[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 153 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H9653]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FREEDOM TO FARM ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempo. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, several issues have come up, but
I would like to start out with agriculture, what the Federal farm
policy should be in this country and the advantages and disadvantages
to the farmer and the consumer.
Since the early 1930's, we decided that by controlling production we
could guarantee a stable supply of food in this country. However, what
has happened in the last 30 years is the consumer interests, the White
House, the consumer interests in Congress have started dictating farm
program policy, and what has happened is we have driven more and more
of the small family farmers out of agriculture. Here is how farm
programs have worked: We tell the farmers if they will grow a certain
amount of crop and slightly have a policy that encourages
overproduction, we will give those farmers subsidy payments. So what we
have done, in effect, is encourage slight overproduction, keeping the
prices down, which has been good for agriculture in this country
because it has become lean and mean.
But in the process, we have disadvantaged the small family farmer in
the United States. That is why, and I as a farmer from Michigan, I am
now suggesting that we move to the market economy to give the rewards
to the producers of this Nation so that the farmers and ranchers can
make their own farm management decisions based on their best
interpretation and understanding of what the market is demanding for
those special crops.
By doing these, many of the economists that have been advising us on
freedom to farm have said that farmers will end up better off as we
make this transition to the marketplace.
Make sure, it is a difficult transition, that we have enticed farmers
to become more and more dependent on farm subsidies during the last 40
years. So their cash flow, in many cases, depends on it.
What we have got to do as we make this transition to a market
economy, and that is what the Freedom to Market Act does, is make the
kind of transition that is going to keep American agriculture the
strongest in the world.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, now let me ask the gentleman about this
freedom to farm bill because as I understand from a previous speaker
tonight, that did not pass committee. Is it dead? Are you going to try
to move it out of the Committee on Agriculture a second time? What is
the status of that?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. That now becomes, because of the failure for
that committee to enact legislation consistent with the budget
resolution, a new proposal will be offered by the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget that achieves the same kind of budget
reductions.
Let me tell you what has happened in the U.S. Congress, as I observe
it, and that is Members traditionally members of the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities that wanted to spend more money
on education, say, ``I want to be on the Education Committee.'' Members
that want more roads in their districts want to be on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. We have got Members on the Committee
on Agriculture that would like more money for their farmers.
If we are going to phase out agriculture in a smart way and not make
that farmer continuously dependent on the Federal Government and,
hopefully, end up with a larger income for that farmer, then we have
got to move to a market economy.
Mr. KINGSTON. Well, I think that the gentleman is walking on the very
delicate balance, as you said, between farm programs that work and
moving toward an economy that is more free-market oriented, and I know
that is a tough road for you.
I have some provincial concerns; cotton, peanut, and so forth, but I
do think what is important is that our farmers are involved in this
process and stay involved in this process as things start changing,
because I know the peanut farmers have come a long way in their work
and the cotton folks are trying to work for something that is a
suitable solution.
There are some concerns I have on the sugar program. As you know,
America is a net importer of sugar, and even though the taxpayers are
not paying the difference, the world cost of sugar is about 11 cents a
ton, but the domestic price is 24 cents a ton. We have an 18-cent-per-
ton price support.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Reclaiming my time, I think we are on the same
track. The question is how do we achieve the same result in making the
transition for farm programs. We have got to do it smartly, simply,
because other countries are subsidizing so heavily.
____________________