[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 132 (Tuesday, August 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11941-S11944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          REMARKS OF BISHOP WILLIAM SKYLSTAD ON THE FARM BILL

   Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would like to submit for the 
Record the remarks of William Skylstad, the Roman Catholic bishop of 
Spokane, WA, on the subject of the 1995 farm bill. His remarks reflects 
the policies of the U.S. Catholic Conference, which represents the 
Nation's Roman Catholic bishops.
  Bishop Skylstad's thoughtful remarks reflect the American bishops' 
desires to save the family farm, promote wise stewardship of the land, 
alleviate hunger here and abroad, and sustain rural economies--goal 
that I hope we all share. I urge each Senator to review carefully 
Bishop Skylstad's observations and recommendations.
  The remarks follow:

              Testimony by Most Reverend William Skylstad

       I am William Skylstad, the Roman Catholic Bishop of 
     Spokane, Washington. I serve a diocese which is mostly rural, 
     and which has farms of all sizes and shapes. Formerly, I was 
     Bishop of the Diocese of Yakima, Washington. The farming 
     community there relied heavily on migrant labor for its fruit 
     and vegetable harvests. The smaller cities in which I have 
     served have experienced many of the same problems of hunger 
     and poverty that many of our nation's large cities face. So I 
     come today as a pastor with some knowledge of the rural and 
     urban dimensions that this omnibus food and agriculture bill 
     addresses. 

[[Page S 11942]]

       My testimony also reflects the policies of the U.S. 
     Catholic Conference, the policy agency of the U.S. Bishops. I 
     also serve as Chairman of the National Catholic Rural Life 
     Conference Board of Directors. The NCRLC is a national 
     organization founded in 1923, that serves the rural church, 
     and rural people in their communities.
       Through our many national and international organizations 
     including Catholic Charities, the Campaign for Human 
     Development and Catholic Relief Services, we experience first 
     hand the plight of the poor and as the farm bill covers 
     domestic and international food programs as well as food 
     marketing and distribution, we are in a position to bring our 
     experience to bear on this important debate.
       I submit these comments therefore, on behalf of the USCC, 
     with the hope that Congress will produce farm policy that 
     will be fair, equitable and resourceful. In a time of budget 
     cutting, we urge the Agriculture Committee to pursue the 
     common good and target scarce dollars to those most in need.
       Our perspective begins with our belief in the dignity of 
     all people as they are created in God's image. For people to 
     live a dignified life, they must have an adequate and safe 
     food supply. Food, for us, is not just another commodity in 
     the grand economic scheme. We all can live without our car or 
     our computer but cannot live without food. It is essential 
     for life itself. How food is produced is also important since 
     we need not only a bountiful harvest, but a safe one as well. 
     Care for the land is as important to us as what it produces. 
     The common good first requires a safe and affordable food 
     supply.
       These underlying principles, then, are what drives our 
     policy analysis. The basic goal of the food system is to 
     ensure an adequate supply of nutritious food to meet domestic 
     and international need in an environmentally responsible way 
     and to ensure the social health of our rural communities. To 
     meet this goal, we believe four areas of the Farm Bill need 
     particular attention: 1) Agriculture, 2) Hunger, 3) Rural 
     Development and 4) Environment.


