AFDC or an $80 a month Food Stamp Program, these are thousands of dollars, and over a period of years, over $1 million to some farmers, over $1 million to a farmer. What is going on? I thought we had a budget crisis. I though we had problems with money. We are going to give $36 billion away in the next 7 years, and farmers do not have to do a thing if they do not want to. If they want to, that is fine, but they do not have to. Instead of calling it freedom to farm, I would call it freedom not to farm. I do not know why they object. I had an amendment that I asked to be put in order, but the Committee on Rules did not permit it. It said at least you have to plant some crops in order to get a payment. I think that is reasonable. I think most people would think that is reasonable. But the Committee on Rules no, you cannot have that amendment; we are not going to permit that because we do not want farmers to have to plant crops in order to get these payments. I think it is terrible that this House would even consider making these kinds of payments to a very few number, about 28,000 people throughout the United States, out of 250 million in order to pass freedom not to farm. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, it is with personal pleasure that I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas], a very viable member of the committee. The gentleman not only brings expertise to the Committee on Agriculture, but he is a real, live farmer and cattleman. (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2854, the Agriculture Market Transition Act of 1996. It is the agriculture policy that will shape rural America as we head into the 21st century. This new farm policy is based on four basic themes: The current program is flawed and must be reformed; the Government must get out of the farmer's fields; farmers must have the ability to produce for the markets, not Government programs; and finally, we must provide a predictable and guaranteed phasing down, but not out, of Federal financial assistance in farm country. Taking these basic themes into account, we on the Agriculture Committee formulated the Agriculture Market Transition Act. To those who will say that this bill does not contain true reform, I would encourage you to wake up and smell the coffee. This bill is the biggest change in farm policy that we have seen since 1949. This includes peanuts, sugar, and dairy. Many during this debate will cite high commodity prices as a reason for sinking this reform. This argument has no merit. High prices are a result of a short harvest last year and another dismal crop projection this year. Sure my producers would enjoy $5 wheat if they had a crop to sell. But the reality is that the High Plains from west Texas to the Canadian border are in financial turmoil. At the time of my producers greatest need, Uncle Sam's current assistance program is no help. For in a time of short crops and high prices, the current program asks for money back. It is truly senseless. Colleagues, in short, the current program doesn't work. Our job on the committee and in this Congress is to construct a program that will stop this bleeding. I believe the Agriculture Market Transition Act is the best way to do this. My friends, agriculture is truly at a crossroads. It is time we break the bonds of the old and ring in a market oriented program that will guide us into the next century. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2854 without significant amendment. The future of rural America depends on its passage. We must have a farm bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley]. (Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the freedom to farm proposal. I think all of us would agree that there is an appropriate role for Government in farm policy. That is to provide a safety net for farmers in those years of a price collapse. It is to provide for assistance in breaking down unfair trade barriers that prevent our U.S. farmers from being competitive in the international marketplace, and also to provide assistance in the research that can ensure that our farmers will have the technology to be the low-cost competitors in the world. But it is not an appropriate role of the Federal Government to ensure that taxpayers of this country are going to be making $36.5 billion in payments to farmers over the next 7 years, regardless of what commodity prices may be. Today if Members would go into any of the commodity markets on the [[Page H1420]] major farm programs, they could forward contract in December 1996 on cotton, corn, wheat, barley, and oats, at a price that is higher than the target price today, on which our subsidies are based. On corn and cotton, you can forward contract into December 1997, covering 2 crop years, at a higher price than the target price. Under the current farm programs, the taxpayers of this country will be making minimal outlays to farmers. But under freedom to farm, what happens? We are asking the taxpayers of this country to lay out $5.6 billion in this next year, and $5.4 billion in the following year. This is just not good policy, and it lacks all common sense. In fact, we can be thankful that the same people that put together this agriculture reform were not the ones that devised our welfare reform, for if they were, we would be ensuring that anybody who received a welfare payment in 1 out of the last 5 years, that we would give them a welfare payment, guaranteed, for the next 7 years regardless of what happened to their income. They could win the lottery and the taxpayers of this country would still be obligated to write them a check for 7 years. This is bad policy. It does not ensure that farmers in the future will have that safety net; not a safety net that guarantees them a profit, but a safety net that ensures that when we have a price collapse, when income is low, that the Federal Government will be there to ensure that we do not have widespread bankruptcies throughout this land. Oftentimes people have contended that this freedom to farm is a transition to an era without subsidies. The gentleman, the Republican from Oklahoma, just recently responded that he hopes we look at this as a transition, not to transition out of programs, but to move into a new era. He is still hoping we have some financial obligations or money going into the agriculture sector post-freedom to farm. What we ought to be doing is devising a farm policy in this country that ensures that our farmers are going to have the tools to be competitive in the international marketplace. Freedom to farm does not provide that. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], a good friend and a good champion for the farmer. (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my strong support for H.R. 2845, the Agriculture Market Transition Act introduced by the gentleman from Kansas, [Mr. Roberts]. This legislation gives farmers what they want and what they need. It is a simple, consistent, and flexible farm bill to ensure successful family farming operations. I do not come to this floor totally out of touch with this issue. I was raised on a farm. My folks still farm. I spent 16 years as a farm editor before getting involved in politics some 12 years ago. I think this bill represents true reform for agricultural programs. Let us look at the reality of the situation. This body has become more urban as the years have gone by. We cannot get the votes out of this body to put together the kind of programs that have been put together in the past. It is just not there. Farmers are becoming almost like the eagle on my tie, an endangered species. There are not many of them left. Yet, if you ask the average person on the street what happens if we lose the farmers, their response is, ``It does not make any difference. I have Safeway.'' They just do not understand what is involved in the food chain. So this is the one piece of legislation that can rescue farmers. I guess it boils down to where do you put your faith? Do you trust farmers, or do you trust bureaucrats and political appointees? I am going to go with the farmers. The farmers want the liability to produce for the market instead of a Government program. They want the ability to manage their land in a resourceful type fashion, without burdensome controls and regulations. This legislation must be passed now. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) {time} 1400 Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank by colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this debate today will include an amendment that is to be offered regarding the sugar program. I rise to take my precious 3 minutes to address this amendment. Of all the Members who have sugar growers, as far as I can see in the statistics, it is grown to a much larger extent in my district than in any other Member's district. There are about 65 Members who have producers of sugar, both cane and beet, and we have a very, very large stake depending upon the outcome of this amendment. The Miller-Schumer amendment basically will eliminate U.S. domestic sugar production. All the market economists and specialists that I have spoken to indicate that if this amendment should pass today and should become law, it will virtually eliminate the U.S. sugar production. For myself and my district, it will mean about 6,000 jobs. So I ask the Members of this Chamber today in debating the farm bill to not talk about this abstract notion of commodities. We are talking about jobs. Listen to the Republican Presidential debates and you will see that the American people are concerned about jobs. When we talk about reforms, certainly, there must be reforms. We talk about cuts in the budget; of course, there must be cuts in the budget. But when you look at the sugar program, there is not one penny of tax subsidy going into this program, so why are we targeting this particular industry that is so essential? Are not farmers working Americans like any other workers anywhere else in our industries? What is the difference? These are hard-working people working under the standards that have been established by Congress, whether it is environmental, labor or health or whatever, and we want to shut them down in place of foreign sugar where there are no environmental concerns, no workers' standards, no environmental standards, no safety standards, and give a preference to foreign sugar so that a few of our mega corporations can make millions and millions of dollars at the expense of 420,000 jobs in America that are related to the sugar industry? It is mind-boggling. We are committed to the preservation of jobs in this country. We are not for shutting down businesses. Certainly, we are for balancing the budget, but no one can show me that there is one penny of taxpayers' money going into the sugar program. On the contrary, we are paying into the Treasury, and this bill that is coming up is going to add more money. I ask the Members of the House to think carefully about this amendment. Are we eliminating jobs and killing an entire industry? Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], a valued member of the committee. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture how much I appreciate his leadership through what has been a very difficult year with ag policy. We have stepped into a situation where we have had to meet budget constraints and agriculture has always been called on, even in years when we were not trying to balance the budget, to make cuts in our programs. The chairman of the committee has been a very valued asset to me personally, and I thank him for that leadership. Also to my subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], who have just done a super job in bringing us forward. And I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] for their valued friendship and leadership. I cannot leave out the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. He has just worked so diligently, the particularly [[Page H1421]] in the area of dairy. To my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], we on the other side of the aisle have had our disagreements certainly, but it has always been in a very professional and a very courteous manner, and I commend him for his leadership over there. Agriculture has always been the backbone of the economy of this country. I come from the largest agriculture county in the State of Georgia. Agriculture drives our State, and certainly agriculture drives my home county and the people there. Less than 2 percent of the people of this country feed 100 percent of the people of this country. We provide the safest, finest quality of food products on the shelves of our grocery stores of anybody in the world. We spend less than 10 cents out of every dollar on food products, whereas other industrialized countries like Japan spend over 20 cents out of every single dollar for food products. We are able to do that because of strong agriculture programs that we have in this country that provided those safe, high- quality products and we have been able to stabilize the retail cost of agricultural products over the years. But times are changing. We are moving into the 21st century. The Agricultural Marketing Transition Act moves us in the direction. I commend the chairman, and I urge the support of that bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]. Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I just heard some students out in the hallway saying, oh, they are just talking about agriculture and that is boring. The difficulty with this debate is, it is everything but boring because it is really the engine that drives the American economy and it is wonderful history and it is great culture and to understand what agriculture is, is really to listen to this debate. I happen to represent just one State that is very diverse in agriculture in California, and California farmers in my district, I think, are the most productive farmers in the world when they grow specialty crops. These are big crops in our area, but in agriculture language here in Washington, they are known as minor crops. Specialty crops produce 2.5 billion dollars' worth of fresh fruits, vegetables, and horticulture crops without any Federal price supports, without any other direct Federal support, including water. We grow lettuce and artichokes and strawberries and flowers and over 100 different crops. That is just in two, three counties in California. They have succeeded by embracing the full benefits of potential risks and of great market. They are models for American agriculture, and I believe that American agriculture must move in that direction to remain viable into the next century. But even market-driven agriculture needs a national farm policy. It needs conservation, it needs research, it needs rural development, it needs market promotion. These are all really crucial to our future success and sustainability. I think the issue about agriculture in America is to sustain it so that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren can still move into the same lands, hopefully not covered by shopping centers, and allow those great-grandchildren to be able to farm in this great country. The Federal Government has a deep responsibility to make sure that these programs help all of rural America. H.R. 2854 has some problems because it ignores some of the crucial goals of the American farm policy. While I do not like the transition program that is in the bill, I think it is too expensive and makes payments regardless of the farmer's production or market prices, it still moves agriculture toward the market, and I can support that. But I cannot support the bill if it also does not address the conservation issues, the research, and the rural development and I am particularly concerned that it does not address the loss of farmland to urban sprawl. I have coauthorized legislation with my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], to help States address the troubling loss of farmland to urbanization, over a million acres last year at current rates. The States have taken the lead in helping farmers keep this land in agriculture and out of the grasp of urban sprawl, and the Federal Government should help these States with their efforts, and so far they are not. A version of our bill was added to the Senate farm bill by Senator Santorum. Unfortunately, neither this bill nor the conservation amendment allowed by the rule includes any farmland protection measures. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the bill without adequate funding for conservation, research, and rural development. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and commend him for the outstanding job that he has done as an excellent subcommittee chairman in addressing reform in many of our farm programs, particularly in regard to sugar and peanuts, the programs that probably come under the most criticism. (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, this is crunch time for this Congress. It is time for us to act on the farm bill. This will be the first important rewrite of the depression-era farm programs that have been on the books for decades. There is some very good news in the rewrite that is being proposed here today. The good news includes that American farmers should be better off and better able to decide what they are going to plant under this proposal that is before us today. It also is good news that it brings an end to Government control of farm markets and artificially inflated prices and limited food supplies. The environment is also helped by the legislation we will consider here today by removing current farm policy, which in some cases has been a disincentive to natural crop rotation, maybe to overuse of fertilizer. Taxpayers I think should also rejoice because there is savings in the billions in this bill for agriculture. Some critics carp that the reforms do not go far enough, and yet others say the reforms go too far. The Democratic leadership in the House says that the reforms go too far, while the administration says this bill is going to cost too much and it does not go far enough. But I think that means that this is a pretty good middle-ground reform measure. The legislation holds potential for far-reaching reforms in agricultural policies and will reverse several decades of farm policy. Congress should not miss the opportunity today to pass this bill because it includes less Government, less cost to the taxpayers, more production safety net for American agriculture, and market orientation. American farmers, American farm organizations know this is a good bill and there is opportunity in here for American farmers to prosper, certainly something this Congress should be for. Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that the bill includes portions for peanuts, for sugar, for cotton, for dairy, for feed grains. The bill is a package. We cannot just pass part of this package. We must pass the package for American agriculture. Vote ``yes'' on this bill and vote ``no'' on those amendments that would gut this package. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Tejeda]. Mr. TEJEDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise now to highlight a gaping hole in this farm bill. Missing is the Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Program. For more than 50 years, this crucial program provided a vital safety net for livestock ranchers in times of severe drought. This farm bill eliminates that protection. When a severe drought hits, ranchers need assistance to maintain their livestock. The alternative for many ranchers is financial disaster. Ranchers must feed their livestock whether it rains or not--whether feed is plentiful or scarce. The Emergency Feed Assistance Program provides short-term help during such a crisis. Some of my colleagues who returned home to huge snow drifts may find this hard to believe. But right now, today, ranchers in south Texas face a sustained drought. Formerly productive pastures are turned into dust, with no end in sight. Rainfall since October is 9 inches below normal. With cattle prices low, the current drought may force many ranchers in my district to lose everything. [[Page H1422]] The Federal Government should provide a reliable program when ranchers need help preserving their livestock. Hard-working ranchers depend on us, American consumers depend on us, this program provides stability in difficult times. More than 1,000 ranchers in my district used this Emergency Feed Assistance Program last year alone. Without it, ranchers will have nowhere to turn in times of severe need. Ranchers look for all possible options during a drought, and turn to this program as a last resort. Under this farm bill, their last option will be gone. {time} 1415 Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry], a distinguished champion of agriculture. Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and all the members for the good job they have done in very difficult circumstances. Mr. Chairman, there are three things the agricultural economy in my district desperately needs. First is a good gain. No matter how important we think we are, I do not think we can do much about that. We need better cattle prices. I am not sure we can do anything about that today. Third, we need a farm bill. We are the only ones that can do something about that. It is too late now. We have got farmers, we have got bankers, fertilizer dealers, all sorts of people in the rural economies who are trying to make decisions, and we need a farm bill now so they can know what the rules of the game are going to be. I may not be thrilled with every nook and cranny of this bill, but it is something rural America can live with. It is something that will continue to provide an abundant, cheap source of food and fiber for this country that I think all too often we take for granted, and it is something that should not be broken up piece by piece, because I am concerned the whole thing would unravel at that point. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good bill. It ought to be passed. It should not be broken up, and farmers need to be able to get on about their business. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I wish that we could put the debate in context in that one would not go from one end and one would not go to the other. My distinguished colleague and friend from Texas just mentioned, ``Got to act now.'' We had all of last year to act. But you were doing some contract business of some kind and forgot the contract with American farmers and agriculture. And also that we are forcing. No one has to join the program. Any farmer anywhere in the United States is free to do what he or she wants. They do not have to join the program. They can do the free market. I know agriculture, fruit and vegetables, they do the free market and do not rely to any extent on Government. But their costs keep escalating. The costs of seed goes up. The cost of fertilizer goes up, and you do not know what the market is going to be, up or down. So, Mr. Chairman, we must remember this as one Member comes on the floor, says his thing, the one that is not here comes and say another thing; I wish we could keep it all in context. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], another real-life farmer and a very valued member of the Committee on Agriculture. (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], for the opportunity to speak here today and thank him also for the tremendous amount of work and effort that he has put into this excellent bill, and the subcommittee chairs, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], who have shown such great leadership all through this debate. This debate has gone on, I believe, too long. There has been a lot of obstruction set up. We could have had this bill done several weeks ago except for some Members in the minority stopped it through a procedural move, but it has been very, very difficult. We have had, I think, 19 hearings. We have had thousands of people give us input. Farmers, real live farmers, themselves tell us that finally we need to break the central control that Washington has on agriculture, to finally let the farmers themselves make some of their own decisions and to really respond to the market that we have today. This debate has gone on and on, and through the committee process, and I am very pleased that we did come up with a bill that had bipartisan support from the committee to really free up agriculture once and finally after 60 years, to allow individuals to actually produce on their farms what they want rather than what some bureaucrat here in Washington tells them. If you look at what happened last year in Iowa, we had two disasters, especially in southern Iowa. One was a flood that went through, and the second was the farm program did not work, and the catastrophic insurance did not work for those farmers. What we are asking those people from last year to do right now, if we would continue the current central Washington control program, is to pay back deficiency payments because markets are high even though they did not have a crop, and it is going to break those people. We have got to reform this program. We have got to pass the bill today and pass it intact, and I appreciate the chance to speak. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia]. Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in limited support of H.R. 2854--the Agricultural Market Transition Act. I say limited support because the inclusion of the sugar and dairy provisions of this bill are essential to key components of production agriculture in my district and in my State. Without them, I find little to support in this bill. Farm programs have already been cut by 50 percent in the last 10 years. I continue to tell my colleagues that if other programs had only done half as much as agriculture, we probably would be spending time trying to deal with the budget surplus. But to continue to demand that farmers endure greater and greater cuts is a tremendous disservice to the most productive people in our economic arsenal. It is an insult to individuals who year after year generate the most positive returns on our balance of payments. Representations have been made that this sugar program is the same as it has been for the past several years. That is false. There are already significant changes proposed in the sugar program by this bill that I know many growers would prefer to avoid. The fact is that some changes have to be made to continue the program and some changes are being made. However, Mr. Chairman, there are some who dislike the sugar program because it makes sugar cost more. American consumers have been the beneficiaries of some of the most stable prices on sugar of any consumer in the w

