Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on African Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 28, 1996, at 2 p.m., to hold hearing.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower be authorized to meet at 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 28, 1996, to receive testimony on the multiyear procurement proposal for the C-17 strategic airlifter.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important issue in our relationship with Japan. It has come to my attention that for every American student studying in Japan, 20 Japanese study in the United States. This puts the United States at a comparative disadvantage in dealing with issues of economic competitiveness and strategic cooperation that confront and will continue to confront our bilateral ties for many years. Japan possesses the second-most powerful economy in the world. Its resources and expertise affect the health and vitality of international trade and finance. United States-Japan cooperation and understanding will be required if issues pertaining to the global economy, development, health, peacekeeping, weapons proliferation, the environment, and others are to be addressed constructively. At the same time, Japan's economic prowess poses significant challenges to and opportunities for improving the economic well-being of the United States. We simply must learn how to gain the trust and cooperation of the Japanese people, its entrepreneurs, and policy makers. We need to do better and be better informed about Japan if we hope to correct the nagging imbalance in trade. Historically, we have been ill-prepared for this task. We must be better prepared in the future. One part of the solution to this problem lies in the education of young Americans in the language, culture, and society of Japan. It is the young Americans of today who will take the lead in dealing with their Japanese peers in a language and style the latter will respect and appreciate. Back channel politics has worked well through the years, but it is insufficient for the future. We now want to make certain there is a very large network of United States students studying in Japan that will make a difference in building the kind of bridges that are required if our relationship with Japan is to be more productive now and in the future. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to mention that a coalition of public and private organizations is mounting a new program known as the Bridging Project to address this need to educate more Americans in and about Japan. In a time of fiscal stringency and belt tightening, public funds for this and other initiatives are gong to become even more scarce. The private sector must get more involved. Private-public partnerships and other creative solutions involving the private sector will be required if we are going to keep pace with our Japanese competitors. We should encourage this coalition to do everything it can to ensure that the United States remains competitive with Japan in the future.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I yield time to the distinguish Senator from Oregon.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, may I suggest to the Chair that it might be appropriate after Senator Bryan is recognized that Senator Jeffords be recognized on our side, and then Senator Harkin, if that would work out with the arrangement. We have attempted to alternate back and forth. But there was no Republican present when Mr. Bryan appeared and, therefore, I recognized that he was the next speaker on that occasion. But after him, I would like to proceed to Senator Jeffords.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, let me say in partial response to my distinguished friend from Nebraska, I appreciate his gracious comment, even though he is in opposition. I agree with him when he points out that farmers who are 57 years of age and older will find this farm bill to be an exceptionally generous farm bill. That includes, as the Senator from Nebraska has pointed out, a large number of farmers in this country. As the distinguished Chair was also a farmer, I understand, this is one of the points of concern for us in farming, the maturity of that group. But we are in agreement that this bill is good news for a majority of farmers in this country who are out there and who have some age and have had some experience. The issue the Senator from Nebraska raises is, what about their sons and daughters? What will happen to them? Here, honest Senators will disagree. My own view, having four sons, and trying very hard to make certain that the farm can be passed along to them, as my dad passed along the farm that I now farm to me, I have a lot of optimism for them. I believe, Mr. President, that the income that will come to farmers in the next 7 years will lead to an increase in land values. I believe the Lugar farm will be worth a great deal more in 7 years. I believe there will be income throughout that 7-year period of time which will make it even stronger than it is now. That is the legacy we pass along. We do so, I think, as farmers, as Senators, as people trying to deal in good farm policy. Let me just point out that the Senator from Nebraska is correct that the loan rate for corn at $1.89 does not change in this bill. It is capped. Mr. President, we have already discussed the fact this evening that the cash price of corn in some elevators around the country approaches $4. The Senator from Nebraska pointed out, using perhaps an average price predicted for 1996, $3.10, which is well above both the target price and the loan rate. The loan rate simply is irrelevant with the price of corn at $3.10 or $3.90. It does not come into play. The