                              AGRICULTURE

       Our bishops' Conference believes that a just farm system is 
     one that supports the widespread ownership of farm land and 
     the viability of the family farm. We urge you to be guided by 
     a principle drawn from the Bishops' pastoral letter: Economic 
     Justice for All; 1986. That:
       ``. . . moderate-sized farms operated by families on a 
     full-time basis should be preserved and their economic 
     viability protected. Similarly, small farms and part-time 
     farming, particularly in areas close to cities, should be 
     encouraged. There is genuine social and economic value in 
     maintaining a wide distribution in the ownership of 
     productive property. The democratization of decision making 
     and control of the land resulting from wide distribution of 
     farm ownership are protection against concentration of power 
     and a consequent possible loss of responsiveness to public 
     need in this crucial sector of the economy. Moreover, when 
     those who work in an enterprise also share in its ownership, 
     their active commitment to the purpose of the endeavor and 
     their participation in it are enhanced. Ownership provides 
     incentives for diligence and is a source of an increased 
     sense that the work being done is one's own. This is 
     particularly significant in a sector as vital to human well-
     being as agriculture.''
       Widespread ownership of farm land is not currently being 
     promoted by U.S. agriculture policy. In our judgement, 
     current policies have resulted in a concentration of farmland 
     ownership which is detrimental to the interests of farming 
     and to the vitality of rural communities. Current public 
     policy fosters an increasingly industrialized system of 
     agriculture that requires large amounts of capital and 
     rewards large farms far more than smaller and medium-sized 
     farms. This is a matter of policy choice, not economic 
     inevitability.
       This concentration is a result of farm policy that rewards 
     high production. As incentives to produce grow, the desire to 
     use ever-increasing amounts of chemicals and petroleum for 
     inputs, harvesting, and transportation likewise increases. 
     Dependency on such a system could have serious results if, 
     for example, our supply of petroleum was ever curtailed for 
     any period of time. Another threat of the excess 
     concentration of farmland could be manipulation of markets 
     which can be very dangerous, especially where food is 
     concerned.
       I also believe that the low prices paid for farm 
     commodities are in fact subsidies to the large grain traders 
     and large hog and cattle feedlot operations. Deficiency 
     payments and loan rates based on output create a drive to 
     produce more and more. This favors larger farms which can 
     afford high inputs: inputs which depend on the generous use 
     of chemicals. This policy also creates a drive to buy up land 
     thus accelerating concentration. In addition, the large grain 
     traders received over $2 billion in direct export subsidies 
     in 1993-94 through the Export Enhancement Program. In short, 
     our nation's ``cheap food policy'' is a cheap grain policy 
     which benefits these large agribusiness corporations at the 
     expense of family farmers and rural communities.
       We recognize the definition of ``family farm'' has taken on 
     many meanings. Besides a definition based on gross sales, one 
     helpful definition may be that the goal of the family farmer 
     is to create resources to support a way of life. Typically, a 
     family farmer/owner devotes a good portion of his or her time 
     to the day-to-day management and operation of the farm. The 
     goal of a corporate farm, by way of contrast, would be to 
     make a profit to support its investors. Day-to-day management 
     and operation of the farm is not necessarily by the owners.
       How can we change policy to address the issue of support 
     for family farms and begin to move away from increasing 
     concentration of farm land? Congress needs to take a serious 
     look at targeting farm program dollars to small and moderate-
     sized farmers and away from the large food corporations. A 
     clear first step would be to close the payment limitation 
     loopholes so that the largest farms can no longer subdivide 
     into multiple legal entities to avoid payment limitations.
       Another way to ensure broad-based ownership of land and to 
     support family farmers would be to raise the ``non-recourse'' 
     loan rate. This is also a matter of economic justice. Farmers 
     cannot stay solvent when they are currently producing at, 
     slightly above or, in many cases, below the cost of 
     production. We must express alarm when we read that on the 
     whole, farm sector profitability averaged only 2% over the 
     past five years while the food industry profits averaged 18% 
     over that same period. Setting the loan rate higher would 
     decrease deficiency payments (which totaled $11 billion in 
     1994) and would result in more family farmers surviving to 
     spend more of their money in rural communities.
       Even if federal farm policy were changed to give farmers a 
     fair price for their product, and to remove the disincentives 
     to sustainable agriculture, it would do no good if farmers 
     were not able to get loans to plant their crops. In March, 
     bankers urged the Senate Agriculture Committee to privatize 
     the servicing of USDA loans and replace direct lending with a 
     guaranteed loan program. In the face of increasing debt load 
     and decreasing cash flow among most farmers, bankers are 
     using guaranteed loans to promote contract livestock 
     operations and high equity loans that inhibit the 
     participation of family farmers. In addition, the 
     Consolidated Farm Services Agency currently has no credit 
     sales allocations, which means that land in inventory is not 
     being sold to priority purchasers. These developments are 
     detrimental to family farmers and rural communities. Farming 
     requires credit for the purchase of inputs and equipment. We 
     urge Congress to make credit accessible to family farmers 
     through USDA credit programs that have been proven effective 
     over time.
       Another important concern of family farmers is the 
     increasing use of contract farming and the vertical 
     integration of some commodities. This phenomenon has been 
     seen most prevalently in the poultry industry--and 
     increasingly in the hog industry. Rarely can independent 
     poultry producers participate in this industry. Contracts 
     between farmers and integrators offer substantial protections 
     for integrators and very little for the heavily-invested 
     contract grower. These contracts are often extremely 
     unfavorable for the farmers, who have little legal recourse 
     to force the integrators to bargain contracts in good faith. 
     We urge you to support efforts that would result in good 
     faith bargaining for contract farming.
       Also of concern to the bishops is the decreasing 
     opportunities for younger people to enter into farming. 
     Efforts such as the ``Farm Link'' program, sponsored by the 
     religious and public interest community, deserve more 
     attention and support by the federal government. 
     Additionally, current federal programs for beginning farmers, 
     especially those developed in 1990 and 1992, ought to be 
     continued and enhanced. The strategy of developing 
     partnerships between government, lenders and beginning 
     farmers is one we call on Congress to seriously consider as 
     vital to the interest of maintaining a family farm system.
       Part of the patchwork of family farms are minority farmers. 
     Black farmers have lost land at an accelerating rate in 
     recent years. Since 1954, the number of African-American 
     owned farms has declined by over 95 percent and today their 
     average income is only 65 percent of white farm operators. 
     While many of these farms are small, they have been viable, 
     they provide a sense of identity for the farmer and 
     contribute to the economic security in the community. Special 
     public policy measures are needed in the Farm Bill to stem 
     the loss of these farms, as well as those among Hispanics and 
     Native Americans. We recommend new policy initiatives to 
     assist these farmers: increase outreach and enrollment of 
     minorities in decision making bodies such as county 
     committees; provide increased access to credit through 
     adequate funding and enforcement under the Agriculture Credit 
     Act of 1987 and the 1990 Farm Bill which provide for 
     targeting of FmHA Farm Ownership and Operating Loans and 
     sales of land in inventory to African American and other 
     minority farmers; and adequately fund outreach programs such 
     as was approved in Section 2501(a) of the 1990 Farm Bill.
       Farm workers must receive more attention and protection in 
     farm policy. They continue to be among the poorest people in 
     our land yet they harvest so much of our table food. Opening 
     eligibility and including the work experience of farmworkers 
     for beginning and minority farmer programs would allow some 
     farmworkers to become self-sufficient. The enforcement of 
     existing labor laws and linking compliance with those laws to 
     a farmers participation in program benefits would help 

