[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 22, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4695-S4696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FARM BILL
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the recent enactment of
H.R. 2646, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, and to
explain why I made the very difficult decision to vote against it.
First, I wish to express my sincere thanks to the members of the House
and Senate Agriculture Committees and the conferees for their very hard
work in producing this farm bill. I have no doubt that their aim was
the good of America's farmers and of rural America.
There are a number of important provisions in the farm bill that will
have a positive impact on our family farms. I am pleased that
significantly more funds will go to conservation programs and to help
livestock producers and feedlot operators to better protect the
environment. I am especially proud of language included in the farm
bill that
[[Page S4696]]
will restore a modest and carefully constructed wool program for our
sheep industry. The new wool payment is crafted to provide some
assistance during difficult times but not so much that the wool market
will become distorted. I think the wool payment program is a good model
for providing farmers with a good safety net.
I wish I could say that the other crop support programs in H.R. 2646
were also well-crafted, but I cannot.
I was a strong supporter of the previous farm bill, or the Fair Act.
The Fair Act attempted to free our farmers from the heavy hand of
government and restore to our farmers the benefits of the free market.
While I supported the Fair Act, I also recognized that the safety net
for our farmers still needed some strengthening. A farm safety net
should help farmers succeed in the free market. The alternative is to
protect our farmers from the free market, and we have learned from
failed farm programs of the past that there is not a good way to do
that.
It is unfortunate that our new farm bill appears to be heading back
down those same paths. Its greatest weakness is that in an attempt to
provide some protection for farmers it goes well beyond the mark. We
needed a fresh approach to supporting our farmers, but this latest farm
bill is an unpleasant trip down memory lane. It risks turning our
farmers into welfare recipients, and it puts the bureaucrat back in the
business of running our nation's farms.
In H.R. 2646, the programs for row crops are intended to kick in when
there is an oversupply and prices are low. Basic economic principles
would indicate, and history has proven, that these counter cyclical
programs themselves can create an incentive for overproduction which,
in turn, keeps prices low. Unless they are crafted very carefully,
counter cyclical programs lead to a spiral of dependency. As long as
the government money keeps flowing to the farmers, the overproduction
does not bankrupt them. But it does put our farmers on the federal
dole, and I don't believe that's where the farmers of Utah want to be.
One of the greatest benefits our government can provide to our
farmers is a world system of free and fair trade. Our Nation's farm
products are the best, and consumers around the world are clamoring for
them. Through tremendous effort and lengthy negotiations, this and past
administrations have been prying open foreign markets to U.S.
agricultural products. I believe that too many of the programs in H.R.
2646 go beyond support for farmers and instead attempt to protect them
from competition. The governments of our largest foreign markets for
agriculture products are keenly aware of this, and with some
justification they are alarmed by our recent shift toward
protectionism. I fear the effects of this shift will hurt farmers.
Doors to foreign markets that have been opened to our farmers may now
close, the possibility for new markets may be quashed, and a greater
number of future agricultural trade issues will be decided by the World
Trade Organization, not by our trade negotiators.
Another important consideration for me in deciding to oppose H.R.
2646, was the alarming escalation of the cost of the bill. My
understanding was that it would take about $100 billion to keep the
current programs running for our farmers. On top of that, we budgeted
an additional $73.5 billion to help meet the needs of our farmers. That
is a big increase, but I think our farmers deserve the additional help.
I would feel better about spending this extra money, though, if I
believed that it would benefit our agricultural industry rather than
work against it. I would also feel better about the extra spending if
the original $173.5 billion had not mysteriously risen to a budget
busting $190 billion.
I know the farmers of Utah. They are prudent businessmen who simply
want a fair shake. They do not want to go on the government dole, they
do not want to close foreign markets, and they do not want to add to
our budget deficit. Unfortunately for the farmers of Utah, the farm
bill that has recently been signed into law does all of the above. And
yet, all this money and all these programs do strangely little for the
small farmer of Utah. A full two-thirds of all these programs will go
to only 10 percent of our nation's largest farms. This is a
particularly grotesque and embarrassing aspect of H.R. 2646. If these
largest farms are so efficient, why do they need this level of welfare?
Where are the economies of scale that should make the largest farms the
strongest?
I voted on the floor of the Senate, along with 65 of my colleagues,
to address this issue by providing certain limitations on the size of
payments the largest farms could receive under this farm bill. Although
two-thirds of the Senate agreed on these payment limitations, the final
conference report came back to us stripped of this important provision.
I wish we had a farm bill to which I could have given my blessing,
but frankly, H.R. 2646 did not deserve my blessing. I am pleased that
Utah's woolgrowers will receive some much needed relief, that our
livestock producers in general will receive important funding for
conservation measures, and that our crop growers will gain some
certainty from the enactment of a farm bill, but I fear there may be a
heavy price to pay in the long run for our agricultural industry--a
price that could have been avoided with a little more prudence and
restraint on the part of the legislators and the farm organizations who
helped to develop this farm bill.
I hope that Utah's farmers can understand why I needed to vote
against this farm bill. I cherish the farmers of Utah. I consider them
the finest citizens our nation has. There is no group that works
harder, that is more patriotic, or that is more morally strong than the
farmers of Utah. I have often stated that they are the backbone of our
society, and I have always believed it to be true. I will continue to
do all I can to support our farmers in the way that I believe they want
to be supported, and I think my record reflects that this is what I
have attempted to do over the years. I believe that the farmers I
represent understand this.
____________________