Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order until the hour of 8:40 p.m. this evening, at which time the Senate will proceed as a body to the Hall of the House of Representatives to hear the State of the Union Address.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota and I probably agree more than we disagree on agricultural policy, and I think both he and I recognize the importance of our concerns this afternoon and what we have tried to say from the Senate to the leaders of the Senate and to the President. The President cannot be allowed to only have rhetoric on this issue. He must show action. He has to come forward, and he has not yet come forward with a farm plan. Clearly, this morning at the White House, with the discussion among our agricultural leaders, our Senate and House leaders and the Secretary, in all fairness but with no criticism, this administration is without a plan as we speak. That simply has to change if we are to work out our differences on farm policy. Budget reconciliation, Mr. President, over the years has taken a variety of forms, and it takes those forms as the budget requires it to. Those provisions of the farm bill or farm policy that are in budget reconciliation are those that drive budgets--conservation, farm credit, some of those that are not there. We are not through with those. We will ultimately package a farm bill this year, and I think the Senator from North Dakota and I both recognize that for it to be freestanding on this floor, a very large part of it has to be bipartisan, and we will work at every effort to solve that. The work that we did earlier this year that found its way into budget reconciliation did get a lot of support. It is not to say that it did not get support. The American Farm Bureau supported it, the National Corn Growers Association supported it, the National Grain Trade Council supported it. I noticed the North Dakota Grain Growers Association lent their support to it, the Iowa Cattlemen, the Iowa Corn Growers. Obviously, my colleague mentioned the majority leader. Well, Kansas was right in there offering the support to it from the Kansas Association of Wheat Growers and bankers and feed and grain associations and Kansas Fertilizer and Chemical Association. It is a bill that offers broad- based support to American agriculture, and I think it is important that the Record show that. There are disagreements, and there are differences. My colleague from North Dakota and I are tremendously concerned about what has happened in discretionary spending over the last good number of years, to see that direct payments to American agricultural producers from 1986 to today has been reduced in real dollars about 60 percent. The problem we have now is trying to balance all of that out. Ironically enough, when we gained majority here in the U.S. Congress, we knew that to get the kind of budget control we had to have, we could no longer go to the discretionary side, as my colleagues party has gone for one too many year, and we had to go to entitlements. Even though we brought agricultural spending down, there is no question that that happened with policy change. We are gridlocked here today over entitlement battles. If we are still going to get the budget savings and leave entitlements untouched, I am afraid that my colleague from North Dakota and I are going to be locked together in a battle to protect agriculture. This administration still wants to take much too much out of discretionary spending and free up or allow relatively untouched a variety of the entitlement areas. What we tried to offer was some balance. There is disagreement at this time, and I hope we can arrive at a balanced budget. The President has finally agreed to 7 years and CBO. But there is a lot of difference out there still. The one thing I think my colleague and I agree on this evening is the immediacy of the situation with American agriculture. We are not going to see another shutdown. Programs are going to be funded. But how long will they be funded, and how far into the next cropping season? The signals we send now and in the next few months are going to be ever so important, as American agriculture begins to farm and puts together its budgets and farm programs, buys the new pickup, if you will, looks at the new combine, puts the budget together for the fertilizer, seed grain, corn, and all of that. That is what it is all about. I hope that by the weekend, possibly, we can have resolved this issue. Maybe it will come with a CR on Friday, maybe it will not. But I certainly hope that all parties involved will engage and get it resolved so that we can send a critical message to agriculture in this country, which they are now asking for.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I have to object this evening. Maybe this is the kind of legislation that we could include in the CR this coming Friday. I think the Senator from North Dakota and I both know well that we are going to have to deal with a continuing resolution come Friday; that we are not going to shut the Government down anymore; that the President does not want to shut the Government down anymore. At least out of all of this budget discussion that has gone on for the last good number of weeks, both the executive branch and the legislative branch have come to that conclusion, and I agree that that is the proper conclusion. The Senator brings up an important point, that is why I brought it up, because it was not in his original unanimous consent, and I had hoped that we be thorough in dealing with this issue. I am glad the Senator has brought it up. It is a question of great concern. It is a repayment of nearly $2 billion of advance deficiency payments. I hope that we can resolve this issue, but it is not a separate issue to be resolved tonight. I think the Senator has brought it to the floor with just intention, and because he has raised the issue to the level of visibility that he does tonight, I hope that maybe that is something we will consider as we deal with final resolution toward the end of the week of a continuing resolution, but I do object at this time. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before the Chair rules, let me explain why I presented this legislation. It is detailed in the sense of the titles of the law of 1949 that it would repeal. Obviously, in hearing from the Secretary of Agriculture, he, by the action of his own President in vetoing the Budget Reconciliation Act that laid farm policy out in it, is in a tremendous quandary at this moment. He has to implement a very cumbersome and costly law, the provisions of the 1949 Agricultural Adjustment Act. It does not fit modern-day agriculture. I am sure the Senator from North Dakota and I are extremely concerned about family farms. We have worked together on that issue on the Agriculture Committee of the Senate in an effort to resolve those problems. I do not impugn his intention nor do I believe he impugns mine. But clearly we need policy. Policy has been created. Policy has been passed by this Congress. And policy has been vetoed by this President, the very kind of policy that would have created the certainty, that would have avoided the kind of frustrations that the Senator and I are involved in right now. So by action here tonight I have attempted to say that which has been worked on should be freestanding legislation, that we ought to have a right to vote up or down on it, and that I hope then that the President would sign it. It certainly offers the kind of budgetary savings that he has offered in the cuts in discretionary spending and at the same time it allows the flexibility to avoid the downsizing of purely a budget-driven farm policy. It allows the flexibility of a market-driven farm policy that protects American agriculture, that certainly protects the family farm, but also recognizes that they too are businesses that have to compete like everybody else in the small business sector of our society. It does provide a safety net, but it does set together a plan, a 7-year plan that allows them to create and move into the market away from simply farming to the program. If there is one thing I heard from Idaho agriculture and that I heard from Midwestern agriculture, it is ``Give us the flexibility so we don't find ourselves totally constrained to a farm program that may not be all that profitable.'' I laughed a bit this afternoon when there were my colleagues coming to the floor talking about the freedom to farm as a welfare program. When we talk about welfare, one of the phrases that has always gotten used is that we provide a safety net to the recipient. Yet the record shows that the words ``safety net'' were oftentimes used by my colleagues as they decried the idea of a welfare program. Offering stability, offering baseline, and at the same time offering movement into the market is not welfare. And nobody that is a producer and a hard worker out there that I know in my State that is a farmer or rancher is going to argue they are a recipient of a welfare program, whether it be the Freedom to Farm Act or whether it be current policy. Mr. President, we need action. This President needs to act. He needs to come to the table to work with us on a balanced budget and in so doing to be able to craft and move or resolve the issue that we are currently involved in that has brought real stalemate to the agricultural communities of our country. That is why I propounded these two very important unanimous consent requests this afternoon, to see if it would not move our President off center and allow flexibility, both for the Senate and for our Secretary, to get on with the business of telling American agriculture what they can expect in the coming crop year.

Mr. CRAIG. In light of the objections, and that which has just transpired, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill I now send to the desk which would suspend further implementation of the Permanent Agricultural Law of 1949, that the bill be read for a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, without any intervening action or debate. I now send that legislation to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Dole, Senator Lugar, and Senator Cochran.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before the Chair puts the consideration, I would like to explain to the Senate that this would allow the Senate to once again pass the Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 1995, thereby giving the House their opportunity to once again enact the farm bill. Farmers of this country, as I have already explained, need this legislation now. The President has vetoed it. It is very clear he has vetoed this policy. I certainly do not agree with my colleague that this has been cobbled up. We have been 5 months in the making of this legislation, in creating these difference. I think we are moving toward planting in the Southern parts of our country. As I mentioned in my earlier comments, farmers are now sitting down with their bankers to put the farm policy together, or their farming programs together, for the year. And we certainly need legislation at this time.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that Title I, the Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 1995, of H.R. 2491, the 7-year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, as vetoed by the President, be introduced as a freestanding bill; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be advanced to the third reading and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Obviously, the Senator does not have page 3 for me. He has a message that is less than legible, and I would like to see the full impact of this. I must advise the Senator and my friend here that this is not a way to pass substantive legislation. We are dealing with an entire farm package here and it is critically necessary. I do object. And I do object by the nature of the way this has been presented. What I am offering and what has been objected to, Mr. President, is a full and complete package that has already been debated on the floor, well disseminated and understood by American agriculture, and I think largely accepted in their recognition of needing to participate.