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT
(House of Representatives - February 28, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1415-H1490] AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 366 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2854. {time} 1310 in the committee of the whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2854) to modify the operation of certain agricultural programs, with Mr. Young of Florida in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] each will be recognized for 1 hour. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at long last the House of Representatives will now consider a farm bill, and in this regard I would like to make some commentary as to the reasons why we on the Republican side adopted the policy approach that we have. In that regard I think, unfortunately, during most of the debate in this regard to this year's farm bill, much of the rhetoric has ignored several basic facts. There are dramatic changes taking place that involve U.S. agriculture. Farmers are competing for increased demand in a growing global marketplace. The Congress is serious, finally, about a balanced budget. The political climate will not permit any rubber-stamped acceptance of status quo policies in agriculture or anywhere else. Farmers and ranchers know, boy do they know, the current farm program is outdated and in need of reform. So the question is, what kind of policy takes these givens into account and makes sense? After conducting 19 hearings, traveling over 60,000 miles, and listening to over 10,000 farmers and ranchers, agribusiness men and women, and many others involved in agriculture, this is what farm country told us: One, they are sick and tired of regulatory overkill and demand regulatory reform; two, they strongly support a balanced budget. They know a balanced budget will save agriculture and farmers and ranchers $15 billion in lower production costs. They also requested a consistent and aggressive export program, and they want more flexibility and ability to respond to market signals and to make their own financial decisions. So taking all of these points into account, we have proposed an innovative approach to farm program policy. It has received the most debate of any farm program proposal in modern history. It was originally called freedom to farm, and is now before us as the Agricultural Market Transition Act. Let me explain the policy rationale. The original New Deal farm programs over 60 years ago were based on principles of supply management. If you control supply, you raise prices. Over the last 20 years, the principal justification for the programs has been that farmers received Federal assistance in return for setting aside a portion of their wherewithal, that is, their acreage. {time} 1315 That assistance was largely in the form of something we called deficiency payments to compensate farmers for prices below a Government-set target price for their production. Today, unfortunately, that system has collapsed as an effective way to deliver assistance to farmers. Worldwide agricultural competition takes our markets when we reduce production. The more we set aside, the more our competitors overseas simply increase their production by more than we set aside. They steal our market share. In short, the supply management rationale not only fails under close scrutiny by the many critics of ag policy, it has enabled our competitors to increase their production and we lose the market share. As I have indicated, the Freedom to Farm Act, Agriculture Market Transition Act, was born of an effort to create a new farm policy from an entirely new perspective. Acknowledging that budget cuts were inevitable, that we must meet our budget responsibilities, freedom to farm set up new goals and new criteria for farm policy. No. 1, get the Government out of farmers' fields. No longer do you put the seed in the ground to protect your acreage base to receive a Government subsidy. Return to farmers the ability to produce for the markets, not the Government programs. And to provide a predictable and guaranteed phasing down of Federal financial assistance. By removing Government controls on land use, freedom to farm effectively eliminates the No. 1 complaint of farmers about the programs: bureaucratic redtape, paperwork, all of the regulations and the Government interference. Endless waits at the county ASCS office or the SCS office will end. Hassles over field sizes, whether the right crop [[Page H1416]] was planted, or the correct amount of acres would be a thing of the past. Environmentalists should be pleased that the Government no longer forces the planting of surplus crops and what we call monoculture agriculture. And a producer who wants to introduce a rotation on their farm for various environmental or agronomic reasons would be free of the current restrictions. This bill builds on the conservation compliance requirements, the environmental requirements, if you will, of 1985 and 1990, of the 1985 and 1990 farm bills, and positively impacts 300 million acres. This bill is the most environmentally responsible farm program in 60 years. We will have more to say about that in the future debate. Under freedom to farm, farmers can plant or idle all their acres at their discretion. They are in control. The restrictions on what they can plant are greatly reduced. Response to the market would assume a larger role in our farmer planning. And divorcing payments from production and, by the way, we already started that when yields were frozen in 1985 and we went to flex acres and we froze target prices and we cut target prices, that has already happened, that would end any pressure from the Government in choosing crops with which to pursue. So all production incentives would come from the marketplace and the individual farmer. In return for this, we proposed a guaranteed payment, the guarantee of a fixed, albeit it declining, payment for 7 years would provide the predictability and consistency that farmers have wanted and provide certainty to creditors as a basis for lending. Listen up, Mr. and Mrs. American farmer and your banker and your farm credit troop, any other lending institution, sit down with your banker, your lender, 7 years, you know what you are going to get. You can plan on it. It is a risk management account. You do not have to wait on the Congress. The current situation in wheat, corn, and cotton country, under which our prices are very high but we do not have any crops but large numbers of producers have lost their crops due to weather or pests, that would be corrected by this kind of a payment system. These producers this year cannot access the high prices. They do not have a crop. And instead of getting help when they need it the most, the old system really cuts off their deficiency payments and even demands they pay back the advance deficiency payments. What a time. We are blowing away in the Great Plains. We are bone dry. We have prairie fires. We do not have any crops. The current farm program says pay back advanced deficiency payments, and we get no payment, no disaster payments or no help. The freedom to farm ensures that whatever financial assistance is available will be delivered regardless of the circumstances, because the producer signs a contract with the Federal Government for the next 7 years. High prices, high payments, oh, we have heard a lot of criticism about that. First, the payments will not be high. You cannot cut annual spending in half compared to the last farm program bill over the last 5 years and have high payments. That does not work. No farmer, let me repeat this to all of the critics and you will hear it in this debate, no farmer is going to take his market transition payment and retire. Farmers will continue to farm. Second, under freedom to farm, the payments made to producers must be looked at from a new perspective. It is a transition to full farmer responsibility for his economic life, a risk management account. Just as farmers will need to look to the market for production and marketing signals, freedom to farm will require that farmers manage their finances to meet all the price swings. It is true that when prices are high, farmers will receive a full market transition payment. It is equally true that if prices decline, farmers will receive no more than the fixed market transition payment. That means the farmer must manage his income, both market and Government, to account for weather and price fluctuations. But under this plan, he makes the decision, not Washington, not Congress, not the ASCS office, not the SCS office. He makes that decision. In short, under freedom to farm, we authorize the market transition payments to farmers as opposed to the current program's deficiency payments, to serve as a form of compensation as we move U.S. Agriculture from an economy heavily influenced by the Federal Government to one in which our Government role is substantially reduced and the primary influence is the marketplace. The old program did provide market insulation for each bushel of production. But that system is collapsing under the weight of budget cuts. You have heard the former chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas, the Hon. Kika de la Garza, chairman emeritus of the committee. You have heard the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], a leader in the farm community, a spokesman for agriculture. You have heard me, you have heard others talk about how farmers have already given at the office in regards to their budget responsibilities and that $65 billion in budget authority has already been cut from farm programs over the last 10 years. True. Nobody knows that in Washington, or very few know it in Washington. Not many people in the press understand that, that we have already cut ag spending 9 percent a year for about the last 9 or 10 years. Well, what is to prevent the continued slow asphyxiation in regards to budget cuts and the amount of money that we should have in regard to a responsible farm program? Under freedom to farm, we enhance the farmers' total economic situation. In fact, under freedom to farm it results in the highest net farm income over the next 7 years of any of the proposals before Congress. You represent farmers. Under this plan you have more investment in production agriculture, more farm income than any other plan. We lock it up, and we still meet our budget responsibilities. Now, if you believe there will be no more budget cuts and no more budget reconciliations and no more budget battles, freedom to farm is not for you. If you believe that if farmers just hang on a little longer, their prospects for more Government support will improve in this climate, freedom to farm is not for you. If you believe that farm programs will not continue under the budget gun, that we will not have our fingers, our arms, our legs on the budget chopping block, freedom to farm is not for you. If, however, you believe that there will be more reconciliations, that the heat on farm programs--and you will hear amendments about that in the debate on down the road during the amendment process--if you think that this heat on farm programs will only increase and that Congress needs more than deep budget cuts to present to farmers and not so slow asphyxiation, then freedom to farm makes sense. Now, the severest, the severest critics of farm programs in the press, on television, major newspapers, have hailed the freedom to farm as the most significant reform in ag policy since the 1930's. We have received national acclaim from our critics of farm program policy that this is long-needed, long-awaited reform. Our congressional critics have also decided that our freedom to farm program represents the kind of reform that they can support, and they believe that it is the kind of reform that is needed. Nearly every agriculture economist who has commented on freedom to farm has supported its structure and its probable effect on farmers in the ag sector. We are at a crossroads now, folks. We can either sink deeper into Government controls and rapidly sagging Government support and a lack of investment in regards to our ability to feed this Nation and the troubled and hungry world, or we can strike out in a new direction that at least holds out the prospect of assisted transition to a private marketplace, a market-oriented agriculture. The Freedom to Farm Act is that new direction. We need to seize it. Now is the time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2854 as currently presented to the House, and in [[Page H1417]] support of three en bloc amendments which I will be offering. Let me preface this by saying that my opposition is in no way indicative of the actions of the chairman of the committee but, rather, Mr. Chairman, in past years we have had the opportunity to prepare comprehensive farm policy in a deliberate, all-inclusive manner. When we have been required to comply with budget reconciliation instructions, the House Committee on Agriculture has complied to the tune of $50 billion in savings from 1981 through 1993. However, in this particular farm bill, if you call it a farm bill, national farm policy for the next 7 years was developed by the Republican leadership. Mr. Chairman, Americans are the best fed people in the world. They have a stable and abundant supply of nutritious food and pay a lower percentage of their disposable income for food than any other of the industrialized nations in the world. I would like to think that the House Committee on Agriculture, on a bipartisan basis and in spite of what editorial writers say, has played a constructive role in this success story. But that is no more, unfortunately. For example, last year Speaker Gingrich, the Republican leader, and the Republican whip wrote a letter to the gentleman from Kansas, Chairman Roberts. That letter dictated to the Committee on Agriculture, in no uncertain terms, the specific policy option that the committee was to choose in order to meet its reconciliation savings. No room was left for the committee to deliberate, for the committee to obtain views of farmers, of consumer groups, of the administration. That leadership-dictated policy was the foundation of what is now included in H.R. 2854. Mr. Chairman, the policy included by decree of the gentleman from Georgia, Speaker Gingrich, in the bill now before the House was first introduced as a bill in August. In a blatant rejection of our sacred principles of open government, our committee did not hold one single hearing on this proposal and still has not to this day. There were other hearings held to gather information, much before this time, but none on the proposal itself. Mr. Chairman, farmers in every region of this country have very grave concerns about the agriculture provisions before this House. They represent a sudden and dramatic abandonment by the Government of its role in sharing the farmer's risk. Farmers are particularly concerned that a sudden withdrawal of the Federal Government may make the difference in their fight to stay on the farm. Yes, they may know that each year they will get a cash payment, but if prices collapse next year, will that payment be enough? If wheat prices fall to $2.50, how many wheat farmers will be out of business in Kansas, in the Dakotas, in Washington States? If cotton prices fall back down to 45 cents, how many cotton growers spread out all over the South and areas of the Southwest will survive? If corn prices are under $2, where will the corn belt be? What if milk prices fall to $9. How many of New England's dairy farmers make it? Mr. Chairman, farmers will hope for the best. But if the best does not materialize and a substantial base of our food and fiber production capacity is lost, will we feel that it was worth the risk? All these questions, Mr. Chairman, and we have no answers; not even opinions. All we had in the Committee on Agriculture this year were a few votes. No discussion. No consideration of the views of farmers, the consumers, the businesses that thrive on the products of agriculture, those hearings on which we have always heavily relied. The policy before the House was not aired out in the Committee on Agriculture, it was dictated by the Republican leadership. When a bipartisan majority of our committee defeated this bill last fall, the Republican leadership nevertheless packaged it with tax cuts and health care program changes and forced it on the floor. {time} 1330 Mr. Chairman, it was inevitable that the President would veto that bill and he did, and I agree that it should have been vetoed. Rather than acting quickly to move farm policy forward, our committee sat until the end of January and did nothing. Only in the hours before a 3- week congressional break did our committee finally act, and again I respectively state this is through no fault of the chairman of the committee. The actions were held in other areas by other people. Mr. Chairman, a further frustration to us is that farm policy continues to be driven by outdated decisions. The Republican leadership continues to insist on cutting over $13 billion from agriculture programs. We know that these cuts were not conceived in the context of any consideration to good farm policy. We were cutting acting with numbers in a vacuum only. We have to attach faces and places to legislation. This has not been done to this day. Rather, the decision to cut the very heart out of farm programs was integral to the radical Republican policy of cutting $270 billion out of the rate of increase in Medicare and providing for a $245 billion tax cut. This has fluctuated, it has changed up and down, and the administration has become involved in these overall considerations, all of it outside of the realm of the members of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, all parties have now conceded that any tax cut will be for less, as will reductions in health care program spending as we move forward to a balanced budget. No committee in this House has provided more for a balanced budget than the Committee on Agriculture. Had every committee done what we have done, we would not be worrying about a balanced budget at this point in time. If the enormous tax and Medicare cuts have been abandoned, is it not also time to recognize that the size of the cuts ordered for agriculture should be reexamined? Those policies were after all the driving force behind the Republican decision to cut $13 billion from agriculture. Mr. Chairman, we are in a difficult position. Time is not available to fully address the errors that have been committed in this flawed process. There will be some who would say, well, there will be a conference. Conference has limitations, limitations that restrict activity by members of the conference. Farmers who should have already made crucial farming decisions are kept waiting. The very fact that we have not acted yet has jeopardized agriculture. Action in farm policy for 1996 must be taken and taken quickly. In that light, our No. 1 priority is to make what changes we can in this flawed bill to strengthen our farm economy and its rural base. Mr. Chairman, the bill is titled the ``Agriculture Market Transaction Program,'' and we believe that few have escaped the meaning of the term ``transition'': That the Federal Government will withdraw completely from its partnership with the producer in providing for the food security of our Nation. And I have just come back from my district and other parts of Texas, and they now say that ``this bill is not what we were talking about.'' We want to reduce regulation; we want to reduce needless spending. We did not want to say ``take the Government completely out as we act in unison, together, for the betterment of America.'' So they did not say that we should withdraw completely from the partnership with the producer in providing for the food security of our Nation. However, if such a transition is to occur, we believe that now is an appropriate time for investments to be made with the posttransition period in mind. Regretfully, the rule does not provide for that. It is limited in scope, it is limited as to how many amendments, what type of amendments. Many of you heard the chairman of the Committee on Rules: We did this because we did not want this many more amendments from Wisconsin, and so on. Toward the end, Mr. Chairman, we proposed to increase the Department of Agriculture's authority to invest in the rural infrastructure, water deliveries, sewage disposal. We propose to increase this authority to make investments that conserve and protect our natural resources, and we propose to make crucial investments in agriculture research, education and extension. Yesterday I was in my district, for a meeting of rural housing representatives and all you need to do is go down there and you will see the immense need in rural housing, and as I told them and I repeat to you today, the creature of G-d has a certain level of [[Page H1418]] dignity mandated by laws beyond, beyond our country and beyond this Chamber. The human dignity that needs to be addressed includes decent housing so that those of higher intellect have a decent place to live. Only within government can we form a partnership. Earning a minimum wage is not going to allow someone to buy housing for them and for their family, and we have hundreds of thousands of those people, but yet we are not addressing those areas. We propose to ensure that our highly productive oilseed industry, which will receive no benefit from the bill's contract payments, is able to continue to compete effectively in world markets. We would delete the set level for the oilseed market loan in the bill, which is set at an arbitrary fixed amount, dealing in a vacuum, and replace it with a formula based on actual market prices. Finally, we believe that our agriculture sector is so important to our Nation that we deserve a farm policy debate in 2002. To ensure that debate, we propose to retain permanent farm support authority. Therefore, on behalf of Democratic members of the Committee on Agriculture, I will offer three amendments en bloc, the first, authored by the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. The amendment would provide the Commodity Credit Corporation with the authority to dispense $3.5 billion of its funds for rural development conservation and research, education and extension. The second was written by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], who has been a tremendous inspiration in this endeavor. It would set the loan rate for oilseed marketing assistance loans at 85 percent of the 5-year average price for oilseeds, excluding the high and the low years. The third would strike the provision of the committee substitute which repeals the permanent farm law. Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed over this process. Our people deserve better from this Congress. We have been the partnership. The experts and the major periodicals in New York and San Francisco and Orange County; I keep reading editorials form Orange County about the farm, farm products, farm process, farm policy. We have in my family seven grandchildren who know more about farm policy that the editorial writers from Orange County, CA, Mr. Chairman. Also, I ask the committee and the Members to stay with us on the amendments that we will be opposing. Many of those amendments that were granted are aimed at satisfying the needs of major media. They have not spoken to agriculture. They have not spoken to rural America. They have not spoken to the people. They are looking at that headline in the major periodical. Would you trust a newspaper in New York City to set the policy for the farmers and ranchers of America? And, needless to say, Mr. Chairman, of all of the matters involving the budget, we have met our commitment. