[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S573-S577]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT OF 1996

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
turn to the consideration of calendar No. 330, S. 1541, the farm bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1541) to extend, reform, and improve 
     agricultural commodity, trade, conservation, and other 
     programs, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1541, the 
     farm bill:
       Bob Dole, Strom Thurmond, Dirk Kempthorne, James M. 
     Jeffords, John H. Chafee, Thad Cochran, Ted Stevens, Trent 
     Lott, Richard G. Lugar, Craig Thomas, Don Nickles, Bob 
     Bennett, Alan K. Simpson, John Warner, Larry Pressler, Dan 
     Coats, Larry E. Craig.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, for now nearly 10 months, the U.S. Senate 
and the Senate Agriculture Committee have been working diligently to 
craft a new farm bill for our country. We all know that on September 30 
of this immediate past year, the old farm bill expired. We also 
recognize that under the necessary budget changes and spending 
procedures and priorities that we were establishing, a large portion of 
the farm bill appeared and was a part of the Balanced Budget Act that 
we sent to the President, and the President vetoed it.
  That has placed American agriculture, in my opinion, in a very 
precarious situation. While they have worked with us through the year 
of 1995 in numerous hearings that the Senate Agriculture Committee, on 
which I serve, participated in, we began to hear a very clear message 
from American agriculture that current policy was not serving it as 
well as it should, that there was a great desire on the part of 
production agriculture to progressively move to the market and produce 
to market trends and market ideas instead of to the perpetuation of 
farm programs.
  Now, recognizing that, we also saw the clear importance that that 
transition American agriculture was talking about come in a way that 
all could live with. None of us wanted to shock the market. None of us, 
more importantly, wanted to create any kind of economic catastrophe in 
agriculture across this country. As a result, the Senate, in a very 
bipartisan way, worked diligently.
  We also have the mandate of the Senate Budget Committee to meet the 
criteria of the budget. That was to find additional savings for the 
year and then to spread those savings out over the 7-year period of the 
Balanced Budget Act to arrive at some 40 billion-plus dollars' worth of 
savings. All of that was accomplished. Of course, all of that was for 
naught when the President decided to veto that most important piece of 
legislation.
  Recognizing that that did not happen and that clearly American 
agriculture now has been asking us on a very regular basis over the 
last month, ``What are you going to do?'' it became important here in 
the Senate and in the House--the House acting yesterday--to mark up 
their version of the farm bill, and the Senate in the past week 
attempting to bring procedure forward, 

[[Page S574]]
and on Friday last introducing S. 1541, the bill that I have just 
called up, to address the question being asked us. Most important, to 
craft critical policy that is time certain, that works in the 
marketplace of agriculture, that says to the farmer, ``Here is 
something you can now plan as you sit down with your banker and your 
financial advisers to plan for the coming year,'' so that we are 
timely. That is why we have the debate today and, hopefully, votes 
tomorrow on this and possibly other critical pieces of legislation.

