[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 141 (Thursday, October 18, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10824-S10826]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FARM POLICY
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about farm policy. We
have just now heard that the administration has endorsed Senator
Lugar's farm plan, which fundamentally, in my judgment, abandons family
farms and the rural economy.
The farm plan that the administration is now supportive of is radical
and it is ruinous. I don't know how to sugarcoat it. This is an
absolute unmitigated disaster for the rural parts of the country.
The President is, in essence, backing a plan that eliminates farm
programs--this at a time that our major competitors, the Europeans, are
outspending us 10 to 1 in support for farm producers, and in terms of
export support they are outdoing us 30 to 1.
It is no wonder that these are hard times in farm country. It is no
wonder that when I go home to North Dakota--one of the most
agricultural States in the Nation--farm producers tell me they wonder
why they should stay in agriculture when there is virtually no
financial return. There is enormous risk.
The plan the President has endorsed is an absolute abdication. It
says we are going to eliminate AMTA payments immediately. It says we
are going to eliminate in just a few years the marketing loan program.
It says we are going to eliminate the sugar program, the dairy program,
and the peanut program. For all of that, it substitutes a voucher
system that is woefully inadequate, and which will leave tens of
thousands of farmers in a position of financial failure.
That is the plan this President has endorsed. That is the plan the
President would impose on farm producers across this country.
I cannot say strongly enough what an absolute economic disaster that
plan would be for virtually every farm State in the Nation.
What the President is calling for is abandoning of farmers in every
part of America. What the President is saying is he doesn't like the
previous farm policy. Very few of us do. His answer is a farm policy
that signals retreat. His policy would say to our European adversaries
and competitors: You take the agricultural markets. You become the
dominant producer in the world.
That is a profoundly wrong policy for this country. I am certain the
Europeans are taking great comfort today in the announcement by the
White House that they back a policy which is a policy of unilateral
surrender. I do not know how else to term it.
If this policy were ever to become the law, you would see mass
bankruptcy all across the rural parts of this country.
One of the farm group leaders in my State was in my office. I
described for him the plan that the administration had endorsed. He
thought I was joking. He thought I was putting him on. He could not
believe that this would be a farm policy endorsed by this or any
administration. In fact, when I asked a group of farm leaders what
would happen if we saw the kind of cuts that the President's plan would
impose, he said it would mean the race to the auctioneer.
This is a serious matter. The irony is that at the very time this
administration is arguing for a stimulus package for the economy, they
are proposing a package for agriculture that is the opposite of a
stimulus package. It is a package that would destroy many of the farm
producers all across this country.
My State is perhaps the most agricultural State in the Nation. This
farm policy now endorsed by the Bush administration would be a
devastating blow to North Dakota.
A few months ago, the President came to North Dakota and said his
administration would be farmer friendly. Now we see a complete
abdication on that commitment. Now we see a total reversal with the
President proposing a plan that would be an absolute calamity--an
economic calamity--not only for North Dakota but for South Dakota, for
Nebraska, for Minnesota, for Montana, for Iowa, and for every other
farm State in this Nation.
This cannot be.
I hope over the weekend people will reflect on what has happened. I
hope all across this country farm group leaders and farm producers will
call the White House, call their representatives, and call their
Governors and urge them to tell the White House they have to reverse
course. We cannot abandon rural America at a time when the rest of the
national economy is already in trouble. We cannot say to America that
we are going to provide stimulus to help the economy recover in the
urban parts of the country but we are going to abandon the rural parts
of our Nation. That cannot be, and it will not be.
I am saying to my colleagues that no stimulus package is going to
pass here unless all of America is included--unless the rural parts of
this country and the urban parts of the country are treated with
respect.
This proposal and this plan is an absolute unmitigated disaster for
farm families.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. I asked a number of Senators from farm States today--I read
an article in the newspaper. We are not a farm State. We grow alfalfa.
Agriculture is a very minor part of Nevada's economic base.
I asked a number of people about this article in the newspaper. Some
had not read it yet. I hope the Senator from North Dakota will continue
speaking out on this issue because there are not many farm States
remaining. We need some leadership because of what we read in the
newspaper, which spins pretty well, that they are going to stop all
these things that appear bad for farmers.
I have followed the lead of the Senators from the Dakotas and Iowa in
what I think is good farm policy because I know it is the lifeblood of
the State of North Dakota.
I hope you continue to speak out, just as you have. We need to hear
that in the non-farm States. So I ask the Senator a question. I hope
you will speak out on this more than just today. Will you?
Mr. CONRAD. You can count on that.
