J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, those who have fought all efforts to bring some level of decency to the Internet have employed all sorts of rhetorical devices to defeat the Communications Decency Act. The latest attack comes from those who suggest that amendments originally in the House bill to title 18 section 1462 somehow revive obsolete provisions of the Comstock Act--(related in information on abortion)--which courts have essentially determined to be unconstitutional. The amendments to title 18 merely clarify that the current laws which prohibit the importation, transportation, or distribution of obscene materials apply to computers. The conference committee went to great lengths in section 507(c) to underline that the changes to the Criminal Code are clarifying and do not change the substantive coverage of the current law. The Congress last amended section 1463 in 1994 by increasing penalties for violations of this section. Nothing in this legislation prohibits constitutionally protected speech and this legislation does not revive other-wise dead provisions of that law any more than the 1994 amendment revived those very provisions. I thank the Chair and I thank again those who put this act together. I am pleased that it is about to pass the U. S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, many of my most distinguished colleagues, including the minority leader, including the great, distinguished member and the former chairman of the Appropriations Committee and now the ranking Democrat, Senator Byrd, my very able colleague from South Carolina, the chairman of the committee, and others will follow to give their accolades to our dear friend, Sam Nunn. I rise as a man who has worked closely with him under his tutelage for the last 18 years on many matters in the Senate and primarily with regard to the national security interests of the United States of America. I simply wish to add my name to the accolades of others who have spoken so eloquently on this true favorite son of the State of Georgia. Sam Nunn, you have set an example for all of us to follow while you have been here, and you are setting an example as others have set in other work for other people who are most concerned about the United States of America. Regardless of political affiliation, you have set a record for others to follow. Thank you, Sam, for all the help you have been. You have been great for the United States of America. I yield the floor. Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Adm. Henry Chiles, the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base, is scheduled to retire on March 1, 1996, after a lengthy career of exemplary service to his country. Air Force Gen. Eugene Habiger has been nominated by President Clinton to replace Admiral Chiles and a change of command ceremony is scheduled to take place at Offutt Air Force Base on February 21. As I understand the majority leader's wishes, once the Senate adjourns, perhaps today, we will not be in session again until the last week of February. If such a schedule becomes a reality, the Senate will not have a chance to act on the Habiger nomination before the change of command ceremony on February 21 and will have mere days to approve Admiral Chile's retirement as well as the retirement of his deputy, Gen. Arlen Jamison. While I understand that the Senate Armed Services Committee was not able to consider General Habiger's nomination at this morning's nomination hearing because the necessary paperwork could not be completed in time, I would inquire of the distinguished chairman of the committee and President pro tempore as to what accommodation he will make for the committee and the full Senate to act promptly on this important nomination.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the 1996 defense authorization conference report before the Senate is by no means a perfect bill. As one who voted against the original version of this bill when it was considered last December, I am aware that numerous flaws remain in the legislation that will trouble many of my colleagues a great deal. While it is true that the majority has yielded to the three top objections raised by the President in his veto message--those legislative provisions dealing with national missile defense, United Nations command and control, and contingency operations funding--the record must reflect, and the American public should understand, that this bill is rife with unsound policy and extravagant spending priorities. I will not recount my earlier statements as to the particulars of my concerns except to note that the conference report before the Senate is still chock full of 7 billion dollars' worth of unrequested, unneeded, and unjustified spending, much of which is earmarked for pet projects in Member districts and States. Force-feeding the Pentagon $7 billion it does not want at a time when many worthy domestic programs are slowly being bled dry by the majority is indeed difficult for this Senator to accept. However, the conference report is by no means without merit. To the contrary, it contains important and essential statutory authorizations and programmatic funding which, in my opinion, will enhance both the readiness and capabilities of our Armed Forces. To deny the Pentagon these positive aspects of the defense authorization bill due to the conference report's counterbalancing flaws--many of which have already been signed into law through the defense appropriations bill--would be unwise. In my opinion, passage of the conference report is warranted, but not by much. On balance, I believe the Nation will be better off if this bill is allowed to become law. While I will support passage of the conference report, I will put my colleagues on notice that when the Armed Services Committee begins deliberations of the fiscal year 1997 authorization bill later this spring, improvements must be made in the markup and conference process to make it more bipartisan and less exclusionary. If substantial changes in style and substance are not made, I fear we are destined to relive the mistakes of this year, the effect of which has us still debating a defense authorization bill in late January, 4 months after the fiscal year began. Mr. President, I yield the floor. cable tv franchise agreement

