[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S880-S881]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             THE FARM BILL

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I support the freedom-to-farm concept. 
Most farmers in South Dakota that I have talked to want the freedom-to-
farm concept.
  The Senate is in a filibuster situation, although the word 
``filibuster'' is not being used. We are not being allowed to proceed 
to the farm bill by the Democrats. We must produce 60 votes in order to 
proceed. We apparently do not have 60 votes, at least not up to this 
point.
  People should understand that many of us want to pass a farm bill. If 
we were permitted to proceed to the bill, we could then start offering 
amendments and begin discussion. However, the other side is not 
allowing the farm bill to come up.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider supporting S. 1541, 
the Agricultural Market Transition Act. Should cloture not be invoked 
on S. 1541, I urge my colleagues to support the compromise offered by 
the Senators from Idaho and Vermont, Senator Craig and Senator Leahy. 
Their amendment incorporates all of S. 1541 and includes a number of 
other reforms. If we do not have the Freedom to Farm Act, we could have 
the Leahy-Craig substitute, which has the freedom to farm but includes 
a number of reforms.
  Mr. President, I was recently back home in South Dakota and spent 
time talking to farmers about what needs to be accomplished in future 
farm programs. The message was loud and clear: flexibility, certainty, 
and less Government involvement. Both S. 1541 and the Craig-Leahy 
compromise would provide all of those things.
  Mr. President, S. 1541 would provide greater economic stability to 
producers. Producers in South Dakota are telling me not to extend the 
1990 farm bill, and by all means do not let the underlying 1949 act be 
the operative act for 1996. After careful review, many producers say, 
support S. 1541.
  There will be a lot of unwarranted criticism expressed over S. 1541. 
Those opposed to the bill say we need a permanent safety net for 
farmers. I say there is nothing permanent about Federal farm policy. 
The past farm bills were not permanent. All generally covered periods 
of 4 or 5 years.
  Mr. President, S. 1541 would provide a 7-year plan. Unless economic 
conditions warrant an earlier revisitation of Federal farm policy, we 
will no doubt be putting together a new farm bill in 2002. So S. 1541 
does not eliminate the real safety net for farmers, which, frankly, is 
the Congress itself. Those people who say there will be no farm 
programs after 7 years simply are not shooting straight. Past farm 
bills never carried assurance of future farm products except for 1938 
and 1949 Agricultural Acts.
  Mr. President, let me summarize my position. Congress should pass a 
farm bill now. We are ready to act. It is my recommendation if we 
cannot adopt the freedom-to-farm bill, we should adopt the Leahy-Craig 
substitute, which is the freedom-to-farm bill with amendments. We 
cannot even adopt amendments to that since there is basically a 
filibuster going on here. We have to produce 60 votes in order to 
proceed.
  I implore my colleagues to let us proceed on the farm bill, offer 
amendments, as we have in the past in good faith here, in a bipartisan 
way. Let us amend the Craig-Leahy substitute. We are ready to go.
  Our farmers are ready to go to the fields soon to plant. They are 
making their plans with their bankers now. They need certainty.
  Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and others have 
estimated that commodity prices in the next 5 years will be very high 
because of demand in China and other demand overseas. The biggest farm 
bill we could adopt is probably a balanced budget, because if we have a 
balanced budget we will have low-interest rates for farmers and 
businessmen. We also will have a stable dollar for international trade. 
I believe we can have a booming agriculture for the next 5 years if we 
have a balanced budget and if we move toward the concepts in freedom to 
farm.
  Mr. President, our farmers want flexibility--that is to be able to 
plant new crops and different crops. If we continue to go with a 
regulated Government system, the Department of Agriculture defines 
which crops must be planted. Indeed, it is true that wheat and corn are 
probably best suited to much of our soil. But who is to say that some 
new crop might not be experimented with and might come forth.
  It is said if we have the Freedom to Farm Act that, after 7 years, 
the farmers will be left on their own. That is not necessarily true. 
Just like with a 5-year farm bill, the Congress does something new 
afterward. If the Congress in 7 years finds that the farmers are in 
need of it, they can pass a farm bill. They can even reinstitute the 
present farm bill if they wish. So that is not a good argument.
  In talking to my farmers in South Dakota, they like freedom to farm. 
My farmers like the concept of flexibility of crops. The farmers in 
South Dakota like the concept of doing away with all the paperwork and 
Government regulation that has built up around this program.
  There are those who would say we should not abolish the 1938 and 1949 
Agricultural Acts. I disagree. It is time to abolish those acts because 
they are obsolete. Now is the time for forward thinking reforms. We 
should not be in a position of carrying forward outdated and 
ineffective 50-year-old farm policies as the basis for agricultural 
planning in the 21st century.
  Opponents of S. 1541 want to extend existing farm policy for 1 or 2 
years. Mr. President, the one thing my producers have made abundantly 
clear is they do not want the Federal Government telling them what they 
can or cannot plant, and making other decisions for them. They want, 
and deserve, full flexibility. An extension of existing policy means 
that Government will continue to dictate farming practices. This simply 
is unacceptable.
  Under S. 1541, producers would have greater planting flexibility. 
Producers would have the opportunity to respond to market conditions. 
This is vital for their economic survival. Opportunities would be 
endless. Producers would not lose payments if they decided to plant new 
and innovative crops.
  Mr. President, S. 1541 is supported by the South Dakota Farm Bureau, 
the South Dakota Corn Growers, and many farmers throughout South 
Dakota. They see great opportunities for them in their operations. A 
recent study by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute 
showed that S. 1541 would bring higher prices for corn, soybeans, and 
all livestock over the next 10 years. Current high prices for wheat 
also would be maintained.
  Under S. 1541, net farm income is estimated to increase from $38 to 
$50.4 billion in 10 years. In addition, farm program payments would be 
reduced from $6.4 billion in 1995 to $5.04 billion in 2005. In short, 
S. 1541 would increase farm incomes while lowering farm program costs 
to our taxpayers. That is a great deal. 

