[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11112-S11116]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FARM CRISIS
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Iowa wishes to
join in this discussion, and I am happy to have his input.
I was driving home last evening after the Agriculture appropriations
conference committee, and I was once again struck by how some in
politics here just sort of shrug off some things that are so important.
I am referring especially to the future of family farming. It is true
that almost every day you see something around here in which someone
treats the important things too lightly and then someone treats the
light things in a far too serious way. It is hard to see that things
are treated appropriately.
There is no more urgent need in this country, in my judgment, than to
address the farm crisis at this time. If we do not act on a timely
basis, we will not have family farmers left in the Farm Belt given
their current circumstances.
Again, this chart shows the price of wheat. This is the income our
farmers receive for their production. In 1 year in North Dakota, our
farmers lost 98 percent of all their net income. It was just washed
away. Their net income was virtually all gone. It was a 98 percent drop
in their paycheck. Think of it this way: What if this were your salary
or your wage? Look at what has happened, month after month after month
after month. This is the gross returns that our farmers receive. The
price of wheat in our part of the country is down, down, down, way
down. In fact, the price of wheat has fallen 57 percent since the
Freedom to Farm law was passed.
These families are out there living on the land, turning the yard
light on, illuminating the dreams and hopes of a family that is trying
to make a go of it. They are discovering they are going broke in record
numbers and nobody seems to care much because we have people that chant
on street corners in Washington, DC, ``the marketplace, the
marketplace, the free market.''
There is no free market. What a bunch of unmitigated baloney. This is
no free market. There has never been a free market in agriculture, and
there will not be one.
This is picture of a farmer that is being sold out. This is an
auction sale. All his equipment is being sold. These farmers go broke
and they have an auction sale. They are told, gee, you didn't make it
in the free market.
Let's examine this free market. This farmer plants some wheat in the
spring and harvests it in the fall, if the farmer has some good luck.
If it doesn't rain too much, and if it rains enough; if the insects
don't come and if the crop disease doesn't come; if it doesn't hail; if
all those things don't occur or do occur, this farmer may or may not
get a crop. And then this farmer puts that crop, after a hard day's
harvest, into a truck and puts it on a county road and goes to market.
He pulls up to an elevator and the elevator manager says, ``You can
dump that grain in my country elevator.'' Guess what it costs a farmer
to produce that crop? It costs five dollars a bushel to produce that
bushel of wheat, and the elevator man says he is prepared to give the
farmer $2.50. In other words, he is prepared to give only half of what
it costs the farmer to raise it.
The elevator man says, ``What I want to do is to put that grain on
the railroad car and the railroad company will charge you twice what it
is worth to haul it, and they will haul to the miller who will make a
record profit grinding it, and they will send it perhaps to a grocery
manufacturer and they will puff it and pop it and crisp it and flake it
and they will put it in a bright colored box.'' Then they are going to
ship it to the grocery store shelf and somebody out there is going to
come and buy it in Pittsburgh, or Fargo, or Los Angeles. These
consumers are going to pay $4 a box for a bright-colored box of wheat
that is puffed up and called puffed wheat now. The person who put the
puff in it is making record profits, the person who hauled it on the
railroad car is making record profits, and the miller is making record
profits. Everybody is making record profits, except the farmers who got
their hands dirty, gassed up the tractor, plowed the ground, seeded and
fertilized the ground, harvested the crop, and hauled it to market.
They are going broke in record numbers. Yet, nobody seems to care a
bit.
Last night, in that conference committee, they were stone deaf to a
proposal by this President who said we need $8 billion in emergency
aid, and we need it now if we are going to solve this farm crisis. They
rejected that on a straight party-line vote. It is not that there is
not enough money. They think they have enough to give an $80 billion
tax cut. The sky is the limit there. But how about another $4 billion
for family farmers? That is what we were talking about last night. We
were asking just another $4 billion more to save family farmers. They
have $80 billion for a tax cut, but they don't have another $4 billion
to invest in the lives of these people, who I think are the salt of the
Earth. Family farmers are the ultimate risk-takers.
Let me mention one more point about this free market. I talked about
the monopoly railroads that haul the grain and the monopoly grain trade
firms. Wherever you look, in every direction our farmers face a
monopoly. It doesn't matter which way they turn. Let's say we have a
cow out here. They are raising wheat, corn, soybeans, and they are
raising some cows. They are going to send the cow to market. But are
they going to make money off that cow? I don't think so, because that
cow is going to be sold into a monopoly. Four firms control over 80
percent of all the slaughter of beef cattle in this country. That
farmer markets up to a monopoly. That farmer moves the grain to a
monopoly railroad and markets into a monopoly grain trade.