Mr. EXON. While I would prefer that the Senate remain in session so as to continue its work on the unfinished business of the Nation, including this and other important executive branch nominations, I do appreciate the chairman's willingness to expedite this particular matter. He is a good friend and I thank him for his commitment to see that the Senate act on the Habiger nomination in a timely fashion. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. It would be $186,000 gross income the farmer would make. That is gross, not net. But on top of that $186,000, that particular farmer would receive a check of about $16,000. Or, I might add, if the price of corn went up to $4 a bushel, he would still get the $26,000, or at $5 a bushel, the farmer would get the $26,000; or if the farmer did not want to do anything and just sit home and watch television and surf the channels and not even go out and plant, he still gets $26,000 from the Federal Government. If that is not a form of welfare--as I said in my remarks, once the Sun shines in on that, once the members of the Farm Bureau realize and recognize that their leadership is trying to convert a farm program based on production that supports them when prices are low but does not support them when they are getting $3.10 a bushel, there is going to be a revolution in the Farm Bureau. There is also going to be, what is more serious, a revolution that the Senator from Iowa commented on when the people of the United States and the Members of the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate recognize that you are throwing that kind of money away, regardless of what the price of corn is, even at $5 a bushel, you get it whether or not you earn it, and that is welfare.

Mr. EXON. I believe the date was November 6, maybe 60 days ago. The timeframe may be a little over a month. But the Senator is absolutely correct, regardless of the date, there was a dramatic change overnight, without any explanation from the Farm Bureau of being against the program they are now for, and that boggles my mind.

Mr. EXON. If the Senator will yield for a minute----

Mr. EXON. My friend has been at the forefront of workable farm programs for a long time. I am as mystified as he is. To build upon what the Senator just said, I placed in the Record the other day the farm welfare program, the so-called Freedom to Farm Act. It would provide a massive amount, thousands of dollars a year, to a farmer whether or not the farmer even planted, on one hand, and he would get the same amount of thousands of dollars--I figured out that a typical farm of 500 acres, a corn farmer, at $3.10 a bushel, under the Freedom to Farm Act, even though that farmer at 500 acres, 120 bushels return, which is somewhere near normal----

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I want to take a moment, if I might, to congratulate the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, on which I am pleased to serve, and his counterpart on the Democratic side, Senator Sam Nunn from the State of Georgia. They did an exceptional job in getting finally a defense authorization bill approved that the President said he will sign after vetoing the previous bill. I thought the President was right in that timeframe when he vetoed the bill. I am not happy completely with the bill, as I outlined earlier in remarks on the Senate floor before the vote. But certainly the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Georgia did an admirable job in eliminating some of the most obnoxious parts of the defense authorization bill originally and coming to a successful conclusion today where we have passed it in the U.S. Senate.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I want to move on and thank my dear friend and colleague who has just spoken with regard to the START II Treaty. There is nothing that has a better chance for the hope of mankind in the future than the overwhelming approval of the START II Treaty. When it is implemented, it will reduce the number of nuclear warheads both in Russia and the United States of America. I congratulate the ranking member and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for a job very well done.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend, Senator Pell, so very, very much.