  I believe that the Balanced Budget Act represented probably the most 
far-reaching, positive reform for U.S. farm policy in a generation, 
certainly in the time I have served in the U.S. Senate and in the U.S. 
House of Representatives. While we work to change and cooperate with 
agriculture and move into the marketplace, clearly, the product of 
effort that we presented in the last several months is as much or more 
reform than I think we have seen in farm policy here in the U.S. 
Congress in the last 60 years.
  The amendments allow farmers to sign a 7-year income support contract 
with the Federal Government. That contract takes the place of the old 
market-distorted target pricing system. As a result of that and the 
flexibility that we have offered in this program, clearly the farmers 
today who wish to stay in the program have by far the greater 
opportunity to look to the matter, as they should, in deciding what 
they will plant and not have to worry about the loss of their base in 
that kind of flexibility and also have the income support program that 
we have talked about, at a minimal level, but an important level, so 
that we do not create the type of downturns that we have seen.
  A declining series of payments through the year 2002 would provide 
the kind of genuine flexibility and smooth transition, as I have just 
explained, toward the marketplace and allow agriculture then to be 
responsive to the market moving into the next century. No longer will 
Government tell the farmer which crops to plant. In other words, no 
longer will farmers have to farm the Government program to stay in the 
program or to realize some benefit from it. No longer will that occur. 
It leaves the farmer free to decide what is the most productive effort 
for his or her land.
  I think this is the way it ought to be. Of course, the marketplace, 
then, largely becomes the determinator of value and that, of course is 
the way any business and industry really ought to operate.
  The balanced budget amendments that we have brought into S. 1541 have 
been endorsed by the American Farm Bureau Federation.
  Mr. President, I have a letter here from the President of the 
National Farm Bureau, Dean Kleckner. This letter was sent to me just 
the day before yesterday with a full endorsement of S. 1541. I ask 
unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 January 29, 1996.
     Hon. Larry Craig,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: Congress must pass farm program 
     legislation quickly. Failure to reach agreement on multi-year 
     farm legislation is delaying planting decisions for farmers. 
     Widespread planting will begin soon in the south. Yet farmers 
     still do not know the farm program rules. Lending 
     institutions are withholding production loans based wholly on 
     the uncertainty being created in Washington, D.C. Our 
     competitors in world markets are surely amused at this policy 
     disarray.
       Farmers and consumers in the greatest agricultural nation 
     in the world need a workable farm program. We urge you to act 
     now, in the bipartisan spirit that has been the norm in the 
     Senate Agriculture Committee, and approve workable policy for 
     all titles of the farm bill including those previously 
     scheduled for later consideration.
       The American Farm Bureau Federation Board of Directors 
     unanimously voiced its support for the Freedom to Farm Act, 
     S. 1544 either as freestanding legislation or if added to 
     another legislative vehicle. The Board voiced strong 
     opposition to a short-term extension of existing programs or 
     reverting to the Act of 1949.
       A short-term extension of existing farm programs straps 
     agriculture to a steadily declining budget baseline, provides 
     no help to farmers in repaying advance deficiency payments 
     and allows significantly less planting flexibility than is 
     needed in today's world market. Reverting to the Act of 1949 
     is acknowledged by policy experts to be counter productive. 
     Under the Act of 1949, the federal budget exposure would be 
     enormous, domestic production would be reduced at a time when 
     world stocks are very low and foreign competitors would 
     expand exports at our expense.
       The Freedom to Farm Act, S. 1544, embodies the core 
     components of farm policy previously included in the vetoed 
     Budget Reconciliation Act. The combination of market 
     transition payments and marketing loans contained in S. 1544 
     forms a compromise which significantly restructures the 
     income support mechanism for farmers to maximize the 
     available federal support for agriculture and provides 
     significant planting flexibility to meet world competition.
       Throughout the discussions leading up to the adoption of 
     the conference report on Budget Reconciliation, including 
     farm programs, the Farm Bureau identified several policy 
     areas which we believed were key to crafting effective and 
     equitable farm programs for producers of all commodities. 
     Those key concepts include:
       Adequate protections for producers of non-program 
     commodities.
       Maintenance of existing landlord/tenant relationships.
       Adequate spending levels for MPP and EEP.
       Maintenance of current payment limits rules.
       Dropping the requirement for crop insurance to participate 
     in commodity programs.
       Maintenance of the CRP program.
       We believe that S. 1544 embodies many of these concepts and 
     we urge you to protect them during subsequent floor action 
     and through conference.
       Significant contributions to balancing the federal budget 
     are achieved as a result of changes made to the commodity 
     programs including those for sugar and peanuts. The sugar and 
     peanut programs have contributed to both stability within 
     those production sectors and an abundant supply of quality 
     products for consumers. The changes to these titles in S. 
     1544 ensure workable programs for both producers and 
     consumers and they deserve your support.
       The American Farm Bureau Federation supports the inclusion 
     in S. 1544 of the compromise dairy proposal. Our members 
     supported purely administrative changes to marketing orders. 
     However, we will actively participate in the rulemaking 
     process to ensure that the final changes in market orders 
     will be equitable to all regions and all producers. We 
     support the Livestock Environmental Assistance Program (LEAP) 
     but encourage a modification of the eligibility of dairy 
     herds to expand potential participation beyond smaller 
     producers.
       Due to low price levels for rice in recent years rice 
     producers are disadvantaged in the early years of market 
     transition contracts. We urge the committee to take steps to 
     adjust rice payments and rectify this situation.
       Consideration of the credit, trade conservation, research 
     and other titles of the farm bill were postponed and until 
     after the commodity titles and budget provisions were 
     completed. We can no longer afford to wait for consideration 
     and debate of those titles. We urge you to include those 
     titles in the final package sent to the House. Much of the 
     preliminary work on these titles is complete. Failure to act 
     now will almost guarantee they are not reauthorized in 1996.
       The American Farm Bureau Federation supports the expedited 
     consideration of S. 1544 with the addition of the dairy, 
     research, credit, conservation and trade titles.
       We look forward to working with you in a bipartisan effort 
     to pass multi-year farm legislation.
                                                    Dean Kleckner,
                                                        President.

