[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 11 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S396-S398]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             THE FARM BILL

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, for the first time in nearly half a 
century, we are rapidly approaching the end of the first month of the 
first year in which American farmers are without a farm bill. To those 
not directly engaged in agriculture, this fact may be little more than 
a slightly interesting footnote to a much larger story of deadlock in 
Washington. Actually, the only people not involved in agriculture are 
those who don't eat. But to men, women, and families across this Nation 
whose livelihood comes from the production of food and fiber, this 
simple fact is keeping them awake at night.

[[Page S397]]

  What is most striking and most disquieting about the failure to enact 
a farm bill on time is the apparent disregard by some Members of 
Congress to the plight of family farmers who are desperately calling me 
and other Senators for some signal of what to expect for the 1996 crop 
year. You can't blame them. If you look at the calendar you will see it 
is 1996 and farmers in my State, especially rice farmers, need to be in 
the fields in the next few weeks. Unfortunately, before they go into 
the fields, most farmers need to go into their banks. But bankers are 
unable to complete loans due to the uncertainty in farm policy that has 
resulted from just 1 year of Republican majorities in Congress.
  I have heard several Senators try to lay the blame for the expiration 
of farm legislation on President Clinton for vetoing the budget 
reconciliation bill which contained a version of the so-called Freedom 
to Farm Act. This, they say, was the 1995 farm bill which was voted, 
passed, and sent to the President. What they fail to mention is that 
everyone knew for months that the reconciliation bill, with or without 
freedom to farm, was going to be vetoed. the Republican majority in 
Congress knew, far in advance, that if they insisted on freedom to farm 
being part of the budget reconciliation bill, there would be no farm 
bill unless they took other action to secure passage of farm 
legislation outside the budget reconciliation process. The Republicans 
are in charge of the House and Republicans are in charge of the Senate. 
They clearly had the opportunity and the power to take other action and 
they not only failed, they failed to try.
  Not only has the Republican majority failed to achieve any positive 
result, they have even refused the assistance of their Democratic 
colleagues. Next to the harm being thrust on the American farmer, the 
most troubling aspect to the farm bill failure of 1995 is the untimely 
demise of traditional farm-State coalitions. In every farm bill debate 
I can remember, farm-State Senators, regardless of party affiliation, 
were able to come together in a common purpose. To us, that purpose had 
been to pass a farm bill that is in the best interest of the American 
farmer and the American consumer while all the time recognizing the 
unique nature of the farm sectors of our respective States. But, for 
some inexplicable reason, the Republican majority made the decision to 
disregard this practice which has given rural America successfully 
enacted farm bills for nearly five decades. The result of that decision 
should have been obvious, but now even the Republican majority has to 
admit that they couldn't do it alone.
  In fact, when you look at how we got in this mess, it becomes clear 
that there was no real agreement within the Republican majority about 
farm policy. The so-called Freedom to Farm Act was introduced by the 
chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, but he could not even 
secure passage of his bill in his own committee--even the ranking 
Republican member voted against it. The Senate Agriculture Committee 
never gave it any serious consideration because they saw the flaws it 
contained. The fact that it was wedged into a reconciliation bill 
completely outside the purview of any agriculture committee--House or 
Senate--begs the question whether agriculture committees are relevant 
any longer. Even the House Speaker's task force on committee review has 
suggested terminating the House Agriculture Committee and merging its 
responsibilities with other committees. The inability of the House 
Agriculture Committee to report a 1995 farm bill will probably do 
little to dissuade the speaker from the recommendations of his own task 
force.
  The Republican majority may have failed to include Democratic 
participation in writing a farm bill because they thought we didn't 
want farm program reform. If that was their reason, they were badly 
mistaken. Senate Democrats, myself included, want serious farm bill 
reform and we know the only way to achieve it is through serious farm 
bill debate. If we had been allowed to participate in the debate--if 
there had been a debate--I do not believe we and, more importantly, 
America's farmers would be in the desperate situation we now find 
ourselves. There are lots of good ideas out there. There are some I 
would like to offer, there are others I would like to learn more about, 
but ideas do not grow well in a vacuum outside the light of public 
debate. We deserve better and, without question, rural America deserves 
better.
  We can do a lot of finger pointing, but that really accomplishes 
little, and nothing positive. Farmers in my State and farmers in every 
State can not be told to wait another day for farm policy guidance. I 
wish we had time to have the farm bill debate we have requested for 
more than a year. I wish we had time to enact a new 5 or 7-year farm 
bill to completely replace expiring farm and nutrition programs. 
However, the calendar tells us the time necessary to do all those 
things has been lost. All that we have time to do, and what we must do, 
is to enact an extension of expired programs for another year in which 
farmers can do what they do best and we can do what hasn't been done at 
all: debate and pass a farm bill.
  What happens if Congress does nothing? What happens if Congress 
defaults on its responsibility to rural America? As unlikely as that 
seemed 1 year ago, we now have to seriously examine the consequences of 
procedure in 1996 with no congressional action on farm policy. Should 
that occur, and I truly hope it does not, farmers would then turn to 
the programs available under the CCC Charter Act and the agricultural 
acts of 1938 and 1949, the so-called permanent law.
  It is fortunate for America's farmers that these laws exist, not 
because they are good policy for the 1990's, but because they serve as 
a hammer that should persuade Congress to reauthorize the 1990 farm 
bill. If we revert to permanent law a couple of things will occur: 
First, there is no specific rice program and the Secretary will have to 
rely on very broad authorities to provide some sort of price support 
mechanism; second, wheat and feed grain prices would go through the 
roof. In addition to these features, there are a host of other arcane 
provisions that would further complicate the lives of farmers and those 
responsible for administering farm policy.
  Some farmers might fare well under permanent law. For those farmers 
lucky enough to still have acreage allotments that were established 
decades ago, they will receive prices tied to parity which means the 
price they receive will give them the same buying power the price for 
their crop held between 1910 and 1914. In some ways it's like playing 
the lottery. If you are one of the lucky ones, you will receive more in 
payments than you ever expected. If your luck has run out, you may 
receive nothing. With feed grain prices doubling or tripling, if you 
are a producer of beef, pork, poultry, catfish, bread, cookies, pasta, 
et cetera, or if you are a consumer of any of the above, you are going 
to see your costs skyrocket. Farmers have long had to deal with the 
weather, markets, and other unknowns. They should not now have to be 
asked to bear the additional uncertainty of playing the lottery as 
well.
  Farmers need certainty. Earlier this week, it was mentioned that an 
extension of current law provides no ``certainty'' and only passage of 
freedom to farm would give farmers ``certainty'' for the future. In 
fact, it was suggested that if we extended current law, the only 
certain thing to happen immediately is the repayment of the 1995 
advance deficiency payments which would further cripple farmers trying 
to advance a 1996 crop. I will ask to have printed in the Record an 
announcement by Secretary Glickman on December 22 that advance 
deficiency repayments are deferred for 3 years, which was the extent of 
action he was authorized to take. This clearly will give Congress time 
to deal more thoroughly with this important matter. Secretary Glickman 
has already offered American farmers the certainty of knowing there 
will be no near-term demand for repayment. He should be commended for 
taking this action and I fully expect that we will be able to more 
fully resolve this problem before the end of the 3-year period.
  It was further suggested, earlier this week, that if we passed the 
Freedom to Farm Act, farmers would have the certainty of knowing they 
will receive $43.5 billion in payments over the next 7 years. I do not 
question the intent of my Republican colleagues in the Senate that they 
hope these payments 

