[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 11 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S485-S487]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               TOUGH TALK ON THE FARM BILL IS DOUBLETALK

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on another matter, very briefly--and I will 
not tie up the Senate, it will take me 3 or 4 minutes--I want to talk 
briefly about what I was surprised to see, which I term ``Tough Talk on 
the Farm Bill Is Doubletalk.'' 

[[Page S486]]

  Mr. President, in the Friday edition of the Omaha World Herald there 
was a curious story. In it, Dean Kleckner of the American Farm Bureau 
takes to task several farm State Senators and seems to blame us for the 
impasse on the farm bill. He goes so far as to say, and I quote: ``I 
have heard some Members of Congress say that the (Freedom to Farm) bill 
will pass over their dead bodies. If there is no farm bill, there will 
be a lot of dead bodies.''

  Mr. President, this is, indeed, curious and offensive hyperbole. Some 
of us have been encouraging a farm bill to be brought up for debate and 
to be acted on for a long time. But where was the Farm Bureau? They 
certainly were not taking that line on December 13.
  On that day, I received a letter from Mr. Kleckner which took just 
the opposite position. The Farm Bureau wanted a farm bill only, quoting 
from that letter, ``provided it is part of the budget reconciliation 
package.''
  This bit of now you see it and now you don't from the Farm Bureau 
should come as no surprise, however. On November 6, I received a letter 
from Mr. Kleckner which said in part, ``Particularly troubling 
throughout this debate has been the inability of the budget process to 
encourage programs which provide higher income supports when market 
prices are low and lower supports when prices are high.''
  And he added at that time in that message, ``Continued linkage of 
market prices and producer payments is very necessary.''
  In essence, the Farm Bureau staked out a position that is absolutely 
contrary to the Freedom to Farm bill that it now endorses. That is a 
180-degree change. Now they support a farm welfare bill that, I 
believe, will fail our farmers who do not want welfare payments to do 
nothing. It cannot withstand the light of day, and I predict that it 
will not. I am at a loss to explain the schizophrenic behavior of the 
Farm Bureau. Perhaps they want to hurry up and clear the tracks so they 
can campaign in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. I, for 
one, however, would prefer that Congress stay in session to work out a 
farm policy that makes sense, and maybe what was decided tonight is 
going to allow us to do that.
  Certainly, if we do that, it will give us the time for the Farm 
Bureau to change their minds once again.
  I ask unanimous consent that communications of different views from 
the Farm Bureau of November 6, 1995, December 13, 1995, January 26, 
1996, and the Omaha World Herald story of January 26, 1996 be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                Washington, DC, December 13, 1995.
       Dear Senator: Farm Bureau members are concerned about 
     reduced farm program spending levels but support the 
     framework of the Congressional farm program compromise 
     provided it is part of the budget reconciliation package.
       It is urgent that a budget agreement be reached before the 
     end of 1995. The situation is especially critical for 
     America's farmers and ranchers who need to make planting 
     decisions for the 1996 crop year now.
       The American Farm Bureau Federation supports the overall 
     reconciliation package as developed by Congress which 
     includes tax relief, spending restraint and a balanced budget 
     within seven years.
       The people have spoken in support of significant government 
     reform and reduced federal spending to balance the budget in 
     seven years. The 4.5 million Farm Bureau families across the 
     nation urge swift and responsible action to resolve the 
     budget impasse.
                                                 Dean R. Kleckner,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                 Washington, DC, November 6, 1995.
     Hon. James J. Exon,
     528 Senate Hart,
                                                   Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Exon: The agriculture components of both the 
     House and Senate Budget Reconciliation packages propose 
     substantial changes in farm policy. Both proposals 
     significantly restructure the income safety net for farmers 
     and drastically reduce the dollar amount of that support over 
     the seven-year period. This leaves farm program crop 
     producers more exposed to the production and price risk 
     inherent in farming. The level of spending reductions 
     currently under consideration represents far more than a fair 
     share for agriculture. Even at reduced levels of spending 
     reductions, agriculture would still provide a significant 
     contribution to deficit reduction.
       Neither the Senate nor House proposal contains all the 
     answers. In fact both, to a great extent, are too directly 
     driven by the vagueness of budget scoring rather than 
     effective long-term agricultural policy.
       Within the Senate and House proposals there are several key 
     elements of an income safety net which should become part of 
     the final reconciliation package.
       These elements include:
       1. Increased planting flexibility;
       2. Minimal use of supply management tools;
       3. Increased non-paid flex acres to meet budget 
     requirements;
       4. Continued linkage of market prices and producer 
     payments;
       5. Protections for non-program crop producers; and
       6. Utilization of all budgeted outlays for mandatory 
     program spending.
       Particularly troubling throughout this debate has been the 
     inability of the budget process to encourage programs which 
     provide higher income supports when market prices are low, 
     and lower supports when prices rise, while utilizing 
     available budget outlays. In order to provide a long-term 
     safety net the conference committee should develop a program 
     which maintains a price-payment linkage and allows budgeted 
     funds not expended in years of high prices to be available in 
     years in which farm income is low. Failure to resolve this 
     issue will render farm programs either an ineffective income 
     support mechanism or subject them to being an irresistible 
     political target. Unless good policy prevails over budget 
     rules and scoring limitations, American farmers will lose.
       The American Farm Bureau supports the Senate language with 
     regard to the dairy provisions. We do not believe that 
     complete deregulation of the dairy industry is in the best 
     interest of our producers across the United States. Full 
     funding for the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) to the 
     maximum extent allowed by the Uruguay Round of GATT should be 
     included in the conference agreement.
       Likewise, we ask conferees to build on the growing 
     opportunities for agricultural exports made possible by the 
     passage of GATT and NAFTA. U.S. agricultural exports are 
     expected to reach $53 billion in 1995. The continuation of 
     effective trade policy is paramount to maintaining market 
     share in the world agricultural economy. Cuts in trade 
     programs would jeopardize the hard fought battle to combat 
     unfair foreign subsidies and regain world market share. We 
     strongly urge you to restore funding for agricultural export 
     promotion and development programs to GATT-permissible 
     levels. We would support increases in unpaid flex to 
     accomplish this goal.
       We support the EQUIP, livestock cost-share program, and the 
     elimination of the authority for permanent easements within 
     the Wetlands Reserve Program and on properties acquired by 
     the Farmers Home Administration. We believe these ideas 
     promote sensible agricultural policy that can also generate 
     needed budget savings.
       Establishing long-term priorities for agricultural policy 
     should be a part of the new farm bill. As the income safety 
     net is reduced, discussions should be focused on research 
     needs, trade opportunities, credit requirements and risk 
     management alternatives for U.S. farmers. We support the 
     establishment of a national farm policy impact review 
     process.
       We appreciate your interest in our views on farm policy. We 
     look forward to working with you to ensure that a farmer-
     friendly farm policy becomes law.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Dean R. Kleckner,
     President.
                                                                    ____