Senator might remind me what goes up comes down, and cycles curve. I understand that, Mr. President. This is one reason why a safety net is pertinent. The distinguished Senator has pointed out the safety net is gone, but, in fact, the safety net is alive. We are arguing maybe about the size of it. The Senator from Nebraska gently reminds us the safety net is very large in the coming year, citing the 500-acre corn farm at 120 bushels an acre and $3.10 per bushel. There will be a payment to that farmer, and it does not come because of market conditions; it comes because of this bill. It comes 7 years in a row because of this bill. That is quite a safety net. It is there because we are in transition, Mr. President, from whatever we have now to the market, to the unknown, to risk. We are mitigating that risk by having a very substantial safety net. The Senator raises the correct question: What, after the safety net, happens after 7 years? Mr. President, as a part of this farm bill, the distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, pointed out this evening one of the things he likes best about the bill we are considering is that permanent farm law is continued. That means, Mr. President, that the Agriculture Committees of the Senate and the House must return to this subject at some point prior to the end of 7 years. The reason why maintenance of current law forces that is because that law is totally irrelevant to current conditions. It would be terrible legislation, wreaking great hardship on many farmers. Many have felt that is why you leave it there to force the Senate and the House to reconsider, again and again, the pertinent conditions and the timely conditions. So we will do that for better or worse. We will do that. We will take a look at the conditions as they pertain before the end of 7 years are over. Mr. President, we have had a good debate this evening, and I will not prolong it. I did want to make those comments as I have listened carefully to my colleague.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton].

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, it is a privilege to bring before the Senate H.R. 2854, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act. The farm bill that we are to pass after this debate will make the most sweeping changes in agricultural policy since the days of the New Deal. These changes begin a new era in which markets rather than Government will dominate farm decisions. H.R. 2854 offers farmers more freedom to plant crops without Government constraint than they have had in decades. This legislation turns farm programs from an uncontrollable entitlement to a system of fixed and declining income-support payments. From now on, the Federal Government will stop trying to control how much food, feed, and fiber our Nation produces. Instead, we will trust the market for the first time in a long while to direct those signals. Farmers during this time will not be left unprotected in a sometimes unforgiving world marketplace. H.R. 2854 provides new protection against export embargoes, ensuring that the United States will be a reliable supplier of agricultural products. The bill also strengthens our successful export credit programs, placing new emphasis on high- value exports that now constitute more than half of our overseas sales. Back at home in this country, where resource conservation is increasingly important not only to producers but to all citizens, this bill offers new incentives to manage natural resources wisely. The Environmental Quality Incentive Program will share the cost of measures that enhance water quality and control pollution. The Conservation Reserve Program will be renewed through the year 2002, extending the many environmental benefits of that historic program. This legislation will require more responsible use of taxpayer money. For example, until now, the Farm Services Agency has been compelled by law to make new loans to borrowers who are already delinquent. This bill will end that practice and other abuses of our lending programs. H.R. 2854 reauthorizes food stamps and other important nutrition programs. It consolidates and streamlines rural development programs. It repeals dozens of outdated or unfunded Federal programs and requirements. The President's spokesmen have stated that the President will sign this legislation with reluctance. I am not at all reluctant in my support. This is the best farm legislation I have seen in my congressional career. Farmers who grow so-called program crops--wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, and rice--will be able to sign a 7-year production flexibility contract. They will receive 7 years of declining income support payments. These payments differ from the so-called deficiency payments now made under current law because the contract payments are unrelated to market price levels. Farmers will be required to maintain their farm in agricultural use, to comply with some limitations on the planting of fruits and vegetables and to meet conservation requirements. The Federal Government will no longer tell them how many acres to plant or rigorously control their planting choices. This bill deregulates U.S. production agriculture. As we approach the day when this bill will become law, I wish to salute the ranking Democratic member of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. When he was chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I worked with him in a bipartisan way whenever I could. He has extended the same courtesy to me. H.R. 2854 is a better bill because of that partnership. At the same time, I also want to praise the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Mr. Pat Roberts of Kansas. His