[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 120 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10256-S10258]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE FARM CRISIS

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk briefly 
about a couple of issues that are of critical importance to the 
country, and especially to that part of America that I come from--North 
Dakota, the farm belt. It is an important part of our country. Our 
country is made up of many parts--of cities, of country, of family 
farms, of main streets, and small businesses. But we are going through 
a very, very tough time in rural America.
  I asked the majority leader some moments ago on the floor of the 
Senate about the ability to deal with this farm crisis through some 
action by this Congress before we adjourn. I was impressed that he 
indicated that it is his intention for us to take up legislation to 
address this farm crisis once again as we did in the month of July. It 
is an urgent situation.
  The future of many family farms and the future of many families 
living out in rural America depends on this Congress stepping up and 
making the kind of decisions that will give them the opportunity to 
make a decent living on the family farm.
  When I talk about my part of the country, or our part of the country, 
I am reminded of something that Daniel Webster said. He was one of the 
giants of this institution. In fact, his portrait is on the wall out 
here in the reception room of the U.S. Senate. He is recognized as a 
giant in the history of this body. When Thomas Jefferson made the 
Louisiana Purchase, which was fairly controversial at the time, let me 
read to you what Daniel Webster said. Remember; this a part of the 
country that I come from. About that Louisiana Purchase, Daniel Webster 
said:

       What do we want with this vast, worthless area, this region 
     of savages and wild beasts, of desert and shifting sands and 
     whirlwinds, of dust, cactus, and prairie dogs? What can we 
     ever hope to do with this western coast, a coast of 3,000 
     miles, rockbound, cheerless, uninviting, and not a harbor on 
     it? What use do we have for this country?

  Daniel Webster is not considered thoughtless because he made this 
statement. But it is quite clear, I suppose, to all of us now that he 
missed the mark some.
  ``What do we want with this vast, worthless area?''
  Gosh. What a remarkable part of our country that Louisiana Purchase 
became.
  Then a couple of years after Daniel Webster asked this question about 
that part of America, Thomas Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark to explore 
that area, and it was one of the great expeditions in the annals of 
American history.
  Lewis and Clark, on May 14th, 1804, left St. Louis, MO, with 44 men 
and 120 gallons of whiskey, by the way, purchased with government 
vouchers. The President said, ``Buy whatever you need.'' I have made 
jokes about the need to purchase 120 gallons of whiskey to get them 
through certain States. But I will not repeat those jokes here. I do 
that only because I think it is interesting to study the history of 
that Lewis and Clark Expedition. It was a remarkable expedition.
  In April of 1805--April 7, to be exact--after Lewis and Clark had 
gone from St. Louis up to what is now near Washburn, ND, and spent the 
entire winter with the Mandan Indians, before they began the next 
portion of their journey to the West Coast, April 7, 1805, Captain 
Lewis wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson. That letter--a six-page 
letter--was put on a keelboat with some soldiers and sent down the 
Missouri back to St. Louis, then down to New Orleans by boat, then to 
Washington, DC, to Thomas Jefferson. And then we never heard another 
word from Lewis and Clark for 17 months. Then we discovered on the 
conclusion of that remarkable expedition that they had been to the West 
Coast and back. And they told us what they found in this remarkable 
country of ours.
  That letter, by the way, just for interest sake, was never viewed by 
the public until a couple of months ago. That letter, in a special 
effort by the Library of Congress, is now being viewed publicly at an 
Interpretation Center of Lewis and Clark near Washburn, ND, with all 
proper security, about a mile from where Captain Lewis wrote the letter 
in the year 1805 on April 7. He sent it by keelboat down the Missouri, 
all the way around to President Jefferson, and, of course, it came back 
in by jet airplane nearly 200 years later.
  I tell you that just to say that this is a wonderful, remarkable 
country, and in our part of the country, which is called the farm belt, 
a rural area of the country, we are having an enormous amount of 
difficulty, one that requires this Congress' attention.
  There are two things that are of great concern to us.
  The collapse of grain prices means that we see the threatened loss of 
thousands and thousands and thousands of families who now live out on 
the family farm. Grain prices have flat out collapsed. Crop disease has 
come and visited our State --the worst crop disease of the century at 
the same time that grain prices have collapsed. And, on top of that, 
these farmers also fail because of unfair trade, unfair trade which 
helps cause the grain price collapse; an enormous amount of unfair 
trade, unfair trade that no one seems to be interested in doing 
anything about.
  That brings me to the point I want to make today dealing with our 
trade problems, especially with our neighbors to the north--the 
Canadians--but these trade problems relate to Mexico, to France, to 
China, and to other countries as well.
  Let me describe the problems just briefly, as I have before, and then 
tell you why I am especially interested today.
  Trade agreements: There are those talking about this mantra of free 
trade saying let's do more free trade agreements, and the more we 
trade, the better off we are, and the better it is for our country. 
Trade statistics show that as we negotiate these agreements, agreement 
after agreement, whoever is negotiating these agreements must not be 
keeping their eye on the ball, because agreement after agreement we see 
deeper and deeper trade deficits for this country.
  I ask those who negotiate our agreements: Is there any chance you 
might negotiate a trade agreement that is in our country's best 
interest just once; something that benefits our country instead of 
deepens our trade deficits?

