[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 3 (Friday, January 5, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S79-S80]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           AGRICULTURE POLICY

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for the past several weeks, America has 
focused its attention on the budget talks 

[[Page S80]]
in Washington, and on the Government workers who have been hostages in 
this debate.
  However, one of the faces not shown on the evening news as a hostage 
in these talks is that of the American farmer.
  As I travel around rural America, farmers remind me that they are 
taxpayers too. And as taxpayers, farmers want a balanced budget.
  Rural America realizes what this balanced budget means for them. For 
agriculture alone, spending on interest with a balanced budget is 
projected to decline by $15 billion over 7 years. And for a lot of 
family farmers who struggle to make ends meet, the money saved by 
reduced interest payments could make the difference between success and 
failure.

  In addition, the Balanced Budget Act would provide much needed tax 
relief to millions of rural Americans; including an increase in 
expensing limits, death tax relief, an increased deductibility for the 
health insurance cost of the self employed, a capital gains tax cut, 
and operation of a medical savings account.
  Mr. President, along with putting America on course to a balanced 
budget, there is something else that Congress must do to be fair to 
America's farmers.
  I believe we have an obligation to announce by the end of February, 
if not sooner, the details of a farm bill so farmers can prepare this 
year's crop. Kansas farmers have already planted their winter wheat 
without knowing any program details.
  In my view, Mr. President, Congress has three options from which we 
can choose.
  Option No. 1 is to do nothing, and to simply let the 1990 farm bill 
expire, which would mean that permanent law would be in effect.
  Anyone who knows anything about permanent law realizes such 
action would be bad for farmers and bad for America. Farm prices would 
reach parity levels which to many may sound attractive. However, the 
long-term ramifications to the marketplace and U.S. Treasury would be 
significant. Farmers would produce for the Government and not the 
marketplace.

  Option No. 2 is to pass an extension of the 1990 farm bill. This in 
my view, would also be the wrong road to take.
  Those who are advocating this choice are unwilling to modernize 
American agricultural policy as we prepare to move into the next 
century. The world population will grow by 50 percent by 2025. We must 
provide American agriculture with the tools to unleash our Nation's 
productive capacity to meet a growing world demand. An extension of 
current farm policy without addressing changes that have occurred and 
continue to occur, is unacceptable to a majority of farmers in this 
country.
  If we are going to have an extension, it has to be at least for a 
couple of years. You have to give farmers flexibility, and you have to 
remove production controls.
  Option No. 3--which is the correct choice--is to adopt the farm bill 
proposals contained in the Balanced Budget Act.

  One year ago, I spoke to the American Farm Bureau Federation's annual 
meeting in St. Louis. While there, I outlined some of my goals for the 
1995 farm bill. These goals included providing farmers with full 
planting flexibility, elimination of set-asides, program simplicity, 
and a farm policy that transitions farmers into the next century 
without disrupting the farm economy or land values. All of these goals 
are reached in the language contained in the Balanced Budget Act.
  Unfortunately, that act was vetoed and we must now address how to 
best proceed. I am hopeful that provisions contained in the Balanced 
Budget Act can be retained and can be passed before the end of 
February.
  Mr. President, American agriculture does not operate in a vacuum. 
Rural Americans share the Republican conviction that Congress must 
balance the budget. Rural Americans realize that there are important 
policies outside the farm bill that greatly affect their bottom lines. 
Republicans are actively working to provide the needed relief that 
rural Americans are asking for. And we will not stop.

  Mr. President, there are those who claim there has been no public 
input into the agricultural provisions included in the Balanced Budget 
Act.
  I disagree. Last year, the Senate and House Agriculture Committees 
held 33 hearings on the 1995 farm bill with over 350 witnesses. In my 
view, the public input has been significant.
  I also hear some colleagues talk about the need for a vote on the 
Senate democratic proposal which would reduce the agriculture savings 
and provide and increase in marketing loans.
  I would simply point out that Senator Harkin offered this amendment 
during Senate consideration of the reconciliation bill. The vote failed 
31 to 68 with 15 Democrats voting with Republicans to defeat the 
amendment.
  The fact is that we have debated farm policy. And adopting the 
agriculture provisions contained in the Balanced Budget Act is right 
for our farmers and the right path for America.
  Mr. President, I point out to my colleagues that the suggestion has 
been made that maybe there is an alternative plan. We had a vote on 
that plan, offered by Senator Harkin. We voted 68 to 31 in opposition 
to that proposal.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I did not have the opportunity to hear 
everything that the majority leader said. I understand he spoke about 
agriculture.
  Let me just say that I do not know what the solution is, but I think 
the majority leader and I both agree that we have to do something. We 
have a lot of farmers who have already planted everything that they are 
going to plant for their winter wheat, for their crops. That will be 
ready for harvest by spring or late spring. We have to do something. If 
we cannot do it in 1 year, maybe a 2-year extension is something that 
we ought to look at. But I do not think that doing nothing ought to be 
an option that either party agrees to.
  While there is very little support on the other side of the aisle for 
the so-called marketing loan concept, that marketing loan would allow 
farmers to be given at least the confidence that they are going to have 
a plan out there that is market-sensitive; that costs less for the 
Government; that provides us with the kind of opportunity in the farm 
program that many farmers feel they need. Virtually every national farm 
organization has said they support it.
  So I hope we can work something out. I know that in working with 
majority leader in good faith, we can find a way to resolve what may 
now appear to be some very difficult challenges in agreeing on a farm 
policy. But we have to do it. I hope we can do it as early as next 
week. We cannot wait much longer.
  Again, while I did not hear what the majority leader said, I am sure 
he shares the need to be as expeditious as possible in finding some 
resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate to my colleague that is sort 
of what I pointed out. There are, as I see it, three options. We talked 
about it to some extent today at the White House. But I appreciate 
that.
  Of course, we need to do something because, as the minority leader 
indicated, our winter wheat farmers have already planted their wheat. 
They do not know what the program is going to be. They are taking a 
chance, as they do from time to time.

                          ____________________