[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 14 (Thursday, February 14, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E162]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             FARM BILL PAYMENT LIMITATIONS A NECESSARY STEP

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 13, 2002

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the 
following editorial from the February 12, 2001, Omaha World-Herald. The 
editorial emphasizes the importance of reviewing the purpose of farm 
programs. It also expresses support for limiting farm payments, which 
would benefit family farmers and restore public confidence in farm 
programs.

              [From the Omaha World-Herald, Feb. 12, 2001]

     Why a Farm Bill? To Evaluate Subsidy Cap, We Need To Revisit 
                         Fundamental Questions

       A U.S. Senate amendment aimed at lowering the cap on farm 
     subsidies to $275,000 a year for the biggest farms is a move 
     in the right direction, although it may not be the 
     revolutionary step its backers have portrayed.
       The new limit is designed for a worthy purpose. It would 
     prevent huge corporate farms from receiving multimillion-
     dollar payments, thereby removing a factor that has tarnished 
     the subsidy program in the eyes of many Americans.
       This isn't a major issue in the Midlands, where most farms 
     are family-operated and where federal payments are much more 
     modest.
       But in the South, where large corporate operations exist, 
     the amendment is bitterly opposed. Currently the farm program 
     has a theoretical limit of $460,000. Corporate farmers with 
     platoons of lawyers and accountants have found many options, 
     including the breaking up of one operation into separate 
     units, at least on paper. In effect, there is no limit. One 
     Arkansas operation harvested $49 million in federal funds 
     from 1996 to 2000.
       Some observers say that Southern opposition to the cap will 
     be enough to sidetrack the farm bill.
       If debate must be extended, it would be useful if some 
     members of both houses of Congress addressed the underlying 
     philosophy. America has had a subsidy program for so long 
     that its purpose is sometimes forgotten. It originated in the 
     1930s as a way to help small and medium-sized farms survive a 
     period of surplus-depressed prices. But in recent years it 
     has morphed into a safety net for an ever-widening array of 
     food and fiber producers, whether or not they were family 
     farmers. In effect, it subsidizes surpluses, perpetuating a 
     cycle of low returns and pressure for more subsidies.
       Congress might start by putting up the fundamental 
     questions for review: Why do we have a farm program? To help 
     the little guys or the big guys? To encourage surplus 
     production or discourage it? To ensure raw materials for 
     processors? To protect all elements of the agricultural 
     industry from the perils of weather and market? Is the farm 
     bill corporate welfare or community stabilization?
       Once the philosophy is established, perhaps a rational 
     debate can take place. With or without it, the lower cap 
     backed by Nebraska's delegation and others seems sound.
       Nothing in this amendment reduces the overall cost of the 
     farm bill, which in its present form would add about $74 
     billion in spending over the next 10 years. But it does aim 
     at keeping the program from being increasingly a form of 
     income-protection for mega-farmers. In that context, the 
     amendment deserves respect and the sponsors are right to give 
     it a try.

     

                          ____________________