[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1795-S1796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      FARM AND NUTRITION PROGRAMS

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the 
Record a copy of an article written by Mr. Neely Mallory in the 
Commercial Appeal of Memphis, TN, on Sunday, January 29, dealing with 
the importance of agriculture and nutrition programs.
  It is a cautionary signal and call to the Congress to recognize the 
importance of these programs as we work through the efforts for reform, 
reduction in spending, balancing the budget, and the other important 
challenges that we are considering now in the Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Commercial Appeal, Jan. 29, 1995]

                            A Proud Harvest

                           (By Neely Mallory)

       The new year is barely out of the bag but the debate 
     concerning the new farm bill already has begun in earnest. 
     Every five years, Congress must decide whether to reauthorize 
     a set of farm and nutrition programs that have been in place 
     for about 60 years.
       An editorial in this newspaper Jan. 2 lent its voice to a 
     group that wants farm programs to be either abolished or 
     significantly changed. In so doing, this newspaper has done a 
     disservice to the thousands of Mid-South farmers who read it, 
     the needy who benefit from food assistance programs and the 
     American public.
       As the editorial stated, there are far fewer farmers today 
     than there were 60 years ago--but there are many more mouths 
     to feed and bodies to clothe. The importance of food and 
     fiber to every person on this planet has not declined one 
     iota over these many years. Research, huge capital 
     investments, advancing technology and successful farm 
     programs have made this incredible jump in efficiency 
     possible--without for one moment jeopardizing our nation's 
     supply of reasonably priced food and fiber.
       Agriculture and related businesses contribute more than $40 
     billion annually to the Mid-South economy alone. Farming may 
     not be the nation's principal occupation, but it is, 
     nevertheless, an important one. About one job out of six in 
     the United States is somehow farm or food related. Certainly, 
     the jobs and economic activity created by farmers drive this 
     region's economy.
       Farm programs are not the relics critics would lead the 
     public to believe. Farm programs have changed, evolved with 
     every farm bill and with changing economic conditions. In the 
     1930s, those programs were designed to keep farmers in place 
     and to prevent shortages of food and fiber for a hungry 
     nation. In the 1990s, these programs are a crucially 
     important component of industrial policy that enables U.S. 
     agriculture to remain viable in a world market where its 
     [[Page S1796]] comparative advantage is taken away by foreign 
     subsidies.
       Today's commercial farm is a high-tech, capital-intensive 
     enterprise. The implications of this evolution in farm 
     organization and management are not understood nearly as well 
     as they should be. The relatively large gross sales of 
     farming operations lead many people to believe that farmers 
     have no need for government programs. The truth of the matter 
     is that the narrow margins on sales of agriculture 
     commodities are simply not adequate to compensate for the 
     tremendous risk associated with today's capital-intensive 
     farming. Neither a prudent farmer nor his banker would 
     consider making the kind of investment currently necessary 
     for commercial agriculture production in the absence of 
     either a farm program that provides the producer with a 
     safety net or much higher market prices that are commensurate 
     with the investment and risk involved.
       There is a rather badly misplaced belief that the new 
     General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will do away with 
     agriculture subsidies around the world, after which U.S. 
     agriculture should be able to take advantage of its 
     competitive edge. If, in fact, GATT did away with subsidies, 
     U.S. agriculture would be generally well positioned, with its 
     vast agriculture land resources, favorable climate, 
     unequalled technology and excellent processing, handling and 
     transportation infrastructure.
       The United States offered during the early stages of GATT 
     negotiations to end agriculture subsidization, but no other 
     country would hear of it. They cannot compete with us without 
     government help. The final agreement requires very minimal 
     changes in the subsidy programs of other nations. So U.S. 
     agriculture will continue to be confronted with a system of 
     foreign subsidies that undermines our comparative advantage 
     in agriculture production and marketing.
       It is no accident or quirk of fate that every American 
     enjoys the lowest-cost and best available supply of food and 
     fiber in the world. This prized result came about because of 
     American ingenuity and successful farm programs that have 
     enabled U.S. farmers to compete worldwide and produce an 
     abundant supply of food and fiber for domestic consumption. 
     And it has happened in spite of foreign subsidies, tremendous 
     natural disasters and the huge financial risk associated with 
     farming.
       The agriculture reforms suggested in this newspaper's 
     editorial already have been set in motion. A massive 
     reorganization and downsizing of the U.S. Department of 
     Agriculture and the total revision of the federal crop 
     insurance program are but two examples. Farm program spending 
     (which makes up less than 1 percent of the entire federal 
     budget) has been cut by two-thirds since 1986. This is not 
     ``trimming,'' as the editorial suggests; this is slicing and 
     dicing. If the rest of this nation's federal spending had 
     been reduced by half as much as agriculture, we would be 
     running a federal surplus.
       A review of farm programs is certainly in order during 1995 
     as Congress considers new farm legislation. We would be the 
     first to admit that farm programs are not perfect, and that 
     some farmers have taken improper advantage of them. But on 
     balance, it is safe to say that farmers are no more or less 
     likely to cheat than any other person. Responsible lawmakers 
     should not ignore the plain success of U.S. farm and 
     nutrition programs. Abolition or weakening of programs whose 
     success can be measured every day does not quality as needed 
     reform. It would be imperiling a 21-million-job industry.
       I believe the new secretary of Agriculture and those in 
     Congress responsible for writing the laws will know the 
     difference between so-called reform and preserving an 
     industry-government partnership that returns enormous 
     benefits to the American public.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend for permitting me 
to make that unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is welcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Mexico [Mr. Domenici] is recognized for up to 15 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Chair advise me when I have used 10 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so advise.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 298 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                          ____________________