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on another matter, very briefly--and I will not tie up the Senate, it will take me 3 or 4 minutes--I want to talk briefly about what I was surprised to see, which I term ``Tough Talk on the Farm Bill Is Doubletalk.'' Mr. President, in the Friday edition of the Omaha World Herald there was a curious story. In it, Dean Kleckner of the American Farm Bureau takes to task several farm State Senators and seems to blame us for the impasse on the farm bill. He goes so far as to say, and I quote: ``I have heard some Members of Congress say that the (Freedom to Farm) bill will pass over their dead bodies. If there is no farm bill, there will be a lot of dead bodies.'' Mr. President, this is, indeed, curious and offensive hyperbole. Some of us have been encouraging a farm bill to be brought up for debate and to be acted on for a long time. But where was the Farm Bureau? They certainly were not taking that line on December 13. On that day, I received a letter from Mr. Kleckner which took just the opposite position. The Farm Bureau wanted a farm bill only, quoting from that letter, ``provided it is part of the budget reconciliation package.'' This bit of now you see it and now you don't from the Farm Bureau should come as no surprise, however. On November 6, I received a letter from Mr. Kleckner which said in part, ``Particularly troubling throughout this debate has been the inability of the budget process to encourage programs which provide higher income supports when market prices are low and lower supports when prices are high.'' And he added at that time in that message, ``Continued linkage of market prices and producer payments is very necessary.'' In essence, the Farm Bureau staked out a position that is absolutely contrary to the Freedom to Farm bill that it now endorses. That is a 180-degree change. Now they support a farm welfare bill that, I believe, will fail our farmers who do not want welfare payments to do nothing. It cannot withstand the light of day, and I predict that it will not. I am at a loss to explain the schizophrenic behavior of the Farm Bureau. Perhaps they want to hurry up and clear the tracks so they can campaign in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary. I, for one, however, would prefer that Congress stay in session to work out a farm policy that makes sense, and maybe what was decided tonight is going to allow us to do that. Certainly, if we do that, it will give us the time for the Farm Bureau to change their minds once again. I ask unanimous consent that communications of different views from the Farm Bureau of November 6, 1995, December 13, 1995, January 26, 1996, and the Omaha World Herald story of January 26, 1996 be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, there are two things I want to talk about. First, I have heard some of the discussion with regard to farm policy by some of my closest friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle today. It is a pretty sad situation when I see that the usual farm coalition between Democrats and Republicans is obviously breaking down. I think it is a tragedy of major proportions. I would simply say, there are those of us who feel we should stay in session for lots of reasons, not the least of which is to pass a farm bill. If we cannot come to some kind of an agreement, I hope the majority leader will simply call up the farm bill for discussion, debate it on the floor of the U.S. Senate, pass something, and send it to the President and see if he will sign it. The President, I might add, has been very supportive of the position for funding of agriculture that this Senator, as the lead Democrat on the Budget Committee, has been for a long, long time. We have a profarm advocate sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the President of the United States of America. We should continue to build and work with him. The various moves that have been made with regard to the Freedom To Farm Act that I do not agree with I will not vote for. I will simply correct something I thought I heard, that all major farm organizations have supported the Freedom To Farm Act. The Farmers Union is a major farm organization in the State of Nebraska. The Farmers Union is not only against the Freedom To Farm Act, it thinks it is folly. I would say to all of my colleagues, this Senator yesterday had printed in the Record some true facts with regard to how far down the welfare road we are going under the Freedom To Farm Act. In summarizing what I put in the Record yesterday on page S 321 under Exhibit 1, for a 500-acre farm, 120 bushels to the acre in corn yield, the present cash price is in the vicinity of $3.10. That would be $186,000 gross--not net, gross--that the farmer would receive. On top of that, under the Freedom To Farm Act, there is a welfare payment that goes to corn farmers. I think, when all the corn farmers found out about this, and especially when the public found out about it, there would be a revolution, and the Freedom To Farm Act would fall by the wayside, because, in the example that I have just given, a farmer would receive a check from the Federal Government for 1996 of $16,200 on top of the $186,000 gross that he got from his crop. That might not be so bad. You might argue that is still a good thing, at $3.10 a bushel for corn. But most people in and outside the business recognize that $3.10 a bushel for corn is a pretty good price and one we can be satisfied with. The point is, if it were $5 a bushel or $7 a bushel, which I do not think it will ever go to, but whatever the price of corn would be under the Freedom To Farm Act, this typical farmer, and every farmer who is in a similar situation, which is typical, would receive a check from the Government regardless of the price of corn in the marketplace. That is welfare. That is an excessive amount of money. I am for freedom-to-farm principles, giving them the decisions they can make out there on the farm. I am for simplifying. But I simply say there is a fault here in the Freedom To Farm Act that is a giveaway.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask I may be allowed to proceed under the same rules for 5 minutes.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we are in morning business as I understand it?

