[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 14 (Thursday, February 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S723-S724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               FARM BILL

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senate is in session at this late 
hour--we just finished the telecom bill, a very important bill for our 
country--but we are in session now because we do not have a farm bill.
  I have been on the Agriculture Committee now for 22 years, 10 in the 
House, 12 in the Senate. I have seen a lot of farm bills. I have worked 
on a lot of farm bills. Some were contentious, some sort of passed 
easily. But in every instance--in every single instance--in the House 
and in the Senate, we worked diligently on both sides of the aisle to 
try to reach accommodations to get a farm bill through before the end 
of the year. In most cases, we got it through long before the end of 
the year.
  But I remember some particular ones. I remember the 1981 farm bill 
when I was in the House. We passed it in the early morning hours of 
December 17. Why do I remember that? Because my daughter was born about 
2 hours later, and I remember being on the floor trying to get the farm 
bill passed.
  The reason I recall that, aside from the fact my daughter was born a 
couple of hours after we finished the farm bill, was that it was late 
in the year. It was 1981, a very contentious year in agriculture 
regarding what kind of farm policy we were going to develop under the 
leadership of the new administration that had taken over that year. But 
we got our work done, and we got the farm bill passed and down to the 
President before the end of the year.
  That was with a Democratic House and a Republican Senate and a 
Republican President. We did not filibuster, we did not hold it up. We 
did our work, and we got it through before the end of the year.
  The hue and cry that came from around the country was that we had 
waited too long. A lot of the finger pointing was at the Democrats, 
because we allegedly had waited too long and we did not get the bill 
through by the end of the year. But we got it through.
  Now here we are in February of 1996, and we still do not have a farm 
bill for this year. I do not want to engage in finger pointing, but I 
do want to say at least that no Democrat on this side has filibustered 
a farm bill. We have not held it up.
  We passed a farm bill out of the Ag Committee in late September. We 
could have brought it out on the floor in the month of October. We 
could have brought it out in the month of November. We could have 
brought it out in the month of December. But, no, it was not brought 
up. No, instead, it was taken and put in the budget reconciliation bill 
so that we did not have an opportunity to really debate it and amend it 
and fashion a farm program for the future. The President vetoed that 
bill, as he should have.
  So here we are in February, and once again, a farm bill was laid down 
yesterday. Immediately, a cloture motion was filed to cut off debate, 
to cut off amendments, to limit the time.
  Well, I am not here to filibuster, but I do want some time to speak 
on the bill, to lay out what it would mean to farmers and rural 
communities in my State. I want some time to be able to offer 
amendments that I think are worthwhile. I may not win them, but at 
least I feel an obligation to my farmers in Iowa to try to craft and 
fashion a farm bill in their best interests.
  Now I understand that at this late hour we are being told that the 
House is going to go out. The Senate wants to adjourn and come back at 
the end of February, and we have to pass a farm bill tonight, or we 
will not be able to get it done because the Senate is going to adjourn 
for another month. What kind of nonsense is that? We are elected to 
come here and get the people's legislation passed. I do not know of any 
compelling reason why we cannot bring the farm bill up, debate it 
tomorrow, or Saturday if need be. We do not need to be here Saturday; 
we can debate it Monday and Tuesday, and probably get it done by 
Tuesday night. At least everybody would have ample opportunity to 
speak, offer amendments, and have their amendments voted on. Then we 
can have a final vote on the passage of the bill and send it to 
conference.
  Yet, somehow a gun is being held to our heads tonight, and we are 
told that if we do not rubberstamp some farm bill that has been crafted 
in the back rooms--and we do not even know what is in it--that we are 
going to be held to blame because a farm bill was not passed here on 
February 1. I am telling you, Mr. President, I find this whole process 
contrary to everything I believe in, in terms of a democratic 
Government, and in terms of what I believe in, in terms of the 
processes here of open and free debate, with amendments, and allowing 
us to state our case and to try to make the best case we can for our 
