[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.

                          ____________________