[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 31 (Monday, March 20, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1443-S1447]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAMILY FARMERS
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have over 2,000 family farmers who have
arrived in Washington, DC, this morning. In other times and other
circumstances, they would be preparing for spring planting.
Spring is a time for farmers to begin thinking about getting to the
field to plant their seeds and do the work family farmers do. But
instead of preparing for spring planting, 2,000 family farmers are here
in Washington, DC, today.
I intend to leave this Chamber and have lunch with them. They are
holding a ``farmer's share lunch'', just steps from the Capitol on the
lawn in the upper Senate park beside the Russell Building. A customer
buying this same lunch at a restaurant or in some other venue in
Washington, DC would pay $10. These farmers are charging the portion of
the food dollar they get: From a $10 lunch, they get approximately 39
cents. So over in the park, farmers will be providing lunch for 39
cents to demonstrate how little of America's food dollar family farmers
are getting.
We have such a serious problem on America's family farms. Two
thousand of those family farmers have come to Washington, DC, to say to
the Federal Government that the public policy dealing with family
farmers simply isn't working. If it is in the interests of our country
to preserve a network of family farms to produce America's food--if
those are our policy interests in America--then we must change public
policy because the current farm program does not work.
There is a fellow in North Dakota named Dave Smith. He is a farmer in
Makoti, ND. Frankly, I have never met Dave Smith. He calls himself the
Flying Farmer. He has developed a hobby of jumping over stock cars. He
builds a ramp, jumps these cars, and dives over to the other side. He
wears a helmet and performs at the county fairs and the State fairs.
I have seen him do these tricks a couple of times and have always
wondered what would persuade someone to do these things?
Let me tell you how he got in the ``Guinness Book of World Records''.
Dave Smith, the Flying Farmer, from Makoti, ND, set a world record by
driving in reverse for 500 miles at an average speed of 34 miles per
hour.
I am thinking to myself: Why would someone want to do that? But then
I recognized that it reminds me of public policy as it affects family
farmers, an endurance race in the wrong direction.
The question is, What do we do to stop this movement in the wrong
direction and start it in the right direction? What do we do for family
farmers?
I have on previous occasions talked in the Senate about what one
finds when going to Europe. Go to the European countryside, visit with
their farmers and go to the small towns that rely on families who live
off the land. Get a feeling for how things are going in rural Europe.
Farmers are doing well in Europe. Small towns are doing fine in
Europe. There is life; one can feel it. One can sense it. Why? Because
Europe has decided that as a matter of public policy, the kind of
economy they want is an economy that has food production based on the
family unit. They want to maintain and retain family farmers in their
future. It is a deliberate public policy in Europe. They have been
hungry, and they don't intend to go hungry again. They want broad-based
ownership of food production in Europe.
I found it interesting that the European trade representatives, who
are often vilified--and perhaps I do it from time to time--talked about
trade in agriculture in the context of families and communities when I
met with them at the WTO meeting in Seattle. ``Multifunctionality'' is
the term they used. They talked about the impact on family farmers and
the relationship to building communities as a result of a network of
farms in the countryside.
Our trade negotiators look at trade through the pristine view of one
word--markets, as though it doesn't have anything to do with families
or communities. As if somehow there is no relationship between virtue
and math when it comes to the question of profits and losses. I want to
talk for a couple of minutes about the fallacy of all of that.
These days, when there is so much economic prosperity in so much of
our country, and we are blessed with so many things, we find that in
the granaries, garages and in the machine sheds of America's family
farms, families are gathering trying to figure out: How do we get this
equipment ready for the field work in the spring to plant a crop? Will
our banker lend us the money to buy seeds and fuel and fertilizer, for
example, to once again try
[[Page S1444]]
to make a living on the family farm? Or are we now going to lose our
dream? Will we, after 30 years of trying, lose the opportunity to
continue farming this year because prices have collapsed and our trade
agreements have not been good for agriculture?
Interest rates are going up. So many other things are confronting the
farmer over which they have no control.
I will show a few charts that describe what is happening to America's
family farms. The families who have come to town, the 2,000 of them, to
say there is something wrong that needs to be fixed, here is what they
are confronted with. Look what has happened to the farmer's share of
the retail beef dollar. It has dropped precipitously.