[[Page S881]]

  The last point is important if we are to reach our primary goal of a 
balanced budget. Mr. President, farmers and ranchers are some of the 
strongest supporters of balancing the Federal budget.
  A balanced budget would be great news for South Dakota farmers and 
ranchers and their families. It would mean lower interest rates and a 
growing economy. A balanced budget would reduce interest rates by at 
least 1.5 percent. A reduction in interest rates of that size would 
help raise farm income by more than $2 billion per year.
  So, to conclude and to summarize, I support this Congress going 
forward on legislation on the farm bill now. I am weary of the 
filibuster that has kept us from dealing with amendments. If we cannot 
have the freedom-to-farm bill, let us have a modification of it, which 
the Leahy-Craig offer encompasses. This will mean more prosperity to 
farmers and also less costs to the taxpayers. It will mean 
strengthening our position in international trade, which will help our 
country in general.
  We cannot delay any longer. Our farmers are meeting with their 
bankers at this hour, trying to work out their financial plans. In the 
southern part of our country, they are prepared to plant. The Congress 
seems to be dilly-dallying. Let people understand what is going on 
here. We, on this side of the aisle, are ready to legislate. We are 
going to have a cloture vote today. I plead with my colleagues, let us 
go and legislate and offer amendments and we will have a farm bill 
worked out. But let there be no misunderstanding out in the country. We 
are not holding this farm bill up. We are here, ready to legislate. The 
cloture vote this afternoon, if we fail, it will hold us up again.
  I want to make it very clear to my farmers where this delay is coming 
from. My farmers, generally speaking, want freedom to farm. Let us get 
the truth out. Let us have a farm bill now.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, 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. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, is the Senate now in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It requires consent to extend morning 
business.
  Mr. DORGAN. My purpose in seeking recognition was to ask unanimous 
consent to be able to speak in morning business for 10 minutes. That 
will take less time if the folks on the majority side need the floor at 
some point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________