[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 10 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         THE 1996 FARM PROGRAM

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I know my colleague from Oklahoma is 
seeking the floor. I am going to take a few minutes on a different 
topic. I want to mention how greatly concerned I am that Congress 
appears to be set to go into recess for a month while the details of 
the 1996 farm program remain unresolved.
  Farmers have been waiting for a long time to know what the program 
will be for this year. They need to be able to make plans to line up 
seed, fertilizer, chemicals, and credit. As we all know, and as I know 
the occupant of the Chair knows from representing his State and the 
farmers in his State, farming is a very capital-intensive business. 
Farmers need to know what type of Federal policy they are operating 
under so they know what they need in terms of capital in order to 
arrange the credit for this year's expenses.
  Second, the farm bill is not just for farmers, it is for everyone. It 
is for our consumers as well as our farmers. It is for exports. It is 
for the whole infrastructure of processing, making and distributing our 
food products in this country. The fact that we do not have a farm bill 
has broad ramifications.
  We should have had a full farm bill debate last year. I know of no 
one on my side of the aisle who either filibustered or in any way 
indicated that he or she would filibuster a farm bill. We had some 
committee meetings last year under the able leadership of the Senator 
from Indiana, Senator Lugar. I will be very up front about it. Those on 
my side of the aisle, the Democrats, proffered a farm bill proposal. We 
debated it, we voted on it, and we lost. I understand that, but at 
least we had the opportunity to debate it and vote on it.
  Then the majority party, the Republicans, offered their farm bill in 
committee. We debated it and we voted on it. They won. I have no 
problems with that. That is the way it ought to be. But then I expected 
the bill to be brought to the floor of the Senate so that other 
Senators who have equal interest in agriculture and agriculture policy 
could have their day to offer amendments, debate the bill, and then 
pass it. Maybe some of those amendments would have been adopted, maybe 
some would not have been, but that is the way the Senate should 
operate.
  To this day, we still have not had an agriculture bill on the Senate 
floor for debate, amendments, and passage. What happened was--I do not 
cast any broad nets or use any broad brush, but some people in the 
majority party decided that they would sit down behind closed doors, 
write a bill, and put it into the massive budget reconciliation bill. 
Again, there was no realistic opportunity to debate, offer amendments, 
or to reach compromise and do what is right for rural America and our 
Nation.

  Now I understand someone in the other body is saying that if there is 
going to be a continuing resolution, he wants to put his version of the 
farm bill on it. That proposal is basically the same as was put in the 
budget bill. Well, that is not the version I like. Maybe that is the 
version that might eventually get through. I do not know for certain, 
but I do not think so. I do not think it would have the votes to pass. 
But at least it ought to be debated, and we ought to have a full and 
fair opportunity to discuss it, vote on it, and amend it. That proposal 
should not be rushed through as part of a continuing resolution.
  Farm policy is too important to be ramrodded through here without 
adequate time to debate it and amend it. We do not need much time. If 
we had a day or two to debate a farm bill, I think we could pass it. It 
probably would not be exactly what I want, but at least we would have 
our day to debate it, offer some amendments, and maybe we could reach 
some compromises.
  All I can say about that so-called Freedom to Farm Act that the 
chairman on the other side wants to attach to the continuing resolution 
is that they ran that up and down the flagpole a number of times last 
year. It does not have the votes to get through. It cannot pass either 
the House or the Senate on its own merits.
  So on that so-called Freedom to Farm Act, we ought to just say the 
last rites, move on and try to find some compromises we can work from, 
and let us do it in a bipartisan fashion.
  I have worked on a number of farm bills in the past. At times they 
have generated a lot of emotional and intellectual debate on farm 
policy. They have been good debates, some of them pretty tough, but in 
the end, we fashioned a bipartisan compromise, and we moved on. That is 
the way we ought to do it again this year.
  So, Mr. President, there are steps we can take. It is getting very 
late in the year to try to fashion some entirely new program. I had 
hoped that we would have had a new program for this year, but we do 
not. More and more, it seems the only feasible thing to do appears to 
be extending the present farm bill for 1 year, and making some 
immediate changes that we can all agree on--planting flexibility, for 
example. Both sides agree it is needed. We agreed on that in committee. 
That is no problem. We can reach agreement on how to deal with the 
repayment of the 1995 advance deficiency payments. I think both sides 
agree on working that out. We could do that. So we could resolve those 
important issues, and at least farmers would know what to expect this 
year, and they could get on with their business.
  If I had my druthers, I would rather we did not have an extension of 
the 1990 farm bill, but it is too late to do anything markedly 
different now. So that seems the most likely outcome we are faced with 
now, to extend the 1990 bill, make a few needed changes that we agree 
upon and then move on.
  Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

                          ____________________