[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S314-S321]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  By Mr. HELMS (for himself, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Simpson, Mr. 
Warner, Mr. Murkowski, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
Specter, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Craig, Mr. Burns, Mr. Hatfield, 
Mr. Heflin, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Lott, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. 
Cochran, and Mr. Frist):
  S. 1520. A bill to award a congressional gold medal to Ruth and Billy 
Graham.


        THE BILLY AND RUTH GRAHAM CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL AWARD ACT

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have a bill that Senator Faircloth and I 
are joining to offer. It is sponsored by many other Senators. It is at 
the desk.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am not 
sure I understood what the Senator from North Carolina said. Was the 
Senator calling up a bill?
  Mr. HELMS. This is a bill to authorize a congressional gold medal to 
Billy Graham and Ruth Graham, his wife of 52 years.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is the Senator calling a bill up for debate and 
consideration?
  Mr. HELMS. No, sir, it is to be appropriately referred.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from North 
Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, before I begin, several Senators have 
already asked to be identified as cosponsors of this measure.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch; the 
Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Simpson; the Senator from Virginia, Mr. 
Warner; the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski; the Senator from Texas, 
Mrs. Hutchison; the Senator from Kansas, Mrs. Kassebaum; and Senator 
Abraham; and Senator Specter of Pennsylvania be added as cosponsors, 
and I ask that the bill be held at the desk until the close of business 
today for Senators to add their names as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Senator Faircloth and I are genuinely 
honored to offer this legislation to award a congressional gold medal 
to two wonderful North Carolinians, Dr. Billy Graham and his remarkable 
wife of 52 years, Ruth Graham. I have known them for years. Billy 
Graham was born not far from where I was born, and I have known him 
very, very well since the early 1950's, when I attended his very first 
crusade right here at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC.
  When the bill is signed into law, Congress will be paying tribute to 
a deserving couple who have spent their lives exemplifying the miracle 
of America--faith in God, morality, charity, and family.
  Most Senators have met the Grahams; many are personal friends, as are 
Senator Faircloth and I. Billy and Ruth are marvelous servants of the 
Lord. Anybody even vaguely familiar with the Grahams' witness will 
agree that Billy's and Ruth's relationships with God, their love for 
each other and their family, and their deep-seated compassion for 
humanity are unsurpassed. This is the genuine spirituality that has led 
literally millions of Americans, and millions of others around the 
world, to grasp the meaning and hope of salvation.
  The incredible millions who have heard the message of salvation 
through Billy Graham's evangelistic campaigns are testimony to his 
devout magnetism. For the past half century, more than 100 million 
people in 180 countries have personally heard Billy Graham's thrilling 
messages in person when they attended his rallies. Others have 
worshipped with him by television. An estimated total of more than 2 
billion people have worshipped with Billy Graham on television. 
Countless others have sought spiritual help and counsel through his 
books, magazines, newspaper editorials, radio broadcasts, and the Billy 
Graham Training Center at Black Mountain, NC.

  The Grahams have responded to the physical needs of people around the 
world through a legacy inherited from Ruth Graham's father, the 
distinguished Dr. L. Nelson Bell, who was a missionary to China. Dr. 
Bell and his family served as medical missionaries to China for nearly 
25 years before returning to the Memorial Mission Hospital in 
Asheville, NC.
  Today, the Grahams continue Dr. Nelson Bell's legacy through the 
ministry of the Ruth and Billy Graham Children's Health Center where 
the children of western North Carolina and the surrounding area receive 
special medical care that was unavailable before the advent of the 
Graham Children's Health Center. Moreover, the Grahams, through their 
various ministries, have extended their love and their caring by 
extending their loving and helping hands to the victims of disasters, 
the medical needy, and the disadvantaged.
  Mr. President, it is fitting and proper, I think, for the U.S. 
Congress to honor Billy and Ruth Graham, who if anybody ever has, they 
have earned not only the respect of the Congress, they have earned the 
keys to the kingdom.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, today Senator Helms and I will 
introduce legislation that will authorize the Congress to present a 
gold medal to Ruth and Billy Graham in honor of their contributions to 
mankind.
  The striking of the medal will have no cost to the taxpayer. Most 
importantly, all of this effort will benefit children in southern 
Appalachia and internationally.
  Ruth and Billy Graham stand as shining examples of faith, family, 
morality, and charity. These two great North Carolinians are truly 
servants of the Lord and His work has been further accomplished through 
their lifelong efforts.
  Dr. Graham's crusades have reached 100 million people in person and 
over 2 billion worldwide on television. He is America's most respected 
and admired evangelist. His newspaper columns and books reach legions 
of people in need of spiritual counseling. And, his loving marriage of 
52 years to Ruth Graham is a touching personal achievement.
  The Ruth and Billy Graham Children's Center, located at Memorial 
Mission Hospital in Asheville, NC, is testimony to the difference they 
have made in lives of others. The center's goal is to improve the 
health and well-being of children and to become a new resource for 
ending the pain and suffering of children.
  Mr. President, I ask the Senate to quickly act on this honor for Dr. 
Graham and his wife. The prayers of many deserving children could be 
answered by this touching tribute to Ruth and Billy Graham.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DOLE:
  S. 1521. A bill to establish the Nicodemus National Historic Site in 
Kansas, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


            the nicodemus national historic site act of 1996

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, time, it is said, is the savior and nemesis 
of history. The savior because it is the very passage of time that 
creates history. The nemesis because that same passage of time 
obliterates history. Today, in Nicodemus, KS, a community is waging a 
losing battle against time. To bolster them in that fight, I am 
introducing legislation that would establish Nicodemus, KS, as a 
national historic site.
  Kansas is not the first place that comes to mind when people think of 
the Civil War and reconstruction, but we Kansans know that Kansas is to 
the Civil War what Sarajevo was to World War I. Border ruffians, the 
sack of Lawrence, John Brown, and the Pottawatomie massacre are as 
familiar to Kansas schoolchildren as Fort Sumter and Gettysburg. The 
guerrilla war that rent bleeding Kansas was the opening skirmish in the 
armed conflict between abolitionist and slaveholder that ended at 
Appomattox.
  Even less well known is that out of that bitter struggle emerged a 
period of hope for the newly emancipated. During the 1870's, Kansas was 
the scene of a great migration of southern blacks seeking their fortune 
in what some African-American leaders described as 