tenacity led to reforms that a short time ago were clearly unthinkable. However, those who most deserve this salute are the agriculture producers of the country that we all serve. They are the reason this Nation exceeds all others in the productivity of our agriculture system and in the abundance of our food supply. I am proud to be one of them. They deserve a Government that stands behind them without standing in their way. They want a farm bill that is designed for the new century. We have given that to them. That is what this bill represents. It heralds a future of opportunities, a future not without risk but full of challenge, and a future in which American farmers can compete, excel, and prosper. Mr. President, the FAIR Act is, in fact, good for farmers for these reasons. First of all, flexibility. Under the FAIR Act, the act that we are debating this evening, farmers will be able to plant the mix of crops that best suits their climate, agronomic conditions, and market opportunities. That is extremely important. That is at the heart of this bill. The United States stands at a remarkable point in history in which we have opportunities to supply markets all over the world if we are capable of fulfilling demand. Indeed, we will be more capable under this legislation. The opportunities for farmers to make money under the FAIR Act have never been better. That is a major reason why farmers support this legislation. Simplicity: Farmers can enter into a 7-year contract and, in many cases, will not need to visit the United States Department of Agriculture again. Much of the endless rulemaking and many of the costly regulations that accompany today's farm programs will be eliminated. Certainly, farmers will know all the program parameters and the payment rates for the next 7 years at the time of signing. That signing, Mr. President, will occur in the 45 days following signature of this legislation by the President of the United States. Under current programs, payment rates often change after program signup, and payments in future years are unknown. A known stream of payments, guaranteed by this legislation, will provide certainty to farm lending and all manner of farm business decisions. Let me mention the factor of opportunity. Farmers will be able to adjust planting decisions to take advantage of market opportunities as they occur. Current programs force farmers to follow old planting patterns and U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations rather than profit opportunities. Let me mention profitability. According to the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, under FAIR, the act that we are discussing tonight, gross farm income will expand by 13 percent; net farm income will expand by 27 percent over the next 10 years. This occurs while Government payments to farmers decline by 21 percent during that period of time. Growth: Farmers will be able to adjust plantings and take advantage of growth in the high-value processed product markets. Current programs often force farmers to limit plantings and plan for stagnant low-value bulk markets in order to qualify for the payments under the current programs. The legislation that we are talking about is a revolution of consequence, perhaps the greatest in 60 years. I say that, Mr. President, because we are now in a situation in which the market- distorting target price system is replaced by one of certainty to farmers--but also to taxpayers, also to budget writers. Let me explain for just a moment, Mr. President, how this works. In the past, we estimated in the last farm bill--a 5-year farm bill, as opposed to the 7-year bill in front of us today--that the cost of this in terms of the outlays for the program crops of corn, wheat, cotton, and rice, would be $41 billion, or a little over $8 billion a year for those crop deficiency payments. But, in fact, Mr. President, it turned out that the bill cost $57 billion--$16 billion more. Taxpayers have asked Members of the House and Senate, ``How could you have missed the mark and estimated $41 billion, and it came out $57 billion?'' Well, Mr. President, the weather intervened, and various other legislative emergencies intervened. All sorts of things intervened. They always do in agriculture, given world conditions. Mr. President, we went out confidently from the last farm bill discussion in 1990 with a $41 billion item in mind, and it turned out to be $57 billion. In this particular case, Mr. President, we define precisely the dollars that are going to be spent for these programs at the beginning, and they decline each year for 7 years. They are known to Congressmen and the press, and they are known to farmers at the time of signup. The farmer signs a contract and knows exactly what the payments are going to be for 7 years if he or she continues to farm, makes agricultural use of that land, complies with conservation requirements, and does not plant fruits or vegetables. Those are the only stipulations. That is a large difference, as I mentioned before. Having signed up, that is the last visit the farmer may need to pay to the CFSA office, or any other USDA office. That is a big change in the life of agricultural America. Let me simply point out that the Government will no longer tell farmers which crops to plant. I have mentioned that before, but let me highlight that again. Since the time that my father, Marvin Lugar, who was farming in Marion County, IN, in the 1930's, was forced to destroy a portion of his corn crop and a good part of the hogs that he had on the farm, under what were supply and control dictates of the New Deal--and I will just explain that again, Mr. President. The thought then was that if you left farmers to their own devices, they