This chart shows the farmer's share of the retail pork dollar--it is
almost interchangeable--a dramatic collapse in 19 years. For North
Dakota, where we raise a great deal of grain, this chart shows the
farmer's share of the cereal grains dollar. Some might say, well, we
are importing a lot of food; consumers are able to access cheaper food.
Have you been to the grocery store lately and taken a look at the bar
codes of hamburgers or bread or that which is made from cereal grain or
livestock? Have you noticed that food prices have come down? I don't
think so. Grain prices have collapsed.
For a while, we had a very substantial collapse in livestock prices.
In fact, at one point about a year ago, a hog that brought the hog
producer $20 on the market for an entire hog had its meat sold for
$300. So what happened between the $20 the farmer got for selling an
entire hog and the $300 that was charged at the grocery store counter
for the meat from the very same hog? The middle folks, the folks who
handle all of that, are making a lot of money. The farmer is left with
the carcass.
I will mention a couple of other items with respect to the family
farm. Farmers have come to the Nation's Capital to ask for a change. We
passed a piece of farm legislation some years ago. I voted against it,
but nonetheless it passed. It essentially pulled the rug out from under
family farmers. It said they should all just operate in the
marketplace.
That sounds good enough, if the marketplace were a fair marketplace
and farmers were involved in fair competition with others who produce
food around the world. That is not the case. Our trade agreements
injure family farmers rather than help them. They don't have an
opportunity to pay a fair interest rate because the Federal Reserve
Board is jacking up the cost of money in a manner that is totally
unjustified. They deal with monopolies in every direction they turn. If
they want to put their grain on a railroad, the railroad is
overcharging them. What is going to happen is if they are going to sell
their cattle to packing companies, three or four packing companies are
involved in 80 to 85 percent of all the steer slaughter in this
country. It is the same with pork and lamb. Family farmers are
competing in a game in which the deck is stacked.
We have a policy establishment in Washington that views all of this
through a very clear lens. It is a limited vision, but the direction
they look appears clear to them. This, in some of their minds, is kind
of a ``stuff Olympics.'' Those who produce the most stuff get the most
medals, even if you are producing stuff you already have too much of
and not producing what you need. For example, in rural America, if you
are producing what nurtures and strengthens communities, that is
irrelevant according to these folks. The policy establishment says that
is not what we are about. We are about the ``stuff Olympics.'' Those
who produce the most stuff win.
Of course, that is not a proper way to look at who we are and what we
want to be. The markets are fine, but markets are not always fair. We,
as a country, have a right, as Europe has a right and has done, to
decide what kind of economy we want. What kind of things do we want
produced from the arrangements of production? If we say we need better
communities, stronger families living on the land and a network of
producers producing America's food, then we need to question whether
our economic arrangements contribute to that end. Clearly, the answer
now is no.
Should we not support the form of agriculture that contributes to
that kind of economy and that kind of society? What is the farm program
really for? These farmers have come to town saying the farm program
doesn't work. What is it really for?
In my judgment, we don't need a farm program. We could abolish it if
its goal is not simple and singular. We should have a farm program that
is designed to support and sustain a network of families living on
America's agricultural land. If that is not the goal of the farm
program, then we don't need one. If someone wants to farm an entire
county, God bless them, but they don't need the Government's help. But
when prices collapse, if families who are living on that farm don't
have a bridge across those price valleys, they are simply not going to
make it from one side to the other.
My belief is that the contribution a network of family farms makes to
our country is irreplaceable and invaluable. Let me tell my colleagues
about that contribution, that lifestyle, because I come from a State I
dearly love. It embodies those values that America needs more of.
We have a man and a wife in Sentinel Butte, ND, who own a gas
station. Perhaps I have told the Senate about this before. They are
near retirement age and don't want to keep the gas station open all
day. This is a town of under 100 people. They decided that when they
close at 1 o'clock in the afternoon, they would hang the key on a nail.
If you need gas, you drive up and take the key, unlock the pump, and
fill up. Then you are supposed to make a note that you did that.
