[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S881-S882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             THE FARM BILL

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of other 
Senators. My intention was that if we have some morning business that 
we have it on both sides. I want to be able to discuss for a bit the 
subject of agriculture and where we find ourselves. My specific 
interest in doing so is that I think there is some confusion about 
exactly where we are.
  First of all, the farm bill is not now pending. We are in morning 
business. The farm bill will be pending when we finish morning business 
and bring it back to the floor of the Senate. But contrary to previous 
assertions, no one has prevented the farm bill from coming to the 
floor. It is on the floor. It is and will be the pending business 
before the Senate. There is not an effort and there has not been an 
effort by anyone to prevent the farm bill from coming to the floor. 
Those who suggest that are misstating where we are.
  The farm bill will be on the floor of the Senate this afternoon. It 
is correct to state we have had a cloture vote and will likely have a 
second cloture vote this afternoon. To suggest we should invoke cloture 
so we can get on to amendments, however, is a suggestion that does not 
conform with the Rules of the Senate.
  In fact, in order to offer many of the amendments that have been sent 
to the desk, you would have to avoid cloture so the amendments would be 
able to be offered as being germane. After cloture they would not be 
ruled as being germane.
  The farm bill has been on the floor of the Senate a very short amount 
of time. So, a vote for cloture at this point, would be a vote to cut 
off the opportunity to offer amendments and have them considered. Many 
of us feel that would be inappropriate.
  Let me emphasize this because it is very important. This is not a 
debate between those in the U.S. Senate who believe farmers ought to 
have more planting flexibility and those who believe they should not 
have more planting flexibility. That is what this debate is being 
portrayed as. But, that is not the case.
  I have offered a couple of amendments that are sitting at the desk. I 
have previously offered unanimous consent requests about extension of 
current law. In every case with the amendments that are at the desk and 
the unanimous-consent requests that I have offered, we suggest that 
farmers be given planting flexibility on their base acres. Let the 
farmers decide what they want to plant, not the Federal Government.
  When people stand up and say this is a choice between those who want 
to put you in a straitjacket on planting decisions and those of us who 
want freedom to farm, where you get flexibility, that is not the fact. 
It is a false choice.
  No farm program proposal that I know of before this body would 
require that we be in that circumstance. Nobody is offering a choice in 
which farmers will be required to be told by the Federal Government 
what their planting decisions might or might not be. Everyone here, 
myself and others, believes that we ought to have substantial planting 
flexibility on base acres for farmers.
  There is not any differences either, in my judgment, with respect to 
the issue of repayment of advance deficiency payments for those who 
suffered crop losses.
  Everything I have offered through unanimous-consent requests, as well 
as the two amendments to the freedom-to-farm bill that are now at the 
desk, would do basically the same thing. We would forgive advance 
deficiency payments for those who have suffered crop losses. So, that 
is not what this debate is about either. If people stand up and say 
that is what this debate is about, that is a false set of choices.
  I just heard a discussion, and I heard it previously, that this is 
not about whether there should be permanent farm law. They say, ``Of 
course, there will be a farm program.'' Or they say, ``There will 
likely be a farm program.'' That is not the case at all.
  The freedom-to-farm bill has some attractive features which I hope we 
can capture and put into compromise and move forward. But it also has 
something which, in my judgment, is a bad feature for rural America. 
Most notably this is a bill that pays a severance payment. It gives 
severance pay to farmers for the purpose of transitioning them away 
from any sort of farm program at all.
  Why do I say that? Because the freedom-to-farm bill itself says there 
shall be no more permanent farm law. This bill is going to repeal the 
underlying farm law. Why would they do that? Because they do not want 
permanent farm law.
  They could rectify that easily, if they wanted to modify their 
proposal. But, they do not intend to modify it. These really are 
severance payments, paid up front, for the purpose of providing that 
there will be no further farm programs. That is what it is about. It is 
very simple and, in my judgment, cannot be misrepresented. I know 
people try, but it cannot be. There will no longer be a permanent farm 
law. That is the purpose of repealing it in this proposal.
  The reason I care about this, as well as the reason that others care, 
is that we care whether there is a network of family farm yard lights 
out in rural America. In my judgment, if a farm bill is not designed to 
try to help family farmers, then let us not even talk about a farm 
bill. Then, let us not have a farm bill. Then, let us not have a U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, which was started under Abe Lincoln with 
nine 

[[Page S882]]
employees and has become this behemoth down there. We do not need USDA 
and a farm bill if they are not designed to help protect family-sized 
farmers.
  When you have international price depressions and prices drop, family 
farmers get washed away. They are too small to have much of a financial 
base to withstand declining international prices over which they have 
no control.
  Will this country be farmed by giant agrifactories from California to 
Maine? If you think that is fine, then we do not need to debate this 
farm law. If that is what you decide then we do not need a farm 
program. However, if you think we ought to encourage and nurture a 
network of family farms in this country, have yard lights dotting the 
prairies, and have family farms that become the blood vessels that 
provide nourishment and economic health to rural areas and small towns, 
then you would care about the kind of farm program we enact.