Mr. CRAIG. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I think the Senator and I speak to the same concern, but there is one thing that has gone on this year that it is important the record reflect--the very extensive hearings, well over 6 months of hearings now on every title of the farm bill. But because we were in a uniquely different situation, and that is we had to deal with the cost and the cost impacts of farm policy, we brought those provisions of what would be a new farm bill to the floor in the budget reconciliation to gain those kinds of savings, to gain the $15 billion in savings that was necessary. What the Senator proposes in this extension under the current law would also wreak some peril. There is no question about it. Farmers are being required to repay nearly $2 billion in 1995 advanced deficiency payments, and I think only in the freedom to farm package do we resolve that issue.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I will object. I do object.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, in a few moments I will propound a unanimous consent request that I know the minority will want to be on the floor to respond to. While they are coming, let me speak for a few moments to the dilemma we find ourselves in here in the Congress, having passed a Budget Reconciliation Act, and in that budget reconciliation having a substantial portion of new farm policy that is known as the Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 1995. Of course that went to the President and, as we know, was vetoed. The problem has been spoken to by the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from Iowa already this afternoon, with clearly differing points of view as to how that was handled. But what is clear, in my State of Idaho, is that farmers and their bankers are now sitting down to determine which acres will go into potatoes or sugar beets or barley or wheat or alfalfa crops this coming season. That means that Idaho farmers are putting together their farm plans and determining their financial structure for the coming year. They prefer to do that in the presence of U.S. farm policy. Of course, we know that on September 30 of this past year, the farm bill has expired. As a result of that, the Secretary of Agriculture is now at least looking at the possibility of our farm policy reverting to the Agriculture Act of 1949. All of us know that simply cannot be allowed to happen. The stalemate that has resulted from the budget considerations that we are now in simply has not produced farm policy as should be expected by American agriculture. I serve on the Senate Agricultural Committee. Chairman Dick Lugar and I and all Members of that committee now for over 10 months have been engaged in looking at and crafting farm policy on a title-by-title basis. But because of the necessary savings that we needed to acquire in fiscal 1996 as a result of the balanced budget process that this Congress is now in, the Budget Reconciliation Act handled a substantial portion of new farm policy. Whether you call it ``Freedom to Farm'' or whether you call it the Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 1995, all of us know that there were clear and substantial changes made. We had held extensive hearings with American agriculture and all segments of the commodity interest of agriculture to craft that farm policy. We had gone to conference with the House, the Senate and the House differing substantially on approaches toward this, but all of us coming together to agree on a policy, finally, that made its way into the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. Since that time, American agriculture has had an opportunity to review it, and I must say that the reviews have been favorable. Early on, farmers scratched their heads and said, ``How will this work,'' only to recognize the kind of new flexibility that we offer in farm policy which says to American agriculture, no longer will you have to farm to the program. You can now start farming to the marketplace, and you can begin to adjust your cropping patterns to move toward the market. Farmers cannot wait now for this President. Farmers need to know what we are going to do. It is clearly time that we speak to that issue. This past summer and fall, as I have mentioned, the Congress, the Senate and the House alike, have attempted to craft new farm policy resulting in an approach that brings us to a balanced budget. Somehow there appears to be a message on this floor this afternoon that American agriculture is not interested in a balanced budget. Mr. President, that is not what we heard this year. We heard from every commodity group that they were willing to do their fair share in moving us toward that balanced budget, and in so recognizing, they would get greater flexibility in the marketplace to move their cropping programs toward the market with the kind of flexibility and planning, instead of being stuck, if you will, or found in lockstep to farm policy, afraid to lose and therefore afraid of stepping outside that. We have provided a safety net, and that marketing loan will provide that. The loan will allow farmers a reasonable time period to market their crops. These loans will be stabilized in the market cycle and continue to protect consumers as well as the producer. It will avoid the kind of unnecessary market gyrations. In crafting these sound programs, the Senate and the House committees worked hard and worked long, together, to solve this issue and to bring us to balance in a very diverse segment of America's economy. And that is American agriculture. In my State of Idaho, in Florida, in Louisiana, in Colorado, in Montana, and in the Dakotas, sugar, sugar beet and cane raising remains a very important commodity crop. Inside the legislation that was vetoed by the President was, again, a new compromise, a new program, a reduction in the program. Listening to the consumer's side, we made the kind of changes that bring us to the marketplace in a variety of these areas, that allow the producer