[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 14 (Thursday, February 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S676-S684]
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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how many minutes are left on our side of
the aisle on debate of the farm bill at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 18 minutes 45 seconds remaining on
the Republican side.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself 10 minutes. Before speaking, I ask
unanimous consent that George Stickels, a fellow in my office, have
access to the floor during the debate on the farm bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the issue before us is one of the utmost
importance, the farm bill. We have to debate this now because, as
everybody knows, the commodity provisions of the new farm bill were
part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. That Budget Act was vetoed by
the President. The farm bill provisions went down with that. We did not
have the votes to overturn the President's veto on the Balanced Budget
Act.
Consequently, the farmers of America do not know for the first time
in 5 years, since we passed the 1990 farm bill, what the Government
policy is toward agriculture. This is necessary information that must
be factored in to a lot of business decisions that are made by farmers.
The legislation that is before us will guarantee an investment of $6
billion in rural America this crop year, an investment in rural America
at a time when there is a tremendous transition from the agriculture of
the last half of the 20th century to the more free market,
international-trade-oriented agriculture of the 21st century. When this
transition is going on, this is when we need to bring some certainty to
the business decisions of agriculture as best we can.
There has been some fault found, particularly on the other side of
the aisle, with the fact that we might be spending $6 billion in rural
America as an investment when grain prices are high, even though there
is not a profit in cattle, there is not a profit in livestock
generally, particularly cattle and pigs, but right now there is some
profit in grain.
Some people have said on the floor of this body that we are giving
welfare to farmers at a time when there are high prices. The
inclination is to say that there is too much money in this farm bill
for agriculture. I have heard some of those same Members say that they
could not vote for farm bills in the past because they did not do
enough for agriculture. How ironic that we have the same people today
suggesting that we might be passing a farm bill that is too good for
agriculture. It just does not add up.
Not only does it guarantee an investment in agriculture of about
$43.5 billion over the next 7 years in this transition from a
Government-controlled agriculture to a free market agriculture, but it
goes from an agriculture system inclined toward domestic production for
domestic consumption to a farm program for production to meet the
competition and the demand of international trade. There is no more
important time to do that.
Also, this legislation locks in the agricultural baseline and
guarantees an investment in rural America of this $43 billion. It is
important to have that baseline out there because this legislation,
like most legislation, does not provide for a farm program beyond the
sunset year of 2002.
There will be plenty of time for Congress to enact legislation beyond
that period of time. But if we are not careful, what we do today will
preclude agriculture having a baseline, and then when we come up with a
farm program beyond the year 2002, it may be impossible to raise the
money for that baseline.
This bill before us locks in that baseline, guarantees payments to
farmers and for other programs such as conservation programs and export
programs. It provides a real safety net by
[[Page S677]]
making sure that there are payments even when we have low yields that
push prices higher.
Again, we have an ironic situation here where some people on the
other side of the aisle are suggesting that because grain prices are
high, there should not be any Government program. Do not forget about
those farmers in west central Illinois, the northern third of Missouri,
the southern third of Iowa, plus a lot of other places--I only mention
those because they are close to the Midwest where I am from--who do
have high prices but because of the wet spring and the flooding
conditions could not plant their grains last year. They do not have
grain to sell at a high price.
This program will help those people as well.
So it guarantees a 7-year payment. It will help a farmer in his cash
flow situation have a steady, predictable cash-flow. At least a portion
of that would come in Government payments that will allow the farmers
and their bankers to make long-term business decisions that are so
important to the success of agriculture.
This legislation also maximizes farmers' profit potential. The Food
and Agriculture Policy Research Institute--this is a combination
research institute of the University of Missouri and Iowa State
University--estimates that even though payments from the Treasury will
decline 21 percent under this bill from the previous 5 years, gross
farm income will increase by 13 percent and net farm income by 27
percent over the next 10 years.
We eliminate this process by which people in the urban areas can say
farmers are getting paid for not tilling the soil. This eliminates the
set-aside authority so that farmers can send a clear signal to our
international competition that we are going to produce on every
productive acre what we can to meet international trade demands, to
meet the humanitarian demands of a growing population throughout the
world that otherwise, without the productivity of the American farmer,
could have more instances of famine.
We give increased flexibility to the farmers to make planting
decisions. We take that decisionmaking out of the hands of Washington
bureaucrats and public servants.
It will be in the mind and office of every farmer to decide how many
acres of corn or how many acres of soybeans to plant. Presently, those
decisions are made, to the greatest extent, by people in Washington,
far removed from the reality of farming, ignoring the marketplace and
trying to insert their judgment upon the people on the spot. Full
flexibility means plant what you want to plant, not what some
Washington bureaucrat says.
This legislation significantly reduces Government regulation and
bureaucratic redtape, thus enabling our farmers to compete in the world
marketplace. It increases flexibility, or the increased flexibility
allows farmers to plant specifically beyond what they would normally
plant, moving to other crops, particularly the emphasis in American
agriculture today to have value-added products instead of simply the
traditional commodities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair for yielding to me. I ask if the Chair
will remind me when I reach the 4-minute mark. At that point, I will
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is 4 minutes remaining on your time or 4
minutes----
Mr. PRYOR. No, I want to speak only 4 minutes, Mr. President, and
then I will yield to the distinguished minority leader.
Mr. President, I was standing here listening a moment ago to my good
friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. He talked about regulations and
bureaucrats and freedom to farm and all of those things that we talk
about generally when we have an agriculture bill on the floor. For us
to have an agriculture bill on the floor for a 1996 program, I might
say, is somewhat unique, because the normal process for the first time
in 60 years did not work.
We did not draft this legislation in the Agriculture Committee. This
legislation, basically, was born and drafted, passed from the Budget
Committees of the House and the Senate. But when we talk about
regulations and bureaucrats and freedom to farm and all of the
constraints placed on farmers today in our country, let us also
remember something else: That we today are the envy of the world with
the production of food and fiber in our country for the rest of the
world. We have the opportunity to feed the rest of the world. In many
instances, had it not been for the American farmer and the American
farm system, which we are about to annihilate, we would see that many
areas of the world would have gone hungry.