Mr. EXON. Has time been limited for Senators in morning business when we were in morning business?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I wanted to make just a few comments, if I might, with regard to what I consider to be a very ill-advised move, and that is the consideration that maybe, after Friday, we are going to recess the U.S. Senate, right in the middle of very important negotiations. I would simply say, Mr. President, we should stay here, work on the farm bill, work on the debt ceiling, work on the budget, and come up with a compromise. Certainly I, too, was pleased with the President's address last night and the acceptance, generally, as I understand it, of Speaker Gingrich and leading Republicans in the U.S. Senate that says to take this $711 billion and balance the budget in 7 years, with CBO scoring, which we have all been for. We cannot do those things, we cannot solve the crisis in the debt ceiling, by leaving here and not coming back until 2 or 3 days before we would have default. I hope, and I appeal, for both the House and the Senate to remain in session and do our work, especially at this critical time with regard to the farm bill and the other important matters that we have on our plate. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I simply say that when you look at these kind of facts, I think one would have to conclude that any time you are going to have a welfare payment on top of what I have just outlined here at $3.10 a bushel--I would add that even if corn went up to $5 a bushel or $8 a bushel, which I suspect it will not, but even if it should--under the Freedom to Farm Act, that typical farmer that I just outlined would still receive the $16,000 to $22,000 or $24,000 depending on which year and so on down the road, on top of whatever he got from the marketplace. Therefore, there are dangers, because I happen to feel that when this information comes out, and with the stringent budget terms we are working under now, it would not be long before somebody would come up and say we are not going to do that anymore. Then some of the farmers who signed on to this program as some kind of a cash windfall would be hurt. We have to have a farm program that gives the farmers some relief from what the situation is now with regard to the payback that they have to make for their advanced deficiency payments. But I think we can get together and work out a reasonable proposal and not one that is embodied in what is generally called the Freedom to Farm Act. Exhibit 1 Freedom to Farm 500 acre corn farm. 120 bushel yield. $3.10 cash price. 500 acres times 120 bushels equals 60,000 bushels. 60,000 bushels times $3.10 cash price equals $186,000 gross cash income. Plus Government Payment (whether they plant or not). 1996--60,000 bushels times $.27 payment equals $16,200 welfare payment. 1997--60,000 bushels times $.37 payment equals $22,200 welfare payment. 1997--60,000 bushels times $.40 payment equals $24,000 welfare payment.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, would you advise me of the present status of the Senate?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am a Senator who has been close to agriculture for a long time. I want to speak with regard to the remarks made preceding my statement by my farm State colleague from the State of North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, and likewise, my farm State Senator next door, Chuck Grassley, who both are Senators I have worked with for a long time on farm policy. I think we have an awful lot to do in this particular area. The most significant concern that I have in this regard, Mr. President, is the fact that here we are dilly-dallying on a farm program, and the farmers across the United States of America are justifiably concerned. Many in the South are beginning to plant now. The grain crop farmers in Nebraska and the rest of the major grain-producing States are now preparing to plant. They are trying to work out their financial needs with their bankers. They are totally at a loss and do not know what we are going to do. I suggest that never before in history have we been so late in deciding what a farm program is going to be in the year that the crop is going to be planted. That has to stop. I do not know how to end this impasse that we have but the impasse must be broken for the good of the food producers of the United States of America. I happen to feel that probably the best way to resolve this matter in an expeditious fashion, if we could reach an agreement between the two leaders in the Senate to bring up a freestanding farm bill with some kind of restrained debate, something to move things along and then have an up-or-down vote. That would be one way to solve the problem and let the Senate work its will. Whether that is possible or not I do not know at this juncture, but I know that is one of the suggestions that are being mulled over. The initiative by the Senator from North Dakota today to essentially extend the present farm program for 1 year is not the best of all worlds but it is a whole lot better than no action whatever. I must say that I have studied with great interest the so-called Freedom to Farm Act and I understand that the sponsors of that measure over on the House side, as the House has the penchant for these days is to say, ``Do it our way or we will not do it at all.'' That is not the way which you handle farm policy or