| WASHINGTON -- At the beginning of the year, farm state legislators in
Congress were in rare high spirits.
A budget surplus was projected that would allow us to rewrite the 1996
farm bill this year and provide price support for farmers. The budget
resolution provided $70 billion for additional agricultural spending, the
1996 farm bill could be put to rest and farmers no longer would need to
rely on ad hoc annual assistance.
During hearings before the House Agriculture Committee, farm groups
offered proposals that, while varied in details, all worked toward
providing farmers with greater income support than was contained in the
1996 farm bill.
Supporting producers
To stop the decline in farm income and rapid farm consolidation, North
Dakota producers need a program that combines production-based support
with targeting mechanism to direct the support toward small- and
medium-sized farmers.
The farm bill should support actual producers by devoting money to
higher commodity loan rates. These loan rates establish a price floor and
currently are less than two-thirds of the cost to produce wheat and
barley. Such a rate does not allow a farmer to break even, let alone make
a small profit.
As for targeting, family farms need income, support much more than the
40,000-acre business in Arkansas that is due to receive $1.7 million from
the recent economic assistance package. Keeping farm families and midsize
farming operations in business enhances our overall agricultural economy
and is part of the goal of farm bill legislation. Paying millions to
corporate businesses in not.
At the end of July, the House Agriculture Committee did an admirable
job of reporting out a bill that took advantage of the funding to provide
farmers with more reliable support. While it did not fully embrace
production-based support or targeting, these elements could be
incorporated through work on the House floor and in the Senate. The
committee rushed to report the bill before the new budget numbers came out
in August, which everyone feared would endanger funding for farm
legislation.
Unfortunately, those fears were justified.
Protecting growers
The budget estimate released by the Congressional Budget Office shows
that the funding that Congress was relying on for a farm bill is
disappearing. Without spending or revenue offsets, a complete farm bill
such as the committee has written, could require tapping into Social
Security and Medicare surpluses.
One of my goals since the beginning of this Congress was to help pass a
farm bill this year that shored up farm income and protected family
farmers better than the 1996 Freedom to Farm legislation. I still want to
bring the farm bill to the House floor this month, and I hope that
happens. However, by exhausting the budget surplus, the administration's
budget threatens to put Congress in the position of either voting for a
farm bill or protecting Social Security. This is a choice we should not
have to make.
Despite these difficult circumstances, I will continue to work this
fall to enact targeted, effective farm bill legislation that provides
income to farmers who need it. Farmers should not have to wait for the
1996 farm bill to expire, and reform of this flawed legislation is my
highest priority. |