I say this in all respect to those advocates for the freedom to farm
legislation. If we pass this legislation, we will be going on a cheap
drunk. We will be sorry, and we will rue the day that we totally
dismantled the farm programs that have served this country and served
this world so well.
The two people and the two groups of persons and the two entities, I
think, who should be supporting the freedom to farm bill are those
competitors of ours in the international market. They should be
supporting the freedom to farm bill, because it is going to be a total
disruption of farm ownership ultimately in our country. We are going to
see the small fail and the large and the powerful prevail.
Second, the big landowners should love the freedom-to-farm bill. They
should love the freedom to farm bill because their farms are going to
get bigger, their farms are going to become richer, their farms are
going to produce more and more, and the small family farmers are going
to be there with less and less.
The other aspect of this legislation--and I hope my friend from Iowa
will address this, or some other proponent of freedom to farm--does
anyone in this Chamber feel that we can in this calendar year
implement, have the regulations and administer a totally new farm
program for all of America's farmers? This is not a 7-year farm bill.
This is a bill that is going to last until the first show on ``60
Minutes'' embarrasses us, embarrasses farmers by showing that the
farmer no longer has to produce in order to get a big paycheck from the
Federal Government. It is a 7-year welfare program.
It is wrong, Mr. President, and we should be no part of it. We should
defeat the motion for cloture. We should enact a farm bill only after
we, in this Senate, and in the Senate Agriculture Committee, perhaps
the House committee, have the opportunity to shape a farm bill that
will look beyond 7 years and then to the next seven generations.
Mr. President, today we are considering what will prove to be one of
the most important and most disastrous pieces of legislation affecting
the State of Arkansas and family farms across this Nation. Agriculture
has been and continues to be an integral part of the fabric that makes
up rural America and is responsible, directly or indirectly, for about
1 out of every 5 jobs throughout America.
In Arkansas, from Texarkana to Blytheville, from Gentry to Eudora,
families all across our State make enormous contributions to the
world's food and fiber supply. In 1994 alone, Arkansas farmers
harvested over 8 million acres of agricultural products: rice: 1.42
million acres produced over 175 million bushels of rice; cotton:
970,000 acres produced over 1.7 million bales of cotton; soybeans: 3.4
million acres produced 115.6 million bushels of soybeans; wheat:
880,000 acres produced 40.5 million bushels of wheat; and corn: 90,000
acres produced 10.8 million bushels of corn.
With crops, poultry, and livestock combined, Arkansas' farmers and
ranchers were responsible for over $5 billion in economic activity for
our State. So why am I concerned? Because, the legislation under
consideration before the U.S. Senate is the beginning of the end for
farm programs and the safety net function they perform. We can argue
over whether it will happen in 2 years or in 7, but the undisputable
fact is that the safety net will disappear.
Perhaps some of my colleagues favor this approach. Perhaps some
Senators feel that farm programs are not a good deal. I would simply
point out that for roughly one-half cent out of every Federal dollar,
our farm programs provide
[[Page S678]]
the safest, most affordable, and abundant supply of food and fiber in
the world. Americans spend about 10 percent of their disposable income
on food--compared to the French who spend 16 percent, the Japanese who
spend 18 percent, Chinese who spend 48 percent, and Indians who spend
53 percent--it is hard to imagine a better deal.
My good friends may be wondering--how did this come to be, how could
we pay so little and get so much? The answer, in large part, is due to
just how productive our farmers and ranchers have become. The U.S.
agriculture represents some 3 percent of the world's agriculture labor
force, yet it produces about 40 percent of the world's corn, about 15
percent of the world's cotton, about 50 percent of the world's
soybeans, about 10 percent of the world's wheat, about 25 percent of
the world's beef, and about 11 percent of the world's pork.
Now, I can hear someone suggesting that if agriculture is so
productive and costs so little, why do they need any support at all?
Why should we help agriculture over other industries? Mr. President,
agriculture is unique. It is like no other industry in our economy.
Farmers are almost entirely at the mercy of Mother Nature, as well as
the actions of foreign governments, both of which are entirely out of
their control. But even worse, unlike most businesses, farmers and
ranchers have no control over the prices they receive. They are price
takers, not price setters. The weather and policy in China could, and
usually does, have more control over how well an Arkansas cotton farmer
does from one year to the next than anything the farmer could do.
Perhaps, there are other colleagues who are under illusions that
agriculture spending has been like most other Federal programs that
have grown ever larger. Perhaps they believe agriculture must be one of
those programs where we debate what is a true cut or what is just a cut
in the rate of increase.
Among many other points, a bipartisan group of Senators pointed out
to the Budget Committee that agriculture spending has come down by
about 60 percent in the last decade, from $26 billion in fiscal year
1986 to less than $11 billion fiscal year 1994.
Mr. President, I wanted to point out all of this information for one
simple reason. It makes absolutely no sense to abandon these
successes--and successes they are--for a policy that is irresponsible,
irrational and, most importantly, indefensible.
The freedom-to-farm bill under consideration would pay farmers
whether the market warranted it or not--despite the other side calling
this a market-oriented bill. Under freedom to farm, it makes absolutely
no difference what the market conditions are. The farmer gets his or
her payment regardless. According to economists, prices are supposed to
be good for the next couple of years, but as we all know, few years of
high prices are most commonly followed by a few years of low prices as
farmers around the world create an oversupply of a commodity chasing
that higher price. The tragedy, in this scenario, is as follows:
Suppose in 2 years farmers receive payments despite high market prices.
The media and the public become outraged by the waste and the 105th
Congress responds to the outcry by removing the remaining payments from
the farmer. This could happen because the so-called contract doesn't
bind a future Congress. The next time commodity prices plummet and
farmers need a safety net, it will be gone.