the way we should handle the budget. Certainly, we have 435 Members of the House of Representatives and 100 of us here in the U.S. Senate. We have an obligation to work our will, using the procedures that are in place in both bodies, and we cannot have some people, one, two, or three individuals, say ``Doing it my way is the only way, and I will not do anything unless you do it my way.'' It is not the way to get things done or accomplish anything in a body where you have 435 over there and 100 of us over here, 535 all strongly willed individuals with their own ideas. I suppose it would be self- serving to say, Mr. President, that maybe I should say 534 because the Chair and everybody in the Senate knows this Senator from Nebraska is not a strong-willed individual. I set myself apart from all of the other Members. With that facetious statement, I come back to the core issue here, and that is we have got to move. I cannot support the so-called Freedom to Farm Act in its present form. Certainly, the Freedom to Farm Act eliminates a great deal of the red tape. It gives the farmers what I like to see them have and what they want. That is to make decisions on their own about where they plant and how they plant it. That concept is also basically included in a measure that was introduced by the minority leader, Senator Daschle, another farm State senator, myself, and my colleague, Senator Kerrey from Nebraska, and others, known as the Democratic farm bill. It also incorporates all of those good features of allowing more flexibility on the part of the individual farmer, eliminates a lot of the redtape but does not go as far into what I think is making the farm program a welfare program, as I am very fearful the Freedom to Farm Act would eventually encounter. Let me cite an example, and I will ask at the appropriate time that the facts be printed in the Record. As a farm State Senator who recognizes that our prediction of many of our farmers today, especially those with limited acres on which they farm, continue to be in dire straits, I also cite today the fact that the cattle-producing industry is in deep, deep trouble today. While the Farm Act today or any of the Farm Acts we are talking about is not going to provide any relief basically for the cattle producer, they are part of the important food chain. I simply cite this as a fact. They are in deep, deep trouble today because of the steady decline in the cattle at all levels. Coming back to the Freedom to Farm Act, I think that the main criticism I have of that act--and once the farmers of the United States fully understand it, I think that they would come out resoundingly against it because in essence it would turn the farm program into a welfare program which is something that they do not want. To say that, Mr. President, and having said that I am a farm State Senator, have fought for good farm programs for a long, long time, I recognize they cost some money but I also recognize that the American public today spend less of their disposable income for food of any industrialized nation in the world. Food is a bargain primarily because of the good work, the production ability and the genius production of our family farmers going to make good food, clean food at more than affordable prices. However, if we decouple completely the farm program from the marketplace we are marching down a road that I think farmers and the food industry eventually would come to recognize is a big mistake. The welfare provisions in the so-called Freedom to Farm Act we all should know about, and I cite a typical example which is very accurate. Under the Freedom to Farm Act, which is a step down to phasing out the program in total in 7 years, as I understand it, we will take a typical farm and talk about typical farm, typical numbers. The facts of the matter are that as I indicated, the livestock industry, the beef industry in particular, the pork industry as well, are in deep, deep problems these days. If you go along with the Freedom to Farm Act, that will not be necessarily true of the row crop producers. I cite, for example, if the Freedom to Farm Act became a reality and if we took, Mr. President, a 500-acre corn farm which is not a particularly big farm, not particularly little farm, but use that as an example, and if that individual farmer planted his 500 acres to corn, under the Freedom to Farm Act, and if that 500-acre farm produces 120- bushel yield, and if the price for corn were, for example, $3.10 a bushel, 500 acres, 120-bushel yield, and a cash price of $3.10, you multiply 500 by 120 bushels and come up with 60,000 bushels. And 60,000 bushels at $3.10 cash price produces $186,000 gross cash income. Not net, but gross cash income. In addition to that figure under the Freedom to Farm Act that same farmer would get from the Government, he would be paid, sent a check by the Government over and above the $186,000 gross for 1996 using 60,000 bushels, he gets a 27-cent payment. That is $16,200 in 1996 that typical farm would receive over and above the $186,000 gross. In 1997, that goes up to 37 cents a bushel for $22,200, which I think could be described as a welfare payment. In 1998, it goes up to 40 cents a bushel or a $24,000 welfare payment. I simply say that the example that I have used at the cash price of $3.10 for corn producing for the farm that I have outlined, $186,000 in gross cash income, on top of that the individual farmer would receive basically for doing nothing, or to put it another way, the 500-acre farmer with the ability to produce corn, assume that farmer planted nothing, he did not do anything, he just sat and watched television all day long. Well, he would not get the $186,000 but still under that kind of a scenario that farmer who planted nothing and did nothing would receive $16,200 from the Federal Government in 1996, $22,200 welfare-type payment in 1997, and $24,000 in a welfare-type payment in 1998. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the figures I have just referenced be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I simply say that when you look at these kind of facts, I think one would have to conclude that any time you are going to have a welfare payment on top of what I have just outlined here at $3.10 a bushel--I would add that even if corn went up to $5 a bushel or $8 a bushel, which I suspect it will not, but even if it should--under the Freedom to Farm Act, that typical farmer that I just outlined would still receive the $16,000 to $22,000 or $24,000 depending on which year and so on down the road, on top of whatever he got from the marketplace. Therefore, there are dangers, because I happen to feel that when this information comes out, and with the stringent budget terms we are working under now, it would not be long before somebody would come up and say we are not going to do that anymore. Then some of the farmers who signed on to this program as some kind of a cash windfall would be hurt. We have to have a farm program that gives the farmers some relief from what the situation is now with regard to the payback that they have to make for their advanced deficiency payments. But I think we can get together and work out a reasonable proposal and not one that is embodied in what is generally called the Freedom to Farm Act. Exhibit 1 Freedom to Farm 500 acre corn farm. 120 bushel yield. $3.10 cash price. 500 acres times 120 bushels equals 60,000 bushels. 60,000 bushels times $3.10 cash price equals $186,000 gross cash income. Plus Government Payment (whether they plant or not). 1996--60,000 bushels times $.27 payment equals $16,200 welfare payment. 1997--60,000 bushels times $.37 payment equals $22,200 welfare payment. 1997--60,000 bushels times $.40 payment equals $24,000 welfare payment.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, would you advise me of the present status of the Senate?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I am a Senator who has been close to agriculture for a long time. I want to speak with regard to the remarks made preceding my statement by my farm State colleague from the State of North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, and likewise, my farm State Senator next door, Chuck Grassley, who both are Senators I have worked with for a long time on farm policy. I think we have an awful lot to do in this particular area. The most significant concern that I have in this regard, Mr. President, is the fact that here we are dilly-dallying on a farm program, and the farmers across the United States of America are justifiably concerned. Many in the South are beginning to plant now. The grain crop farmers in Nebraska and the rest of the major grain-producing States are now preparing to plant. They are trying to work out their financial needs with their bankers. They are totally at a loss and do not know what we are going to do. I suggest that never before in history have we been so late in deciding what a farm program is going to be in the year that the crop is going to be planted. That has to stop. I do not know how to end this impasse that we have but the impasse must be broken for the good of the food producers of the United States of America. I happen to feel that probably the best way to resolve this matter in an expeditious fashion, if we could reach an agreement between the two leaders in the Senate to bring up a freestanding farm bill with some kind of restrained debate, something to move things along and then have an up-or-down vote. That would be one way to solve the problem and let the Senate work its will. Whether that is possible or not I do not know at this juncture, but I know that is one of the suggestions that are being mulled over. The initiative by the Senator from North Dakota today to essentially extend the present farm program for 1 year is not the best of all worlds but it is a whole lot better than no action whatever. I must say that I have studied with great interest the so-called Freedom to Farm Act and I understand that the sponsors of that measure over on the House side, as the House has the penchant for these days is to say, ``Do it our way or we will not do it at all.'' That is not the way which you handle farm policy or the way we should handle the budget. Certainly, we have 435 Members of the House of Representatives and 100 of us here in the U.S. Senate. We have an obligation to work our will, using the procedures that are in place in both bodies, and we cannot have some people, one, two, or three individuals, say ``Doing it my way is the only way, and I will not do anything unless you do it my way.'' It is not the way to get things done or accomplish anything in a body where you have 435 over there and 100 of us over here, 535 all strongly willed individuals with their own ideas. I suppose it would be self- serving to say, Mr. President, that maybe I