[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 179 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H12157-H12158]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           OPPOSING THE ELIMINATION OF MILK MARKETING ORDERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, 
reconciliation conferees, I would like to commend the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon], and 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh] for their intrusive, decisive, 
and successful effort to block a provision of the House-passed 7-year 
Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act that I believe would have unfairly 
disrupted the livelihoods of our Nation's dairy farmers.
  Reconciliation contained a provision entitled ``freedom to milk,'' 
which legislates the dismantling of the milk marketing orders. This 
proposal would deregulate the current system by terminating the price 
support program effective January 21, 1996.
  After speaking with dairy farmers from western Pennsylvania, I can 
assure you that this would be devastating to the industry. According to 
a recent Mid-Atlantic Dairymen's Inc. analysis of a Food and 
Agriculture Policy Institute study, net returns to dairy producers 
would be projected to go down 65 percent in the first year of 
deregulation and down 43 percent per year on the average for the first 
3 years.
  Furthermore, under freedom to milk, Pennsylvania dairy farmers are 
expected to lose over $150 million. Low farm milk prices and limited 
availability of credit, coupled with the fact that our GATT partners 
can still subsidize their dairy farmers, means that the freedom to farm 
provision is more than scary. For the small dairy farmer in my 
district, it is fatal.
   Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the present system was not haphazardly 
scrapped. It has continued to evolve to reflect the needs of the market 
and consumers. The U.S. dairy industry is one of the most efficient 
market-oriented dairy industries in the world, and the program which 
manages this industry costs the Government less than $70 million each 
year.
  Furthermore, dairy farmers recognize that once again it is time to 
reform the system, but let us do it constructively.
  Why do we not consolidate the orders through the Department of 
Agriculture's hearing process, simplify the system, and ensure that the 
small dairy farmer still has input into future reform? Unfortunately, 
there are still proposals out there to meet the budgetary caps that 
unfairly tax the dairy farmer, a new 10-cent assessment on top of the 
existing assessments.

  The purpose of agricultural reform and the objective of the 
reconciliation process is to reduce taxpayer support of farm programs. 
A new assessment on dairy producers is nothing more than a direct tax 
upon every dairy farmer in America.
  Mr. Speaker, in my view, the appropriate approach is to realize 
savings through the price support program currently in place. Such a 
reduction would realize budgetary savings at no expense under current 
milk prices for all products to the farmers. At the present time, 
nonfat dry milk is still being marketed at 6 cents over the support 
price while butter and cheese are currently 35 percent over support 
levels.

[[Page H 12158]]

  Accordingly, reduction in the taxpayer-funded price support program 
would not directly impact farmers, yet would still produce the 
necessary tax savings.
  Mr. Speaker, this summer I had an opportunity to talk to dairymen 
throughout my district, and they are hurting. They are hurting in a way 
that they have not been in many, many years. We must, at a time like 
this, be cautious in how we tamper with price supports for dairy 
producers because there is a real danger that many of these small and 
even midsize family farmers will be put out of business by a 
precipitous policy.

                          ____________________