constituents.
  So I am sorry, I am just not going to be a part of caving in and 
rubberstamping something simply because it is late, it is in February, 
and we have to get a farm bill passed. Our farmers need to know what to 
do. For Heaven's sake, they need to know what to do. But it was not 
this Senator, or any Senator on this side of the aisle, that kept the 
farm bill from coming to the floor in October, November, or December. 
That was not our call to make. It was not brought up on the floor. It 
should have been brought up. It should have been brought up in October. 
Then we could have finished our work and sent it to conference. It may 
not have been what I wanted, but at least the process would have been 
fair and open and I could not complain.
  I am complaining now because the process is not fair and it is not 
open. I intend to make it so. I will use whatever power I have as a 
Senator to make sure we have that kind of an open process here on the 
farm bill and not be asked to rubberstamp something when we do not even 
know what is in it.
  But the people that are really suffering are our farmers, along with 
others involved in agriculture. My farmers in Iowa and throughout the 
Midwest right now have to make decisions, and they are doing it in the 
blind--what seed to buy, what to plant, how much credit do they need, 
how much fertilizer they need. How can they make those decisions when 
they do not even know what kind of farm program we have? They should 
have known this and could have known this in December or earlier. We 
could have had a farm bill passed in December. It may not have been 
what I would have liked, but at least the process could have been fair 
and open.
  We owe it, I believe, to our farmers and rural communities to act in 
a deliberate manner. We have a 1990 farm bill that was crafted here in 
a bipartisan fashion. I was not one of those preferring to extend the 
1990 farm bill, I must admit. But at this late hour, it seems almost 
inevitable that some type of extension is probably the most realistic 
thing we can do. We can make some changes, I believe, that both sides 
of the aisle would agree with, such as more planting flexibility and 
getting rid of base acreage restrictions. We could do that. Then 
farmers would at least have some idea what the rules are because they 
have already operated under the 1990 farm bill for the past 5 years. 
They would know what to expect, what to do, and there would be some 
certainty out there. Perhaps we would have to come back this year, or 
maybe even next year. Maybe we should extend it 2 years because it 
looks like this is going to be a short year with everybody out 
campaigning. Then maybe we can come back next year and craft a longer 
term farm bill that would take care of us for the next 5 to 7 years. 
But this process of saying we have to do something tonight because we 
are going to adjourn in the Senate for the next month and, therefore, 
bang, we have to do something quickly tonight--we cannot debate it, 
look at it, or examine it--what kind of nonsense is that?
  So I hope we do not have to adjourn tonight. I see no reason why we 
cannot be in next week. Those who want to vote to adjourn had better be 
ready to go back and tell their farmers, no, we thought it was more 
important to take time off than to debate this farm bill fully, in an 
open and free debate, with opportunity for amendments to it. 

[[Page S724]]

  So, Mr. President, perhaps I am just venting frustration, but I 
believe a lot of others share those frustrations. I hope that in some 
way I am representing the frustrations of the farmers I represent, 
because they are frustrated. They do not know what to expect. They 
would like to have a little certainty, too. Right now, all we are 
giving them is uncertainty. If we adjourn for a month tonight, they 
have another month of uncertainty. It is unfair and unconscionable that 
we would walk out of this place tonight and adjourn without having a 
full, fair, and open debate on amendments to a farm bill, which cannot 
take place in 3 hours tonight. It may take tomorrow and it might take 
Monday. That is fair. I do not know how many days the 1990 farm bill 
took. I am informed that it took 7 days. The 1985 farm bill took about 
the same amount of time. We had the telecom bill. How many days did 
that take? I think a couple of weeks. The farm bill is every bit as 
important to our farmers as the telecom bill is to the people in 
telecommunications. I do not think the farm bill needs 7 days, but at 
least 2 or 3 days, to debate and amend it and have final passage. I do 
not see why we cannot do that tomorrow, Monday, and Tuesday. There is 
no reason we cannot do it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
speak for approximately 5 minutes on the matter of the agricultural 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________