[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S303-S304]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              THE AGRICULTURAL RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in a few moments I will propound a 
unanimous consent request that I know the minority will want to be on 
the floor to respond to.
  While they are coming, let me speak for a few moments to the dilemma 
we find ourselves in here in the Congress, having passed a Budget 
Reconciliation Act, and in that budget reconciliation having a 
substantial portion of new farm policy that is known as the 
Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 1995. Of course that went to the 
President and, as we know, was vetoed.
  The problem has been spoken to by the Senator from Nebraska, the 
Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from Iowa already this 
afternoon, with clearly differing points of view as to how that was 
handled. But what is clear, in my State of Idaho, is that farmers and 
their bankers are now sitting down to determine which acres will go 
into potatoes or sugar beets or barley or wheat or alfalfa crops this 
coming season. That means that Idaho farmers are putting together their 
farm plans and determining their financial structure for the coming 
year. They prefer to do that in the presence of U.S. farm policy.
  Of course, we know that on September 30 of this past year, the farm 
bill has expired. As a result of that, the Secretary of Agriculture is 
now at least looking at the possibility of our farm policy reverting to 
the Agriculture Act of 1949. All of us know that simply cannot be 
allowed to happen. The stalemate that has resulted from the budget 
considerations that we are now in simply has not produced farm policy 
as should be expected by American agriculture.
  I serve on the Senate Agricultural Committee. Chairman Dick Lugar and 
I and all Members of that committee now for over 10 months have been 
engaged in looking at and crafting farm policy on a title-by-title 
basis. But because of the necessary savings that we needed to acquire 
in fiscal 1996 as a result of the balanced budget process that this 
Congress is now in, the Budget Reconciliation Act handled a substantial 
portion of new farm policy. Whether you call it ``Freedom to Farm'' or 
whether you call it the Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 1995, all of 
us know that there were clear and substantial changes made. We had held 
extensive hearings with American agriculture and all segments of the 
commodity interest of agriculture to craft that farm policy. We had 
gone to conference with the House, the Senate and the House differing 
substantially on approaches toward this, but all of us coming together 
to agree on a policy, finally, that made its way into the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1995. Since that time, American agriculture has had an 
opportunity to review it, and I must say that the reviews have been 
favorable.

  Early on, farmers scratched their heads and said, ``How will this 
work,'' only to recognize the kind of new flexibility that we offer in 
farm policy which says to American agriculture, no longer will you have 
to farm to the program. You can now start farming to the marketplace, 
and you can begin to adjust your cropping patterns to move toward the 
market.
  Farmers cannot wait now for this President. Farmers need to know what 
we are going to do. It is clearly time that we speak to that issue.
  This past summer and fall, as I have mentioned, the Congress, the 
Senate and the House alike, have attempted to craft new farm policy 
resulting in an approach that brings us to a balanced budget. Somehow 
there appears to be a message on this floor this afternoon that 
American agriculture is not interested in a balanced budget. 

[[Page S304]]

  Mr. President, that is not what we heard this year. We heard from 
every commodity group that they were willing to do their fair share in 
moving us toward that balanced budget, and in so recognizing, they 
would get greater flexibility in the marketplace to move their cropping 
programs toward the market with the kind of flexibility and planning, 
instead of being stuck, if you will, or found in lockstep to farm 
policy, afraid to lose and therefore afraid of stepping outside that.
  We have provided a safety net, and that marketing loan will provide 
that. The loan will allow farmers a reasonable time period to market 
their crops. These loans will be stabilized in the market cycle and 
continue to protect consumers as well as the producer. It will avoid 
the kind of unnecessary market gyrations.
  In crafting these sound programs, the Senate and the House committees 
worked hard and worked long, together, to solve this issue and to bring 
us to balance in a very diverse segment of America's economy. And that 
is American agriculture.
  In my State of Idaho, in Florida, in Louisiana, in Colorado, in 
Montana, and in the Dakotas, sugar, sugar beet and cane raising remains 
a very important commodity crop. Inside the legislation that was vetoed 
by the President was, again, a new compromise, a new program, a 
reduction in the program. Listening to the consumer's side, we made the 
kind of changes that bring us to the marketplace in a variety of these 
areas, that allow the producer to say, ``I am farming now to the market 
and not to the farm.''
  Planning flexibility, as I have already mentioned, could clearly be 
jeopardized. Traditional nonprogram crops like fruits and vegetables, 
in my State of Idaho, potatoes, could be thrown in jeopardy if we do 
not deal with this program and deal with it now.
  When we saw in the Freedom to Farm Act limited flexibility, it was 
the Senate that spoke up and said we want flexibility so farmers can 
move to the marketplace in lieu of what we want to solve with a 
balanced budget. At the same time, we want to make sure that we protect 
a variety of these program crops.
  Here we are, not at the 11th hour, not at the 12th hour, but well 
beyond that, into 1996, with a farm bill that expired on September 30, 
1995, with a policy that was cautiously and carefully crafted between 
both the House and the Senate, put in the Budget Reconciliation Act, 
sent to the President, and the President vetoed it. Now, the Secretary 
of Agriculture--and I appreciate the Secretary's problem--is terribly 
frustrated by a need to conduct farm policy at the same time no law is 
in place as a result of that Presidential veto.
  So I come to the floor tonight in behalf of our Speaker, Leader Dole, 
myself, Chairman Lugar, Chairman Cochran, Senator Grassley, and others.

                          ____________________