[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 123 (Thursday, July 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10767-S10768]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 SHOULD THERE BE FEDERAL FARM PROGRAMS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the past decade most of the debate on 
farm programs has centered around the question of ``how much should we 
spend on farm programs?'' Now the debate has shifted to whether there 
should be any programs that provide benefits to farmers. I take the 
floor today to address this issue.
  Let me begin my statement by asking three questions, giving three 
quick answers, and then explaining why I have come to these 
conclusions.
  Question: Do the historic justifications for farm programs make sense 
today?
  Answer: No.
  Question: Should there be any Federal program in which tax dollars 
are transferred to farmers?
  Answer: Yes.
  Question: Should farm programs be phased out or continued?
  Answer: The next month will decide.
  Let us start with the third question--to which I answered, ``the next 
month will decide.'' It is the heart of this question that the Senate 
must face this year.
  There are two tests that farm programs must meet to merit continued 
funding.
  First, will continued farm program funding mean more food for the 
hungry; and second, will continued farm program funding mean better 
management of our natural resources.
  Unfortunately the jury is still out on whether the 1995 farm bill 
will meet these two tests.
  Why? First, because some farm groups have proposed taking food from 
the needy to subsidize wealthy farmers. Second, because some farm 
groups are trying to repeal a decade of legislation that has brought 
harmony between agricultural and environmental policies.
  Let me make my position clear--very clear. If farm programs become 
the enemy of the hungry and the environment, I will not support them. 
Indeed, I will join those on the floor who want to dismantle them.
  Now a few words of background.


                              Times Change

  A long time could be spent explaining why farm programs need to be 
changed. It comes down to this. When the Agricultural Act of 1949 was 
written, 42 percent of rural Americans were farmers and farmers were 15 
percent of the U.S. population. Rural Americans were generally poorer 
than most Americans. An income support program that helped farmers, 
helped rural America. Today farmers are only 2 percent of the American 
population and the average farmer is wealthier than the average 
American.
  At one time regulations that required farmers to idle land also 
helped stabilize some food prices. By and large, there is now very 
little consumer benefit from the land idling aspects of farm programs. 
Today land retirement programs function only to control the budgetary 
costs of the program.
  Farm programs are no longer an effective means to promote economic 
growth in rural America. Farm programs no longer stabilize consumer 
prices.


                          Needy Require Allies

  The other primary justification for the farm programs, has been that 
they were part of the political arrangement that provided political 
support for feeding programs. Urban Congressmen supported farm programs 
in return for rural support of nutrition programs. While every program 
should stand on its own merits, in a democracy, the needy require 
allies more than anyone else. Even an unholy alliance makes sense if it 
helps us to meet our moral obligation to end hunger in America.
  Unfortunately earlier this year, during the Senate Budget Committee's 
consideration of the budget resolution, the farm groups united in an 
effort to cut nutrition programs in order to increase farm program 
payments. If this 

[[Page S 10768]]
effort produces a major shift from nutrition to farm programs, I will 
not be able to support farm programs.


                   Unique Natural Resource Challenges

  So, should there be any Federal program in which tax dollars are 
transferred to farmers?
  The answer is yes--for two reasons.
  First, because farmers face unique problems with natural disasters.
  Second, because farmers have a unique role in meeting widely held 
national natural resource objectives.
  First, farmers face unique problems with natural disasters. Droughts, 
floods, and disease cause catastrophic losses that can bankrupt even 
the most efficient farmer. Without Government assistance, the private 
sector cannot provide adequate and affordable insurance to help farmers 
manage production risk. Thus, a subsidized crop insurance program makes 
sense.
  Second, farmers play a unique role in managing our natural resources. 
Farms and grazing lands make up 50 percent of the continental United 
States. It is impossible to successfully regulate such a vast area, 
even if one wanted to--which I do not. To successfully address natural 
resource management on private lands, farmers must be part of the 
solution. The taxpayers are willing to pay farmers to protect drinking 
water, preserve lakes and rivers, and to be stewards of the soil.
  In the 1985 and 1990 farm bills, farm programs were harmonized with 
environmental objectives. For example, no longer were farmers paid to 
destroy wetlands. Instead, farm programs began to protect wetlands.
  Today some farm groups favor destroying this harmony. They even go so 
far as to say that farm conservation should only be funded if there is 
money left after farm subsidies and exports subsides are paid for.
  This may make sense to a farmer or a grain exporter. It does not make 
sense to the public. There is no reason a farmer should be richer than 
a machine shop owner. There is no reason that the taxpayer should help 
huge grain exporters control market shares.
  So this is the time for testing.
  Will farm programs become just another special interest trying to 
take the last few dollars from the Federal Government before the bank 
goes broke?
  Will farmers accept the challenge of living up to their historic 
responsibility of feeding the poor and gradually transform farm 
programs into natural resource management programs?
  Wallace Stevens once wrote:

     After the final ``no'' there comes a ``yes,''
     And on that ``yes'' the future of the world depends. . . .

  The next month will decide whether the final answer will be a ``yes'' 
on which the farmer and the taxpayer can depend.
  I am somewhat dismayed to see the pattern that has grown up over the 
past decade so suddenly become shattered. This pattern farmers, 
consumers, and environmentalists working together on the farm bill. 
Each realized that they would not get every single thing they wanted, 
but working together, they would better represent the interest of 
farmers, ranchers, environmentalists, consumers, the hungry, and those 
who could afford to buy food in this country.
  You will find some who want to shatter that kind of coalition, who 
want to grab their own special interests immediately, almost on ``The 
devil take the hind most.'' Well, that is not going to happen because 
some are going to stand up and speak for the ``high'' most.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________