[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S584-S586]
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. CRAIG. May I inquire of the Chair what is the current order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is S. 1541, the farm 
bill.
  Mr. CRAIG. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from Idaho is 
recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon, I spoke on the 
floor of the importance of this Senate dealing with farm policy in a 
timely manner that sends the appropriate signals to American 
agriculture of what they can expect in the reform policy that the 104th 
Congress is proposing.
  This afternoon, I earlier spoke of the commodity programs and how 
they would be affected as we move with production agriculture much 
closer to the market and away from a Government program with which to 
farm.
  There is a good deal more that Government can do for agriculture and 
still stay out of the business of telling them what to grow and how to 
grow it, because I think that is the responsibility of the family 
farmer, and I think that family farmer, or anybody in agriculture 
today, ought to be attuned to the market and ought to be farming to the 
market and deciding what his or her business may be, to what the world 
needs and what our consuming public needs than what a Government 
program will provide them or not provide them in telling them what to 
do.
  In other words, what I am saying, Mr. President, is there are 
legitimate roles for the Federal Government in its association with 
agriculture. I think some 

[[Page S585]]
of those obvious areas are in the area of research, trade and 
conservation. I say that because where Government should involve itself 
is where the individual farmer or family farmer really cannot help 
themselves or cannot help themselves in an individual way.
  American farmers, without question, lead the world in productivity. 
One American farmer today, and we have all heard it said, produces 
enough for himself or herself and 120 other citizens. It was not very 
long ago, at least it was not very long ago in this Senator's mind, 
when I was traveling as a national officer for the Future Farmers of 
America in the 1960's, the midsixties.
  I remember well giving speech after speech where I spoke of the 
productivity of the American farmer. I oftentimes said that the 
American farmer produces enough for himself and 52 other Americans or 
52 other citizens of the world. I just got through saying in 1996 that 
the American farmer produces enough for himself or herself and 120 
other Americans or world citizens. Is it possible that productivity has 
more than doubled in 30-plus years? That is absolutely right, Mr. 
President, and the reason it has is because of research, the kind of 
research long term that has been done in direct association with the 
Federal Government where we, as taxpayers and as policymakers, can 
recognize the importance of long-term investment in the research area 
and that is, of course, where our land grant colleges and universities 
and our ag research stations have worked so very well over the years.

