[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1884-S1885]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______


                            FREEDOM TO FARM

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, after months of discussion and 
debate on farm legislation, I was pleased that the Senate passed a farm 
bill Thursday, February 7, which implements revolutionary steps toward 
a free market agriculture system. With farmers beginning to plan for 
the upcoming growing season, the urgency to pass a farm bill lead to a 
compromise bill which, while it certainly could have taken bolder moves 
toward free market agriculture, is a step in the right direction. This 
bill offers reform, opportunity, and flexibility for farmers in a 
fiscally responsible way.
  The most significant reforms of current farm programs in this bill 
are the Freedom to Farm provisions which eliminate agriculture 
subsidies over the next 7 years. Freedom to Farm will allow American 
farmers to grow for the global market rather than for the Federal 
Government. The bill would eliminate supply control programs and 
requirements that farmers plant specific crops to preserve historical 
crop bases used to determine Government payments. These are very 
positive steps toward a free market in agriculture.
  Time after time, Michigan farmers have told me that they do not want 
to grow for the Government--they want to grow for the marketplace. By 
extricating Michigan's farmers from bureaucratic planting requirements, 
the Freedom to Farm provisions in this bill will allow them to produce 
to meet consumer demand.
  I would like to discuss an important change which was made in this 
bill before it was brought to the Senate floor. Many Michigan fruit and 
vegetable growers were concerned about a provision originally included 
in the Freedom to Farm language which would have allowed farmers 
receiving Government payments to grow fruits and vegetables on their 
land. In effect, had this been implemented, farmers receiving subsidies 
would have been able to plant nonsubsidized crops. This would have put 
those fruit and vegetable farmers who have been growing for the market 
without Government intervention at a disadvantage. Fruit and vegetable 
farmers who had never received subsidies would have been competing 
against subsidized farmers. Members of the committee corrected this 
problem before Senate floor consideration. The bill which passed the 
Senate maintains current policy which does not allow nonprogram crops 
to be grown on contract acres.
  During consideration of the farm bill, Senator Wellstone offered an 
amendment to delete language in the bill which provided congressional 
consent for the Northeast dairy compact. This compact would allow 
member States to set the price for fluid milk above the existing 
Federal order. Thus, the compact would have been an additional step 
away from free market competition in that it would establish a subsidy 
within a subsidized industry. Not only would the compact raise the 
price of milk among the New England States, it would set a disturbing 
precedent by allowing States to insulate themselves from competition. 
Mr. President, in this farm bill which attempts to move the United 
States toward free market agriculture, the Northeast dairy compact 
would have been a dangerous step backward. I was pleased to support Mr. 
Wellstone's amendment which passed by a 50 to 46 vote.
  The bill as written increases the interest rate for price support 
loans for farmers through the Commodity Credit Corporation by 1 
percent. Senator Harkin offered an amendment which would have 
eliminated this increase. While it is important for farmers to have 
access to affordable loans, I opposed Senator Harkin's amendment. His 
amendment would have cost the American taxpayers $260 million. Yet, 
even with the increase, interest rates on price support loans would 
remain below commercial rates. Mr. President, this Congress has been 
dedicated to efforts to reduce the U.S. budget deficit. The price tag 
on Mr. Harkin's amendment, coupled with the fact that the loan rates 
are lower than commercial rates, even with the 1 percent increase, lead 
me to oppose Mr. Harkin's amendment which failed by a vote of 37 to 59.
  Senator Harkin offered a second amendment which would have reinstated 
the Farmer Owned Grain Reserve. Under this program, which is no longer 
in existence, the Federal Government paid grain farmers for grain put 
in storage. This created a grain surplus which depressed prices. 
Farmers I have talked to in Michigan are opposed to the grain reserve--
they understand that farmers cannot store themselves into prosperity. 
This amendment would have been out of place in a farm bill which 
attempts to have farmers produce for the market instead of for the 
Government. Along with 60 of my colleagues, I opposed this amendment.
  Senator Santorum who has been a strong, consistent opponent of our 
outdated, feudalistic peanut program, offered an amendment which would 
have made more drastic changes to the peanut program than were included 
in the bill. Unfortunately, a majority of Members of the Senate voted 
to table the amendment thereby effectively killing it. I voted against 
tabling the amendment because I believe we should have had an 
opportunity to support further changes in the peanut program. Senator 
Santorum's amendment would

[[Page S1885]]

have phased out the quota system which was established during the 
depression to guarantee a high price for peanut producers. In order to 
do this, the Government issued quotas. Only the holders of these quotas 
would be allowed to grow peanuts. The quota holders are now selling the 
right to grow peanuts at extremely high prices which increases the 
price of peanuts to the consumer. Under the peanut program, the 
Government dictates who has the right to grow peanuts and the amount 
they are allowed to grow. Mr. President, I voted against the motion to 
table the Santorum amendment and believe that we should go further than 
the bill which passed to eliminate the peanut quota system.
  I was pleased to vote with 60 of my colleagues in opposition to the 
Gregg amendment which would have eliminated the new sugar provisions 
from the farm bill. Senator Gregg's amendment would have left the sugar 
program as it is today in the hopes of eliminating the program 
completely when it expires in 1997.
  Mr. President, the sugar program is different than many other 
agriculture programs in that it is necessary to keep a trade balance 
with other countries. Sugar is highly subsidized in other countries, 
allowing the producers to dump their excess sugar on the world market 
at very low prices. Eliminating our sugar program completely would give 
our sugar producers--some of the best producers in the world--a trade 
disadvantage in the world market. Unilateral elimination of our sugar 
program would put the most efficient sugar producers in the world at a 
competitive disadvantage to other producers. Furthermore, the notion 
that other countries would follow our lead and eliminate their support 
programs on their own is ridiculous.
  Mr. President, I have introduced legislation which would completely 
eliminate the U.S. agricultural price support and production adjustment 
programs for sugar contingent upon a GATT agreement which would 
eliminate export subsidies and price supports in other countries. While 
I firmly believe that the free market should be allowed to work, it 
will not work if the most efficient producers are put at a competitive 
disadvantage. As I have said in the past, I will continue to fight 
diligently on the side of free trade. I will continue to work to 
eliminate export subsidies and other price supports worldwide so that 
we may eventually achieve true free trade.
  Senator Dorgan offered an amendment which would have mandated that in 
order to receive Government payments, farmers must grow program crops. 
While on the surface this appears to be a reasonable amendment, it 
flies in the face of the Freedom to Farm provisions. Through Freedom to 
Farm, over the next 7 years, farmers who have received payments in 3 of 
the past 5 years will receive guaranteed payments--regardless of how 
they use their acreage. After 7 years, however, the payments will stop. 
Over the 7 years during which payments will be provided, farmers are 
expected to transition from producing for the Government to producing 
for the marketplace. For the Government to dictate--in any way--how the 
farmers are to use their land would be counterproductive and would 
serve only to make it more difficult for us to accomplish free market 
agriculture. For these reasons, I did not support Senator Dorgan's 
amendment which failed in a 48 to 48 vote.
  Mr. President, I am pleased that both the House and Senate were able 
to pass farm bills. I am hopeful that the conferees will act quickly to 
finalize this legislation so that America's farmers can begin to plan 
for the upcoming season and grow for the market.

                          ____________________