[[Page S 11943]]
     ensure that farmworkers are protected. Additionally, providing 
     information to both farmers and farmworkers on alternative 
     pesticides and herbicides or on new health concerns for 
     existing chemicals is a matter of fairness and decency.


                                 HUNGER

       The system of food production is unlike any other system: 
     it produces what is essential for life. In a world where 
     there are hundreds of millions of starving and malnourished 
     people, our faith and our social teaching calls us to speak 
     on their behalf and recognize food is essential to a decent 
     and dignified human life.


                            DOMESTIC HUNGER

       In the area of domestic hunger, USCC's primary concerns are 
     in the continuation of the goals of existing food, nutrition 
     and anti-hunger programs to meet the nutrition needs of many 
     pregnant women, poor children, families and the elderly. 
     Food, nutrition and anti-hunger programs play a vital role in 
     ending poverty, especially among our children. Due to 
     declining overall incomes and the breakdown of the family, 
     the overall child poverty rate increased by 49 percent from 
     1973-1992. The largest growth, 76 percent, occurred in the 
     suburbs--the areas once considered most immune from the 
     poverty crisis. Recent reports indicate clearly that our 
     federal food and nutrition programs do make a difference 
     especially for poor children.
       As the bishops said in ``Putting Children and Families 
     First'':
       ``The continuing reality of hungry children in our midst is 
     a dismaying sign of failure. We see signs of this failure in 
     our food pantries, soup kitchens, parishes, and schools. New 
     investment and improvements are needed in basic nutritional 
     programs, such as food stamps, to ensure that no child goes 
     hungry in America. An urgent priority is the Women, Infant & 
     Children (WIC) program, that still does not reach all 
     expectant mothers, infants, and young children in need.'' 
     (1991)
       The USCC strongly recommends the continuation of Food 
     Stamps, Women, Infants and Children Supplemental Program 
     (WIC), The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the 
     school lunch program and other child nutrition and elderly 
     food programs that assist those in need. The proposed cuts 
     appear to us to go too far and the nutritional safety net 
     could be in jeopardy. Additionally, we believe it would be a 
     mistake to pit farm programs against food and nutrition 
     programs in a time of limited budget resources. Both programs 
     are necessary and need support.
       While not categorically opposed in principle to block 
     grants, the USCC believes that block granting essential 
     entitlement programs such as Food Stamps could be detrimental 
     to uniform nutritional standards and create unnecessary 
     hardship on children, families and individuals in times of 
     economic difficulties. These programs are often the beginning 
     point for people who wish to work themselves out of poverty. 
     The USCC envisions policies that will move people from 
     perpetual hunger and poverty to a more sustained system of 
     nutritional value and self dependency.
       Linkages between urban hunger and the development of urban 
     edge agriculture should be fostered. Such linkages should be 
     seen as a form of community development and empowerment which 
     complements and extends the traditional approaches to 
     addressing food and hunger issues. I encourage Congress to 
     direct the USDA to adopt community food security as a mission 
     of the agency and establish a community food security 
     program. Support direct farmer-to-consumer marketing efforts 
     by expanding the Farmer's Market Nutrition Program and the 
     Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program. We encourage 
     further expansions of government purchases of local 
     agricultural products. These and other provisions are part of 
     the Community Food Security Empowerment Act of 1995 which I 
     urge you to support.


