[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 87 (Monday, July 10, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5724-H5725]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      AGRICULTURAL APPROPRIATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tancredo). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss for a few moments the 
legislation which we have been debating today and will take up again 
tomorrow in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is the agricultural 
appropriations bill.
  I think many of us have rejoiced in the robust economy we have had 
here in the United States, but the sad fact is that farmers in America 
are not sharing in this robust economy. Instead, they are facing 
unprecedented low prices if you adjust for inflation. They are also 
looking at higher interest costs and increased fuel costs. This is a 
toxic cocktail that is going to take its toll on America's farmers as 
the year wears out.
  So as we look at the agricultural appropriations bill, the question 
is, are

[[Page H5725]]

we treating the farm sector of our economy fairly? I think in this 
regard it is important to first note that the appropriations 
subcommittee is constrained by the budget.
  I happen to serve on the Committee on the Budget. I was very 
disappointed with the unfair treatment that America's farmers received 
from the Republican budget. I was constrained to vote against it, and I 
hope that as this appropriations bill moves to the Senate and comes 
back for consideration, that we can rectify some of its shortcomings. I 
would just like to point out a few.
  First, and perhaps most importantly, we have failed to target the 
billions of dollars of agricultural assistance that is being spent in 
the U.S. Treasury. Instead, this money is going out the back-door, 
billions and billions these months; and it is going largely for the 
benefit of land ownership. It is not being targeted to assist those 
operating farmers who, indeed, are suffering from low prices.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not targeting this money. We ought to be 
targeting the money. We ought to have programs that focus on the safety 
net concept, dealing with prices that farmers are receiving, not simply 
spending billions willy-nilly. We ought to have programs that recognize 
effective caps, but instead we have some that are receiving hundreds 
and hundreds of thousands of dollars and others scarcely enough to 
enable them to stay in their farming occupation.
  A second problem is that the farm programs are largely administered 
by the Farm Service Agency. That agency, unfortunately, has many new 
programs thrust upon it, complicated changes in the programs it 
administers; and it has an inadequate staff. This is a dangerous recipe 
for disappointment, frustration and resignation ultimately by key 
employees. We ought to be providing the Farm Service Agency with the 
resources it needs, the staff that it needs to carry out its mission.
  Third, the farm programs are also implemented, especially in the 
conservation area, by the Natural Resources and Conservation Service. 
The service itself is not adequately compensated. Furthermore, the 
conservation programs themselves are shortchanged.
  Fourth, we have a dramatic limit on agricultural research, 
dramatically less than requested by the President.
  Fifth, we have a dramatic limit on rural development, and, again, 
dramatically less than requested by the President.
  Sixth, we have inadequate funding for the Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, or GIPSA. This is the agency in the Department of 
Agriculture that is charged with making sure that in the livestock 
sector we do not have unfair trade practices that undermine the 
farmer's ability to receive a fair price for the livestock that he or 
she is marketing. It is absolutely necessary that if we are going to 
fulfill the mission of the Packers and Stockyards Act, that GIPSA be 
adequately financed. It is shortchanged.
  Similarly, the Office of General Counsel within the Secretary's 
office is shortchanged. We cannot expect these agencies of the Federal 
Government to perform their mission if they do not have an adequate 
staff of attorneys and economists.
  Finally, the promise of trade has been held out to America's farmers 
as really the hope that they have for improved prices. But trade cannot 
be the cornerstone of our agricultural policy. It has to be one part.
  We have talked about trade with Cuba today. Unfortunately, trade with 
Cuba is an illusion. It is not in the agriculture appropriations bill, 
and I fear it will not be when it comes back.
  To be sure, we need to do the very best we can in this appropriations 
bill, but we have got to do more.

                          ____________________