[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 6, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S908-S912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT OF 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from Illinois. I want Members to know I 
have had a brief visit with the distinguished Democratic leader, 
Senator Daschle. We have now asked staff on each side to see if they 
can sit down and work out a series of amendments on each side on the 
farm bill and work into the evening and work tomorrow and set a time 
certain for action on something, say 6 o'clock. That means we would 
have, if there is an agreement--we do not have it yet, we just 
started--so if there is an agreement, then there would be votes 
tonight, there would be votes tomorrow.
  It is my hope that part of that agreement, if in fact one is reached, 
would be a recess period until the 26th of February, because many, 
including many of the staff in the Senate, have been here right around 
the clock through the Christmas holidays and New Year's.
  In any event, that is all we can advise our colleagues at this time. 
If we have any additional information, we will pass it on. So I cannot 
put out the no-vote signs. There could be votes tonight. We will let 
you know as soon as we can.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota, [Mr. Grams] is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise at this time to discuss an amendment 
that had been filed by Senator Kennedy to S. 1521, the farm bill. Like 
the Senator from Massachusetts, and also the chairman of the Labor and 
Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum, I do support health care 
reform--specifically, improvements such as health insurance portability 
and putting an end to discrimination against those with preexisting 
conditions.
  As both a Member of the House and the Senate, I have worked for such 
reforms, and I look forward to supporting such legislation in the near 
future. But as they say, timing is everything. There are undoubtedly 
many people watching the Senate asking themselves what the Senator from 
Massachusetts is up to. I must confess to being one of them.
  The purpose of the farm bill was to give our Nation's farmers and the 
people they work with a clear roadmap of Federal farm policy with which 
to make the decisions this year about planting, equipment purchases, 
and loans. Given that that question remains, why would the Senator have 
been offering an amendment dealing with health insurance to the farm 
bill? In all honesty, I still do not know. It does not make sense. 
Unfortunately, a lot of what goes on sometimes does not make a lot of 
sense.
  For example, last Thursday night, a hotline call from the majority 
leader's office was made to find out if there were any objections to 
bringing up for consideration the Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance 
legislation--the very subject matter of the Senator's amendment filed 
by the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Upon receiving this call, I requested more time to review the 
legislation.
  As a Senator from Minnesota, I have always taken my responsibility to 
study the legislation considered by the Senate seriously--to examine 
its implications, to detect any possible unforeseen consequences, and 
to evaluate it on the basis of the needs and concerns of the people I 
represent--the taxpayers of Minnesota.
  This is the way we Minnesotans make our decisions--carefully and 
thoughtfully. We do not have a reputation for simply rubberstamping the 
bills that affect us and the rest of the Nation. When we put our seal 
of approval on something, it is done with the utmost care and thought.
  Perhaps this is a bigger deal in Minnesota than it is in Washington. 
But it should not be.
  As a result, I simply asked that the request for a time agreement 
wait until I had had a chance to conduct my review. But as usual, 
things have been blown out of proportion, and as a result, we may be 
faced with the Kennedy amendment--a proposal that should make as little 
sense in Washington as it does in Minnesota.
  Having studied the Kassebaum-Kennedy legislation, I have come to the 
conclusion that it would be counterproductive to take this matter up 
right now at a time when the Federal Government has much unfinished 
business left on its plate.
  As a taxpayer, I can not understand why the Senate would move to the 
issue of health insurance reform, without some assurances to the 
American people that we and the President will complete the business 
before us--balancing the budget, saving Medicare from bankruptcy, 
providing tax relief to taxpaying families so they can afford 
insurance, and reforming the welfare system.
  Before we go on to other issues and other agendas, shouldn't all of 
us--Republicans and Democrats--make every effort possible to carry out 
the taxpayer's agenda?
  This question is even more critical, given that the President's own 
health care financing administration projects that the Medicare 
Program, for the first time in 23 years, faces a deficit and will go 
bankrupt sooner than anyone had previously predicted.
  Does it make any sense to rush ahead on health insurance reform at a 
time when the Medicare Program faces insolvency? I think not.
  Back in November, Congress gave President Clinton an opportunity to 
address this problem--by passing a Medicare reform proposal which would 
have saved the trust fund from bankruptcy, while expanding health care 
options available to senior citizens.
  Now, they say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure--
and had the President followed this sound advice and signed the bill, 
we would not be in this mess in the first place.
  Well, he did not sign the bill, we are in this mess, and now some 
Members of the Senate want to move ahead on their agenda without 
addressing the Medicare crisis. These some Members want to move ahead 
on their agenda without addressing the primary concerns of the 
taxpayers, such as the balanced budget, tax relief, and welfare reform. 


