[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 135 (Friday, August 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12427-S12428]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                             1995 FARM BILL

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, when Congress reconvenes in September, the 
race to write the 1995 farm bill will hit full stride. This year marks 
the ninth farm bill that I have been involved in.
  Historically, agriculture stands at a crossroads every 5 years when 
Congress decides what direction it should go. This year, I believe 
there is agreement in this Chamber about which path to take. However, I 
would be remiss if I did not mention that there is significant 
disagreement about how best to get there.
  When Senators return home over the next few weeks, they will hear 
from their rural constituents the need for an aggressive farm policy. 
No doubt, the American people will provide their Senators with 
practical suggestions regarding the farm policy choices now before 
Congress.
  When we return in September, we will face several choices on farm 
policy. Three that come to mind are stay the course, reduction in 
support, and freedom to farm. Each choice has advantages; each choice 
has disadvantages.

[[Page S 12428]]

  The stay-the-course plan is piloted by my good friend from 
Mississippi Senator Cochran, who approaches the farm bill with the 
conviction that our work in 1985 was sound and that we should continue 
with this course while making changes necessary to balance the budget.
  The reduction-in-support strategy was outlined by Chairman Lugar 
early in the debate, and combines a reduction in target prices with the 
call for planting flexibility and elimination of set-asides--two points 
that are a priority in Kansas and much of the Midwest.
  The freedom-to-farm concept is endorsed by my good friend and 
colleague Representative Pat Roberts. In typical Kansas fashion, he has 
taken the bull by the horns. In the Roberts freedom-to-farm plan, 
budget balancing is done with a cap on farm spending which guarantees 
farmers less income support but is coupled with full planting 
flexibility and regulatory relief.
  I urge all Senators to take advantage of the August recess and 
reconnect with the concerns of rural Americans. Like many of my 
colleagues, I am still evaluating each of these approaches as well as 
other policy options. But I realize that we must reach agreement in 
September. In my view, there are certain guiding principles we must 
adhere to as we pursue that goal.
  First, fiscal responsibility. We must achieve a balanced budget and 
do it in a manner that is fair and equitable to farmers. We have worked 
hard to balance the budget. The line-item veto was a first step toward 
that goal. A balanced budget amendment failed by just one vote. We hope 
we can pick up that vote in the next several months. In September, we 
will begin work on a plan to balance the Federal budget over the next 7 
years. Farmers around the
 country remind me that they are taxpayers too. And as taxpayers, 
farmers want a balanced budget. All they ask is that spending cuts are 
fair and equitable. Everyone will take his or her fair share, whether 
it be food stamps or farm programs. And let me add that there will be 
equity in commodity program spending reductions and policy changes. The 
AG community will face its fair share of spending reductions as we move 
to fully implement a balanced budget.

  Second, unleash our productive capacity. We must allow farmers to 
decide what and how much to plant each year. Planting restrictions and 
idling acreage based on budget mandates instead of supply management 
must end. Through the new markets and new opportunities opened by GATT 
and NAFTA, we must be able to meet demand. The farm policy that drives 
the U.S. into the 21st century should not be based on the supply 
management concepts of the 1930's. A framer's business decisions should 
not be based on Government policy, but instead on market signals, 
agronomic practices and personal choice.
  Third, simplicity. Farm programs and environmental regulations should 
be simpler and more sensible. They should reflect a basic respect for 
private property rights and the work ethic of the family farmer. For 
several years now, as I traveled through Kansas and throughout the 
country, farmers have been telling me the same thing--keep it simple. 
All farm programs--and especially all regulations--must be simpler and 
less intrusive. Our efforts to provide regulatory relief for rural 
America have been blocked by those on the other side of the aisle. I 
hope that when my colleagues return to their States in August, they 
will listen to their constituents' pleas to rein in the Federal 
Government.
  American agriculture does not operate in a vacuum. Rural Americans 
share the Republican conviction that Congress must balance the budget, 
and that we must provide tax relief, regulatory relief and health care 
reform. Rural Americans realize that there are important policies 
outside the farm bill that greatly affect their bottom lines. Mr. 
President, we are actively working to provide the needed relief that 
rural America is asking for. And we will not stop. The reconciliation 
debate in September will focus national attention on issues vital to 
rural America. This is our opportunity to make real progress.
  When it comes to policy for rural America, I can not help but be 
reminded of the peanuts cartoon, where Lucy pulls the football away 
from Charlie Brown at the last minute.
  Unfortunately, just like Charlie Brown, the American farmer keeps 
running at the ball and Congress keeps pulling it away. A workable 
policy for rural America is not achieved by taunting the American 
farmer. It is achieved by everyone--agriculture, Congress and USDA--
playing together on the same team.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________