[[Page S315]]
the promised land. One of the most important settlements founded during 
that time was Nicodemus. From sod burrows carved out of the prairie by 
the original colonists, Nicodemus flourished into a leading center of 
black culture and society through the turn of the century.
  Today, a cluster of five buildings is all that remains of that once 
vibrant community. National historic landmark status has not halted the 
gradual decay of this monument to the struggle of African-Americans for 
freedom and equality. In fact, in its report entitled ``Nicodemus, 
Kansas Special Resource Study,'' the National Park Service indicated 
that ``[i]f Nicodemus is not protected and preserved by a public or 
private entity, it seems inevitable that the historic structures will 
continue to deteriorate and eventually be razed.'' It was that finding 
that prompted my legislation granting the town of Nicodemus, KS, 
national historic site status.
  It is my hope that colleagues will join me in working to save this 
unique piece of American history.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1521

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the town of Nicodemus, in Kansas, has national 
     significance as the only remaining western town established 
     by African-Americans during the Reconstruction period 
     following the Civil War;
       (2) the town of Nicodemus is symbolic of the pioneer spirit 
     of African-Americans who dared to leave the only region they 
     had been familiar with to seek personal freedom and the 
     opportunity to develop their talents and capabilities; and
       (3) the town of Nicodemus continues to be a viable African-
     American community.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to preserve, protect, and interpret for the benefit and 
     enjoyment of present and future generations, the remaining 
     structures and locations that represent the history 
     (including the settlement and growth) of the town of 
     Nicodemus, Kansas; and
       (2) to interpret the historical role of the town of 
     Nicodemus in the Reconstruction period in the context of the 
     experience of westward expansion in the United States.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Historic site.--The term ``historic site'' means the 
     Nicodemus National Historic Site established by section 3.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF NICODEMUS NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Nicodemus 
     National Historic Site in Nicodemus, Kansas.
       (b) Description.--
       (1) In general.--The historic site shall consist of the 
     First Baptist Church, the St. Francis Hotel, the Nicodemus 
     School District Number 1, the African Methodist Episcopal 
     Church, and the Township Hall located within the 
     approximately 161.35 acres designated as the Nicodemus 
     National Landmark in the Township of Nicodemus, Graham 
     County, Kansas, as registered on the National Register of 
     Historic Places pursuant to section 101 of the National 
     Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470a), and depicted on a 
     map entitled ``Nicodemus National Historic Site'', numbered 
     80,000 and dated August 1994.
       (2) Map and boundary description.--The map referred to in 
     paragraph (1) and an accompanying boundary description shall 
     be on file and available for public inspection in the office 
     of the Director of the National Park Service and any other 
     office of the National Park Service that the Secretary 
     determines to be an appropriate location for filing the map 
     and boundary description.

     SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION OF THE HISTORIC SITE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     historic site in accordance with--
       (1) this Act; and
       (2) the provisions of law generally applicable to units of 
     the National Park System, including the Act entitled ``An Act 
     to establish a National Park Service, and for other 
     purposes'', approved August 25, 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), 
     and the Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666, chapter 593; 16 
     U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
       (b) Cooperative Agreements.--To further the purposes 
     specified in section 1(b), the Secretary may enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with any interested individual, public 
     or private agency, organization, or institution.
       (c) Technical and Preservation Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may provide to any eligible 
     person described in paragraph (2) technical assistance for 
     the preservation of historic structures of, the maintenance 
     of the cultural landscape of, and local preservation planning 
     for, the historic site.
       (2) Eligible persons.--The eligible persons described in 
     this paragraph are--
       (A) an owner of real property within the boundary of the 
     historic site, as described in section 3(b); and
       (B) any interested individual, agency, organization, or 
     institution that has entered into an agreement with the 
     Secretary pursuant to subsection (b).

     SEC. 5. ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary 
     is authorized to acquire by donation, exchange, or purchase 
     with funds made available by donation or appropriation, such 
     lands or interests in lands as may be necessary to allow for 
     the interpretation, preservation, or restoration of the First 
     Baptist Church, the St. Francis Hotel, the Nicodemus School 
     District Number 1, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, or 
     the Township Hall, as described in section 3(b)(1), or any 
     combination thereof.
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) Acquisition of property owned by the state of kansas.--
     Real property that is owned by the State of Kansas or a 
     political subdivision of the State of Kansas that is acquired 
     pursuant to subsection (a) may only be acquired by donation.
       (2) Consent of owner required.--No real property may be 
     acquired under this section without the consent of the owner 
     of the real property.

     SEC. 6. GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.

       (a) In General.--Not later than the last day of the third 
     full fiscal year beginning after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the 
     officials described in subsection (b), prepare a general 
     management plan for the historic site.
       (b) Consultation.--In preparing the general management 
     plan, the Secretary shall consult with an appropriate 
     official of each of the following:
       (1) The Nicodemus Historical Society.
       (2) The Kansas Historical Society.
       (3) Appropriate political subdivisions of the State of 
     Kansas that have jurisdiction over all or a portion of the 
     historic site.
       (c) Submission of Plan to Congress.--Upon the completion of 
     the general management plan, the Secretary shall submit a 
     copy of the plan to--
       (1) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of the Interior such sums as are necessary to carry out this 
     Act.
                                 ______


  By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Exon, and Mr. Daschle):