to say, ``I am farming now to the market and not to the farm.'' Planning flexibility, as I have already mentioned, could clearly be jeopardized. Traditional nonprogram crops like fruits and vegetables, in my State of Idaho, potatoes, could be thrown in jeopardy if we do not deal with this program and deal with it now. When we saw in the Freedom to Farm Act limited flexibility, it was the Senate that spoke up and said we want flexibility so farmers can move to the marketplace in lieu of what we want to solve with a balanced budget. At the same time, we want to make sure that we protect a variety of these program crops. Here we are, not at the 11th hour, not at the 12th hour, but well beyond that, into 1996, with a farm bill that expired on September 30, 1995, with a policy that was cautiously and carefully crafted between both the House and the Senate, put in the Budget Reconciliation Act, sent to the President, and the President vetoed it. Now, the Secretary of Agriculture--and I appreciate the Secretary's problem--is terribly frustrated by a need to conduct farm policy at the same time no law is in place as a result of that Presidential veto. So I come to the floor tonight in behalf of our Speaker, Leader Dole, myself, Chairman Lugar, Chairman Cochran, Senator Grassley, and others.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management to receive testimony on the oversight of the management of the national forests. The hearing will take place Thursday, January 25, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224-6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. The question is, have not the Democrats used the Social Security trust fund figures in numbers just the way the Republicans are currently using them? We learned----

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I am advised that it is the intent of the leader to attempt to do the two pay bills, or spending bills, if you will, en bloc.

Mr. CRAIG. I believe that to be the case.

Mr. CRAIG. That is certainly the intent of leadership. The two continuing resolutions have passed the House. They are now in the Senate and can be examined at this time, as I understand it, while the Senate will stand in recess for the next hour.

Mr. CRAIG. I think all Senators who are present would want to examine those before they are considered.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be allowed to proceed in morning business until the return of our leaders.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is my understanding, and I think the understanding of most of the Senators present, that the majority leader and the minority leader are at the White House at this moment once again meeting with the President as we try to unravel and resolve the budget issue that we are now in that has brought a portion of our Government to a standstill. I, like many of my colleagues, am tremendously frustrated by the process of the last several weeks which has failed to produce a resolution that appeared to be a resolution committed to by the White House some weeks ago, that we would negotiate on the terms of a 7-year balanced budget reviewed by CBO figures. That simply has not materialized. And, of course, over the course of the last several weeks, with well over 200,000 Federal employees unemployed by failure to act, it is now time for the Congress to move to the issue of those Federal employees and resolve it. As many of us know, the House earlier today passed a resolution that would allow those employees to come back to work for a period of time which results hopefully in the ability then of the Congress to move toward a balanced budget and resolve that issue and for us to be able to conclude the budget and get on with the business of operating this Government as I think the American people expect us to do. I find it ironic that we are yet fumbling with the issue of a budget when we are nearing a statutory deadline that the President must agree to for the submission of a 1997 budget. Here we are having failed to complete a 1996 budget that is balanced, that honors the commitment that we believe we hold with the American people to produce a balanced budget over the course of the next 7 years, and it will be on February 5, exactly 1 month from today, that the President by law is responsible for submitting the 1997 balanced budget, a product of the 1974 Budget Act. Why are we in this dilemma at this moment? I think, except for the HHS, Education appropriations bill that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to allow us to debate and to bring to a vote and to send to the President, the Congress has done its homework. It has done what it is responsible for doing under the Constitution in submitting to the President the appropriate appropriations bills. The President's only action has been to veto, veto, veto the bills that would have kept the veterans' hospitals fully up and running, that would have kept the veterans' programs alive and operative; instead of being subject to the criticism we now hear, that the pharmaceutical shelves at some of our veterans' hospitals may be growing empty if we fail to act responsibly in a short period of time. The President's actions, if he had not vetoed, would have kept the national parks and the forests and the museums opened and would have funded the Department of Justice and given law enforcement block grants to the States, would have allowed numerous agencies to continue and to complete their obligations to small business contractors and suppliers and provide passport services, and so on and so forth. That is exactly what has happened. We have watched this President as he has vetoed these bills in an attempt to use rhetoric to place the burden on the shoulders of the U.S. Congress. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have printed in the Record a dialog that occurred on CNN last night between Judy Woodruff, the anchor, and Brooks Jackson, a special assignment correspondent, that I thought would be appropriate to be in the Congressional Record.

