[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6473-S6474]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FARM BILL

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, to shift, I want to talk about this 
1995 farm bill, and I want to talk about what has come out of the 
Budget Committee.
  I thought we were going to have a farm bill as opposed to just 
drastic budget cuts. The document that comes out of the Senate proposes 
cuts of $28 billion over 5 years and $45 billion over 7 years. A fair 
percentage of these cuts, the majority of these cuts are in nutrition 
programs--food stamps, Women, Infants and Children Program, School 
Lunch Program.
  By the way, my colleagues in the Senate have gone on record that we 
will not take any action to create more hunger or homelessness among 
children. We had studies in the mid- and late 1960's about hunger in 
America, TV documentaries. That is when we expanded the Food Stamp 
Program.
  Guess what? You bet it was a program that worked. I am not going to 
let anybody get away with talking about fraud here and fraud there. 
Yes, there are examples of fraud, no question about it, which should be 
stopped, but on the whole, this Food Stamp Program has made a gigantic 
difference in reducing hunger and malnutrition in the United States of 
America.
  Now we want to have drastic cuts in the Food Stamp Program, Women, 
Infants, and Children Program, and, in addition, you go after the 
deficiency payments, the target prices, I say to the Chair, for 
farmers.
  The farmers in Minnesota are real clear. We took a big hit last time 
around on deficit reduction, and people in agriculture in my State are 
not opposed to deficit reduction, but they want to see some standard of 
fairness. What family farmers say in Minnesota is, ``If you give us a 
price in the marketplace, you can eliminate the target prices, you can 
eliminate the deficiency payments.''
  But if we do not have a fair price in the marketplace and you have 
drastic cuts in deficiency payments, you will erode family farm income, 
you will erode the value of the land and just as sure as that happens, 
we will see family farmers go under.
  This is simply unacceptable. If you want to raise the loan rate to a 
higher level, if you want to give us a fair price in the marketplace, 
great, that is what people want. But instead what we have had is a 
policy of low prices which, by definition--correct me--means target 
price deficiency payments are higher, then that is now used as an 
excuse for cutting these programs, when we have already taken one hit 
after another.
  The future for agriculture in this country is a fair price in the 
marketplace. The future for agriculture is let us put value to our 
products. In Minnesota, we lead the Nation with farmer-owned value-
added farm co-ops. That is a big part of what people want to do. But we 
are not interested in not getting the fair price in the marketplace, 
not having access to capital to move forward with our own cooperatives, 
not being able to keep the value of what we produce in our communities 
and, in addition, seeing severe cuts in programs that provide needed 
income to family farms. That is what these budget cuts do, Mr. 
President. That is what these budget cuts do.
  [[Page S6474]] Why impose the most pain on those for whom it will be 
most difficult to bear? Why ask the very people who cannot tighten 
their belts to tighten their belts? Where is the Minnesota standard of 
fairness?
  I do not see a focus on cutting more unneeded military and corporate 
welfare spending. I do not see a focus on eliminating lucrative tax 
breaks for special interests. I do not see a focus on moving away on 
the House side, and it seems to be that some of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have split on this, on dealing with the problem 
of tax cuts for wealthy people.
  What are we talking about? We are talking about $370-some billion, 
the vast amount of which flows to people on the top. If you have an 
income of $200,000 a year, it is a break of about $30,000. If you have 
a family income of under $30,000 a year, it is a break of about $100 a 
year. What are we talking about here? Where is the standard of 
fairness?
  Mr. President, over and over and over again, through the time of this 
104th Congress, I have been on the floor. I remember when I first 
uttered these words, I thought to myself, ``Are you just giving a 
speech or is it going to happen?'' I had to believe it was going to 
happen to say it. I said that my fear is the deficit reduction is going 
to be based on the path of least political resistance. That is exactly 
what is going on.
  I remember David Stockman's book about the early eighties. He said 
what we should have done was go after the weak claims, not the weak 
claimants. We are not going after the weak claims, we are not going 
after the corporate welfare, we are not going after the military 
contracts, we are not going after the tax breaks, but we are going 
after the family farmers, we are going after the children, we are going 
after senior citizens, we are going after education.
  There is no standard of fairness whatsoever. It is all based upon who 
are the folks who have the financial and the political clout to get 
their voice heard here and who are the vast majority of the people who 
are shut out of the process. We are going to have one sharp budget 
debate. When it gets to Medicare and Medicaid, I am going to insist 
that my colleagues know this policy well and understand exactly what 
the consequences are of what they are doing. When it comes to the cuts 
in agriculture--disproportionate cuts--I want to make sure that people 
know that we are talking about farmers not out of sight out of mind, 
but the producers in this country, and what this is going to do to 
family farmers. When it comes to education, I want people to understand 
the consequences of what it means when we do not invest in education 
and young people. When it comes to children and child nutrition 
programs, I want to make this argument: Do not go after the most 
vulnerable citizens in this country.
  When it comes to alternatives, I want to talk about the corporate 
welfare, I want to talk about the tax dodgers, I want to talk about the 
military contract, and I want to talk about how we really can contain 
health care costs. I look forward to this debate. I hope all of the 
people in the United States of America are engaged in it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________