[[Page S398]]
would, in fact, be made over the 7 years--although knowing the history 
of the House majority leader's attempts to kill farm programs, I am not 
so sure about the underlining intent of that body. But I must question 
any use of the term ``certainty'' that has been attached to these 
payments.
  Perhaps the most egregious feature of the freedom to farm scheme is 
the payment of large sums of money to farmers in years when crop prices 
are bringing record profits and even to farmers who have no requirement 
to farm anything at all except the Federal Treasury. Since their 
inception, farm programs have been designed to allow payments to 
farmers only when crop prices have fallen below set levels. This 
provided a form of safety net that has helped stabilize the farm 
economy and avoid the tremendous social disruptions that we witnessed 
during the Great Depression. But I must warn my Republican friends who 
think they are protecting rural America, that providing large payments 
to farmers during periods of high prices or to farmers who no longer 
farm is an invitation to disaster, the biggest farm disaster we have 
ever seen.
  I realize that the Freedom to Farm Act makes reference to the term 
``contracts'' which suggests a guarantee of payments over the 7-year 
period. I also realize that many Members of Congress have been trained 
in the legal profession and have had more than a cursory review of the 
elements of a contract. But the requirements of protecting against the 
abrogation by a future Congress of ``contracts'' described in 
legislation go far beyond simple contract law. American farmers know 
what a contract is, or should be, and I am afraid they are being led to 
believe that the Freedom to Farm Act is talking about contracts in the 
normal sense of that term.
  The abrogation of contracts executed through the authority of 
congressional legislation is nothing new to the Federal courts. The 
contracts discussed in the Freedom to Farm Act are not protected by the 
contracts clause of the U.S. Constitution. The contracts clause is 
found in section 10 of article I which states: ``No State shall * * * 
pass any * * * law impairing the obligation of contracts * * *'' 
(emphasis added). In fact, case law concludes that the sovereign power 
of Congress to subsequently amend legislation--and contracts authorized 
by such legislation--is implied in the absence of ``unmistakable 
terms'' or other strong indications that Congress clearly intended to 
bind the actions of a future Congress.
  It has been my opinion that nothing in the freedom to farm provisions 
that were appropriately vetoed by President Clinton approaches the 
threshold of ``unmistakable terms'' necessary to limit the actions of a 
future Congress. My opinion is also shared by many legal experts from 
around the country. Because of my concerns that the American farmer was 
being misled by the alleged promises of 7 years of payments, I had 
asked for an opinion by the National Center for Agricultural Law 
Research and Information as well as leading law schools with strong 
agricultural law programs around the country and they all concur that 
there is nothing in the freedom to farm provisions that guarantees 
payments over 7 years.