        AFBF Calls for Immediate Action on Seven-Year Farm Bill

       Park Ridge, IL,--January 25, 1996.--With the absence of 
     progress on federal budget reform, the American Farm Bureau 
     Federation said a farm bill like the one formerly linked to 
     the congressional budget reconciliation proposal is needed 
     immediately.
       The AFBF Board of Directors today said the organization 
     would support a seven-year farm bill now being proposed by 
     House Agriculture Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), as a stand-
     alone measure or attached to other legislation. The Roberts 
     proposal includes greater planting flexibility so farmers can 
     better respond to the marketplace and financial support in 
     the form of ``market transition payments.''
       The reasons for this move are numerous, according to AFBF 
     President Dean Kleckner. The two alternatives--an extension 
     of the 1990 farm bill, or reverting to the 1949 farm act--are 
     unacceptable to America's farmers.
       Kleckner said the 1949 act is incompatible with U.S. 
     farmers selling their commodities in the world market, and an 
     extension of the 1990 act would fail to provide farmers 
     needed planting flexibility and would invite deeper cuts in 
     agriculture spending during future budget reconciliation 
     efforts.
       ``Spring planting season in many southern states is just 
     around the corner,'' Kleckner said. ``Farmers must be able to 
     make their planting decisions and secure financing from 
     lenders with full knowledge of the farm program. A stand-
     alone farm bill, like the framework proposed by Chairman 
     Roberts is essential to the viability of American agriculture 
     over the next seven years.''
       According to Kleckner, immediate action is required because 
     the longer it takes to approve a farm bill, the lower 
     agriculture's funding baseline will be. He also said a delay 

[[Page S487]]
     would increase the budget pressures on agriculture in any future budget 
     reconciliation efforts.
       ``Farmers will continue to push for the tax reform measures 
     included in the stalled budget reconciliation measure,'' 
     Kleckner said. ``Securing an increase in the estate tax 
     exemption and a decrease in the capital gains tax rate are as 
     important to the agriculture economy as nailing down a 
     sensible farm bill. We will continue to highlight the 
     importance of those tax measures as the budget debate 
     continues, but America's farmers need a farm bill now. AFBF 
     and state Farm Bureaus will be making a concerted push in 
     Washington, D.C. and at home in the coming weeks, during 
     Congress' ill-timed February recess.''
                                                                    ____


              [From the Omaha World Herald, Jan. 26, 1996]

               Farm Bureau Tries to Free Mired Farm Bill

                          (By David C. Beeder)

       Washington.--Members of the American Farm Bureau Federation 
     are seeking immediate action on farm legislation that has 
     been stalled along with the balanced-budget bill. Farm Bureau 
     President Dean Kleckner said Thursday.
       Kleckner said the 4.5 million-member Farm Bureau, the 
     country's largest agricultural organization, has started 
     working in every congressional district to urge House and 
     Senate members to separate farm legislation from the long-
     delayed budget bill.
       ``Our intention now is to lead the charge in getting a farm 
     bill passed as soon as possible,'' said Kleckner, a farmer 
     from Rudd, Iowa. ``Spring planting season in many Southern 
     states is just around the corner.''
       Without farm legislation, some farmers are finding it 
     difficult to borrow money, Kleckner said.
       A stand-alone farm bill introduced by Rep. Pat Roberts, a 
     Republican from Kansas who heads the House Agriculture 
     Committee, would allocate $44 billion over seven years to 
     make declining annual payments to farmers based on subsidies 
     they received in the past.
       The Roberts bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Bill Barrett, R-
     Neb., would eliminate acreage restrictions and a requirement 
     that farmers grow the same crop year after year to qualify 
     for payments. Farmers could plant any crop, or no crop, under 
     the bill.
       Kleckner said everyone involved in U.S. agriculture 
     recognizes that ``declining payments are a fact of life we 
     will have to live with.''
       However, he said, ``My gut feeling is there will always be 
     payments made on agriculture. They may not be related to crop 
     production. They may be made for environmental reasons.
       The Roberts-Barrett bill has run into opposition in the 
     Senate.
       Opponents include Sens. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., the minority 
     leader, Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., J.J. Exon, 
     D-Neb., and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.
       ``I have heard some members of Congress say the bill would 
     pass over their dead bodies.'' Kleckner said, ``If there is 
     no farm bill, there will be a lot of dead bodies.''

  Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________