[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 145 (Monday, September 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S13710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     RESTRUCTURING THE FARM PROGRAM

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me address one other quick item as 
long as no one is seeking the floor. A group of us just had a press 
conference about an hour ago to introduce a piece of legislation that 
calls for restructuring the Farm Program. That is not very important to 
most people if you are not involved in farming or do not live in a 
rural county or do not live in a rural State. It may not matter to you 
what kind of a Farm Program this country has. But if you are a family 
farmer trying to raise some kids and raise a crop and keep things 
together and make a decent living, the question of whether this country 
has a Farm Program is critical to your survival.
  We have two different approaches to the Farm Program these days: One 
embodied in the most recent budget that says, let us cut $14 billion 
out of the agricultural function, that says we should increase defense 
spending, build star wars, but we cannot afford a decent farm program; 
let us cut $14 billion. The President, by contrast, said, let us cut $4 
billion.
  Well, I accept that Agriculture should have some budget cuts and I 
supported budget cuts in the past for them. They have taken more than 
their share in the past than they should have, but more is to come. But 
not $14 billion, $4 billion to $4.2 billion the President suggested is 
in the range that makes some sense.
  But what is interesting to me is that now that this budget 
requirement is out there, one which I do not support by the way, we are 
discovering that the chairs of both committees in the House and the 
Senate in the agricultural area cannot write a farm plan. They cannot 
get a consensus on a farm plan. They cannot find 10 votes in the Senate 
committee for a farm plan apparently, because they paint themselves in 
a corner with a $14 billion budget deficit reduction number in 
agriculture. You cannot write a decent farm plan with that.
  Some say, well, we have a new approach called the freedom to farm 
bill. The freedom to farm bill, as my colleague, Tom Harkin, said, is 
the ``welcome to welfare'' bill that disconnects in every single way an 
opportunity to have a long-term price support that is beneficial to 
family size farms.
  I will not apologize for a minute to anybody for believing that 
investing in family farmers with a safety net that makes sense is 
worthwhile for this country. Nobody in this Chamber ever ought to stand 
up and claim to be pro-family if you are not pro-family farmer. Nobody 
under any condition ought to talk about being pro-family unless they 
are willing to stand for the interests of maintaining a network of 
family farms in this country. That is where the nurturing and caring 
and sharing and the kind of development of family values in this 
country has always begun for 200 years and rolled across this country 
to our small towns and cities.
  The fact is, it makes a difference in our future whether we have an 
inventory of agri-factories producing America's food or whether we have 
families out there living on the land where the yard light is on at 
night and sending kids to school and buying tractors in town. It makes 
a difference the kind of agriculture we have.
  Family farm-based agriculture is critically important to this 
country's future. I know a group of us introduced legislation today 
that says you can create a better farm program and save money if you 
simply disconnect from the giant agri-factories and decide to focus a 
targeted price support on the family size farms.
  People say, ``What is a family-size farm?'' I do not know the answer 
to that. We do not have a statistical definition of a family size farm. 
But we do not have enough money anyway, so you try to layer in the best 
price support you can for the first increment of production; and the 
effect of that is to provide the bulk of the benefits to family sized 
operations.
  Now, we hope in the coming 3 or 4 weeks, in the time that is critical 
for the future of the new 5-year farm bill, that we can find a critical 
mass between Republicans and Democrats, all of whom, hopefully, will 
come together to get a network of family farms in this farm bill. And 
we hope we can do that.
  There are some in this Congress who are willing to wave the white 
flag of surrender and say, ``We give up. It cannot be done.'' What they 
do is consign rural counties in this country to economic despair and 
economic depression. My home county lost 20 percent of its population 
in the 1980's and 10 percent in the first half of the 1990's. It is 
shrinking like a prune. The current farm program does not work. And it 
is not going to help a thing by deciding to surrender and pass 
something called a freedom to farm act, which, as I said, is nothing 
more than a welcome to welfare act.
  There is a better way to do this. Senator Daschle, myself, Senator 
Conrad, Senator Exon, Senator Harkin, and others introduced legislation 
today that we think puts us on the road, the right track, to deal with 
this country's farm problems. I hope all Members of the Senate will be 
able to review it and consider it as we evaluate what direction this 
country takes with respect to farm policy in the coming 5 years.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I make the point that there is not a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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.

                          ____________________