Then we have these half-baked economists who talk about the free
market. Harry Truman used to say, ``Give me a one-armed economist. I'm
sick and tired hearing `on this hand' and `on the other hand.''' I am
not sure how many economists we have around here talking about the free
market. Maybe we ought to put a robot out on the street corner and let
him chant, ``There is no free market here.''
In every direction, the farmer is getting fleeced. This Congress, for
a change, needs to say we are going to be on the side of the ultimate
producers in this country, who are the economic all-stars in this
country. If we don't, we won't have any family farmers left.
I had a young boy named Wyatt write to me. He is a sophomore at a
school in Stanley, ND. The other day in a letter to me, he said, ``I am
a 15-year-old farm boy. My dad can feed 180 people, but he can't feed
his own family.'' That says something about family farming. It says how
productive they are, how important they are, how incredible they are as
producers, and what they have to face in a market controlled by
economic giants that pillage and prey on these family farmers every day
and in every way. And, they do it in such a way that family farmers
can't make a living.
This Government and this Congress, has to decide whether we are going
to stand up for these people or not. We are going to force another vote
on the floor of the Senate. We have had two votes to get a decent
support price, and we lost by a handful each time. But for those who
don't want to vote on this, I say: Brace yourself, because you are
going to have to vote again. We are not
[[Page S11113]]
going to quit. Family farmers would not expect us to quit. They don't
quit and we are not going to quit them. We are going to vote on this
again until we get a result that says this Congress stands with family
farmers and that this Congress cares about the future of farm families.
I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa, if he has a
question.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding for a
question. First of all, I thank the Senator for a very eloquent and
forceful statement on what is happening out there and, really, the
shame of this Congress in not addressing it.
As I look at your charts here and see the free-fall in the price of
wheat over the last couple of years--since the 1996 so-called Freedom
to Farm bill was passed--I look at that and I wonder what happened to
the price of bread. Has that come down? What about all the wheat
products, like pasta and all the things into which wheat goes? I ask
the Senator, what happened? Are the consumers making out on this and
getting a cut-rate deal at the grocery store?
Mr. DORGAN. No, no. This is about corporate profits, not about
advantages to consumers at the disadvantage of farmers. What is taken
out of the hide of family farmers in collapsed prices doesn't go into
the pockets of consumers through cheaper bread prices. Take a look at
the price of a loaf of bread when the price of wheat peaked about 2\1/
2\ years ago. Then go to your grocery store and look at the price of a
loaf of bread today. Ask yourself, gee, if farmers suffered a nearly
60-percent drop in the price for wheat, what happened to the price of a
loaf of bread? The answer is that somebody in between is taking more
profit. But the consumer hasn't gotten the benefit. This country always
had a cheap food policy. Will it have a policy that protects the basic
income requirements of family farmers?
Mr. HARKIN. One of my neighbors keeps asking me. He said, ``I hear
about all these farm problems.'' He lives in a city. He said, ``I can't
understand, if the farmers aren't making money, how come I'm not seeing
lower prices in the store?'' They don't understand that. I think the
Senator from North Dakota pointed out that consumers aren't seeing it
in the store. The fact is that bread has gone up in the last couple
years, not down. The large grain companies, the shippers, the
monopolies are reaping a windfall. They are buying these products from
the farmer, not at wholesale, but at fire sale prices.
In listening to the Senator, I could not help but remember what John
Kennedy said in Sioux City, IA, when he was running for President in
1960. He made the statement: ``The farmer is the only person who buys
retail, sells wholesale, and pays the freight both ways.'' Well, now
today farmers aren't even selling wholesale. They are selling at fire
sale prices--not only wheat, but corn and soybeans. And pork prices,
this year, are probably going to average their lowest since 1974. They
are working at extremely low cattle prices. So all across the
agricultural sector, we have a terrible crisis.
Now, as the Senator pointed out again last night in our conference
committee, when we met to try to do something, to answer this crisis
and need in rural America, we were told that, no, we would not do it,
we can only do a little bit. I liken last night to somebody dying of
thirst and you give them a thimbleful of water. That is what those who
we were in conference with last night basically did to the farmers.
They slapped them in the face and gave them a thimbleful of water when
they are dying of thirst. It is a shame.