  S. 1523. A bill to extend agricultural programs through 1996, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


                            farm legislation

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, farmers, farm suppliers, farm credit 
agencies, and bankers are waiting. They need to know what the farm 
program will be in 1996. Every day that they wait for that answer is 
another day in which they cannot plan or prepare for planting the 1996 
crops.
  They are waiting for Congress to act, because the farm bill that was 
supposed to be debated and adopted in 1995 has not been debated nor 
adopted.
  Congress has a responsibility to farmers to tell them what kind of 
farm program they will be operating under this spring. Farmers should 
not be the victims of the failure of Congress to enact a 5-year farm 
program. It was not their fault that a farm bill didn't get enacted on 
a timely basis.
  We are rapidly running out of time. I would prefer a full 5-year farm 
bill that provides some fundamental reform to our current farm 
policies. I believe in providing a solid safety net for our Nation's 
family farmers, and making preservation and enhancement of our Nation's 
family farm system as the primary goal of our Nation's farm policy.
  But we have not had a real opportunity to debate a multiyear farm 
bill. Nor have we had full and open hearings and committee meetings in 
which our Nation's farmers could effectively participate in the shaping 
of a farm bill. That should have been done last year, but it wasn't.
  Today I am introducing legislation to provide a 1-year extension of 
the farm bill. I am pleased Senators Daschle and Conrad have joined as 
cosponsors. This is not a perfect solution--but I hope it will get the 
ball rolling. Farmers deserve an answer about what the farm bill will 
be.
  This bill extends our current farm law, including the Food for 
Progress program, conservation programs, and commodity programs for the 
1996 crop year.

[[Page S316]]

  In addition, it provides the full flexibility that our producers have 
requested for permitted crops. The need for flexibility has been a 
common feature in almost all of the farm legislation that has been 
introduced and discussed this past year.
  There is no reason why we shouldn't provide that flexibility this 
crop year, especially in recognition of the higher market prices that 
we are currently experiencing. This will allow producers to respond to 
the market signals, while maintaining the loan programs and the basic 
safety net available to them.
  It also provides for forgiveness of advanced deficiency payments 
related to disaster and prevented planting situations. We need to 
recognize that the improved market prices do little for those producers 
who had short crops as a result of cropping problems this past year.
  My purpose in introducing the bill today is simply to provide a 
vehicle for Congress to move rapidly to respond to the needs of farmers 
as they finalize their planning for this crop year.
  I believe a 1-year extension should provide adequate time for 
Congress to get the farm bill job done. The delay in farm legislation 
has already been long enough. We should not delay it further.
  If, instead of extending the current farm bill, we can on an 
expedited basis, debate and pass a new 5-year farm bill, then I'm all 
for it. But we shouldn't delay any longer. One way or another we should 
give farmers some certainty about the future farm bill.
  Mr. President, I listened with interest to my colleague from Iowa. He 
is someone for whom I have substantial respect. The Senator from Iowa 
and I, in fact, are co-chairing one of the few bipartisan groups that 
exist in the Congress, and I am delighted to be doing that. I think he 
has a vast reservoir of knowledge on agriculture, and I have great 
respect for him.
  I must say I disagree with some of what he just said. I disagree with 
the characterization of part of this debate. In fact I have sought the 
floor today for the specific purpose of introducing an extension for 1 
year of the current farm bill. I will do that following this 
discussion.
  I would extend the current farm bill for 1 year and make some 
modifications to it so that we would provide substantial planting 
flexibility. This is one of the features that the Senator from Iowa 
mentioned in the other legislation that was considered last year. I 
think there should be substantial flexibility with respect to any farm 
program, including the current farm program if it is extended for a 
year.
  We need to give farmers the opportunity to decide what to plant, 
where to plant, and when to plant on base acres. My proposal to extend 
the current farm bill for 1 year would provide substantial additional 
flexibility in planting decisions for family farmers.
  I would also propose that we provide a forgiveness for the advanced 
deficiency payments for those farmers that suffered crop losses. That 
is also in the legislation that I offer.
  The reason I offer this legislation today is not because I think it 
is necessarily the best choice nor it is my first choice for farm 
legislation. I hope to get the ball rolling here in the Congress to do 
something that gives farmers some certainty.
  It is now the end of January 1996. A 5-year farm bill should have 
been agreed to last year. The Senator from Iowa mentioned, and he is 
absolutely correct, that the Congress had some hearings, and so on, and 
passed a bill. But Congress passing a bill with a majority of the votes 
in the House and the Senate is just a series of steps on a long 
stairway by which legislation becomes law.
  That farm legislation was put in the budget reconciliation bill that 
everybody by last July knew was going to be vetoed. So the exercise to 
put their farm bill, called the Freedom to Farm Act, in the budget 
reconciliation bill that everybody knew was going to be vetoed puts us 
in a position in January of not having farm legislation today.
  Again, I respect the notion that it is ``his side'' and ``your side'' 
and ``our side'' and ``he said'' and ``she said.'' But the fact is, 
regardless of what happened last year, we end up in January in a 
situation in which farmers do not know under what conditions they will 
plant this year. The people who are selling farm machinery do not know 
the circumstances under which farmers will plant. All the other folks 
who are concerned about our rural economy do not know what the farm 
bill will be.
  One way or another, it seems to me the Congress, Republicans and 
Democrats, need to provide an answer. What is going to happen this year 
when farmers go in the field? Under what conditions will they be 
planting a crop? What will be the support prices?
  It probably does not matter much to the very largest operators. It 
certainly does not matter to the largest agrifactories in America. It 
does not matter to corporate farms, the big ones. But it does matter a 
lot to a man and wife on a family farm out there who are trying to 
raise a family and who have a very thin financial statement and who, if 
they come into a year of low market prices, have no price supports. It 
is not simply a matter of inconvenience. For them it is bankruptcy. It 
matters to them.
  It does not matter to the big operators. They can get by. They can 
get by a year or two or three. It is the family farmer out there 
struggling from year to year, just one bad crop away from losing their 
farm. That is who is deeply concerned with this matter.
  Now, what should we do? Well, I'll tell you my first choice. My first 
choice is for all of us to get together and come up with the best 
possible series of ideas that all of us have.
  There should not be anyone in this Chamber who in a meeting between 
all of us would not agree that farmers ought to have much more 
flexibility in planting decisions than they now have. All of us agree 
on that. So that is one step. Let us agree on that.
  There are a number of other steps that we could agree on that would 
represent the elements of a new farm plan. But I will tell you one area 
where we will not agree. That is an area where we say that what we want 
to do is to build a stairway to Heaven. And, Heaven is described as a 
circumstance where after 7 years there is no safety net for family 
farms. That stairway to Heaven is not going to happen. It is a 
definition of Heaven I do not accept.
  If you pull the rug out from under family farmers after 7 years there 
is no heavenly rescue. There is no real safety net. I am sorry but the 
fact is I wish to see yard lights in rural America. The only way family 
farm operators will be able to make it is if we have a real safety net 
when bad years come and international prices drop down and stay down. 
The only way we will retain a network of family farmers in this country 
is if we have that safety net.
  Some say it does not matter who farms. If it really does not matter 
who farms, then the agrifactories will farm America from California to 
Maine. Then we will see what the price of food is. But it does matter 
for a whole series of social and economic reasons that we retain a 
network of family farms in this country's future.
  How we do that? Well, we do that by writing a farm program. Have we 
had a very good farm program in the past? No, I do not think so. It is 
not the kind of farm program I would have written. But we are required 
to write a new 5-year farm plan.
  The farm plan that was offered last year was put into the budget 
reconciliation bill. Incidentally, that is the first time this has ever 
happened. I think the Senator would concur with that. We have not 
previously taken a farm bill and said, ``Oh, by the way, let's dump it 
into a reconciliation bill and let it travel along on that train.''
  That has never happened before. We have always done a farm bill in a 
separate debate, and then we moved it to the President and he signed it 
and we had farm legislation. But last year was different. It was put in 
a bill that everybody by June or July knew was going to be vetoed, and 
so it was vetoed, and we end up now at the end of January without a 
farm plan.
  My first choice would be for all of us to get together and hammer out 
some compromise and say let us get the best of all ideas here and 
construct a farm plan that really does work for family farms.
  If we cannot do that, in my judgment, why mess around at all? Our 
goal should be to try to help family farmers make a decent living when 
international grain prices collapse and stay down. if we cannot help 
them in those circumstances, I say get rid of the whole thing. 