                          INTERNATIONAL HUNGER

       While hunger in our own country remains a serious problem, 
     we cannot turn our backs on the 800 million people all over 
     the world (and over half of them children), who do not have 
     enough to eat. Such hunger is shameful in a world where most 
     believe we can produce enough food for everyone.
       We believe that special efforts must be made to see food as 
     more than just another commodity to be traded on the 
     international market and that it not be used as a bargaining 
     chip as the United States pursues its interest in various 
     parts of the globe. In addition, we believe that food trade 
     should be conducted with global food security and equity as 
     its primary goals, not with raw competition as its driving 
     engine. Finally, patterns of overproduction and 
     overconsumption on the part of first world countries has a 
     devastating impact on the development and sustainability of 
     our third world neighbors. The question is: will US food aid 
     help poor people in food deficient nations move toward food 
     security, or will it foster an unhealthy dependence?
       The Food for Peace Program (PL-480) needs to be re-
     authorized and expanded. But it also needs to have a clear 
     and primary goal alleviating hunger and only secondarily the 
     pursuit of commercial or strategic interests.
       In the 1995 Farm Bill, the United States should reinforce 
     its commitment to help hungry people through international 
     food aid programs. Over the past two years, the total level 
     of international food assistance provided by the United 
     States has decreased by nearly 50 percent. Programs to assist 
     those who suffer from chronic hunger, as well as U.S. 
     commitments to provide assistance for disaster relief, have 
     been scaled back.
       Food assistance is truly ``Food for Peace.'' When there is 
     significant hunger and poverty, a country cannot experience 
     internal stability and economic growth. It will not develop 
     into a U.S. trading partner until some of its food security 
     problems are remedied. Food aid is not the only response, but 
     it has saved millions of lives and helped to improve the 
     quality of life for millions more. And it has provided 
     markets for U.S. agricultural goods and built the foundation 
     for future trade relations.
       The limited funds available for food aid should be targeted 
     to those whose need is greatest and where the food can be 
     used most effectively to alleviate hunger now and contribute 
     to long-term food security. More specifically, we recommend:
       1. With the downsizing of government agencies, relying more 
     heavily on the experience, recommendations and capabilities 
     of private partners--PVOs and cooperatives--for developing 
     and implementing title II programs.
       2. Strengthening the Title II program requirements so that 
     the minimal amount of food tonnage required for people-to-
     people development programs (conducted by private voluntary 
     organizations (PVOs), cooperatives and the World Food 
     Program) is maintained. These programs assist countries with 
     chronic hunger. Raiding these programs to take care of 
     emergency needs only creates additional emergency needs. A 
     new mechanism to take care of emergency situations should be 
     established.
       3. Establishing mechanisms which assure that the U.S. can 
     continue to play a leadership role in responding to emergency 
     needs by providing food in a timely manner. Allow the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to use the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation funds to make up to 1 metric ton of commodities 
     available each year for emergency needs abroad.


                           RURAL DEVELOPMENT

       In the area of rural development, policies should be 
     enacted to strengthen economic development, expansion of 
     employment opportunities, and education in rural communities. 
     The lack of farming opportunities, few quality jobs, and poor 
     infrastructure is forcing many of our young people out of 
     rural communities and into the cities. This creates a drain 
     of talent vitally needed by our rural towns.
       Some modest rural empowerment and enterprise zones have 
     been enacted to address funding for housing and community 
     facilities, business development, water and waste systems. 
     However, some rural residents fear that business development 
     projects through enterprise ``zones'' are not long term and 
     many rural communities are left untouched by enterprise or 
     empowerment zones. Policy needs to be developed to ensure 
     that stability to rural communities can be assured through 
     permanent business development.
       Much needed infrastructure improvements could generate 
     economic development opportunities that would enhance the 
     overall quality of many American rural communities. Far too 
     many rural communities still lack adequate housing, water 
     access, safe roads, and public transportation which restrict 
     rural residents from enjoying amenities that other 
     communities have.
       But more than infrastructure improvements are necessary. 
     While many farmers are economically better off than the 
     national average, 20 percent remain in poverty. Part of the 
     problem is that money is flowing out of the rural community. 
     Dependence on one or two key employers will be lessened if 
     assistance in market diversification and in creating value-
     added ventures in the local town were to become a reality.
       We believe the government has a continuing role in 
     providing for the credit needs of farmers and especially 
     beginning and minority farmers. Direct lending (i.e., being 
     the ``lender of last resort''), and servicing loans should be 
     part of government services to protect and promote the 
     viability of family farms. The advantages of existing loan 
     programs ought to be promoted including direct CFSA loans. 
     Additionally, we urge support for both credit sales--so more 
     beginning and minority farmers can enter farming--and 
     education and outreach programs to minority farmers.