  Some of what has been suggested in the freedom-to-farm bill makes 
sense. Some of it makes no sense at all. Where we ought to find 
ourselves, in my judgment, is in a compromise in which we take the best 
of what both sides have to offer.
  We had a compromise similar to that over the weekend. It has been 
discussed at some length. It is one that I would support and one that 
makes sense, in my judgment. It retains current permanent farm law. It 
substantially changes the up-front payments. It substantially increases 
flexibility on planning for farmers. It forgives advanced deficiency 
payments for those who have suffered crop losses. It does a lot of 
things which together represent the best features of what has been 
offered from both sides.
  Yet we are told by some, ``Either you invoke cloture and cut off 
debate and cut off amendments on the freedom-to-farm bill or we are not 
going to play; we will go home, and we will blame it on you all.''
  We are way beyond the issue of blame. This is February 1996. In the 
middle of last year there should have been a debate on the floor of the 
Senate about a farm bill, and there was not. Everybody in this Chamber 
knows that. We failed.
  Now in February 1996, if we are going to construct farm legislation, 
let us not do it by holding a club to somebody's head. Let us do it by 
deciding that we will put together farm legislation the way it has 
always been put together in the U.S. Senate. That is, let's do it in a 
bipartisan way, taking the good ideas that come from both sides.
  Senator Grassley is on the floor. I expect he will want to speak 
next. He knows as much about agriculture as almost anybody in this 
Chamber and cares a lot about it. We may have different views of 
exactly how these cloture votes work and exactly what we ought to do 
for the future of family farming. But, we do not disagree, in my 
judgment, at all about the importance of agriculture in Iowa and North 
Dakota and the importance of family farmers in Iowa and North Dakota. 
We need to find a way to provide a bridge over the differences in this 
farm bill. We need to decide that at the end of today, or at the end of 
tomorrow, this Senate will have advanced a compromise into a conference 
committee that will benefit family-sized farms in this country.
  I do not have the magic answer on how to do that. But there have been 
compromise talks over the weekend and last week that make a lot of 
sense to me. We should take the best features of several different 
proposals, put them together, and advance a plan that retains permanent 
farm law. That is very important. It does not pull the safety net out 
from under family farmers in the long term. It is not a severance pay 
proposal saying we are going to transition you. Any time somebody from 
Washington talks about transitioning, it is time to fasten your 
seatbelt.
  I do not want to transition farmers. I want a new family farm program 
that recognizes the worth and the value of family farmers and this 
country's future. I want more flexibility. I want up-front advanced 
payments to help recapitalize family farms. I want all of the things 
that many of you want in this Chamber. But I want them put in the 
context of a compact of sorts for the future. I want a compact that 
says we care about the long-term health of family farms in America.

  I took the floor only because I wanted to correct some of the things 
that have been said. It has been said people have objected to the 
debate on the farm bill last week and this week. That is not true at 
all. The farm bill is on the floor. The Senator from Indiana will call 
it back up. Right now we are in morning business. But the minute the 
Senator from Indiana or the majority leader comes to the floor, they 
will call up the farm bill, and it will be pending.
  So those who say the farm bill is not before us because people have 
objected to bringing the bill to the floor do not understand the 
procedure. The farm bill is pending. The cloture vote is a vote about 
whether or not we should cut off the amendments that would provide 
alternatives, including a compromise of the type I have just discussed.
  I hope that by the end of today, or tomorrow, no matter what happens 
on this cloture vote, that all of us, Republicans and Democrats, can do 
what we have done for 30 or 40 years in this Chamber. I hope we can 
finish our work by having fashioned a bipartisan compromise. I hope 
that we have created a farm bill that will work for the advantage and 
the betterment of family farms and our country's future. If we do that, 
we will all have done something worthwhile for rural America.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

                          ____________________