Mr. CRAIG. It is an interesting dialog, Mr. President, because it confirms some of the things that I have been talking about and that have concerned a lot of Members of this Congress as to the rhetoric of the White House and what to believe over the course of the last good many weeks, when the President has seemed to be a constantly changing and moving target on the issue of the budget, to agree some weeks ago to a 7-year, CBO-targeted budget, now not to want to present it or not to appear to be interested in presenting it. The dialog that the anchor at CNN last night went through with Brooks Jackson was interesting in the sense that it said the President said this, but in fact this is the case, the President said that, but in fact something else is the case. I think it goes along to show that the shifting sands at the White House are extremely difficult for this Congress to work with at this moment to try to resolve these kinds of issues. I thought it would be important that that become a part of the record because simply they have not, in my opinion, kept their word. So it is important tonight for the Congress to intervene, as we are now doing. I use the word ``intervene'' to pull, if you will, these Federal employees off the hostage roster and put them back to work doing what they are responsible for doing and bringing them back into the real world because they have been in limbo, and that has created great frustration. And it should not be allowed to happen. I am one for some weeks that has been critical of using our Federal employees as hostages, if you will, or pawns in this budget battle that we are in, and that, Mr. President, in no way lessens my interest or the interest of this Congress in achieving a balanced budget. I have been an advocate for well over a decade that the Congress face the reality of their spending habits and balance the budget. I have pushed for a balanced budget amendment, and of course we know the history of that whole debate here in the House and in the Senate for the last good number of years. But without question, the battle that we are engaged in is extremely fundamental. It is not business as usual, as some news reporters and observers of the Congress would argue that it is. We have not phonied the numbers. We have not used smoke and mirrors, because if we had, we would not be in session right now, we would be in adjournment, and we would have told the American people that the work of the Government was done and that the 1996 budget was in place, and that all was well with the world. That simply has not been the case. And it should not be the case. We are dealing with real figures right now, trying to downsize the overall growth of Government or the rate of growth. And you, Mr. President, have been directly involved, as have others of our colleagues, in trying to face the reality of these tough choices. Now we are just simply trying to get the White House to face the reality of tough choices. And they have simply passed on occasion after occasion to do that. What we are trying to say at this moment, and what I am pleased the House has been willing to say, is let us at least take the Federal employees out of this battle and set them to the side, allow them to do the work they were charged with doing. I hope we can get that done. Now, that was the first CR that was passed. I hope that we would be able to consider a second resolution or continuing resolution that was passed by the House today. That would allow all of the Government to open up for at least a period of time through January 26. The reason I say that is important is because while we are allowing, I hope, the Federal employees to go back to work, we may not necessarily be giving them the tools to do their work. Of course, that would be a bit of a hollow argument that we are allowing Government to continue to operate and turning as it should without giving them the total tools to do so. The House recognized that, but they have put a requirement on the President. That requirement is that the President send forth a balanced budget, scored by CBO, and that budget be in balance in the 7-year timeframe that the Republican Congress has asked and required by their actions, and that the same funding levels of the CR that expired on December 15, funds required at 75 percent of fiscal year 1995 levels, would operate the significantly impacted programs. I hope that we can look at that continuing resolution tonight and that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree with us on that. Then we could clearly say Government is fully back in operation, while we work with the White House to resolve this issue by the 26th of January. Mr. President, those are key and important issues critical to all of us, but more importantly critical to our country. I think that the American people expect us to be able to operate the Government in a responsible way, but they have said very clearly that part of our responsibility is to bring this Government in balance, that a near $5 trillion debt and a $200 billion-plus deficit as far as the eye can see are no longer acceptable, that while we must be concerned about programs that fund the present, we must also reflect our concern by our actions on programs that impact the future of our country. That, of course, is what we attempt to do tonight. So, Mr. President, I hope that within minutes our leadership will be in place and we can consider these important CR's to move the Government forward, to allow the Federal employees out of hostage, if you will, and back to work by Monday morning. I think it is important for our country that we do so. But while we do it, let us not lose focus on the reason we are here; and that is that the White House has flatly refused to produce a balanced budget. That is now their obligation to do so. We have done so. We have done so in a responsible manner. It may not be a balanced budget that all of us agreed to, but it was one that clearly for the first time in decades demonstrates the priorities of Government under the kind of spending limitations that we believe are clearly necessary to get our debt and our deficit under control. I hope the Senate will act responsibly tonight, as I believe the House has done this afternoon. With those comments, I yield the floor. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.