[[Page S909]]

  Former Speaker Sam Rayburn used to say, ``To get along, go along.'' 
Well, I think we have been going along for too long in this Chamber, 
and it has been at the expense of taxpayers and senior citizens. Their 
needs must be heard.
  For this reason, I intend to offer a substitute to the Kennedy 
amendment--it simply requires that Congress and the President will 
first resolve the current Medicare crisis and put the program on a path 
toward solvency before turning to any other health care legislation.
  In doing so, we will give our assurance to taxpayers and senior 
citizens that the Senate will face this crisis directly and not turn 
its back on the people we represent.
  In addition, I will ask that the unanimous-consent agreement on 
consideration of the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill be amended such that 
consideration of the bill will not take place until after April 15--tax 
day.
  At the very least, Congress and the President can use this time to do 
what we were elected to do--balance the budget, reform welfare, and 
provide tax relief for middle-class Americans.
  To those who say it cannot be done, I say the tools are there--they 
have been all year. What Washington lacks is the will to do its job. 
Maybe today, we can help turn this around and get back to doing the 
people's business in a way that makes sense both here in Washington and 
across the country.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me put a correction in the Record. My 
understanding is that in their caucus the majority party handed out a 
list of amendments that had been filed at the desk and awaiting debate 
on the farm bill. In the handout in the majority caucus, on page 3 of 
the list is an amendment No. 3205, with my name, Senator Dorgan, on 
emergency relief for refiners.
  Well, I have not offered such an amendment. I have offered amendments 
that are numbered 3206 and 3207. My office has received calls from 
people who have gotten hold of this handout and wondered what on Earth 
am I doing. This is a mistake by somebody. I hope they will correct 
that in their next handout. There is no reason to believe it was 
deliberate.
  I have trouble enough defending the record I create around here as it 
exists, let alone defending something I have not introduced nor 
offered, and would not support. I do not know what this amendment is, 
but I would not be offering amendments dealing with refiners.
  In any event, I want people to know this is not correct, and I hope 
it will be corrected.
  I yield the floor.
  (Ms. SNOWE assumed the chair)
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, as Laurel used to say, ``We have gotten 
ourselves into a fine fix.''
  There is something about this whole thing that obviously is eluding 
me. I must confess that a lot of my farmers, or at least the 
organizations, have gone from being violently opposed to the freedom-
to-farm bill to now favoring it. While I understand that--and I 
certainly am not in any position to criticize some of the farmers in my 
State who now favor freedom to farm--I still believe that the vast 
majority of the farmers in my State, particularly rice farmers--and 
there are thousands of them, as we produce 40 percent of all the rice 
in the country--farmers, in my opinion, would ultimately be devastated 
when the freedom-to-farm bill passes. Cotton and wheat are different 
matters.