[[Page S317]]

  The U.S. Department of Agriculture was developed and started under 
Abraham Lincoln with nine employees--nine. Well, it has grown to be a 
behemoth organization, as all of us know, involved in the lives of 
farmers in some positive ways and in other ways in a negative way.
  If we cannot construct new farm legislation that tries to provide a 
safety net for family-sized farms, get rid of it all. Shut down USDA. 
Get rid of the Secretary. Get rid of all the apparatus. Get rid of the 
program. I am not interested in developing a set of golden arches for 
the largest agrifactories in this country. They hold no interest for 
me. They are big enough to manage on their own. They can have their own 
celebrations when they make a profit. They can compete on their own in 
the international marketplace.
  It is mom and pop out there on the family farm that cannot make it 
when international prices drop and stay down. They are the ones who 
lose their dream. All of us have had those calls. I had one not too 
long ago from a woman who was, with her husband, losing their farm. She 
began crying on the phone and saying that for 19 years they have tried 
to make a go of this farm. She said, ``We do not go places on the 
weekend. We do not go out on Saturday night. Our kids wear hand-me-
downs.''
  She said, ``We are not people who spend money just for the sake of 
spending money. We save every dime we can.''
  ``But,'' she said, ``the fact is we are going to lose our farm, and 
it has been our dream. It is the only thing we have done since we got 
out of high school.''
  We have all heard those stories from people who are not just losing 
their farm, but they are losing their dream. The question now for all 
of us, it seems to me is what can we do? What can we do to help? What 
can we do to provide a safety net that works for family-sized farmers?
  My first choice would be for us to find a range of agreement and pass 
a new 5-year bill that makes some sense. We would have to do that 
quickly, within a matter of weeks. I am certainly willing to engage in 
that process and would like to engage in that process. If we cannot do 
that, my second choice is to extend the current bill 1 year, provide 
substantial added flexibility and provide forgiveness of advanced 
deficiency payments for those who suffered losses. That would give us 
time. Then farmers could go into the fields to plant knowing under what 
conditions they are planting and knowing the kind of farm program they 
will have. This would give us time to wrestle again on a new approach 
of how do we construct a 5-year plan that will really work?
  So I intend to offer today, for myself and a couple of colleagues, an 
extension of 1 year with some modifications, including substantial 
flexibility, and forgiveness of the repayment of advance deficiency 
payments under certain conditions.
  Is it the best approach? No, not necessarily. Do we need to provide 
some answers to farmers? You bet your life. It is not just farmers. It 
is everybody out there trying to do business. This Congress needs to 
take action and take action soon.
  I hear people say, ``Well, it is so and so's fault. It is somebody 
else's fault.'' That is not my interest. I am not interested in whose 
fault it is at this point.
  My interest is how do we solve this problem in the next couple of 
weeks. I think that is what I heard the Senator from Iowa say as well. 
Let us figure out a way to do it for the farmers who live in Iowa and 
the farmers who live in North Dakota. For the family operators who are 
trying to make a living, let us figure out a way that we can answer 
this problem. We are required to do that.
  It is not satisfactory to say, ``Well, we passed a bill. That is the 
end of our obligation.'' If the bill got vetoed, it is not law. And 
that is what happened.
  We do not have a farm bill. We must, it seems to me, struggle now to 
find a way to create one or to extend the current program in a way that 
will be helpful to family farms in our country.
  It is interesting, people ask me from time to time, ``What is a 
family farmer? You always talk about family farms. What is a family 
farmer?'' I always say, ``I don't know what the specific definition of 
a family farmer is.'' They asked Michelangelo how he sculpted 
``David.'' ``I took a big piece of marble and chipped away everything 
that was not David.''
  I suppose if we just chipped away everything that we thought was not 
a family farm, we could come up with a core definition that we could 
probably all reasonably agree to on what a family farm is. But we do 
not have enough money for a farm bill to provide unlimited price 
supports all the way up the range of production. So let us define a 
family farm in terms of what we can afford to do to provide a 
reasonable safety net under a certain increment of production. That is 
what we attempted to do when we offered something called the Family 
Farm Security Act, and I think it made a lot of sense.
  Some will say, ``Well, that did not pass the Congress.'' That is 
true; it did not. There are often times when good ideas are not 
successful the first time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Farm Security Act is an approach that does say we are 
going to retool this farm program so that we are focusing on the people 
we want to help, the family-sized farm. It would provide a targeted 
marketing loan with the highest support price for the first increment 
of production. That is exactly what we ought to do, in my judgment. We 
were not successful in this past year in doing that. Somewhere in the 
context of reaching an agreement and in reaching a compromise, I hope 
some elements of that approach will be considered again.
  But, most of all, those of us who come from rural States--Republicans 
and Democrats, the Senator from Iowa, the Senator from North Dakota, 
and others,--I think all of us have a responsibility now in the next 
couple of weeks to urgently press for the Congress and the President to 
answer the question for family farmers. When they start that tractor up 
and pull that plow out to begin spring's work in not too many weeks, 
under what farm program will they be plowing and seeding and 
harvesting?
  It is pretty frustrating for people whose economic lives are on the 
line to see all of this rancor and all of this wrangling going on in 
the Congress when all they want are simple answers.
  Tonight the President is going to give his State of the Union 
Address. Someone asked me today, a press person asked me, what do I 
think the President will say or should say? I said one of the things I 
hope he addresses, and I think he probably will, is this past year of 
1995 when we have seen some of the most truculent, difficult debate 
resulting in policies that just defy all common sense, of shutdowns and 
threatened defaults and gridlock. I hope the message from everyone who 
will speak tonight, the President, who gives the State of the Union 
Address, and Democrats and Republicans who react to that address, will 
be it is time to have a New Year's resolution that all of us stop 
shouting and start listening. It is time we decide no one sent us here 
to advance the economic or political interests of the political party 
we belong to. They sent us here to advance the interests of this 
country.
  This is a wonderful country with boundless opportunity and whose best 
days are still ahead of us, if we in this Congress can decide to do 
things that are positive for this country. That means a little less 
feuding and a lot more cooperation. I hope that is part of the speech 
tonight. I hope it will be. I hope the reaction to that is positive.
  Part of that reaction, in my judgment, could be a reaction, even on 
agriculture and, yes, even on the farm bill, to decide what separates 
us is a lot less important than what unites us. What unites us in every 
State that we represent as farm legislators are families out there 
struggling against the odds to plant a seed that they do not know will 
grow into a crop. If they do get the seed to grow, they do not know 
what the price will be or if there will be a price to cover their 
costs.
  Those twin risks are economic risks that can literally kill the dream 
of family farmers, and literally does kill that dream in tens of 
thousands of cases every single year. That is what we need to care 
about. That is the root and genesis of this debate about farm policy.
  I know a lot of people do not think much about it and do not care 
much about farm policy. They think milk 

