[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[House]
[Page 12733]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 12733]]

                      AGRICULTURAL APPROPRIATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we are going to be 
taking up the agricultural appropriation bill;


and I would like to for a couple of minutes discuss, number one, the 
seriousness of the agricultural problem; but, secondly, an amendment 
that I have tomorrow that deals with how we distribute some of this 
Federal money to farmers.
  There are a lot of us that would hope that these extra funds go to 
help support the traditional family farmers in this country. However, 
our farm programs since we started them back in 1934 have tended to 
favor the large farmer. And so what has happened over the years is the 
small farmer has been forced out because of the advantages of Federal 
farm policy to the middle-sized and larger farmer; and the middle-sized 
farmer, figuring that they might survive, have bought out the small 
farmer and become bigger.
  Specifically, we have legislation that says the price support for 
farmers in this country through the Federal Government should be 
limited to $75,000. If a farmer wants to include their spouse or 
usually their wife for a separate producer payment, then they have to 
jump through all kinds of hoops to borrow money in the spouse's name 
and then document that it was invested in the farm operation, then the 
farm operation can pay it back. It is a disadvantage.
  My amendment tomorrow does essentially three things: it says 
automatically the wife is included as a producer without jumping 
through these bureaucratic hoops, eligible for an additional $75,000 
payment limitation. The average size of a farm in this country now, Mr. 
Speaker, is about 448 acres. But some farms, some huge, giant 
corporation-type farms are up to 80,000 acres and 100,000 acres; and 
there is no payment limitation on those farms. So as you can guess, 
millions of dollars go out to those huge farming operations.
  My amendment tomorrow says, let us stick to our guns of the historic 
$75,000 limitation but automatically include spouses. That would move 
it up to $150,000. And let us make sure that there is no loophole such 
as forfeiting a nonrecourse loan or such as certificates that can be 
issued by the Federal Government in lieu of forfeiture of that 
particular loan, because those certificates, the alternative of those 
forfeitures of that loan, has resulted in approximately $400 million 
extra payment going to those giant farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, I request that my colleagues look at this amendment, 
that they consider the policy of how we want to spend this extra money, 
that they face the decision of what should farm programs try to do in 
this country; and I would suggest humbly that part of what we should be 
trying to do is help the small family farmer. The large farmer already 
has a competitive advantage, simply because of the size of their 
operation. We expand that advantage as we pay them on the bushels 
produced on each acre or the tons produced. Whether it is rice or corn 
or soybeans or cotton, we help that large farmer.
  I feel it is important that we look at this policy, and I would 
request that my colleagues look at my amendment that will reaffirm the 
historical provision of limiting those payments to $75,000 rather than 
the $150,000 per producer that was passed out on a suspension vote late 
in June when the House went through that particular legislation without 
the opportunity for any amendments.

                          ____________________