[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S578-S580]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT OF 1996
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I hope that we can enact farm
legislation quickly. I just met with a group of farmers in my State.
They expressed to me the need to work with their bankers to make their
spring plans for planting. They expressed to me the need to have a farm
bill passed for purposes of their planning, so that they could have
certainty of their investment.
There has been much debate in this Chamber over the years on farm
policy. I know that there are currently several approaches that are
floating around the Chamber. One is, more or less, some modification of
the Freedom to Farm Act, as suggested by Congressman Roberts and
others, there is another plan to have a new farm bill and another to
continue the present farm bill for a year.
I suspect that in this Senate with the need for cloture, it will be
hard to get a cleancut decision on any one of those bills. I suspect
that we will have to have a compromise of one of those approaches.
Let me say that in talking to the farmers from my State--these
particular farmers were grain farmers, corn and wheat farmers--they
thought the Freedom to Farm Act would be most advantageous to them from
what they had heard and from what they knew about it. They felt
strongly that they might even like to try some new crops, crops that
they do not presently grow now, or do some experimenting with new
crops. Under the traditional farm programs where we have commodity
programs for this crop and that crop, as defined in legislation,
producers are locked in to growing corn or wheat or whatever. They
expressed to me support for planting flexibility under the concept of
freedom to farm.
I am concerned about having a cap on who receives benefits. If we had
freedom to farm, a cap on the income levels of farmers who might
receive benefits or possibly the size of farm or something other test
might be needed. There also has been a debate over the budgetary
numbers, and we always have different budgetary numbers. Congressman
Roberts argues that his plan would actually save the taxpayers money
and lead us into the time when commodity prices might be much higher.
The advantage to extending the current farm bill would be that we are
in the midst of a planting season, that this is a program that our
people have become accustomed to and that they can farm and prosper, to
some extent.
Underlying all of this is the fact that commodity prices have gone
above what the target price trigger is; that is wheat and corn prices
are above the level that they receive a subsidy. So farmers are paying
back the so-called deficiency payments, and this has caused some
hardship because people have used those deficiency payments in their
operations. But there is provision for the Secretary of Agriculture to
[[Page S579]]
make adjustments where there is hardship.
Mr. President, I know that tomorrow we will have a cloture vote--we
may have more than one cloture vote--and then we will have some
amendments. It might well be that we have an experimental 2-year
freedom to farm with some continuation of the deficiency payments
program. But above all, we should act, because on too many issues, for
one reason or another, Washington has not produced either a budget or a
farm bill or, indeed, a telecommunications bill, which I hope we will
produce soon also.
We have the people's work to do, and I hope we are here and doing it.
But I urge that this Chamber come to a conclusion on the farm bill
tomorrow or, hopefully, within a week. I will be here to assist in that
process, as will my colleagues.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the farm bill has become a focal point now
for legislation in Washington and not too soon. I think it is the first
time in 40 or 50 years we have failed to enact a farm bill in the year
that the farm program expired. So we are a year late, and this is what
my distinguished friend from South Dakota is saying.
I worry about the Freedom to Farm Act because that is a check that
goes to the farmer, and, basically, some farmers are referring to it as
welfare. You can lock your door, go to Florida, and still get your
check and not raise any grain, not raise any crop. Therefore, your
local fertilizer dealer, local equipment dealer, local feed and seed
people no longer will be selling. So, therefore, it worries a lot of
folks that the so-called payment, regardless of whether you have a high
price or a low price, will be received.
That does not seem quite fair to me, where under the present program
you stabilize the market. If you go under, the prices are lower than
the set price, then you get some help. If it goes above that, then you
make a profit and you do not need the money. So somehow or another, it
has stabilized, in my mind, the market.
What is so frustrating now to the farmers is it appears that it is
this or nothing. In the beginning, the Freedom to Farm Act was opposed
by the American Farm Bureau late last November. We have copies of the
letter where they oppose the freedom to farm act.
Now, as we fail to enact a farm bill and we get closer to the time
where southern States are beginning to plant, or within the next few
weeks, they are very concerned. The farmers in my State who are
preparing for the spring are very concerned about their financial
situation.