[[Page S318]]
comes from Safeway and butter comes from a carton and pasta comes 
inside cellophane. But it does come from cows and it comes from a wheat 
field and it comes from seeds and sweat. It comes from farmers 
breathing the diesel fumes as they plant and harvest.
  This is a lot more important than just theory. This is an economic 
imperative in rural America that is important to many of us. I hope we 
can find reason to cooperate. I hope, as my colleagues will look at 
this piece of legislation, they will consider it. If not the extension 
of the current program, then let us consider something else that we can 
agree on that will advance the economic interests of farmers.
  I do not share the notion that this in any way jeopardizes anybody's 
baseline. If it did, I would not be offering it. I am talking about the 
budget baseline, which my colleague will probably speak more about.
  With that, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his 
attention and for staying. Again, I look forward to the cooperation 
that we have had on many rural issues. I hope we can cooperate on this 
issue as the weeks unfold.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the President. I thank my colleague from North 
Dakota for his excellent presentation on why it is critically important 
that we have a farm bill and that we have a set of rules that our 
farmers know will be in place as they enter into the next crop year.
  Let me say that I believe the Senator from North Dakota has 
introduced something, that while not perfect, is something we are going 
to have to do in terms of extending the current farm bill so that 
farmers at least know what the rules of the road are going to be for 
this next crop year. There has been an absolute failure by this 
Congress to pass farm legislation that could become law.
  Mr. President, the legislation that my colleague has introduced would 
dramatically increase the flexibility that farmers have and 
dramatically improve the competitive position of American farmers. I 
think that is in everyone's interest.
  I think the Senator from Iowa is correct when he says that we need to 
know what farmers can expect. Farmers are right now sitting around 
their kitchen tables trying to figure out what their strategy for this 
next year should be, and much is at stake. Their families' livelihoods 
are at stake. What money the family is going to have for the next year 
is at stake. Whether or not that farm family is going to be able to 
meet their bills is at stake. The health of rural economies is at 
stake. What happens on the Main Streets of every city and town in the 
heartland of America is at stake.
  The economic health of an industry that, along with airplanes, is the 
biggest producer of a trade surplus for America is at stake. An 
industry that is one of America's very biggest is at stake. Our 
competitive position in the world is at stake.
  There is a lot riding on this debate and this discussion. The Senator 
from Iowa is right: We need a plan. Let me say what we do not need is 
the plan that the Republican Party has advanced in both the House and 
the Senate. The Republican proposal was for deep and Draconian cuts in 
farm programs that would dramatically reduce farm income. That has been 
their plan. Repeatedly Republicans have called for phasing out farm 
programs, for eliminating that support mechanism that has been the 
genius of American farm policy.
  Mr. President, I believe that represents unilateral disarmament when 
we are in the midst of a fierce trade fight with other countries who 
recognize the importance of maintaining their competitive position in 
agriculture. The last thing we would do in a military confrontation is 
to engage in unilateral disarmament. Why we would ever do it in a trade 
fight is beyond me.
  Make no mistake, we are in a trade fight in agriculture. Europe, 
which is our biggest competition, is spending three to four times as 
much as we are spending to support their agricultural producers.
  Let me repeat that. Europe, our chief competitors, are spending three 
to four times as much as we are spending supporting their producers. 
Why? Because they understand the critical importance of agriculture to 
the economic health of their countries, and they do not intend to lose 
this trade battle. They intend to fight it. They intend to win it, and 
they think the United States is going to cave in. They think the United 
States is ready to roll over. They think the United States is ready to 
throw in the towel.

