[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             THE FARM BILL

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, there are two things I want to talk about. 
First, I have heard some of the discussion with regard to farm policy 
by some of my closest friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
today. It is a pretty sad situation when I see that the usual farm 
coalition between Democrats and Republicans is obviously breaking down. 
I think it is a tragedy of major proportions.
  I would simply say, there are those of us who feel we should stay in 
session for lots of reasons, not the least of which is to pass a farm 
bill. If we cannot come to some kind of an agreement, I hope the 
majority leader will simply call up the farm bill for discussion, 
debate it on the floor of the U.S. Senate, pass something, and send it 
to the President and see if he will sign it.
  The President, I might add, has been very supportive of the position 
for funding of agriculture that this Senator, as the lead Democrat on 
the Budget Committee, has been for a long, long time. We have a profarm 
advocate sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the President of the 
United States of America. We should continue to build and work with 
him.
  The various moves that have been made with regard to the Freedom To 
Farm Act that I do not agree with I will not vote for. I will simply 
correct something I thought I heard, that all major farm organizations 
have supported the Freedom To Farm Act. The Farmers Union is a major 
farm organization in the State of Nebraska. The Farmers Union is not 
only against the Freedom To Farm Act, it thinks it is folly.
  I would say to all of my colleagues, this Senator yesterday had 
printed in the Record some true facts with regard to how far down the 
welfare road we are going under the Freedom To Farm Act. In summarizing 
what I put in the Record yesterday on page S 321 under Exhibit 1, for a 
500-acre farm, 120 bushels to the acre in corn yield, the present cash 
price is in the vicinity of $3.10. That would be $186,000 gross--not 
net, gross--that the farmer would receive.
  On top of that, under the Freedom To Farm Act, there is a welfare 
payment that goes to corn farmers. I think, when all the corn farmers 
found out about this, and especially when the public found out about 
it, there would be a revolution, and the Freedom To Farm Act would fall 
by the wayside, because, in the example that I have just given, a 
farmer would receive a check from the Federal Government for 1996 of 
$16,200 on top of the $186,000 gross that he got from his crop.
  That might not be so bad. You might argue that is still a good thing, 
at $3.10 a bushel for corn. But most people in and outside the business 
recognize that $3.10 a bushel for corn is a pretty good price and one 
we can be satisfied with. The point is, if it were $5 a bushel or $7 a 
bushel, which I do not think it will ever go to, but whatever the price 
of corn would be under the Freedom To Farm Act, this typical farmer, 
and every farmer who is in a similar situation, which is typical, would 
receive a check from the Government regardless of the price of corn in 
the marketplace. That is welfare. That is an excessive amount of money.
  I am for freedom-to-farm principles, giving them the decisions they 
can make out there on the farm. I am for simplifying. But I simply say 
there is a fault here in the Freedom To Farm Act that is a giveaway.

                          ____________________