Mr. De Santiago (And Mr. Dollins (RNC)) Submits:

A BILL
To support free market principles in agriculture by eliminating Tax breaks and subsidies granted to Agricultural companies.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Freedom in Agriculture Act .

SEC. 2. ACTION

1.No money may be awarded to agricultural companies or corporations for the growth, non-growth, or productivity of a crop

2. No money shall be awarded to agricultural companies or corporations for the purchase of equipment used by the company

3. No money may be loaned or otherwise given to any agricultural company for the production of produce sold in the private sector.

SEC. 3 ENACTING

1. This bill shall take effect 365 days after passage.

2. All previously existing contracts and arrangements involving the above money transactions are declared void, and payments shall cease.


Link to Hearing

This post has been edited by Crysnia on Dec 18 2004, 10:30 PM

Madame Chair,
I was disappointed with the authors of this bill in the hearing. We are left with a number of unanswered questions, both from myself and the gentleman from Nebraska.

The hearing thread is here:
Hearing on this bill

Unless the authors, or some of our committe members can shed some light on these issues, then I feel as I did then. I am uncomfortable supporting this bill given the vacuum of facts thus far, and I would feel irresponsible voting aye without such information.

I yield

Madam Chairwoman,

I have several concerns regarding this legislation. The first is the lack of supporting information the sponsors have provided to our committee. The second and most glaring is the lack of a defination of a farming corporation as mentioned in the bill.

From my reading of the bill, I see this bill as addressing federal subsidies for agribusiness and instead redirecting any subsidies towards family farms and to redefine the agriculture sector of our economy. Unfortunatly the bill does not offer a defination of what size agirbusinesses will be impacted. It leads to the ability of a small agribusiness, which is really nothing more than a large family farm, to lose important funding assistance. It also could lead to an incorporated family farm to lose assistance.

The rural segment of our economy is important and we need to protect this and grow this segment of our economy. We also need to make sure we are also helping those farmers who need help and I am concerned that this bill, as written, could lead to more harm than good.

I urge the members of this committee to vote no until we can either get more information or can rewrite this bill.

Rep. Dave Anderson
Republican
11th District
New Jersey

Mr. Chairman,

Again, no answers have been provided by the sponsors of this bill. Therefore, I am still wondering if this bill eliminate federal subsidies to only agricultural companies and corporations. To note, some family farms are considered corporations under the law.

Now, I would like to comment on federal agricultural subisides.

The federal government made $17 billion in direct government payments to farmers and ranchers in 2003, amounting to 32 percent of net farm income. On top of this were additional billions in indirect assistance, delivered via subsidized loans and insurance, loan guarantees and tax breaks.

40% of all farms receive federal money, better known as taxpayer dollars.

7% of all U.S. farms have sales of $250,000 or more, however, almost half of all government payments go to this 7 percent.

The reason for this imbalance is because subsidies are determined by the crop one grows rather than income. Growers of corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans and rice receive more than 90 percent of our farm subsidies. Growers of the other 400 domestic crops grown receive nothing.

Let's face it. Federal agricultural subsides are a barrier to free trade. Because of our subsidies, market access is limited. Other countries are reluctant to remove their trade barriers if the United States refuses to remove trade barriers.

Federal agricultural subsidies are also a barrier to fair trade. Subsidies hamper the ability of farmers in developing countries to compete with, and in, the U.S. market.

I yield.

Madame Chair,
I am not a super free trader, however, agricultural subsidies have long bothered me. The information provided by my collague from Nebraska is enough to convinc me that this bill should be passed favorably from this comittee. *I am the last person to see either subsidies or tax cuts go to the uppr crust.

In defense of industry however, a rare position for me, the immdiate effective date seems very excessve and diruptive.

I move for an amendment, that Section 3.1 be restated.

Original language

Amended language, changes in bold:

I yield

Mr. Plawinski,

Your motion to amend has been noted and a seperate debate on the issue of the amendment shall be opened. The debate on this bill shall be put on hold until the debate and vote on the amendment has taken place.

This post has been edited by Crysnia on Dec 7 2004, 11:23 AM

The amendment passed 6-4-2. The Debate shall resume for 3 days.

Madame Chair,

I would agree with other honourable members that the language used in the bill is unneccessarily vague and we do need to define items better. However the principle behind the bill is a good one and I would not like to see the bill fail because of inadequate language in the text. Could not the drafters of the bill remedy the defects?

Madame Chair,
I would disagree with the gentleman from Minnesota, but only in a manner of speaking. I find the bill to be particularly surgical in its language. I find it very clearly enacting the total elimination of many federal dollars, 17 billion, plus indirect dollars as per Mr Brooks, whom I trust implicitly.

I am never one to advocate subsidies in a market, however the absolute sudden nature of the cuts is still somewhat troubling. My quick fix on this was to offer the "365 days" amendment to provide some opportunity to the ADM's of the world to adapt.

I feel we have a poorly written bill however, even with the 365 days amendment. As Mr Brooks has pointed out, some family farms are considered corprorations under present code, and these entities deserve some supportr in the market of giants in my opinion. I personally lack the time and experience to research and re write someone else's idea.

I motion to table indefinitely.

I will withdraw the motion of one of my colleagues here is willing to propose some kind of quick fix.

I yield.

Madame Chair,

As I noted previously, if the authors would like to eliminate farm subsidies, then simply cut the subsidies from the budget. I would, however, support legislation that is clearly written that would eliminate farm subsidies.

I second the motion to table.

I yield.

Madame Chair,
I move for UC on the motion to table.

I yield.

The Motion to Table has been made and seconded and the call for UC has been noted. 24 hours will be allotted for objections.

This motion to table has passed by UC. The bill will be tabled indefinitely.