  Mr. CRAIG. There is no question this very vital farm organization, 
representing more people in production agriculture today than any other 
farm organization, recognizes the importance of this legislation and, 
most important, the importance of what it does; that it again moves the 
farmer toward the marketplace as all of us are concerned happens.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Bill 
Northey, the president of the National Corn Growers Association, be 
printed in the Record along with a letter from Robert Petersen, 
coalition coordinator for the Coalition for a Competitive Food and 
Agricultural System.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            National Corn Growers Association,

                                 Washington, DC, January 30, 1996.
     Hon. Larry E. Craig,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: The National Corn Growers Association 
     (NCGA) urges you to vote for cloture on S. 1541, the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act. It is important that farm 
     legislation receive the consideration it deserves, and, that 
     a logical, responsible conclusion follow. With planting fast 
     approaching, the nation's farmers must know what to expect 
     from federal farm policy. Timing is critical.
       S. 1541 is the clear choice for the nation's farmers. 
     Throughout the entire farm bill debate, the NCGA supported 
     key provisions 

[[Page S575]]
     contained in this legislation. Farmers have long suggested a simpler 
     farm policy. The Agricultural Market Transition Act allows 
     farmers to make the production decisions that will offer the 
     best opportunity for profitability. Guaranteed, fixed 
     payments provide certainty and aid in long-range planning. 
     Finally, farmers can and will make the transition to greater 
     market reliance and less dependence on federal programs.
       Some opponents of this legislation favor a simple extension 
     of current law. A continuation of farm policy passed six 
     years ago will discourage corn producers from participating 
     in the farm program that will in turn jeopardize conservation 
     compliance. Real reform is necessary to maintain agriculture 
     as one of the strongest sectors of the nation's economy.
       The NCGA strongly urges you to vote to invoke cloture later 
     this week. Further, your support of the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act is needed to ensure that agriculture continues 
     to thrive into the next century. Thank you for your attention 
     to our concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bill Northey,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                       Coalition for a Competitive


                                     Food Agricultural System,

                                 Washington, DC, January 30, 1996.
     Hon. Larry E. Craig,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Craig: As the Senate prepares to take up the 
     farm bill, the Coalition for a Competitive Food and 
     Agricultural System urges you to support S. 1541, the 
     Agricultural Market Transition Act, as introduced, to reform 
     U.S. agricultural policies.
       U.S. agriculture needs to have a new farm program in place 
     quickly. Major provisions of the 1990 farm bill expired on 
     December 31, 1995. As a result, the only farm program 
     authorities now available to the Secretary of Agriculture for 
     many crops are the 1938 and 1949 Agricultural Adjustment 
     Acts. There is broad agreement that those authorities are no 
     longer workable. And, resuscitating the 1990 farm bill 
     provisions is not acceptable to most of U.S. agriculture.
       The Coalition, on behalf of its 127 member companies and 
     associations, believes S. 1541, as introduced, represents the 
     best policy alternative for agriculture. The bill would: (1) 
     reform and modernize farm programs; (2) provide a more 
     certain income safety net for farmers through direct 
     payments; (3) eliminate annual acreage reduction programs; 
     and (4) provide broad planting flexibility for farmers. These 
     proposals enjoy broad and growing support in the agricultural 
     community.
       Enclosed is a list of key points. Also enclosed is a 
     Coalition Backgrounder.
           Respectfully,
                                               Robert R. Petersen,
                                            Coalition Coordinator.

