[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 27, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6379-H6380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                             FARM PROGRAMS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to speak briefly about one 
of the amendments we had today in the full Committee on Appropriations 
that had to do with some of the farm programs that are coming up.
  This particular amendment had to do with the peanut program. The 
peanut program, like all of the agriculture programs, frankly are 
somewhat hard to describe and explain and they are very complicated. 
But one of the things that I think people need to keep in mind when we 
discuss agriculture is that, number one, the agriculture programs that 
we have were designed to give the American consumers an abundant supply 
of food and a steady supply, steady variety at reasonable prices. That 
has been achieved. American consumers spend 11 percent of their income 
on food compared to 20 percent in other countries and 33 percent in 
countries like the Soviet Union.
  So when we talk about farm subsidies and farm programs and so forth, 
we need to keep in mind that the people who are being subsidized are 
not necessarily the farmers. They are the American consumers. Eleven 
percent of our income, again, Mr. Speaker, goes to groceries. Compared 
to other countries, America is favorably ahead.

                              {time}  2130

  Number two, farm programs have been reduced from a $26 billion level 
in 1987 to $10.6 billion today, in 1995. If all the Federal Government 
programs had been reduced as much as agriculture programs, we would not 
have the deficit. We would be paying down the debt. No other agencies, 
with the exception of Defense, can claim that kind of cut in the last 
8-year period of time.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, every time I pick up the newspapers, the big 
problem with the Federal budget seems to be agriculture. People do not 
keep that in mind.
  Finally, let me say this. The farm bill is coming up. Every year we 
have a farm bill, and all these programs are up for negotiation right 
now. There are many, many Members who are moving these programs to a 
more traditional capitalist system. We are changing the status quo. We 
are moving towards no net cost programs.
  I have noticed that the gentleman from central Georgia, Saxby 
Chambliss, has come down here. He is on the Committee on Agriculture. 
He is involved. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia. I 
know he has been involved in changing the peanut program to a no net 
cost program, and I know he is doing the same with many other programs.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

[[Page H 6380]]

  Mr. Speaker, he is exactly right. We in the Committee on Agriculture 
have been involved in trying to rewrite every single title of the 
agriculture programs in preparation for the 1995 farm bill, which is, 
without a doubt, going to be the most crucial farm bill that we have 
ever written in Congress. The reason it is going to be so crucial is 
that it is going to dictate how our agriculture community operates from 
now into the 21st century.
  Irrespective of what any segment of our country thinks, the 
agriculture community is still the backbone of the economy of this 
country. The reason they are is that we feed more people in this 
country than anybody else in the world does. We not only feed folks in 
this country, we feed folks all over the world. We grow the finest 
quality agricultural products of anybody in the world.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think the average American farmer feeds 
something like 187 people, and
 126 people outside of America, so the production is unbelievable. I 
did not want to break down the gentleman's train of thought there.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. The gentleman is exactly right. Let me tell the 
Members what we have been thinking about in the Committee on 
Agriculture, as far as the 1995 farm bill is concerned. We have in 
place now two agreements, the GATT agreement as well as the NAFTA 
agreements. Those two agreements are going to dictate certain 
requirements on the agriculture community from a subsidy standpoint.
  We know that when NAFTA and GATT are fully implemented, that we are 
going to have to transition into a true free world market, and we in 
the Committee on Agriculture are preparing to do that. We are working 
very diligently towards modifying and changing programs to ensure that 
our folks involved in agriculture are able to compete in the world 
market when those treaties are fully implemented.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is it not true 
that France subsidizes their farmers? Most European countries subsidize 
their farmers. Is it not true that American farmers cannot even sell 
rice in Japan because of the tariff agreement?
  So even as we look at GATT, and look at NAFTA, it is not a perfect 
world. We are not going out there on a free world basis, because of 
still existing trade barriers and still existing subsidies by foreign 
governments to their farmers who are competing with our American 
farmers. Is that not the case?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. If the gentleman will yield, he is absolutely right. 
Not only France but countries like Spain highly subsidize their 
farmers. They compete against us in the world market. We simply cannot 
do that and be able to make a profit in our agriculture community.

                          ____________________