[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16485-16486]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   FARM ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to address this Chamber 
on the topic of the farm economy in the United States and the 
agricultural policies that we have adopted in Congress.
  The 1996 farm bill, generally called the Freedom to Farm Act, has 
been effective in one respect, and that is it has given farmers 
flexibility to plant what they are interested in raising and not be 
tied as closely to particular commodities by the design of the farm 
bill itself.
  Unfortunately, the Freedom to Farm Act has become a freedom to fail 
act, and we have farmers that are exiting from farming at a record 
rate. We have prices for commodities in this country that have dropped 
to levels that are as low as they have been in 100 years, if we adjust 
for inflation. We constantly hear about the plight of those who were 
producing oil and now we have gasoline at $1.50 to $1.75 a gallon 
throughout the country.
  Well, if farmers had seen their prices go up without any adjustment 
for inflation, they at least would be paying $2.50 for corn, $3.00 for 
wheat, and higher amounts for other products. Tragically, in the United 
States, in the midst of a very robust and healthy and growing economy, 
one sector of the American economy that is hurting severely is 
agriculture. So I am pleased to announce that today I have joined with 
my colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), and we 
have introduced legislation that is the Family Farm Safety Net Act of 
2000.
  The purpose of this legislation is to provide an outline or guide to 
the type of prices that are necessary in order to enable a farm to 
survive in the United States.
  Since 1996, we can see what has happened to the prices for corn, 
wheat and soybeans. Prices have dropped precipitously. In 1996, corn 
was at $2.71 a bushel. Here we are in the summer of the year 2000, corn 
is roughly half that price at most of the elevators in the Midwest.

                              {time}  1715

  The drop in the price of wheat has not been quite as dramatic, but it 
still has come down by roughly $1.80 a bushel, and the price for a 
bushel of soybeans has come down by about $2.50 a bushel.
  This certainly is not success in terms of agricultural policy.
  In terms of flexibility, we also have a very frustrating situation. 
This chart shows what has happened in terms of the planting of wheat 
compared to the planting of soybeans. Soybeans, according to 
agricultural economists, are favored by the current situation. Wheat, 
by comparison, is not as advantageous to raise. So as a consequence, we 
have seen the acreage of wheat, it has been reduced by thousands of 
acres, and at the same time, the planting of soybeans has gone up by 
about a corresponding amount.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to reestablish parity among the various crops. 
One way to do this is to take the loan rate for the marketing loans and 
harmonize the loan rates so that the loan rates for soybeans, for corn, 
for wheat, barley and other crops are neutral, and at the

[[Page 16486]]

same time, have the loan rates pegged at a level where America's 
farmers can cover most of the costs of their operation. So as a 
consequence, our proposal is to increase the loan rate for corn as an 
example, to $2.43 a bushel; the loan rate on soybeans to $5.50 a 
bushel; to extend the period of the marketing loan to 20 months; and to 
include payment limitations, so that this farm program does not enrich 
those that are farming tens of thousands of acres, but instead, focuses 
its benefits and its attention on those farmers that are moderate size, 
family farming operations.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is the track that we need to take if 
we are going to get American agriculture back on course, and I urge my 
colleagues to join with the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) 
and myself on this legislation.

                          ____________________