[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11093-S11095]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CRISIS IN AGRICULTURE

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I also want to bring up one other 
matter on the floor today because we are in another fight. You know, it 
seems like, with about 2 weeks to go, there is a whole lot that is 
actually going on here in the Congress. I think the tragedy of it is 
people may not be aware of all of it. But I will tell you, one issue 
that people in Minnesota, especially the farmers and people in greater 
Minnesota, are well aware of--we have a crisis in agriculture. We have 
a lot of people who are faced with record-low prices. There is no way 
farmers can cash-flow on the basis of $1.40 a bushel of corn.
  Those farmers are being driven off the land. As those farmers get 
driven off the land, that is the death knell for many of our rural 
communities because it is those family farmers who live in those 
communities and buy in those communities that support our schools and 
support our small businesses and support our churches and support our 
synagogues--you name it. That is what is happening.
  We put together a $7 billion package. Senator Baucus from Montana was 
part of that effort. I was hopeful because, whereas before our August 
recess I heard Senators come to the floor and say ``stay the course.'' 
The Freedom to Farm bill--which I call the Freedom to Fail bill--it is 
the market. Stay the course. Stay the course.
  I was thinking to myself, it is easy for people here to say ``stay 
the course'' while farmers in Minnesota are just being driven off their 
land.
  That changed. Now, finally I think, at least I hope that everybody 
recognizes there is a crisis out there. I also believe that many people 
realize this Freedom to Fail bill is not working. We just eliminated 
the leverage for farmers to get a fair price in the marketplace. We 
capped the loan rate at $1.89 for a bushel of corn.
  What in the world are we doing supporting a piece of legislation that 
keeps prices down when prices have plummeted to the point where you 
could be the best farmer in the world and you cannot make it?
  So we put together a $7 billion package that has indemnity payments 
for farmers that have experienced crop failure and have had to deal 
with scab disease, had to deal with terrible weather like wet weather 
in Northwest Minnesota, and we did a couple of other things, the most 
important of which was to take the cap off the loan rate so that we 
could get the prices up and have some kind of safety net for farmers 
who otherwise are going to go under.

  Mr. President, we had a farm rally in Worthington, MN, just Saturday 
a week ago--not this past Saturday. There were petitions--I won't 
include them in the Record because there are too many--there were 
petitions that were passed out that talked about the importance of a 
fair price for family farmers.
  I thank all of the farmers and small business people and lenders who 
came to this rally--almost 1,000 people were there--in Worthington. 
These petitions are going out all across our State. Ted Winter, who is 
house majority leader, a farmer himself, has been one of the people who 
has taken the lead.
  This is a plea from Main Street businesses in rural America, a plea 
from family farmers, a plea from rural citizens. They are saying to 
people in the U.S. Senate, ``We are not asking for a handout, we are 
asking for a fair shake. We are asking you to take some action that 
corrects a major deficiency in a piece of legislation you passed''--the 
freedom to fail bill--``which is great for the grain companies but puts 
us family farmers under.''
  What we got yesterday by the same Republican majority that I was 
talking about earlier--you talk about partisanship. I don't know if it 
is partisanship on the floor of the Senate right now or just an honest-
to-goodness debate. I argue that any majority that gives away a break 
to people who have over $17 million estates and cuts low-income energy 
assistance--those are priorities that are distorted priorities. I don't 
think that is the goodness of our country.
  I argue that any majority that eliminates an educational opportunity 
for a single parent and her children--that is punitive.
  And I argue that this package that was put together yesterday in the 
ag appropriations conference committee shut out--I say to my colleague 
from Montana--shut out the Democratic proposal. It is way too little, 
way too late, doesn't get the price up, deficient in all sorts of ways, 
and will not do the job. It is like my Republican colleagues in the 
House and the Senate labored mightily and produced a mouse. It is an 
insult.
  We will on Thursday--Yom Kippur is tomorrow; it is a religious 
holiday for some of us--Thursday we will have a motion to recommit this 
to the conference committee. We will keep coming back and fighting it.
  I say to family farmers in Minnesota, ``Look, $4 billion doesn't get 
the price up, it isn't targeted, it helps landowners, not necessarily 
producers, doesn't help soybean growers, doesn't deal with the real 
issue.''
  People are not looking for handouts. They are not looking for more 
payments. They want to get the price up. I say to farmers in Minnesota, 
``Look, I have given this everything I have--everything I have,'' or 
``everything I had,'' if it is in the past tense. I will tell you that 
whatever is out there is just not going to do the job. I refuse to be a 
part of a phony argument where we pretend like we have come up with 
some agricultural crisis relief bill that does not provide the 
necessary relief for people so they can stay on their land and farm 
their land. This is not going to do the job.
  You can say, ``Well, but this goes part of the way.'' I suppose a 
quarter of a loaf of bread is better than none, but I am not going to 
be party to the argument that this is going to help the farmers or is 
anywhere near commensurate to the task before us.
  The President has said that he is going to veto this. The 
administration is hanging in there tough. Let me tell you, Mr. 
President, I don't always agree with you on policies. I am a Democrat 
and quite often in disagreement with some of what the administration 
does. But I give credit where credit is due.
  I am glad the President is hanging tough on this. I am glad that the 
President and the Vice President and Secretary Glickman--especially 
Secretary Glickman--are there for family farmers. I hope he vetoes 
this, and then I hope we sit down at the bargaining table and come back 
with a farm relief package that really provides relief.
  I am tired of symbolic politics. We get ourselves in big trouble when 
we pretend like we put something together that is going to do the job. 
The Democrats' proposal, I say to my colleague from Montana, was barely 
a start. It was the best we felt we could do. It did not get the prices 
up there. It did not get the relief there. It was not all that we 
needed to do, but it was a credible start.
  What has come out of this agricultural appropriations conference 
committee by the Republican majority--let me go on record and say 
this--is not a great step forward, it is a great leap sideways. It is 
not a step forward for family farmers, it is a great leap sideways. The 
family farmers in Minnesota and the people in greater Minnesota deserve 
better. They deserve better, and I am going to keep on fighting and 
raising heck on the floor of the Senate and in every other way I can 
until they get better. I believe I will be joined by many of my other 
colleagues as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a very eloquent piece by

