[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2043-E2044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2160, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 
 AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                      HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, October 6, 1997

  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the FY98 
Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. I am pleased that the 
report protects the peanut program and that it does not eliminate the 
subsidy for crop insurance for tobacco. It is difficult for many 
Americans, and many of my colleagues, to understand the profound impact 
that farming has on our nation. They live in cities where their food 
appears in supermarkets, not fully understanding the difficult and 
laborious efforts that brought the food to them. Spend one day on a 
peanut farm in my district, and you will know the effort that went into 
that jar of peanut butter. Family farmers are the backbone of America's 
agricultural community and the peanut program is one of the vital and 
necessary safety-nets that help protect that community.
  The peanut program helps 20,000 American farmers and small businesses 
compete in the world market, while providing nearly 50,000 American 
jobs on farms, in processing plants and in related industries. Peanuts 
are the 12th most valuable crop in the United States and the 4th most 
valuable oil crop worldwide. In addition, the program provides 
consumers with an ample supply of one of the safest, most nutritious 
foods on the market. Because of the program, the United States will be 
the No. 1 exporter of edible peanuts this year.
  The peanut program is no-net-cost program and in fact contains a 
budget deficit reduction assessment of $83 million which would have 
been lost if the program was eliminated.
  The program does not reduce consumer prices. Consumer prices have not 
changed from a year ago, despite the fact farm support prices were cut 
by 10 percent last year. Consumer prices for peanut butter remain the 
lowest in the world, at 11 cents a serving, the same price as 1988. 
Peanut butter prices are lower today than 10 years ago.
  The environment is benefited by the program because peanut plants are 
nitrogen-fixing plants which help restore vital nutrients to the soil 
in rotation with other crops.
  I have had serious questions about the GAO report that seems to be 
the main source of criticism to the Peanut Program. I do not believe 
that this report is entirely accurate or an objective presentation of 
data. It is really designed to give a skewed appearance. The USDA has 
commented on the ``lack of objectivity,'' the ``erroneous 
assumptions,'' and ``lack of thoroughness'' in the report. The GAO has

[[Page E2044]]

admitted their use of the term ``consumer'' means the ``first buyer'' 
not the ``final consumer of the product.'' The GAO also interviewed 
both small and large manufacturers of peanut products and were told 
that they ``may not pass the costs [savings] directly on to the final 
consumer'' of peanut products. This report was the basis of the attempt 
to phase-out the peanut program and quite simply the factual basis for 
that argument was truly flawed.
  Those statistics give you the economic impact of the peanut program, 
but I want to put a human face on this debate. Peanut is concentrated 
in the rural regions of nine southern states, with these regions being 
poverty-dense and agriculture-dependent. Peanuts is the largest cash 
crop and industry in many of these regions. For example, every one of 
the 31 counties in the 2nd District of Georgia, which I represent, is a 
peanut producing county. The peanut farms are on average 100 acres, not 
exactly giant agribusiness. Twenty-nine of those counties have poverty 
exceeding the national average of 13 percent. It's not just my 
district. Alabama and Florida have a significant number of peanut 
producing counties that also have poverty exceeding the national 
average. The elimination of the Peanut Program would have cost more 
than 5,000 jobs. We are not only talking about hard working family-
farmers whose average income dropped sharply in 1995 & 1996. We are 
also talking about the families of the farmers, the small businesses 
that work in the peanut industry and the rural communities that are 
sustained by peanut farming.
  Last year we forged an agreement between the Government and our 
farmers. Investment decisions have been based on a 7-year farm bill. 
This body should never make a 7-year commitment and attempt to break it 
after one. If we had broken this agreement we would have had zero 
credibility with the agricultural community. In addition, the banking 
community would no longer trust us, because they would have made loans 
based on the 7-year farm bill.
  The crop insurance program was designed to protect crop producers 
from unavoidable risks associated with adverse weather, plant diseases 
and insect infestations. The crop insurance program was made available 
to producers of MAJOR crops, including tobacco, for which private 
insurance is generally not available. The Government underwriting 
enhances the ability of farmers to obtain credit from commercial 
lenders who view a crop insurance policy as a form of security on a 
farm loan. Private insurance availability would not be universal and 
without federal crop insurance, farmers premiums will more than double. 
Small farmers couldn't afford that. With the denial of private crop 
insurance would come the denial of production loans. Farmers would be 
forced to stop growing tobacco, and many small banks in small towns 
would be weakened. Simply put, efforts to eliminate multiperil crop 
insurance for tobacco farmers unfairly harms and discriminates against 
small tobacco farmers and tobacco communities. In fact, nearly 30 
percent of all disaster indemnities go to small, black-operated farms. 
Larger operations will probably do fine if this amendment is adopted.
  The average tobacco farm is less than 10 acres. If we use the 
sponsors of the amendment's figures and say the gross receipts for 
tobacco average $4,000 per acre, we are only talking about $4,000 a 
year, gross. Subtract the loan, interest, farmhand salary and inputs 
needed to grow the tobacco, there is not a lot left. Without any 
insurance, a single storm could bankrupt a small hard working American 
farmer, and another generation of people will be out of farming.
  If you have listened to these arguments and said ``so what, let them 
grow something else'' do this math: To replace the gross income from 10 
acres of tobacco, a farmer would have to plant 74 acres of cotton, 149 
acres of corn, 232 acres of soybeans or 288 acres of wheat. On what 
land is the farmer supposed to plant these crops? Are you going to give 
him the land or loan him the money to buy the land? Unlikely. Once 
again, if you want to stop people from growing tobacco, just say so.