Some proponents have called this a contract modeled after the popular
CRP contract which paid farmers to remove land from production. They
point out that over the 10-year life of these contracts, Congress
always honored them. The difference, Mr. President, is that in return
for funding a CRP contract the taxpayers receive a specific public
benefit such as conservation, wildlife habitat, or water quality. The
freedom-to-farm contract has nothing in it for the public or taxpayer.
The taxpayer simply transfers money to the farmer for no other reason
than that the farmer was in some sort of agriculture program in at
least 1 out of the last 5 years.
The bill we are considering is a perfect script for a ``60 Minutes''
or a ``Prime Time Live'' show called the ``Fleecing of America,'' when
it's discovered that under this bill a farmer can receive the freedom-
to-farm payment and not do anything at all. That's right, Mr.
President, under this legislation, a farmer can receive thousands upon
thousands of tax dollars and spend the entire growing season in the
Caribbean or Bahamas. In fact, the only restriction is that if they
grow something it can't be fruits or vegetables. Other than that, sand
and sun would be the only worries on the minds of farmers as the
taxpayer would foot the bill.
But, a word of warning. For all those that would take this approach,
may I suggest they invest your payments wisely. Find a good money
manager or investment banker because they're going to need them. If
what many predict will happen when word gets out about this program,
you will have to make a couple of years worth of promised payments last
a very long time.
Mr. President, supporters of this bill tout endorsements by
agribusiness companies and big processors. This should not come as a
surprise to my colleagues. It is very simple; this freedom-to-farm bill
will ultimately drive the price of commodities down. Whether a big
company is purchasing feed for livestock or grain to process and mill,
they want to pay the family farmer as little as possible. They want to
buy low and sell high like Wall Street speculators, with no concern for
the future of farming.
The freedom-to-farm bill gets worse. By capping the programs based on
economic projections and theoretically locking those in, we give no
room for error. I would defy anyone to find an economist anywhere in
the world who has accurately predicted the price of a commodity with
any accuracy for a full 7-year stretch. It simply cannot be done. Yet,
that is the logic embodied in this bill. We are entrusting the future
of the farmers of this country with some guess by economists down at
the Congressional Budget Office [CBO]. And, if they guess wrong about,
for instance, the price of rice in the year 2001, the farmers in my
State will be left with little recourse and less help.
The proponents of this legislation have said that it is important
because of the baseline problem. Baselines in agriculture only matter
in two circumstances: First, if you require ag to come up with unfair
and unreasonable cuts, as the Republicans have; or second, if you cap
the programs so the baseline can never adjust upward, which the
Republicans also have done. So, there is a budget baseline problem, but
only if you buy into the rest of the flawed Republican policy.
Although the Republicans did indeed manage to capture the baseline, I
am at a loss to understand why they would want to capture it after a
decade of reduction--over 60 percent. Conversely, why not wait until
this bill forces a decline in market prices that will automatically
raise the baseline again before we try to capture anything.
We will rue the day we pass a freedom-to-farm bill. What we must all
realize is this ends farm programs. It unilaterally disarms our farmers
against the rest of the world. In fact, the only farmers this bill is
good for are those in France, Thailand, Argentina, and any other
foreign country.
In the first years, this bill will prove to be a taxpayer ripoff. In
the later years, it will prove to be false hope and empty promises as
the safety net for American agriculture is destroyed. Let us at least
change the name to reflect accuracy. Maybe we should call it the bait
and switch act of 1995, or as others have suggested, the freedom-from-
farming bill or the farmers death assistance act.
For all the reasons I have mentioned today and many more I have not
had the opportunity to make, I cannot and will not be associated with
ending the necessary safety net our farmers and our consumers depend
on. Therefore, I will vote against the freedom-to-farm bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter sent
to Senator Domenici be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[[Page S679]]
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, February 6, 1995.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Senate Budget Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As the Senate Budget Committee begins
consideration of the FY 1996 budget resolution, we understand
it has under review a number of options, including possible
reductions in agriculture-related spending. Difficult
challenges are facing your committee as well as Congress as a
whole. However, we believe it is important for a number of
reasons that agriculture not be unfairly singled out to bear
a disproportionate share of any required spending reduction
as part of any budget proposal.
First, agriculture spending has already been reduced
substantially in recent years as a result of the 1990 Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act and subsequent legislation which
reduced income and price supports; limited eligibility and
participation; imposed new or higher fees and other
assessments related to certain programs; and reduced the
availability of funds for certain export and market promotion
programs. As a result, Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
outlays for farm commodity programs have declined from a high
of $26 billion in FY 1986 to less than $11 billion in FY
1994, a reduction of almost 60 percent. Outlays are projected
to remain below this level for FY 1995-2000. By contrast,
total federal spending during this same period increased by
approximately 50 percent, and entitlement programs nearly
doubled. Such spending is projected to continue to increase
significantly in the future.
Second, as a result of legislation relating to USDA
reorganization, future agriculture outlays are further
expected to decline by as much as $3.6 billion through FY
1999 with the closing of over 1,200 field offices,
eliminating approximately 11,000 employees, and consolidating
43 separate agencies into 29. No other Department or federal
agency has undergone such an extensive reorganization.
Third, while there may be opportunities for additional
savings, it is important before any further reductions are
required to ensure that such action does not jeopardize the
continued ability of U.S. agriculture to meet the food and
fiber needs of consumers at home and abroad. U.S. farmers are
the most efficient and competitive in the world, and our
government policies and programs should help maintain the
technological advantages that will enable them to stay that
way.
Under the recent Uruguay Round GATT agreement, the U.S.
along with other countries, is required to reduce its support
for domestic farm programs by 20 percent by the year 2000
from the 1986-88 base period. However, the U.S. has already
more than achieved such reductions. To make further
reductions in such programs without requiring similar
corresponding reductions by the European Union and other
foreign competitors would be unfair to U.S. farmers.
