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: S4695]  GPO's PDF
---

   Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the recent enactment of H.R. 2646, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, and to explain why I made the very difficult decision to vote against it. First, I wish to express my sincere thanks to the members of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees and the conferees for their very hard work in producing this farm bill . I have no doubt that their aim was the good of America's farmers and of rural America.

   There are a number of important provisions in the farm bill that will have a positive impact on our family farms. I am pleased that significantly more funds will go to conservation programs and to help livestock producers and feedlot operators to better protect the environment. I am especially proud of language included in the farm bill that

[Page: S4696]  GPO's PDF

   I wish I could say that the other crop support programs in H.R. 2646 were also well-crafted, but I cannot.

   I was a strong supporter of the previous farm bill , or the Fair Act. The Fair Act attempted to free our farmers from the heavy hand of government and restore to our farmers the benefits of the free market.

   While I supported the Fair Act, I also recognized that the safety net for our farmers still needed some strengthening. A farm safety net should help farmers succeed in the free market. The alternative is to protect our farmers from the free market, and we have learned from failed farm programs of the past that there is not a good way to do that.

   It is unfortunate that our new farm bill appears to be heading back down those same paths. Its greatest weakness is that in an attempt to provide some protection for farmers it goes well beyond the mark. We needed a fresh approach to supporting our farmers, but this latest farm bill is an unpleasant trip down memory lane. It risks turning our farmers into welfare recipients, and it puts the bureaucrat back in the business of running our nation's farms.

   In H.R. 2646, the programs for row crops are intended to kick in when there is an oversupply and prices are low. Basic economic principles would indicate, and history has proven, that these counter cyclical programs themselves can create an incentive for overproduction which, in turn, keeps prices low. Unless they are crafted very carefully, counter cyclical programs lead to a spiral of dependency. As long as the government money keeps flowing to the farmers, the overproduction does not bankrupt them. But it does put our farmers on the federal dole, and I don't believe that's where the farmers of Utah want to be.

   One of the greatest benefits our government can provide to our farmers is a world system of free and fair trade. Our Nation's farm products are the best, and consumers around the world are clamoring for them. Through tremendous effort and lengthy negotiations, this and past administrations have been prying open foreign markets to U.S. agricultural products. I believe that too many of the programs in H.R. 2646 go beyond support for farmers and instead attempt to protect them from competition. The governments of our largest foreign markets for agriculture products are keenly aware of this, and with some justification they are alarmed by our recent shift toward protectionism. I fear the effects of this shift will hurt farmers. Doors to foreign markets that have been opened to our farmers may now close, the possibility for new markets may be quashed, and a greater number of future agricultural trade issues will be decided by the World Trade Organization, not by our trade negotiators.

   Another important consideration for me in deciding to oppose H.R. 2646, was the alarming escalation of the cost of the bill . My understanding was that it would take about $100 billion to keep the current programs running for our farmers. On top of that, we budgeted an additional $73.5 billion to help meet the needs of our farmers. That is a big increase, but I think our farmers deserve the additional help. I would feel better about spending this extra money, though, if I believed that it would benefit our agricultural industry rather than work against it. I would also feel better about the extra spending if the original $173.5 billion had not mysteriously risen to a budget busting $190 billion.

   I know the farmers of Utah. They are prudent businessmen who simply want a fair shake. They do not want to go on the government dole, they do not want to close foreign markets, and they do not want to add to our budget deficit. Unfortunately for the farmers of Utah, the farm bill that has recently been signed into law does all of the above. And yet, all this money and all these programs do strangely little for the small farmer of Utah. A full two-thirds of all these programs will go to only 10 percent of our nation's largest farms. This is a particularly grotesque and embarrassing aspect of H.R. 2646. If these largest farms are so efficient, why do they need this level of welfare? Where are the economies of scale that should make the largest farms the strongest?

   I voted on the floor of the Senate, along with 65 of my colleagues, to address this issue by providing certain limitations on the size of payments the largest farms could receive under this farm bill . Although two-thirds of the Senate agreed on these payment limitations, the final conference report came back to us stripped of this important provision.

   I wish we had a farm bill to which I could have given my blessing, but frankly, H.R. 2646 did not deserve my blessing. I am pleased that Utah's woolgrowers will receive some much needed relief, that our livestock producers in general will receive important funding for conservation measures, and that our crop growers will gain some certainty from the enactment of a farm bill , but I fear there may be a heavy price to pay in the long run for our agricultural industry--a price that could have been avoided with a little more prudence and restraint on the part of the legislators and the farm organizations who helped to develop this farm bill .

   I hope that Utah's farmers can understand why I needed to vote against this farm bill . I cherish the farmers of Utah. I consider them the finest citizens our nation has. There is no group that works harder, that is more patriotic, or that is more morally strong than the farmers of Utah. I have often stated that they are the backbone of our society, and I have always believed it to be true. I will continue to do all I can to support our farmers in the way that I believe they want to be supported, and I think my record reflects that this is what I have attempted to do over the years. I believe that the farmers I represent understand this.

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