On the recordDecember 14, 2001
I appreciate what he is attempting to do. I find the situation--one in which I argued fairly strenuously, but I think without necessarily persuading Senators--that the farm bill, at least as it is now constituted, will inevitably increase planting of corn, wheat, cotton, rice, soybeans--those things to which the money is directed. There is strong evidence the USDA pointed out our last farm bill stimulated about 4 million acres of additional production into the program crops. One might argue that we were not subsidizing expansion. But the evidence is much of this increase in acreage came from our largest, most efficient producers, whose names appear in lists receiving the most subsidies. Perhaps if we were to try all this over again and look with some consistency as we take a look at the livestock portion of agriculture at the same time we deal with the crops and various other parts--and that is what the Senator has sought to do, to take a whole farm, whole income approach--perhaps this amendment might have some more equity. It probably has value for the reasons the distinguished Senator from Iowa, our chairman, has pointed out.
Source
govinfo.gov