  That is a legitimate role. That is the right kind of role that 
Government can play an important part in doing and, of course, that is 
where we ought to continue to work so closely together.
  The different varieties, the E. coli bacteria problem that has cost 
lives in this country, can be dealt with and solved by the simple 
application of some research and by the proper education that can be a 
part and should be a part of a Government's role in participating with 
production agriculture.
  In my State of Idaho, there are some extraordinary things being done. 
Just recently, I was part of an announcement between USDA and the 
Department of Energy working cooperatively in a new research program. 
You scratch your head and say, ``Well, what is the Department of Energy 
doing in agriculture?'' Because of the kind of technology that has been 
developed in DOE, in sensors, in the ability to use satellite and 
satellite technology, USDA and DOE are coming together in a project out 
in Idaho that literally links the farmer and his or her tractor and 
applicator on the ground with a satellite back to a computer to tell 
them exactly where they are in the field, how much fertilizer to apply 
or not to apply. Phenomenal efficiencies come from the application, a 
greater sense of environmental control comes from the application and, 
as a result, cost savings and extremely high levels of productivity.
  Could that be done by the individual farmer? No, it certainly cannot 
be done. Can it be done by industry? Not very well. When the kind of 
research and turnaround time is measured in decades, that is where 
Government can play a role, and that is where this Congress recognizes 
Government should play a role. It is a much better place for Government 
to be associated with agriculture than telling the farmer what to farm, 
telling them how to farm it, and oftentimes then saying, ``And we'll 
provide you a safety net at the end.''
  While we recognize the importance of those kinds of commodity 
programs, what our bill says and what we are clearly saying in the 
104th Congress, as we have said over the last decade to production 
agriculture, learn to farm to the market and not to the program.
  The other area that I mention this afternoon is in the area of trade. 
Obviously, if we are as highly productive as I mentioned we are, then 
we have to have a market for our crops. That kind of productivity, 
absent the market, says that we are not going to get the kind of price 
for the product that deserves to be had and certainly provide that kind 
of profitability. Therefore, it is important that we have a strong 
domestic trade policy and, as we know, trade means you have to involve 
governments, you have to cross political boundaries, and that cannot be 
accomplished very well oftentimes by the individual farmer unless it is 
the Government working with their farmers to accomplish that.
  In my State of Idaho, almost three-fourths of our annual wheat crop 
is exported. It has to move in world markets to maintain levels of 
profitability. In addition, we send large amounts of meat, peas, 
lentils, dairy products, and potato products to other countries around 
the world. Since the passage of NAFTA, we have seen some positive and 
some negative results. Cattle producers in my State are increasingly 
worried about the slaughter cattle moving in across the boundary, both 
from Mexico and from Canada.
  Now and in the future, we must be assured that our trade negotiations 
and our trade policy fairly represents American agriculture, and if we 
are to walk away from and work with agriculture to move away from the 
kind of direct Federal payment and safety net to productivity in the 
marketplace, we have to make sure that they have full access to foreign 
markets. That is a legitimate role of Government associated with 
agriculture.
  We also must continue our effort to develop and maintain the foreign 
market by investing in those markets, by working with production 
agriculture to teach foreign consumers how to consume the agricultural 
products of this country. That is an important and successful 
partnership that has worked time and time again over the years, whether 
it is actually the development of wheat products in China that my State 
has been involved in with the Federal Government and our wheat growers, 
to the marketing of lentils somewhere in the Middle East and to a 
market use and expanded diversity in their use in the recipes of the 
Mideasterners. That is all a role, once again, that Government plays 
very successfully.
  So let me urge my colleagues to support all of these approaches. It 
is one thing to say we are going to simply provide for agriculture, and 
historically that is some of what we did to what we have been saying 
for the last decade: American agriculture, farm to the market, be 
productive, do what you know how to do and do it well, and then we will 
help you break down the foreign barriers which will access you to the 
world so that you can be productive.
  The third area that I believe Government can play a cooperative 
partnership role in is in the area of conservation. For example, the 
CRP program, while originally quite controversial in its introduction, 
has proved to be a highly successful program in the saving of topsoil 
and the improving of water quality and wildlife habitat.
  In my State of Idaho, almost 850,000 acres went into CRP. The record 
is now very, very clear of the tremendously positive effect, converting 
those acreages into sod bases, and what allowing them to rest 
undisturbed has done for all of the areas I have mentioned, including 
wildlife habitat. Upland game bird population increases in my State 
have been very dramatic as a result of these programs.
  So that, again, is the kind of partnership that the Government can 
associate itself with, and I think oftentimes should. Targeting truly 
erodible lands, we can continue a successful program under a voluntary 
participation. I believe, Mr. President, voluntary is the key when we 
discuss agricultural conservation. We have made some changes over the 
years that I have not liked and that American agriculture has not 
liked.
  We, historically, did allow Government to work in a voluntary, 
cooperative way with production agriculture, except in the mid 1980's, 
when we started making some changes and making conservation policy 
mandatory, and dictating. We started saying to the USDA, ``You are 
going to be the cop out in the field saying, `You are doing it wrong, 
and you have to do it differently or suffer the consequences.' '' When 
that kind of news hit the ground--and we saw it in the late 1980's--
relationships and partnerships began to change. There was no longer the 
voluntary aspect that had caused the conservation program to be as 
successful as it was. And we heard about it, very loudly and clearly, 
this year as we held hearings on this issue in the subcommittee, which 
I chair.
  Conservation, partnership, cooperation, and voluntary relationships 
have 

[[Page S586]]
proven very successful over the years. Any other form and our resource 
base suffers, and it should not have to suffer. Farmers and ranchers, 
in my opinion, always have been, and must always be, the original 
environmentalists. We are the groundskeepers, the stewards of the 
private land, and the private land is the largest base in this country. 
If we are going to have a positive environment, that private property 
base must recognize the responsibility it has, and it has successfully 
done so over the years, whether it is erodible lands or whether it is 
the wetlands that we dealt with in the sod buster provisions of the 
farm bill of a few years ago and now, working with that again, to not 
make it so punitive, to make it cooperative, to include wetlands in the 
CRP base, so that you reward the farmer for moving that land out of 
production and into a protected type of classification, is what we 
ought to be doing, because we all recognize the value of wetlands to 
our Nation as a habitat and as a filtering system to the aquifers and 
to the productive sector of our country. That is cooperation, 
partnership, and that is the way it ought to be.
  I am certainly pleased that the kind of legislation that I have 
helped craft this year in revamping and bringing forth the new farm 
bill fits these criteria and moves us in a direction that I think most 
of production agriculture wants to move in. It puts Government in a 
relationship that it ought to be in.
  Mr. SMITH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________