June 5, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7653 

In the current farm program there is 

a circumstance where the Prince of 

Liechtenstein was paid farm program 

benefits to a farm in Texas. Does anybody think the Prince of Liechtenstein 

is a Texas farmer? Of course not. 

We had a bunch of Texans, a farmer 

coalition, so they could farm in Montana. They plowed a bunch of ground 

and seeded it by helicopter. They were 

not farming the land. They were farming the farm program, so they could 

get $20,000, $40,000, or 50,000 payments 

each. 

We have a national newsman in this 

country that everyone probably has 

read about recently—who I assume 

lives in Washington, DC—gets $90,000 

under the wool and mohair program. I 

bet that newsman does not live with 

the sheep most of the year. He is living 

in Washington, DC, or New York City. 

It seems to me the farm program ought 

to be targeted to family-size farms. 

Now what I propose is a new approach, and I hope the Senate Agriculture Committee will look at it. I 

think it will do the right thing and 

save the Government money. I propose 

we structure farm program price benefits or farm program price supports or 

the safety net for farm programs, so 

that the strongest price goes to the 

first increment of production. 

We say if a farmer raises 20,000 bushels of wheat, we provide a price of $4.50 

a bushel. We hope the farmer gets 

money from the marketplace, but if 

not, we provide $4.50 for the bushel for 

the first 20,000 bushels of wheat, and 

that is all the money we have. We are 

sorry. If they want to farm the whole 

county, God bless you, they have every 

right to farm the whole county, but the 

Federal Government does not have to 

be the financial partner beyond the 

first 20,000 bushels. If a farmer wants to 

farm beyond that level, they are on 

their own. 

That ought to be the case in all farm 

programs. 

In the dairy program, I have never 

understood, for example, why there is 

need to support a dairy operation in 

California that milks 3,500 cows every 

day. I do not know if anybody here has 

milked a cow. I have milked a cow, but 

if you milk 3,500 cows a day and get a 

price support under every gallon of 

milk you pull from the cows, that just 

does not make sense. 

It seems to me if we have price supports for milk, we say we might provide a decent price support for the milk 

from 80 cows. That is hard work for a 

farmer running a farm. However, if a 

farmer wants to buy the 81st cow, guess 

what? When they sit on the milk stool, 

do a little milking, those farmers 

would be milking on their own risk. 

I think that is what we ought to do 

with the farm program. If we are not 

willing to recognize that the farm program is one that is designed to try to 

help the family farmers stay on the 

farm—and those are important things 

to care about from social and economic 

policy reasons—if that is not the purpose of it, I say we should get rid of the 

farm program. 

We do not need to provide a stimulant for corporate agrifactories to 

plow. They will plow. Corporations will 

plow the whole country. As soon as 

they have plowed the whole country 

and cornered the supply of food, guess 

what? Go to the grocery store and see 

what the price of food will be. The corporations of this country will darn sure 

make certain that consumers would be 

paying well above the cost of production for food. 

Of course, now we do not do that. We 

go to the store and buy a box of elbow 

macaroni. Let us see how that relates 

to the price of durum wheat. Somebody 

out on a farm raises durum wheat and 

he grinds it into semolina flour, and 

the semolina flour is produced into 

elbow macaroni. 

I can show when the price of durum 

wheat goes down 2 bucks a bushel, the 

price of elbow macaroni goes up. I can 

show when the price of wheat goes 

down the price of cereal goes up. I can 

show that the snap, crackle, and pop in 

Rice Krispies often brings more to the 

people that produce the snap and the 

crackle, than the person that produces 

the rice. 

It is the same with puffed wheat. The 

puffer gets more than the wheat. It is 

the same with corn flakes. The flaker 

gets more than the person that rides 

the tractor and raises the corn. 

That is the way things have worked. 

It is not right. 

We have an opportunity this year to 

write a farm program that produces 

the right result. Now for social and 

economic reasons, this country ought 

to care about who produces its foodstuffs. It ought to care about the Farm 

Belt. It ought to care about preserving 

a network of family farmers. For that 

reason, we ought to have a safety net—

not for a set of golden arches or for the 

largest agrifactories—but, a safety net 

for family farmers. 

We can do that. We can do it in a responsible and reasonable way—and we 

can save the taxpayers’ money at the 

same time—if we simply decide the 

current farm program is not working 

and we construct a new farm program, 

a better farm program, one that gives 

some hope to family farmers for a 

change. 