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, let me say that everything that we do as far as production in this country, manufacturing, industrial production, everything is in deficit as far as international trade is concerned. Everything is deficit. That is the free market. It is in deficit. Dollars are flowing out, dollars we do not have. The only thing that is bringing money back, green back, green dollars back, is agriculture. The only thing that is positive is agriculture. And yet they say subsidy, subsidy, subsidy. Look at this chart. You cannot see the line at the bottom. That is how much of an impact we make on the budget, seven-tenths of 1 percent is agricultures share of the trillions of dollars we spent on the budget. And then here is a major one. The green is agriculture. The red is everything else. The red is in deficit, has been. Except for selling a few high tech items and airplanes, agriculture is the only one bringing money back from abroad. So saying we need a new direction, we need another this, another that, what we need is, with the help of the good Lord, a little more rain here and less rain there, and a policy that manages, I do not care how you slice it. Every company, every industry manages, manages, and we cannot go and face the world because all other countries, most of them camouflage support of their agriculture and we would be the only one that does not support agriculture under the guise of satisfying our New York newspaper who says the free market. The free market has never existed. There has always been some manipulation. There will be more manipulation, and we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we yield to those pleas for liberators so that we can be eaten by those that camouflage their intentions and their agriculture. We need strong agriculture, we need to have a program where the government participates, and this program unfortunately phases out. Yes, you will get a little money. If somebody goes to Las Vegas and they win the first thing on the machine and second thing on the machine, they say we got it. Stay there long enough and you have lost it all. This is what this is going to do, show a little money, show a little candy up front. Eventually, 7 years, we are off and away and we will be as loose as that satellite that broke from the tether up in the skies the other day. It is loose out there and heaven knows where it is going to be. We do not want American agriculture to be in that condition. So I urge Members to support those amendments that might make this a little better, oppose those that try and destroy programs that have worked. We are the best fed people in the world, we spend less money than everyone else in the world, and, oh, the sugar, sugar, sugar. We are talking about jobs, jobs for Americans, and if you open up and the world unloads all the sugar, we are not going to have a sugar program and the people are not going to have lower prices in sugar. Even now when we did not have a sugar program the prices skyrocketed, skyrocketed to the consumer. When we have held it down to a level, when we have reduced, the product at the retail store did not come down, the product that they talk about the consumer as being gouged, that did not come down at all, the soft drinks, all of the cookies, all of the candies. They did not come down at all. We kept paying the same. But yet they blame it all on the program. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members that have listened will agree with us also that we need stability. Stability can only be done in a partnership. That partnership has worked and is working, and I hope that we continue it. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the observation to my dear friend and colleague from Texas that the New York Times editorial board did not sit in our offices when we constructed the Freedom To Farm Act, and we would not want them to sit there, but at least in terms of their opinion, it would be helpful if they would not perjure agriculture as he has indicated. Let me also say that the gentleman from Texas is affectionately called the chairman emeritus of the House Agriculture Committee for good reason. He has been a champion of agriculture, he has furnished us outstanding leadership, he is regarded all over the world as a Secretary of State of Agriculture. {time} 1345 Mr. Chairman, I checked with his seven grandchildren, who have mentioned they are going to have an appreciation night for Kika, pardon me, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], as of tomorrow in his home State of Texas. Of the seven grandchildren, four have endorsed the freedom-to-farm concept. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis]. Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the farm bill, and am proud to say I was one of the nine original sponsors of the first freedom-to-farm bill. Last year, Mr. Clinton killed freedom to farm when he vetoed the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. But make no mistake about it. Today's bill still lives up to that nickname. It still lets the folks who actually grow crops decide what to plant--and how much. They know their own soil better than all the Washington Bureaucrats combined. It cuts Government intrusive paperwork and provides the needed safety net for farmers. [[Page H1419]] In less than 2 years of representing Kentucky's Second District, I've spoken with hundreds of farmers. From the Second District alone, more than 45 members of the Kentucky Farm Bureau are here today, waiting for us to pass this bill. If there's one thing nearly all of them agree on, it's that they'd rather spend time planting and harvesting crops than filling out Government paperwork. Or drawing lines on maps. I think they may be even more excited about our crop insurance reform. After the President signs this bill, farmers won't be forced to buy crop insurance just to participate in Government programs. I think many of them will continue to but it, but these businessmen and women didn't appreciate being told to do so. They're pretty independent folks, and they're looking forward to getting some of the burden of big government off their backs. They're also pretty conservative folks. They care about the future of their children, and grandchildren. And they've told me they're happy to help balance the budget if they can spend more time in the fields and less at the ASCS office. They're still looking for further regulatory reform, and tax cuts that will help them stay in business, or pass on the family farm. We need to continue to pursue these farmer- and family-friendly measures. Mr. Chairman, today we begin to overhaul our Nation's 60-year-old agricultural policy. I congratulate Chairman Roberts' courage and vision on this matter. This is truly the most sweeping change in farm policy since the New Deal. It's good for farmers, it helps us move toward a balanced budget and it doesn't pull the rug out from under the people who feed our Nation. Mr. Chairman, let's continue to lead, let's pass the farm bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to what has been called by the author of this bill as freedom to farm. I call it freedom not to farm, because if anybody reads this bill, they will find that farmers are able to get payments, and they are not little payments, able to get payments and they do not even have to farm. That is right. I will repeat it. Farmers get payments and they do not even have to farm. It is not just 1 year, it is for 7 years. It is not for a few dollars, like a recipient of AFDC or food stamps gets. We are talking about $80,000 to some farmers. We are talking about some farmers over a period of 7 years getting well over a quarter of a million dollars, and they do not have to farm. Many of those farmers are not the little farmers. These are medium- size farmers, but they have a lot of farmland. The amount of farmland they have gives them the number of acreage that they have been farming, at least 1 out of the last 5 years, the amount of payment. They can get $80,000, and then if they have cotton and a marketing loan program, they can get another $150,000. That is $230,000 in 1 year. They can also make a half a million on the farm operation and still get the $230,000. There is something wrong here, folks. This is not getting government off your backs. This is high-priced welfare. This is not cheap welfare. This is real high-priced welfare. This is not a little $300 a month AFDC or an $80 a month Food Stamp Program, these are thousands of dollars, and over a period of years, over $1 million to some farmers, over $1 million to a farmer. What is going on? I thought we had a budget crisis. I though we had problems with money. We are going to give $36 billion away in the next 7 years, and farmers do not have to do a thing if they do not want to. If they want to, that is fine, but they do not have to. Instead of calling it freedom to farm, I would call it freedom not to farm. I do not know why they object. I had an amendment that I asked to be put in order, but the Committee on Rules did not permit it. It said at least you have to plant some crops in order to get a payment. I think that is reasonable. I think most people would think that is reasonable. But the Committee on Rules no, you cannot have that amendment; we are not going to permit that because we do not want farmers to have to plant crops in order to get these payments. I think it is terrible that this House would even consider making these kinds of payments to a very few number, about 28,000 people throughout the United States, out of 250 million in order to pass freedom not to farm. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, it is with personal pleasure that I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas], a very viable member of the committee. The gentleman not only brings expertise to the Committee on Agriculture, but he is a real, live farmer and cattleman. (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2854, the Agriculture Market Transition Act of 1996. It is the agriculture policy that will shape rural America as we head into the 21st century. This new farm policy is based on four basic themes: The current program is flawed and must be reformed; the Government must get out of the farmer's fields; farmers must have the ability to produce for the markets, not Government programs; and finally, we must provide a predictable and guaranteed phasing down, but not out, of Federal financial assistance in farm country. Taking these basic themes into account, we on the Agriculture Committee formulated the Agriculture Market Transition Act. To those who will say that this bill does not contain true reform, I would encourage you to wake up and smell the coffee. This bill is the biggest change in farm policy that we have seen since 1949. This includes peanuts, sugar, and dairy. Many during this debate will cite high commodity prices as a reason for sinking this reform. This argument has no merit. High prices are a result of a short harvest last year and another dismal crop projection this year. Sure my producers would enjoy $5 wheat if they had a crop to sell. But the reality is that the High Plains from west Texas to the Canadian border are in financial turmoil. At the time of my producers greatest need, Uncle Sam's current assistance program is no help. For in a time of short crops and high prices, the current program asks for money back. It is truly senseless. Colleagues, in short, the current program doesn't work. Our job on the committee and in this Congress is to construct a program that will stop this bleeding. I believe the Agriculture Market Transition Act is the best way to do this. My friends, agriculture is truly at a crossroads. It is time we break the bonds of the old and ring in a market oriented program that will guide us into the next century. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2854 without significant amendment. The future of rural America depends on its passage. We must have a farm bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley]. (Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the freedom to farm proposal. I think all of us would agree that there is an appropriate role for Government in farm policy. That is to provide a safety net for farmers in those years of a price collapse. It is to provide for assistance in breaking down unfair trade barriers that prevent our U.S. farmers from being competitive in the international marketplace, and also to provide assistance in the research that can ensure that our farmers will have the technology to be the low-cost competitors in the world. But it is not an appropriate role of the Federal Government to ensure that taxpayers of this country are going to be making $36.5 billion in payments to farmers over the next 7 years, regardless of what commodity prices may be. Today if Members would go into any of the commodity markets on the [[Page H1420]] major farm programs, they could forward contract in December 1996 on cotton, corn, wheat, barley, and oats, at a price that is higher than the target price today, on which our subsidies are based. On corn and cotton, you can forward contract into December 1997, covering 2 crop years, at a higher price than the target price. Under the current farm programs, the taxpayers of this country will be making minimal outlays to farmers. But under freedom to farm, what happens? We are asking the taxpayers of this country to lay out $5.6 billion in this next year, and $5.4 billion in the following year. This is just not good policy, and it lacks all common sense. In fact, we can be thankful that the same people that put together this agriculture reform were not the ones that devised our welfare reform, for if they were, we would be ensuring that anybody who received a welfare payment in 1 out of the last 5 years, that we would give them a welfare payment, guaranteed, for the next 7 years regardless of what happened to their income. They could win the lottery and the taxpayers of this country would still be obligated to write them a check for 7 years. This is bad policy. It does not ensure that farmers in the future will have that safety net; not a safety net that guarantees them a profit, but a safety net that ensures that when we have a price collapse, when income is low, that the Federal Government will be there to ensure that we do not have widespread bankruptcies throughout this land. Oftentimes people have contended that this freedom to farm is a transition to an era without subsidies. The gentleman, the Republican from Oklahoma, just recently responded that he hopes we look at this as a transition, not to transition out of programs, but to move into a new era. He is still hoping we have some financial obligations or money going into the agriculture sector post-freedom to farm. What we ought to be doing is devising a farm policy in this country that ensures that our farmers are going to have the tools to be competitive in the international marketplace. Freedom to farm does not provide that. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], a good friend and a good champion for the farmer. (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my strong support for H.R. 2845, the Agriculture Market Transition Act introduced by the gentleman from Kansas, [Mr. Roberts]. This legislation gives farmers what they want and what they need. It is a simple, consistent, and flexible farm bill to ensure successful family farming operations. I do not come to this floor totally out of touch with this issue. I was raised on a farm. My folks still farm. I spent 16 years as a farm editor before getting involved in politics some 12 years ago. I think this bill represents true reform for agricultural programs. Let us look at the reality of the situation. This body has become more urban as the years have gone by. We cannot get the votes out of this body to put together the kind of programs that have been put together in the past. It is just not there. Farmers are becoming almost like the eagle on my tie, an endangered species. There are not many of them left. Yet, if you ask the average person on the street what happens if we lose the farmers, their response is, ``It does not make any difference. I have Safeway.'' They just do not understand what is involved in the food chain. So this is the one piece of legislation that can rescue farmers. I guess it boils down to where do you put your faith? Do you trust farmers, or do you trust bureaucrats and political appointees? I am going to go with the farmers. The farmers want the liability to produce for the market instead of a Government program. They want the ability to manage their land in a resourceful type fashion, without burdensome controls and regulations. This legislation must be passed now. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) {time} 1400 Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank by colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this debate today will include an amendment that is to be offered regarding the sugar program. I rise to take my precious 3 minutes to address this amendment. Of all the Members who have sugar growers, as far as I can see in the statistics, it is grown to a much larger extent in my district than in any other Member's district. There are about 65 Members who have producers of sugar, both cane and beet, and we have a very, very large stake depending upon the outcome of this amendment. The Miller-Schumer amendment basically will eliminate U.S. domestic sugar production. All the market economists and specialists that I have spoken to indicate that if this amendment should pass today and should become law, it will virtually eliminate the U.S. sugar production. For myself and my district, it will mean about 6,000 jobs. So I ask the Members of this Chamber today in debating the farm bill to not talk about this abstract notion of commodities. We are talking about jobs. Listen to the Republican Presidential debates and you will see that the American people are concerned about jobs. When we talk about reforms, certainly, there must be reforms. We talk about cuts in the budget; of course, there must be cuts in the budget. But when you look at the sugar program, there is not one penny of tax subsidy going into this program, so why are we targeting this particular industry that is so essential? Are not farmers working Americans like any other workers anywhere else in our industries? What is the difference? These are hard-working people working under the standards that have been established by Congress, whether it is environmental, labor or health or whatever, and we want to shut them down in place of foreign sugar where there are no environmental concerns, no workers' standards, no environmental standards, no safety standards, and give a preference to foreign sugar so that a few of our mega corporations can make millions and millions of dollars at the expense of 420,000 jobs in America that are related to the sugar industry? It is mind-boggling. We are committed to the preservation of jobs in this country. We are not for shutting down businesses. Certainly, we are for balancing the budget, but no one can show me that there is one penny of taxpayers' money going into the sugar program. On the contrary, we are paying into the Treasury, and this bill that is coming up is going to add more money. I ask the Members of the House to think carefully about this amendment. Are we eliminating jobs and killing an entire industry? Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], a valued member of the committee. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture how much I appreciate his leadership through what has been a very difficult year with ag policy. We have stepped into a situation where we have had to meet budget constraints and agriculture has always been called on, even in years when we were not trying to balance the budget, to make cuts in our programs. The chairman of the committee has been a very valued asset to me personally, and I thank him for that leadership. Also to my subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], who have just done a super job in bringing us forward. And I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] for their valued friendship and leadership. I cannot leave out the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. He has just worked so diligently, the particularly [[Page H1421]] in the area of dairy. To my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], we on the other side of the aisle have had our disagreements certainly, but it has always been in a very professional and a very courteous manner, and I commend him for his leadership over there. Agriculture has always been the backbone of the economy of this country. I come from the largest agriculture county in the State of Georgia. Agriculture drives our State, and certainly agriculture drives my home county and the people there. Less than 2 percent of the people of this country feed 100 percent of the people of this country. We provide the safest, finest quality of food products on the shelves of our grocery stores of anybody in the world. We spend less than 10 cents out of every dollar on food products, whereas other industrialized countries like Japan spend over 20 cents out of every single dollar for food products. We are able to do that because of strong agriculture programs that we have in this country that provided those safe, high- quality products and we have been able to stabilize the retail cost of agricultural products over the years. But times are changing. We are moving into the 21st century. The Agricultural Marketing Transition Act moves us in the direction. I commend the chairman, and I urge the support of that bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]. Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I just heard some students out in the hallway saying, oh, they are just talking about agriculture and that is boring. The difficulty with this debate is, it is everything but boring because it is really the engine that drives the American economy and it is wonderful history and it is great culture and to understand what agriculture is, is really to listen to this debate. I happen to represent just one State that is very diverse in agriculture in California, and California farmers in my district, I think, are the most productive farmers in the world when they grow specialty crops. These are big crops in our area, but in agriculture language here in Washington, they are known as minor crops. Specialty crops produce 2.5 billion dollars' worth of fresh fruits, vegetables, and horticulture crops without any Federal price supports, without any other direct Federal support, including water. We grow lettuce and artichokes and strawberries and flowers and over 100 different crops. That is just in two, three counties in California. They have succeeded by embracing the full benefits of potential risks and of great market. They are models for American agriculture, and I believe that American agriculture must move in that direction to remain viable into the next century. But even market-driven agriculture needs a national farm policy. It needs conservation, it needs research, it needs rural development, it needs market promotion. These are all really crucial to our future success and sustainability. I think the issue about agriculture in America is to sustain it so that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren can still move into the same lands, hopefully not covered by shopping centers, and allow those great-grandchildren to be able to farm in this great country. The Federal Government has a deep responsibility to make sure that these programs help all of rural America. H.R. 2854 has some problems because it ignores some of the crucial goals of the American farm policy. While I do not like the transition program that is in the bill, I think it is too expensive and makes payments regardless of the farmer's production or market prices, it still moves agriculture toward the market, and I can support that. But I cannot support the bill if it also does not address the conservation issues, the research, and the rural development and I am particularly concerned that it does not address the loss of farmland to urban sprawl. I have coauthorized legislation with my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], to help States address the troubling loss of farmland to urbanization, over a million acres last year at current rates. The States have taken the lead in helping farmers keep this land in agriculture and out of the grasp of urban sprawl, and the Federal Government should help these States with their efforts, and so far they are not. A version of our bill was added to the Senate farm bill by Senator Santorum. Unfortunately, neither this bill nor the conservation amendment allowed by the rule includes any farmland protection measures. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the bill without adequate funding for conservation, research, and rural development. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and commend him for the outstanding job that he has done as an excellent subcommittee chairman in addressing reform in many of our farm programs, particularly in regard to sugar and peanuts, the programs that probably come under the most criticism. (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, this is crunch time for this Congress. It is time for us to act on the farm bill. This will be the first important rewrite of the depression-era farm programs that have been on the books for decades. There is some very good news in the rewrite that is being proposed here today. The good news includes that American farmers should be better off and better able to decide what they are going to plant under this proposal that is before us today. It also is good news that it brings an end to Government control of farm markets and artificially inflated prices and limited food supplies. The environment is also helped by the legislation we will consider here today by removing current farm policy, which in some cases has been a disincentive to natural crop rotation, maybe to overuse of fertilizer. Taxpayers I think should also rejoice because there is savings in the billions in this bill for agriculture. Some critics carp that the reforms do not go far enough, and yet others say the reforms go too far. The Democratic leadership in the House says that the reforms go too far, while the administration says this bill is going to cost too much and it does not go far enough. But I think that means that this is a pretty good middle-ground reform measure. The legislation holds potential for far-reaching reforms in agricultural policies and will reverse several decades of farm policy. Congress should not miss the opportunity today to pass this bill because it includes less Government, less cost to the taxpayers, more production safety net for American agriculture, and market orientation. American farmers, American farm organizations know this is a good bill and there is opportunity in here for American farmers to prosper, certainly something this Congress should be for. Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that the bill includes portions for peanuts, for sugar, for cotton, for dairy, for feed grains. The bill is a package. We cannot just pass part of this package. We must pass the package for American agriculture. Vote ``yes'' on this bill and vote ``no'' on those amendments that would gut this package. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Tejeda]. Mr. TEJEDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise now to highlight a gaping hole in this farm bill. Missing is the Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Program. For more than 50 years, this crucial program provided a vital safety net for livestock ranchers in times of severe drought. This farm bill eliminates that protection. When a severe drought hits, ranchers need assistance to maintain their livestock. The alternative for many ranchers is financial disaster. Ranchers must feed their livestock whether it rains or not--whether feed is plentiful or scarce. The Emergency Feed Assistance Program provides short-term help during such a crisis. Some of my colleagues who returned home to huge snow drifts may find this hard to believe. But right now, today, ranchers in south Texas face a sustained drought. Formerly productive pastures are turned into dust, with no end in sight. Rainfall since October is 9 inches below normal. With cattle prices low, the current drought may force many ranchers in my district to lose everything. [[Page H1422]] The Federal Government should provide a reliable program when ranchers need help preserving their livestock. Hard-working ranchers depend on us, American consumers depend on us, this program provides stability in difficult times. More than 1,000 ranchers in my district used this Emergency Feed Assistance Program last year alone. Without it, ranchers will have nowhere to turn in times of severe need. Ranchers look for all possible options during a drought, and turn to this program as a last resort. Under this farm bill, their last option will be gone. {time} 1415 Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry], a distinguished champion of agriculture. Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and all the members for the good job they have done in very difficult circumstances. Mr. Chairman, there are three things the agricultural economy in my district desperately needs. First is a good gain. No matter how important we think we are, I do not think we can do much about that. We need better cattle prices. I am not sure we can do anything about that today. Third, we need a farm bill. We are the only ones that can do something about that. It is too late now. We have got farmers, we have got bankers, fertilizer dealers, all sorts of people in the rural economies who are trying to make decisions, and we need a farm bill now so they can know what the rules of the game are going to be. I may not be thrilled with every nook and cranny of this bill, but it is something rural America can live with. It is something that will continue to provide an abundant, cheap source of food and fiber for this country that I think all too often we take for granted, and it is something that should not be broken up piece by piece, because I am concerned the whole thing would unravel at that point. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good bill. It ought to be passed. It should not be broken up, and farmers need to be able to get on about their business. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I wish that we could put the debate in context in that one would not go from one end and one would not go to the other. My distinguished colleague and friend from Texas just mentioned, ``Got to act now.'' We had all of last year to act. But you were doing some contract business of some kind and forgot the contract with American farmers and agriculture. And also that we are forcing. No one has to join the program. Any farmer anywhere in the United States is free to do what he or she wants. They do not have to join the program. They can do the free market. I know agriculture, fruit and vegetables, they do the free market and do not rely to any extent on Government. But their costs keep escalating. The costs of seed goes up. The cost of fertilizer goes up, and you do not know what the market is going to be, up or down. So, Mr. Chairman, we must remember this as one Member comes on the floor, says his thing, the one that is not here comes and say another thing; I wish we could keep it all in context. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], another real-life farmer and a very valued member of the Committee on Agriculture. (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], for the opportunity to speak here today and thank him also for the tremendous amount of work and effort that he has put into this excellent bill, and the subcommittee chairs, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], who have shown such great leadership all through this debate. This debate has gone on, I believe, too long. There has been a lot of obstruction set up. We could have had this bill done several weeks ago except for some Members in the minority stopped it through a procedural move, but it has been very, very difficult. We have had, I think, 19 hearings. We have had thousands of people give us input. Farmers, real live farmers, themselves tell us that finally we need to break the central control that Washington has on agriculture, to finally let the farmers themselves make some of their own decisions and to really respond to the market that we have today. This debate has gone on and on, and through the committee process, and I am very pleased that we did come up with a bill that had bipartisan support from the committee to really free up agriculture once and finally after 60 years, to allow individuals to actually produce on their farms what they want rather than what some bureaucrat here in Washington tells them. If you look at what happened last year in Iowa, we had two disasters, especially in southern Iowa. One was a flood that went through, and the second was the farm program did not work, and the catastrophic insurance did not work for those farmers. What we are asking those people from last year to do right now, if we would continue the current central Washington control program, is to pay back deficiency payments because markets are high even though they did not have a crop, and it is going to break those people. We have got to reform this program. We have got to pass the bill today and pass it intact, and I appreciate the chance to speak. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia]. Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in limited support of H.R. 2854--the Agricultural Market Transition Act. I say limited support because the inclusion of the sugar and dairy provisions of this bill are essential to key components of production agriculture in my district and in my State. Without them, I find little to support in this bill. Farm programs have already been cut by 50 percent in the last 10 years. I continue to tell my colleagues that if other programs had only done half as much as agriculture, we probably would be spending time trying to deal with the budget surplus. But to continue to demand that farmers endure greater and greater cuts is a tremendous disservice to the most productive people in our economic arsenal. It is an insult to individuals who year after year generate the most positive returns on our balance of payments. Representations have been made that this sugar program is the same as it has been for the past several years. That is false. There are already significant changes proposed in the sugar program by this bill that I know many growers would prefer to avoid. The fact is that some changes have to be made to continue the program and some changes are being made. However, Mr. Chairman, there are some who dislike the sugar program because it makes sugar cost more. American consumers have been the beneficiaries of some of the most stable prices on sugar of any consume

Summary:

All articles in House section

AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT
(House of Representatives - February 28, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1415-H1490] AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 366 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2854. {time} 1310 in the committee of the whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2854) to modify the operation of certain agricultural programs, with Mr. Young of Florida in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] each will be recognized for 1 hour. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at long last the House of Representatives will now consider a farm bill, and in this regard I would like to make some commentary as to the reasons why we on the Republican side adopted the policy approach that we have. In that regard I think, unfortunately, during most of the debate in this regard to this year's farm bill, much of the rhetoric has ignored several basic facts. There are dramatic changes taking place that involve U.S. agriculture. Farmers are competing for increased demand in a growing global marketplace. The Congress is serious, finally, about a balanced budget. The political climate will not permit any rubber-stamped acceptance of status quo policies in agriculture or anywhere else. Farmers and ranchers know, boy do they know, the current farm program is outdated and in need of reform. So the question is, what kind of policy takes these givens into account and makes sense? After conducting 19 hearings, traveling over 60,000 miles, and listening to over 10,000 farmers and ranchers, agribusiness men and women, and many others involved in agriculture, this is what farm country told us: One, they are sick and tired of regulatory overkill and demand regulatory reform; two, they strongly support a balanced budget. They know a balanced budget will save agriculture and farmers and ranchers $15 billion in lower production costs. They also requested a consistent and aggressive export program, and they want more flexibility and ability to respond to market signals and to make their own financial decisions. So taking all of these points into account, we have proposed an innovative approach to farm program policy. It has received the most debate of any farm program proposal in modern history. It was originally called freedom to farm, and is now before us as the Agricultural Market Transition Act. Let me explain the policy rationale. The original New Deal farm programs over 60 years ago were based on principles of supply management. If you control supply, you raise prices. Over the last 20 years, the principal justification for the programs has been that farmers received Federal assistance in return for setting aside a portion of their wherewithal, that is, their acreage. {time} 1315 That assistance was largely in the form of something we called deficiency payments to compensate farmers for prices below a Government-set target price for their production. Today, unfortunately, that system has collapsed as an effective way to deliver assistance to farmers. Worldwide agricultural competition takes our markets when we reduce production. The more we set aside, the more our competitors overseas simply increase their production by more than we set aside. They steal our market share. In short, the supply management rationale not only fails under close scrutiny by the many critics of ag policy, it has enabled our competitors to increase their production and we lose the market share. As I have indicated, the Freedom to Farm Act, Agriculture Market Transition Act, was born of an effort to create a new farm policy from an entirely new perspective. Acknowledging that budget cuts were inevitable, that we must meet our budget responsibilities, freedom to farm set up new goals and new criteria for farm policy. No. 1, get the Government out of farmers' fields. No longer do you put the seed in the ground to protect your acreage base to receive a Government subsidy. Return to farmers the ability to produce for the markets, not the Government programs. And to provide a predictable and guaranteed phasing down of Federal financial assistance. By removing Government controls on land use, freedom to farm effectively eliminates the No. 1 complaint of farmers about the programs: bureaucratic redtape, paperwork, all of the regulations and the Government interference. Endless waits at the county ASCS office or the SCS office will end. Hassles over field sizes, whether the right crop [[Page H1416]] was planted, or the correct amount of acres would be a thing of the past. Environmentalists should be pleased that the Government no longer forces the planting of surplus crops and what we call monoculture agriculture. And a producer who wants to introduce a rotation on their farm for various environmental or agronomic reasons would be free of the current restrictions. This bill builds on the conservation compliance requirements, the environmental requirements, if you will, of 1985 and 1990, of the 1985 and 1990 farm bills, and positively impacts 300 million acres. This bill is the most environmentally responsible farm program in 60 years. We will have more to say about that in the future debate. Under freedom to farm, farmers can plant or idle all their acres at their discretion. They are in control. The restrictions on what they can plant are greatly reduced. Response to the market would assume a larger role in our farmer planning. And divorcing payments from production and, by the way, we already started that when yields were frozen in 1985 and we went to flex acres and we froze target prices and we cut target prices, that has already happened, that would end any pressure from the Government in choosing crops with which to pursue. So all production incentives would come from the marketplace and the individual farmer. In return for this, we proposed a guaranteed payment, the guarantee of a fixed, albeit it declining, payment for 7 years would provide the predictability and consistency that farmers have wanted and provide certainty to creditors as a basis for lending. Listen up, Mr. and Mrs. American farmer and your banker and your farm credit troop, any other lending institution, sit down with your banker, your lender, 7 years, you know what you are going to get. You can plan on it. It is a risk management account. You do not have to wait on the Congress. The current situation in wheat, corn, and cotton country, under which our prices are very high but we do not have any crops but large numbers of producers have lost their crops due to weather or pests, that would be corrected by this kind of a payment system. These producers this year cannot access the high prices. They do not have a crop. And instead of getting help when they need it the most, the old system really cuts off their deficiency payments and even demands they pay back the advance deficiency payments. What a time. We are blowing away in the Great Plains. We are bone dry. We have prairie fires. We do not have any crops. The current farm program says pay back advanced deficiency payments, and we get no payment, no disaster payments or no help. The freedom to farm ensures that whatever financial assistance is available will be delivered regardless of the circumstances, because the producer signs a contract with the Federal Government for the next 7 years. High prices, high payments, oh, we have heard a lot of criticism about that. First, the payments will not be high. You cannot cut annual spending in half compared to the last farm program bill over the last 5 years and have high payments. That does not work. No farmer, let me repeat this to all of the critics and you will hear it in this debate, no farmer is going to take his market transition payment and retire. Farmers will continue to farm. Second, under freedom to farm, the payments made to producers must be looked at from a new perspective. It is a transition to full farmer responsibility for his economic life, a risk management account. Just as farmers will need to look to the market for production and marketing signals, freedom to farm will require that farmers manage their finances to meet all the price swings. It is true that when prices are high, farmers will receive a full market transition payment. It is equally true that if prices decline, farmers will receive no more than the fixed market transition payment. That means the farmer must manage his income, both market and Government, to account for weather and price fluctuations. But under this plan, he makes the decision, not Washington, not Congress, not the ASCS office, not the SCS office. He makes that decision. In short, under freedom to farm, we authorize the market transition payments to farmers as opposed to the current program's deficiency payments, to serve as a form of compensation as we move U.S. Agriculture from an economy heavily influenced by the Federal Government to one in which our Government role is substantially reduced and the primary influence is the marketplace. The old program did provide market insulation for each bushel of production. But that system is collapsing under the weight of budget cuts. You have heard the former chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas, the Hon. Kika de la Garza, chairman emeritus of the committee. You have heard the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], a leader in the farm community, a spokesman for agriculture. You have heard me, you have heard others talk about how farmers have already given at the office in regards to their budget responsibilities and that $65 billion in budget authority has already been cut from farm programs over the last 10 years. True. Nobody knows that in Washington, or very few know it in Washington. Not many people in the press understand that, that we have already cut ag spending 9 percent a year for about the last 9 or 10 years. Well, what is to prevent the continued slow asphyxiation in regards to budget cuts and the amount of money that we should have in regard to a responsible farm program? Under freedom to farm, we enhance the farmers' total economic situation. In fact, under freedom to farm it results in the highest net farm income over the next 7 years of any of the proposals before Congress. You represent farmers. Under this plan you have more investment in production agriculture, more farm income than any other plan. We lock it up, and we still meet our budget responsibilities. Now, if you believe there will be no more budget cuts and no more budget reconciliations and no more budget battles, freedom to farm is not for you. If you believe that if farmers just hang on a little longer, their prospects for more Government support will improve in this climate, freedom to farm is not for you. If you believe that farm programs will not continue under the budget gun, that we will not have our fingers, our arms, our legs on the budget chopping block, freedom to farm is not for you. If, however, you believe that there will be more reconciliations, that the heat on farm programs--and you will hear amendments about that in the debate on down the road during the amendment process--if you think that this heat on farm programs will only increase and that Congress needs more than deep budget cuts to present to farmers and not so slow asphyxiation, then freedom to farm makes sense. Now, the severest, the severest critics of farm programs in the press, on television, major newspapers, have hailed the freedom to farm as the most significant reform in ag policy since the 1930's. We have received national acclaim from our critics of farm program policy that this is long-needed, long-awaited reform. Our congressional critics have also decided that our freedom to farm program represents the kind of reform that they can support, and they believe that it is the kind of reform that is needed. Nearly every agriculture economist who has commented on freedom to farm has supported its structure and its probable effect on farmers in the ag sector. We are at a crossroads now, folks. We can either sink deeper into Government controls and rapidly sagging Government support and a lack of investment in regards to our ability to feed this Nation and the troubled and hungry world, or we can strike out in a new direction that at least holds out the prospect of assisted transition to a private marketplace, a market-oriented agriculture. The Freedom to Farm Act is that new direction. We need to seize it. Now is the time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2854 as currently presented to the House, and in [[Page H1417]] support of three en bloc amendments which I will be offering. Let me preface this by saying that my opposition is in no way indicative of the actions of the chairman of the committee but, rather, Mr. Chairman, in past years we have had the opportunity to prepare comprehensive farm policy in a deliberate, all-inclusive manner. When we have been required to comply with budget reconciliation instructions, the House Committee on Agriculture has complied to the tune of $50 billion in savings from 1981 through 1993. However, in this particular farm bill, if you call it a farm bill, national farm policy for the next 7 years was developed by the Republican leadership. Mr. Chairman, Americans are the best fed people in the world. They have a stable and abundant supply of nutritious food and pay a lower percentage of their disposable income for food than any other of the industrialized nations in the world. I would like to think that the House Committee on Agriculture, on a bipartisan basis and in spite of what editorial writers say, has played a constructive role in this success story. But that is no more, unfortunately. For example, last year Speaker Gingrich, the Republican leader, and the Republican whip wrote a letter to the gentleman from Kansas, Chairman Roberts. That letter dictated to the Committee on Agriculture, in no uncertain terms, the specific policy option that the committee was to choose in order to meet its reconciliation savings. No room was left for the committee to deliberate, for the committee to obtain views of farmers, of consumer groups, of the administration. That leadership-dictated policy was the foundation of what is now included in H.R. 2854. Mr. Chairman, the policy included by decree of the gentleman from Georgia, Speaker Gingrich, in the bill now before the House was first introduced as a bill in August. In a blatant rejection of our sacred principles of open government, our committee did not hold one single hearing on this proposal and still has not to this day. There were other hearings held to gather information, much before this time, but none on the proposal itself. Mr. Chairman, farmers in every region of this country have very grave concerns about the agriculture provisions before this House. They represent a sudden and dramatic abandonment by the Government of its role in sharing the farmer's risk. Farmers are particularly concerned that a sudden withdrawal of the Federal Government may make the difference in their fight to stay on the farm. Yes, they may know that each year they will get a cash payment, but if prices collapse next year, will that payment be enough? If wheat prices fall to $2.50, how many wheat farmers will be out of business in Kansas, in the Dakotas, in Washington States? If cotton prices fall back down to 45 cents, how many cotton growers spread out all over the South and areas of the Southwest will survive? If corn prices are under $2, where will the corn belt be? What if milk prices fall to $9. How many of New England's dairy farmers make it? Mr. Chairman, farmers will hope for the best. But if the best does not materialize and a substantial base of our food and fiber production capacity is lost, will we feel that it was worth the risk? All these questions, Mr. Chairman, and we have no answers; not even opinions. All we had in the Committee on Agriculture this year were a few votes. No discussion. No consideration of the views of farmers, the consumers, the businesses that thrive on the products of agriculture, those hearings on which we have always heavily