[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 21, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 21, 1994]



                   AGRICULTURE AND THE 103D CONGRESS

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 21, 1994

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
report for Wednesday, September 14, 1994, into the Congressional 
Record:

                   Agriculture and the 103d Congress

       Congress is considering a number of proposals that would 
     affect farmers in Southern Indiana.
       Ethanol: With my support, the Environmental Protection 
     Agency will require nine cities with high pollution levels to 
     use gasoline blended with ethanol in 1995. Ethanol blends 
     help cities comply with the Clean Air Act by reducing harmful 
     air pollution. The EPA ruling is projected to increase 
     ethanol demand by about 60 percent. The Indiana Corn Growers 
     Association estimates this could increase corn prices by as 
     much as 20 cents per bushel. I have also contacted Governor 
     Bayh to request that Clark and Floyd counties be voluntarily 
     included in this program. This would both increase ethanol 
     demand in Indiana and reduce toxic emissions in two of our 
     most polluted counties.
       Crop insurance reform: With my support, the House recently 
     passed a bill to overhaul federal crop insurance. The goal of 
     the bill is to encourage broad participation, so that last-
     minute emergency legislation will be replaced by a strong, 
     fiscally sound system to insure farmers against crop losses. 
     The bill would require all farmers in USDA programs to 
     acquire a basic, premium-free catastrophic insurance program. 
     There would be only an administrative fee of $50 per crop for 
     a plan that pays 60 percent of the market price for crop 
     losses over 50 percent of normal yield. The bill also has 
     ``buy-up subsidies'' to purchase additional coverage. The 
     Senate has approved a similar bill, and the difference will 
     be resolved in a conference committees this fall.
       Pesticide law reform: Congress is considering revisions to 
     federal laws that govern pesticide residue on raw and 
     processed food. Current law applies a ``zero-tolerance'' 
     standard to processed food, resulting in expensive 
     regulations for many farmers. A House bill eases this rule to 
     allow ``negligible'' levels of pesticide residue, and it 
     requires the government to use a cost-benefit analysis when 
     setting pesticide tolerances. I support this effort. As 
     technology improves, we can now measure things in parts per 
     trillion, making it almost impossible to avoid detectable 
     levels of any chemical. We should not discourage people from 
     eating healthy food because of infinitesimal amounts of 
     useful chemicals. It is unlikely that Congress will take 
     final action on pesticide law until next year.
       Wetlands and the Clean Water Act: Congress is debating the 
     Clean Water Act, the law that governs most wetlands 
     regulation and water pollution. I support efforts to narrow 
     the definition of wetlands. Current law does not distinguish 
     between wetlands that are environmentally important and those 
     that are not. The costs of preserving wetlands should not 
     outweigh the benefits. Many Hoosier farmers also share my 
     concern about broad restrictions on non-point source 
     pollution, which comes primarily from field runoff. Studies 
     show that most non-point source pollution in a given region 
     comes from just a few troublesome fields. It would be unfair 
     to punish all farmers for problems in isolated areas. Many 
     hearings have been held on these issues, but final action is 
     unlikely to happen this year.
       Regulations: Over the past few months many Hoosiers have 
     expressed their desire to end overly burdensome environmental 
     regulations. I agree, and have voted this year for amendments 
     that would protect property owners from unreasonable 
     environmental regulations. We must get more restraint and 
     responsibility into our regulatory system. Environmental laws 
     today are often rigid, absurdly enforced, and place 
     unreasonable costs on property owners. I support the call for 
     a new partnership between the regulated and the regulator, 
     and common sense approaches to regulation. We must assess 
     risks, weigh costs and benefits, and set wiser regulatory 
     priorities.
       USDA Reorganizations: Congress is considering a 
     reorganization of the USDA for government that works better 
     and costs less. The House Agriculture Committee bill creates 
     a single Farm Services Agency that would carry out price and 
     income support, crop insurance, and farm credit programs--
     providing direct assistance in ``one-stop shopping''. USDA 
     personnel reductions would be greater in Washington, D.C, 
     than in the field offices. I agree with this priority. My 
     goal is to reduce the bureaucracy and save money, while 
     providing improved service to farmers. Congress has not yet 
     completed debate, and no major restructuring will take place 
     until after the current growing season.
       Trade issues: With my support, the North American Free 
     Trade Agreement passed Congress late last year. NAFTA is 
     boosting agricultural exports for Indiana grain and meat 
     producers. The early indications are quite favorable for 
     Hoosier farmers. In the first few months under NAFTA, U.S. 
     agricultural exports to Mexico boomed: exports of pork 
     products increased 68%, corn was up 82%, and turkeys were up 
     28%.
       The GATT agreement will lower world trade barriers to U.S. 
     exports. Congress is likely to take up the agreement later 
     this year. Discussion continues on how to pay for GATT. I was 
     successful in including a provision in GATT legislation that 
     would prohibit cuts in agricultural spending to pay for GATT. 
     I will oppose funding proposals that unfairly burden U.S. 
     farmers.
       1995 Farm Bill: Like all areas of the federal budget, there 
     will be a limited pool of money for agriculture in the farm 
     bill. In my view, the farmer's share of the budget should be 
     protected. Here are some of my goals for the farm bill:
       Farm programs should continue to enhance farmers' ability 
     to compete in a free market economy. Farmers should have 
     flexibility in the choice of crops, the crop acreage base 
     should be allowed to increase, and program yields should rise 
     to reflect improved land management practices.
       Crop support programs should be less complicated. The 
     paperwork of program participation should not be a burden to 
     farmers.
       CRP (the Conservation Reserve Program) must be preserved. 
     The CRP program must be flexible, distinguishing between more 
     and less environmentally important lands, and voluntary: CRP 
     should include incentives for farmers to participate in the 
     conservation program. Farmers are the original stewards of 
     the environment, and it has always been in their own 
     interests to conserve their resources.
       Conclusion: The risks in agriculture are greater than in 
     most industries, and Congress should continue to provide some 
     stability to agriculture to assure that farmers can maintain 
     a decent living and a reasonable return on their investments. 
     Carefully crafted farm legislation can enhance farmers' 
     competitiveness and maintain their position as the most 
     productive in the world.

                          ____________________