  The USDA and the Administration opposed eliminating this program. 
According to the Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, abolishing the 
subsidy will effectively end our ability to provide crop insurance and 
non-insured assistance payments for tobacco grows. Additionally, he 
argues that eliminating the subsidy would have a particularly 
detrimental effect on thousands of small farmers in tobacco producing 
states, not to mention the toll it would take on the economic stability 
of many rural communities.
  Tobacco growers in three States received $77.8 million in indemnities 
for losses due to back-to-back hurricanes that hit the East Coast last 
year. These funds helped communities recover from disaster and were 
paid for in part by the producers themselves. If no crop insurance or 
disaster assistance were available, these farmers would have been 
ruined, their farms foreclosed on, not knowing if they would be able to 
support their families.
  We all agree that smoking is something we don't want children to do. 
I myself have introduced H.R. 2034, the Tobacco Use by Minors 
Deterrence Act. Through various civil penalties and community 
involvement, it would help address underage tobacco use. What it 
doesn't do is prevent anyone from making a living or telling them their 
livelihood is somehow inappropriate.
  Adults should be able to make the decision to smoke. Tobacco farmers 
should be able to grow a legal product that sustains many communities 
in my state and across America.
  If you think this program is corporate welfare, I invite you to come 
to my district and meet some of the ``wealthy'' tobacco farmers. I'll 
show you hard working men and women who earn an honest living.
  I am very pleased that the Conference Committee has also seen fit to 
maintain research projects through the University of Georgia which are 
very critical to the future of the well-being of the constituents I 
represent, and their livelihood: The Peanut Competitiveness Institute; 
the Urban Insect Pest Management; the Alliance for Food Protection; and 
Landscaping for Water Quality.
  I also am glad that this conference report has included $3,000,000 
for the Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers 
Program instead of $2,000,000 as proposed by the House. This is still 
not the full authorization amount of $10 million, but we are getting 
closer because in addition to the funding received through 
appropriations bills, the program has also received $4,500,000 from the 
Fund for Rural America.
  The conference agreement provides $652,197,000 for the Rural 
Community Advancement Program (RCAP) instead of $644,259,000 as 
proposed by the Senate. The crucial areas which are important for my 
district are the activities under the Rural Housing Assistance Program, 
the Rural Business-Cooperative Assistance Program and the Rural 
Utilities Assistance Program.
  I think this is a good agreement, and I rise to support its swift 
passage.

                          ____________________