I say to my friend from the State of Nevada how much we appreciate
the assistance he has provided on key farm issues over the years. This
is a real jolt to the people I represent because agriculture is the
dominant part of our economy. I think people in our State recognize
very well the devastation a bill such as this would mean. And I tell
you, these are hard times already in our State. Just as we have
suffered an economic downturn in this country, we have been facing hard
times in agriculture the last 4 years.
In fact, the Senator well remembers we have had to write four
economic disaster bills for agriculture in the last 4 years. Every year
we have had to write an economic disaster rescue package for our
farmers. Without it, tens of thousands of farm families would have been
forced off the land. That is the hard reality.
Now this administration endorses a plan that would prevent us from
having
[[Page S10825]]
the kind of rescue packages we have passed in the last 4 years. They
are saying to tens of thousands of farm families: What you do has no
value, and you might as well give up and give in and get out.
Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, I have one more question.
Wouldn't it also drive the family farmers further and further away
from their farms, where we wind up in America having big corporations
doing all the farming?
Mr. CONRAD. Unfortunately, that is the direction. If you will study
this farm plan, what it would mean is basically the elimination of farm
programs. I know there are people listening who say, gee, maybe that is
a good idea. I would say to those people, you need to look at what is
happening in other parts of the world that produce agricultural goods
because that is not what they are doing.
I indicated our European friends provide over $300 an acre of support
per year. We provide $38. So already they have an enormous advantage
over our producers. And then, when you look at export support, they
account for 84 percent of all the world's agricultural export support.
We are less than 3 percent. They are outgunning us there 30 to 1.
This administration plan is to wave the white flag of surrender. To
all those who seek our markets the old-fashioned way, by buying them,
we just say, take them; you can become the dominant player in world
agriculture.
That would be a profound mistake for this country. It has been one of
the key sources of American strength, that we have been the dominant
player in world agriculture.
This plan is a guarantee that the United States would be second
class, second rate, and we would have dominance by the Europeans.
I pray that this plan never becomes the law and America never has to
experience what this would mean to not just farmers but to the main
streets in every city and town all across rural America.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I would like to ask a
couple of questions, maybe with a comment.
We, of course, have a disagreement with a distinguished colleague of
ours who offers a farm bill that really is not much of a farm bill at
all and certainly offers no hope to family farmers. But isn't the
origin of this idea coming from people who really think the current
farm program, which has nearly bankrupted the rest of the family
farmers who are still around--they have believed this current farm
program has been just dandy, that it works just swell? Isn't the origin
of this idea from people who really think the current farm program has
worked for family farmers?
Mr. CONRAD. I say to my colleague, it is one of the ironies of this
plan. This plan is presented by the architects of the plan under which
we are operating now, which has proved itself to be a disaster. That is
why we have had to write four economic disaster bills for farmers in
the last 4 years. Now they come along with the same chapter, second
verse, and this is disaster No. 5. Four years of economic disasters for
agriculture, and now they come with a new plan, a plan that is even
worse than the plan they imposed on this country in the last farm bill.
I do not know what could be more clear.
As I reported to the rest of our colleagues, the President came to
our State and said he was going to be farmer friendly. This is a total
reversal. I had a group of farmers from our State in my office this
week. I gave them the outline of this plan. They were stunned. They
were shocked. They could not believe this was a serious plan. When I
told them not only was this being proposed by one of our colleagues but
that the White House was poised to endorse it, they were nonplussed.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for another question, there is
the old saying: There is no education in the second kick of a mule. My
expectation is, most of our colleagues will understand that this, as a
follow-on to the Freedom to Farm bill, is not progress but in fact it
retards the opportunity for family farmers in this country to make a
living.
I say to Senator Conrad, one of the things I want to ask is: Our
country now is trying to find out how we provide a lift to the American
economy because we had a very soft economy prior to these terrible
terrorist acts that occurred on September 11. The economy was very soft
and troubled going into that point. But, in fact, the farm economy, the
economy in which family farmers live, has been soft and troubled and
collapsing for 4, 5 years. So when you talk about giving a lift to the
American economy, family farmers out there on the land have been
working through a virtual depression for 4, 5 years now.
It is interesting; we are talking about two things in Congress: One
is a stimulus plan to try to lift the economy, and the second is
security. In both cases, it seems to me, these proposals fail.
Stimulus. This isn't going to be a stimulus. This is going to be a
lodestone. It is going to weigh down further family farmers.
The family farmers have been foot soldiers for this country's economy
for a long while. They produce the best food, at the lowest price, for
consumers around the world. We are lucky to have them and ought to be
proud of them, but they are being bled by an economy that says our food
has no value, even as half a billion people around the world are
desperately hungry.
But the point I want to make is, the Senator talked about Europe.
Europe understands food. Europe understands it from another point,
which is the other thing we are working on: Security. Part of the issue
of food is security.
Introduce bioterrorism agents into the food supply and you have
really big trouble. How do you do that? Perhaps as a national newscast
talked about recently, in a feedlot containing 200,000 cattle. That is
why a broad network of family farms, disbursed across our country,
represents security of America's food supply.
So there is a significant security interest here that the Europeans
have understood for a long while that we ought to start understanding.
Finally, I make the point that the Senator talks about the bill
introduction that the President says he now supports. That bill is a
bill that offers 5 feet of rope to somebody drowning in 10 feet of
water. Thanks for the gesture, but it is really insignificant and does
not matter very much.
What we have to do with the leadership of Senator Conrad, myself, and
others who care about the future of family farmers, is to take what the
House of Representatives passed--which is better than this, I might
say, and better than current law--and then add to it higher loan rates
for wheat, higher loan rates for barley, and a series of other things
that really make it a bill that is friendly to family farms.
I am talking now about families who produce America's food supply. I
was not going to speak to this, but I heard Senator Conrad make some
comments. He is right on the mark; assertive, strong, but right on the
mark on these issues. I am proud to work with him on these matters.
This is life or death for the economic and financial future of many
families who have invested their hopes and dreams on a farmstead
somewhere in the Dakotas or up and down the heartland of the country.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota.
In response to the remarks of the Senator, we are working on a
stimulus package in the Senate to lift the economy because we know this
economy is in a weak condition. It has been further weakened by the
events of September 11. It needs a stimulus. It is extraordinary that
in the middle of that, when, as the Senator from North Dakota
described, agriculture has been in a recession for 4 years, you would
say to the rural parts of the country, yes, we are going to have a
stimulus package to lift the economy but not in the rural areas; you
are going to be left out; you are going to be left behind; you don't
count. That is profoundly wrong.
On top of that, as the Senator described, the second key issue with
which we are dealing is the question of security. The Europeans have
made a commitment to grow the food within their own borders because
they have been hungry twice. They know what it
[[Page S10826]]
is to be without adequate foodstuffs. Can you imagine what it would be
like in this current crisis if we were dependent on imported food for
our own population's needs? How much more serious would the current
crisis be if we did not have a strong agricultural base in America? How
much more vulnerable would we be if every day's food supply or some
substantial part of it had to be brought in from other countries?
This is serious business. This administration's endorsement of a
radical and ruinous farm plan must be resisted, must be defeated. We
must do better.
I hope very much that before this year is out, we will have passed a
farm program that will make a difference in the lives of the tens of
thousands of farm families who are the backbone of the strength of
America. Those are the people who are the builders. Those are the
people who are right at the heart of making this country strong and
great.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, before my colleague from North Dakota leaves
the floor, there is something worth pointing out. I don't claim to have
great knowledge about the farm bill. I am from a consuming State. We
have our farmers in Connecticut, not to the extent they do in the
Midwest--obviously the Farm Belt of the country--but they play a very
important role. As consumers, of course, it is very much in our
interest that we encourage domestic production of agricultural
products.
Many of us were told the other day something that maybe I had known
before, but in the context of September 11 and the events that occurred
since then, it surprised me I hadn't thought about it. I must mention
it here and ask my friend for a response.
I was stunned to learn, once again, that less than 1 percent of all
the food that we import is inspected. Again, we were talking about all
the other problems we face, but I was sort of taken aback by the fact
that such a tiny percentage of the produce or products we as Americans
consume that comes from offshore--and many do, particularly in cold-
weather months, particularly we import an awful lot of food from
overseas--we are not talking about stopping that, but it seems to me in
the context of what the Senator is talking about, a farm bill, it is in
all of our interests, whether you are from a farm State or not--putting
that issue aside but with that issue in mind--we would not be doing
everything we could to encourage domestic production of our food
supplies.
I don't know if he had any comments he wanted to make in that regard.
It struck me that this would be an important point to raise at this
time.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague from Connecticut for raising the
issue. We were in a briefing the other day. Representatives from the
administration were alerting us to a vulnerability of this country.
They were making the point the Senator has made, that we are only
inspecting about 1 percent of the foodstuffs that come into this
country. That represents a vulnerability for America.
I say to my colleagues, if this farm plan were to pass, the
vulnerability of America would increase geometrically. This is the most
radical farm plan ever endorsed by any administration in my memory. I
am 53 years old. I have followed farm policy very closely all of my
life, being from a farm State. It is breathtaking what this
administration has said we should put in place.
It is absolutely the wrong plan at the wrong time, and we must reject
it.
I thank my colleague very much for his input.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I have found in my years of service
with the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, every time he
proposes something in the area of agriculture, I follow. I have found
myself to have a good record on farm policy because of his leadership.
I thank him for his comments today. He not only speaks for his own
State and region of the country; he speaks for all Americans who care
about this most critical issue.
____________________