should say 534 because the Chair and everybody in the Senate knows this Senator from Nebraska is not a strong-willed individual. I set myself apart from all of the other Members. With that facetious statement, I come back to the core issue here, and that is we have got to move. I cannot support the so-called Freedom to Farm Act in its present form. Certainly, the Freedom to Farm Act eliminates a great deal of the red tape. It gives the farmers what I like to see them have and what they want. That is to make decisions on their own about where they plant and how they plant it. That concept is also basically included in a measure that was introduced by the minority leader, Senator Daschle, another farm State senator, myself, and my colleague, Senator Kerrey from Nebraska, and others, known as the Democratic farm bill. It also incorporates all of those good features of allowing more flexibility on the part of the individual farmer, eliminates a lot of the redtape but does not go as far into what I think is making the farm program a welfare program, as I am very fearful the Freedom to Farm Act would eventually encounter. Let me cite an example, and I will ask at the appropriate time that the facts be printed in the Record. As a farm State Senator who recognizes that our prediction of many of our farmers today, especially those with limited acres on which they farm, continue to be in dire straits, I also cite today the fact that the cattle-producing industry is in deep, deep trouble today. While the Farm Act today or any of the Farm Acts we are talking about is not going to provide any relief basically for the cattle producer, they are part of the important food chain. I simply cite this as a fact. They are in deep, deep trouble today because of the steady decline in the cattle at all levels. Coming back to the Freedom to Farm Act, I think that the main criticism I have of that act--and once the farmers of the United States fully understand it, I think that they would come out resoundingly against it because in essence it would turn the farm program into a welfare program which is something that they do not want. To say that, Mr. President, and having said that I am a farm State Senator, have fought for good farm programs for a long, long time, I recognize they cost some money but I also recognize that the American public today spend less of their disposable income for food of any industrialized nation in the world. Food is a bargain primarily because of the good work, the production ability and the genius production of our family farmers going to make good food, clean food at more than affordable prices. However, if we decouple completely the farm program from the marketplace we are marching down a road that I think farmers and the food industry eventually would come to recognize is a big mistake. The welfare provisions in the so-called Freedom to Farm Act we all should know about, and I cite a typical example which is very accurate. Under the Freedom to Farm Act, which is a step down to phasing out the program in total in 7 years, as I understand it, we will take a typical farm and talk about typical farm, typical numbers. The facts of the matter are that as I indicated, the livestock industry, the beef industry in particular, the pork industry as well, are in deep, deep problems these days. If you go along with the Freedom to Farm Act, that will not be necessarily true of the row crop producers. I cite, for example, if the Freedom to Farm Act became a reality and if we took, Mr. President, a 500-acre corn farm which is not a particularly big farm, not particularly little farm, but use that as an example, and if that individual farmer planted his 500 acres to corn, under the Freedom to Farm Act, and if that 500-acre farm produces 120- bushel yield, and if the price for corn were, for example, $3.10 a bushel, 500 acres, 120-bushel yield, and a cash price of $3.10, you multiply 500 by 120 bushels and come up with 60,000 bushels. And 60,000 bushels at $3.10 cash price produces $186,000 gross cash income. Not net, but gross cash income. In addition to that figure under the Freedom to Farm Act that same farmer would get from the Government, he would be paid, sent a check by the Government over and above the $186,000 gross for 1996 using 60,000 bushels, he gets a 27-cent payment. That is $16,200 in 1996 that typical farm would receive over and above the $186,000 gross. In 1997, that goes up to 37 cents a bushel for $22,200, which I think could be described as a welfare payment. In 1998, it goes up to 40 cents a bushel or a $24,000 welfare payment. I simply say that the example that I have used at the cash price of $3.10 for corn producing for the farm that I have outlined, $186,000 in gross cash income, on top of that the individual farmer would receive basically for doing nothing, or to put it another way, the 500-acre farmer with the ability to produce corn, assume that farmer planted nothing, he did not do anything, he just sat and watched television all day long. Well, he would not get the $186,000 but still under that kind of a scenario that farmer who planted nothing and did nothing would receive $16,200 from the Federal Government in 1996, $22,200 welfare-type payment in 1997, and $24,000 in a welfare-type payment in 1998. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent the figures I have just referenced be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.