Yes, that is true. Yes, that happens in my home State, a small
community of under 100 people who understand the value of the small
town cafe, the hub of life in a small community, and can't afford to
keep the small town restaurant open. How do they do it? A signup sheet.
Everybody in town has to volunteer to work for nothing to keep the
restaurant open.
Yes, that is the way the restaurant works in Havana, ND. Tuttle, ND,
a town of under 100 people, lost their grocery store. What to do? They
could not find anybody to start a grocery store. So the town itself--
the community--built a grocery store. Yes, the town owns the grocery
store because that is the kind of town they want and the kind of life
they want.
I may have told the Senate about the woman who owns the flower shop
in Mott, ND. A town 14 miles from Regent, my hometown. My parents are
buried in the cemetery in Regent, ND, a town of 270 people. We always
send flowers to my mother's grave on Mother's Day from the Mott Florist
Shop. They are always apologetic for charging a couple of dollars extra
to send them to the Regent cemetery, which is 14 miles away.
The Mott Florist Shop is quite a place. This year, my brother called
them--he or I usually call them--and he asked them to deliver flowers
for Memorial Day. He said, ``By the way, I forgot to call on Mother's
Day when we usually order flowers for my mother's grave.'' She said,
``That's all right. I figured you forgot so we sent flowers over to
your mother's grave anyway. I figured I would send you a bill later,
and if you paid it, OK; if not, that's OK, too.''
Where does that happen in this country? It is pretty special to have
those kinds of communities and people.
About the same time that happened, I read an article in the
newspaper--and I don't mean to be pejorative about New York City
because it is a wonderful city, but a fellow died on the subway and he
continued riding 4 or 5 hours on the subway before somebody discovered
he was dead. Big difference. Rural values, community, responsibility,
looking out for each other, helping each other, knowing each other--
that is part of what we need to be as a country.
I worry so much that we are losing a great deal of that in the way we
deal with public policy. Thomas Jefferson used to say that the kind of
agriculture we choose in this country affects the kind of communities
we have. It affects the kind of Nation we are going to be. He was dead
right about that.
That is why the issue that these folks have come to town to discuss,
the 2,000 farmers, who otherwise would be in their machine shed getting
ready for spring's work, working on the transmission, greasing the
tractor, going to town to get the seed, all excited about
[[Page S1445]]
being able to finally get that tractor started and getting out and
plowing the ground and putting seeds in the ground, are instead over
here about a block away. And I am going to get there soon. They are
here to say family farming matters to this country and Congress must do
something to help or we will be left with corporate agriculture from
California to Maine, and it will be different. A part of America will
be gone forever. Some say: Well, that's the way it is. The family farm
is like the little diner left behind when an interstate highway comes
through, and it is too bad; it was a wonderful place to have soup and
sandwiches. But that is life.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. Of course, I will.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let us go back 2,000 years to the small
family farms on the Italian peninsula. Those small family farms
produced the rugged soldiers who helped ancient Rome to conquer all of
the countries around the Mediterranean basin. Those family farms
produced men and women who believed in the gods. They were pagan gods,
but those ancient Romans believed in those gods, venerated their
forefathers, their ancestors, taught their children to respect
authority, to respect law, to respect the state. And the ancient Romans
felt that the gods had in mind a particular destiny for their country.
Each Roman felt that it was his duty to help to promote that destiny of
his state. And then came the latifundia, the great corporate farms.
Senators bought up land. They became huge farms. The farmers, the
peasants, left the land and migrated into the cities and became a part
of the mob that sought the theater and free bread.
And when that happened, remember that the Roman legions, which
constituted the greatest military fighting machine of that time, were
able to get their recruits from the farms. When the peasants left the
land, left the home, and the home deteriorated and the belief in the
gods dimmed and faded, the great Roman Senate weakened, lost its way,
lost its nerve, and without being forced to ceded to the dictators--the
Caesars, and later the Emperors--the power of the purse, that was the
beginning of the end. Rome collapsed.
The same thing has happened here in America. When we look at our
colonial forebears, they had the stamina, the stern discipline of the
ancient Romans. They believed in a creator, and the home was where the
values were inculcated into the young people. They respected the law,
they respected authority, they respected their fathers and mothers, and
they took seriously the Biblical injunction ``honor thy father and thy
mother.''