It is interesting that with all the discussion around this town about reform 

and reinventing, the odds are that unless things change in the next 60 or 80 

days, we will see the same old tired, 

failed policies with respect to agriculture. 

I hope that the proposal that I am 

making this year—the legislative proposal for targeting farm program support prices to family-sized farms—and 

the roles by others that try to really 

substantially reform the farm program 

will this year give us a change. It does 

not make sense to do less of the same, 

when the same does not work. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

THE UNBALANCED BUDGET 

Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I 

have just returned from my State of 

South Dakota, where I listened to the 

farmers, small businessmen, students, 

wives, and citizens of South Dakota for 

9 days. I found many were thanking me 

for voting for the balanced budget resolution, the Domenici-Dole budget that 

passed the U.S. Senate about 2 weeks 

ago. The people of our country want 

change. They want us to do something 

about the huge deficit that has been 

built up and they feel we have taken 

the first step. The message I heard loud 

and clear was, ‘‘Please take the second 

and third steps now.’’

For the first time since I have been 

in the Senate, this body passed a real 

budget that will move us toward a balanced budget in the year 2002. But even 

with a balanced budget in 2002, we will 

still have a huge deficit. In some of my 

high school graduation speeches, I predicted they will have to pay a tax surcharge on their income taxes for most 

of their lives to help pay down the Federal deficit, or at least pay interest on 

it. 

I know the dullest story in the world 

probably is the Federal deficit, but 

cattlemen are aware that our budget 

that we passed here, if we stick to it, 

will result in lower interest rates. It 

will also result in a stable dollar so 

that there can be international trade. 

Senior citizens understand that the 

cuts in Medicare are merely a cut in 

the rate of increase. Medicare has been 

increasing at a 10-percent increase. 

This budget allows about a 7-percent 

increase, and it provides for streamlining, doing away with fraud and 

abuse, and other steps within Medicare 

and Medicaid so they can still provide 

solid service. 

Even the Democrats’ study predicted 

that Medicare would go bankrupt by 

the year 2000 unless something is done. 

I find it very strange that many are 

criticizing the Domenici-Dole budget 

but they did not provide an alternative 

here on the Senate floor. There was the 

alternative of President Clinton which 

every Member of this Chamber voted 

against. 

I do not mean to be partisan, but I 

would say I am very proud and I have 

found my constituents thankful that 

Congress has finally started to address 

the budgetary deficit problem. There is 

also a strong feeling among senior citizens that to keep our currency solvent, 

our dollar stable, and to avoid inflation 

is worth a great deal to them. This 

budget will start to do that if we stick 

to it. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7654 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE June 5, 1995 

So the message I got from my constituents was, ‘‘Thank you for the vote 

on the balanced budget that went 

through the Senate.’’ But they are a 

little nervous about us. They say, ‘‘You 

are on second base. Keep going.’’ So 

that is the message I bring back from 

my constituents. I think it is an important one to our Nation, because it is 

our No. 1 domestic problem, the unbalanced budget. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

MEASURE PLACED ON THE 

CALENDAR—H.R. 1045 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will read H.R. 1045 for a second 

time. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (H.R. 1045) to amend the Goals 2000 

Educate America Act, to eliminate the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, and for other purposes. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I object to proceeding at this time to the 

bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill 

will be placed on the calendar. 

The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that I be allowed to 

speak for up to 20 minutes as if in 

morning business. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

CUTS IN CIVILIAN RESEARCH AND 

DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 2 

weeks ago the Senate passed a budget 

resolution designed to eliminate the 

Federal deficit over the next 7 years. 

The House passed its version of that 

budget the week before. 

While there are some major differences in those budgets, particularly 

on tax cuts and defense spending and 

domestic discretionary spending, there 

is one common feature, and that is a 

proposed drastic cut in Federal support 

for civilian research and development. 

That is across Government. 

There has been very little attention 

paid to this part of the budget balancing effort so far. The public attention has been concentrated on Medicare, Medicaid, education, and tax cuts 

for the wealthy. But this issue, these 

drastic cuts in Federal support for civilian research and development, may 

be the place where the Republican 

budgets that have been passed through 

the two Houses will do the most damage to our Nation’s future well-being 

and prosperity. 

Overall, civilian research and development spending will be cut 30 to 40 

percent by the year 2002 to a four-decade low as a percentage of our economy. Some agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, perhaps the 

National Institutes of Health, may be 

cut only at the inflation rate during 

the next 7 years, but all others—that 

is, NASA, the Department of Energy, 

the Department of Commerce, EPA—

all appear to be slated for much deeper 

reductions. 

