[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 198 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S18554]
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 only one question:
  ``How much should we spend on farm programs?''
  Four months ago, I took to the floor to address this issue and noted 
that the debate has shifted to whether there should be any programs 
that provide benefits to farmers.
  Now, the Republican majority has reported a bill that again only 
answers the ``how much'' question. It will give $55 billion of the 
taxpayers funds to farmers over the next 7 years.
  The fundamental question is not answered. Should there be farm 
programs at all?
  Farm programs have never been welfare programs.
  They have been a contract with the American people.
  Here is a copy of the contract that the farmers signs each year with 
the American taxpayer.
  No farmer is required to sign this contract. Each farmer signs 
voluntarily.


                 historical rationale for farm programs

  Historically, the contract was a ``price and production 
stabilization'' contract--as it says here at the top of this document. 
The taxpayers paid farmers to set land aside in order to stabilize 
consumer prices as well as stabilizing farm income.
  In 1985, the Republican Senate added a new term to that contract. 
Farmers were also paid to be stewards of the land. Again, no farmer was 
required to become a land steward--to be a good neighbor. Each farmer 
made that decision voluntarily.
  Now, the Republican budget farm bill changes the terms of the farm 
contract. It no longer offers American farmers a ``price and production 
stabilization'' contract. Thus, for the $35 billion the taxpayers give 
farmers over the next 7 years, consumers get no price stability 
benefit.
  Do I mourn the loss of a farmer-taxpayer contract based on a price 
stabilization rationale?
  No, I do not. At one time regulations that required farmers to manage 
supplies also helped stabilize some food prices. By and large, there is 
no longer much, if any, consumer benefit from the supply management 
aspects of farm programs. Today, supply management programs function 
only to control the budgetary costs of the program.
  This history brings us back to the basic question. Should there be 
any Federal farm programs?


                   unique natural resource challenges

  The answer is yes. For one overriding reason. It is this. Only 
farmers can give the American people what they want from private lands.
  Let me put it very simply. Americans cannot get the environmental 
benefits they want unless farmers and ranchers are active willing land 
stewards.
  Before we reviewed a little history--now a little--or should I say--a 
lot of geography. Farms and grazing lands make up 50 percent of the 
continental United States.
  Let me say that again--Farmers and ranchers own or manage 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 protect and enhance 
natural resource values on private lands, farmers must be a willing 
part of the solution.
  The 1985 and the 1990 farm bills show that the taxpayers are willing 
to pay farmers to protect drinking water, cleanup lakes and rivers, and 
to be stewards of the soil.
  As the executive director of the National Rifle Association states, 
``Congress has had the foresight to create these unique mechanisms 
which wed agricultural goals with conservation goals.'' For example, no 
longer were farmers paid to destroy wetlands. Instead, farm programs 
began to protect wetlands.
  Today, some farm groups favor destroying his harmony. They even go so 
far as to say that farm conservation should only be funded if there is 
any money left after farm subsidies and exports subsidies are paid for.
  It does not make sense to the public. There is no reason a farmer 
should be richer than a machine shop owner, even though there is a 
rationale for farmers being protected from unexpected market shifts.
  So this is the time for testing.
  It comes down to this question--Is this Republican package the 
beginning of the end of farm programs, the last 7 years of ``market 
transition payments,'' or is it a new beginning for farm programs--
which builds on the stewardship contract that the American farmer made 
with the American people beginning in 1985.
  In 1990, as chairman, I confirmed and deepened the land stewardship 
contract between farmers and the American public. One of my proudest 
moments as chairman was when I stood in the White House while the 
President praised the 1990 farm bill as ``one of the most important 
environmental legislative accomplishments of his Presidency.''
  But the Republican budget package leaves the basic question 
unanswered. The Republican proposal says that it will continue to make 
``adherence to existing conservation compliance and wetland protection 
regulations'' a condition of receiving farm payments. It also launches 
a new program, the ``Livestock Environmental Assistance Program'' which 
provides the same kind of financial assistance to livestock farmers and 
ranchers that crop farmers have received. It is a great idea--of which 
I am the proud author. This press release seems to affirm and expand 
the stewardship contract of the 1985 and 1990 farm bills.
  But, the Republican agricultural leaders have also called for 
dropping the wetlands protection contract term in the farmers contract 
with the American taxpayer.
  So what is real?--the press release or their legislation?
  The Republicans are not being straight with either the taxpayers or 
the farmers.
  If the Republicans tear up the contract between the farmers and the 
American people--then the Freedom to Farm contract is a one way 
contract in which the taxpayers will pay $35 billion to farmers for the 
next 7 years and the taxpayers will get nothing in return.
  It will be just a welfare payment--for a group of Americans whose 
income is seven times higher than a typical family on food stamps.


                               conclusion

  Wallace Stevens once wrote: ``After the final `no' there comes a 
`yes,' and on that `yes' the future of the world depends * * *.''
  Saying no to failed policies of the past makes all the sense in the 
world. Saying yes to a stewardship contract between the American 
taxpayer and the American farmer is the only future on which the farmer 
and the taxpayer can depend.

                          ____________________