[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4662-4663]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 AGRICULTURAL BILL PAYMENT LIMITATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 23, 2002, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I will introduce a 
motion to instruct conferees on the agricultural bill that suggests 
that we need to incorporate payment limitations.
  Payment limitations now in effect are not binding simply because 
there is a loophole in the law which allows many farmers to receive $1 
million-plus in farm benefit payments. One reason I feel so strongly 
that it is reasonable to have some kind of payment limits is that the 
public thinks that farmers are just being given a great deal of money, 
regardless of their need, regardless of their size. If we are going to 
have farm program policy in the United States, then I and many others 
suggest that we focus our efforts on those farmers that need that kind 
of help.
  We talk about the family farm, and, of course, we can get in 
arguments about what is a family farm or how big is a family farm. But 
I think most of us can agree that if someone has 40,000, 50,000 or 
60,000 acres and is taking in millions of dollars of farm program 
payments, then probably this is not the mainstream type of family farm 
that most of us think of.
  I would like to read some quotes from the Senate debate when this 
language was put into the Senate version

[[Page 4663]]

of the bill. What this shows is that there is tremendous bipartisan 
support for some kind of a limit on these farm payments.
  Senator Grassley, Republican from Iowa, said, ``When is enough 
enough? How long will the American public put up with these programs 
that send out billions of dollars to the biggest farm entities?''
  Byron Dorgan, Senator from North Dakota, a Democrat, said, ``Many of 
the benefits provided through the current ag programs are being 
funneled to large, non-family agricultural corporations while family 
farmers are being shortchanged. That is just plain wrong.''
  Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts: ``This amendment 
ensures that farm aid will target the people who need it the most, the 
small family farmers that actually work the land and are the lifeblood 
of our rural communities. It is a pleasure to support this amendment.''
  Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican: ``The amendment would remove the 
loopholes that allow a handful of large farmers to receive unlimited 
payments. Without real payment-limitation reform, we will continue to 
weaken the same farmers we claim to want to help.''
  I want to just mention what that loophole is. There are price-support 
benefit limits on a couple ways a farmer can derive those benefits, 
specifically the loan deficiency payment and the marketing loans. But 
what is left out of that payment limit, which tends to hoodwink a lot 
of people when we brag there are some kind of payment limits in the 
House bill, is non-recourse loans. You can do an end-run and farmers 
can have a non-recourse loan that they can forfeit, or the government 
will give you the certificate that results in the same kind of subsidy 
benefit payments for price supports as do the loan deficiency payments 
in marketing loans.
  It gets rather complicated, Mr. Speaker; but the fact is that we are 
calling for, and we are going to have, a debate in this House tomorrow 
on the reasonableness of having some kind of price limitations.
  I am a farmer from Michigan. I served as deputy administrator of Farm 
Programs in the USDA in the early seventies. Currently 82 percent of 
the farm program payments go to 17 percent of the largest farm 
operations. If we do not control this, if we do not have some kind of a 
cap, some kind of a limit, we are going to lose the good will of the 
people of this Chamber, of the people in the Senate, of the people in 
the United States that really want to help those farmers. So payment 
limitations of $275,000 per farmer per year is reasonable as structured 
in the Senate version. I hope we can do that.
  A couple more quotes, with your permission, Mr. Speaker. Senator 
Richard Lugar said, ``This is a modest amendment. I stress `modest.' 
There were 98,835 recipients of farm subsidies in Indiana during 1996 
to 2000. Only six of that 98,000 would be affected by this amendment.''
  Senator Tom Daschle says, ``I am pleased we were able to pass this 
important payment limitation amendment.''
  The President of the United States says we need to help those small 
and medium-sized farmers that need it the most.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will support me on this payment 
limitation that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and I are 
offering tomorrow.

                          ____________________