would always produce too much corn, too many hogs, too much of everything and that, in essence, supply would be overwhelming and the price would go down and farmers would fail. Therefore, the philosophy of the 1930's was that you have to control these farmers, you have to dictate what they can do and how much of it is permissible. That has been our policy for the last 60 years. I must say, Mr. President, there is still, as farmers approach this bill, a certain amount of anxiety. If you have been in that straitjacket for 60 years, even if you did not like it, and you rebelled against the Federal Government and you gave speeches about how Washington ought to stop meddling in farming and you stood up at the county Farm Bureau and said, ``I want to get rid of the Federal Government altogether,'' still, when the moment of truth often came, people said, ``Where is the safety net?'' And will, in fact, people produce too much if there are no limitations? One of the great ironies, as we approached this farm bill and debated it throughout 1995, and now into 1996, was that in 1994, we had a great, enormous corn crop in the country--10 billion bushels. Arguably, that is the first or second largest crop in the history of the country. Immediately, agricultural economists--including those of the U.S. Department of Agriculture--said we have to control this situation or the price of corn will plummet given this overhang of supply. And so they did. As a corn farmer, I experienced this on my farm, the same one I inherited from my father, Marvin Lugar, whom I cited. In my generation, in 1995, I was told I could not plant 7.5 percent of my normal corn historical acreage, to literally lay it aside--nothing there--in order to qualify for the farm program. Farmers were told that all over the country, deliberately, as Government policy. We curtailed 7.5 percent of the acreage of corn that normally would have been planted. Well, Mr. President, USDA was dead wrong. The year 1995 brought unparalleled demand in this country. People were feeding livestock around the world with our corn. It also brought demand for our soybeans and for our wheat and, in many months, for our cotton. The whole situation in China changed remarkably. We debate these issues as if the only thing that counts is our domestic economy. But we know, as a matter of fact, that the foreign policy implications for agriculture are profound, and the most profound one in 1995 was that the Chinese no longer exported. They sent strong signals that they would be importers. The markets they were servicing became importers from us. So, as a result, Mr. President, as we have this debate this evening, the price of corn is approaching historical all-time highs, largely because the carryover from the 1995 crop, which was a short one, as it turned out, aided and abetted by a deliberate decision of the USDA to cut corn plantings, turned up short. The price of corn is approaching $4 a bushel. In the past, we had big arguments on the floor, whether it be that the target price of $2.75 was too high--but that is not even in play, Mr. President. The price of corn right now is in the $3.80's, $3.90's. There are elevators all over this country--as a matter of fact, Mr. President, if you were a corn farmer, you could sell your entire crop that you do not even have in the ground yet for something well above the target price; namely, the price that is used to establish the deficiency payment, the subsidy for corn. You could sell it all. You could even reach ahead another year and sell that crop, if you were confident of the number of bushels that you could produce. That is what market signals are all about. Mr. President, I have no doubt that during the course of this debate, Senators will come on the floor, being unacquainted with agricultural economics, and not having any corn of their own in the situation, and will talk about the ``destruction of the family farm,'' and about a decline of income. Mr. President, I hope that, as an antidote for those arguments, Senators will simply take a look at the price quoted in the newspaper tomorrow morning for cash corn and take a look at the futures markets on down this trail. They will notice a very substantial situation in our country for people who are farmers and who understand markets and who understand what we are about. Mr. President, it seems to me that it is so important that we adopt this idea of looking toward markets. This hallmark of the bill really must be preserved. It is integral to the change that must occur if those of us who are farmers are to thrive in this coming economy. Mr. President, I come before this body, as all Members know, as one who has 604 acres of land--about 250 acres, average, in corn; about 200 acres, average, in soybeans, each year. It is not a hobby farm. It is a productive farm, a profitable farm. It is a farm that has made a profit for many, many years. I come to this debate not as someone who is arguing on behalf of constituents entirely--although my constituents produce a lot of corn and beans in Indiana--but as somebody who has actually filled out the forms every year, who has had to comply with the rules of the game, who understands how farms might be more profitable, who attends every meeting of the Indiana Farm Bureau annually and, in the counties, talks to farmers to understand precisely what is at hand. And I say, Mr. President, after 20 years in this body of debating farm legislation, this is the first time that I can go home to Indiana and say the future of agriculture is bright. We have an opportunity in terms of our upside potential for something magnificent for our generation of farming for those to whom we pass it along. I think that is critically