[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.
____________________