[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 26866-26867]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          WANTING A FARM BILL

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have the permission of the Senator 
from Arkansas to go first.

  I do take offense at the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, 
saying we do not want a farm bill. That is not true. I do want a farm 
bill. I do not think there is a Senator here who does not want one, and 
I would like to see one completed before we leave.

  I have been talking to farmers back home in my State, and they tell 
me frankly they like Cochran-Roberts. I am pleased to support the 
amendment that Senator Hutchinson has offered that has the House 
structure with some additional language in it that we think makes the 
bill even better. That was my farm bill that I offered, along with 
Senator Hutchinson and four Democrats. There were four Democrats and 
three Republicans on that bill. I believe the Presiding Officer was on 
that bill. It was a good bipartisan bill.

  As the bill went through the system, the committee dealt with it and 
the majority leader dealt with it, and pretty soon we had a bill that 
was not as balanced as we would like to see it.

  A lot of people in this Senate who care about agriculture--and there 
are some other than Senator Harkin--are really concerned about the 
legislation and want a good bill.

  Senator Cochran from Mississippi who chair the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee is one of the most knowledgeable people in 
this Senate on agricultural issues.

  Senator Pat Roberts chaired the House Committee on Agriculture and is 
one of the most knowledgeable people in this Senate on agriculture.

  Senator Lugar, the former chairman of the Agriculture Committee and 
one of the finest Members of this body, is not comfortable with this 
legislation, and he certainly, as a farmer, cares about agriculture. So 
does Senator Grassley who spoke earlier, a farmer himself, and a senior 
member of the Agriculture Committee.

  They just do not agree with Senator Harkin on everything that is in a 
bill that he admits is not perfect.

  What we ought to do, and what I would have expected to happen, is 
that these responsible, experienced Senators and farm experts would be 
able to get together and work out some of the problems and not end up 
with a problem with the House and a problem with the President.

  How are we going to get a bill passed if it cannot be conferenced? 
How are we going to get a bill passed if the President vetoes it? It is 
not going to happen. Let's get together now. That is the problem.

  My farmers are telling me they believe all three of these bills can 
help them. They like all three of these bills, but we have to look at 
it in terms of a national policy and work out something with which 
everybody can work.

  The problem has been, frankly, that the majority has not shown enough 
respect, in my view, to Senators Cochran, Roberts, Grassley and Lugar 
who have been trying to make some improvements in the bill. They have 
not talked to them on any significant issue, only minor issues, and we 
end up at loggerheads. The President is very unhappy with what he sees.

  Even if we pass something before we leave, if it is not legislation 
that is likely to move forward, we have not done anything. That is why 
I appreciate Senator Hutchinson's offering of our original bipartisan 
bill that we know can get through the House, and we believe the 
President will sign it. I believe we will have a farm bill in a matter 
of days--hours, really. That would be good for agriculture.

  The people with whom I have talked are concerned about delay. They 
would like this bill passed as soon as possible. They want to make 
their plans for next year. They want to talk with their banks and see 
about the financing they will need. We do need to move as fast as 
possible.

  It would be quite preferable for us to move and have a bill passed 
that the President would sign before we recess. There is no doubt about 
that. I would like to see that done. But Senator Harkin and the 
majority leader are basically saying: Take our bill just as we have 
written it, even though we have a vote or two over 50 for it, but we 
will not talk with you.

  I have seen Senator Daschle when he was the Democratic leader use the 
power of 40 votes and ask for compromise and get it time and again. 
That is what this body is about. I just have not seen enough progress 
in a bipartisan way here. I believe there has just been an effort to 
stampede this bill through to try to gin up people and say: The Harkin 
bill is the only one that can do the job, and it must be passed now; 
and if you do not pass the Harkin bill now, you do not care about 
farmers, you do not care about agriculture, you would just as soon 
leave them out there and let them go bankrupt. That is just not true. I 
resent that.


[[Page 26867]]


  I come from a farming family. My daddy had a farm equipment 
dealership. My grandparents were farmers. I grew up in the country. I 
know about farming. I have seen them come into my daddy's business with 
a tractor broken down, with hay in the field, a hay baler not working, 
needing help, knowing if the rain came and they did not get the crop 
in, they could lose most everything. And we did not have the programs 
then that we have today. I understand that. I grew up in that 
community. I want a farm bill, and I do not like it when somebody says 
I do not. And I do not like it when they say: If you do not agree with 
me and agree to vote on a bill I want on which we will accept no 
significant amendments, then we are going to accuse you of being 
against agriculture. I do not believe that is right.