relied. The policy before the House was not aired out in the Committee on Agriculture, it was dictated by the Republican leadership. When a bipartisan majority of our committee defeated this bill last fall, the Republican leadership nevertheless packaged it with tax cuts and health care program changes and forced it on the floor. {time} 1330 Mr. Chairman, it was inevitable that the President would veto that bill and he did, and I agree that it should have been vetoed. Rather than acting quickly to move farm policy forward, our committee sat until the end of January and did nothing. Only in the hours before a 3- week congressional break did our committee finally act, and again I respectively state this is through no fault of the chairman of the committee. The actions were held in other areas by other people. Mr. Chairman, a further frustration to us is that farm policy continues to be driven by outdated decisions. The Republican leadership continues to insist on cutting over $13 billion from agriculture programs. We know that these cuts were not conceived in the context of any consideration to good farm policy. We were cutting acting with numbers in a vacuum only. We have to attach faces and places to legislation. This has not been done to this day. Rather, the decision to cut the very heart out of farm programs was integral to the radical Republican policy of cutting $270 billion out of the rate of increase in Medicare and providing for a $245 billion tax cut. This has fluctuated, it has changed up and down, and the administration has become involved in these overall considerations, all of it outside of the realm of the members of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, all parties have now conceded that any tax cut will be for less, as will reductions in health care program spending as we move forward to a balanced budget. No committee in this House has provided more for a balanced budget than the Committee on Agriculture. Had every committee done what we have done, we would not be worrying about a balanced budget at this point in time. If the enormous tax and Medicare cuts have been abandoned, is it not also time to recognize that the size of the cuts ordered for agriculture should be reexamined? Those policies were after all the driving force behind the Republican decision to cut $13 billion from agriculture. Mr. Chairman, we are in a difficult position. Time is not available to fully address the errors that have been committed in this flawed process. There will be some who would say, well, there will be a conference. Conference has limitations, limitations that restrict activity by members of the conference. Farmers who should have already made crucial farming decisions are kept waiting. The very fact that we have not acted yet has jeopardized agriculture. Action in farm policy for 1996 must be taken and taken quickly. In that light, our No. 1 priority is to make what changes we can in this flawed bill to strengthen our farm economy and its rural base. Mr. Chairman, the bill is titled the ``Agriculture Market Transaction Program,'' and we believe that few have escaped the meaning of the term ``transition'': That the Federal Government will withdraw completely from its partnership with the producer in providing for the food security of our Nation. And I have just come back from my district and other parts of Texas, and they now say that ``this bill is not what we were talking about.'' We want to reduce regulation; we want to reduce needless spending. We did not want to say ``take the Government completely out as we act in unison, together, for the betterment of America.'' So they did not say that we should withdraw completely from the partnership with the producer in providing for the food security of our Nation. However, if such a transition is to occur, we believe that now is an appropriate time for investments to be made with the posttransition period in mind. Regretfully, the rule does not provide for that. It is limited in scope, it is limited as to how many amendments, what type of amendments. Many of you heard the chairman of the Committee on Rules: We did this because we did not want this many more amendments from Wisconsin, and so on. Toward the end, Mr. Chairman, we proposed to increase the Department of Agriculture's authority to invest in the rural infrastructure, water deliveries, sewage disposal. We propose to increase this authority to make investments that conserve and protect our natural resources, and we propose to make crucial investments in agriculture research, education and extension. Yesterday I was in my district, for a meeting of rural housing representatives and all you need to do is go down there and you will see the immense need in rural housing, and as I told them and I repeat to you today, the creature of G-d has a certain level of [[Page H1418]] dignity mandated by laws beyond, beyond our country and beyond this Chamber. The human dignity that needs to be addressed includes decent housing so that those of higher intellect have a decent place to live. Only within government can we form a partnership. Earning a minimum wage is not going to allow someone to buy housing for them and for their family, and we have hundreds of thousands of those people, but yet we are not addressing those areas. We propose to ensure that our highly productive oilseed industry, which will receive no benefit from the bill's contract payments, is able to continue to compete effectively in world markets. We would delete the set level for the oilseed market loan in the bill, which is set at an arbitrary fixed amount, dealing in a vacuum, and replace it with a formula based on actual market prices. Finally, we believe that our agriculture sector is so important to our Nation that we deserve a farm policy debate in 2002. To ensure that debate, we propose to retain permanent farm support authority. Therefore, on behalf of Democratic members of the Committee on Agriculture, I will offer three amendments en bloc, the first, authored by the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. The amendment would provide the Commodity Credit Corporation with the authority to dispense $3.5 billion of its funds for rural development conservation and research, education and extension. The second was written by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], who has been a tremendous inspiration in this endeavor. It would set the loan rate for oilseed marketing assistance loans at 85 percent of the 5-year average price for oilseeds, excluding the high and the low years. The third would strike the provision of the committee substitute which repeals the permanent farm law. Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed over this process. Our people deserve better from this Congress. We have been the partnership. The experts and the major periodicals in New York and San Francisco and Orange County; I keep reading editorials form Orange County about the farm, farm products, farm process, farm policy. We have in my family seven grandchildren who know more about farm policy that the editorial writers from Orange County, CA, Mr. Chairman. Also, I ask the committee and the Members to stay with us on the amendments that we will be opposing. Many of those amendments that were granted are aimed at satisfying the needs of major media. They have not spoken to agriculture. They have not spoken to rural America. They have not spoken to the people. They are looking at that headline in the major periodical. Would you trust a newspaper in New York City to set the policy for the farmers and ranchers of America? And, needless to say, Mr. Chairman, of all of the matters involving the budget, we have met our commitment. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, let me say that everything that we do as far as production in this country, manufacturing, industrial production, everything is in deficit as far as international trade is concerned. Everything is deficit. That is the free market. It is in deficit. Dollars are flowing out, dollars we do not have. The only thing that is bringing money back, green back, green dollars back, is agriculture. The only thing that is positive is agriculture. And yet they say subsidy, subsidy, subsidy. Look at this chart. You cannot see the line at the bottom. That is how much of an impact we make on the budget, seven-tenths of 1 percent is agricultures share of the trillions of dollars we spent on the budget. And then here is a major one. The green is agriculture. The red is everything else. The red is in deficit, has been. Except for selling a few high tech items and airplanes, agriculture is the only one bringing money back from abroad. So saying we need a new direction, we need another this, another that, what we need is, with the help of the good Lord, a little more rain here and less rain there, and a policy that manages, I do not care how you slice it. Every company, every industry manages, manages, and we cannot go and face the world because all other countries, most of them camouflage support of their agriculture and we would be the only one that does not support agriculture under the guise of satisfying our New York newspaper who says the free market. The free market has never existed. There has always been some manipulation. There will be more manipulation, and we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we yield to those pleas for liberators so that we can be eaten by those that camouflage their intentions and their agriculture. We need strong agriculture, we need to have a program where the government participates, and this program unfortunately phases out. Yes, you will get a little money. If somebody goes to Las Vegas and they win the first thing on the machine and second thing on the machine, they say we got it. Stay there long enough and you have lost it all. This is what this is going to do, show a little money, show a little candy up front. Eventually, 7 years, we are off and away and we will be as loose as that satellite that broke from the tether up in the skies the other day. It is loose out there and heaven knows where it is going to be. We do not want American agriculture to be in that condition. So I urge Members to support those amendments that might make this a little better, oppose those that try and destroy programs that have worked. We are the best fed people in the world, we spend less money than everyone else in the world, and, oh, the sugar, sugar, sugar. We are talking about jobs, jobs for Americans, and if you open up and the world unloads all the sugar, we are not going to have a sugar program and the people are not going to have lower prices in sugar. Even now when we did not have a sugar program the prices skyrocketed, skyrocketed to the consumer. When we have held it down to a level, when we have reduced, the product at the retail store did not come down, the product that they talk about the consumer as being gouged, that did not come down at all, the soft drinks, all of the cookies, all of the candies. They did not come down at all. We kept paying the same. But yet they blame it all on the program. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members that have listened will agree with us also that we need stability. Stability can only be done in a partnership. That partnership has worked and is working, and I hope that we continue it. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the observation to my dear friend and colleague from Texas that the New York Times editorial board did not sit in our offices when we constructed the Freedom To Farm Act, and we would not want them to sit there, but at least in terms of their opinion, it would be helpful if they would not perjure agriculture as he has indicated. Let me also say that the gentleman from Texas is affectionately called the chairman emeritus of the House Agriculture Committee for good reason. He has been a champion of agriculture, he has furnished us outstanding leadership, he is regarded all over the world as a Secretary of State of Agriculture. {time} 1345 Mr. Chairman, I checked with his seven grandchildren, who have mentioned they are going to have an appreciation night for Kika, pardon me, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], as of tomorrow in his home State of Texas. Of the seven grandchildren, four have endorsed the freedom-to-farm concept. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis]. Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the farm bill, and am proud to say I was one of the nine original sponsors of the first freedom-to-farm bill. Last year, Mr. Clinton killed freedom to farm when he vetoed the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. But make no mistake about it. Today's bill still lives up to that nickname. It still lets the folks who actually grow crops decide what to plant--and how much. They know their own soil better than all the Washington Bureaucrats combined. It cuts Government intrusive paperwork and provides the needed safety net for farmers. [[Page H1419]] In less than 2 years of representing Kentucky's Second District, I've spoken with hundreds of farmers. From the Second District alone, more than 45 members of the Kentucky Farm Bureau are here today, waiting for us to pass this bill. If there's one thing nearly all of them agree on, it's that they'd rather spend time planting and harvesting crops than filling out Government paperwork. Or drawing lines on maps. I think they may be even more excited about our crop insurance reform. After the President signs this bill, farmers won't be forced to buy crop insurance just to participate in Government programs. I think many of them will continue to but it, but these businessmen and women didn't appreciate being told to do so. They're pretty independent folks, and they're looking forward to getting some of the burden of big government off their backs. They're also pretty conservative folks. They care about the future of their children, and grandchildren. And they've told me they're happy to help balance the budget if they can spend more time in the fields and less at the ASCS office. They're still looking for further regulatory reform, and tax cuts that will help them stay in business, or pass on the family farm. We need to continue to pursue these farmer- and family-friendly measures. Mr. Chairman, today we begin to overhaul our Nation's 60-year-old agricultural policy. I congratulate Chairman Roberts' courage and vision on this matter. This is truly the most sweeping change in farm policy since the New Deal. It's good for farmers, it helps us move toward a balanced budget and it doesn't pull the rug out from under the people who feed our Nation. Mr. Chairman, let's continue to lead, let's pass the farm bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to what has been called by the author of this bill as freedom to farm. I call it freedom not to farm, because if anybody reads this bill, they will find that farmers are able to get payments, and they are not little payments, able to get payments and they do not even have to farm. That is right. I will repeat it. Farmers get payments and they do not even have to farm. It is not just 1 year, it is for 7 years. It is not for a few dollars, like a recipient of AFDC or food stamps gets. We are talking about $80,000 to some farmers. We are talking about some farmers over a period of 7 years getting well over a quarter of a million dollars, and they do not have to farm. Many of those farmers are not the little farmers. These are medium- size farmers, but they have a lot of farmland. The amount of farmland they have gives them the number of acreage that they have been farming, at least 1 out of the last 5 years, the amount of payment. They can get $80,000, and then if they have cotton and a marketing loan program, they can get another $150,000. That is $230,000 in 1 year. They can also make a half a million on the farm operation and still get the $230,000. There is something wrong here, folks. This is not getting government off your backs. This is high-priced welfare. This is not cheap welfare. This is real high-priced welfare. This is not a little $300 a month AFDC or an $80 a month Food Stamp Program, these are thousands of dollars, and over a period of years, over $1 million to some farmers, over $1 million to a farmer. What is going on? I thought we had a budget crisis. I though we had problems with money. We are going to give $36 billion away in the next 7 years, and farmers do not have to do a thing if they do not want to. If they want to, that is fine, but they do not have to. Instead of calling it freedom to farm, I would call it freedom not to farm. I do not know why they object. I had an amendment that I asked to be put in order, but the Committee on Rules did not permit it. It said at least you have to plant some crops in order to get a payment. I think that is reasonable. I think most people would think that is reasonable. But the Committee on Rules no, you cannot have that amendment; we are not going to permit that because we do not want farmers to have to plant crops in order to get these payments. I think it is terrible that this House would even consider making these kinds of payments to a very few number, about 28,000 people throughout the United States, out of 250 million in order to pass freedom not to farm. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, it is with personal pleasure that I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas], a very viable member of the committee. The gentleman not only brings expertise to the Committee on Agriculture, but he is a real, live farmer and cattleman. (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2854, the Agriculture Market Transition Act of 1996. It is the agriculture policy that will shape rural America as we head into the 21st century. This new farm policy is based on four basic themes: The current program is flawed and must be reformed; the Government must get out of the farmer's fields; farmers must have the ability to produce for the markets, not Government programs; and finally, we must provide a predictable and guaranteed phasing down, but not out, of Federal financial assistance in farm country. Taking these basic themes into account, we on the Agriculture Committee formulated the Agriculture Market Transition Act. To those who will say that this bill does not contain true reform, I would encourage you to wake up and smell the coffee. This bill is the biggest change in farm policy that we have seen since 1949. This includes peanuts, sugar, and dairy. Many during this debate will cite high commodity prices as a reason for sinking this reform. This argument has no merit. High prices are a result of a short harvest last year and another dismal crop projection this year. Sure my producers would enjoy $5 wheat if they had a crop to sell. But the reality is that the High Plains from west Texas to the Canadian border are in financial turmoil. At the time of my producers greatest need, Uncle Sam's current assistance program is no help. For in a time of short crops and high prices, the current program asks for money back. It is truly senseless. Colleagues, in short, the current program doesn't work. Our job on the committee and in this Congress is to construct a program that will stop this bleeding. I believe the Agriculture Market Transition Act is the best way to do this. My friends, agriculture is truly at a crossroads. It is time we break the bonds of the old and ring in a market oriented program that will guide us into the next century. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2854 without significant amendment. The future of rural America depends on its passage. We must have a farm bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley]. (Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the freedom to farm proposal. I think all of us would agree that there is an appropriate role for Government in farm policy. That is to provide a safety net for farmers in those years of a price collapse. It is to provide for assistance in breaking down unfair trade barriers that prevent our U.S. farmers from being competitive in the international marketplace, and also to provide assistance in the research that can ensure that our farmers will have the technology to be the low-cost competitors in the world. But it is not an appropriate role of the Federal Government to ensure that taxpayers of this country are going to be making $36.5 billion in payments to farmers over the next 7 years, regardless of what commodity prices may be. Today if Members would go into any of the commodity markets on the [[Page H1420]] major farm programs, they could forward contract in December 1996 on cotton, corn, wheat, barley, and oats, at a price that is higher than the target price today, on which our subsidies are based. On corn and cotton, you can forward contract into December 1997, covering 2 crop years, at a higher price than the target price. Under the current farm programs, the taxpayers of this country will be making minimal outlays to farmers. But under freedom to farm, what happens? We are asking the taxpayers of this country to lay out $5.6 billion in this next year, and $5.4 billion in the following year. This is just not good policy, and it lacks all common sense. In fact, we can be thankful that the same people that put together this agriculture reform were not the ones that devised our welfare reform, for if they were, we would be ensuring that anybody who received a welfare payment in 1 out of the last 5 years, that we would give them a welfare payment, guaranteed, for the next 7 years regardless of what happened to their income. They could win the lottery and the taxpayers of this country would still be obligated to write them a check for 7 years. This is bad policy. It does not ensure that farmers in the future will have that safety net; not a safety net that guarantees them a profit, but a safety net that ensures that when we have a price collapse, when income is low, that the Federal Government will be there to ensure that we do not have widespread bankruptcies throughout this land. Oftentimes people have contended that this freedom to farm is a transition to an era without subsidies. The gentleman, the Republican from Oklahoma, just recently responded that he hopes we look at this as a transition, not to transition out of programs, but to move into a new era. He is still hoping we have some financial obligations or money going into the agriculture sector post-freedom to farm. What we ought to be doing is devising a farm policy in this country that ensures that our farmers are going to have the tools to be competitive in the international marketplace. Freedom to farm does not provide that. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], a good friend and a good champion for the farmer. (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my strong support for H.R. 2845, the Agriculture Market Transition Act introduced by the gentleman from Kansas, [Mr. Roberts]. This legislation gives farmers what they want and what they need. It is a simple, consistent, and flexible farm bill to ensure successful family farming operations. I do not come to this floor totally out of touch with this issue. I was raised on a farm. My folks still farm. I spent 16 years as a farm editor before getting involved in politics some 12 years ago. I think this bill represents true reform for agricultural programs. Let us look at the reality of the situation. This body has become more urban as the years have gone by. We cannot get the votes out of this body to put together the kind of programs that have been put together in the past. It is just not there. Farmers are becoming almost like the eagle on my tie, an endangered species. There are not many of them left. Yet, if you ask the average person on the street what happens if we lose the farmers, their response is, ``It does not make any difference. I have Safeway.'' They just do not understand what is involved in the food chain. So this is the one piece of legislation that can rescue farmers. I guess it boils down to where do you put your faith? Do you trust farmers, or do you trust bureaucrats and political appointees? I am going to go with the farmers. The farmers want the liability to produce for the market instead of a Government program. They want the ability to manage their land in a resourceful type fashion, without burdensome controls and regulations. This legislation must be passed now. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) {time} 1400 Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank by colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this debate today will include an amendment that is to be offered regarding the sugar program. I rise to take my precious 3 minutes to address this amendment. Of all the Members who have sugar growers, as far as I can see in the statistics, it is grown to a much larger extent in my district than in any other Member's district. There are about 65 Members who have producers of sugar, both cane and beet, and we have a very, very large stake depending upon the outcome of this amendment. The Miller-Schumer amendment basically will eliminate U.S. domestic sugar production. All the market economists and specialists that I have spoken to indicate that if this amendment should pass today and should become law, it will virtually eliminate the U.S. sugar production. For myself and my district, it will mean about 6,000 jobs. So I ask the Members of this Chamber today in debating the farm bill to not talk about this abstract notion of commodities. We are talking about jobs. Listen to the Republican Presidential debates and you will see that the American people are concerned about jobs. When we talk about reforms, certainly, there must be reforms. We talk about cuts in the budget; of course, there must be cuts in the budget. But when you look at the sugar program, there is not one penny of tax subsidy going into this program, so why are we targeting this particular industry that is so essential? Are not farmers working Americans like any other workers anywhere else in our industries? What is the difference? These are hard-working people working under the standards that have been established by Congress, whether it is environmental, labor or health or whatever, and we want to shut them down in place of foreign sugar where there are no environmental concerns, no workers' standards, no environmental standards, no safety standards, and give a preference to foreign sugar so that a few of our mega corporations can make millions and millions of dollars at the expense of 420,000 jobs in America that are related to the sugar industry? It is mind-boggling. We are committed to the preservation of jobs in this country. We are not for shutting down businesses. Certainly, we are for balancing the budget, but no one can show me that there is one penny of taxpayers' money going into the sugar program. On the contrary, we are paying into the Treasury, and this bill that is coming up is going to add more money. I ask the Members of the House to think carefully about this amendment. Are we eliminating jobs and killing an entire industry? Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], a valued member of the committee. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture how much I appreciate his leadership through what has been a very difficult year with ag policy. We have stepped into a situation where we have had to meet budget constraints and agriculture has always been called on, even in years when we were not trying to balance the budget, to make cuts in our programs. The chairman of the committee has been a very valued asset to me personally, and I thank him for that leadership. Also to my subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], who have just done a super job in bringing us forward. And I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] for their valued friendship and leadership. I cannot leave out the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. He has just worked so diligently, the particularly [[Page H1421]] in the area of dairy. To my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], we on the other side of the aisle have had our disagreements certainly, but it has always been in a very professional and a very courteous manner, and I commend him for his leadership over there. Agriculture has always been the backbone of the economy of this country. I come from the largest agriculture county in the State of Georgia. Agriculture drives our State, and certainly agriculture drives my home county and the people there. Less than 2 percent of the people of this country feed 100 percent of the people of this country. We provide the safest, finest quality of food products on the shelves of our grocery stores of anybody in the world. We spend less than 10 cents out of every dollar on food products, whereas other industrialized countries like Japan spend over 20 cents out of every single dollar for food products. We are able to do that because of strong agriculture programs that we have in this country that provided those safe, high- quality products and we have been able to stabilize the retail cost of agricultural products over the years. But times are changing. We are moving into the 21st century. The Agricultural Marketing Transition Act moves us in the direction. I commend the chairman, and I urge the support of that bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]. Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I just heard some students out in the hallway saying, oh, they are just talking about agriculture and that is boring. The difficulty with this debate is, it is everything but boring because it is really the engine that drives the American economy and it is wonderful history and it is great culture and to understand what agriculture is, is really to listen to this debate. I happen to represent just one State that is very diverse in agriculture in California, and California farmers in my district, I think, are the most productive farmers in the world when they grow specialty crops. These are big crops in our area, but in agriculture language here in Washington, they are known as minor crops. Specialty crops produce 2.5 billion dollars' worth of fresh fruits, vegetables, and horticulture crops without any Federal price supports, without any other direct Federal support, including water. We grow lettuce and artichokes and strawberries and flowers and over 100 different crops. That is just in two, three counties in California. They have succeeded by embracing the full benefits of potential risks and of great market. They are models for American agriculture, and I believe that American agriculture must move in that direction to remain viable into the next century. But even market-driven agriculture needs a national farm policy. It needs conservation, it needs research, it needs rural development, it needs market promotion. These are all really crucial to our future success and sustainability. I think the issue about agriculture in America is to sustain it so that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren can still move into the same lands, hopefully not covered by shopping centers, and allow those great-grandchildren to be able to farm in this great country. The Federal Government has a deep responsibility to make sure that these programs help all of rural America. H.R. 2854 has some problems because it ignores some of the crucial goals of the American farm policy. While I do not like the transition program that is in the bill, I think it is too expensive and makes payments regardless of the farmer's production or market prices, it still moves agriculture toward the market, and I can support that. But I cannot support the bill if it also does not address the conservation issues, the research, and the rural development and I am particularly concerned that it does not address the loss of farmland to urban sprawl. I have coauthorized legislation with my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], to help States address the troubling loss of farmland to urbanization, over a million acres last year at current rates. The States have taken the lead in helping farmers keep this land in agriculture and out of the grasp of urban sprawl, and the Federal Government should help these States with their efforts, and so far they are not. A version of our bill was added to the Senate farm bill by Senator Santorum. Unfortunately, neither this bill nor the conservation amendment allowed by the rule includes any farmland protection measures. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the bill without adequate funding for conservation, research, and rural development. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and commend him for the outstanding job that he has done as an excellent subcommittee chairman in addressing reform in many of our farm programs, particularly in regard to sugar and peanuts, the programs that probably come under the most criticism. (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, this is crunch time for this Congress. It is time for us to act on the farm bill. This will be the first important rewrite of the depression-era farm programs that have been on the books for decades. There is some very good news in the rewrite that is being proposed here today. The good news includes that American farmers should be better off and better able to decide what they are going to plant under this proposal that is before us today. It also is good news that it brings an end to Government control of farm markets and artificially inflated prices and limited food supplies. The environment is also helped by the legislation we will consider here today by removing current farm policy, which in some cases has been a disincentive to natural crop rotation, maybe to overuse of fertilizer. Taxpayers I think should also rejoice because there is savings in the billions in this bill for agriculture. Some critics carp that the reforms do not go far enough, and yet others say the reforms go too far. The Democratic leadership in the House says that the reforms go too far, while the administration says this bill is going to cost too much and it does not go far enough. But I think that means that this is a pretty good middle-ground reform measure. The legislation holds potential for far-reaching reforms in agricultural policies and will reverse several decades of farm policy. Congress should not miss the opportunity today to pass this bill because it includes less Government, less cost to the taxpayers, more production safety net for American agriculture, and market orientation. American farmers, American farm organizations know this is a good bill and there is opportunity in here for American farmers to prosper, certainly something this Congress should be for. Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that the bill includes portions for peanuts, for sugar, for cotton, for dairy, for feed grains. The bill is a package. We cannot just pass part of this package. We must pass the package for American agriculture. Vote ``yes'' on this bill and vote ``no'' on those amendments that would gut this package. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Tejeda]. Mr. TEJEDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise now to highlight a gaping hole in this farm bill. Missing is the Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Program. For more than 50 years, this crucial program provided a vital safety net for livestock ranchers in times of severe drought. This farm bill eliminates that protection. When a severe drought hits, ranchers need assistance to maintain their livestock. The alternative for many ranchers is financial disaster. Ranchers must feed their livestock whether it rains or not--whether feed is plentiful or scarce. The Emergency Feed Assistance Program provides short-term help during such a crisis. Some of my colleagues who returned home to huge snow drifts may find this hard to believe. But right now, today, ranchers in south Texas face a sustained drought. Formerly productive pastures are turned into dust, with no end in sight. Rainfall since October is 9 inches below normal. With cattle prices low, the current drought may force many ranchers in my district to lose everything. [[Page H1422]] The Federal Government should provide a reliable program when ranchers need help preserving their livestock. Hard-working ranchers depend on us, American consumers depend on us, this program provides stability in difficult times. More than 1,000 ranchers in my district used this Emergency Feed Assistance Program last year alone. Without it, ranchers will have nowhere to turn in times of severe need. Ranchers look for all possible options during a drought, and turn to this program as a last resort. Under this farm bill, their last option will be gone. {time} 1415 Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry], a distinguished champion of agriculture. Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and all the members for the good job they have done in very difficult circumstances. Mr. Chairman, there are three things the agricultural economy in my district desperately needs. First is a good gain. No matter how important we think we are, I do not think we can do much about that. We need better cattle prices. I am not sure we can do anything about that today. Third, we need a farm bill. We are the only ones that can do something about that. It is too late now. We have got farmers, we have got bankers, fertilizer dealers, all sorts of people in the rural economies who are trying to make decisions, and we need a farm bill now so they can know what the rules of the game are going to be. I may not be thrilled with every nook and cranny of this bill, but it is something rural America can live with. It is something that will continue to provide an abundant, cheap source of food and fiber for this country that I think all too often we take for granted, and it is something that should not be broken up piece by piece, because I am concerned the whole thing would unravel at that point. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good bill. It ought to be passed. It should not be broken up, and farmers need to be able to get on about their business. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I wish that we could put the debate in context in that one would not go from one end and one would not go to the other. My distinguished colleague and friend from Texas just mentioned, ``Got to act now.'' We had all of last year to act. But you were doing some contract business of some kind and forgot the contract with American farmers and agriculture. And also that we are forcing. No one has to join the program. Any farmer anywhere in the United States is free to do what he or she wants. They do not have to join the program. They can do the free market. I know agriculture, fruit and vegetables, they do the free market and do not rely to any extent on Government. But their costs keep escalating. The costs of seed goes up. The cost of fertilizer goes up, and you do not know what the market is going to be, up or down. So, Mr. Chairman, we must remember this as one Member comes on the floor, says his thing, the one that is not here comes and say another thing; I wish we could keep it all in context. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], another real-life farmer and a very valued member of the Committee on Agriculture. (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], for the opportunity to speak here today and thank him also for the tremendous amount of work and effort that he has put into this excellent bill, and the subcommittee chairs, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], who have shown such great leadership all through this debate. This debate has gone on, I believe, too long. There has been a lot of obstruction set up. We could have had this bill done several weeks ago except for some Members in the minority stopped it through a procedural move, but it has been very, very difficult. We have had, I think, 19 hearings. We have had thousands of people give us input. Farmers, real live farmers, themselves tell us that finally we need to break the central control that Washington has on agriculture, to finally let the farmers themselves make some of their own decisions and to really respond to the market that we have today. This debate has gone on and on, and through the committee process, and I am very pleased that we did come up with a bill that had bipartisan support from the committee to really free up agriculture once and finally after 60 years, to allow individuals to actually produce on their farms what they want rather than what some bureaucrat here in Washington tells them. If you look at what happened last year in Iowa, we had two disasters, especially in southern Iowa. One was a flood that went through, and the second was the farm program did not work, and the catastrophic insurance did not work for those farmers. What we are asking those people from last year to do right now, if we would continue the current central Washington control program, is to pay back deficiency payments because markets are high even though they did not have a crop, and it is going to break those people. We have got to reform this program. We have got to pass the bill today and pass it intact, and I appreciate the chance to speak. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia]. Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in limited support of H.R. 2854--the Agricultural Market Transition Act. I say limited support because the inclusion of the sugar and dairy provisions of this bill are essential to key components of production agriculture in my district and in my State. Without them, I find little to support in this bill. Farm programs have already been cut by 50 percent in the last 10 years. I continue to tell my colleagues that if other programs had only done half as much as agriculture, we probably would be spending time trying to deal with the budget surplus. But to continue to demand that farmers endure greater and greater cuts is a tremendous disservice to the most productive people in our economic arsenal. It is an insult to individuals who year after year generate the most positive returns on our balance of payments. Representations have been made that this sugar program is the same as it has been for the past several years. That is false. There are already significant changes proposed in the sugar program by this bill that I know many growers would prefer to avoid. The fact is that some changes have to be made to continue the program and some changes are being made. However, Mr. Chairman, there are some who dislike the sugar program because it makes sugar cost more. American consumers have been the beneficiaries of some of the most stable prices on sugar of any consumer in the w

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT
(House of Representatives - February 28, 1996)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H1415-H1490] AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 366 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2854. {time} 1310 in the committee of the whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 2854) to modify the operation of certain agricultural programs, with Mr. Young of Florida in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] each will be recognized for 1 hour. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at long last the House of Representatives will now consider a farm bill, and in this regard I would like to make some commentary as to the reasons why we on the Republican side adopted the policy approach that we have. In that regard I think, unfortunately, during most of the debate in this regard to this year's farm bill, much of the rhetoric has ignored several basic facts. There are dramatic changes taking place that involve U.S. agriculture. Farmers are competing for increased demand in a growing global marketplace. The Congress is serious, finally, about a balanced budget. The political climate will not permit any rubber-stamped acceptance of status quo policies in agriculture or anywhere else. Farmers and ranchers know, boy do they know, the current farm program is outdated and in need of reform. So the question is, what kind of policy takes these givens into account and makes sense? After conducting 19 hearings, traveling over 60,000 miles, and listening to over 10,000 farmers and ranchers, agribusiness men and women, and many others involved in agriculture, this is what farm country told us: One, they are sick and tired of regulatory overkill and demand regulatory reform; two, they strongly support a balanced budget. They know a balanced budget will save agriculture and farmers and ranchers $15 billion in lower production costs. They also requested a consistent and aggressive export program, and they want more flexibility and ability to respond to market signals and to make their own financial decisions. So taking all of these points into account, we have proposed an innovative approach to farm program policy. It has received the most debate of any farm program proposal in modern history. It was originally called freedom to farm, and is now before us as the Agricultural Market Transition Act. Let me explain the policy rationale. The original New Deal farm programs over 60 years ago were based on principles of supply management. If you control supply, you raise prices. Over the last 20 years, the principal justification for the programs has been that farmers received Federal assistance in return for setting aside a portion of their wherewithal, that is, their acreage. {time} 1315 That assistance was largely in the form of something we called deficiency payments to compensate farmers for prices below a Government-set target price for their production. Today, unfortunately, that system has collapsed as an effective way to deliver assistance to farmers. Worldwide agricultural competition takes our markets when we reduce production. The more we set aside, the more our competitors overseas simply increase their production by more than we set aside. They steal our market share. In short, the supply management rationale not only fails under close scrutiny by the many critics of ag policy, it has enabled our competitors to increase their production and we lose the market share. As I have indicated, the Freedom to Farm Act, Agriculture Market Transition Act, was born of an effort to create a new farm policy from an entirely new perspective. Acknowledging that budget cuts were inevitable, that we must meet our budget responsibilities, freedom to farm set up new goals and new criteria for farm policy. No. 1, get the Government out of farmers' fields. No longer do you put the seed in the ground to protect your acreage base to receive a Government subsidy. Return to farmers the ability to produce for the markets, not the Government programs. And to provide a predictable and guaranteed phasing down of Federal financial assistance. By removing Government controls on land use, freedom to farm effectively eliminates the No. 1 complaint of farmers about the programs: bureaucratic redtape, paperwork, all of the regulations and the Government interference. Endless waits at the county ASCS office or the SCS office will end. Hassles over field sizes, whether the right crop [[Page H1416]] was planted, or the correct amount of acres would be a thing of the past. Environmentalists should be pleased that the Government no longer forces the planting of surplus crops and what we call monoculture agriculture. And a producer who wants to introduce a rotation on their farm for various environmental or agronomic reasons would be free of the current restrictions. This bill builds on the conservation compliance requirements, the environmental requirements, if you will, of 1985 and 1990, of the 1985 and 1990 farm bills, and positively impacts 300 million acres. This bill is the most environmentally responsible farm program in 60 years. We will have more to say about that in the future debate. Under freedom to farm, farmers can plant or idle all their acres at their discretion. They are in control. The restrictions on what they can plant are greatly reduced. Response to the market would assume a larger role in our farmer planning. And divorcing payments from production and, by the way, we already started that when yields were frozen in 1985 and we went to flex acres and we froze target prices and we cut target prices, that has already happened, that would end any pressure from the Government in choosing crops with which to pursue. So all production incentives would come from the marketplace and the individual farmer. In return for this, we proposed a guaranteed payment, the guarantee of a fixed, albeit it declining, payment for 7 years would provide the predictability and consistency that farmers have wanted and provide certainty to creditors as a basis for lending. Listen up, Mr. and Mrs. American farmer and your banker and your farm credit troop, any other lending institution, sit down with your banker, your lender, 7 years, you know what you are going to get. You can plan on it. It is a risk management account. You do not have to wait on the Congress. The current situation in wheat, corn, and cotton country, under which our prices are very high but we do not have any crops but large numbers of producers have lost their crops due to weather or pests, that would be corrected by this kind of a payment system. These producers this year cannot access the high prices. They do not have a crop. And instead of getting help when they need it the most, the old system really cuts off their deficiency payments and even demands they pay back the advance deficiency payments. What a time. We are blowing away in the Great Plains. We are bone dry. We have prairie fires. We do not have any crops. The current farm program says pay back advanced deficiency payments, and we get no payment, no disaster payments or no help. The freedom to farm ensures that whatever financial assistance is available will be delivered regardless of the circumstances, because the producer signs a contract with the Federal Government for the next 7 years. High prices, high payments, oh, we have heard a lot of criticism about that. First, the payments will not be high. You cannot cut annual spending in half compared to the last farm program bill over the last 5 years and have high payments. That does not work. No farmer, let me repeat this to all of the critics and you will hear it in this debate, no farmer is going to take his market transition payment and retire. Farmers will continue to farm. Second, under freedom to farm, the payments made to producers must be looked at from a new perspective. It is a transition to full farmer responsibility for his economic life, a risk management account. Just as farmers will need to look to the market for