The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“FARM AND NUTRITION PROGRAMS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the Senate section on pages S1795-S1796 on Jan. 31, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
FARM AND NUTRITION PROGRAMS
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a copy of an article written by Mr. Neely Mallory in the Commercial Appeal of Memphis, TN, on Sunday, January 29, dealing with the importance of agriculture and nutrition programs.
It is a cautionary signal and call to the Congress to recognize the importance of these programs as we work through the efforts for reform, reduction in spending, balancing the budget, and the other important challenges that we are considering now in the Congress.
I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
A Proud Harvest
(By Neely Mallory)
The new year is barely out of the bag but the debate concerning the new farm bill already has begun in earnest. Every five years, Congress must decide whether to reauthorize a set of farm and nutrition programs that have been in place for about 60 years.
An editorial in this newspaper Jan. 2 lent its voice to a group that wants farm programs to be either abolished or significantly changed. In so doing, this newspaper has done a disservice to the thousands of Mid-South farmers who read it, the needy who benefit from food assistance programs and the American public.
As the editorial stated, there are far fewer farmers today than there were 60 years ago--but there are many more mouths to feed and bodies to clothe. The importance of food and fiber to every person on this planet has not declined one iota over these many years. Research, huge capital investments, advancing technology and successful farm programs have made this incredible jump in efficiency possible--without for one moment jeopardizing our nation's supply of reasonably priced food and fiber.
Agriculture and related businesses contribute more than $40 billion annually to the Mid-South economy alone. Farming may not be the nation's principal occupation, but it is, nevertheless, an important one. About one job out of six in the United States is somehow farm or food related. Certainly, the jobs and economic activity created by farmers drive this region's economy.
Farm programs are not the relics critics would lead the public to believe. Farm programs have changed, evolved with every farm bill and with changing economic conditions. In the 1930s, those programs were designed to keep farmers in place and to prevent shortages of food and fiber for a hungry nation. In the 1990s, these programs are a crucially important component of industrial policy that enables U.S. agriculture to remain viable in a world market where its
[[Page S1796]] comparative advantage is taken away by foreign subsidies.
Today's commercial farm is a high-tech, capital-intensive enterprise. The implications of this evolution in farm organization and management are not understood nearly as well as they should be. The relatively large gross sales of farming operations lead many people to believe that farmers have no need for government programs. The truth of the matter is that the narrow margins on sales of agriculture commodities are simply not adequate to compensate for the tremendous risk associated with today's capital-intensive farming. Neither a prudent farmer nor his banker would consider making the kind of investment currently necessary for commercial agriculture production in the absence of either a farm program that provides the producer with a safety net or much higher market prices that are commensurate with the investment and risk involved.
There is a rather badly misplaced belief that the new General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will do away with agriculture subsidies around the world, after which U.S. agriculture should be able to take advantage of its competitive edge. If, in fact, GATT did away with subsidies, U.S. agriculture would be generally well positioned, with its vast agriculture land resources, favorable climate, unequalled technology and excellent processing, handling and transportation infrastructure.
The United States offered during the early stages of GATT negotiations to end agriculture subsidization, but no other country would hear of it. They cannot compete with us without government help. The final agreement requires very minimal changes in the subsidy programs of other nations. So U.S. agriculture will continue to be confronted with a system of foreign subsidies that undermines our comparative advantage in agriculture production and marketing.
It is no accident or quirk of fate that every American enjoys the lowest-cost and best available supply of food and fiber in the world. This prized result came about because of American ingenuity and successful farm programs that have enabled U.S. farmers to compete worldwide and produce an abundant supply of food and fiber for domestic consumption. And it has happened in spite of foreign subsidies, tremendous natural disasters and the huge financial risk associated with farming.
The agriculture reforms suggested in this newspaper's editorial already have been set in motion. A massive reorganization and downsizing of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the total revision of the federal crop insurance program are but two examples. Farm program spending
(which makes up less than 1 percent of the entire federal budget) has been cut by two-thirds since 1986. This is not
``trimming,'' as the editorial suggests; this is slicing and dicing. If the rest of this nation's federal spending had been reduced by half as much as agriculture, we would be running a federal surplus.
A review of farm programs is certainly in order during 1995 as Congress considers new farm legislation. We would be the first to admit that farm programs are not perfect, and that some farmers have taken improper advantage of them. But on balance, it is safe to say that farmers are no more or less likely to cheat than any other person. Responsible lawmakers should not ignore the plain success of U.S. farm and nutrition programs. Abolition or weakening of programs whose success can be measured every day does not quality as needed reform. It would be imperiling a 21-million-job industry.
I believe the new secretary of Agriculture and those in Congress responsible for writing the laws will know the difference between so-called reform and preserving an industry-government partnership that returns enormous benefits to the American public.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend for permitting me to make that unanimous-consent request.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is welcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] is recognized for up to 15 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Chair advise me when I have used 10 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so advise.
(The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 298 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
____________________
