[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S301-S302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              AGRICULTURE

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes as a 
member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, not as a colleague of my 
colleague from New York as a member of the Finance Committee, and I 
want to discuss the 1995 farm bill, which obviously is not going to be 
a 1995 bill. It will be a 1996 farm bill if and when we ever get one 
passed.
  It is January 23, 1996, but the farm bill that should have been in 
place by early fall, 1995, is still unresolved. So all across the 
country farmers are buying their seed, meeting with their bankers, 
making plans to cultivate and grow crop, all without knowing what the 
next farm program will be.
  When I say it should have been done by early fall, I want to make 
clear to my colleagues that the reason for this is that when you do 
fall tillage, preparing the fields for the seed of the next spring, you 
need to make those decisions at harvest time of the crop that grew in 
1995.
  In a very real sense of the word for people who are planting crops in 
the Southern States of our great country, those are important 
agriculture regions, as well, they are only 2 or 3 weeks away from 
planting. In my State, it is going to be 2 months until we reach that 
point.
  Everybody ought to understand that it is not the day you go to the 
field that you decide on certain things related to the 1996 crop. You 
need to know that months ahead of time. One of those factors--maybe 
farmers would rather not have this be a factor--but one of those 
factors is, what is the Government program toward agriculture? Probably 
in each of the last, except for 1 or 2 years out of the last 20 years, 
there has not been any slowness on the part of the Congress in this 
regard. Farmers have known well in advance what the Government's 
position was on agriculture and their decisions could wisely and timely 
be made in preparation for the next year's crop.
  Now here we are, January 23, 1996, and we still do not let the 
farmers of America know what the Government's program is toward 
agriculture.
  In the last few weeks, Mr. President, there has been a lot of finger 
pointing as to who was responsible for this situation. Some Members of 
the other side of the aisle would have you believe that Congress failed 
in its responsibilities to act on the farm bill last year. They would 
have you believe that Congress held no hearings, had no floor debate, 
and passed no farm bill.
  Mr. President, not only do I come to the floor to urge quick 
resolution of the lack of a farm bill, but I think that we should also 
set the record straight. Basically it means taking the politics out of 
this debate. It is time to leave the ideology to the side. It is time 
to get down to the very important practical aspect that in the upper 
Midwest where my State of Iowa is, within 2 months of farmers going to 
the field, and right now in the Southern States of the United States 
they are probably 2 weeks from that point. It is time to put our 
constituents and our farmers above political posturing in Washington 
and enact a farm bill into law.
  Contrary to the rhetoric coming from our Democratic colleagues in 
this body, in this Chamber, and also through the media, particularly my 
colleagues from the other side of the aisle, this Congress did act on 
the commodity provisions of the farm bill. Last year the Senate 
Agriculture Committee held at least 15 hearings, heard testimony from 
over 150 witnesses. Then in October the Senate debated and passed the 
commodity provisions of the farm bill as part of the Balanced Budget 
Act.
  While I am talking about the Balanced Budget Act, and farmers are 
asking about the farm provisions that were in it, I also take advantage 
of the opportunity to say to the farmers of the United States, there 
are probably more important provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 
1995 than the commodity provisions that they ought to be aware of that 
are going to benefit agriculture to a greater extent than even the 
commodity provisions.
  That would be, first of all, balancing the budget, reducing interest 
rates 1.5 to 2 percentage points a year. Multiply that times a $160 
billion debt in agriculture and that adds up to real money in the 
pockets of farmers of America, just from balancing the budget.
  Two other provisions very helpful to getting young people into 
agriculture, passing land and operations on from one generation to 
another generation of farmers, are the capital gains tax reduction and 
increasing the exemption, the estate tax exemption, and also having a 
special exemption, which was in this bill, when small businesses and 
farms are passed on to people within the family, an exemption of $1 
million. This is what it is going to take, in rural America, to get 
young people into agriculture.
  But I want to repeat that even though there were all these other good 
things for agriculture in the Balanced Budget Act, we did have the 
commodity provisions of the 1995 farm bill in that act. The Senate did 
debate and did pass a farm bill in 1995. Not only was there debate on 
the floor of the Senate at that time, but there were at least five 
amendments relating to the farm bill that were offered, debated, and 
voted on by the Senate.
  These amendments included a very comprehensive farm bill alternative, 
a proposal put forward by our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. That specific alternative was rejected by the Senate by a 
bipartisan vote of 68 to 31.
  So, what happened to the farm bill that we passed last year? As you 
know, it passed both Houses of Congress and was sent to the President 
for his signature. Unfortunately, the farm bill, as well as all these 
other good provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, was vetoed by 
the President. That is the reason why, on January 24, 1996, we are 
still discussing a 1995 farm bill.
  Let us start this year with a clean slate by setting the record 
straight. The Republican Congress debated, voted on and passed a farm 
bill in 1995. Now maybe we can get beyond the politics of this issue 
and do what is best for our farmers. The farmers of this country 
deserve to know what the farm program will be this year and they need 
to know as soon as possible. The time for delay is over. The farmers 
also need to know what both sides want in a new farm bill.
  The farm bill passed by the Republican majority in 1995 represents 
the most significant reform in farm legislation in the last 60 years. 
Under this provision, farmers will no longer have their planting 
decisions dictated by the politicians and the bureaucrats in 
Washington, DC. The reality of the budget crisis in Washington dictates 
that farmers must--and it is what farmers want to do--earn more of 
their income from the marketplace as opposed to the Federal Treasury.
  If that is the case--and that is the environment we are in, the 
budget realities as well as the realities of the foreign trade 
environment, the freeing up of foreign trade--if this is the case, 
then, the farmers are going to get less support from the Federal 
Treasury. The shackles of Government regulation and the red tape that 
is inherent therein must be removed so that U.S. farmers have a fair 
chance to compete with our foreign competitors.
  The farm provisions contained in the Balanced Budget Act do this. 
They remove the planting restrictions imposed on the farmers. They 
remove the Federal Government's authority to require that productive 
farmland be removed from production. In short, they send a very clear 
signal to the rest of the world that the U.S. farmer will compete for 
every sale in every marketplace.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I was not aware of a time restriction. 
Could I ask for 5 additional minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 
  