[[Page S10257]]

 The economic all-stars in trade have become America's family farmers. 
We have an abiding and abundant trade surplus in agricultural 
commodities and products. But that is shrinking, as you can see. That 
is shrinking because the trade agreements that have been developed over 
the years with other countries--the Canadian agreement, Mexican, and 
others--have not been in the interest of our farmers. They have created 
a bifurcation of trade strategy so that we become a sponge for 
virtually anything anyone wants to send into our country, even if it is 
sent here unfairly. And we increasingly cannot get our products into 
other countries' markets. The result is that the agricultural trade 
surplus, which once was healthy and which once reflected the one bright 
spot on our trade picture, is now itself diminishing.
  Our foreign debt grows to finance this trade deficit. You know what 
red means, and I have shown many of these charts before that show that 
the trade debt is increasing and increasing dramatically.
  Now, we have a U.S. trade ambassador's office that negotiates trade 
treaties. I voted against, I guess, the last three or four of the 
treaties they have negotiated. They went and negotiated one with Canada 
and, fundamentally, in my judgment, sold out the interests of American 
farmers. I think I can demonstrate it; I think I have. Then they 
negotiated NAFTA with Canada and Mexico. Same thing--a wholesale exodus 
of American jobs. They negotiated GATT--fundamentally unsound in the 
way it was negotiated to protect our producers' economic interests. I 
am not talking about being protectionist now. I am talking about 
standing up for the economic interests of our producers to say, if you 
must compete--and that is a worthy objective--then we will make sure 
the competition is fair.
  Has that happened in all of these recent trade agreements? Not at 
all. Because these folks are interested in negotiating agreements, some 
kind of trade agreements that comport with some notion of free trade 
they have, a notion that is foreign to the folks where I grew up.
  Is it free trade to say to an American producer, you go ahead and 
produce a product, then ship it to a marketplace and try to sell it? 
And by the way, you are going to compete with a manufacturing plant in 
Sri Lanka or Indonesia or Bangladesh, and they are going to hire 14-
year-old kids and pay them 14 cents an hour; they are going to work 
them 14 hours a day, and they are going to make that product dirt cheap 
so they can increase their corporate profits; they are going to ship 
that product to Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, or Fargo, and 
you, Mr. and Mrs. Producer, compete with them, go ahead, compete with 
them. Is that fair trade? Absolutely not.
  Or how about saying to a mom and pop operation in this country that 
is producing a product, you produce a product, but we need to make sure 
you are not polluting our air, not polluting our water, not hiring 
kids, and you don't have unsafe plants?
  So we have restrictions on air pollution, restrictions on air and 
water pollution, we have child labor laws, and we have worker safety 
provisions. And then we say, you produce that product under those 
conditions--and I support all of those conditions, by the way--and then 
go compete, and when you compete, you compete against a plant in some 
country tens of thousands of miles away that doesn't have any 
restriction on dumping chemicals into the air, chemicals into the 
water, hiring kids or having unsafe factories. And so they increase 
corporate profits, make cheaper products and ship them here and compete 
unfairly.
  I ask our trade ambassadors to defend that; defend that. And if you 
can't, then don't go negotiate another treaty for this country unless 
you can demonstrate to the American people you are willing for a 
change, for once, to stand up for this country's economic interests.
  Now, there will be some people in this town who will listen to this, 
and they say, well, this guy is some xenophobic isolationist, and that 
is what all this language is about. I am not that: we need to find a 
foreign home for much of what we produce in farming today.
  I want expanded trade, I want expanded trade opportunities around the 
world, but I am flat out sick and tired of our farmers and our business 
men and women being consigned to trade internationally in a 
circumstance where our trade negotiators have negotiated trade 
agreements that, A, are incompetently negotiated so they put us at a 
disadvantage and, B, totally nonenforced, unenforced. They won't lift a 
finger to enforce a trade agreement that I can see.
  This morning I read in the paper that our steel industry is going to 
file an action alleging that there is dumping going on in this country. 
I don't even know much about it, but I say to the steel industry, sign 
me up as a supporter. It is about time people start standing up for 
their interests and demanding that trade competition be fair 
competition.
  The first 25 years after the Second World War, trade policy could be 
foreign policy and we could tie one hand behind our back and beat 
anyone, anytime, anywhere. That was fine. War-torn Europe was trying to 
restore itself, and we were dealing with weak competitors. That is not 
true anymore. Now we have shrewd, tough international competitors, and 
the fact is our trade policy is still half foreign policy and our 
negotiators and our trade agencies don't seem to give a whit about 
either negotiating good agreements or enforcing the agreements we have.
  That brings me to the issue of Canada especially. While our farmers 
face collapsed prices and are having auction sales the Trade 
Representative does nothing. You can go to those auction sales and see 
the tears those farmers cry because they have lost more than a farm and 
a home; they have lost their hopes, their dreams and everything they 
wanted to do in life. And one of the reasons that that is happening and 
that prices are collapsing is this grain from Canada, durum, wheat, 
barley, is flooding through our back door because of a trade agreement 
that was, again, incompetently negotiated.
  It is unfair trade, in my judgment. That is quite clear. It is sent 
here by a State trading agency in Canada which would be illegal in this 
country. A State trading monopoly in Canada would be illegal here. It 
sends that grain with secret pricing. By the way, we don't have secret 
prices here. Their prices are secret, and yet our trade agency refuses 
to lift a finger, doesn't lift a finger. And they boast about all the 
work they are doing.
  Senator Byrd once talked about Aesop's fly. It probably fits here. 
Aesop's fly, sitting on the axle of a chariot observing, ``My, what 
dust I do raise.'' Yes, my, what dust this USTR does raise. It is not 
even relevant to what is going on. The fact is, there are levers, there 
are opportunities, for our agencies to use, including the USTR, to 
stand up and fight for fair trade for our producers, our farmers, and 
our manufacturers, and they consistently refuse to do it.
  I will have more to say about this specifically next week and 
specifically about USTR and specifically about the trade agreement with 
Canada. I will have more to say about it next week. But this country 
and this Congress should not allow this to continue where our producers 
are confronted with unfair trade circumstances. We either ought to 
expect an agency to stand up and fight trade fairness or get rid of the 
agency; just get rid of it. Stop pretending.
  Mr. President, I mentioned Canada. I could talk about beer, Mexican 
beer coming north and American beer not going south. That is liquid 
barley, I guess. You know that is where beer comes from. I could talk 
about looking at trade through the eye of a potato, whole potatoes 
south, french fries north with the Mexican agreement. Or maybe we could 
do it with something everybody understands--Beanie Babies. You go stand 
at the border and see a convoy of trucks coming south with millions of 
bushels of Canadian grain, coming into a country that already has too 
much grain, and the result is prices are collapsed. And at the same 
time those convoys of trucks and railroad cars with millions of bushels 
of Canadian grain are coming into our country, trading unfairly, 
incidentally, at the same time that happens, try to bring a Beanie Baby 
in, and they stop you at the border and say, oh, no, you can only bring 
one--one. You only get one Beanie Baby to come across the border.