History has shown that our foreign competitors will utilize
every possible resource to maintain and expand their share of
the world market. The European Union (EU), for example,
continues to significantly outspend the U.S. in terms of its
support for agriculture and in competing for foreign markets.
In 1994, outlays for domestic farm programs by the EU
amounted to more than $30 billion, nearly three times the
U.S. level of outlays.
In terms of export subsidies, the EU has outspent the U.S.
6 to 1 over the past 5 years. Although the GATT agreement
will require a reduction in the use of such subsidies, the EU
will be able to more than maintain its substantial advantage.
Further, as export subsidies are reduced, the EU can be
expected to redirect much of those resources into other GATT-
allowable programs to maintain and strengthen the
competitiveness of its agricultural sector.
Without asssistance from our government, U.S. agriculture
will be at a competitive disadvantage. Not only would this
adversely affect America's ability to capitalize on potential
market opportunities as a result of GATT, but our ability to
remain competitive in existing markets, both domestic and
foreign, could be affected as well.
This could have significant consequences for both the
economy and the budget. Nearly one million Americans have
jobs which are dependent on agricultural exports alone.
Exports now account for more than a third of total U.S. crop
production and total over $43 billion. This results in a
positive trade balance of nearly $18 billion. Such exports
also account for approximately $100 billion in economic
activity and, in turn, helps generate as much as $8 billion
in related Federal tax revenues.
Overall, our agriculture and food industries account for
nearly 16 percent of GDP and nearly 1 out of every 6 American
jobs. Other sectors of the economy, including input
manufacturing, handling, processing, marketing and
transportation, are heavily dependent on a healthy
agricultural economy. Any significant reduction in
agriculture's balance sheet will have a corresponding effect
on commercial banks and other lending institutions, including
the farm credit system.
Finally, it is important to recognize why we have farm
programs. Every nation has a responsibility to ensure that
its citizens have access to a dependable supply of food. This
is one of the basic purposes of U.S. farm programs. To meet
this objective, farmers must receive a fair return on their
productivity and investment in an industry characterized by
continued subsidized foreign competition and subject to wide
swings in production and prices due to weather and other
related factors.
By any measure, U.S. farm programs have been successful and
cost-effective. Currently, such programs represent less than
one percent of the entire federal budget. And, for that, we
have an agricultural system that is the envy of the world. It
has provided our citizens with a dependable source of
reasonably priced food and fiber. U.S. consumers, for
example, spend the lowest percent of disposable personal
income on food--approximately 11 percent--of any country in
the world.
If other federal programs had been reduced by the same
percentage as agriculture commodity programs, we would have a
budget surplus.
As your Committee examines the options in the budget
process, we hope you will consider the interests of U.S.
agriculture.
Sincerely,
Thad Cochran, John Warner, Robert Kerrey, David Pryor,
Howell Heflin, Jesse Helms, Tom Harkin, Dale Bumpers,
Max Baucus, Trent Lott.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Democratic leader is
recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me begin by commending the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas for his strong statement just now.
I wish to associate myself completely with his remarks. I think it is
fair to say that we all agree we are in a mess, we are in a big mess,
and there are a lot of reasons why we find ourselves in the situation
we are in this afternoon.
The last time we failed to produce a farm bill was the year I was
born, 1947. Coincidentally, it was the last time Republicans controlled
the Congress. We should have passed this legislation, as the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas said, last year, but the bill did
not even come to the floor. The bill was not even allowed up for
debate. It was the first time in memory, and may be the first time
ever--we are checking it now--that legislation this important passed
out of the Senate Agriculture Committee on a strict party-line vote.
It was then, as everyone recalls, buried in the budget agreement, and
it went absolutely nowhere. And now here we are in February of 1996
considering a farm bill for 1995. Even if we passed a piece of
legislation as radical as this is, let there be no mistake, it will
take months and months and months for the Department of Agriculture to
get set up to administer it.
So the situation is very unfortunate. Farmers are out there
clamoring, as the distinguished Senator from Iowa said, for some
answers. They need to know the 1996 winter wheat crop has been planted,
southern crops are going to be planted this month, and farmers should
not be put in the untenable position of making huge investments in
their agricultural operations without knowing anything about what farm
policy will be this year or the next.
Last year, farmers were prevented from planting due to excessive
rain. This year, they will be prevented from planting due to excessive
politics.
There is only one option for 1996--only one. I do not like it. Not
many people here would consider it their first option. It certainly is
not mine. But there is no other alternative right now but to extend for
1 year at least current legislation. We need to extend current law only
because we have to provide farmers with that certainty.
It is no secret that we have put a tremendous amount of effort and
time into finding an alternative that we feel very excited about. It is
no secret that there may not be a resolution between the Farm Security
Act and the so-called freedom-to-farm bill. But there is a realization
that we have to do something, and there is no possibility of doing
anything with the mess we are in right now.
We have to do what the Senator from Iowa has suggested, and that is
give farmers the maximum degree of flexibility. We need to extend
current law but ensure that those farmers who have to have additional
flexibility are given every opportunity to do so. Plant whatever their
management dictates, whatever their desires may be given current
marketing conditions.
There ought to be no constraints at all on their ability to make
decisions for themselves. Farmers are familiar with the current
legislation. Prices are relatively high. The administration
infrastructure for the current farm bill is in place.
Most importantly, Mr. President, we can do it today. What some of my
Republican colleagues want to do at this
[[Page S680]]
late date is to pass the most radical farm bill in 60 years. They
eliminate permanent law; they slash the conservation reserve, one of
the most successful programs for conservation on the books this time or
any time; they cut exports just when we need to expand the export
markets abroad; we eliminate the farmer-owned reserve; we ignore
completely the need for rural development, and we destroy research. And
at the same time we do all of that, there are those on the other side
who argue that we ought to be giving huge payments to farmers, whether
or not they plant, regardless of whether they have good prices or not.
