[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 167 (Thursday, October 26, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2048-E2049]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        FARM FAILURE ACT OF 1995

                                 ______


                            HON. DAVID MINGE

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 26, 1995

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, a farmer I met summed up the 
Freedom to Farm Act in a memorable and accurate manner: The only time a 
farmer is truly free is when he is broke.
  Many farmers fear that this bill will drive them out of farming. The 
Freedom to Farm Act will mean that when violent price swings and 
volatile markets occur, farmers will lack both a safety net and the 
tools needed to try to manage risk.

[[Page E2049]]

  House Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts is the author of the 
Freedom to Farm Act. It would reduce agricultural commodity program 
spending by $13.4 billion over 7 years. Republican congressional 
leaders want to save this amount from farm programs as a part of their 
overall tax reduction plan.
  Four Republicans joined with the Democratic members of the House 
Agriculture Committee to defeat the Freedom to Farm Act. Congressional 
leaders then decided to bypass the Agriculture Committee and fold the 
Freedom to Farm Act provisions into the overall budget plan the House 
will consider.
  It is tragic that the House Agriculture Committee chairman failed to 
create a process that would allow for the development of innovative 
farm policy. Instead of a thoughtful discussion of how farm policy 
should be revamped, we were asked to vote on a 100-page proposal that 
we had received only a few days before.
  No hearings were held on the Freedom to Farm Act. It is inconceivable 
that there would be no chance for public comment on the most sweeping 
change in U.S. farm policy in 60 years. After spending 10 months 
holding more than 30 town meetings on the farm bill, I did not have a 
chance to share with other committee members the comments I received at 
the meetings.
  I do support some aspects of the Freedom to Farm Act. This proposal 
dramatically simplifies farm programs, provides almost complete 
flexibility in planting, more effectively limits payments to huge farm 
operations, and provides fair treatment of all major program crops.
  However, the faults in the act outweigh its merits. Without a chance 
to eliminate these tragic flaws it was impossible for me to vote for 
the proposal.
  One flaw is that the act provides no safety net for farmers to 
control risk. The proposal requires automatic payments to farm 
operators regardless of crop prices. The real beneficiaries of this 
policy are landowners, not farmers. Automatic payments will quickly 
become an important factor in rental rates and land values. This 
automatic payment approach will discredit farm programs in the eyes of 
the American people. It is not designed to meet crises faced by family 
farmers. The devastating impact of plummeting crop or livestock prices 
has been the underlying justification for farm programs. How can we 
justify guaranteed payments for landowners if crop and livestock prices 
are high and the Federal Government has a deficit?
  Another problem with the Freedom to Farm Act is that it spends money 
unnecessarily. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and most others who 
have studied markets project strong, increasing demand for U.S. 
commodities. That demand will drive up prices for the next several 
years. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, in fact, estimates that 
if the current farm program were simply extended it would cost $10 
billion less than the automatic payments in the freedom to farm 
proposal. There is no justification or need for automatic payments in 
such times.
  Still, the prospect of good times cannot lead us to strip budget 
authority for farm programs. We must maintain our readiness for farm 
programs when they are needed. We cannot unilaterally disarm.
  Developing and implementing improved and innovative insurance-based 
programs is the direction we should take. We can budget for insurance 
programs and marketing loans. A trust account can be established and 
funded. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has no vision and 
proposes to reduce the budget authority for Agricultural programs by 60 
percent over 7 years.
  We need this budget authority to create an innovative farm policy. 
Once lost, this is budget authority we will not be able to reclaim. The 
Freedom to Farm Act really is the demise of farm programs.

                          ____________________