important. Mr. President, while we have tried to deal with this basic issue of freedom to farm we have also in both the House and the Senate attempted to deal meticulously with issues that are of importance to farmers all over this country county by county and locale by locale. In the conference between the House and the Senate, staff identified close to 500 items in disagreement. In some cases the disagreement came because one House or the other did not even mention the item and, therefore, it was new and we had to try to resolve it. But there was common interest. In the course of 2 days, Mr. President, because of the urgency of this legislation, Members resolved all of these issues. This is why we were able to come tonight. The hour is late and we will not complete our work until tomorrow. But I want to give hope to farmers that tomorrow will be the day in the Senate in which freedom to farm comes to pass because that will be a great day for agriculture in this country. I appreciate this opportunity to lay before the Senate tonight the essence of this legislation. I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I point out that these Senators, Senator Coverdell and Senator Cochran, are distinguished members of the Agriculture Committee and have contributed substantially to the legislation we have before the Senate. I point out, Mr. President, that the CBO budget scoring for this farm bill for the conference agreement on H.R. 2854 comes in at a savings of $2.143 billion under the December 1995 CBO baseline. I simply state that as a matter of fact, because there has been argument as to whether there is a budget implication. I am simply pointing out there is. It is down $2.1 billion, and the baseline of December, 1995, as the Chair knows, is significant, because that came after this abundant year of good farm pricing that we have had. Those farm prices meant a savings to the taxpayers of about $8 billion. If we had been scoring this, as the Chair knows from his service on the Budget Committee--and on this very subject, he authored legislation to try to make certain savings at least were reasonable--as I calculate it, the savings during the year through the market were about $8 billion, and $2 billion more is going to occur in this 7 years. That is substantial change in terms of the budget of the United States. I think that is important to introduce.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the amount of time that remains under the control of the three Senators.

Mr. LUGAR

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

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the Senate to proceed, en bloc, to the consideration of the following concurrent resolutions just received from the House: House Concurent Resolution 146 and House Concurrent Resolution 147.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, may turn to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1561, the State Department reorganization bill, and, further, that the reading be deemed waived, and there be a time limitation of 10 hours for debate, with the time divided and controlled as follows: 2 hours under the control of Senator Helms, or his designee; 2 hours under the control of Senator Kerry, or his designee; 2 hours under the control of Senator Nunn; 3 hours under the control of Senator Johnston; 1 hour under the control of Senator Feinstein; provided further, that upon the expiration or yielding back of all time, the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 235, submitted earlier today by Senator Thurmond.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9 a.m. on Thursday, March 28; further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate immediately resume consideration of the farm conference report under a previous consent agreement.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that following the conclusion of debate on the farm conference report, the conference report be laid aside, and that there then be 30 minutes for debate prior to the cloture vote, to be equally divided in the usual form, and following that debate, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the farm conference report, to be followed immediately by the cloture vote with respect to the Kennedy amendment, with the preceding all occurring without any intervening action or debate, and that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, there will be a vote with respect to the farm conference report and a cloture vote with respect to the Kennedy amendment back-to-back, hopefully, by mid-morning. Also, the Senate is expected to consider the debt limit and the omnibus appropriation conference report prior to the close of business on Friday. The Senate could also be asked to resume the Presidio legislation. In addition, it is hoped that the Senate could also pass the charities bill, S. 1618. Therefore, votes can be expected throughout Thursday's and Friday's session of the Senate. Mr. President, I add that, given the hour and the amount of time expired, it would appear that the votes with regard to the farm conference report are likely to come after noon, given the current situation. So Senators might be advised of that change, given the time that has expired this evening.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senators Pressler and Grassley.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar Order No. 347, Senate bill 1618, a bill to provide uniform standards for the award of punitive damages for volunteer services.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I ask that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I agree with my colleague and will work to rewrite this provision according to this principle in conference.

