[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.

                          ____________________