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, S. 1541 brings savings to the program. All 
of us want to accomplish that. It was the farmer that stood forth as 
soon as anyone else to say that a balanced budget is critical to our 
country and that a balanced budget is critical to the vitality of 
American agriculture; that American agriculture stands a lot better 
chance of surviving in an economy that is vibrant, in an economy where 
the consumers have access to and opportunity to purchase, with greater 
purchasing power that we believe the balanced budget would ultimately 
bring.
  Export subsidies would be curtailed, and of course peanut and sugar 
programs have gone through major reform. While those programs still 
have their critics here on the floor of the Senate, all of us can stand 
forward--those of us who work to produce these reforms--and demonstrate 
that clearly all of the commodity interests of our country have been 
sensitive to the kind of reform that moves us to the marketplace.
  I do not think the argument today that the consumer is paying the 
bill fits anymore. What does fit is the sensitivity to a fair playing 
field, especially in those industries that have to compete and must 
compete in worldwide economies.
  I do not think anyone in this country wants to see the destruction of 
a vibrant industry, or opening the borders in a way that allows dumping 
from Third World countries, as we have seen in the past, especially if 
the production in the Third World country is well below the marketplace 
and if it is subsidized by the sponsoring governments. That is what we 
can avoid, and that is what we have avoided here while complying with 
GATT, while in recognition of NAFTA. Markets must be balanced and they 
must be fair.
  I have never yet heard of a farmer or rancher in my State who would 
not say, ``Give me a level playing field and I will compete with the 
best in the world because I am the best in the world but I cannot 
compete against open subsidies or in a situation that allows those 
subsidized crops to be dumped in my domestic market.'' That is, of 
course, what we try to accomplish here in the type of balance and the 
kind of reform that we have brought to these programs.
  Conservation programs remain a critical part of any good farm bill. 
American agriculture has led the way in water quality, in saving our 
soil, and recognizing the vital interests of that industry by a sound 
environment and responding to that environment. Conservation programs 
will be a critical part of the bill. While we will continue to work 
this summer to finalize greater portions of the conservation title that 
meet the kind of critical environmental needs that is important out 
there in farmland America, what we are doing here is a major step in 
the right direction. I think it offers the opportunity to forestall any 
intrusive kind of regulation that could occur because it demonstrates 
that American agriculture was not only responsive to its own needs but 
sensitive to the criticisms of others where they were appropriately 
placed.

  Mr. President, S. 1541 is identical to the original balanced budget 
amendment with two exceptions: First, there is an increase in the size 
of dairy operations that could qualify for livestock environmental 
assistance; and another portion that is critical to my State and 
critical to a good many others, as we create flexibility in program 
crop areas that allow farmers to move toward the market, we do not want 
that farmer who is currently receiving Government support to be openly 
competing against a farmer who does not or has never received that. In 
simple terms, Mr. President, that simply would not be fair. Everybody 
in agriculture understands that.
  As a result of that, in the area of fruits and vegetables, they would 
qualify for current law, meaning that farmers who farm to the program 
and are in it with the flexibility and get the benefit of the 7-year 
payment program would not be allowed to use their flex acres in those 
productions.
  My State of Idaho raises potatoes. It is critical to the State and, I 
like to think, important to the Nation. But it is a very sensitive 
matter as it relates to availability and supply. A rush to plant 
potatoes in a relatively strong market could ultimately destroy that 
market or cause tremendous dislocation by some projection of unusual 
increases in planting. We are recognizing the need for transition. 
Potato farmers are not saying they should not compete, but why should 
they or any fruit or vegetable farmer compete against somebody who is 
receiving direct Government program benefits, as they would through the 
transition period? The answer, we think, and the fair answer is, they 
should not. That is why those areas have been left as current law 
provides.
  Mr. President, that is a brief summary of what we are attempting to 
accomplish in S. 1541. I certainly hope other colleagues would come to 
the floor to debate this issue today. We think it is important that we 
resolve it through this month, hopefully by early next month, or no 
later than the 1st of March we could go to conference between the House 
and the Senate, work out our differences, and in late winter or early 
spring let American agriculture know what farm policy is going to look 
like for the next good number of years. That keeps us in cycle with the 
normal planting cycles of our country and something we need to be 
responsive to.
  I understand there will be other legislation proposed later on in the 
afternoon. Senator Leahy is working on a proposed offering that will 
take a serious look at because all of us recognize that farm 
legislation, when it is good legislation, has always demonstrated the 
bipartisan approach that every good farm bill has ever been crafted on. 
Certainly this side wants to work with the other side in dealing with 
that issue, in solving the problems that we currently have.

