[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S332-S333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BALANCED BUDGET AND THE STATE OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I feel like we ought to start negotiations
again in regard to the budget. I think there is an opportunity to get a
balanced budget now and in the immediate future. I think if we have a
long recess that we will stand a chance of losing what momentum there
is, and it may well be that in the near future, we can narrow the
issues by adopting some of the various issues that have been agreed
upon.
Mr. President, for the first time in over 40 years, farm programs
have been allowed to expire. As of December 31, with a few exceptions,
the authority for farm programs has run out.
It is the responsibility of this Congress, to pass a farm bill every
5 years or so, and create stability and certainty in rural America.
Instead, with the failure of passing a farm bill, there is uncertainty,
frustration and confusion in the agriculture producing areas of the
country. Congress has failed in its responsibility to rural America and
we must, therefore, act now to resolve this situation.
What can be done at this late date, what are our options? As I see
it, we have three options: First, we can do nothing and allow the
Secretary of Agriculture to implement the Agriculture
[[Page S333]]
Act of 1949, second, we can pass a stand-alone farm bill, as we should
have done in the first session, or third, we can pass an extension of
the 1990 farm bill, thus providing rural America with much needed
certainty and allow Congress more time to write a farm bill this year.
If Congress does not act, then the Secretary of Agriculture will have
to exercise his responsibility to implement the Agriculture Act of
1949. Currently, market prices for wheat, corn, feed grains, and cotton
are at all-time highs. However, under the 1949 act, the Secretary will
be forced to implement parity prices for wheat, corn, and feed grains.
For instance, wheat prices which are currently trading at $4.92 per
bushel, the support price would jump to $7.82 a bushel. For corn, which
is trading at $3.60 per bushel, the parity price could go as high as
$5.30 per bushel.
Alabama's primary crops do not include wheat or corn. However, if
parity prices are implemented, Alabama and the whole Nation will also
be greatly effected. Alabama is one of the leading States in poultry
and catfish production. With corn and feed grain prices potentially
rising as high as they are projected, it will have the effect of
sending livestock feed prices through the roof. Also at stake in
Alabama are dairy, beef cattle, and hog producers who will be forced to
pay higher prices for their feed. This increasing cost of production
does not stop with the producers. Consumers will shortly feel the
effect of the failure to pass a farm bill in the form of much higher
beef, poultry, pork, and fish prices at the supermarket. These examples
do not even address the effects that the 1949 act and parity prices
will have on the Federal Treasury. As a result, I do not support this
course of action, despite its very real possibility given Secretary of
Agriculture hands being tied.
The second option that we have before us, is to pass a stand-alone
farm bill. I am still puzzled as to why we did not pursue this course
of action this time last year, rather than allowing farm policy to
become embroiled in the budget reconciliation bill. I, along with my
Democratic colleagues have sent a letter to the majority leader,
Senator Dole, requesting that farm policy come to the floor and be
debated on its own merits so that we can pass a farm bill without
getting caught in the web of budget politics. I have long stated that I
believe that the current structure of farm programs have served rural
America, and consumers everywhere, extremely well. Therefore, it is my
belief that farm programs should only be fined tuned. I do recognize
that some of my less fortunate regional colleagues feel that farm
programs that effect their States need greater changes than those that
effect the South. The ability to resolve these differences is the
purpose of debate on farm programs, which to this point there has been
very little in committee, and virtually none by the full Senate.
Therefore, I recommend that we return to committee and discuss the farm
bill as we always have in the past. We would then be able to bring a
bill to the floor that addresses all of our needs and concerns, and
pass a bill that serves our agricultural producers, rural America, and
consumers alike.
The budget reconciliation bill contained agriculture provisions.
However, the provisions contained in the reconciliation bill were never
debated in committee, were not passed as part of the Senate
reconciliation bill, but instead were approved in conference.
Furthermore, the provisions known as freedom to farm, that ultimately
ended up in the reconciliation bill, were defeated in the House
Agriculture Committee.
I believe that the provisions of the so-called freedom to farm bill
are seriously flawed. The freedom to farm bill makes guaranteed
payments to farmers whether they produce a crop or not. The freedom to
farm bill offers producers a bonus check in times of high market
prices, and then is not sufficient in times of low market prices. It is
unconscionable to make payments to producers in times of high market
prices, such as we are currently experiencing, when at the same time,
we are reducing school lunches and other essential nutrition programs.
Essentially, the freedom to farm bill as a phase-out of farm programs.
By repealing the permanent authority for farm programs, the freedom to
farm bill ends all farm programs after 7 years.
I strongly believe that the core component of sound farm policy
should be an adequate and certain safety net, one that provides support
when market prices are low, and one that does not need to make payments
when the market is up. This is how current farm programs are
structured, and they work. For evidence of this, we need look no
further than the recent CBO adjustment of its agriculture baseline. The
CBO, after analyzing what they believe to be the future trend in
agriculture prices, has determined that they expect commodity prices to
remain high for at the least the next few years. As a result, the CBO
has adjusted its baseline downward by $8 billion. I believe that this
is evidence that farm programs work as they are designed to: provide
support at times of need, and no support when it is not warranted.
Therefore, while there may be an effort to resurrect the freedom to
farm bill, I believe the policy contained within is inherently flawed.
However, a full and open debate on farm policy will allow us to debate,
consider and resolve these outstanding issues pertaining to the farm
bill. This is the course of action that I strongly support.
To this point in time, however, we have not been allowed to debate
farm policy. Yet, farmers do not stop when the Government shuts down;
they rely more heavily on Mother Nature's timetables than they do
Congress' continuing resolutions. However, despite the failure to pass
a farm bill, farmers must continue to prepare for the upcoming planting
season. Farmers, bankers, and other support industry such as fertilizer
and seed suppliers, farm implement dealers, and processors must have
some certainty as to the laws that they will be farming under.
In the event that we are not allowed to consider and implement a farm
bill this year, and time is quickly running out, I then support the
third course of action that Congress has before it: a 1-year extension
of current farm policy. Extending farm programs for a period of 1 year
will give rural America the much needed certainty that it deserves and
allow time for Congress to act responsibly and write a farm bill this
year. It is the responsibility of this Congress to let America's
agriculture producers know what the program is for 1996, and we must
not delay action.
Cotton and peanut producers in my State of Alabama can take comfort
in knowing that they will not be held hostage to the ongoing budget
negotiations and Government shutdowns. The cotton and peanut programs
were extended for the 1996 and 1997 crops. While I support some fine-
tuning of these programs, these commodity programs will work
essentially the same as they have over the past 5 years. This is
certainty that producers can take to the bank. Now, all producers
should quickly be given the same measure of certainty.
____________________