I would like my Republican colleagues to explain to a small
businessman or a working family why a farmer is entitled to a quarter
of a million dollar payment while they idle their land and spend a year
in Hawaii. If a farmer could idle his land, not do a thing on it for an
entire year, go to Hawaii and spend that quarter of a million dollars,
why cannot a small businessman or a working family or anybody else do
that?
How ironic that at this very time when we are trying to cut back and
reduce the tremendous budgetary exposure we have in so many ways, we
can find ways with which to give farmers huge payments whether they do
anything to farm or not.
Mr. President, the closer you look, the worse this gets. Even with
the laudable improvements Senator Leahy has suggested that we make to
the freedom to farm, this bill is a disaster.
I was very pleased for the letter we received just this morning from
a large number of very reputable organizations--including the National
Audubon Society; Environmental Working Group; Henry A. Wallace
Institute for Alternative Agriculture; Sustainable Agriculture
Coalition; Natural Resources Defense Council; National Rural Housing
Coalition; National Family Farm Coalition--who are saying that even
with the Leahy improvements, they are very strongly in opposition to
passing this so-called freedom to farm.
Most important, Mr. President, the President has indicated that he
will veto this legislation if we were to see it pass and sent to him
for signature. He is making the right decision.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Secretary of
Agriculture, Secretary Glickman, laying out the President's grave
concerns about this bill, be printed in the Record at this time.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Department of Agriculture,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, February 1, 1996.
Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Tom: S. 1541, the Agricultural Market Transition Act
of 1996, as well as several amendments to it, may be
considered in the Senate today, and I want to take this
opportunity to reiterate the Administration's position on a
farm bill.
As discussed in the Statement of Administration Policy
issued yesterday, I would recommend that the President veto
S. 1541 if it were presented to the President in its current
form. In my view, the bill fails to adequately address a
number of basic requirements I believe should be included in
the farm bill. These requirements include the preservation of
the farm program ``safety net,'' continuation and enhancement
of conservation programs and environmental protection, and
enhancement of economic opportunities for rural America and
production agriculture.
I understand that Senator Leahy may offer one of the
amendments to S. 1541. This amendment appears to be a
positive step in the direction of a farm bill that meets the
Administration's priorities. For example, it contains
authority to sign up new acres in the Conservation Reserve
program, continues the option of offering permanent easements
through the Wetlands Reserve Program, and reauthorizes food
and nutrition programs. However, the amendment fails to
address other needed improvements in S. 1541, such as changes
to strengthen the safety net for farmers and increase support
for rural development. Therefore, I would recommend that S.
1541, as amended by Senator Leahy, be vetoed by the
President.
I want to reiterate my willingness to work with the
Congress to enact a comprehensive farm bill as soon as
possible that best serves American agriculture and the
American people.
Sincerely,
Dan Glickman,
Secretary.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let us be clear. Win or lose on these
cloture votes, we are no closer to an agreement if that is what happens
today. Sooner or later, we are going to have to compromise. The House
Republicans just do not seem to get it. So far, the 104th Congress
could be summed up simply in two words: lost opportunity. On welfare,
on reg reform, on the budget, and on appropriations, many in the House
seem to think compromise is a four-letter word.
Let us not allow the farms to fall victim to this, too. We can work
this out. We can find compromise. We can find a way to ensure that
farmers are going to have the certainty that they are asking for this
afternoon, and we can begin all of that by defeating both cloture
motions in the next hour.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the Lugar-
Dole Agricultural Market Transition Act. This bill is not good for my
State of California because it cuts and caps export promotion programs;
excludes critically important agricultural research and nutrition
programs, and phases out farmland conservation programs. The Lugar-Dole
bill contains essentially the same provisions, with some changes, as
the Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 1995 which was vetoed by
President Clinton.
The most important positive aspect of this bill is that it preserves
a provision in current law that is of enormous importance to fruit and
vegetable growers in my State of California and across the Nation.
Previous versions of this legislation included so-called ``flex acre''
provisions, which would have permitted the production of fruits and
vegetables on up to 15 percent of a program crop farmer's former base
acres.
Nationwide, there are approximately 11 million acres planted with
fruits and vegetables. This acreage supplies U.S. and foreign consumers
with a ready supply of high quality and affordable produce, while
allowing fruit and vegetable producers to go about their business free
of Government involvement or Federal subsidies.
The ``flex acres'' language would have resulted in nearly 32 million
acres becoming eligible for fruit and vegetable production on
subsidized farms that traditionally have been planted to program crops.
If even a small number of those acres were to shift into fruits and
vegetables, farm prices for many fruit and vegetable commodities were
expected to drop abruptly and dramatically.
Republican budget negotiators originally argued that the ``flex
acres'' provision would help balance the budget. However, they now
concede that the provisions would have no impact on the deficit. They
would, however, help subsidized commodity crop growers at the expense
of nonsubsidized fruit and vegetable growers.
The California produce industry recognizes that should a 7-year
phaseout of subsidies be enacted, growers will eventually have to
compete in the marketplace with one and all. But in the interim, it
would be grossly unfair to require unsupported fruit and vegetable
growers to compete with their subsidized brethren.
I am pleased that we have won the flex-acre battle by fighting hard
to keep current law on the books. Current law has now been reinstated
in both the House bill and this Senate bill. However, I remain very
concerned about the impact of flexible planting on California farmers
in the long run--7 years from now.
Mr. President, we are in unprecedented times. The 1990 Farm Act
expired in December, leaving only the permanent 1949 law in place. So
clearly, the Congress needs to enact a farm bill.
But the Lugar-Dole bill is a radical departure from an American farm
policy which for almost 5 decades has supported the world's most
successful agricultural system--one that has resulted in consistently
high quality produce and low consumer food prices.
Some changes are necessary in these tight budget times, to ensure
that we are getting the most for every taxpayer dollar spent. But
changes in a system that has been so enormously successful must be done
carefully, thoughtfully, slowly, and responsibly. They must make the
system better. We must not take chances that might result in weakening
a terrifically successful system.