  I have spent hours and hours with the chief trade negotiators for the 
Europeans, and they have done everything but draw me a picture of what 
their long-term strategy is. They believe the United States is losing 
its resolve to fight for agricultural markets, and they are going to 
win them the old-fashioned way. They are going to go out and buy them, 
and that is precisely what is happening. We would be fools to allow 
them to win this battle and see tens of thousands of jobs leave this 
country because we are not willing to fight.
  Mr. President, let us recall what has happened with respect to farm 
policy this year. On the House side, they had a proposal they called 
``Freedom to Farm.'' Most of us would consider it ``Freedom from 
Farming,'' because if that thing was ever put in place, there would be 
a whole lot of farmers forced off the land in very short order. It is 
not ``Freedom to Farm,'' it is ``Freedom from Farming.'' Others have 
called it ``Welcome to Welfare,'' because what it did was to say that 
no matter what prices are, farmers would get a payment from the Federal 
Government for the next 7 years, and then we would wash our hands of 
farm producers in this country.
  That proposal was so radical, it suggested we eliminate the 
underlying authority passed in 1938 and 1949 to even have farm 
legislation. That is how radical and how extreme the proposal was on 
the House side. They could not even get that proposal through the House 
Agriculture Committee, although it was authored by and offered by the 
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. They could not even get it 
through the relevant committee on the House side. Mr. President, that 
is how flawed that proposal was.
  On the Senate side, they authored legislation that went through the 
Senate Agriculture Committee on a straight party-line vote after very 
little debate and very little discussion. Frankly, our colleagues on 
the other side did not want much debate, did not want much discussion, 
because they knew that policy was an invitation to liquidation. It 
would have cut farm support 60 percent in real terms in the seventh 
year of that proposal. I can just say, for my State, that would have 
represented an unmitigated disaster.
  Interestingly enough, in the Senate, they did not even offer the 
House ``Freedom to Farm'' proposal for a vote. They did not even offer 
it for a vote, because they knew it would not enjoy much in the way of 
support, even in the Senate Agriculture Committee. So, then what 
happened, they came out on the floor and they stuck the farm 
legislation in the reconciliation bill.
  What does that mean, ``reconciliation''? It is confusing to people. 
That is where all of the programs are put together in order to meet the 
budget resolution requirements, and you do not have a separate 
discussion and debate on the bill itself. It is wrapped into a piece of 
legislation that contains many other issues.
  They did that because they knew they could not pass their farm 
legislation on its own. Typically, the way we have handled farm 
legislation is to have a separate bill and a debate and a discussion on 
that bill and a vote on that bill. They did not want to do it that way. 
They wanted to wrap it in another package and vote on an entire 
package, with agriculture being just a small part of it, because they 
did not want people to be paying very much attention to what that farm 
policy represented, that was contained in that legislation.

  Mr. President, that reconciliation bill was vetoed by the President 
of the United States. There were many reasons for his veto. There were 
many elements of that legislation, apart from farm legislation, that 
called for a veto. But part of the reason he vetoed it was the farm 
proposals, which the President saw as radical and extreme and as going 
too far and of putting the United 

[[Page S319]]
States at risk of losing the significant advantages it has had in 
competing for world agriculture markets.
  The President of the United States was called on by farmers all 
across this country to veto that reconciliation bill, and veto it he 
did. I am proud the President did veto that bill, for reasons other 
than the farm legislation, but the farm legislation alone would have 
been enough for me.
  I joined those farmers in asking the President to veto that bill. It 
was terrible policy. It represented unilateral disarmament in this 
world trade battle, a battle for markets that are critically important 
to the economic future of this country. It is not just the economic 
future of America that was at stake, not just our trade situation that 
was at stake. It was the lives of literally thousands of American 
farmers at stake.
  Very often when I go home to North Dakota, I go to farm families and 
sit around the kitchen table and talk about the future of agriculture 
policy and what it means to that family. Over and over this year, farm 
families have told me, if the policy that is being voted on in 
Washington, that which was offered by our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, ever became law, they would be finished, they would be 
out, they would be forced off the land.
  I think the best estimate in my State is that we would lose a third 
of the farmers if that bill ever became law. That is not in the 
interest of family farmers. That is not in the interest of the economic 
health of my State. More broadly, I do not think it is in the economic 
interest of the country.
  So I urge my colleagues to closely consider the course my colleague 
from North Dakota has proposed. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this summary action would not conflict 
with the goals of the two Senators from North Dakota who have just 
spoken, but is to point out where we are.
  If, in fact, we have a year extension of the present farm bill, a 
couple things for certain will happen. First, immediately farmers will 
have to pay out of their cash flow last year's advance deficiency 
payment, because grain prices are higher now, at a time when some 
farmers did not get any crops and do not have that capability. If you 
have a 1-year extension, as opposed to the Freedom to Farm Act, money 
that would have gone from the Federal Treasury to the farm economy 
absolutely will not go.
  So I do not quite understand why people on the other side of the 
aisle say that the ``Freedom to Farm'' agriculture bill is a sure, 
certain way to kill off the family farmers when their 1-year extension 
puts no money into agriculture whatsoever and the Freedom to Farm Act 
would.
  What we get with the Freedom to Farm Act is certainty. We know in the 
bill that the President vetoed, albeit less money than has been spent 
on agriculture over a long period of time, we know the certainty of 
$43.5 billion in agriculture programs over the next 7 years. That is $6 
billion to $7 billion for 1996 that would go into agriculture that 
under the Democratic proposal that we have been talking about here in 
the last hour would not be going to agriculture.
  That $6 to $7 billion next year, because of moving toward the 
marketplace for income from agriculture, will gradually decline 
probably to $4 billion in the year 2002. But we know right now in the 
bill that the President vetoed that there would be $43.5 billion going 
into agriculture. We know that it would be under contract to the 
individual farmers, and because of that contractual obligation, the 
same as the annual payment that goes for the Conservation Reserve 
Program being honored by subsequent budget decisions made by Congress, 
will not be changed. That $43.5 billion is a sure thing.
  Would my colleagues who promote a simple 1-year extension of the 
existing farm bill say that that 1-year extension brings certainty to 
agriculture? They are proposing something good for agriculture as 
opposed to what we Republicans propose of $43.5 billion for certain to 
go into agriculture? That is what the President of the United States 
vetoed.
  The other thing is, as we delay making decisions for agriculture with 
a 1-year extension, we are going to be delaying it until 1997. If you 
have a 2-year extension, you are going to be delaying it to 1998. The 
way the Congressional Budget Office scores anything in the budget, and 
as you apply that to agriculture, we could be losing baseline 
flexibility to do something for agriculture in the near future. We have 
already lost $8 billion just because the President vetoed the farm 
bill. It is proposed by the House Agriculture Committee that if we have 
a 1-year extension, we could lose another $6 billion from the baseline.