We can take a lesson from the ancient Romans and many a leaf out of
their history because there were several parallels between those
ancient Romans and our colonial ancestors and the America that was--not
the America that is, but the America that was--up until 50 years ago,
or some such.
I am in the very mood at this moment to commend my distinguished
colleague, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan, when he talks
about these farmers. They are the people who toil the earth. They have
to depend upon the weather; it is uncertain. They can't count on, from
month to month or year to year, what the weather is going to be, how
dependable it is going to be. What a life they have to live. It is a
rugged life, but it is a clean life--clean in that they understand what
it is to be near the soil and near God's great tradition. I wish that
more of our young people grew up on the farm. There was a time in this
country when 90 percent of the population was from the farms. That day
is long gone.
I thank the Senator, who so often enlightens this great body on
issues of importance to the country. He has his head screwed on right.
His heart is where it ought to be. He has sound wisdom. He has done a
great service today speaking about the small farmers. I personally
thank him for what he means to the Senate and to the people of his
State.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague from West
Virginia that I am humbled by his words. I was on a radio talk show
earlier this morning for an hour or so. When he said I had my head
screwed on right, I just say that is the nicest thing said about me all
day.
I appreciate very much the comments the Senator made.
I also say this is not about nostalgia. It is about a country having
to choose the kind of future it wants, a country measuring what it
wants to achieve with its economy, and a country that determines what
has value.
It is so much a disconnection to me that we are the largest arms
seller in the world by far--somewhere around $10 to 12 billion a year.
A fair amount of those purchases are from countries that can least
afford to purchase jet fighter planes, tanks, and weapons of war, and,
yet, they do.
In those same Third World countries that are purchasing arms, people
are desperately hungry. At the same time that people are desperately
hungry for food in so many places in the world, and hundreds of
millions of people go to bed with an ache deep in their belly because
they haven't had enough to eat, then in Mohall, ND, in the morning
someone will load a two-ton truck with wheat and drive to the elevator
and will be told by the grain trade: Your food doesn't have value. Your
food just doesn't have value. Yet we know it costs you $4.50 a bushel
to produce it, but it is only worth $2.30 a bushel because it just
doesn't have value.
What a serious disconnection. We need to find a way to create value
in our country for that which matters: the production and work of
family farmers and the risks of what family farmers produce; yes, food
for a hungry world, but also the social structure of a community and a
rural economy.
Mr. Critchfield, a wonderful author, wrote a book called ``Those
Days.'' He talked about the ``seed bed'' of family values in America
for over two centuries from family farms to small towns to big cities.
It was always the ``seed bed'' of family values.
When a man named Ernest in Regent, ND, collapsed of a heart attack
right near harvest, his neighbors brought the combines over to take his
wheat off the field? If his neighbors were in corporate America, they
would be called competitors. But on family farms, they are neighbors.
And they are part of a social structure that works together. But they
can't work together and make a living when grain prices have collapsed.
They need a safety net of some type that says: You matter, you have
value, and you are important to our country's economy.
I wish to mention two other quick items that affect family farmers in
a very significant way. They came to town today. In fact, I was on an
airplane with some of them last evening. Most of them came by bus but a
few came on the airplane--last evening, today, and tomorrow.
Two things will happen here in Washington, DC: One, the Federal
Reserve Board will meet. When they do, it won't be as if they are doing
it in front of television cameras. It will be behind closed doors. They
will make a decision in secret. We will not be a part of it. There will
be no discussion and no debate. These central bankers will make a
decision about whether to increase interest rates once again. All of
the evidence is that they will do so.
Those poor farmers who are coming to town asking for some assistance
when prices have collapsed will find one more time that the Federal
Reserve Board has boosted their cost of production by increasing
interest rates.
What is the justification for that? The answer is none. There is no
justification. Workers' productivity is up in this country--way up. Do
workers in this country not have a right to more compensation if they
are more productive?
