[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S333-S334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             THE FARM BILL

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to visit about the agricultural 
issue, but I have two friends from agricultural States and members of 
the Agriculture Committee on the other side of the aisle. I am not here 
to counteract anything they have said. I want to make that very clear. 
I want to make it clear, though, that while there is from the other 
side of the aisle admonitions of what we ought to do to solve the 
agricultural bill problem that we have before us, there are other 
approaches that ought to be used.
  I am here to advocate a position that is not favored on the other 
side of the aisle. I will also bring to the attention of the 
agricultural community, who is concerned about this issue, that 
yesterday the majority party of the U.S. Senate offered a unanimous-
consent motion to bring up the very provisions that were in the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which the President vetoed, and if he had 
not vetoed that, we would not have any commodity policy problems for 
this Congress to settle for the next 7 years. We would not be here 
today talking about what ought to be done for the 1996 crop year as we 
get up to the very planting deadlines that are so close and are 
probably already in place in the State of Alabama and other areas of 
the South. 

[[Page S334]]


  Every farmer of the United States would know what the policy for the 
next 7 years would be if the President had not vetoed that bill. Every 
farmer would know the amount of money that would be spent on 
agriculture from the U.S. Treasury over the next 7 years--that would be 
$43.5 billion--with $6 billion being spent in 1996. Without this 
legislation this money will not be spent and if the proposals from the 
other side of the aisle were adopted, there would not be $6 million 
going into agriculture in 1996. So the certainty of the money going 
there, it seems to me, ought to be pretty enticing to everybody on the 
other side of the aisle to back our proposal, plus the fact that there 
would be certainty in agriculture policy for the next 7 years.
  Somewhat unrelated to the immediate problem we have before us but 
directly related to the fact that the other side is, in a sense, 
rejecting $6 billion going into agriculture in 1996 and rejecting the 
proposal of this side of the certainty of $43.5 billion going into 
agriculture over the next 7 years is the fact that--this may not apply 
to my three friends who are sitting over there from agriculture states, 
there are some prominent people on the other side of the aisle who have 
voted against past farm bills because they did not put enough money 
into agriculture. I am speaking specifically of the 1990 farm bill and 
the 1985 farm bill.
  How ironic that those very same people are going to oppose what we 
are trying to do because somehow it puts too much money into 
agriculture this crop year. Is that not ironic. People on the other 
side of the aisle who voted against the 1990 farm bill, the 1985 farm 
bill because it did not put enough money into agriculture, are 
objecting to Republican efforts that has a farm bill that would put $6 
billion into agriculture and a certainty of $43.5 billion over the next 
7 years. And $43.5 billion might sound like a lot of money. But it is 
less than half what has been spent on agriculture in recent years. The 
farm bill is about the only program in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 
that actually was cut. Most of the other programs in that Balanced 
Budget Act were slowing the rate of growth.
  I want to move on and say it would have also given--what we proposed 
to do yesterday, and the very same thing that the President vetoed in 
December would have set a policy that every farmer in America would 
have the opportunity to plant according to the marketplace, not 
according to policy decisions made in Washington. Furthermore, every 
acre would be planted. I think that is a sound agricultural policy, and 
it was rejected by the other side yesterday.
  When we are up to these planting deadlines you may not get exactly 
what you want, I may not get exactly what I want, but let me say this: 
Every major farm organization in the United States supports the Freedom 
To Farm Act. Every major commodity group in the United States supports 
what was in that bill. Yet there are some who would take the view that 
at this last minute that is not good enough for them. Or in some cases, 
ironically, it might be too much. But what is ironic about that, some 
of the very same people said in past years we were not doing enough for 
agriculture.
  I will yield the floor, although I hope we can have some more 
discussion on this if the people want to discuss it. I think it is such 
an important issue that we have to proceed and we have to reach an 
agreement on this.

                          ____________________