[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S304-S305]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1523

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to propound a unanimous consent 
request, and I shall explain the request.
  I introduced earlier today a bill that is now deemed S. 1523 which 
provides for a 1-year extension of the current farm program. The bill 
provides for enormous planting flexibility for farmers who operate 
under this program to allow them to plant what they want on base acres 
and not having the Government tell them what to plant, when to plant it 
or where to plant it. So there is substantial flexibility. And third, 
it would provide for the forgiveness of the advanced deficiency payment 
for those farmers that suffered crop losses last year.
  I will ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of this because I agree with the Senator from Idaho that 
farmers deserve an answer. They deserve certainty. They deserve to know 
under what farm program will they be planting in just a matter of weeks 
in some parts of the country as they begin their spring's work.
  I do not believe this is necessarily the first choice. It is not 
necessarily the best choice. But the piece of legislation that the 
President vetoed was a budget reconciliation bill which included a farm 
bill that I described as a cobbled product. The President vetoed a 
reconciliation bill which took with it a bad farm bill.
  Now, why did that occur? Because this is the first time in history 
that rather than debate a 5-year farm bill on its own merits in this 
Chamber and the House, the majority party decided to stick the farm 
bill in the reconciliation bill which by last July people knew was 
going to be vetoed.
  Now, that does not talk about the merits of the farm bill itself. The 
merits of this farm bill would be to say, ``Disconnect the price 
support programs from need. If market prices are high, ignore that. 
Still give the farmers the payment. And if after 7 years market prices 
are low, ignore that. There will be no farm program.''
  I do not think and did not think this was a good approach. I believe 
the President thinks it is not a good approach for those who care about 
having a network of family farms in our country in the long term. That 
is why we did not support this approach.
  It should never have been put in the reconciliation bill in the first 
place. It was never done previously. Doing so produced the jeopardy 
that now exists for farmers in January of 1996 in not knowing what the 
farm program will be for spring planting. 

[[Page S305]]

  Mr. President, for purposes of trying to provide some certainty, I 
ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of 
S. 1523, a bill I introduced earlier today providing for a 1-year 
extension of the current farm programs for increased planting 
flexibility and providing for the forgiveness of the advanced 
deficiency payment for those who suffered crop loss; that the bill be 
read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid on 
the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will object. I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think the Senator and I speak to the same 
concern, but there is one thing that has gone on this year that it is 
important the record reflect--the very extensive hearings, well over 6 
months of hearings now on every title of the farm bill. But because we 
were in a uniquely different situation, and that is we had to deal with 
the cost and the cost impacts of farm policy, we brought those 
provisions of what would be a new farm bill to the floor in the budget 
reconciliation to gain those kinds of savings, to gain the $15 billion 
in savings that was necessary.
  What the Senator proposes in this extension under the current law 
would also wreak some peril. There is no question about it. Farmers are 
being required to repay nearly $2 billion in 1995 advanced deficiency 
payments, and I think only in the freedom to farm package do we resolve 
that issue.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield----
  Mr. CRAIG. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. My unanimous consent request specifically includes, as my 
bill does, the forgiveness of the advanced deficiency payment.
  Yes, it does. On page 3.
  Mr. CRAIG. Obviously, the Senator does not have page 3 for me. He has 
a message that is less than legible, and I would like to see the full 
impact of this.
  I must advise the Senator and my friend here that this is not a way 
to pass substantive legislation. We are dealing with an entire farm 
package here and it is critically necessary.
  I do object. And I do object by the nature of the way this has been 
presented.
  What I am offering and what has been objected to, Mr. President, is a 
full and complete package that has already been debated on the floor, 
well disseminated and understood by American agriculture, and I think 
largely accepted in their recognition of needing to participate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________