For those who are not familiar with 

the budget process here—I am sure 

there are some who are watching who 

may not be—let me explain why we 

cannot be more specific about the effect of these budgets at this point. The 

budget resolutions that are still being 

considered in conference make many 

assumptions about Federal programs. 

The only binding assumption which 

came out of what we did here in the 

Senate and in the House is the assumption that affects civilian-applied research with regard to the domestic discretionary spending cap. In fiscal year 

1995, this current year, that cap is $257 

billion for total domestic discretionary 

spending. Under the Senate version of 

the budget in 2002, it will be $234 billion, or a 10-percent reduction. That is 

a 10-percent reduction coupled with 7 

years of no inflationary adjustment. 

Under the House version, the domestic 

discretionary spending total in 2002 is 

even lower. In the House version, it 

will be $229 billion. 

If civilian research is treated on average like all other programs in this 

larger category, this domestic discretionary spending category, which I 

would assume is really the best case 

that we could hope for, if that were to 

be the case, then that research and development funding would be cut 30 percent in real terms. If other programs, 

such as highway funding, law enforcement, and veterans programs are protected from cuts when funding is finally allocated by the Appropriations 

Committees, the cuts in research and 

development could reach 40 percent in 

real terms. 

Mr. President, I am tempted to ask 

what the research community in this 

country has done or failed to do to deserve this type of treatment at this 

stage in our Nation’s history. The research community won the cold war for 

us. They put men on the moon, they 

revolutionized medicine, they invented 

computers, they pioneered electronics 

and semiconductor devices. They invented a myriad of new materials that 

have fundamentally changed our lives. 

This is just as Vannevar Bush, who 

was one of the giants in the post-World 

War II generation in science, predicted 

in his report, ‘‘Science: The Endless 

Frontier,’’ about half a century ago. 

Bush had the wisdom to know nearly 50 

years ago that new scientific and technological fields would emerge that he 

could not yet imagine —semiconductor 

electronics, for example, or molecular 

biology and the material sciences, just 

to name three. Bush had the vision to 

see that Federal investments in science 

and technology could transform our 

lives and contribute to our health and 

the standard of living and the security 

of all Americans. 

Federal investment in civilian research and development did not cause 

the Federal deficit. In fact, it is quite 

the opposite. 

Mr. President, here is a chart that I 

want to direct my colleagues’ attention to. It shows civilian research and 

development as a percentage of gross 

domestic product during the 40-year period from 1961 through the year 2001 or 

2002. In 1969, which is the last Federal 

budget that we had that was in balance, Federal civilian research spending was .76 percent of gross domestic 

product, about in this range. With the 

sole exception of the Bush administration, it has trended lower for the last 

quarter of a century. In 1995, it is estimated at about .46 percent of gross domestic product, the same as it was in 

1992. 

In the year 2002, under this budget 

resolution that passed both the House 

and now a different one in the Senate, 

but the same in this regard, in the year 

2002, it will be about .27 percent under 

these Republican budgets. That assumes the best case, as I mentioned 

earlier; that is, that research is treated 

on averages the same as other domestic 

discretionary programs. 

It is not just that our civilian research investments have not caused 

our current deficit. More importantly, 

there is almost universal recognition 

that these investments have paid for 

themselves many times over by the 

growth that they have contributed to 

our economy. It is not an accident that 

American industries, from aerospace to 

agriculture to electronics to pharmaceuticals, enjoy world leadership. Federal civilian research investments are 

truly investments in the Nation’s future. Mr. President, in my view, it is 

folly to be cutting them to this extent 

over the next 7 years as we enter this 

new century. 

The cuts in Federal support for civilian research will almost surely not be 

made up in the private sector. The Wall 

Street Journal on May 22 reported on 

deep cuts being made by AT&T, by 

General Electric, by IBM, Kodak, Texaco, and Xerox in their research budgets. The reason: Private-sector firms 

have an ever narrower focus and an 

ever greater unwillingness to invest in 

long-term research projects, the benefits of which are uncertain, and usually 

the benefits of which are not 

capturable by any single firm alone. 

The governments of our major economic rivals, Japan and Germany, recognize the importance of civilian research investments. Let me show you 

another chart, Mr. President. This 

chart compares the three countries in 

1992. It shows that in 1992, the German 

Government invested .9 percent of 

gross domestic product that year in civilian research, over in the right. The 

Japanese Government invested .5 percent, directly and indirectly. Neither 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS