[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.
____________________