[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 58 (Thursday, May 9, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Page S4137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FARM BILL

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, once again, the principal reason I have 
sought recognition has been to comment on my ``no'' vote on the farm 
bill, which was passed yesterday. Even though there are some parts of 
the farm bill which I liked, I have, on balance, decided to vote ``No'' 
because of the excessive cost which favors big corporate farmers and 
provides unreasonable subsidies to cotton, soybean, wheat, rice and 
corn.
  When I voted for the farm bill in the Senate, the cost was $73.5 
billion over current spending for farm programs. However, the 
conference report came in at $82.8 billion for a total of approximately 
$190 billion total over 10 years which is, simply stated, far too 
expensive. The United States no longer enjoys a projected surplus of 
$5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. In fact, there is a deficit of 
$130 billion expected by the end of this fiscal year.
  Projecting the costs of this farm bill, it may be necessary to invade 
the Social Security trust fund, probably abandon plans for adequate 
prescription drugs for senior citizens and encroach on necessary 
appropriations for many priority items, including defense, education 
and health care. When I chaired the Appropriations Subcommittee for 
Labor, Health & Human Services and Education, and now in my capacity as 
ranking member, I have seen the great need for funding for the National 
Institutes of Health and other health programs as well as education and 
worker safety. Without enumerating many other programs, there are 
obviously high priorities which will be impacted by the costs of this 
Farm Bill.
  I am especially concerned about payments to large corporate farmers. 
The distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Senator 
Lugar, has stated that more than $100 billion will go to farm subsidy 
payments over the next 10 years, with two-thirds of payments going to 
just 10 percent of the largest farmers who grow primarily corn, 
soybean, wheat, rice and cotton. This policy will likely encourage 
further market concentration.
  This bill encourages over-production with the resultant consequence 
of yet lower prices leading to more subsidies. This Bill will further 
have an adverse impact on international trade by providing expanded and 
unpredictable levels of support, which increase the likelihood that the 
United States might breech the farm subsidy limitations it agreed to in 
the 1994 world trade agreements. Further, the bill's expanded supports 
have caused our trading partners to question our sincerity on future 
reductions in farm spending.
  There are some portions of the bill which I favor, such as the new 
national dairy program, expanded Food Stamp Program, including 
providing food stamps to legal immigrants, and the many positive 
environmental and conservation measures that are very effective in 
Pennsylvania. I am pleased to see the new national dairy program, but 
it falls short of the proper legislation which is embodied in my bill, 
S. 1157, which would create permanent dairy compacts in the Northeast, 
as well as the South, Northwest and Inter-Mountain regions. While the 
dairy provisions will be of help, Congress is missing an opportunity to 
create a long-term dairy policy through the compacts which would have 
no cost to the taxpayers.

                          ____________________