  I think the best description of the freedom-to-farm bill I have heard 
was one that was given in caucus the other day by the senior Senator 
from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, when he said the freedom-to-farm 
bill is like the Kool-Aid that Jimmy Jones gave all his devotees when 
they were drinking poison. It tastes good going down, but it is fatal.
  The freedom-to-farm bill simply says, and I do not embellish or 
exaggerate, for example, if you plant cotton and the target price that 
has been set by Congress on cotton is about 72 cents or 74 cents a 
pound--I think 74 cents a pound; cotton right now in New York is 
selling for a lot more than that--that means under the existing 
program, the taxpayers of this country, because cotton is bringing more 
than the target price, would not cost the taxpayers one nickel. If you 
are getting 85 cents to 89 cents a pound, you are above the target 
price. There are a lot of things--from weather to pests--that can cause 
you not to produce as much cotton as you normally do, but that is true 
in any circumstance.
  To proceed with the story, we will assume that during the marketing 
period this fall during which we determine how much more or less than 
the target price cotton brought during those 5 months, assume that 
cotton brings substantially more than the target price. Under the 
freedom-to-farm bill, for purposes of making the point, assume that 
farmers make a bale and a half to two bales an acre. That is a very 
good crop, but assume they do. Assume, further, that they get 85 cents 
a pound. I promise, under normal circumstances, that is very 
profitable.
  What does the freedom-to-farm bill do? It gives them 7 cents a pound 
more, above that price. That is like that Kool-Aid that tastes so good, 
but 3 years from now it is not 7 cents, it is something less, and at 
the end of 7 years it is zero. If cotton has to be selling for 65 or 70 
cents a pound, do not come crying to the Federal Government for some 
kind of subsidy.
  Why would we do this at a time when the programs that we have had in 
existence for many years are working? Madam President, in 1995 
commodity prices--wheat, corn and cotton, especially, but other grains, 
too--were so high that we came in on farm subsidy expenditures $4 
billion less than the baseline. In other words, $4 billion less than we 
thought we would have to pay out.
  We would think this place would be rhapsodic because we saved $4 
billion because commodity prices are good. No, we want to sing this 
siren song to the farmers saying, ``Go along with us. We will cut your 
throat down the road, but you will get rich for 2 or 3 years before we 
get around to it.''
  I gave you the illustration of cotton, but that is true of every 
commodity. All the commodity prices right now are very good, with the 
exception of rice. If we did not have target prices for rice right now, 
I am not sure what, if any, percent of the 40 percent of the Nation's 
rice crop we produce in Arkansas would be produced. Maybe none. Farmers 
are not known to plant when they know they will lose money on the front 
end. They do not ever intend to lose money. It just happens.

  I have an amendment, if I ever get an opportunity to offer it, which 
would simply extend the present farm program for 1 year. We ought to 
adopt that amendment right now and then start amending it. If there are 
things that people want to change about the existing programs, let them 
amend it. If there are things about rural development in America, let 
them add it to that amendment. Do not get out on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate and try to craft a bill that half the Members know nothing 
about, do not understand, and which, in my opinion, is terrible for the 
American farmer.
  Madam President, I am dismayed and disheartened and saddened that the 
positions I have just stated are probably not going to prevail. All I 
am saying is it makes imminent good sense to extend the existing 
program, which, as I pointed out a moment ago as graphically as I know 
how, is succeeding. It is doing precisely what those of us in the past 
many years have said would happen.
  The present farm program is key to market prices of commodities. The 
freedom-to-farm bill is not key to anything except the demise of the 
farmer. They say that it will represent a $12 billion savings over the 
next 7 years. Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows? When you talk about 
saving $12 billion, assume for the sake of art they know exactly what 
they are talking about, and they do to some extent. You can put this in 
a computer and come up with a figure, and they have done it.
  If we were $4 billion under the baseline in 1995, and commodity 
prices right now are higher than they were in 1995, there is an 
excellent chance that 1996 will be further under the baseline than 1995 
was. At least the farmers have that safety net under them. The farmer 
who raises cotton is going to get that 7 cents a pound I alluded to a 
moment ago, regardless of what the market rice is. The farmer who gets 
that extra 7 cents is going to be pretty well-to-do. 