[[Page S681]]
Farm policy is not just about supporting the growing of our crops. It
is also about promoting exports of American farm products; promoting
environmentally sound uses of farmlands; emergency food assistance
programs; the distribution of surplus farm produce to soup kitchens and
food banks; and critically important agricultural research programs
such as research on the California Medfly and research on alternatives
to methyl bromide.
The Lugar-Dole bill does not achieve these objectives. In fact it
excludes most of them. It does not reauthorize nutrition and
agricultural research programs; it phases out conservation programs; it
cuts and caps export promotion programs.
If nutrition programs are not reauthorized, they will be in jeopardy
during the appropriations process. Federal funding for domestic food
assistance represents over 60 percent of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's budget and includes the food stamp program, child and
elderly nutrition programs, the special and commodity supplemental food
programs for women, infants and children [WIC and CSFP], commodities
for soup kitchens and food banks, and the Temporary Emergency Food
Assistance Program [TEFAP].
I oppose the provisions in the bill that cap the Market Promotion
Program at $100 million per year and the Export Enhancement Program at
levels far below the Congressional Budget Office baseline and the
Uruguay round permitted levels for fiscal year 1996 through 1999. The
Market Promotion Program is an important tool in expanding markets for
our agricultural products. The Export Enhancement Program is used to
subsidize export sales to more than 80 foreign countries. It is the
primary means by which the United States has attempted to meet
price competition in world markets when domestic policies supported
prices above the world market or to counter subsidies used by foreign
competitors.
The Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] is a voluntary program that
enables producers to bid to retire highly erodible or environmentally
sensitive land for 10 years. It is one of the most important
conservation programs in the Nation. To date, about 36.5 million acres
have been enrolled in 375,000 contracts. CRP saves soil, enhances
wetlands, improves soil and water quality, expands wildlife habitat and
populations, encourages tree planting, and helps balance commodity
supply and demand.
The Lugar-Dole bill in effect phases out CPR by capping enrollment at
the current 36.4 million acres and providing no new enrollment
authority. Contracts on 24 million acres expire in 1996 and 1997. If
they are not renewed, CRP would be reduced by 56 percent by 1997.
This bill also guts current law which allows acres to be enrolled
permanently in the Wetlands Reserve Program. About 335,000 acres are
currently enrolled permanently. The bill only allows 15 year easements
and places a cap on enrollment. The 7-year savings of $387 million are
false economy. Short term contracts may reduce outlays over next 7
years, but outlays would increase in subsequent years and no
protections remain in place after contracts expire. Over half a million
acres are bid into the Wetlands Reserve Program each year by farmers
who want permanent easements. Congress should not take away this option
for farmers.
Finally, I believe that the principal intention of the Lugar-Dole
bill--to phase out Federal support for the ``program crops'', for
example, rice, cotton, wheat, and feed grains--is bad policy for family
farmers. Under current law, program crop farmers get ``safety net''
payments when market prices fall below a certain threshold. Under the
Lugar-Dole bill, farmers will receive subsidy payments--decreasing over
7 years--based only on the production history of a farmer--with no
relation to market prices or actual output. In other words, the nature
of farm payments changes from being a ``safety net'' received only when
prices are low, to a form of direct ``welfare payment'' received no
matter what the market conditions and regardless of how profitable the
farming operation. Although ``Freedom to Farm'' lowers the payment
limitation from $50,000 to $40,000, it retains the ``three entity
rule''. So, one farmer could theoretically earn $120,000 from the
Federal Government in 1996 while on a year-long sabbatical.
Farmers need predictability in order to make planting decisions and
secure financing from lending institutions. This bill is being sold to
the agriculture community as the best vehicle to guarantee an income
safety net to farmers through direct payments for 7 years. Many farmers
believe that given the Federal deficit and efforts to balance the
budget, this bill is the best way to look in Federal support payments.
But decoupling makes no sense. Under this bill, one farmer could be
receiving windfall gains while another hard-working farmer could go
bankrupt in a bad year because of lack of assistance.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the Lugar-Dole bill.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad] is
recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat
cloture so that we can come together in a bipartisan way to write a
farm program that makes sense for the future. Mr. President, this could
be a very dark day for farmers, for their families, and the future of
American agriculture, because--make no mistake--if the so-called
freedom-to-farm legislation is passed, it will be the death knell for
farm programs in this country.
I have just come from my office and talked to a farmer who was urging
me to vote for freedom to farm. He told me, ``Senator, we need the
money and we know that the design of this program is to phase out farm
program payments and kill the underlying law that allows us to have a
farm program for the future.'' He said, ``Senator, we know you will not
let us down in the future.''
Mr. President, I am just saying to that farmer that that is not what
this plan is all about. They are making transition payments. You are
getting that money for a reason. The reason is that they then ratchet
them down and eliminate them and kill the permanent authority to have a
farm program. I am saying to them, despite the best efforts we might
make in the future, this will be the end, make no mistake about it.
This will be the end. I told him that it is a little like the Rev. Jim
Jones, who had all of his followers drink the Kool-Aid that was laced
with poison, and then they died. I said it is a little like Reverend
Jones and that Kool-Aid. It tastes good going down--just like those
couple of years of initial payments look good--but it will kill you.
There is not a farmer I know that does not realize that sometimes
prices are high and sometimes they are low. The purpose of a farm
program is to be there as a safety net when prices are low. This
program provides a payment, regardless of what the price is.
Mr. President, it is a scandal waiting to happen. Wait until ``60
Minutes'' gets a hold of this one. In the high-priced years, farmers
are making good money, and, in addition, they get a payment from the
Government. I do not think so, Mr. President. I think it would be a
profound mistake, and it would kill farm programs and reduce, according
to the State university in North Dakota, farm income by 30 percent.
Mr. President, I yield the floor so that my colleague might have a
chance to speak as well.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there are
about 4 minutes remaining. At that point, the majority leader intends
to use the remaining time on the Republican side.