Mr. Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Board are worried about
inflation. The core inflation rate that has been recently announced in
both the Producer Price Index and the Consumer Price Index, which
indicates that inflation is not a serious threat in this country. As I
said, productivity is growing. Yet, somehow, Mr. Greenspan fashions
himself as a set of human brake pads whose sole mission in life is to
try to slow down the American economy.
It is wrong for the Federal Reserve Board to believe that too many
people are working and that we are growing too fast. They are worried
about that because they believe it will provoke more inflation. They
have believed
[[Page S1446]]
that for the last several years, and they have been wrong, wrong, wrong
in every circumstance. But it has been used as justification to
increase interest rates. That adds to the burden these family farmers
have to bear as they go out to try to borrow money to buy the seeds,
the fertilizer, and the fuel with which to put in their spring crops.
The Federal Reserve Board tomorrow will add to the burdens of these
farmers, in my judgment, in a manner that is wholly unjustified.
Productivity last year grew at a substantial 3 percent rate. That surge
pushed the unit labor costs down by 2.5 percent in the fourth quarter
in 1999.
I have talked at length about the Federal Reserve Board. I don't mean
to cast disrespect on their motives as people. I have said that I
commend Alan Greenspan for his public service but disagree with him
from a policy standpoint very significantly.
But there is no justification for this Federal Reserve Board, the
last dinosaur of our government, that does all of its business in
secret. What other unit of government closes its doors and then says,
``Let's decide what we want to do next to the American people''?
If Mr. Greenspan, as has been the subject of some of his recent
pronouncements, believes that the stock market is moving too high--
``irrational exuberance'' he once called it--then he can take action to
deal with that. He could increase margin requirements, which I think he
probably ought to do. But instead of doing that--and he doesn't want to
do that--he says: I will have all the American people, especially
producers, pay higher interest charges. It is unwise, unfair, and
risky, in my judgment, to raise interests at a time when fuel costs are
rising and commodity prices all across the board have collapsed. I
think it risks a significant slowdown in this economy.
I regret that they will take that action tomorrow. If they do, I will
be here to speak again briefly about it.
Let me take 2 additional minutes to talk about one other issue that
will be announced tomorrow. In addition to the Federal Reserve Board
meeting, there will be an announcement tomorrow morning by the Commerce
Department about America's trade deficit. I expect once again that the
monthly trade deficit will be near record level.
What does that mean? It means that those family farmers who are
gathered today in Washington, DC, asking for some help will once again
see the consequences of a trade policy that has not worked.
We are not exporting nearly enough. We are importing too much. We
find closed markets for agricultural commodities all around the world.
Even when we negotiate new trade agreements, the negotiations are not
the independent, kind of hard-nosed negotiations that you would expect
on behalf of our producers. We do not, as a country, stand up for our
producers' interests.
I will talk at some later time about the recent bilateral trade
agreement with China. I have spoken at great length about the NAFTA
agreement, and Canada and Mexico, and so on. But family farmers and
others have a right, in my judgment, to be very concerned about these
kinds of policies.
I will show a chart about the trade deficit. This chart shows what is
happening to this country's merchandise trade deficit. It was $347
billion in 1999.
Let me mention China. I want to mention it just in a microcosm. We
reached an agreement with China only months ago. A significant part of
this $347 billion was nearly $70 billion with China alone.
Let me take automobiles, for example, because there is not a lot of
trade in automobiles between the United States and China. But in our
trade agreement with China, as I understand it, after a phase in, we
reached an agreement by which China will have only a 25-percent tariff
on U.S. automobiles that will be sent to China. We would have a 2.5-
percent tariff on Chinese automobiles into this country. So we reached
a trade agreement which says we will phase this in slowly. But after it
is fully phased in, China, you can have a 10-times greater tariff on
automobiles going into China than we would have.
I ask a question: Who is negotiating, and on whose behalf? We should
get some uniforms and jerseys that say ``U.S.A.'' on them. At least
when they sit down we would understand who they are and we could demand
that they work for our interests and demand reciprocal agreements that
say treat us like we treat you. Open your markets.
I mention automobiles, because it is not of great consequence in that
particular trade agreement. But I am going to talk at greater length
about some of the other issues as well. I mention it, because tomorrow
the Commerce Department will, once again, announce the monthly trade
deficit. It will, in my judgment, signal the storm clouds that exist in
this area to which we must respond. Our economy is wonderful. We live
in a great country. We are blessed with all kinds of good news.