  More important than that, though, is the timely message. I hope today 
and tomorrow we can debate this issue and vote on these issues. 
Clearly, that will send a signal--the House having brought a bill out 
of their committee yesterday, and hoping to be able to move on that 
within the next few weeks--that comes a long way toward 

[[Page S576]]
resolving the problems we want to resolve.
  With the flexibility and, I think, the simplicity, the certainty we 
are offering, the opportunity for transition in the markets and 
hopefully the profitability that I think can be produced by this type 
of program with farmers, we not only offer them up a good piece of work 
that I think we in the Senate can be proud of, but we say to American 
agriculture: We will partner with you, but we expect you to farm to the 
market and to be sensitive to market trends and to farm to the world 
consuming public. We will help you get there in the best ways 
Government can facilitate, and that is really all that any industry in 
this country should be able to ask for. It is a partnership that has 
long existed, and it is one that I think brings a kind of ability to 
American agriculture that they expect.
  Mr. President, I have no further comments at this time. We have the 
legislation now before us, and with recognition that no one is here on 
the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, 
was on the floor visiting about the farm bill. I wanted to discuss just 
briefly where we are and where we are headed on that issue. That is a 
very important issue to a lot of farm States. Tomorrow we will, I 
understand, be voting on a series of alternatives dealing with farm 
legislation.
  It is long past the time when Congress should have passed a farm 
bill. Last year was the year in which Congress was required to enact a 
5-year farm program. The Congress did in fact put a 5-year farm program 
in the reconciliation bill, but, of course, everyone knew that the 
President was going to veto that bill. The budget reconciliation bill 
had a whole series of other things in it, and the farm program was 
actually a very small part of it.
  The result of the President's veto of the reconciliation bill was 
that we are left without a farm program. Farmers are thinking about 
going into the field in the spring--some down South will be going into 
their fields in a matter of weeks--and there is no farm program. In 
North Dakota, they are not preparing to go into the field today, I 
guarantee you. It is a little too cold out there. But they are talking 
to their bankers and their farm equipment dealers. They are getting 
ready for the spring's work, and there is no farm program. They want to 
know what will the farm program be.
  It is a waste of time to be pointing fingers about who is at fault as 
to why we are so late and what has happened. What is most important, at 
this point, is for us to try to understand how can we construct a farm 
program that works for the benefit of family farmers and how can we do 
it soon.
  My hope is that by the end of the day tomorrow we will have passed 
from the Senate a proposal that we can put into conference with the 
House. Then we could in the next week get a conference committee and 
have a farm program passed and signed into law. We owe that to family 
farmers in this country.