This vote is going to be a cloture vote on a farm proposal. We did
not have a debate on the floor of the Senate on a farm proposal last
year. Last year was the time when we were supposed to have had a 5-year
farm plan debated. We did not have a farm bill debated at all on the
Senate floor. A farm bill was put in the reconciliation bill. Right now
is the first time we have had a farm bill debated on the floor, and we
started about an hour or two ago. We had an hour or two of debate and
now there is a cloture vote at 1:30.
The issue is something called the freedom to farm, which is an
attractive name. This plan is to disconnect farm program payments from
production or prices. The interesting thing about the
[[Page S682]]
freedom-to-farm proposal is you do not have to farm in order to receive
payments.
All you have to have is land with a base, but you do not need a
tractor. All you need is a bank account and some land, and you can get
a payment. It is decoupling the support price from whether or not you
produce, decoupling the support price from whether or not market prices
are high.
You could have a bumper crop with very high market prices, and you
still get a payment under this plan. Or you can have a circumstance
where you have no crop because you just went off to Puerto Rico and had
a vacation and did not plant a thing, and you can still get a big
payment under freedom to farm. It defies logic to me to understand why
you want to move in this direction.
For those who want to give a big payment to farmers, I say, fine,
sign me up, let us try to recapitalize family farms. But if you want to
do that, I disagree with coupling it with the notion that we must then
repeal permanent farm law. That is the understanding--as Congressman
Roberts said last evening on a program I was on--that we are going to
transition you out of a farm program, make some payments up front, and
there will be no farm program later. I am not willing to agree that
there ought not be permanent farm law.
FAPRI says wheat prices go to $3.22 next year. USDA says grain prices
are going down in 1998. What happens when grain prices are $3 a bushel
for wheat and there is no support price at all, none at all? What
happens to a family farmer? They are going to be washed away, and all
of us know it.
Who will farm then? The big agrifactories will farm from California
to Maine. This is great for a corporate farm bill. If you like
corporate farms, and you want agrifactories to farm America, this is a
great and quick way to get rid of family farmers.
They will get dollars maybe next year, maybe the year after, and
every single year after that they will be worse off, and at the end of
it they will have no support at all against the risk of low prices.
Zero. No safety net at all. This takes a safety net we have had for 50
years and yanks it right out from under family farmers. If you like
that, vote for this.
If all of you who want to add some extra money to farmers'
pocketbooks, you want to do that now, I will support you in doing that
now. However, I want you to join me in retaining some permanent law
that provides some safety net for the risks that family farmers will
inherit when prices become very low. Why would you want to pull out
that rug and say, ``Well, the risk is your own; we do not care whether
you succeed or fail''?
I had a farmer call me yesterday who said, ``I want the Freedom-To-
Farm Act but I want you to make sure, that, if prices are low, you give
me a farm program.'' I had a farm commodity group come in to see me
that has endorsed the Freedom-To-Farm Act, and they said, ``We endorsed
it with one condition: We have a farm program.'' I said, ``You do not
understand; when Congressman Roberts talks about transitioning, when
someone with a white shirt from Washington says we will transition you,
you had better get your seat belt on the tractor seat and buckle up.
Transitioning means you will get a payment up front in exchange for
which they will abolish the farm program down the road.''
No debate about that. That is exactly what will happen. That is why
many of us cannot support this. No one wants to be more generous than I
to family-sized farms. I believe in the future of this country there
ought to be a network of family sized farms. I also believe that we
will not see a network of family sized farms in America if we decide
that when market prices collapse to $2.50 a bushel there should be no
program for a safety net to continue family farming. We will have
corporate farming from California to Maine under this proposal.
I hope we will reach a compromise that is much better for the future
of family farmers sometime this afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The time on the Democratic side is
expired. There are 8 minutes and 45 seconds remaining on the Republican
side.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, here we go again, another farm debate.
Winter wheat farmers have already planted. They could not wait any
longer for Congress to act. It happens about the end of every 5-year
farm program. There is always a little gap, and particularly winter
wheat producers do not have much choice but to plant fence to fence and
hope we will pass the farm bill, and then they can comply with the law
at that time.
President Eisenhower was born in Kansas and raised in rural America.
He hit the nail on head when he said, ``Farming looks mighty easy when
your plow is a pencil, and you're 1,000 miles from a corn field.'' That
statement was made a long time ago, but it has not changed over the
years.
What I see happening here is we thought we had a pretty good
compromise worked out, but now I understand the other side of the
aisle, for the most part, has said, ``No, we are not going to let it
happen. We do not believe in the freedom to farm. We do not believe in
transition payments. We do not believe you ought to take a look at many
farmers and say, OK, have this 7-year period also be a transition and
during that period they will determine whether or not we ought to
continue farm programs or whether we ought to bring them to an end.''
I must say, as I sat in a meeting here a while back with Secretary
Glickman--a good friend of mine who is doing a good job as Secretary--
one thing he said bothered me: ``Farm prices are so high in the market,
people may not sign up for the program.'' I thought that was the goal--
go back into the marketplace with high prices so farmers could rely on
the market rather than the Government. Produce for the market. That is
what the freedom to farm act is all about.
I do not know where we go from here if we do not get cloture on the
so-called compromise. I want to congratulate the distinguished chairman
of our committee, Senator Lugar, and Senator Leahy, the ranking
Democrat on the committee, and others, Senator Craig from Idaho and
Senator Grassley from Iowa, my own staff and others who have been
working, we thought, in sort of a bipartisan way so we can get to
conference. If we do not go to conference, we will not have anything.
I know farm bills are difficult. We have had farm bill debates on
this floor before and they are even more difficult on the House side.
Normally you can pass a farm bill in the Senate. It is a little easier
because most of us represent some farmers. Some may not fully realize
it, but there are always a few farmers in every State. I know in my
State we have a saying, ``if you do not eat, don't worry about the
farm.'' A lot of people do eat, but not many worry about the farm.
