18
In fact, this compact flies in the face of the rhetoric associated with this very farm bill.
I’ve heard so many Senators claim this bill allows farmers to make decisions based on the
market, not on Government payments. But the compact attempts to insulate a small
group of farmers from the very market conditions this bill embraces so tightly.
54
Though it is far from surprising that Midwestern senators were opposed to a dairy compact that
would put farmers in their states at a competitive disadvantage, the language that supporters and
opponents of this one piece of farm bill employed is telling. It is not merely the case that
Democrats from rural states employed family farm rhetoric and Republicans and non-rural
senators employed rhetoric of the free market. Senators fell back on family farm rhetoric to
justify government intervention in agriculture policy for particular constituencies and free market
language to oppose them—no matter what their overall position on the farm bill. That is, in
order to justify programs that benefited their constituents, senators drew on the family farm as a
national cultural symbol.
Though free market values seemingly won the battle that late night in March, the cultural
importance of the family farm remained firm. Notably, even when they were strongly
advocating a free-market philosophy, policymakers talked only about procedure and not
outcome. In other words, they extolled the virtue of opening up markets but no senators and
only one member of Congress were willing to state that market outcomes were efficient, just, or
appropriate. Representative Stephen Buyer (R-IN) came the closest to endorsing free-market
outcomes when he stated: “the weaning of farmers off government subsidies is important to our
country’s financial health. Government should not be in the business of subsidizing inefficient
operations.” Not one other Senator or Representative—even those representing urban districts—
promoted the end to inefficient (often family) farms. Most telling in the debate over the 1996 is
the dog that did not bark: though the majority did not rely on the family farm in their rhetoric,
neither were they willing to condemn it.
What was heralded in 1996 as a new era of agriculture lasted only six years when major
subsidy programs returned as part and parcel of American agriculture policy. Between 1998 and
2001, as prices for agricultural products slumped, Congress passed a series of emergency farm
bailouts totaling $30.5 billion.
55
In 2002, much to the dismay of free-market advocates who
thought they had won a permanent victory in 1996, American agriculture policy reverted back to
subsidy programs. Congress passed, and President Bush signed, a six-year $440.8 billion farm
bill that included farm subsidies that had been eliminated in 1996 as well as new subsidy
programs to help protect American farmers.
56
Senator Byron Dorgan, who had vowed in 1996
that “we will have another day,” finally made good on his promise.
segment of the nation’s dairy industry. It goes against the rest of the bill, which moves American agriculture toward
a more market-oriented system” (142 Cong Rec H 3147).
54
142 Cong Rec S 3039.
55
"'02 Farm Bill Revives Subsidies" 2002, p.4-3.
56
"'02 Farm Bill Revives Subsidies" 2002, p.4-3.
Convention