  My understanding is that Senator Dole, the majority leader, will 
offer the freedom to farm bill. That bill has some provisions that I 
support. It does some things I cannot support. I have proposed an 
alternative that we will likely offer tomorrow called the Farm Security 
Act.
  I think common to both proposals would be the notion that the 
Government ought not to be telling the farmers how to plant, nor 
telling them when to plant, nor telling them where to plant. That is 
the straitjacket that we have in the current farm law. That, in my 
judgment, ought to be changed. We do not need the Government hip deep 
in planting decisions. Let farmers determine what they plant on base 
acres. The freedom to farm bill would do that. The Farm Security Act 
would do that. It seems to me that is a common objective that we could 
agree on.
  Most of us believe that we ought to forgive advance deficiency 
payments for farmers who suffered a crop loss last year. These farmers 
are now threatened with having to repay those amounts. If they did not 
have a crop, there is no money with which to pay. We should forgive 
that. The freedom to farm proposal would provide some relief for 
farmers on that score. So would the Farm Security Act.
  There are sufficient common elements, it seems to me, so that we 
should be able to reach agreement at the end of the day tomorrow on 
something that we could put into conference.
  The one major difference I would have with the freedom to farm bill 
is that it presupposes, with some up front attractive transitional 
payments, that we would then get rid of the farm program. In exchange 
for giving transitional payments to farmers now, it would repeal 
permanent farm law, the 1949 act. The purpose of all that is to provide 
some payment up front. You take the payment in exchange for getting out 
of the business of providing any kind of price supports at all in the 
future.
  I understand the short-term attractiveness of that. Yet, we know farm 
prices are going to go down. Grain prices go up, and they go down. The 
problem is they never go up on the up-side grid aggressively. Every 
time grain prices start to go up--and they are up some now--what 
happens is the grain trade starts floating rumors about embargoes, or 
somebody else starts doing something saying this is going to hurt 
consumers. They try to dampen prices. The farmers then never get the 
uplifting side of higher prices for any length of time. They should, 
but they do not because the larger economic interests are always in 
there trying to mess with grain prices. And they do it in a way that 
tends to collapse prices that family farmers need to make a living.
  Grain prices are up some points now. They are stronger, and they are 
higher. But they will go down, and they will collapse. because we have 
these cycles of ups and downs of grain prices. When these prices 
collapse, family farmers will not make it unless there is a safety net 
with some kind of loan rate or deficiency payment.
  Unless there is some safety net, these family farmers will get washed 
away, and they will be bankrupt. They do not have big enough financial 
strength to sustain a number of years of low prices, and these family 
farmers will be washed away.
  The freedom to farm bill would take away the safety net. It would 
give you some attractive payments up front. But, there will no longer 
be a farm program down the road. I can understand why that is 
attractive to some. However, it seems to me this is not a good trade. 
We ought to have a farm program in the long term. We ought to provide a 
basic safety net for family-size farmers.
  Tomorrow some of us will offer a Farm Security Act which provides 
some attractiveness on the front end as well. We would provide that we 
would not only forgive the advanced deficiency payments of last year 
for those who suffered a crop loss, but also that we would provide what 
would normally be a 50-percent advance deficiency payment this spring. 
This would not have to be repaid. This would be done in order to help 
family farms recapitalize their farms. Its a repayment of sorts for 
some difficult situations, acknowledging that Congress did not do its 
job and did not provide a farm bill when it should have done it last 
year.
  I do not mind providing some up-front attractive features. I am just 
as happy to do that in the Farm Security Act as they might be in the 
Freedom to Farm bill. But I will not do it under the condition that it 
is in exchange for pulling the rug out from under farmers later. I am 
not willing to say to farmers that when prices collapse you will not 
have a safety net. That is not a good trade.
  I think we have to decide in the Senate and in the Congress whether 
we care a rip whether there are family farmers in this country? Do we 
care at all? Some people may say it does not matter. Some say let 
corporations farm from California to Maine. And they will.
  Food prices will be higher when the large corporate interests capture 
most of the enterprises in family farming and they become part of large 
agrifactories. We will certainly have 

[[Page S577]]
much higher food prices. But it will mean more than that, more than 
food price economics.
  Go to a small town. I come from a small town of 300 people. Go to a 
small town and look around that town. We need to understand what is it 
that feeds the economic life of that small community. All across this 
country the blood vessels of our small towns are those yard lights out 
on the family farms. If you turn off those yard lights and turn those 
family farms into corporate agrifactories, all of those small towns die 
quickly.
  The question before us is both social and economic. Is there an 
interest in maintaining a network of family farms in this country's 
future? I think the answer is yes. If the answer is yes, then we ought 
to put together something with price supports that make sense for 
family farmers.
  When prices drop and stay down, we ought to put something together to 
put some payment in place which we will provide in the same basic level 
of a safety net in the long term.
  If we fail to provide some long-term safety net it means that we do 
not care whether our young farmers get started. It means we do not care 
whether there is renewal on family farms, and we do not care whether 
there are family farms and small towns in the future.
  I hope we can find a way by tomorrow evening to reach agreement on a 
bipartisan basis to pass a farm bill out of this Senate and put it into 
conference. We need a farm bill that provides some attractive features 
on the front end and one that provides much greater flexibility of 
planting for farmers, forgiveness of advance deficiency payments, and 
certainly the retention in the long term of a network of price supports 
for family farms.
  If we can do that, we will have done something significant. There is 
no reason, if we work together, that we cannot have finished a farm 
bill by the end of next week, one which the President could sign and 
one which will provide family farmers some certainty about their 
future.

                          ____________________