[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 120 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10264-S10265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE FARM CRISIS

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I will not take a long time. I know the 
hour is late. But there are still very important issues that I think 
Congress needs to pay attention to and to address. I know that all of 
the news in Washington today has been generally about the problems of 
the President. While I understand that, it is also very important, I 
think, for all of us to realize that we cannot pretend to be ostriches 
and stick our heads in the sand, and not face other very serious 
problems that many of our constituents are facing around this country.
  I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention the very serious 
agricultural disasters that exist as we stand here in Washington today 
throughout a large portion of the agricultural belt in the United 
States of America. It is a serious problem. We cannot allow the 
problems of the moment to distract us from very important duties that 
we have, as legislators, to do everything within our power to try to 
help solve the problems of America's farmers.
  It is really interesting, because while the farmers are having 
problems throughout the United States, there are different reasons for 
the disasters which I would like to point out.
  In the northern and many of the western parts of the country--the 
northwestern part of our United States--the problems in agriculture are 
very simple--they have very low prices for their products--while in the 
South, in the Southwest, and in my State of Louisiana, the problem is 
also very simple to understand: It is not that the crops have low 
prices but, rather, that they have no crops. They have no crops because 
of the drought conditions that have caused an economic, agricultural, 
farming disaster.
  While the reasons for the problems for the farmers are quite 
different, the results are the same. Whether you are a farmer in the 
northern part of the United States who can't get enough money for your 
crop to justify your cost of production, or whether you are a farmer in 
my State of Louisiana, which has no crop because of the extreme drought 
that has ravaged my State, the end result of the farmer and the family 
farm is the same; it is loss of income; it is loss of the ability to 
continue as a family farm. What happens to a family farm affects not 
only that family farm but it affects the community that they live in. 
When farmers suffer economic loss, the entire State suffers as well.
  What I want to mention is the severity of the problem in my State, 
which is not unlike many other States. We just recently had the 
Louisiana State University Agricultural Economic Department review the 
losses that my farmers in Louisiana have faced. Their report as of 
August 14 is truly astounding. The total State reduction in farm income 
for the following crops is as follows:
  For the corn crop, it is over $64 million of loss;
  For cotton, it is over $50 million of loss;
  For just soybeans, it is over $72 million;
  For rice, it is over $14 million;
  For sugar, it is nearly $45 million;
  For sorghum, it is over $4 million.
  The total crop loss they are estimating is $254 million.
  Sweet potatoes, over $8 million;
  Commercial vegetables, almost $4 million;
  The pine seedlings for forest reproduction is estimated at $10 
million;
  Pasture, $90 million;
  Hay, almost $25 million.
  The current estimated total as of August 14 was over $390 million.
  When you factor in the problems with some of the diseases that are 
being experienced--aflatoxin, for instance--you have to look at about 
$420 million. This is just in one State.
  So the loss is truly devastating.
  These are real problems. These family farm problems affect not only 
the family farmers, as severe as that is, but they affect the economy, 
the community, and the people who sell the harvesting equipment, the 
tractors and combines; the people who sell the seed and the 
fertilizers; the people who sell shoes and clothes and food in town. If 
the farmers do not earn a living, they cannot buy the other products; 
the implement dealer and the car dealer, all suffer. It has a ripple 
effect throughout the United States of America.
  The problems in the North--as I said, because of low prices, because 
of cheap

[[Page S10265]]

imports being dumped from Canada, because of the overall depressed 
economy in many parts of Asia and Europe, and particularly in the 
South, in addition to low prices on the crops, we have no crops.
  So the question is now not the extent of the problem. We know that. 
The question is now, What do we do?
  I just think it is interesting. When we have a hurricane, tornado, or 
earthquake, there is always a rush to provide economic assistance. 
There is always on the nightly news when someone is visiting a 
hurricane-ravaged area or area that has been hurt by a tornado, a 
reaching out to the people. When you have the earthquake, it is the 
same result. Somehow it seems like it is different with the farmers 
because I think it is so gradual. If you have an earthquake, it 
happens, it is over, the people come in, they leave, and they have made 
an expression of their concern. But when it is an economic disaster 
over a longer period of time, it is harder to have people focus on the 
severity of the problem.
  I think that is what is true in the agricultural disaster that we are 
now experiencing in my State. But the loss is just as severe, the hurt 
is just as severe. When you have to sell the family farm and move, and 
you can't pay your bills, you are hurting just as much as someone who 
has lost a family home because of a tornado, earthquake, or hurricane, 
or some other natural disaster.
  The question now is, What do we do? It is clear, in my opinion, that 
the current agricultural programs that are designed to address 
assistance are too bureaucratic.
  They do not work. They are outdated. They need something else to be 
helpful. What I mean by that is, for instance, with the loan program, 
emergency loans, the Government tells a farmer, well, you have to get 
turned down by three lending institutions in your local area and then 
you can come to the Government and get some financial assistance in 
terms of a Federal loan. If you could get the local loan, you would not 
need the Federal loan. But somehow you have to show that you could not 
get the local loan, but that if you get the Federal loan you can pay it 
back. If you could pay back the Federal loan, you could have paid back 
the local loan and you would not have had any need for help at the 
Federal level in the first place.
  Those programs, well intended as they are, are simply too 
bureaucratic and do not work in providing real assistance to millions 
of American farmers.
  What we are working on is to try to present a package, and this 
should be bipartisan. Republicans did not cause the problem and 
Democrats did not cause the problem, but the truth is we are going to 
have to work together to solve the problem. If we do not work together, 
chances are it is not going to get solved. This is not a political 
problem; it is a natural disaster problem. So what we are trying to do 
is provide some assistance.
  Some have suggested increasing the loan levels, the artificial target 
prices, removing the caps on those programs to allow for a higher loan 
rate in order to give more assistance to farmers. That is a good thing 
to do. But in my area, it does not really help because my farmers don't 
have a crop to put in the Federal loan program. So in the South where 
you have no crop, we support what we are trying to do for our northern 
farmers. It is very important and I think it is the right thing to do. 
But in the southern portion of the United States where there is no crop 
at all and they have not been able to benefit from the program, we are 
suggesting direct financial assistance. It would go to farmers who do 
not have their losses covered by any other type of program. If someone 
has crop insurance, well, they may be helped a little bit. And the 
amount of help they get under the Crop Insurance Program should not 
allow them to double dip, but crop insurance is not going to cover 
their entire losses. So that part of their loss which is not covered by 
some insurance program should be clearly eligible for direct financial 
assistance. And for many of our farmers, they can't even afford crop 
insurance and so they have nothing. So their losses should be also 
covered, obviously, by any type of direct financial assistance to try 
to help them survive.
  It is strictly a question of this one-time aid to help them survive 
until the next year so they can still be around to plant and grow the 
crops that help feed most, if not all, of America and much of the rest 
of the world.
  Some will say, well, Senator, this is going to be expensive. Where is 
it going to come from? Well, No. 1, because of the good economic 
conditions, I think because of many of the things we have been able to 
do in the Congress, fortunately, the economy of the country is good in 
other areas, and, fortunately, we do not have a Federal deficit which 
we used to have--we now have a Federal surplus and we have had 
estimates of $50-, $60-, $75 billion just in this year--why not look at 
this disaster as an emergency, and if you have a surplus in the Federal 
budget, let's consider using that surplus to address a real economic 
disaster which has huge consequences if we do not do something to help 
out family farms.
  Some say, well, we should use the surplus for a tax cut. There is 
certainly room for a tax cut. I think if it is the right type of tax 
cut and is helpful to the people who need help, we should move in that 
direction. Should we use it for saving Social Security? Yes. Certainly, 
that is a higher priority. But should we also use some of it to help 
save family farms that are facing an economic disaster beyond their 
control? They had absolutely nothing to do with it. The answer is yes.
  This is what Government is all about, trying to help those who are in 
need and creating an economic climate whereby through hard work and 
industrial spirit they can produce and be profitable. If something 
happens not related to anything they have done that causes an economic 
disaster, I think we in Government have an obligation to participate in 
finding some solution to that problem. That is why, hopefully, in the 
coming week we will be able to join forces, Republicans and Democrats, 
and say, look, no one here caused the problem but, by golly, we had 
better work together in order to solve it; otherwise, we will not have 
done our duty. I certainly want to participate in that effort and plan 
to be very actively involved.
  Just this week we had a very good meeting with the Secretary of 
Agriculture, Dan Glickman. The Secretary understands the nature of the 
problem. He understands the severity of it. He also understands that 
many of the programs we have on the books simply are not enough to 
address the problems that we are experiencing this year, and he has 
pledged his cooperation to try to come up with something that can 
provide the type of direct financial assistance that is certainly 
needed in my State of Louisiana. I look forward to accomplishing that 
in the coming weeks.
  Mr. President, that concludes my remarks.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________