  Why is this fact so important? Why should farmers be concerned if 
Congress can change its mind in a year or two? What does all this have 
to do with ``Certainty''? With all due respect to farm programs enacted 
by Congress and administered by USDA, there are many critics of these 
programs who would be eager to point out the outrageous use of tax 
dollars to pay huge sums to farmers when market prices are high or who 
have opted to spend the growing seasons in the Bahamas. It would only 
take a few headlines and a few news magazine television programs to 
draw the wrath of the nonfarm public to force Congress to end, once and 
for all, farm programs.
  It takes little imagination to conclude that media scrutiny of 
freedom to farm, once put into practice, would likely result in not 
only a loss of the remaining freedom to farm payments, but of the 
possibility of any Federal support for farmers in the future. If 
anything is certain, it is that farmers would be without farm programs 
a lot sooner than they expected. As I suggested earlier, such a result 
would not be far removed from the stated objectives we have heard 
expressed for years by the current House majority leadership. Earlier 
this week, there was an attempt on this floor to repeal by unanimous 
consent the underlying agricultural acts which we refer to as permanent 
law. Farmers may have more to worry about than they realize. Yes, 
farmers are asking for certainty, but I don't believe they are asking 
for the certainty of bankruptcy.
  Mr. President, it would be truly tragic if the tactics that shut down 
the Federal Government for an unprecedented 27 days are now used to 
shut down the farm sector, possibly for all time. Clearly, the freedom-
to-farm provisions are not acceptable to me, they are not acceptable to 
my Democratic colleagues. If passed they will once again be rejected by 
President Clinton, and they will be rejected by every member of the 
farming community once farmers are given the opportunity to see through 
the candy store glitter of allegedly promised payments. The task before 
us now is to move the process forward to give farmers some immediate 
guidance for the crops they need now to put in the ground and for all 
of us in Congress to finally work together to craft a reasonable farm 
bill to take American agriculture into the next century.
  I know there are some reforms that we should all agree on that we can 
include in a farm bill extension. Farmers need flexibility to better 
adjust to changing markets and to give them the ability to rotate crops 
in a manner that best serves their conservation needs. We can do that, 
and we must. Republicans and Democrats have proven in farm bills past 
that we can work together. We ask now for a 1-year extension of current 
law with certain modifications. All it takes is 1 year to write, 
debate, and pass a farm bill. Although 1995 was not such a year, there 
is not reason why 1996 can't be.
  I ask unanimous consent that the announcement by Secretary Glickman, 
to which I earlier referred, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the announcement was ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

     Glickman Improves Repayment Options for Producers for Advance 
                          Deficiency Payments

       Washington, Dec. 22, 1995--Agriculture Secretary Dan 
     Glickman today announced that wheat, feed grains, and upland 
     cotton producers who must repay their 1995-crop advance 
     deficiency payments will be able to repay under more 
     equitable terms than in the past. Those producers will likely 
     owe about $1.7 billion in the latter part of 1996.
       Glickman said USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation will 
     propose changes is current regulations to give producers 
     expanded repayment options, including the option to repay in 
     installments over a three-year period, with all of the 
     interest waived, depending on a producer's circumstances. 
     USDA has no legal authority to waive repayment of advance 
     deficiency payment.
       ``I'm especially concerned about producers who did not have 
     a 1995 crop and are still required by law to repay their 
     advance deficiency payments,'' Glickman said. ``To ease their 
     financial burden, my proposed action will allow them to repay 
     over 3 years with no interest.
       ``These actions will affect about 90 percent of the 
     producers of these crops,'' Glickman said. ``To ask for a 
     repayment of this magnitude without better terms and 
     conditions would put severe financial pressure on many 
     producers who are trying to recover from a series of bad 
     weather disasters.
       ``We're nearing the end of the year and we still have no 
     Farm Bill,'' Glickman said. ``At a time of uncertainty--the 
     Clinton Administration is taking this action to give 
     producers clear direction, so they can start planning for the 
     coming year.''
       Details of the proposal are outlined in FSA Backgrounder 
     #0864.95.

                          ____________________