  That is where we are, and everybody knows it. There is no mystery 
about where this deal is tonight.

  I want to make one more point.

  There are several problems with the Harkin bill. From what I am 
hearing, other people are also expressing those concerns. It seems to 
me that the Harkin bill will increase production at a time when our 
production is high. And if it goes higher it will be even harder to 
sustain legitimate crop prices. That is a real problem. We have pretty 
high production now. Cotton is up. None is down that I know of. We 
don't need to institutionalize or create an incentive to do that.

  We want to do this thing in a way that does not leave us subject to 
the charge of the Europeans who say we are protectionists and that we 
are violating WTO commitments. If we can avoid violating them and 
accomplish the same thing, we ought to do it. I hope and pray that the 
Europeans will see their extraordinary subsidies for agriculture are 
not justified. I hope they will begin to reduce some of that, and we 
will see increased exports around the world in other places besides 
Europe.

  If we can avoid it, we ought not violate our trade agreements. I am 
afraid in a few years the experts will say we are in violation of our 
international trade commitments, putting us at a disadvantage when we 
try to negotiate with our trading partners who I think have been 
violating the law consistently. We will not be as authoritative with 
the same moral basis to argue they need to get right with the law.

  We need a bill that can go to conference and be signed by the 
President promptly. That is why I believe the legislation Senator 
Hutchinson has offered tonight is a good vehicle for that.

  There are two ways we can get a farm bill as I see it, just like 
this. We can have a good-faith, compromise negotiation discussion 
between the slim majority and the leaders on this side who are fine 
people, fine Senators, who have a history, a record, and a career of 
supporting agriculture--Senators Grassley, Roberts, Cochran--and talk 
with them and see if they cannot work out something. If they do not, we 
have another vehicle, a vehicle Senator Hutchinson would offer, to 
solve the problem. Those are the two ways. Maybe there will be another 
and cloture will be achieved.

  I know one thing: If we did those two things, we would be out of here 
and we would have a bill the President would most likely sign and we 
would have fulfilled our duty.

  I yield the floor.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama for 
his cosponsorship of this legislation and for his excellent statement. 
I also commend the Presiding Officer this evening for his role and hard 
work on the peanut program and his great victory on that issue and his 
hard work on the Agriculture bill and for his willingness to stay this 
late. I am sure the Presiding Officer is ready to wind this up.

  I wish my colleagues could have seen the farmers I met with this past 
Saturday. One asked the prospects for getting a bill completed and to 
the President. I began to explain the Senate process. We have cloture; 
we may not get it. If we get it, we get a bill that has to go to 
conference. There is a lot of difference between the House and the 
Senate. I explained that and their eyes glazed over. There were tears. 
They said that would not do a lot of good for making loans and plans 
and getting ready for the upcoming planting season.

  We have reached the point of finger pointing, both sides saying the 
other does not want a bill this year. I suggest Senator Sessions 
outlined two ways we have a chance of getting one. They are genuine 
compromises. We can pass the House bill I filed this evening, which I 
urged in my floor speeches we move this year. I wrote Chairman Harkin 
and urged quick action and voted for the Harkin commodity title, and 
voted for the committee bill, voted for cloture last week; I voted for 
cloture today. I want a farm bill.

  The way I see it, Senator Harkin made a significant admission and 
said, if we invoke cloture and pass his bill tomorrow night, it will be 
weeks before a conference can work out the differences between the 
House and Senate and get a bill to the President.

  There were a lot of Democrats who voted against Cochran-Roberts. But 
do we say a lot of Democrats do not want a farm bill because they would 
not support that? Of course not. We all have ideas of what the ideal 
farm bill is. We cannot get an ideal farm bill in these closing days. 
None of us would know exactly what it was.

  There is one way we can get a bill this year. That is to move this 
House-like bill cosponsored by Republicans and Democrats--four 
Democrats, three Republicans--and move it immediately to the President. 
Tomorrow we will find out who is really wanting a bill this year and 
who is really wanting to stall one out--whether it is pride of 
authorship: my bill is the only bill, or whether we are willing to get 
an improvement in farm policy under this budget and to the President 
and signed into law.

  I hope tomorrow there is good news this Christmas for America's 
farmers.

  I thank the Presiding Officer for his patience, and I yield the 
floor.

                          ____________________