THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display

[Page: E162]  GPO's PDF
---

• Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the following editorial from the February 12, 2001, Omaha World-Herald. The editorial emphasizes the importance of reviewing the purpose of farm programs. It also expresses support for limiting farm payments, which would benefit family farmers and restore public confidence in farm programs.
  [From the Omaha World-Herald, Feb. 12, 2001] WHY A FARM BILL ? TO EVALUATE SUBSIDY CAP, WE NEED TO REVISIT FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS

  A U.S. Senate amendment aimed at lowering the cap on farm subsidies to $275,000 a year for the biggest farms is a move in the right direction, although it may not be the revolutionary step its backers have portrayed.

  The new limit is designed for a worthy purpose. It would prevent huge corporate farms from receiving multimillion-dollar payments, thereby removing a factor that has tarnished the subsidy program in the eyes of many Americans.

  This isn't a major issue in the Midlands, where most farms are family-operated and where federal payments are much more modest.

  But in the South, where large corporate operations exist, the amendment is bitterly opposed. Currently the farm program has a theoretical limit of $460,000. Corporate farmers with platoons of lawyers and accountants have found many options, including the breaking up of one operation into separate units, at least on paper. In effect, there is no limit. One Arkansas operation harvested $49 million in federal funds from 1996 to 2000.

  Some observers say that Southern opposition to the cap will be enough to sidetrack the farm bill .

  If debate must be extended, it would be useful if some members of both houses of Congress addressed the underlying philosophy. America has had a subsidy program for so long that its purpose is sometimes forgotten. It originated in the 1930s as a way to help small and medium-sized farms survive a period of surplus-depressed prices. But in recent years it has morphed into a safety net for an ever-widening array of food and fiber producers, whether or not they were family farmers. In effect, it subsidizes surpluses, perpetuating a cycle of low returns and pressure for more subsidies.

  Congress might start by putting up the fundamental questions for review: Why do we have a farm program? To help the little guys or the big guys? To encourage surplus production or discourage it? To ensure raw materials for processors? To protect all elements of the agricultural industry from the perils of weather and market? Is the farm bill corporate welfare or community stabilization?

  Once the philosophy is established, perhaps a rational debate can take place. With or without it, the lower cap backed by Nebraska's delegation and others seems sound.

  Nothing in this amendment reduces the overall cost of the farm bill , which in its present form would add about $74 billion in spending over the next 10 years. But it does aim at keeping the program from being increasingly a form of income-protection for mega-farmers. In that context, the amendment deserves respect and the sponsors are right to give it a try.

  
  

  ---

  THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
  Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
  Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
  Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                  Contents Display
  

  ---