I think we have to be very careful that we do not allow the last-
minute gasp here to remove the safety net for the farmers in the
future, because under the Freedom to Farm Act, the farm program in 7
years is gone, or sooner than that when the general public finds that
if you do not farm, you get a check every year, and it could be up to
as high as $120,000 a year. The general public is not going to like
that.
You can cut all the deals you want to for milk and nutrition and all
those sort of things and pass the Freedom to Farm Act, or at least send
it to conference. I think that it is incumbent upon all of us to be
sure that the future of farming stays around.
In my State, the average farm is 157 acres. So farming is a very
narrow operation as to the products, as to the income and for stability
in our farm program.
Mr. President, I have real concerns. The Senator from South Dakota
talks about flexibility. You have a quota, you have an allotment,
whatever it might be, as to acres. We propose that you have
flexibility, that you do not lose--say you have 100 acres and you want
to take 30 acres to try something else. If something else does not
work, then you can revert back to your 100 acres. So it gives
flexibility.
You can give to farmers a good, well-thought-out, debated farm bill
to give them a future and a safety net that I think will be more in
keeping with our, or at least, what my idea is of a farm bill for
agriculture's future.
So, Mr. President, I hope that when tomorrow comes and we try to push
a farm bill through quickly--and maybe a telecommunications bill,
whatever it might be here--that we do not rush through without giving
as much thought to the future of farming in this great country as we
should.
I think you will find some offers tomorrow, ways that can be, I feel,
a good future for agriculture, rather than saying, ``Here is a check
every year for the next 7 years, and at the end of that time, you are
out on your own.''
My small farmer will not be able to accommodate that. I think we
ought to pass a farm bill that gives hope to the farmer and
encouragement to young farmers to stay on the farm and not move so
quickly on the basis of being under the gun.
We have delayed in this Congress, more than any time during my 21
years, right up to the hilt. It is the first time I have not been able
to see a farm bill until this late--yesterday afternoon--which we are
going to be called upon to vote on tomorrow. Just highlights of the
farm bill were in the Record, but I would like an opportunity to read
the fine print. I was brought up that ``the devil is in the fine
print.'' I want to read the fine print and see what this bill and piece
of legislation says.
Mr. President, I hope that eventually we have a farm bill that we all
can be proud of, which the farming community can rally around, and that
we do not leave any particular field--if that is a good word for
farming--out hanging by itself, not protected and cared for as we would
like it to be for the future.
So I am very concerned about the farm bill. I am concerned that we
will just get rid of it or push it so we can go out and have
Presidential politics in the next few weeks. I think that happens to be
very important to several of our colleagues. But I do not believe that
the farm States are interested in us doing something hastily, which
would not bring them a future as it relates to the community.
Farm products and prices are good. So, as I understand it, we have
saved about $5 billion that was set aside for the farmers if the prices
were projected, as CBO said they were going to be, downward. Instead of
that, CBO was wrong on this one. The prices have gone up. There is
about $5 billion not expended that was based on the projection of CBO
about this time last year.
So it just proves that CBO is not right all the time and that we have
the ability to make the farm bill substantial and stabilize the market
through some of the procedures we have held onto in the past. Secondly,
we can give flexibility to the farmer to try new products, without
losing their total allotment or set-aside.
So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to be very careful in their
deliberation of the farm bill tomorrow. If it takes another day, so be
it. We have waited now a year. We are about a year late in passing the
farm bill. Usually, we have a 5-year farm bill. At least, in 1985 and
1990 we did. Most of the farmers were able to operate under that
because we gave them some long-term stability.
My colleague from South Dakota indicated there might be just an
extension with a few changes in the present farm bill in order to give
us more time to be sure that our farm bill for the future is correct.
That may be something we want to give serious consideration to--a year
or two extension of the present farm bill, with some modification as it
relates to the deficiency payments.
I understand the dilemma. You have a deficiency payment, you are not
entitled to it, and you are supposed to pay it back. Now the farmers
have used it and do not want to pay it back or cannot pay it back. I
understand that. But there was an understanding in the beginning.
So my point here--and it may not be very cogent--is that I hope my
colleagues will be very careful before they rush pell-mell into trying
to get a farm bill out of here tomorrow so we can go home tomorrow
night. We ought to stay here and develop a good farm bill that would be
in the interest of the future of the farmers.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
[[Page S580]]
Mr. KYL. 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. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for up to 20
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________