However, we must address this issue.
I finish by telling the Senator from West Virginia what happened to
me at the WTO meetings in Seattle in December. Everyone remembers how
raucous those WTO sessions turned out to be, especially with
demonstrators in the street. Something happened I will relate that
reminds everyone once again of who we are and where we are. A group of
House and Senate Members were meeting with a group of 10 or 12 European
parliamentarians across an oblong table, talking about the differences
between Europe and the United States in trade, the beef issue, and the
Roquefort trade issue.
Mr. Rocard, the former Prime Minister of France, leaned over and
said: Mr. Senator, I want you to understand something. We are talking
about disputes between the United States and Europe. I want you to
understand how I feel about your country. I was a 14-year-old boy on
the streets of Paris, France, in 1944 when the Liberation Army marched
into my country and removed the Nazis from my country. When I was a 14-
year-old boy, standing on the streets, when those American soldiers
marched into my country, a young black American soldier reached out his
hand and gave me an apple. I want you to understand that I will never,
ever forget that moment and what it meant to me and what it meant to my
country.
I got chills as I listened to that. We have, as a country, done so
much for so many around the world. We are self-critical and tend to
forget the remarkable things we have done.
This fellow said to me: I will go to my grave having very special
feelings about what your country, what your soldier, what your
commitment was to me, to my family, and to my country.
That is something we should understand. We have a great capacity to
do good things. As a democracy, we make some mistakes from time to
time. But we have a great capacity to do good things in our abilities
to make choices regarding public policy, in developing the kinds of
policies that are produced in this Chamber. All of us must, from our
various centers of interest around America, come here and with passion
make the case for the things we think are important.
The Senator from West Virginia makes passionate arguments on behalf
of the families who have been mining America's coal in the hills of
Appalachia. I listened with wonder to his description of what is
happening in those small communities. He understands that those from
farm country, from North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and elsewhere
feel the same way, with the same passion, about the people we represent
who are struggling and in many ways confront the same problems of
collapsed commodity prices. There is the notion by some that this is
just all nostalgia, not hard-nosed market economics.
That is why, as we do all of this, as we engage in these debates, we
must as a country think through the public policy questions with better
clarity, especially with the understanding that tomorrow's economy and
tomorrow's country is what we decide it will be. We have a right to
make these decisions. Europe has decided it wants family farmers in its
future. It wants rural Europe to be healthy and family farmers to make
it. Why? Because they understand that family farms produce more than
just grain or livestock. They produce something that is social in
nature--community, a rural lifestyle and culture that is important.
That is something Europe is already reconciled to, and we ought to, as
well.
I have taken far more time than I intended. Let me end as I started.
I will
[[Page S1447]]
go to the farmers' lunch near the Russell Building. They are serving a
$10 lunch for 39 cents because farmers are here, 2,000-fold, saying:
This is our share of the food dollar. It is not enough. We cannot make
a living. We need help. We don't need charity. We need a little
attention from Congress, better trade agreements, a better farm
program, a little action on the antitrust front to deal with the
concentrations of monopolies that exist, and a little understanding
that we matter to America's future. We produce food. It is a hungry
world. Food matters. Congress, pay attention. That is all they are
saying.
With that, I will have lunch with friends of mine.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished Senator from
West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Before the distinguished Senator goes to lunch, would he
agree with me that Oliver Goldsmith, writing in ``The Deserted
Village,'' must have had our family farmers in mind when he said:
Ill fares the land, to hastening ills of prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay;
Princes and Lords may flourish or may fade;
A breath can make them, as a breath has made;
But a bold peasantry, their country's pride,
When once destroy'd, can never be supplied.
Is there anything more fitting by way of poetry than Oliver
Goldsmith's words in ``The Deserted Village'' when he talked about the
bold peasantry?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as always, the Senator from West Virginia
has captured in just a minute, with verse that comes from memory,
something that I have not been able to say in 45 minutes. He is
absolutely correct.
Again, let me thank him for being on the floor as I made the
presentation.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator.
____________________