[[Page S11094]]

Steve Calvin, ``We need to reconnect with the food supply,'' which was 
published in the Minnesota Star Tribune today, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the Minnesota Star Tribune, Sept. 29, 1998]

                 We Need To Reconnect With Food Supply

                           (By Steve Calvin)

       The recent Great Upper Midwest Farm Price Crisis Rally was 
     held at the Nobles County fairground in my hometown of 
     Worthington, Minn. It was attended by sympathetic Democratic 
     politicians and a small but enthusiastic crowd of 750 
     farmers. The invited Republican office holders had other 
     priorities.
       At a time when the ``crisis'' label is too widely used, 
     there is agreement that the current farm situation is a 
     disaster to rival the one that occurred in the 1980s. It is 
     particularly ironic that this comes during a year when crop 
     yields are bountiful. Yet this abundant harvest will likely 
     be followed by foreclosures and personal tragedies.
       There are many reasons for the current desperate situation. 
     As usual, political hay is being made. Democrats blame the 
     1996 farm bill that gradually removed farm subsidies. 
     Republicans say that the rationale for ending government 
     involvement in agriculture is sound and that unforeseen 
     global financial disruption dried up export markets. Truth is 
     always more complicated than sound bites.
       Though I was born in southwestern Minnesota, I grew up 
     elsewhere and now live in the Twin Cities. I kept in touch 
     with my roots through my grandfathers, who farmed for a 
     combined 100 years. Five years ago I resisted the cabin-up-
     north urge and bought a farm down south. Though a small 
     operation, it is currently home to a productively grazing 
     flock of sheep and herd of cattle. However, my best 
     credential for a comment on the farm crisis is that I am 
     concerned about the source and security of our food supply.
       Although fewer than 2 percent of Americans are engaged in 
     agriculture, the family farm is still enshrined in our 
     national psyche. Very few have a physical place where we can 
     reconnect with our rural roots. The popularity of the animal 
     barns at the State Fair is no surprise. Even though most of 
     us could never tolerate the privations and efforts required 
     of farming a generation ago we have a deep longing for what 
     it represents. But farming has changed.
       Developments in technology have reshaped agriculture. As 
     always, change is doubled edged. A family farm may now 
     encompass more than 1,000 acres. In 1950 this would have 
     required three or four farm families. The consolidation has 
     come at a price. Sometimes the advice to get big or get out 
     trapped farmers in massive and ruinous debt. Thus the call 
     for federal assistance.
       The proper role of government in agriculture has always 
     been hotly debated. My maternal grandfather and my great 
     uncle were best of friends except when it came to that 
     question. Grandpa saw the New Deal as the root of corruption 
     of independent farming. Uncle Paul thought that government 
     should guarantee the price of production. In their retirement 
     the debate was suspended for reasons of health and family 
     peace.
       Whatever else they are, government programs are 
     complicated. As the owners of 43 acres that were already 
     enrolled in support programs, my wife and I receive the 
     modest diminishing yearly payments of the 1996 Freedom to 
     Farm Act. We have used the money for conservation projects. 
     We also receive the voluminous regulations of the program. 
     The dozen-plus years of postgraduate education that my wife 
     and I share give us no help in understanding them.
       Is the future agricultural landscape destined to be one of 
     industrial mega-farms, dotted with a few decorative hobby 
     farms? I hope not. If we are to have an agriculture that is 
     safe, local, environmentally sound and affordable, government 
     must serve as the impartial referee. The difficult debate 
     will be in defining fair rules. The current situation favors 
     the interests of agribusiness. Because of the influence that 
     money has on the political system, change will be difficult.
       On the other hand, farmers will not be guaranteed an income 
     by federal programs. Those who plan to be farming very far 
     into the next century will have to do so in innovative ways. 
     Agricultural writers such as Wendell Berry, Wes Jackson and 
     Gene Logsdon outline a future that includes a mosaic of 
     profitable family farms across America. These farms will 
     require a return to diverse enterprises and sustainable 
     practices.
       Nonfarming Americans have a stake in this too. That we pay 
     such a small percentage of our incomes for food has lulled us 
     into a false sense of security. We must reconnect with our 
     food supply. This can be done by frequenting local farmers' 
     markets and by joining the burgeoning community-supported 
     agricultural movement, where product and meat can be obtained 
     directly from farmers. We must know more about our food 
     source than the location of the nearest food warehouse. 
     Ignoring the current farm crisis may bring us closer to a 
     much more dangerous food crisis.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will conclude my statement by quoting 
the third to the last paragraph from the commentary of Dr. Calvin, who 
is a physician and a farmer:

