[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.

                          ____________________