[[Page S302]]

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Now, what has the other side had to offer as an 
alternative to the Republican plan? Most often, although not totally, 
we hear about a 1-year extension of the current program. To me, this 
idea has several problems. An extension of the current program ignores 
the reforms that have been made and that farmers have now come to 
expect. The farmers in my State want, they expect, and they deserve the 
regulatory relief provided by the Republican farm bill provisions. 
Furthermore, an extension would literally deprive rural America of 
billions of dollars. First, a 1-year extension would require farmers to 
pay back money they have already received as advance deficiency 
payments. Many of the farmers in Iowa had very poor crops this year due 
to heavy rain during the planting season. Particularly that is true of 
southern Iowa, northern Missouri, and western central Illinois. Yet by 
a 1-year extension, people are suggesting that they would force these 
farmers to write checks to the Treasury to pay back their advance 
deficiency payment. It is estimated that these provisions would cost 
farmers more than $2.1 billion nationwide and, in my State of Iowa, 
$217 million.
  Second, any delay in passing a new farm bill could have a devastating 
effect on future farm programs. This is due to the Congressional Budget 
Office's baseline revision that continually shows that Congress will 
have less money to spend on farm programs in the future. When CBO 
revised its baseline in November, agriculture lost $7.8 billion from 
that baseline. This is $7.8 billion that we could have spent under the 
baseline if the President would have signed the farm bill enacted in 
October but now is lost, due to delay.
  If we pass a 1-year extension, the House Agriculture Committee 
estimates that agriculture could lose an additional $6 billion--an 
additional $6 billion. So, it is time to be very candid with our 
constituents. An extension will take billions of dollars out of that 
baseline, or, another way of saying it, out of the pockets of the 
family farmers, and, at the same time, out of rural America. To this 
Senator, these numbers make a mere extension of the current program an 
unacceptable alternative. And, when the truth is known to the farmers 
and to our constituents, I think they will find it equally 
unacceptable.
  I think it is interesting that the same Senators who have accused the 
Republican Congress of gutting rural America are willing to deprive 
these areas of billions of dollars by putting off the passing of a farm 
bill for another year, through a 1-year extension.
  Mr. President, the conclusion is very clear to this Senator. The 
Senate should pass the farm bill provisions contained in the Balanced 
Budget Act once again. We should do this as soon as possible, 
preferably this week on the continuing resolution. The farmers, the 
bankers, and the rest of rural America need the certainty as to what 
the next farm program will be.
  It is high time that we put ideology aside and enact a new farm bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Exon 
pertaining to the introduction of S. 1523 are located in today's Record 
under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________