[[Page S10258]]

  So we are willing to stand up for cloth dolls filled with beans but 
not for family farmers whose lives, whose economic lives are 
threatened, who are going out of business in record numbers, going out 
of business so fast that they have had to call auctioneers in my State 
out of retirement to handle the auction sales.
  Am I upset about this? Yes. I am upset because I am a part of a 
system here that anticipates that those in the system will do what they 
are supposed to do, and I am especially upset with the U.S. trade 
ambassador's office. It is not new. I have been upset with them for 
years. But there is a new energy at this point because they are sitting 
on their hands doing essentially nothing while our farmers are going 
out of business. And there is a real and abiding problem that all of us 
understand that they refuse to take action to deal with it.
  I will revisit this subject next week, early next week on the floor 
of the Senate and have more to say about the USTR with some specifics, 
and also about Canada.
  But I wanted to make the point today, once again, that as part of the 
response to the farm crisis that I asked Senator Lott about today, we 
must deal with strengthening prices. We must deal with an indemnity 
program that Senator Conrad and I got passed.
  But we must also deal with the trade component, because we can't 
continue to try to find a way to deal with strengthening prices and 
finding new markets overseas for our grain products and then have a 
flood or an avalanche of grain coming through our back door, unfairly 
traded into our country.
  That is not fair to farmers. They ought to expect more. I certainly 
expect more. And the President ought to expect more from the U.S. Trade 
Ambassador's office, and as I said, I will have more to say about that 
early next week.

                          ____________________