[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S315-S321]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
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.
____________________