[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.

                          ____________________