Mr. LUGAR. I agree with my colleague about the history of these amendments.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the amendment by the distinguished Democratic leader is a comprehensive plan. Earlier in our debate, in fact yesterday, as we talked about agriculture, the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, offered, at least as one way of trying to resolve our agricultural legislation this year, the thought that as Republicans we would offer our plan. It is called freedom to farm. It is the plan I laid down and has been amended. We have been debating it throughout the day. The majority leader challenged Democrats to offer a plan, and the Democratic leader has done so. It is a very different plan, and Members will need to make choices as we finally come to votes on that plan. Let me just say Members ought to understand that the plan offered by the distinguished Democratic leader has expenses attached to it that are fairly substantial. The Congressional Budget Office estimates for increased spending on the loan rates amount to $7.6 billion over the life of his bill. That is a very substantial sum. Earlier in the day, I criticized amendments by the distinguished Senator from Iowa because they had expenditure increases of $260 million and $100 million respectively. I commented, and I think most Senators agree, that we are still attempting to work toward a balanced budget in this country. The agriculture legislation is a part of that, and the freedom-to-farm bill that I am advocating today carefully calibrates those decisions in terms of sacrifice that agriculture must make. The distinguished Democratic leader's idea is to provide, I gather, higher income through rather startling change in the loan rate picture, and a very expensive one--$7.6 billion more. I think Senators and taxpayers need to understand that is a transfer payment once again to farmers who might qualify for those loans. Let me just suggest, Mr. President, that as we have heard recitation of stories about farmers struggling--and, indeed, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota mentioned the story of a lady attending a White House conference, as I gather, indicating the struggle that she had--those struggles are well-known, and I have been pointing them out throughout the opportunities I have had today. The freedom-to-farm act provides stability. It provides, despite criticism of some Senators, a payment each year. That is almost as certain as you can make it, if a contract is signed. It provides freedom to farm, but it also provides certainty of income. Whatever might be said about current farm law and its extension, it does not provide a very great deal of certainty. I can testify to that from my own experience managing my own farm property from 1956 until the present. I have been involved at the ASCS office throughout that period of time. I am very familiar with the corn program and the wheat program, and I would simply say if I were a thoughtful person relying upon the type of security provided by those programs, I would have great fears all the time. Obviously, each farmer plants for the market, and does the best that he or she can to maximize income. But let me just say, Mr. President, in the freedom-to-farm act that we have taken seriously the thought that we are in transition in the world. We may have a broad swing, as Senators pointed out, at prices, but those certainly will be mitigated by the certainty of income. It would appear to me that all farmers who are looking for, as has been characterized today, some certainty and some stability would clearly find freedom-to-farm to be a superior alternative on those grounds alone. Freedom to farm is also superior, as I have pointed out, on the basis of budget, on the basis of taxpayer expense, and transfer payments of other citizens to the farm communities. Mr. President, freedom to farm also offers more certainty because it is a 7-year program, not a 3-year program as suggested by the distinguished Democratic leader. There is great stability in having a multiyear program. This is why, at least in the last two instances, we have tried for as long as a 5-year period of time, and most farmers have found that to be a very satisfactory idea. Mr. President, I will not attempt to go through each of the details of the Democratic leader's program. I am hearing it and seeing it on first impression today, as are most Senators, although many elements of the program are familiar from arguments we have had before. For example, earlier in the day the Senate rejected the farmer-owned reserve, as I heard--at least the recitation a short while ago that reappears. Likewise, we rejected the thought that farmers ought to be subsidized with lower CCC interest rates, although, as I recall, I think that reappears in the comprehensive package. In short, there are reappearances of many elements that have been found very unsatisfactory in terms of farm policy by farmers quite apart from the rest of the general public. Indeed, the Democratic leader's bill is a collection of many programs that have had a high degree of failure and lack of confidence, and even a combination of them and with more money injected will not remedy that situation. Mr. President, I am hopeful that Senators will affirm the freedom to farm idea and the elements that have been discussed now during this debate, and reject the alternative proposal of the Democratic leader. There is a choice to be made today. I think the choice is a very clear one. And I am most hope hopeful that Senators will support freedom to farm. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.