[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 184 (Saturday, November 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17458-S17459]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE BALANCED BUDGET ACT

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes today to 
address a few specifics of the Balanced Budget Act passed yesterday by 
this Chamber. With the time available today, I wanted to offer a few 
specific thoughts on the agriculture provisions contained in the 
conference report.
  As I have said on previous occasions during this debate, the balanced 
budget 

[[Page S 17459]]
measure we approved yesterday is a historic moment. I feel strongly 
that this is among the most important votes that I will cast here, and 
I am proud that this Congress has the courage and conviction to enact a 
plan to achieve a true balanced budget.
  This is a good plan, and in my estimation, it is a very fair plan; 
but it is not entirely a perfect plan. An area, for example, that I 
believe that this Congress has abdicated its responsibility is the 
reforms of the peanut program that are contained in this bill.
  My desire to reform programs such as peanuts and sugar is certainly 
well known among my colleagues. It is my view that we must curb these 
subsidies for farmers and investors and bring these programs into line 
with other, more market oriented agricultural commodities. As a member 
of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I have been fighting for reforms 
in both of these programs. I assure my colleagues that the provisions 
in this bill are not true reform.
  The peanut industry is in a state of serious decline. Consumption and 
production are falling as a direct result of a failed Government policy 
that excessively inflates the price of U.S. peanuts to almost twice the 
world price. It is my goal to make the peanut program operate like 
other farm programs so peanut farmers will grow peanuts for the market, 
and not for the Federal Government. Under the current peanut program, 
artificially high-priced peanuts simply end up being forfeited to the 
Federal Government.
  The peanut provisions contained in the budget reconciliation bill not 
only fail to reform the peanut quota system, but make a bad program 
worse by forcing the Secretary of Agriculture to further shrink 
national production to avoid Government forfeitures.
  This summer I introduced S. 1188, a bill that provides for a 
phasedown of the excessive support price for quota peanuts in order to 
move the program toward a market orientation. In year 2000, my bill 
would end the quota system and replace it with a loan program, much 
like the program we have for soybeans.
  The Agriculture Committee, however, chose to include the general 
commodity programs in the budget reconciliation bill rather than have a 
farm bill fully debated on the Senate floor. At the time of Agriculture 
Committee deliberations, I agreed not to oppose the package of peanut 
provision for inclusion in budget reconciliation in return for some 
minor reforms in the program.
  One of the chief concessions I obtained in the Agriculture Committee 
reported bill, was a new provision for the release of additional 
peanuts when market prices for domestic edible peanuts exceeded 120 
percent of the quota loan rate. This provision would have placed some 
cap on the price of peanuts when the Government creates an artificial 
shortage.
  Unfortunately, this provision was ruled out of order under the Byrd 
rule, while other provisions, such as the extension of lease and 
transfer of quota, were allowed to be part of final legislative package 
on peanuts.
  My other objective today is to point out the inconsistency in terms 
of how the Byrd rule was applied against my provisions to reform the 
peanut program. No one can deny that the Byrd rule was applied 
selectively to eliminate certain provisions, while other items, such as 
lease and transfer provisions were allowed to be attached to the budget 
reconciliation bill. Through procedural maneuvers to protect the peanut 
program from a floor vote, the Congress has effectively chosen to 
heavily subsidize a few thousand peanut quota holders at the expense of 
millions of consumers.
  The peanut provisions contained in the bill serve to protect the 
status quo, while consumers have to pay even more for peanuts because 
the Secretary of Agriculture will be forced to short the market. In 
fact, it is estimated that the proposed modifications will effectively 
increase the cost of peanuts by as much as $100 per ton. Budget 
reconciliation provisions that increase the cost of peanut products at 
a time when the peanut industry is already losing market share are 
simply bad public policy.
  I am disappointed in my colleagues' use of the legislative process to 
hide the peanut program from the light of public scrutiny. Working to 
deny floor consideration of peanut program reform has extended the life 
of this outrageous program for a while longer. Ultimately, I am afraid 
that the provisions in this bill do a disservice to supporters of the 
program by further pretending that there is no crisis in the peanut 
industry.
  In stark contrast, some of the reforms that I have proposed would 
expand national production by allowing American peanut growers to 
produce for the market rather than the government. Real reform of the 
peanut program will not only benefit this Nation's consumers, but will 
help avoid the loss of manufacturing an jobs in my home State of 
Pennsylvania.
  As a Representative of Pennsylvania, one of the largest states in 
terms of the number of employees related to peanut product 
manufacturing, I have good reason to be deeply concerned about the loss 
of jobs that will result from further Government imposed reductions in 
U.S. peanut production.
  Mr. President, it is critical that we have an opportunity to vote for 
reform of the peanut program on the Senate floor. Consideration of the 
peanut program to date has been nothing short of denying public 
scrutiny of an unfair and outdated Government program.

                          ____________________