production and marketing signals, freedom to farm will require that farmers manage their finances to meet all the price swings. It is true that when prices are high, farmers will receive a full market transition payment. It is equally true that if prices decline, farmers will receive no more than the fixed market transition payment. That means the farmer must manage his income, both market and Government, to account for weather and price fluctuations. But under this plan, he makes the decision, not Washington, not Congress, not the ASCS office, not the SCS office. He makes that decision. In short, under freedom to farm, we authorize the market transition payments to farmers as opposed to the current program's deficiency payments, to serve as a form of compensation as we move U.S. Agriculture from an economy heavily influenced by the Federal Government to one in which our Government role is substantially reduced and the primary influence is the marketplace. The old program did provide market insulation for each bushel of production. But that system is collapsing under the weight of budget cuts. You have heard the former chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas, the Hon. Kika de la Garza, chairman emeritus of the committee. You have heard the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], a leader in the farm community, a spokesman for agriculture. You have heard me, you have heard others talk about how farmers have already given at the office in regards to their budget responsibilities and that $65 billion in budget authority has already been cut from farm programs over the last 10 years. True. Nobody knows that in Washington, or very few know it in Washington. Not many people in the press understand that, that we have already cut ag spending 9 percent a year for about the last 9 or 10 years. Well, what is to prevent the continued slow asphyxiation in regards to budget cuts and the amount of money that we should have in regard to a responsible farm program? Under freedom to farm, we enhance the farmers' total economic situation. In fact, under freedom to farm it results in the highest net farm income over the next 7 years of any of the proposals before Congress. You represent farmers. Under this plan you have more investment in production agriculture, more farm income than any other plan. We lock it up, and we still meet our budget responsibilities. Now, if you believe there will be no more budget cuts and no more budget reconciliations and no more budget battles, freedom to farm is not for you. If you believe that if farmers just hang on a little longer, their prospects for more Government support will improve in this climate, freedom to farm is not for you. If you believe that farm programs will not continue under the budget gun, that we will not have our fingers, our arms, our legs on the budget chopping block, freedom to farm is not for you. If, however, you believe that there will be more reconciliations, that the heat on farm programs--and you will hear amendments about that in the debate on down the road during the amendment process--if you think that this heat on farm programs will only increase and that Congress needs more than deep budget cuts to present to farmers and not so slow asphyxiation, then freedom to farm makes sense. Now, the severest, the severest critics of farm programs in the press, on television, major newspapers, have hailed the freedom to farm as the most significant reform in ag policy since the 1930's. We have received national acclaim from our critics of farm program policy that this is long-needed, long-awaited reform. Our congressional critics have also decided that our freedom to farm program represents the kind of reform that they can support, and they believe that it is the kind of reform that is needed. Nearly every agriculture economist who has commented on freedom to farm has supported its structure and its probable effect on farmers in the ag sector. We are at a crossroads now, folks. We can either sink deeper into Government controls and rapidly sagging Government support and a lack of investment in regards to our ability to feed this Nation and the troubled and hungry world, or we can strike out in a new direction that at least holds out the prospect of assisted transition to a private marketplace, a market-oriented agriculture. The Freedom to Farm Act is that new direction. We need to seize it. Now is the time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2854 as currently presented to the House, and in [[Page H1417]] support of three en bloc amendments which I will be offering. Let me preface this by saying that my opposition is in no way indicative of the actions of the chairman of the committee but, rather, Mr. Chairman, in past years we have had the opportunity to prepare comprehensive farm policy in a deliberate, all-inclusive manner. When we have been required to comply with budget reconciliation instructions, the House Committee on Agriculture has complied to the tune of $50 billion in savings from 1981 through 1993. However, in this particular farm bill, if you call it a farm bill, national farm policy for the next 7 years was developed by the Republican leadership. Mr. Chairman, Americans are the best fed people in the world. They have a stable and abundant supply of nutritious food and pay a lower percentage of their disposable income for food than any other of the industrialized nations in the world. I would like to think that the House Committee on Agriculture, on a bipartisan basis and in spite of what editorial writers say, has played a constructive role in this success story. But that is no more, unfortunately. For example, last year Speaker Gingrich, the Republican leader, and the Republican whip wrote a letter to the gentleman from Kansas, Chairman Roberts. That letter dictated to the Committee on Agriculture, in no uncertain terms, the specific policy option that the committee was to choose in order to meet its reconciliation savings. No room was left for the committee to deliberate, for the committee to obtain views of farmers, of consumer groups, of the administration. That leadership-dictated policy was the foundation of what is now included in H.R. 2854. Mr. Chairman, the policy included by decree of the gentleman from Georgia, Speaker Gingrich, in the bill now before the House was first introduced as a bill in August. In a blatant rejection of our sacred principles of open government, our committee did not hold one single hearing on this proposal and still has not to this day. There were other hearings held to gather information, much before this time, but none on the proposal itself. Mr. Chairman, farmers in every region of this country have very grave concerns about the agriculture provisions before this House. They represent a sudden and dramatic abandonment by the Government of its role in sharing the farmer's risk. Farmers are particularly concerned that a sudden withdrawal of the Federal Government may make the difference in their fight to stay on the farm. Yes, they may know that each year they will get a cash payment, but if prices collapse next year, will that payment be enough? If wheat prices fall to $2.50, how many wheat farmers will be out of business in Kansas, in the Dakotas, in Washington States? If cotton prices fall back down to 45 cents, how many cotton growers spread out all over the South and areas of the Southwest will survive? If corn prices are under $2, where will the corn belt be? What if milk prices fall to $9. How many of New England's dairy farmers make it? Mr. Chairman, farmers will hope for the best. But if the best does not materialize and a substantial base of our food and fiber production capacity is lost, will we feel that it was worth the risk? All these questions, Mr. Chairman, and we have no answers; not even opinions. All we had in the Committee on Agriculture this year were a few votes. No discussion. No consideration of the views of farmers, the consumers, the businesses that thrive on the products of agriculture, those hearings on which we have always heavily relied. The policy before the House was not aired out in the Committee on Agriculture, it was dictated by the Republican leadership. When a bipartisan majority of our committee defeated this bill last fall, the Republican leadership nevertheless packaged it with tax cuts and health care program changes and forced it on the floor. {time} 1330 Mr. Chairman, it was inevitable that the President would veto that bill and he did, and I agree that it should have been vetoed. Rather than acting quickly to move farm policy forward, our committee sat until the end of January and did nothing. Only in the hours before a 3- week congressional break did our committee finally act, and again I respectively state this is through no fault of the chairman of the committee. The actions were held in other areas by other people. Mr. Chairman, a further frustration to us is that farm policy continues to be driven by outdated decisions. The Republican leadership continues to insist on cutting over $13 billion from agriculture programs. We know that these cuts were not conceived in the context of any consideration to good farm policy. We were cutting acting with numbers in a vacuum only. We have to attach faces and places to legislation. This has not been done to this day. Rather, the decision to cut the very heart out of farm programs was integral to the radical Republican policy of cutting $270 billion out of the rate of increase in Medicare and providing for a $245 billion tax cut. This has fluctuated, it has changed up and down, and the administration has become involved in these overall considerations, all of it outside of the realm of the members of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, all parties have now conceded that any tax cut will be for less, as will reductions in health care program spending as we move forward to a balanced budget. No committee in this House has provided more for a balanced budget than the Committee on Agriculture. Had every committee done what we have done, we would not be worrying about a balanced budget at this point in time. If the enormous tax and Medicare cuts have been abandoned, is it not also time to recognize that the size of the cuts ordered for agriculture should be reexamined? Those policies were after all the driving force behind the Republican decision to cut $13 billion from agriculture. Mr. Chairman, we are in a difficult position. Time is not available to fully address the errors that have been committed in this flawed process. There will be some who would say, well, there will be a conference. Conference has limitations, limitations that restrict activity by members of the conference. Farmers who should have already made crucial farming decisions are kept waiting. The very fact that we have not acted yet has jeopardized agriculture. Action in farm policy for 1996 must be taken and taken quickly. In that light, our No. 1 priority is to make what changes we can in this flawed bill to strengthen our farm economy and its rural base. Mr. Chairman, the bill is titled the ``Agriculture Market Transaction Program,'' and we believe that few have escaped the meaning of the term ``transition'': That the Federal Government will withdraw completely from its partnership with the producer in providing for the food security of our Nation. And I have just come back from my district and other parts of Texas, and they now say that ``this bill is not what we were talking about.'' We want to reduce regulation; we want to reduce needless spending. We did not want to say ``take the Government completely out as we act in unison, together, for the betterment of America.'' So they did not say that we should withdraw completely from the partnership with the producer in providing for the food security of our Nation. However, if such a transition is to occur, we believe that now is an appropriate time for investments to be made with the posttransition period in mind. Regretfully, the rule does not provide for that. It is limited in scope, it is limited as to how many amendments, what type of amendments. Many of you heard the chairman of the Committee on Rules: We did this because we did not want this many more amendments from Wisconsin, and so on. Toward the end, Mr. Chairman, we proposed to increase the Department of Agriculture's authority to invest in the rural infrastructure, water deliveries, sewage disposal. We propose to increase this authority to make investments that conserve and protect our natural resources, and we propose to make crucial investments in agriculture research, education and extension. Yesterday I was in my district, for a meeting of rural housing representatives and all you need to do is go down there and you will see the immense need in rural housing, and as I told them and I repeat to you today, the creature of G-d has a certain level of [[Page H1418]] dignity mandated by laws beyond, beyond our country and beyond this Chamber. The human dignity that needs to be addressed includes decent housing so that those of higher intellect have a decent place to live. Only within government can we form a partnership. Earning a minimum wage is not going to allow someone to buy housing for them and for their family, and we have hundreds of thousands of those people, but yet we are not addressing those areas. We propose to ensure that our highly productive oilseed industry, which will receive no benefit from the bill's contract payments, is able to continue to compete effectively in world markets. We would delete the set level for the oilseed market loan in the bill, which is set at an arbitrary fixed amount, dealing in a vacuum, and replace it with a formula based on actual market prices. Finally, we believe that our agriculture sector is so important to our Nation that we deserve a farm policy debate in 2002. To ensure that debate, we propose to retain permanent farm support authority. Therefore, on behalf of Democratic members of the Committee on Agriculture, I will offer three amendments en bloc, the first, authored by the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. The amendment would provide the Commodity Credit Corporation with the authority to dispense $3.5 billion of its funds for rural development conservation and research, education and extension. The second was written by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], who has been a tremendous inspiration in this endeavor. It would set the loan rate for oilseed marketing assistance loans at 85 percent of the 5-year average price for oilseeds, excluding the high and the low years. The third would strike the provision of the committee substitute which repeals the permanent farm law. Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed over this process. Our people deserve better from this Congress. We have been the partnership. The experts and the major periodicals in New York and San Francisco and Orange County; I keep reading editorials form Orange County about the farm, farm products, farm process, farm policy. We have in my family seven grandchildren who know more about farm policy that the editorial writers from Orange County, CA, Mr. Chairman. Also, I ask the committee and the Members to stay with us on the amendments that we will be opposing. Many of those amendments that were granted are aimed at satisfying the needs of major media. They have not spoken to agriculture. They have not spoken to rural America. They have not spoken to the people. They are looking at that headline in the major periodical. Would you trust a newspaper in New York City to set the policy for the farmers and ranchers of America? And, needless to say, Mr. Chairman, of all of the matters involving the budget, we have met our commitment. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, let me say that everything that we do as far as production in this country, manufacturing, industrial production, everything is in deficit as far as international trade is concerned. Everything is deficit. That is the free market. It is in deficit. Dollars are flowing out, dollars we do not have. The only thing that is bringing money back, green back, green dollars back, is agriculture. The only thing that is positive is agriculture. And yet they say subsidy, subsidy, subsidy. Look at this chart. You cannot see the line at the bottom. That is how much of an impact we make on the budget, seven-tenths of 1 percent is agricultures share of the trillions of dollars we spent on the budget. And then here is a major one. The green is agriculture. The red is everything else. The red is in deficit, has been. Except for selling a few high tech items and airplanes, agriculture is the only one bringing money back from abroad. So saying we need a new direction, we need another this, another that, what we need is, with the help of the good Lord, a little more rain here and less rain there, and a policy that manages, I do not care how you slice it. Every company, every industry manages, manages, and we cannot go and face the world because all other countries, most of them camouflage support of their agriculture and we would be the only one that does not support agriculture under the guise of satisfying our New York newspaper who says the free market. The free market has never existed. There has always been some manipulation. There will be more manipulation, and we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we yield to those pleas for liberators so that we can be eaten by those that camouflage their intentions and their agriculture. We need strong agriculture, we need to have a program where the government participates, and this program unfortunately phases out. Yes, you will get a little money. If somebody goes to Las Vegas and they win the first thing on the machine and second thing on the machine, they say we got it. Stay there long enough and you have lost it all. This is what this is going to do, show a little money, show a little candy up front. Eventually, 7 years, we are off and away and we will be as loose as that satellite that broke from the tether up in the skies the other day. It is loose out there and heaven knows where it is going to be. We do not want American agriculture to be in that condition. So I urge Members to support those amendments that might make this a little better, oppose those that try and destroy programs that have worked. We are the best fed people in the world, we spend less money than everyone else in the world, and, oh, the sugar, sugar, sugar. We are talking about jobs, jobs for Americans, and if you open up and the world unloads all the sugar, we are not going to have a sugar program and the people are not going to have lower prices in sugar. Even now when we did not have a sugar program the prices skyrocketed, skyrocketed to the consumer. When we have held it down to a level, when we have reduced, the product at the retail store did not come down, the product that they talk about the consumer as being gouged, that did not come down at all, the soft drinks, all of the cookies, all of the candies. They did not come down at all. We kept paying the same. But yet they blame it all on the program. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members that have listened will agree with us also that we need stability. Stability can only be done in a partnership. That partnership has worked and is working, and I hope that we continue it. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the observation to my dear friend and colleague from Texas that the New York Times editorial board did not sit in our offices when we constructed the Freedom To Farm Act, and we would not want them to sit there, but at least in terms of their opinion, it would be helpful if they would not perjure agriculture as he has indicated. Let me also say that the gentleman from Texas is affectionately called the chairman emeritus of the House Agriculture Committee for good reason. He has been a champion of agriculture, he has furnished us outstanding leadership, he is regarded all over the world as a Secretary of State of Agriculture. {time} 1345 Mr. Chairman, I checked with his seven grandchildren, who have mentioned they are going to have an appreciation night for Kika, pardon me, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], as of tomorrow in his home State of Texas. Of the seven grandchildren, four have endorsed the freedom-to-farm concept. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis]. Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the farm bill, and am proud to say I was one of the nine original sponsors of the first freedom-to-farm bill. Last year, Mr. Clinton killed freedom to farm when he vetoed the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. But make no mistake about it. Today's bill still lives up to that nickname. It still lets the folks who actually grow crops decide what to plant--and how much. They know their own soil better than all the Washington Bureaucrats combined. It cuts Government intrusive paperwork and provides the needed safety net for farmers. [[Page H1419]] In less than 2 years of representing Kentucky's Second District, I've spoken with hundreds of farmers. From the Second District alone, more than 45 members of the Kentucky Farm Bureau are here today, waiting for us to pass this bill. If there's one thing nearly all of them agree on, it's that they'd rather spend time planting and harvesting crops than filling out Government paperwork. Or drawing lines on maps. I think they may be even more excited about our crop insurance reform. After the President signs this bill, farmers won't be forced to buy crop insurance just to participate in Government programs. I think many of them will continue to but it, but these businessmen and women didn't appreciate being told to do so. They're pretty independent folks, and they're looking forward to getting some of the burden of big government off their backs. They're also pretty conservative folks. They care about the future of their children, and grandchildren. And they've told me they're happy to help balance the budget if they can spend more time in the fields and less at the ASCS office. They're still looking for further regulatory reform, and tax cuts that will help them stay in business, or pass on the family farm. We need to continue to pursue these farmer- and family-friendly measures. Mr. Chairman, today we begin to overhaul our Nation's 60-year-old agricultural policy. I congratulate Chairman Roberts' courage and vision on this matter. This is truly the most sweeping change in farm policy since the New Deal. It's good for farmers, it helps us move toward a balanced budget and it doesn't pull the rug out from under the people who feed our Nation. Mr. Chairman, let's continue to lead, let's pass the farm bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to what has been called by the author of this bill as freedom to farm. I call it freedom not to farm, because if anybody reads this bill, they will find that farmers are able to get payments, and they are not little payments, able to get payments and they do not even have to farm. That is right. I will repeat it. Farmers get payments and they do not even have to farm. It is not just 1 year, it is for 7 years. It is not for a few dollars, like a recipient of AFDC or food stamps gets. We are talking about $80,000 to some farmers. We are talking about some farmers over a period of 7 years getting well over a quarter of a million dollars, and they do not have to farm. Many of those farmers are not the little farmers. These are medium- size farmers, but they have a lot of farmland. The amount of farmland they have gives them the number of acreage that they have been farming, at least 1 out of the last 5 years, the amount of payment. They can get $80,000, and then if they have cotton and a marketing loan program, they can get another $150,000. That is $230,000 in 1 year. They can also make a half a million on the farm operation and still get the $230,000. There is something wrong here, folks. This is not getting government off your backs. This is high-priced welfare. This is not cheap welfare. This is real high-priced welfare. This is not a little $300 a month AFDC or an $80 a month Food Stamp Program, these are thousands of dollars, and over a period of years, over $1 million to some farmers, over $1 million to a farmer. What is going on? I thought we had a budget crisis. I though we had problems with money. We are going to give $36 billion away in the next 7 years, and farmers do not have to do a thing if they do not want to. If they want to, that is fine, but they do not have to. Instead of calling it freedom to farm, I would call it freedom not to farm. I do not know why they object. I had an amendment that I asked to be put in order, but the Committee on Rules did not permit it. It said at least you have to plant some crops in order to get a payment. I think that is reasonable. I think most people would think that is reasonable. But the Committee on Rules no, you cannot have that amendment; we are not going to permit that because we do not want farmers to have to plant crops in order to get these payments. I think it is terrible that this House would even consider making these kinds of payments to a very few number, about 28,000 people throughout the United States, out of 250 million in order to pass freedom not to farm. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, it is with personal pleasure that I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas], a very viable member of the committee. The gentleman not only brings expertise to the Committee on Agriculture, but he is a real, live farmer and cattleman. (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2854, the Agriculture Market Transition Act of 1996. It is the agriculture policy that will shape rural America as we head into the 21st century. This new farm policy is based on four basic themes: The current program is flawed and must be reformed; the Government must get out of the farmer's fields; farmers must have the ability to produce for the markets, not Government programs; and finally, we must provide a predictable and guaranteed phasing down, but not out, of Federal financial assistance in farm country. Taking these basic themes into account, we on the Agriculture Committee formulated the Agriculture Market Transition Act. To those who will say that this bill does not contain true reform, I would encourage you to wake up and smell the coffee. This bill is the biggest change in farm policy that we have seen since 1949. This includes peanuts, sugar, and dairy. Many during this debate will cite high commodity prices as a reason for sinking this reform. This argument has no merit. High prices are a result of a short harvest last year and another dismal crop projection this year. Sure my producers would enjoy $5 wheat if they had a crop to sell. But the reality is that the High Plains from west Texas to the Canadian border are in financial turmoil. At the time of my producers greatest need, Uncle Sam's current assistance program is no help. For in a time of short crops and high prices, the current program asks for money back. It is truly senseless. Colleagues, in short, the current program doesn't work. Our job on the committee and in this Congress is to construct a program that will stop this bleeding. I believe the Agriculture Market Transition Act is the best way to do this. My friends, agriculture is truly at a crossroads. It is time we break the bonds of the old and ring in a market oriented program that will guide us into the next century. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2854 without significant amendment. The future of rural America depends on its passage. We must have a farm bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley]. (Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the freedom to farm proposal. I think all of us would agree that there is an appropriate role for Government in farm policy. That is to provide a safety net for farmers in those years of a price collapse. It is to provide for assistance in breaking down unfair trade barriers that prevent our U.S. farmers from being competitive in the international marketplace, and also to provide assistance in the research that can ensure that our farmers will have the technology to be the low-cost competitors in the world. But it is not an appropriate role of the Federal Government to ensure that taxpayers of this country are going to be making $36.5 billion in payments to farmers over the next 7 years, regardless of what commodity prices may be. Today if Members would go into any of the commodity markets on the [[Page H1420]] major farm programs, they could forward contract in December 1996 on cotton, corn, wheat, barley, and oats, at a price that is higher than the target price today, on which our subsidies are based. On corn and cotton, you can forward contract into December 1997, covering 2 crop years, at a higher price than the target price. Under the current farm programs, the taxpayers of this country will be making minimal outlays to farmers. But under freedom to farm, what happens? We are asking the taxpayers of this country to lay out $5.6 billion in this next year, and $5.4 billion in the following year. This is just not good policy, and it lacks all common sense. In fact, we can be thankful that the same people that put together this agriculture reform were not the ones that devised our welfare reform, for if they were, we would be ensuring that anybody who received a welfare payment in 1 out of the last 5 years, that we would give them a welfare payment, guaranteed, for the next 7 years regardless of what happened to their income. They could win the lottery and the taxpayers of this country would still be obligated to write them a check for 7 years. This is bad policy. It does not ensure that farmers in the future will have that safety net; not a safety net that guarantees them a profit, but a safety net that ensures that when we have a price collapse, when income is low, that the Federal Government will be there to ensure that we do not have widespread bankruptcies throughout this land. Oftentimes people have contended that this freedom to farm is a transition to an era without subsidies. The gentleman, the Republican from Oklahoma, just recently responded that he hopes we look at this as a transition, not to transition out of programs, but to move into a new era. He is still hoping we have some financial obligations or money going into the agriculture sector post-freedom to farm. What we ought to be doing is devising a farm policy in this country that ensures that our farmers are going to have the tools to be competitive in the international marketplace. Freedom to farm does not provide that. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], a good friend and a good champion for the farmer. (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my strong support for H.R. 2845, the Agriculture Market Transition Act introduced by the gentleman from Kansas, [Mr. Roberts]. This legislation gives farmers what they want and what they need. It is a simple, consistent, and flexible farm bill to ensure successful family farming operations. I do not come to this floor totally out of touch with this issue. I was raised on a farm. My folks still farm. I spent 16 years as a farm editor before getting involved in politics some 12 years ago. I think this bill represents true reform for agricultural programs. Let us look at the reality of the situation. This body has become more urban as the years have gone by. We cannot get the votes out of this body to put together the kind of programs that have been put together in the past. It is just not there. Farmers are becoming almost like the eagle on my tie, an endangered species. There are not many of them left. Yet, if you ask the average person on the street what happens if we lose the farmers, their response is, ``It does not make any difference. I have Safeway.'' They just do not understand what is involved in the food chain. So this is the one piece of legislation that can rescue farmers. I guess it boils down to where do you put your faith? Do you trust farmers, or do you trust bureaucrats and political appointees? I am going to go with the farmers. The farmers want the liability to produce for the market instead of a Government program. They want the ability to manage their land in a resourceful type fashion, without burdensome controls and regulations. This legislation must be passed now. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) {time} 1400 Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank by colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this debate today will include an amendment that is to be offered regarding the sugar program. I rise to take my precious 3 minutes to address this amendment. Of all the Members who have sugar growers, as far as I can see in the statistics, it is grown to a much larger extent in my district than in any other Member's district. There are about 65 Members who have producers of sugar, both cane and beet, and we have a very, very large stake depending upon the outcome of this amendment. The Miller-Schumer amendment basically will eliminate U.S. domestic sugar production. All the market economists and specialists that I have spoken to indicate that if this amendment should pass today and should become law, it will virtually eliminate the U.S. sugar production. For myself and my district, it will mean about 6,000 jobs. So I ask the Members of this Chamber today in debating the farm bill to not talk about this abstract notion of commodities. We are talking about jobs. Listen to the Republican Presidential debates and you will see that the American people are concerned about jobs. When we talk about reforms, certainly, there must be reforms. We talk about cuts in the budget; of course, there must be cuts in the budget. But when you look at the sugar program, there is not one penny of tax subsidy going into this program, so why are we targeting this particular industry that is so essential? Are not farmers working Americans like any other workers anywhere else in our industries? What is the difference? These are hard-working people working under the standards that have been established by Congress, whether it is environmental, labor or health or whatever, and we want to shut them down in place of foreign sugar where there are no environmental concerns, no workers' standards, no environmental standards, no safety standards, and give a preference to foreign sugar so that a few of our mega corporations can make millions and millions of dollars at the expense of 420,000 jobs in America that are related to the sugar industry? It is mind-boggling. We are committed to the preservation of jobs in this country. We are not for shutting down businesses. Certainly, we are for balancing the budget, but no one can show me that there is one penny of taxpayers' money going into the sugar program. On the contrary, we are paying into the Treasury, and this bill that is coming up is going to add more money. I ask the Members of the House to think carefully about this amendment. Are we eliminating jobs and killing an entire industry? Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], a valued member of the committee. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture how much I appreciate his leadership through what has been a very difficult year with ag policy. We have stepped into a situation where we have had to meet budget constraints and agriculture has always been called on, even in years when we were not trying to balance the budget, to make cuts in our programs. The chairman of the committee has been a very valued asset to me personally, and I thank him for that leadership. Also to my subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], who have just done a super job in bringing us forward. And I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] for their valued friendship and leadership. I cannot leave out the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. He has just worked so diligently, the particularly [[Page H1421]] in the area of dairy. To my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], we on the other side of the aisle have had our disagreements certainly, but it has always been in a very professional and a very courteous manner, and I commend him for his leadership over there. Agriculture has always been the backbone of the economy of this country. I come from the largest agriculture county in the State of Georgia. Agriculture drives our State, and certainly agriculture drives my home county and the people there. Less than 2 percent of the people of this country feed 100 percent of the people of this country. We provide the safest, finest quality of food products on the shelves of our grocery stores of anybody in the world. We spend less than 10 cents out of every dollar on food products, whereas other industrialized countries like Japan spend over 20 cents out of every single dollar for food products. We are able to do that because of strong agriculture programs that we have in this country that provided those safe, high- quality products and we have been able to stabilize the retail cost of agricultural products over the years. But times are changing. We are moving into the 21st century. The Agricultural Marketing Transition Act moves us in the direction. I commend the chairman, and I urge the support of that bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]. Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I just heard some students out in the hallway saying, oh, they are just talking about agriculture and that is boring. The difficulty with this debate is, it is everything but boring because it is really the engine that drives the American economy and it is wonderful history and it is great culture and to understand what agriculture is, is really to listen to this debate. I happen to represent just one State that is very diverse in agriculture in California, and California farmers in my district, I think, are the most productive farmers in the world when they grow specialty crops. These are big crops in our area, but in agriculture language here in Washington, they are known as minor crops. Specialty crops produce 2.5 billion dollars' worth of fresh fruits, vegetables, and horticulture crops without any Federal price supports, without any other direct Federal support, including water. We grow lettuce and artichokes and strawberries and flowers and over 100 different crops. That is just in two, three counties in California. They have succeeded by embracing the full benefits of potential risks and of great market. They are models for American agriculture, and I believe that American agriculture must move in that direction to remain viable into the next century. But even market-driven agriculture needs a national farm policy. It needs conservation, it needs research, it needs rural development, it needs market promotion. These are all really crucial to our future success and sustainability. I think the issue about agriculture in America is to sustain it so that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren can still move into the same lands, hopefully not covered by shopping centers, and allow those great-grandchildren to be able to farm in this great country. The Federal Government has a deep responsibility to make sure that these programs help all of rural America. H.R. 2854 has some problems because it ignores some of the crucial goals of the American farm policy. While I do not like the transition program that is in the bill, I think it is too expensive and makes payments regardless of the farmer's production or market prices, it still moves agriculture toward the market, and I can support that. But I cannot support the bill if it also does not address the conservation issues, the research, and the rural development and I am particularly concerned that it does not address the loss of farmland to urban sprawl. I have coauthorized legislation with my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], to help States address the troubling loss of farmland to urbanization, over a million acres last year at current rates. The States have taken the lead in helping farmers keep this land in agriculture and out of the grasp of urban sprawl, and the Federal Government should help these States with their efforts, and so far they are not. A version of our bill was added to the Senate farm bill by Senator Santorum. Unfortunately, neither this bill nor the conservation amendment allowed by the rule includes any farmland protection measures. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the bill without adequate funding for conservation, research, and rural development. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and commend him for the outstanding job that he has done as an excellent subcommittee chairman in addressing reform in many of our farm programs, particularly in regard to sugar and peanuts, the programs that probably come under the most criticism. (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, this is crunch time for this Congress. It is time for us to act on the farm bill. This will be the first important rewrite of the depression-era farm programs that have been on the books for decades. There is some very good news in the rewrite that is being proposed here today. The good news includes that American farmers should be better off and better able to decide what they are going to plant under this proposal that is before us today. It also is good news that it brings an end to Government control of farm markets and artificially inflated prices and limited food supplies. The environment is also helped by the legislation we will consider here today by removing current farm policy, which in some cases has been a disincentive to natural crop rotation, maybe to overuse of fertilizer. Taxpayers I think should also rejoice because there is savings in the billions in this bill for agriculture. Some critics carp that the reforms do not go far enough, and yet others say the reforms go too far. The Democratic leadership in the House says that the reforms go too far, while the administration says this bill is going to cost too much and it does not go far enough. But I think that means that this is a pretty good middle-ground reform measure. The legislation holds potential for far-reaching reforms in agricultural policies and will reverse several decades of farm policy. Congress should not miss the opportunity today to pass this bill because it includes less Government, less cost to the taxpayers, more production safety net for American agriculture, and market orientation. American farmers, American farm organizations know this is a good bill and there is opportunity in here for American farmers to prosper, certainly something this Congress should be for. Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that the bill includes portions for peanuts, for sugar, for cotton, for dairy, for feed grains. The bill is a package. We cannot just pass part of this package. We must pass the package for American agriculture. Vote ``yes'' on this bill and vote ``no'' on those amendments that would gut this package. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Tejeda]. Mr. TEJEDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise now to highlight a gaping hole in this farm bill. Missing is the Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Program. For more than 50 years, this crucial program provided a vital safety net for livestock ranchers in times of severe drought. This farm bill eliminates that protection. When a severe drought hits, ranchers need assistance to maintain their livestock. The alternative for many ranchers is financial disaster. Ranchers must feed their livestock whether it rains or not--whether feed is plentiful or scarce. The Emergency Feed Assistance Program provides short-term help during such a crisis. Some of my colleagues who returned home to huge snow drifts may find this hard to believe. But right now, today, ranchers in south Texas face a sustained drought. Formerly productive pastures are turned into dust, with no end in sight. Rainfall since October is 9 inches below normal. With cattle prices low, the current drought may force many ranchers in my district to lose everything. [[Page H1422]] The Federal Government should provide a reliable program when ranchers need help preserving their livestock. Hard-working ranchers depend on us, American consumers depend on us, this program provides stability in difficult times. More than 1,000 ranchers in my district used this Emergency Feed Assistance Program last year alone. Without it, ranchers will have nowhere to turn in times of severe need. Ranchers look for all possible options during a drought, and turn to this program as a last resort. Under this farm bill, their last option will be gone. {time} 1415 Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry], a distinguished champion of agriculture. Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and all the members for the good job they have done in very difficult circumstances. Mr. Chairman, there are three things the agricultural economy in my district desperately needs. First is a good gain. No matter how important we think we are, I do not think we can do much about that. We need better cattle prices. I am not sure we can do anything about that today. Third, we need a farm bill. We are the only ones that can do something about that. It is too late now. We have got farmers, we have got bankers, fertilizer dealers, all sorts of people in the rural economies who are trying to make decisions, and we need a farm bill now so they can know what the rules of the game are going to be. I may not be thrilled with every nook and cranny of this bill, but it is something rural America can live with. It is something that will continue to provide an abundant, cheap source of food and fiber for this country that I think all too often we take for granted, and it is something that should not be broken up piece by piece, because I am concerned the whole thing would unravel at that point. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good bill. It ought to be passed. It should not be broken up, and farmers need to be able to get on about their business. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I wish that we could put the debate in context in that one would not go from one end and one would not go to the other. My distinguished colleague and friend from Texas just mentioned, ``Got to act now.'' We had all of last year to act. But you were doing some contract business of some kind and forgot the contract with American farmers and agriculture. And also that we are forcing. No one has to join the program. Any farmer anywhere in the United States is free to do what he or she wants. They do not have to join the program. They can do the free market. I know agriculture, fruit and vegetables, they do the free market and do not rely to any extent on Government. But their costs keep escalating. The costs of seed goes up. The cost of fertilizer goes up, and you do not know what the market is going to be, up or down. So, Mr. Chairman, we must remember this as one Member comes on the floor, says his thing, the one that is not here comes and say another thing; I wish we could keep it all in context. Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], another real-life farmer and a very valued member of the Committee on Agriculture. (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], for the opportunity to speak here today and thank him also for the tremendous amount of work and effort that he has put into this excellent bill, and the subcommittee chairs, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], who have shown such great leadership all through this debate. This debate has gone on, I believe, too long. There has been a lot of obstruction set up. We could have had this bill done several weeks ago except for some Members in the minority stopped it through a procedural move, but it has been very, very difficult. We have had, I think, 19 hearings. We have had thousands of people give us input. Farmers, real live farmers, themselves tell us that finally we need to break the central control that Washington has on agriculture, to finally let the farmers themselves make some of their own decisions and to really respond to the market that we have today. This debate has gone on and on, and through the committee process, and I am very pleased that we did come up with a bill that had bipartisan support from the committee to really free up agriculture once and finally after 60 years, to allow individuals to actually produce on their farms what they want rather than what some bureaucrat here in Washington tells them. If you look at what happened last year in Iowa, we had two disasters, especially in southern Iowa. One was a flood that went through, and the second was the farm program did not work, and the catastrophic insurance did not work for those farmers. What we are asking those people from last year to do right now, if we would continue the current central Washington control program, is to pay back deficiency payments because markets are high even though they did not have a crop, and it is going to break those people. We have got to reform this program. We have got to pass the bill today and pass it intact, and I appreciate the chance to speak. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia]. Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in limited support of H.R. 2854--the Agricultural Market Transition Act. I say limited support because the inclusion of the sugar and dairy provisions of this bill are essential to key components of production agriculture in my district and in my State. Without them, I find little to support in this bill. Farm programs have already been cut by 50 percent in the last 10 years. I continue to tell my colleagues that if other programs had only done half as much as agriculture, we probably would be spending time trying to deal with the budget surplus. But to continue to demand that farmers endure greater and greater cuts is a tremendous disservice to the most productive people in our economic arsenal. It is an insult to individuals who year after year generate the most positive returns on our balance of payments. Representations have been made that this sugar program is the same as it has been for the past several years. That is false. There are already significant changes proposed in the sugar program by this bill that I know many growers would prefer to avoid. The fact is that some changes have to be made to continue the program and some changes are being made. However, Mr. Chairman, there are some who dislike the sugar program because it makes sugar cost more. American consumers have been the beneficiaries of some of the most stable prices on sugar of any consume