  Now, for people on the other side of the aisle that want a 1-year 
extension of the farm bill, how can you say that you are helping 
agriculture if you are gradually chipping away at the baseline, the 
fiscal baseline for agriculture in our budget? You say you are a friend 
of agriculture, and you want to do that? That would not sell in my 
State to the very same farmers that my friends from North Dakota say 
that they talked to in the coffee shops.
  The other is a simple extension of the 1995 farm bill for 1 or 2 
years, which denies the reality of the international trade situation, 
the environment of the new GATT agreement, which this Congress approved 
a year ago. The GATT agreement is freeing up trade in agriculture and 
other commodities so that we are going to have a much more free-trading 
environment and an agriculture that tends to take more in 1999, 2000, 
2001, 2002 than in the early years of the GATT agreement. But we are 
moving to a point where, by freeing up trade in agriculture, farmers 
are going to be able to get more money from the marketplace and less 
from the Federal Treasury. Where I come from, that is what the farmers 
want. They want to be able to compete. They know that with our 
efficiency in agriculture, we can compete, we will compete, and the 
provisions of the Freedom to Farm Act, besides nailing down $43.5 
billion from this transition from a Government-regulated agriculture to 
a free market agriculture, where we can compete in the world market, it 
also has the flexibility for the farmers to plant according to the 
marketplace, not according to the political decisions made here in 
Washington. That means that they are going to be able to plant the 
number of acres of corn or soybeans--those are the two prominent crops 
in my State--that fit the marketplace, the realities of the 
marketplace, not decisions that are made in the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture downtown by bureaucrats, who are removed from the realities 
of the marketplace that end up having farmers plant according to the 
historical bases that there are for corn and other crops on their 
respective farms.
  What a way to make a decision in agriculture. Is that better than the 
market planting decision that can respond to the marketplace, a 
planting decision that fits into the reality of the freeing up of 
international trade, where our farmers can compete very well with any 
foreign competition?
  The first thing is the $43.5 billion. The second is flexibility to 
plant according to the marketplace. The third point is that we will no 
longer be setting aside our productive capacity that we have and 
letting acres of rich farmland lay idle from year to year. We are going 
to allow every acre to be planted so that we send a signal to all of 
our competitors around the world that we know there is a growing world 
demand for exports out there. We are going to compete in that, and we 
are going to produce to maximum to fill the demand of the marketplace. 
We are going to do that in a way that is not going to encourage any of 
the farmers of any of the countries of the world where productivity is 
not quite as good as ours to plow up their marginal farmlands and put 
it into productivity because they know we are taking some of our land 
out of production.
  If there is anything about the freedom to farm proposal, it is the 
absolute certainty that is there. If there is anything about a 1- or 2-
year extension of the present farm bill, it is the uncertainty over the 
period of transition to the free market and the new GATT environment in 
trade. Second, it is going to take, for certain, money from the farmers 
of America at the very same time that some of our colleagues are 
pleading the financial plight of those very same farmers. 

[[Page S320]]


  So I think common sense dictates giving the farmers as much certainty 
as you can. They get that with freedom to farm. And it is absolutely 
not a part of a 1-year extension of the present farm bill.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, would you advise me of the present status of 
the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am a Senator who has been close to 
agriculture for a long time. I want to speak with regard to the remarks 
made preceding my statement by my farm State colleague from the State 
of North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, and likewise, my farm State Senator 
next door, Chuck Grassley, who both are Senators I have worked with for 
a long time on farm policy.
  I think we have an awful lot to do in this particular area. The most 
significant concern that I have in this regard, Mr. President, is the 
fact that here we are dilly-dallying on a farm program, and the farmers 
across the United States of America are justifiably concerned. Many in 
the South are beginning to plant now. The grain crop farmers in 
Nebraska and the rest of the major grain-producing States are now 
preparing to plant. They are trying to work out their financial needs 
with their bankers. They are totally at a loss and do not know what we 
are going to do.
  I suggest that never before in history have we been so late in 
deciding what a farm program is going to be in the year that the crop 
is going to be planted. That has to stop. I do not know how to end this 
impasse that we have but the impasse must be broken for the good of the 
food producers of the United States of America.
  I happen to feel that probably the best way to resolve this matter in 
an expeditious fashion, if we could reach an agreement between the two 
leaders in the Senate to bring up a freestanding farm bill with some 
kind of restrained debate, something to move things along and then have 
an up-or-down vote. That would be one way to solve the problem and let 
the Senate work its will. Whether that is possible or not I do not know 
at this juncture, but I know that is one of the suggestions that are 
being mulled over.
  The initiative by the Senator from North Dakota today to essentially 
extend the present farm program for 1 year is not the best of all 
worlds but it is a whole lot better than no action whatever.
  I must say that I have studied with great interest the so-called 
Freedom to Farm Act and I understand that the sponsors of that measure 
over on the House side, as the House has the penchant for these days is 
to say, ``Do it our way or we will not do it at all.'' That is not the 
way which you handle farm policy or the way we should handle the 
budget. Certainly, we have 435 Members of the House of Representatives 
and 100 of us here in the U.S. Senate. We have an obligation to work 
our will, using the procedures that are in place in both bodies, and we 
cannot have some people, one, two, or three individuals, say ``Doing it 
my way is the only way, and I will not do anything unless you do it my 
way.''
  It is not the way to get things done or accomplish anything in a body 
where you have 435 over there and 100 of us over here, 535 all strongly 
willed individuals with their own ideas. I suppose it would be self-
serving to say, Mr. President, that maybe I should say 534 because the 
Chair and everybody in the Senate knows this Senator from Nebraska is 
not a strong-willed individual. I set myself apart from all of the 
other Members.
  With that facetious statement, I come back to the core issue here, 
and that is we have got to move. I cannot support the so-called Freedom 
to Farm Act in its present form. Certainly, the Freedom to Farm Act 
eliminates a great deal of the red tape. It gives the farmers what I 
like to see them have and what they want. That is to make decisions on 
their own about where they plant and how they plant it.
  That concept is also basically included in a measure that was 
introduced by the minority leader, Senator Daschle, another farm State 
senator, myself, and my colleague, Senator Kerrey from Nebraska, and 
others, known as the Democratic farm bill. It also incorporates all of 
those good features of allowing more flexibility on the part of the 
individual farmer, eliminates a lot of the redtape but does not go as 
far into what I think is making the farm program a welfare program, as 
I am very fearful the Freedom to Farm Act would eventually encounter.
  Let me cite an example, and I will ask at the appropriate time that 
the facts be printed in the Record. As a farm State Senator who 
recognizes that our prediction of many of our farmers today, especially 
those with limited acres on which they farm, continue to be in dire 
straits, I also cite today the fact that the cattle-producing industry 
is in deep, deep trouble today. While the Farm Act today or any of the 
Farm Acts we are talking about is not going to provide any relief 
basically for the cattle producer, they are part of the important food 
chain. I simply cite this as a fact. They are in deep, deep trouble 
today because of the steady decline in the cattle at all levels.
  Coming back to the Freedom to Farm Act, I think that the main 
criticism I have of that act--and once the farmers of the United States 
fully understand it, I think that they would come out resoundingly 
against it because in essence it would turn the farm program into a 
welfare program which is something that they do not want. To say that, 
Mr. President, and having said that I am a farm State Senator, have 
fought for good farm programs for a long, long time, I recognize they 
cost some money but I also recognize that the American public today 
spend less of their disposable income for food of any industrialized 
nation in the world. Food is a bargain primarily because of the good 
work, the production ability and the genius production of our family 
farmers going to make good food, clean food at more than affordable 
prices.

