[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9417-S9419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 2344

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I indicated to the majority leader, it 
is my intent to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
bill which provides $500 million in agricultural indemnity payments 
which was agreed to as an amendment to the agricultural appropriations 
bill, and the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Mr. GREGG. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I heard on the other side of the aisle 
a chorus of ``I object.'' I am not quite sure why.
  I was on a show this morning, WCCO Radio, in Minnesota. It is hard to 
explain to farmers why we can't take the action right now on the 
indemnity payment, the $500 million. We passed it. The correction would 
be made later on, but we can get assistance to farmers right now.
  Why can't we send this over to the House? I say to my colleagues.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. I helped craft that indemnity payment. It is very 
important we do work with the House. Senator Conrad, I, and others, 
deserve to go to conference. Senator Dorgan was a part of that.
  I can understand a rush to immediacy. That is in the next fiscal 
cycle. I think it is important we deal with it in a fair and balanced 
way. As it is written, already the circumstances of agriculture have 
changed significantly enough. We deserve to look at it in a broader 
spectrum.
  We, the Senate, tonight acted to bring some immediacy to the 
difficulty you are expressing. There may be more to be done in the 
coming weeks as this whole difficulty with production agriculture 
increases across our country.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let the Record show I am speaking for 
myself, but let the Record show that there was no objection to moving 
forward on advance payments for this ``freedom to fail'' bill, which is 
just an admission what an awful piece of legislation it was on our 
side. In addition, we could have gotten a $500 million indemnity 
payment out to farmers.
  People are asking, when are we going to see this assistance? People 
are thinking about a lifetime of 2 months or 3 months.
  I hear this discussion that we need to take a broader view, it needs 
to go over to the House, and we need to work it in conference 
committee, and we haven't had a chance to meet yet in conference 
committee. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds to the people whom we 
represent?
  Mr. President, I will just say I don't think it is just that simple. 
Obviously, I am not going to change the course of events tonight.
  My colleague from Iowa came out here earlier and spoke about this. 
First, the minority leader asked whether or not we also could have 
unanimous consent to get this indemnity payment out to the countryside, 
out to families in rural America. Then the Senator from Iowa spoke 
about it. Then the Senator from North Dakota comes to the floor, after 
we have agreed to go forward--fast forward the advance payments was 
just fine with this Freedom to Farm bill. And now we come out and the 
Senator from North Dakota asks unanimous consent that we get the $500 
million--when did we pass that? I ask my colleagues.
  Mr. DORGAN. Almost a month ago.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. A month ago. We get this out now, over to the House of 
Representatives; they take action this week or next week; and then we 
get the assistance out to farmers.
  And what I hear on this side is this chorus of ``No,'' and then 
everyone leaves. With all due respect, it is not that simple. I want 
the farmers in Minnesota and I want the farmers across the country to 
know that there was an effort made tonight to get some additional help 
to people above and beyond these advance payments, which will help only 
a little.
  It is a desperate situation. Many people are going to go under over 
the next several months. There was an effort tonight to get $500 
million passed, over to the House, and out to farmers all across the 
country, especially in those areas that have been hardest hit. And my 
colleagues on the other side said no. And they are gone.
  I will be willing to yield in 1 second. I would like to speak a 
little bit more about this for another 3 minutes. It is not that 
simple. I will just say to my colleagues on the other side, I see that 
it is late at night, but I will just say to them, it is not as simple 
as saying no. You said no to a proposal, to an effort to get assistance 
to people now. We could have done it. We have done it.
  I think the Record should be very clear. I want every single farm 
family in northwest Minnesota that is in desperate shape to know that 
this proposal was turned down by the Republican Party--unwilling to do 
it. We were more than willing to help out a little bit with moving 
forward on the advance payments. No reciprocation or cooperation on the 
other side in getting the $500 million out to people right now.
  I don't think it will be very easy to explain to people why we are 
waiting another month. I don't know whether we should have even left. 
It is sort of interesting to me, a bitter irony. Now we are gone. We 
probably shouldn't have gone. We probably shouldn't be going into 
recess.
  How do you say to people, well, it will be in a conference committee 
and we haven't quite got that together and we just didn't want to do it 
tonight because there are some things that I am not satisfied with as a 
Senator and I would like to work on that longer?
  The future is now for people. Time is not neutral. We could have 
passed something which would have provided $500 million to farmer 
families that are in real trouble, and we didn't do it. I am 
embarrassed that we are going into recess. I am embarrassed that the 
U.S. Senate blocked this. I am embarrassed, specifically, that my 
Republican colleagues blocked it.
  I didn't get a chance to talk earlier because the majority leader 
tried to move things along, said he would recognize two Senators, and 
the Senator from Georgia was the last Senator. So now I get to speak. I 
think it is just outrageous.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I simply wanted to make the point that the reason I asked 
the unanimous consent request really has nothing to do with the request 
by others to advance the Agriculture Marketing Assistance Act, or AMTA 
payments as they are called, under the Freedom to Farm bill. I didn't 
object to that. If that will help a producer here and there, that is 
good. Anything that helps gets assistance into the pockets of family 
farmers, I am for that. So I didn't object to that. I told folks this 
evening I wouldn't object to that.
  But, this is not new money at all. This is just a payment that they 
are supposed to get later on. Now, they might get this payment earlier 
or at least they will have the option to get it earlier.
  I was thinking about the farmer who testified yesterday at our farm 
policy hearing. This was young fellow from South Dakota who testified. 
When he talked about putting the crop in this spring, he could barely 
continue. His chin was quivering, and he had tears in his eyes. He 
talked about having to find something on his farm to sell in order to 
get the money together to put in his crop. Then things went bad for him 
and he was out of money again. He had to sell some of the feed for his 
cattle that he put aside for this winter. He