[[Page S910]]

  Another thing about it that drives me up the wall, do not plant your 
cotton. Do not plant anything. We will still give you 7 cents a pound 
whether you put a plow or a seed in the ground. Come on the floor of 
the Senate and propose a program like that for 17-year-old poor 
pregnant girls and you will have a revolution on your hands here.
  Farmers are not interested in welfare. I guess they could be bought 
off with this. But it is welfare. You can call it anything you want. 
That is what it amounts to. We are doing this while we are saying that 
we hope poor children in this country will get treated under Medicaid, 
but we are not guaranteeing anything.
  So, you are going to see ``60 Minutes,'' ``Prime Time Live,'' ``20/
20.'' They will be scouring all the expensive vacation places in the 
country, trying to find farmers who have taken this 7 cents a pound. 
Maybe they planted, maybe they did not. They get the money anyway--
again, whether they farm or not. What kind of a farm program is that, 
Madam President?
  So let me just close by saying something sort of unrelated to this. 
Here we are debating whether or not we are going to give farmers all 
this money as a gift, for doing nothing, and the big debate going on in 
Medicare and Medicaid is, for example in Medicaid, shall we make it an 
entitlement as it is now or shall we make it a block grant? And what 
are the politics of those two?
  The other day I spoke to the hospital administrators. This is off the 
subject of farming, but one of the hospital administrators asked me a 
question. What is our policy on something or other? It was a very good 
question.
  I said, you know, you would never make it here. You are not supposed 
to ask what the policy is in regard to the future of the country, or 
what our real values are. You are supposed to worry about does this 
help Steve Forbes or Bill Clinton? Those are the questions you are 
supposed to ask around here. So it is with Medicaid. The question 
should not be, Are we going to make it an entitlement or a block grant? 
The question ought to be, Are we going to allow children to go without 
health care because they are poor? That is the question. It is just 
that simple. That ought to be the policy first. Then you work out the 
details later.
  So it is with the budget. If I were a youngster running for Governor 
again, like I was one time, I would say--and as I do now, to my 
constituents--the values the people of this country cherish do not 
change very much from year to year. Things change. Health care delivery 
changes. Highways change. Television programming and movies change. 
Everything changes. But what we profess to believe as our values do not 
change very much. If I were running for office I would say: Look, 
balancing the budget is one of our values in this country. All of us 
believe in fiscal responsibility. We do not act like it sometimes, but 
if you ask people do you believe in that, the answer is yes.
  Have you ever heard anybody answer the question, do you want to 
balance the budget--have you ever heard anybody answer that in the 
negative? Of course not. You never will. It is a value in this country. 
Once you get past that value you have to ask yourself what are the 
other values in that budget that we cherish most?
  Winston Churchill said, you can tell more about a civilization by the 
way they treat their elderly than any other way. So let us just take 
that first. Everybody believes in Medicare. They believe in Medicaid 
that provides nursing home care for poor people.
  I do not mind telling you, Madam President, I get letters from people 
who chastise me about something I said on the floor, or some value I 
articulated on the floor, and especially sometimes from wealthy people. 
Why do you not do this? Or why do you not do that? I know, a lot of 
times wealthy people have Aunt Lucy in a nursing home on Medicaid. I 
used to have a nursing home many years ago. I know--I know that some of 
those people who are rabid about cutting Medicaid or something else, if 
you say we are going to kick Aunt Lucy out of the nursing home you will 
hear a different song. Because we value elderly people. We want them 
taken care of. We do not want them on the streets. We do not want them 
abused. We want them to have good care and we pay for it at a very, 
very handsome price.

  And our children. As I said, there is not a soul in this body, I do 
not think, who, if you said you are going to have to pay more taxes or 
you are going to see children on the streets desperately in need of a 
home and of health care, who would not say I will pay it.
  Then you say, would you be willing to pay more taxes if it went for 
education? I have never seen a poll that said no to that. If you call 
it welfare that is one thing. If you call it poor children it comes out 
quite differently.
  So, Madam President, I made sort of a rambling speech. I might say 
one other thing just as an aside. I saw in last Friday's Post that some 
20 so-called moderate Republicans in the House said, ``We are willing 
to forgo the tax cut.'' Bully for them. It is an oxymoron, to talk 
about cutting taxes and balancing the budget.
  I do not know what kind of condition the Medicare system is in. I saw 
the story in the New York Times yesterday. It is much worse than any of 
us thought. But I still maintain that if the House Speaker and the 
negotiators in the Senate and the President would all forgo the tax 
cut, the rest of it will fall into place. You have all the time in the 
world to cut taxes. You are rolling the dice when you cut taxes because 
you are betting that everything GAO or CBO said would happen in the 
budget will come true. Wait 3 years. If it has come true, then cut 
taxes. Do not do it now and wish you had not.
  So, I compliment those moderate Republicans over there who have had 
the courage to defy their leadership and say something which I think is 
eminently sensible.
  So, Madam President, fiscal responsibility, the elderly, our 
children, education, the environment--those are our values. I do not 
care how nasty the mood in this country is, and we all know it is 
pretty nasty, I still would not hesitate to run and not ever talk about 
anything but the four things I just mentioned.
  So, I wish that wise and sane heads would prevail and we could get 
something done on this farm bill. For example, extend the present bill. 
We have no business trying to craft a farm bill on the floor of the 
U.S. Senate. Extend the present bill for a year. If there are parts of 
that you disagree with, offer an amendment to do something about it. 
Change it, but do not take a bill that was immensely unpopular last 
summer, with all the farm groups--Chairman Roberts could not even get 
it out of his committee in the House--and all of a sudden it is our 
salvation.
  I say, I hope saner heads will prevail and that will happen.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I voted for cloture on the Leahy-Dole 
substitute to S. 1541 because I believe it is essential that the 
Congress act on and approve legislation to reform national farm policy 
and to reauthorize vital agricultural conservation and nutrition 
programs.
  The existing authorization for the numerous nutrition, conservation 
and commodity programs that comprise the so-called ``omnibus farm 
bill'' expired during 1995. Regrettably, the Republican leadership did 
not choose to bring reauthorization legislation to the floor prior to 
its expiration, or even in the intervening months since expiration. 
While Senators Daschle, Leahy and many others have called repeatedly 
for a thorough debate of and action on farm policy for nearly a year 
now, no comprehensive farm bill was brought to the Senate floor for 
consideration until last week. This is yet another example of the way 
in which the Republican-led Congress is failing to get the people's 
work done in Washington as it pursues its radical platform.
  However, with the expiration in 1995 of the 1990 farm reauthorization 
legislation, the 1949 Agricultural Act, a decades-old and outdated 
statute authorizing farm commodity programs for wheat and grains 
subsidies automatically again became the controlling statute. According 
to the Department of Agriculture, the 1949 law could substantially 
increase, to an estimated $10 billion for 1996 alone, the federal 
taxpayers' already-mammoth payments to farmers--an outcome that in my 
opinion would be sheer folly, especially at a time when prices for many 
farm products are at record high levels.
  Last week, Senator Dole decided to bring before the Senate the 
Republican version of a farm bill which addresses 

