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




                           A NEW FARM POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Diaz-Balart). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, we will continue the same dialog with the 
gentleman from the First District of Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. Speaker, one way that we look at the farm programs is not from 
the standpoint of is it a subsidy, because it really is not. The United 
States government makes an investment into our agriculture community, 
and a good example of it is with the peanut program.
  The peanut program is a highly criticized program, but the reason it 
is criticized is because most folks just do not understand it. What we 
do in the United States is we have invested over the last 10 years an 
average of $15 million a year into the peanut program. That program in 
Georgia alone last year was a $2.5 billion industry. I do not know how 
many jobs it created, just in the State of Georgia alone. Peanuts are 
grown from Texas all the way to Georgia, up the seaboard, all the way 
into Virginia.
  Mr. Speaker, really what our farm programs are are
   investments by the U.S. Government into our agriculture community, 
into our States, that create jobs, they provide an income for people, 
and we get a significant return off of those programs from the 
standpoint of income to our farmers, as well as providing crops.

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, one of the 
things we are telling farmers from the gentleman's district and my 
district and all over the country is despite the fact that we have gone 
from $26 billion in a government investment to $10 billion over a net 
year period of time, they are still going to have to change if we are 
going to have a program. We are moving these programs into no net cost 
programs. We are transforming them. If people want status quo, they 
lose out in 1995. That is not what the taxpayers want. They want a 
balanced budget, which means we are going to have to all do more.
  What we try to do, Mr. Speaker, is measure agriculture with the same 
yardstick that we measure social programs. When we are looking at 
social programs, if we are going to vote to cut them, then we need to 
be able to say we are going to do the same thing to agriculture.
  What the farmers are saying to us is ``We realize that, as long as 
you are fair and across the board, and do not balance the budget on the 
back of farmers.'' In fact, we could not, because even if we eliminate 
all farm spending, it constitutes three-fifths of 1 percent of the 
entire budget. It will not balance the budget if we eliminate it 
completely.
  What we are trying to get across to folks, Mr. Speaker, even still, 
we have to change the program in order to be in this game. I am glad to 
say that most of the farmers I have talked to, and I think Mr. 
Chambliss as well, are saying ``Do what you can to balance the budget. 
Make that the number one priority, but remember, you have to feed 
people and you have to have farmers to do that, so do not eliminate all 
your agricultural investments.''
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. One interesting thing about agriculture, Mr. Speaker, 
is that our farmers are generally conservative individuals. They fully 
believe the main thing we need to do in this country is balance the 
budget. I have not met a single farmer in my district who does not give 
that a high priority.
  At the same time, as the gentleman says, we simply cannot single out 
the agricultural community to balance the budget. One thing that our 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture is committed to do is to 
ensure that all cuts that are made are taken in a proportionate, on an 
equal basis with other programs, and agriculture is not singled out.
  Let me just address one other point that is very crucial, Mr. 
Speaker, and it is something that folks who are opposed to the farm 
programs continually point out. That is that there is a myth out there 
if agriculture programs are cut out, that the housewife will see a 
difference in the price at the retail store. That simply is not true.
  We have had testimony after testimony in the Committee on Agriculture 
from individuals who are involved in manufacturing who will tell us 
that even if we take a price cut, or even if there is a price cut in 
the support price, there will not be a reflection of that cut in the 
retail price. They will use that money either to add to their bottom 
line, to show their stockholders that they have made more money, or 
they will take that money and put it in promotion to advertise their 
products. Therefore, there is not going to be a change in the price at 
the retail store if there are cuts in price supports. That myth simply 
does not exist.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman has summed it up.
  

                          ____________________