[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S877-S878]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FARM BILL
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate will once again
attempt to wrestle with one of its key responsibilities to American
agriculture, and that is to pass legislation that will craft new farm
policy for our country and send the necessary message as to what we
expect American agriculture to do in relation to farm programs directed
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
I found it interesting yesterday that President Clinton has submitted
his 1997 budget when we do not even have a 1996 budget, and we find
ourselves here on the floor of the Senate today debating agriculture
because the President vetoed agriculture. So while the President is now
off campaigning across the country waving a 1997 budget, the Government
does not have a 1996 budget, and we do not have a farm policy.
The Secretary of Agriculture has just entered the floor. By the 15th
of this month, he is going to arrive at a crisis point in having to
deal with the implementation of 1949 agricultural policy.
Last Friday on the floor of this Senate, the Democrat leader and his
party blocked a farm bill. We offered a bipartisan farm bill, Democrats
and Republicans alike. Senator Leahy of Vermont, who is just about as
liberal as I am conservative, came together in a bipartisan bill. Once
again we were denied the opportunity to vote on that because we were
told it would be blocked.
[[Page S878]]
I hope today that we can deal with a farm bill and send the
appropriate message to American agriculture. But yesterday, I think
Robert Shapiro, the president of the Progressive Policy Institute,
which is a centrist Democrat leadership council arm, said it very
clearly: The President's budget is not about dollars; it is about
politics. He said we are now in a political season, and the President
did this for politics. The politics that is being played on the floor
of the U.S. Senate right now may be good for one party or another, but
it is not good for American agriculture.
So, Mr. President, pick up the phone and call your people here in the
Senate and say let us get an agriculture bill so that the Secretary of
Agriculture does not have to deal with the kind of draconian things
that he may be forced to do to send a shock wave through American
agriculture by implementation of the 1949 farm policy. That is not good
government. That is not the kind of government we need to deal with.
So I hope we can arrive at a solution this afternoon. But, Mr.
President, in closing, because I know our time is up here at about
12:30, I am told that there are now 240-plus amendments filed at the
desk on the Lugar-Leahy-Craig alternative bipartisan farm bill. That
sends a very simple message to me. There is not going to be a farm bill
today. It is impossible to deal with it after 6\1/2\ months of
intensive extensive hearings before the Senate Agriculture Committee
when American agriculture, almost per organization, said do not simply
reinstate farm policy, but reform it and clean it up. And that is what
we have done in trying to build this.
I am not sure where we go from here. I hope we can get the 60 votes
this afternoon so that we can move forward and get the 1996 work done
before our President is off campaigning on 1997 budgets that do not
balance while he is President, assuming he might get elected another
term. I find it very interesting that his own people are now saying it
is not policy; it is all politics. Well, we knew that. He knows that.
But it is a very dangerous kind of politics, a very dangerous kind of
politics for American agriculture.
Historically, Mr. President, we have always crafted a bipartisan farm
bill. I see the Senator from North Dakota on the floor. He has talked
about that. I have worked with him. I have worked with other Senators
on the floor to craft a bipartisan approach to farm policy. I hope that
is what we can accomplish this afternoon before the political season
gets so hot that we cannot get any work done.
If that is the case, we probably lose. But someone else loses, and
that is the American farmer and American agriculture.
Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognizing me.
Mr. President, I am stunned listening to my good friend from Idaho
talk about the politics of the season. If talking about the politics
surrounding the vote this afternoon on a bill that the U.S. Senate
Agriculture Committee has never had hearings on, has never passed, when
the other party has frozen this side of the aisle totally out of any
negotiations relative to meeting our commitment to an agriculture bill
for the farmers of this country--they come forward with something known
as the freedom-to-farm-bill. The freedom-to-farm bill, Mr. President,
frankly, is a bill that the farmers in France should love. Our
competitors overseas should love the freedom-to-farm bill because what
it is going to mean is that our farmers are going to be unable to
compete in the international and world markets. This bill spells
doomsday for the farmers of America. It spells doomsday for the
agriculture programs in our country that are the envy of the world.
Mr. President, I cannot believe that my friend from Idaho is talking
about the politics of the moment when it is his party that has
prevented a real debate on the 1996 agriculture bill to take place.
This bill was written by budgeteers. It was not written by the
Agriculture Committee in the House or in the Senate. It was written by
the budget committees, Mr. President. My friend from Idaho knows that.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. PRYOR. Yes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Arkansas if we find
ourselves in the circumstance that for the first time in history the
farm bill was stuck in the budget reconciliation bill last year. So
there was no farm bill debate on the floor of the Senate. It was
supposed to happen last year, but it did not happen.
I think that it probably is not very important to talk about what
happened yesterday. The question is, what happens today and what
happens tomorrow? The issue for us is, what about the future of family
farming in this country? Will we have family farmers in the future or
not? Will we simply have giant agri-factories farming from California
to Maine? Do we care about the future of family farmers, or do we not?
Is that not the real issue before us?
This is not about politics. It is about policy and who cares about
the future of family farmers.
Mr. PRYOR. I will answer my friend from North Dakota by saying that
just a few months ago, I went before our farm bureau organization down
in Arkansas. I spent about an hour and a half visiting with them. They
begged me and they pled with me to oppose the Freedom to Farm Act. Now,
suddenly, they have made a reversal. They say, ``Well, maybe it is the
best we can do.''
Mr. President, I do not think it is the best we can do. I think that
we can do better. I think that we can go back and draft at least an
extension of the farm bill of the past 5 years and extend it for a year
and make certain that we do not make the gargantuan mistakes that we
are likely to make today by enacting the Freedom to Farm Act.
Mr. President, I think the appointed hour has arrived, and I
therefore yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
Mr. FORD. The time has expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. I would note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________