[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 75 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6288-S6289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                       TIME FOR REAL FARM REFORM

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, no other legislation which is 
likely to come before the Congress this year will have more direct 
impact on my State, North Dakota, and the people who live there than 
the 1995 farm bill. For a farm State, for a State with a predominantly 
rural economy, it is critically important legislation.
  When Congress and the President begin to draft that legislation, I 
believe it is essential that we be about the business of fundamental 
reform. The time for farm program facelifts has long since passed. It 
is time for real change, change that returns the farm program to its 
fundamental and original mission: helping family farmers survive and 
prosper.
  I recently wrote a guest editorial which was published in a number of 
North Dakota newspapers which outlined my thinking on this important 
issue in some detail. I would like to share that article, and those 
thoughts, with my colleagues and ask that it be reprinted at this point 
in the Record.
  The editorial follows:

   No More Facelifts for the Farm Program--It's Time for Real Reform

                   (By U.S. Senator Byron L. Dorgan)

       The new U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, is 
     coming to North Dakota Friday at my invitation to meet with 
     family farmers. His visit comes at both an opportune and very 
     challenging time.
       This year Congress will cut federal spending to reduce the 
     deficit. It will also write a new five year farm program. The 
     two are closely related. Budget pressures will limit the 
     amount of money available for a farm program.
       Farm program price supports have already been cut deeply--
     slashed by 62% since 1986--but still, some leaders in the new 
     Congress are pushing for even deeper cuts. House Majority 
     Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) and Senate Agriculture Committee 
     Chair Richard Lugar (R-IN) are calling outright for the 
     federal farm program to be phased down and, effectively, 
     abolished.
       Those of us who believe that a decent farm program is 
     essential to the survival of family farmers face a major 
     challenge. To retain a decent farm program, we are going to 
     have to propose new, and more effective approaches. We must 
     take a fresh look at what works and what doesn't in the farm 
     program.
       I hope that will be the focus of the discussion in North 
     Dakota on Friday with the Secretary of Agriculture.
       At the outset we have to admit that the current farm 
     program doesn't work very well.
       First, price supports are too low to offer real protection 
     to family-sized farms. That's because the nation's largest 
     farms--often big corporate farms--soak up too much of the 
     farm program's funds.
       Second, the current farm program is far too complicated.
       Third, it is built on a ``supply management'' approach that 
     no longer works. In the new global market place of the 1990's 
     and beyond, it is virtually impossible for one nation to 
     control supplies. When we cut production of a commodity, 
     other countries eargerly step in and fill the gap.
       The bottom line is that the current farm program does not 
     do a good job serving as a safety net for family farmers nor 
     does it do much to boost market prices for farm commodities.
       Under the current program, we have ended up with more 
     government employees to run the farm program, and fewer 
     family farmers. That's moving in the wrong 
     direction. [[Page S6289]] 
       So, this year we need real reform--not another farm program 
     facelift.


                             a new approach

       The first thing we must do in re-thinking the federal farm 
     program is to establish a new benchmark for farm legislation, 
     one that focuses on preserving and building a network of 
     family farms which are the backbone of rural America's 
     economy and its communities.
       The first sentence in the new 1995 Farm Bill should state, 
     clearly, that the objective of the federal farm program is to 
     help preserve and build a network of family farms. Everything 
     after that must work to make that goal a reality.
       If the purpose of the farm program isn't to give family 
     farmers an opportunity to make a living on the farm, then we 
     ought to scrap it. We don't need a farm program that helps 
     giant agri-factories plow the ground.


               the dorgan plan to strengthen family farms

       I propose a family farm-targeted farm program, which would 
     provide a better price safety net for family farmers.
       It would end government interference so that all farmers 
     could make their own production decisions based on the best 
     use of their land resources, the opportunities of the 
     marketplace, and their skills and knowledge as producers.
       Here is how it would work:
       1. My plan would establish a new Family Farm Target Price 
     at $4.50 per bushel on wheat (compared to the current target 
     price of $4.00 per bushel) up to the first 20,000 bushels of 
     production. Proportional target prices and production levels 
     would be set to cover feed grains or a producer's mix of 
     basic farm program commodities.
       2. Farmers would be free to make their own decisions about 
     what they produce based on the market situation. Production 
     beyond the amount of grain eligible for target prices, would 
     be up to the farmer, and would not receive farm program 
     benefits.
       If someone wants to farm an entire county, they have every 
     right to do that. But under my plan, they, like family-sized 
     farms would get price protection for 20,000 bushels of wheat 
     produced. What they produce above that, they do without any 
     government interference, and without price supports--they 
     assume all the risks of the market place.
       3. On those first 20,000 bushels of wheat, the plan would 
     provide non-recourse market-opportunity loans set at out-of-
     pocket production costs as determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture. Crops produced beyond this benchmark level would 
     not be eligible for this loan.
       4. It would extend the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 
     and make it more flexible to assist producers in meeting 
     stewardship and environmental goals. Savings achieved by 
     making some changes in the CRP program could be used to 
     restore funding for other conservation programs that assist 
     farmers, and to improve farm program support prices.
       5. It would limit participation in the farm price support 
     program to those who are actively engaged in farming, and end 
     program payments to off-farm investors. We could use the 
     savings to improve the safety net of price supports for 
     family farmers.
       My plan tightly focuses federal farm programs--and 
     dollars--on family farmers. It would put price supports under 
     family farmers, rather than under farm commodities.
       It will provide our farm families the opportunity to make a 
     living at efficient levels of production.
       It will provide an abundant supply of efficiently produced 
     food and fiber for our nation, and make the best use of 
     limited federal farm program dollars. It will provide the 
     strongest price support for the first increment of production 
     which will provide the most help for family sized farms.
       It will end the practice of providing unnecessary and 
     unlimited price protection to the nation's largest corporate 
     farms, while shortchanging the nation's family farmers.
       My farm program proposal would also end the practice of 
     paying price supports to off-farm investors. We would define 
     who is really a farmer and who is farming the system. Under 
     my plan, the farm price safety net would go to actual farm 
     operators (and retired farmers who derive a majority of their 
     income from crop-share arrangements). The safety net would 
     extend only to those who are engaged in the day-to-day 
     running of a farm operation or depend on a farm operation for 
     a majority of their income.
       We would repeal and close the loopholes by which some of 
     the biggest landholders and corporations receive multiple 
     farm program entitlements.
       We need to get back to the original purpose of agricultural 
     programs: to preserve and protect a network of family farms 
     and help them compete in an unpredictable world in which 
     weather, market conditions, and economic policies constantly 
     undermine their efficiency and their productivity.
       My family farm targeted farm program would give family 
     farmers a chance--an opportunity--to preserve a production 
     system and a lifestyle that is important to our 
     country.
     

                          ____________________