  However, if we decouple completely the farm program from the 
marketplace we are marching down a road that I think farmers and the 
food industry eventually would come to recognize is a big mistake.
  The welfare provisions in the so-called Freedom to Farm Act we all 
should know about, and I cite a typical example which is very accurate. 
Under the Freedom to Farm Act, which is a step down to phasing out the 
program in total in 7 years, as I understand it, we will take a typical 
farm and talk about typical farm, typical numbers. The facts of the 
matter are that as I indicated, the livestock industry, the beef 
industry in particular, the pork industry as well, are in deep, deep 
problems these days. If you go along with the Freedom to Farm Act, that 
will not be necessarily true of the row crop producers.
  I cite, for example, if the Freedom to Farm Act became a reality and 
if we took, Mr. President, a 500-acre corn farm which is not a 
particularly big farm, not particularly little farm, but use that as an 
example, and if that individual farmer planted his 500 acres to corn, 
under the Freedom to Farm Act, and if that 500-acre farm produces 120-
bushel yield, and if the price for corn were, for example, $3.10 a 
bushel, 500 acres, 120-bushel yield, and a cash price of $3.10, you 
multiply 500 by 120 bushels and come up with 60,000 bushels. And 60,000 
bushels at $3.10 cash price produces $186,000 gross cash income. Not 
net, but gross cash income. In addition to that figure under the 
Freedom to Farm Act that same farmer would get from the Government, he 
would be paid, sent a check by the Government over and above the 
$186,000 gross for 1996 using 60,000 bushels, he gets a 27-cent 
payment. That is $16,200 in 1996 that typical farm would receive over 
and above the $186,000 gross. In 1997, that goes up to 37 cents a 
bushel for $22,200, which I think could be described as a welfare 
payment. In 1998, it goes up to 40 cents a bushel or a $24,000 welfare 
payment.
  I simply say that the example that I have used at the cash price of 
$3.10 for corn producing for the farm that I have outlined, $186,000 in 
gross cash income, on top of that the individual farmer would receive 
basically for doing nothing, or to put it another way, the 500-acre 
farmer with the ability to produce corn, assume that farmer planted 
nothing, he did not do anything, he just sat 

[[Page S321]]
and watched television all day long. Well, he would not get the 
$186,000 but still under that kind of a scenario that farmer who 
planted nothing and did nothing would receive $16,200 from the Federal 
Government in 1996, $22,200 welfare-type payment in 1997, and $24,000 
in a welfare-type payment in 1998.
  Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the figures I have just 
referenced be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. EXON. I simply say that when you look at these kind of facts, I 
think one would have to conclude that any time you are going to have a 
welfare payment on top of what I have just outlined here at $3.10 a 
bushel--I would add that even if corn went up to $5 a bushel or $8 a 
bushel, which I suspect it will not, but even if it should--under the 
Freedom to Farm Act, that typical farmer that I just outlined would 
still receive the $16,000 to $22,000 or $24,000 depending on which year 
and so on down the road, on top of whatever he got from the 
marketplace. Therefore, there are dangers, because I happen to feel 
that when this information comes out, and with the stringent budget 
terms we are working under now, it would not be long before somebody 
would come up and say we are not going to do that anymore. Then some of 
the farmers who signed on to this program as some kind of a cash 
windfall would be hurt.
  We have to have a farm program that gives the farmers some relief 
from what the situation is now with regard to the payback that they 
have to make for their advanced deficiency payments. But I think we can 
get together and work out a reasonable proposal and not one that is 
embodied in what is generally called the Freedom to Farm Act.

                               Exhibit 1


                            Freedom to Farm

       500 acre corn farm.
       120 bushel yield.
       $3.10 cash price.
       500 acres times 120 bushels equals 60,000 bushels.
       60,000 bushels times $3.10 cash price equals $186,000 gross 
     cash income.
       Plus Government Payment (whether they plant or not).
       1996--60,000 bushels times $.27 payment equals $16,200 
     welfare payment.
       1997--60,000 bushels times $.37 payment equals $22,200 
     welfare payment.
       1997--60,000 bushels times $.40 payment equals $24,000 
     welfare payment.

                          ____________________