We have the best food bargain in the world. We spend less of our
disposable income on food in America than any other industrialized
nation because of our farmers and ranchers in America, and now we are
trying to have a little safety net here, a little farm bill, to make
certain that certain things happen and there will be some protection
there.
Farming looks pretty easy to some. But we know the tremendous amount
of work required by not only farmers but their families. We know there
is overregulation, overtaxation, and I have had farmers tell me if we
get rid of some of the regulations and other things we could keep the
subsidies. We would probably be better off. Farmers make a lot of
sacrifices. They have hailstorms, winter kill, a lot of other things to
contend with, sometimes they do not have any crop at all, sometimes
they live from crop to crop, and sometimes they borrow money every year
and every year and every year.
It is pretty important that we move ahead in this Chamber. They have
enough uncertainties out there without the uncertainty of whether or
not we will act. I believe on this side of the aisle we are prepared
almost unanimously to act. It does not mean we think it is perfect. It
does not mean we cannot address some of the concerns expressed by my
distinguished colleagues on the other side, including the Democratic
leader, who also understands agriculture, coming from South Dakota, and
hopefully we will be able to work together on this.
While negotiations continue, as I said, Kansas farmers have planted
their
[[Page S683]]
crop without knowing any program details, and farmers of other crops
will be in the same position unless we take action. We did take action
last year, and we attached the legislation to our historic Balanced
Budget Act. The legislation would have provided farmers with certainty,
simplicity, and flexibility-- three key words when you are on the farm.
It would have allowed them to plant for the market and not for the
Government. It would have set a policy that transitions our farmers
into the next century, without disrupting the farm economy or land
values. That act was vetoed by the President of the United States. I do
not think the American farmer should forget that--or the farm families.
That act was vetoed by President Clinton. That is why we are here
today. That is why we are late. That is why we do not have our work
done.
It seems to me that we ought to get together here, pass the
legislation contained--the language we passed last year. That will be
the first vote on cloture. I urge my colleagues to support that. I
believe the plan is good for farmers and good for taxpayers and good
for America. I have some reservations just as some of the others have
reservations, that we could address in conference. I probably would be
a conferee.
After that vote, we will also have a cloture vote on a bipartisan
package, and I congratulate those who put that together. I think it
does respond to the crisis. I thought we would have a third cloture
vote but the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, vitiated
cloture, which really started all this--I do not quite understand
that--on a 1-year extension. My view is we have two votes, we have two
opportunities to move ahead for American agriculture. Stop the
uncertainty right now.
I guess the good news for America's farmers is that this bipartisan
agreement keeps intact the provisions farmers have overwhelmingly
endorsed: Certainty, simplicity, and flexibility. We also have dairy
provisions, nutrition, and conservation. I believe the Senate must
provide leadership and keep faith with our commitment to rural America
and move this farm bill forward. I believe it is good for farmers, it
is good for America.
I finally say, if I can take a minute or two of leader's time, over
200 years ago, George Washington wrote: ``I know of no pursuit in which
more real and important services can be rendered to any country than by
improving its agriculture.''
I think those words were probably pretty good a couple hundred years
ago and I think they are just as true today.
Now, I certainly hope that we could obtain cloture on both bills, if
not on the bipartisan efforts put together by Democrats and
Republicans--by Democrats and Republicans. Then let us go to
conference, let us work together in a bipartisan way in the conference,
come up with a package that the American farmer can live with, the
American consumers will benefit from, and that the American taxpayers
will also support.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the majority leader allow me to
respond to the point he made about vitiating?
Mr. DOLE. I thought we had an agreement about voting on yours first,
then you vitiated the yeas and nays, and so there is nothing there.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I might just mention to the majority
leader, the Senate will now have two cloture votes. If cloture is
invoked, of course, the issue of extending the current farm program
will probably be moot. But if cloture is not invoked, then it would be
my desire to offer the Senate an opportunity to vote on the question of
whether we extend the current farm program or whether we provide for
some Farm Security Act approach. But the only way we will get to that
point is if we get past these two cloture votes. So we would still have
an opportunity to vote on an extension of the farm program if there is
not cloture invoked.
Mr. DOLE. Not today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I might be added
as a cosponsor of both measures, S. 1541 and the Lugar-Leahy bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Pursuant to rule XXII,
the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the
clerk will state.
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.
VOTE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on S. 1541, the farm bill, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia [Mr.
Rockefeller] is necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from West
Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] would vote ``nay.''
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 7 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Abraham
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brown
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Hatch
Hatfield
Helms
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Pell
Pressler
Roth
Shelby
Simpson
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
NAYS--45
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Gregg
Harkin
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Nunn
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Santorum
Sarbanes
Simon
Smith
NOT VOTING--1
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are
45. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the cloture motion is not agreed to.
Under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke
cloture.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The absence of a quorum is
suggested. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
By unanimous consent the Senator may proceed.
Mr. PRESSLER. The farm bill is the most important legislation we have
before us insofar as my State of South Dakota and insofar as our Nation
is concerned. We forget that we are an agricultural Nation. Most of our
exports in our Nation are agriculture. In fact, we pay our trade bills
through agricultural exports.
Many economists have predicted that in the next few years commodity
prices will be at an all-time high because of the demand in Asia and
elsewhere for our farm products. Therefore, I hope this farm bill will
take into account the key role that agriculture plays.
Mr. President, we seem to be split between two approaches here,
temporarily: The freedom-to-farm approach and the traditional
Department of Agriculture subsidy approach. It appears to me we will
have to find a compromise between the two. In the long
[[Page S684]]
run, this Senator likes the concept of freedom to farm, possibly with a
cap, because it may be that new crops will be developed. A farmer might
well experiment with a totally new crop. Right now with our
bureaucratic approach, the Department of Agriculture basically defines
what crops are appropriate.
However, I realize legislation is the art of the possible. It appears
we will have to reach a compromise. I am very much anxious to be part
of that compromise. I look forward to discussing this with my
colleagues.
Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________