[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 14 (Thursday, February 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S868-S869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             THE FARM BILL

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I just briefly want to make a couple of 
final remarks with regard to the debate on the farm legislation. I do 
not want to belabor what has already been said. I know that there are 
many who want to retire.
  Let me say three things. First, I do not think there is a person in 
the Senate Chamber who does not want to get farm legislation passed at 
the earliest possible date. Frankly, many of us hoped we would not have 
had to see the delays that we have already experienced, for a lot of 
different reasons. There have been scheduling delays. I do not believe 
we have put the efforts in at the committee level that we should have.
  Others have noted this bill has never been reported out of committee. 
For a piece of legislation of this magnitude not to be reported out of 
committee, not to come to the floor in the entire first session of the 
104th Congress, is some indication, in my view, of the priority the 
majority has placed on farm legislation. Certainly we could have found 
time somewhere during the summer months or at some time during the fall 
or perhaps during the winter during many of these long breaks we have 
taken to take up this legislation, to recognize how pressing a problem 
it is, to deal with it, as complex as it is, in a meaningful way--over 
a long period of time, if necessary, to accommodate the many different 
decisions that any farm legislation reflects.
  That is the first point, Mr. President. We really have to recognize 
that there have been delays, unnecessary ones, in our view, that have 
brought us to this point.
  This legislation was never subject to a vote on the Senate floor. It 
was buried in a budget resolution that the President, for a lot of 
reasons, was required to veto. So it is not accurate to 

[[Page S869]]
say that the farm bill was vetoed. The budget resolution was vetoed; 
buried within that budget resolution we found farm legislation which 
had not been considered prior to that time.
  The second issue over which there ought not be any concern or 
confusion is our mutual desire to provide the maximum degree of 
flexibility to farmers. Let there be no mistake: Recognizing as late as 
it is, we simply cannot constrain farmers in any way as they begin to 
put their management plans together. Farmers have to be given 
flexibility. Farmers have to be given the assurance that they can make 
their decisions, unencumbered by farm policy at this late date.
  It is our desire every bit as much as it is the desire of many 
Republicans to ensure that farmers are given flexibility, that they 
have the latitude to go farm as we want them to farm. Flexibility is 
not the issue. No one ought to be using that argument as a reason for 
the fact that we have not reached an agreement today. We want 
flexibility. We want simplicity. We want to give farmers the chance to 
farm.
  The third issue, and the one that I think will divide us perhaps in 
perpetuity--the reason we have not yet come to a resolution--is that in 
the name of some change, in the name of bringing about this so-called 
flexibility, what many on the other side are prepared to say is, ``We 
will be so flexible that we will give you the payment whether you farm 
or not. We do not care whether you farm. We do not care what you farm. 
We do not care what the prices are. We are going to give you a huge 
lump-sum payment upfront, regardless of price, regardless of your 
management, regardless of your circumstances, regardless of how big you 
are, regardless of whether or not you are even on the farm. You will 
have an opportunity to get this huge payment.''
  Mr. President, as others have said today, I do not think it will take 
long for this army of investigative journalists we have in Washington 
and elsewhere to call attention to the fact that while we are cutting 
every single aspect of the Federal budget, there will be people out 
there getting not $100,000, not $200,000, but perhaps $300,000 in lump-
sum payments for doing absolutely nothing at all. That is how some 
would view this so-called concept of ``freedom to farm.'' It is the 
freedom not to farm. It is the freedom not to do anything. It is the 
freedom not to be responsible.

  So that is the fundamental disagreement we have today. We have had it 
for a long time. We will have it tomorrow. The question is, can we 
bridge that difference? Can we say we are not adverse to providing the 
advance deficiency payments or the advance payments that we provided 
agriculture in the past, but you have to farm to get a farm payment; 
you have to be responsible if you expect us to be responsive?
  So, let us hope that over the course of the next couple of days we 
can bridge that. We know we want simplicity and flexibility. We know we 
want a decision as quickly as we can get it. What I hope we can also 
agree upon is that we also must recognize the need for farmers to be 
responsible--to have the freedom to farm, but to be responsible with 
taxpayer dollars. If we can do that, then, indeed, I am optimistic that 
we will reach an agreement. We will be able to send the farm community 
a clear message that, indeed, we have done what we should have done a 
long time ago--pass a farm bill that will take us well into the future.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to 
speak for not in excess of 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________