It came down to a straight party-line vote. It is very unfortunate
that it had to be on a party-line basis when this issue begs for
nonpartisanship and bipartisanship. Yet, it has evolved into a partisan
situation. That is a real shame. I think it is a shame that our
colleagues voted against any meaningful help. As the Senator pointed
out, we had about a $3 billion difference. In other words, for $3
billion, we could have really met the needs of farmers all over this
country--not only the farmers in Iowa and North Dakota, but the farmers
in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and all over the country. Farmers who
are either suffering from the fall in prices, or because they have had
a drought, or floods, or disease. All of these things have piled up
this year to really put agriculture in dire straits.
No, they don't have the money for that, as the Senator pointed out,
but they do have money for an $80 billion tax cut.
I am sure the Senator would agree with me. I met with farmers in Iowa
not too long ago and I talked about this tax cut. I said, ``Who do you
think is going to get it? I will give you a hint: It isn't you.'' They
are not going to get it; it is going to go to upper-income people. We
know that. But for $3 billion we could have really helped pull these
farmers out. And we still can if we have the will.
I ask the Senator from North Dakota in my closing question--and I
thank him again for his strong support for the American farmer, the
family farmer, and for always being front and center here on the floor
and in our committee meetings, for fighting for those family farmers.
Lord knows, we don't have too many people around here fighting for them
anymore. But the strength and the passion and courage of the Senator
from North Dakota has gone a long way toward at least helping us get
this far, getting something through to help our farmers--even though it
is not going to be enough to save them, unless we can have some more
action on the floor. The Senator has indicated that when that bill
comes back, we are going to have more action on this floor. We are not
going to go away quietly. I join with the Senator from North Dakota in
saying that. We are not going to go away quietly. We are going to be
here until the last bell rings of this Congress to do everything we can
to help those family farmers.
I thank the Senator from North Dakota again for his eloquent remarks
and for his steadfastness in standing up for those who really are the
backbone of this country, those who have worked hard, produced our food
and fiber and the products they have raised in our export channels have
been the only thing that has kept our balance of payments and our
balance of trade with other countries at least somewhat positive. It
has only been agriculture. It hasn't been anything else, just
agriculture. And yet to let them go down the drain because of monopoly
practices I think is just a shame, and I think it is something we have
to address.
I thank the Senator from North Dakota for, again, leading the fight.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa. He and I
and others from the farm belt feel very strongly about this issue
because it is not just some cerebral discussion about economic theory.
It is about thousands and thousands of people who have had dreams and
hopes of continuing to operate their family farm and raising their
family out in the country and tilling the soil and producing food. It
is about whether they are going to be able to continue to do that. This
isn't a bluff nor is this crying wolf.
What has happened in my State is the complete collapse of grain
prices coupled with the worst crop disease in a century. It has just
put thousands of family farmers in a position where they are not going
to be able to continue to farm.
I would like to read just a couple of letters. This one is from a
young man named Eric. He graduated from high school 10 years ago. He is
a farmer. His family and his wife's family were farmers. Eric wrote to
me and he said, ``When I started out, I knew it wasn't going to be
easy. The only support either family, mine or my wife's, was able to
afford was advice and hard work.'' They could not afford more support
than that.
He goes on to say, ``In our area we have been hit with heavy rains
the past 5 years which has greatly reduced the yield of our crops, and
caused crop disease. One of those years we had to burn the crop off of
the fields so it would be able to dry enough to farm the following
year.'' That, he said, was like ``burning dreams.''
He is raising cattle, crops, hogs. He writes, ``As of this fall we
decided that we would have to reduce the number of acres we farm. I am
watching my hopes and dreams fade away as I reduce these acres. Yet, I
work 16 plus hours a day to try to keep the farm going again for
another year.''
[[Page S11114]]
He adds, ``My wife works about 55 hours a week just to try to pay
household bills. She works off the farm and then comes home and does
the farm work as well. At one time I had hopes of being able to pass
this farm down to the next generation. Now the only hope I have is that
we can just continue.''
This is a letter I received the other day from Barbara. Barbara says,
``I have been married for 19 years. I have two sons. It was our dream,
my dream and my husband's that one day this farm of ours would belong
to our boys.''
Then she describes the way they have tried to make ends meet and
can't. ``My husband not only farms, he works out in the winter and
finds as many part-time jobs in the summer as he can to help supplement
our income. We raise hogs to help supplement the farming also. I work
in the county school system during the school year. I am a cook in the
elementary school. I also drive a bus some evenings after working in
the cafeteria. I also work as part-time help in our local hospital and
dental office. I'm an emergency medical technician and, my husband is a
firefighter with the local fire district.''