                              ENVIRONMENT

       Our traditional concern for the environment flows from our 
     teachings about creation and stewardship. In 1991, our 
     bishops' Conference noted that:
       ``Sustainable economic policies, that is, practices that 
     reduce current stresses on natural systems and are consistent 
     with sound environmental policy in the long term, must be put 
     into effect. At the same time, the world economy must come to 
     include hundreds of millions of poor families who live at the 
     edge of survival.'' (Renewing the Earth, 1991)
       In this area we focus primarily on sustainable agriculture 
     but also on the support for existing environmental and 
     conservation programs of the federal government.
       We define sustainable agriculture generally as substituting 
     renewable resources generated on the farm for nonrenewable, 
     purchased resources. Sustainable agriculture relies on 
     modern, evolving and highly adaptable management technology. 
     According to 

[[Page S 11944]]
     an extensive study by the Northwest Area Foundation (an organization 
     promoting economic revitalization for eight states--including 
     my own state of Washington) entitled, A Better Row to Hoe, 
     sustainable farmers are more diversified, plant less program 
     commodities, use less fertilizer, pesticides, and energy, 
     rotate crops, recycle plant nutrients and manure, plant more 
     soil-building crops, use more cover crops, strip crops, 
     contour grass waterways and field windbreaks than do 
     conventional farmers. All of these techniques are consistent 
     with our principles of careful stewardship of finite natural 
     resources. Additionally, the new techniques of sustainable 
     agriculture will increase small town business opportunities 
     as the local community responds to the different production 
     and market needs of these farmers. We see this as a positive 
     development which corresponds to our call to value and 
     support rural and small town life.
       While the Northwest Area Foundation study concludes that 
     there is general support for the concepts of sustainable 
     agriculture, there is a great deal of reluctance on the part 
     of many farmers to fully enter into these farming techniques 
     because of the lack of governmental support. This is 
     especially true in the areas of commodity program payments, 
     research and extension services.
       Environmental performance should be a hallmark of public 
     farm policy. We urge the removal of penalties for converting 
     to sustainable agriculture and an end to the discrimination 
     against sustainable farmers who plant soil-conserving crops 
     and have fewer acres in subsidized crops. Greater emphasis on 
     sustainable agriculture in research and educational programs 
     will strengthen the technology base and provide both 
     beginning farmers and farmers who want to convert to 
     sustainable agriculture with better technical support.
       We support recent conservation legislation that would 
     consolidate current conservation programs into a single 
     entity; keep the current level of funding; extend the 
     Conservation and Wetlands Reserve Programs (CRP and WRP) and 
     focusing CRP on the most environmentally sensitive lands and 
     encourage partial field enrollments; encourage conservation 
     practices by giving priority to sustainable practices rather 
     than wholesale land retirements; and encourage support for 
     sustainable livestock management practices.
       In addition to these proposals we would also recommend: 
     Providing incentive payments to encourage whole farm 
     planning; Encouraging local participation by farmers, 
     ranchers, nonprofit organizations as well as federal, state 
     and local natural resources staff in the new State 
     Conservation Committees; Considering a grant program where a 
     portion of federal conservation funds can draw down local 
     funds for special conservation projects.
       Finally, it is critical that Conservation Compliance, 
     Sodbuster, and Swampbuster provisions be maintained. Though 
     they have not been perfect programs, they have significantly 
     slowed the wetland destruction, soil erosion and have 
     improved water quality. These provisions are conditions of 
     enrollment in a voluntary entitlement program and should not 
     be viewed as regulatory ``takings'' of private property 
     rights, as suggested in the House-passed ``Private Property 
     Protection Act of 1995.''


                               CONCLUSION

       I encourage you to continue to promote a broad-based 
     ownership of the land and the means of agricultural 
     production, to foster the family farm, support minority 
     farmers and farmworkers and uphold the place of the land as a 
     gift from God and for all generations.
     

                          ____________________