[[Page S9418]]

didn't have any money. He talks about the need to feed his kids, the 
need to provide for his family. He could barely continue because he was 
talking about something that is much more than a business. It is a way 
of life. This was life, and his dream. I had a call from a guy in 
Sarles, ND. You could hear the pain in his voice. Everything that he 
has, everything that he owns, everything that he aspires to, everything 
that he has fought and worked for in his family is on the line. He 
said, ``You know, I'm going to harvest my barley and I'm going to have 
to take it right to the elevator. Prices have crashed, I am not going 
to get anything for it. I don't have a choice. I have to pay back my 
lender, and feed my family.'' The pain was so evident in his voice. He 
was asking, ``What can I do? Is there help someplace?''

  The point of both of these producers is that they didn't cause these 
conditions. They didn't cause the Asian financial crisis that has 
caused our exports to start to slow down and prices collapse. They 
didn't cause the crop diseases that have devastated these crops. They 
didn't cause the price collapse of wheat and barley. It is not their 
fault. The question for this country is whether we are going to have 
any family farmers left. And, does anybody care about that?
  This Senate did something that I thought was the right thing to do. 
We passed an indemnity program of $500 million. Frankly, that is going 
to have to increase substantially. Since that time, in the last several 
weeks, we have learned that the Texas cotton crop is gone, with over $2 
billion in damage. In Louisiana and Oklahoma, the agricultural 
economies are devastated. So the $500 million is going to have to be 
increased. The point is, while I think advancing the Freedom to Farm 
payments is fine, I think we can do more by deciding to take the $500 
million we have already agreed upon and advance that and move that out.
  The earliest farmers are going to get these indemnity payments would 
be perhaps November or December. Tonight, we could have taken that $500 
million and made it available. We could have sent it to the House, and 
let them pass it. Next week, or the week after, the Department of 
Agriculture could have begun to try to deal with this deepening farm 
crisis. This isn't an ordinary crisis. I have mentioned before that we 
have so many auction sales of family farms in North Dakota that they 
were calling auctioneers out of retirement to handle the sales. You can 
go to those sales and see these little tykes wearing their britches and 
cowboy hats with hair in their eyes, wondering why mom and dad have to 
sell the farm, and why their life is going to change. You can see the 
husband and wife with tears in their eyes, watching people bid on their 
machinery. Most of the equipment is old because they can't afford the 
new machinery. You can see the pain being suffered out in the great 
plains.
  I am disappointed tonight. I wish we could have done what we have 
already decided to do. We should make $500 million available now. We 
should do it sooner rather than later. We will come back in September 
and have another significant debate. Advancing the Freedom to Farm 
payment is fine. It may help some producers. If it does, I am for that. 
But we must do more. This Congress must decide that family farmers 
matter. This isn't just about dollars and cents, or about economic 
theory. With all that is going on in agriculture, including unfair 
trade, unfair competition, a choked market, monopolies up and down and 
sideways, and everywhere, we are losing something very important. We 
are losing family farmers. Then all the yard lights will be turned off 
on these farms. You will fly from California to Maine and you won't see 
family farms because agri-factories don't have yard lights. They plow 
as far as you can plow for 10 hours, and they plow back. There will be 
nobody living out in the country. That seed bed of family values that 
existed and that nurtures us from small towns to America's cities, and 
which has always refreshed this country will be gone. Then somebody 
will scratch their head and say: What happened to our country? What 
will have happened is that this Congress didn't understand, as some 
other countries do, that family farmers make a difference in our 
national life. It is not just dollars and cents. It is a lot more than 
some economic calculation made by those who give us a bunch of 
constipated theories about agriculture. This is everyday living by farm 
families that just ask for an even chance to make a decent living. Yet 
they are confronted in every direction by monopolies, price collapse, 