[[Page S911]]
only commodity reform. I opposed the cloture motion on the Dole bill 
because it was not a comprehensive package--it failed to reauthorize 
the vitally important nutrition programs or the valuable conservation 
programs that together with farm provisions should form any responsible 
comprehensive farm legislation.
  After the failure of the Dole bill, Majority Leader Dole, Democratic 
Leader Daschle, Agriculture Committee Chairman Lugar, and Agriculture 
Committee Ranking Democrat Leahy met for several hours and crafted an 
outline of a potential bipartisan compromise on farm policy. However, 
after working for several days and throughout the weekend, the 
negotiations unfortunately hit a brick wall, and Senator Dole called 
for a cloture vote on a package that he previously had negotiated with 
Senators Leahy, Craig, and Lugar.
  The Leahy-Dole substitute is a comprehensive, bipartisan package that 
adds to the Dole bill's farm provisions with the reauthorization of 
important nutrition programs upon which millions of poor Americans, 
preponderantly children and the elderly, rely for their health and 
well-being, and farmland conservation programs on which farmers rely to 
help protect their farmlands from degradation.
  The Leahy-Dole bill--as did the original Dole bill--replaces the 
existing farm subsidy programs with a reform program geared toward 
weaning farmers off farm subsidies over a seven-year period expiring in 
2002. Few government programs cry as loudly for reform.
  The subsidy programs for wheat and other grains have paid farmers 
more than $135 billion in direct income support over the last 10 years. 
In 1993, this conversion of tax dollars to support payments represented 
26 percent of net farm income. However, these subsidies consistently 
have failed to bolster the incomes of the neediest farmers. Further, 
five percent of the subsidies went to farmers whose annual gross 
incomes exceed $1 million. To compound the injury, these outdated 
programs contribute to soil erosion and overuse of agricultural 
chemicals, retarding environmental progress, with the effect that 
Americans pay twice for these farm programs: once for the subsidies and 
again to clean up environmental damage that would be greatly reduced 
without the subsidies.
  The Leahy-Dole proposal also reauthorizes key conservation programs 
like the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP], with an authority to 
enroll up to 36 million acres. It is critical that the Federal 
Government assist farmers with environmental protection given that, as 
a point of reference, farmlands constitute twice the acreage of the 
national wildlife refuge system. The CRP plays an important role in the 
protection of this rural acreage, contributing greatly to protection of 
soil, water and wildlife habitat. The Environmental Quality Incentive 
Program [EQIP] provides further assistance to this effort, making 
available $200 million a year for technical and financial assistance to 
livestock and crop producers who wish to address environmental problems 
on their farms. The bill also restores the authority, on a voluntary 
basis, for permanent and 30-year easements to protect wetlands.
  In my view, no component of a so-called farm bill is more important 
than the way it addresses national nutrition programs. The Leahy-Dole 
package reauthorizes several vital nutrition programs for seven years: 
food stamps, the emergency food assistance program [TEFAP], the 
commodity supplemental food program--an alternative to the Women, 
Infants, and Children or WIC Nutrition Program in many cities--and the 
food distribution program on Indian reservations. As just one 
illustration of how extensive is the impact of these nutrition 
programs, 14 million children depend on food stamps to ensure they have 
a minimally adequate diet.
  Also included in the Leahy-Dole proposal is a provision that grants 
consent of Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, using 
the same language that passed the Senate last year with 65 votes. The 
New England States want to improve the way milk is priced in their 
region by creating a commission comprised of both farmers and consumers 
that would have the authority to adjust and stabilize fluid milk prices 
in the six State area of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, 
Connecticut and Rhode Island. The New England Dairy Compact was 
supported by all 12 of the region's Senators--from both parties and 
all points on the political spectrum--and would allow New England to 
take more control of pricing the fluid milk produced there. This 
compact is also consistent with the National Governors' Association's 
agricultural policy and is strongly supported by the New England 
Governors' Association.

  Madam President, I do not want my vote for cloture on the Leahy-Dole 
alternative to be mischaracterized as a total endorsement of this 
package. This legislation is a long way from anything I could consider 
even adequate to meet our Nation's agricultural, economic, and 
nutrition needs, protect taxpayers and consumers, and protect the 
environment. I expect to offer at least one amendment to eliminate 
funding for an unnecessary program that subsidizes foreign marketing of 
U.S. agricultural products, often by wealthy multinational 
corporations, and will support efforts of other Senators to improve the 
bill.
  But I concluded that I should support cloture based on the following 
facts:
  First, if we do not enact into law--and soon--some replacement for 
the farm legislation that expired last year, American taxpayers will be 
paying far more than the already much-too-large sums in farm subsidies 
at a time when both our Federal budgetary problems and the farm economy 
indicate the desirability of reductions in those subsidies. I am 
certain that a better bill could be devised; I have strong doubts it 
will be devised and passed this year.
  Second, no farm bill should be passed without strong nutrition and 
conservation components. Yet the Republicans who control both Houses 
have proven they are entirely willing to do exactly that. Senator 
Leahy, in his negotiations, secured a commitment from Senator Dole and 
Senator Lugar, both men who honor their word, that the nutrition and 
conservation provisions will be retained in conference committee. No 
one else has such a commitment for any nutrition or conservation 
provisions, no matter how strong they might be willing to seek to make 
those provisions.
  Third, while I have grave doubts about the structure of the freedom 
to farm approach Republicans are taking toward reforming farm policy--
the approach used in the Leahy-Dole bill --I am certain that the farm 
programs of the past have outlived any usefulness they may have had and 
must be replaced. No other proposal being discussed comes anywhere 
close to effecting the kinds and magnitude of reform that ought to take 
place--to reduce the cost of these programs to taxpayers, to reduce the 
negative incentives they establish for misuse of farm land and 
environmental damage, to reduce the amount of tax dollars that go to 
wealthy corporations and gentlemen farmers, and to focus the program 
resources on assisting needy family farmers.
  The Leahy-Dole compromise at least contains components I think are 
vital--for nutrition and conservation--and carries with it a commitment 
to protect those provisions through conference. It at least moves away 
from a failed or obsolete farm policy and places subsidies on a 
downward trend through 2002.
  It is important that I serve notice that I will only vote for this 
legislation if it is improved sufficiently during Senate action to 
warrant that support. And I will oppose it if despite the commitments 
to the contrary it returns from conference committee with weaker 
nutrition or conservation provisions.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I hope we can fully debate the farm 
bill soon, and I will have more to say during that debate. Perhaps that 
will take place this evening and tomorrow. If not, then I hope we 
debate it very soon.
  Farmers across the country need a farm bill. We are many months 
overdue. It is unfortunate that we are in this current situation 
because farmers need to plan, they need to arrange credit with their 
bankers, and they have a right to know what programs they will be 
operating under.
  I voted in favor of cloture last week. I did so not because I support 
freedom-

[[Page S912]]
to-farm. I don't. I favor long-term policy that would promote family 
agriculture and revitalize our rural economy. This is not that.
  I believe freedom-to-farm is a dubious carrot followed by a very real 
stick. It would eliminate farm programs, ultimately leaving farmers to 
the tender mercies of the grain companies and the railroads and the 
Chicago Board of Trade during years when prices are low. I think in the 
long term it could have disastrous effects on family farmers and our 
rural economy.
  Some farmers believe that freedom-to-farm is the best deal they will 
get from this Congress. I understand that. Many in this Congress oppose 
farm programs, and those people have made a credible threat to the 
future existence of farm programs. This plan offers farmers payments 
this year even though prices are projected to be strong. And it 
promises to lock in at least some payments for 7 years. For some 
farmers, even those who know that it is bad policy, that is attractive.
  In fact, freedom-to-farm is bad policy. I will have more to say on 
this subject when we get to actual debate on the bill.
  I voted for cloture last week because I had told Minnesota farmers 
that I didn't want to block its consideration. I had my amendments 
prepared. I was ready to debate. I still am. My strategy is not to 
block or obstruct.
  But I will vote against cloture today. I have very strong reasons for 
doing so. And I am pleased to say that I do so on behalf of Minnesota 
dairy farmers, as I will explain in a moment.
  First, I would like to point out that I have supported what I 
consider to be genuine reform of farm programs. I cosponsored a 7-year 
proposal last year which I wish could have received a closer look from 
the Senate and from farmers around the country in recent months. I 
still believe it is the best approach.
  My colleagues and I, led by the minority leader, proposed a long-
term, targeted marketing-loan approach. That plan would provide farmers 
the planting flexibility they need. But it also would provide needed 
long-term protection from some of the uncertainties that farmers face--
uncertainties of weather, and of markets that are dominated by large 
multinational companies. It also would target farm-program benefits to 
family-size farmers. I still hope we can vote on that proposal.
  I also intend to propose at least one amendment, if not two, to save 
money by eliminating loopholes that allow some people to collect the 
maximum farm payments three times. I want to use savings from that 
reform to raise loan rates for family farmers, or to help family-size 
farmers to invest in their own value-added processing cooperatives and 
marketing operations.
  Now, however, I would like to address the effort represented by this 
substitute bill to dress up the freedom-to-farm proposal to attract 
votes--to attract Democratic votes in order to get cloture. I 
especially would like to address a provision that has been added which 
I consider to be a poison pill: the Northeast dairy compact.
  I have to say that I've been working since I got here 5 years ago for 
meaningful dairy market-order reform. Minnesota dairy farmers suffer 
terrible discrimination under the current Federal order system. I'm 
strongly opposed to the Northeast dairy compact not only because it 
forestalls reform of that system. But it also cuts a special deal for 
one region's dairy farmers to the detriment of farmers in the Upper 
Midwest, and it sets the bad precedent of establishing regional 
barriers.
  We need to move to a farm bill. And we need to do it swiftly. But 
this deal is unacceptable.
  My office is hearing from Minnesota dairy farmers and their 
organizations. Minnesota's Agriculture Commissioner, a Republican whom 
I respect, also has sent a message. They are urging a vote against 
cloture. I also received a very strong statement of opposition to the 
Northeast dairy compact from the Governor of my State today. I agree 
with his position, and I appreciate his communication on this issue. 
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter of Minnesota 
Governor Arne Carlson be printed in the Record immediately following my 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I cannot stand by while this deal is made which 
neglects the dairy farmers of my State. I will vote against cloture. I 
believe I owe it to Minnesota dairy farmers. And should cloture be 
invoked, or should the farm bill come up for consideration under some 
other time agreement, I intend to be part of an effort to strike the 
Northeast dairy compact from the bill.
  Madam President, I hope we can move quickly forward from here to 
consideration of a viable and acceptable farm bill. I look forward to a 
healthy debate.