She writes, ``Our oldest son is 17 and works part-time during the
school year and this past summer went on part of a run with a custom
harvesting crew to make some money. Our youngest son has a job mowing
cemeteries for our local church and helps on the farm. He is 15.''
``As you can see we have full schedules which don't allow us much in
the form of extra cash or time for vacation or leisure. The part I
can't understand,'' Barbara writes, ``is why after working 17 or 18
hours a day we can't make enough to live on. My husband went to the
elevator yesterday to haul in some wheat to pay our expenses for the
coming month. He was told he would get $1.82 a bushel for the wheat.''
By the way, she doesn't write this, but USDA says it costs them at
least $4.75 a bushel to raise that. Her husband goes to the elevator
and is told that he will be paid $1.82 a bushel. ``You tell me,'' she
writes, ``how we are supposed to pay our bills with these prices?
She said, ``A couple of weeks ago, our youngest son came to me and he
asked if he could talk to me. I said yes. And he asked if we would be
mad at him if he chose not to farm after he finished school. He didn't
want his dad or grandfather to be upset with him. He has seen how much
work it is and how little the family is getting out of it, but still
feels the love of the land and pride in continuing another generation
of farmers.''
This young boy asks if they would be angry if he doesn't try it. She
says, ``I have come to fear that my generation is the last, if we
survive. It's hard to tell your children that you really wish they
would not come back to farming because there's no future there for
them.''
Mr. President, these are two letters from Eric and Barbara, a farmer
and farm wife, both struggling out there, trying to make a living with
collapsed prices and crop disease and a farm crisis that gives these
folks depression-era prices for their crops.
What makes me so angry about all this is in thinking about it in
driving home last night after the conference committee. What makes me
so angry is there is this kind of blithe attitude about it here. It is
an attitude that dismisses this crisis and says: Well, this is just
another day; this is just another problem; this is just another group
of Americans who want something.
These people don't want anything special. But they don't want to be
turned loose in a circumstance where they are told you compete in a
free market and the market isn't free. Everything that they do in this
economic system means that someone is preying upon them, and that
someone is taking money out of their pockets unfairly. Then the
Congress somehow says we don't have the time to help; we don't have the
resources to help; you are too small to matter; all we care about are
those who are too big to fail.
And as I said when I started, I drove home last night thinking about
the story I read about a $100 billion liability outfit that gets in
trouble and the Federal Reserve Board apparently convenes a meeting of
bankers. They get a bunch of aspirin together and fluff up the pillows
and say, ``Gee, can't we make you comfortable. We sure wouldn't want
you to fail. You are too big to fail.'' They got 20-some banks in that
circumstance. I guess we got other hedge funds out there and a whole
series of speculators as well.
But what about these folks? What about the folks who Congress says
are too small to matter. These are the folks who day after day are
holding auction sales, standing around watching their farm implements
and watching their personal possessions being auctioned off because
they can't make a living. It is not because they are not good at what
they do. They are the best in the world. There is nobody in the world
who measures up. Nobody. Not even close. Yet this economic system is
stacked against them, stacked against them in a way that is almost
criminal.
You know what we ought to do?
These folks face a railroad that hauls their grain and charges them
double the price they ought to be charged, and they market that grain
up through a grain trade in which there are just a few companies. That
is not free enterprise. And then they send their cattle up where you
have four companies controlling over 80 percent of the slaughter.
You know what we ought to do? We ought to put an independent counsel
on all those issues. How about an independent counsel investigating the
marketing of cattle, and looking into the four companies that control
the slaughter of over 80 percent of the cattle in this country.
How about an independent counsel tracking down railroad prices on
behalf of family farmers to see if they are fair? How about an
independent counsel looking at the grain trade to see whether this is
truly a fair market?
I could go on at great length about that. What about an investigation
on behalf of these folks that says to them we are intending that you
have a fair deal, and that you have a fair opportunity to make a
living. And, if you don't, we are going to help. That is part of what
yesterday was about. It is part of what last night's conference
committee was about when, unfortunately, on a party-line vote the folks
in that committee said, no, we can't afford it; we don't have any
money.
The President says, I need $8 billion in emergency aid to deal with
the farm crisis. The same people who said we have $80 billion to
provide a new tax cut said we don't have $8 billion above the current
budget level to meet the President's request to deal with the farm
crisis.