disease, and then by a Government that says they want to pull the rug 
out from under them on price supports.
  What if the Government tried to do that on the minimum wage? They 
would say, ``Let's reduce the minimum wage to $1 an hour and call it 
freedom to work.'' It's the same thing. The fact is, we must come back 
here in September and have a real debate about real policies that will 
give family farmers in this country a real opportunity to make a decent 
living. They are the economic all stars in this country. Make no 
mistake about it. This country will make a serious mistake if it turns 
its back to the economic opportunity that ought to be offered to the 
family farmers in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, perhaps it is healthy that we had a 
discussion on the farm crisis started again tonight. It is unfortunate 
the way it came up because, typically, those of us who represent farm 
country have tried to work together. That did not happen tonight. That 
is unfortunate. There is no great harm done. In fact, we passed 
something that will be modestly helpful, although it represents no new 
money.
  Mr. President, the reason there is such a high level of feeling about 
what is happening in farm country is because we face an unmitigated 
disaster. In North Dakota, farm income declined 98 percent from 1996 to 
1997. The result is a massive number of auction sales, and the result 
is that the Secretary of Agriculture came to North Dakota and his 
crisis response team said that we are in danger of losing 30 percent of 
our farmers in the next 2 years. That is a disaster of staggering 
proportion.
  Of course, it is not limited to North Dakota because we have the 
lowest prices for wheat and barley in 50 years. Those prices continue 
to crash. I just received a phone call from a farmer back home in North 
Dakota, who heard this debate occurring and he said, ``Don't they know 
down there that just shuffling payments is not going to solve the 
problem? Don't they know that this kind of shell game is not what is 
needed? What is needed are additional resources to fight what is an 
international trade war. Don't they know that Europe spends 10 times 
more supporting their producers than we do supporting ours? Don't they 
know Europe is spending 100 times more than we are supporting exports? 
Don't they understand the result is not only the lowest prices in 50 
years, but in addition to that, disasters that are not being 
addressed?''
  The disaster in North Dakota is the outbreak of a disease called 
scab, a fungus that is loose in the fields, which cost us a third of 
the crop last year. That combination of the lowest prices in 50 years 
and losing a third of the crop to this horrible disease, scab, has 
meant devastation to farm income. As I indicated, there has been a 98 
percent reduction in farm income from 1996 to 1997, with literally 
thousands of farmers being forced off the land this year, and many more 
coming next year. One of the major agricultural lenders in my State 
called me and told me, ``Senator, there is something radically wrong 
with this country's farm policy. If a State like North Dakota, which is 
one of the breadbasket States of our country, is in a farm depression, 
then there is something radically wrong with the farm policy.
  Mr. President, I just want to conclude by saying that we do face low 
prices in North Dakota. It is not just in North Dakota because now it 
is spreading to other States as well. They are being hit by the low 
prices, but they are also being hit by these disaster conditions. In 
different parts of the country, it is different kinds of weather 
disasters. In Oklahoma and Texas, it is overly dry conditions, a 
drought. It's the same thing in Louisiana. In our part of the country, 
it is overly wet conditions that led to this outbreak of

[[Page S9419]]

the fungus called scab. In other parts of the country, it has been 
hurricanes.
  The combined result is a farm crisis worse than anything we have seen 
since I have been in public life. I have been in public life now for 
over 20 years.
  Mr. President, I hope when we return that we are ready to 
aggressively address this problem. What we did tonight will help. It is 
not new money. It just moves money forward. That will be of some 
assistance. But it in no way solves the problem. We have a crisis of 
staggering dimensions, and it requires our full response.
  I thank the Chair. 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. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we are now in the closing process for 
the evening, and we have several matters to be considered.

                          ____________________