       Is the future agricultural landscape destined to be one of 
     industrial mega-farms, dotted with a few decorative hobby 
     farms? I hope not. If we are to have an agriculture that is 
     safe, local, environmentally sound and affordable, government 
     must serve as the impartial referee. The difficult debate 
     will be in defining fair rules. The current situation favors 
     the interests of agribusiness. Because of the influence that 
     money has on the political system, change will be difficult.

  That is true, change will be difficult, but not for a moment, those 
of us who come from States like Minnesota, do we intend to give up on 
this fight. The family farm structure of agriculture and food policy is 
our most precious priority. We have just begun to fight on this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota controls the time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield the 7 minutes I have, and 
perhaps if the Senator needs more, the Senator from Vermont, Senator 
Jeffords, will yield some of his, but I yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are under an order up to 3:15 p.m., with 1 
hour equally divided between the Senator from Minnesota and the Senator 
from Vermont. The Senator from Minnesota has 6 minutes 30 seconds left.
  Mr. BAUCUS. What is the Senate business at the conclusion of that 
time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 30 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I apologize, I did not hear the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 30 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. The Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont has 30 minutes left.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Thank you.
  Mr. President, first I will chime in and praise the Senator from 
Minnesota. He is a fighter. As all the residents of Minnesota know and 
people across the country know, if there is anybody who is fighting for 
people's interests and to help people in America--it is the Senator 
from Minnesota.
  He is particularly right, in this Senator's view, when it comes to 
the action taken last night by the agriculture appropriations committee 
and their failure to report out legislation that in some modicum way, 
in a bipartisan way, helps give some encouragement to American farmers. 
As the Senator knows even better than I, costs facing our farmers and 
ranchers have just continually risen over the years. Pickup trucks, 
combines, farm equipment is out of sight and so expensive.
  At the same time, the price that farmers get for their products, 
commodities has just plummeted. In fact, at least in my State of 
Montana--I am sure it is the same for the Senator's State in 
Minnesota--we face wheat prices of $2, $2 a bushel, with freight rates 
sometimes $1 a bushel, which has to come off of the $2, so that means 
the farmer is only receiving about $1 a bushel for wheat, which is 
nowhere close to breaking even. You need about $5, $6--at least these 
days--just to break even in farm country.
  I just want to again thank the Senator. He is a real champion when it 
comes to helping people. And I just want to let people know, who might 
be listening, just what a fine Senator he is and how he works so hard 
for people and people's interests.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I just say to Senator Baucus, thank you very much.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise on another issue. And depending 
upon whether the Senator from Vermont comes back, we will just kind of 
play this by ear on timing.

[[Page S11095]]



                          ____________________