I am telling you, that is a misplaced sense of priorities. We have
had two votes in the Senate on this issue of providing a decent support
price. When I say ``decent,'' this is very modest. It is much more
modest than I think is necessary. But even at that, we lost each of
those votes by a handful.
I say to those who were in the conference committee last night, who
voted against standing up for family farmers, you are going to vote
again. One way or the other, you are going to vote again in the U.S.
Senate, and the vote is going to be on this question: Are you willing
to stand up and support family farming in times of crisis? When prices
collapse and you have this price valley, and those family farms simply
fall through the cracks, are you willing to stand and say, ``Let us
build a bridge across that valley,'' or do you say that family farmers
don't matter?
Are you willing to say that it doesn't matter that corporate
agrifactories will farm America from California to Maine? Will big
corporate agrifactories get up in the morning, put on their Big Ben
coveralls and milk 3,500 cows at one lick, because that is corporate
agrifactories? Or will they plow their tractors as far as they can go
on a tank of gas and then turn around and plow back? Do you think it
will benefit this country to turn out all the farm yard lights in the
country and say to these families, ``You don't matter; we will replace
you with a big agrifactory''? This country will have lost something
very important and it will have done so because this Congress said that
they don't matter. If they do that, this Congress will have to answer
to a lot of the American people about their sense of priorities.
This has become a legislative landfill in recent months. I can go
down on two hands the list of important things we should have done that
have been taken
[[Page S11115]]
out in the country and covered over with dirt, because we have too many
people in here saying, ``No, you can't do the important issues; we have
to track around chasing the tail of unimportant issues.''
This is one issue that a number of us from farm country are not going
to let be sent out to some legislative landfill and be covered up. One
way or another, we are going to push and fight and scrap on behalf of
those families who still have their hopes and dreams to make a living
as family farmers. We are going to push and fight to the end to get a
decent, kinder program out of this country that will say to family
farmers in this country, ``You matter; you matter to this country and
its future.''
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, very briefly, I thank my colleague from
North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, for once again standing up and speaking
out on behalf of the farm families of our State and farm families all
across the country, because these are desperate times.
In North Dakota, from 1996 to 1997, farm income declined 98 percent.
That is according to the Government's own figures. That is a disaster
by any definition.
Last night, I was absolutely shocked to learn our Republican
colleagues killed each and every attempt to strengthen the financial
aid package for farmers. It makes me wonder what part of disaster they
don't understand.
We have the lowest prices for farm commodities in 50 years. That is
right, the lowest prices in 50 years. Combined with that, we have a
whole series of natural disasters all across the country, including our
State, where a terrible fungus called scab is loose in the fields that
dramatically reduces production and that which is produced is
discounted when the farmer takes it to the elevator to sell it. The
result is a tremendous cash flow crunch on our farmers, forcing
thousands of them off the land. We have record farm auctions. I have
bankers stopping me in every town I go to and saying, ``Senator, there
is a disaster occurring. There is something radically wrong. What is
being done?''
Last night, our Republican colleagues said, ``Well, what we propose
to do is provide a dime and three pennies for every bushel of wheat and
other grains.'' A dime and three pennies. Frankly, that is worse than a
Band-Aid. A Band-Aid at least covers a wound. If that is going to be
the answer, then we might just as well say that the farm policy coming
from our friends is a policy of liquidation; a policy that says to
family farmers, ``You're done; you might as well sell out, because this
country does not value what you do.''
Mr. President, this can't be the way it ends. We have a disastrous
farm policy. I have said our farmers are being hit by a triple whammy
of bad prices, bad weather and bad policy. We can't control the
weather, we can't control the prices, but we can do something about
farm policy, and we have an obligation to do so.
When our colleagues are saying we ought to cut taxes by $80 billion
and then turn around and say, ``But we can't add $3 billion to this
package to provide financial support for family farmers,'' they have
described their priorities very clearly. Unfortunately, the conclusion
is, family farmers are left out. They are being told, ``Forget it, you
don't matter.'' That is just unacceptable. There is going to be a
fight. We are not going to go quietly in the night as thousands of farm
families are shoved off the land. That cannot be an acceptable
conclusion to this year's legislative business.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DORGAN. There are some who don't want to take the time to deal
with important issues. This is, I think, one of the most important
issues. We just dealt with the Vacancies Act on judicial nominations.
How does the Senator view the farm crisis versus the judicial Vacancies
Act we spent some time debating?
Mr. CONRAD. I think back to the Interior appropriations bill. I don't
know how many days that was on the floor here. It was day after day
after day. In fact, when I look back on the last several months, it is
hard for me to recall our dealing with anything of great significance.
