[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1800-1801]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      AGRICULTURE BUDGET PROPOSAL

  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, today I rise to express my extreme 
disappointment in President Bush's agriculture budget proposal as well 
as his budget proposal for all of rural America. We worked very hard in 
this body, and in conjunction with the other body, to come up with a 
good farm bill.
  Three years ago, President Bush signed that farm bill. It took us a 
while to get him there, but he finally signed it. As a member of the 
Agriculture Committee and a farmer's daughter, I was proud of the job 
we had done on behalf of the many hard-working farming interests in 
this great country.
  I can remember growing up on our farm in Arkansas and how my father 
had great trepidation over whether he would be able to be successful 
with the kind of crop he had worked so hard to produce, because he knew 
so many variables were completely out of his control, whether it was 
drought, whether it was flooding, whether it was world market prices. 
Everything out of his control had such a great bearing on whether he 
could be successful.
  I was especially proud of the agreement we made with the Arkansas 
farmers to support them because of those things they are faced with 
that are out of their control. It was an agreement we made with the 
farmers, their families, and their communities.
  The 2002 farm bill was a great deal for farmers and consumers, for 
all of America. However, not everyone agrees. This past weekend, the 
New York Times ran an op-ed outlining proposals to undercut the 2002 
farm bill by cutting aid to our farmers in this Nation. It seems that 
the President has been taking his agricultural advice from the New York 
Times because, lo and behold, on Monday morning he sent a budget over 
to Congress that mirrors the piece in the New York Times.
  I would like to suggest first and foremost that he turn to a more 
reliable source to get his advice on agricultural policy. Because, for 
the life of me, I still cannot figure out what it is that they grow or 
oversee growing, looking down out of those skyscrapers in New York 
City, that would merit them providing that kind of advice to the 
President of the United States over the hard-working men and women who 
produce the food and fiber not just for this country but for the people 
of this globe.
  If the President would like, I will be happy to offer him some advice 
on agricultural policy. I certainly hear from his administration 
officials and friends here in Congress who are not shy about sharing 
with me their opinions on issues such as tax reform and trade policy 
and Social Security. Well, agricultural policy is important to this 
Nation as well. If the President does not want my opinion, then I 
suggest he sit down with some real farmers from my home State of 
Arkansas or other farming States across the Nation and get their 
opinions.
  When we were debating the 2002 farm bill, there was a lot of 
misinformation about farmers and farming that was floating around us 
all. I, for one, am determined to ensure that those perceptions are 
challenged. Most importantly, I want to ensure that the uninformed 
judgments about farmers are never used in setting our agricultural 
policy in this country.
  Let's look at a few of the things that critics of farming said would 
happen if we were to enact the 2002 farm bill.
  First, they said it would bust the budget. I heard my colleagues on 
the other side down here earlier this week describing how in the first 
2 years the farm bill has come in more than $15 billion cheaper than 
was expected or projected.
  Second, folks said it would lead to overproduction. They were wrong 
again. According to USDA, production remains steady.
  Third, those naysayers said it would interfere with trade. Last year, 
our exports were at an all-time record high. In fact, the only people I 
know who believe our farm policy interferes with trade is our trade 
competition from other countries, the same people who sit across from 
us and from our negotiators during trade talks and ask us to take away 
our support for our farmers while they hang on to the very support they 
provide their agricultural producers. Does it sound like a good deal? 
You bet it does--to our competitors. We fight long and hard to make 
sure there is a fair playing field for our agricultural producers in 
this country, and they deserve it.
  Finally, the critics made clear what they thought about farmers. They 
said that farming is no longer a matter of importance to the American 
economy. I say to the Presiding Officer, farming is important to the 
economy of your great State of Louisiana and many others. I want this 
body to think about that for a few minutes. I want those critics to 
take a trip to the South and to the Midwest. I want them to take a trip 
to my home State of Arkansas where one in every five jobs is tied to 
agriculture. Better yet, I want them to think about agriculture's 
contribution to our Nation's security and well-being.
  So the critics are all wrong about farm policy, and they are 
certainly wrong about farmers, the hard-working families that produce 
food and fiber so each of us can lead that healthy life. They are also 
wrong to think that farm policy does not affect Main Street USA.
  To doubters, I point out the 1980s and the farm financial crisis that 
existed then. During that time, we saw entire communities and towns dry 
up and blow away.
  Now I would like to mention how our farm support compares to the rest 
of the world, how critical it is that we maintain those producers we 
have. We give our farmers $40 per acre in aid, while Europeans enjoy a 
$400 per-acre subsidy. Apparently, the President wants French farmers 
to have a competitive edge over our American producers. It seems to me 
we should be asking them to bring their support down before we 
unilaterally reduce ours.
  At the end of the day, we need to take the recommendations of 
experts. We spend money, time and time again, to come up with these 
commissions, to come up with these reports. We need to take a look at 
them, the recommendations of experts we commission to look at the farm 
bill. This panel of experts made a clear recommendation that we should 
not change the 2002 farm bill until it is time to deal with that in 
2007.
  Time and again, we see the critics misuse facts and figures to make 
their case in an attempt to villainize farmers and drive public opinion 
against them. For the sake of time this morning, I will spare my 
colleagues from refuting point by point the numerous inaccuracies in 
the stories President Bush is reading about huge farms getting massive 
payments.
  I tend to get a little passionate about this issue. Maybe it is 
because I am a farmer's daughter. Maybe it is because I believe in the 
farm families of this country. Maybe it is because I still go home and 
remember what it is like in those rural communities.
  But if you listened to the critics, you would believe that Long 
Farms--which is a great example--in Blytheville, AR, was about to be 
publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Clark Long and his two 
sons are probably wondering how they missed out on all the

[[Page 1801]]

benefits of these huge agribusinesses that are talked about in these 
stories.
  The fact is, we have payment limitations in our farm policy already. 
We accepted them as a part of the compromise we struck in the 2002 farm 
bill, a bill that was debated for 2 years and should be viewed as a 
contract between the Federal Government and the hard-working farm 
families of this country, their lenders, and others they do business 
with all the way up and down Main Street, the entire communities that 
depend on these hard-working farm families that produce the food and 
fiber for this world.
  The bottom line is, changing payment limitations midway through the 
deal has the real potential to put Arkansas farm families and other 
farm families across the South and in other places in a terrible spot.
  In closing, despite the President's willingness to listen to the 
critics on the New York Times editorial board and break his contract 
with America's farmers, I still believe in farmers and farming 
communities. I still believe in those people who get up at 4:30 every 
morning to go out and work that farm, to make sure I and the rest of 
America can enjoy the safest, most abundant and affordable food supply 
in the world.
  Per capita, we pay less for our food than anybody else out there. Is 
that not worth something to us in this Nation, to recognize the 
diversity across our great land, and understand that those who farm in 
different regions of the country and farm different crops have to use 
different economies of scale in order to compete in a global 
marketplace?
  I want the farming communities in Arkansas to know exactly where my 
loyalty lies. It lies with them. I will stick with the rock-solid 
values and hard work of those farm families across Arkansas and other 
areas of our Nation. And I will never forget it, even after I am 
reelected. I encourage the President to relook at what he has done to 
the viability of many of these farm families across the Nation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand now we are on the Republican 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

                          ____________________