                               Exhibit 1

                                               State of Minnesota,


                                            Washington Office,

                                 Washington, DC, February 6, 1996.

     Re Opposition to the Northeast interstate dairy compact.

       Dear U.S. Senator. I am writing to ask you to oppose the 
     inclusion of the Northeast Intestate Dairy Compact in the 
     Freedom to Farm Act. My state represents one of the top dairy 
     states in the nation and our dairy farmers are among the 
     smallest on average in the nation.
       The Compact, if approved by Congress, would be exempt from 
     Commerce Clause challenge and would allow those states 
     participating in the Compact to require a higher price to be 
     paid to their producers than guaranteed by the Federal Milk 
     Marketing Order system.
       I oppose the Dairy compact for the following reasons:
       (1) The Compact does nothing to correct the many failings 
     of the archaic 1937 Federal Milk Marketing Order system;
       (2) Most of the Compact's vital provisions will be left to 
     rulemaking and the rules will be written by those who benefit 
     from the Compact;
       (3) The Compact Commission will erect trade barriers to 
     less expensive milk coming in from other regions to maintain 
     the higher Compact milk prices and these trade barriers will 
     harm dairy farmers and processors in the rest of the nation;
       (4) Higher Compact dairy farm prices will likely encourage 
     surplus dairy production in that region, thereby requiring 
     additional federal government purchases and lowering the 
     prices received by struggling producers in other regions due 
     to the dumping of surplus milk into other markets;
       (5) Higher Compact prices in the Northeast will likely 
     raise the cost of milk to Northeast dairy consumers and make 
     Northeast processors less competitive;
       (6) Higher Compact prices will benefit only one region of 
     the country, a region that already benefits form some of the 
     nation's highest federally-guaranteed minimum farm Class I 
     milk prices; and
       (7) Other regions will likely seek to enact dairy compacts 
     as a defensive measure, thereby balkanizing the nation's 
     dairy industry, raising consumer dairy prices nationwide, and 
     encouraging inefficient milk production.
       If Congress is seeking ways to help the nation's struggling 
     dairy farmers, it should reform or eliminate the archaic 
     Federal Milk Marketing Order system so that the nation's 
     dairy policy is evenhanded and beneficial to all of the 
     nation's dairy farmers. Moreover, we should not protect one 
     region of the nation from competition from outside its 
     borders as we move toward free trade around the world.
       Please oppose inclusion of the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
     Compact in the Freedom to Farm Act. The future of your 
     state's dairy industry is at stake.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Warmest regards,
                                                  Arne H. Carlson,
                                            Governor of Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I may be 
permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________