In fact, there have been long periods where nothing was dealt with on
the floor, and then we are told, ``Well, the future of family farmers
that hangs in the balance, there is just not enough time to deal with
that, not enough resources to deal with it.''
Interestingly enough, our competitors don't have that view. The
Europeans, who are our major competitors, are spending $50 billion a
year to support their producers. We spend $5 billion, and we wonder why
we are losing the fight. We would never do this in a military
confrontation, but in a trade confrontation we seem to think it is fine
to say to our farmers, ``Well, you go out there and compete against the
French farmer and the German farmer, and while your at it, go take on
the French Government and the German Government as well.'' That is not
a fair fight.
I say to my colleague, it seems to me as though we have the time to
make a difference in the lives of literally thousands of farm families
all across America who are facing a financial disaster. This isn't some
kind of downturn, this is a cliff, and thousands of farmers are being
pushed right off it.
The question is, What are we going to do? Are we going to do nothing
or next to nothing, or are we going to fight back? Are we going to say
to the Europeans, ``No, we're not going to accept a circumstance in
which you simply buy these markets, you go out there and because you
have so many more resources,'' because somehow in Europe they have
decided they want people out across the land, that that is good social
policy.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for one additional point.
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. DORGAN. We have been talking about financial modernization. It
seems to me the farm crisis is more important than that. That is ahead
of us. The Internet tax freedom bill, it seems to me the farm crisis is
more important than that. We apparently are going to take that up.
I mentioned when I began this discussion the juxtaposition of a hedge
fund nearly going broke on Wall Street and the Federal Reserve Board
getting so concerned that they convened the bankers and said, ``Gee,
can't we help those people; prop up their pillow, help them get back to
bed, give them a nap and get them some strength again?''
And it is interesting to me that, in fact, the Fed even signaled when
that was going on, they were going to reduce interest rates. So today,
lo and behold, they lowered interest rates. It is the ``too big to
fail'' thing.
It reminded me of what Will Rogers once said. He said, ``You know, if
one day all the lawyers on Wall Street failed to show up for work,
wouldn't anybody miss lunch. But if all the cows in America failed to
show up to the barn to get milked, then we would have a problem.'' What
Will Rogers was trying to say in a humorous way is ``What really
matters in this country is what we produce.'' And there is no more all-
star producer in America than the family farmer.
Yet this country has an economic system that says to them, ``There's
no connection between effort and reward. You make the effort. You go
broke.'' And that is what is wrong with this system. This farm bill of
ours does not work. Everybody ought to now be willing to confess that
and decide that this farm bill does not work and we want to save family
farmers. Let us join together in a bipartisan way to make something
happen that really will work to save family farmers.
Mr. CONRAD. My colleague is precisely right. It will be a tragedy for
this country if we let this circumstance unfold. The hard reality is if
we fail to act and act decisively, literally thousands of family
farmers are going to be pushed out of business. And they are not coming
back.
I just went to a meeting in my State--one of the major farm
organizations--and I stood at the back of the room. It was so striking
because so many of the heads sitting in the chairs in front of me were
white haired. The farmers of this country are aging and aging
dramatically. There were hardly any young people in the room.
[[Page S11116]]
It is easy to understand why, because, as Senator Dorgan read from
the letters of young people, they were saying to their parents, ``Gee,
will you hold it against me if I don't go into farming?'' Well, it is
pretty hard to justify going into farming. It is pretty hard to justify
staying on the family farm because we, as a country, have said, as a
matter of policy, ``We're not going to be there for you.'' Our
competitors are going to spend $50 billion a year supporting their
producers, and we are going to spend one-tenth as much. So we say,
``You go into the fight, but you go unarmed.''
Mr. President, we can do better than that. America is better than
that. And the loss to this country will be incalculable if we push an
entire generation of farmers off the land. I know that at some point we
will wake up and we will say, ``Gee, we have a program to get people
back out there.'' And what will it cost us then, as we realize it makes
no sense to push everybody into the cities of America, that instead we
ought to have people spread out across the land?
But right now we are headed on a collision course with economic
reality. And that reality is: Our farmers are at such a disadvantage
that they cannot survive. So that is the question that is before the
body tonight. And that is the question that is going to be before the
body tomorrow. Are we going to do something to help these family
farmers through this valley of extraordinarily low prices and natural
disasters or are we just going to let them go? I pray that we respond
and help family farm agriculture survive in this country. It is right
at the heart of what makes this country strong.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from New Mexico.
____________________