[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 121 (Thursday, September 30, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9996-S9997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FARM SUPPORT PROGRAMS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, before we left for the August recess, I 
came to the Senate floor to express my serious concerns about this 
administration's policies towards rural America.
  On several critical issues, including disaster aid, renewable fuels, 
and market concentration, the decisions the President has made have 
been right for a very few large corporations, but wrong for the large 
majority of rural Americans.
  And now it appears the administration will once again stand against 
farmers and ranchers by opposing the bipartisan disaster aid approved 
by the Senate 2 weeks ago. I am hopeful that given the extent of 
disaster all across the nation and the large bipartisan support for 
this aid, the administration will withdraw its opposition and agree 
that farmers and ranchers who are impacted by natural disasters should 
not be treated differently than others who are victims of hurricanes, 
tornadoes or floods.
  Unfortunately, the pattern of neglect for rural residents has 
continued as the administration has made yet another decision that 
diminishes the importance of family farmers and ranchers.
  As part of the ongoing negotiations being held by the World Trade 
Organization, the Bush administration has agreed to a 20-percent cut in 
the allowable level of farm support and safety net programs for 
American producers of corn, soybeans, wheat, and other crops.
  Remarkably, the administration made this concession without receiving 
any assurances from our trading partners that American producers will 
get increased access to foreign markets in return. In other words, the 
administration has agreed to unilaterally disarm our nation's farmers.
  For the owners of large corporate agribusinesses, this deal may mean 
increased profits. But for thousands of family farmers and ranchers, 
this decision deepens their insecurity, and could lead to devastating 
consequences the next time we enter a period of low prices.
  The last time we confronted an extended period of low prices, in 1999 
and 2000, our domestic support and safety net programs played a key 
role in helping our rural communities weather the storm.
  But if the deal that the Bush administration cut had been in effect 
then, the consequences could have been even more devastating. We could 
have fallen billions of dollars short of what was necessary to provide 
an adequate safety net for our Nation's farmers and ranchers.
  In my home State of South Dakota alone, we could have fallen short by 
tens of millions of dollars, cuts that could have had a crippling 
impact on my State's No. 1 industry, and the overall health of our 
rural economy.
  One of the specific programs put at risk by the Bush administration's 
proposed cuts is the new countercyclical farm program.
  Many States, including South Dakota, were pleased with this program, 
which pays producers when prices are low but allows no payments when 
prices are high. It uses a formula that updates bases and yields to the 
greatest extent possible, and that was a big improvement for many 
States. But this important countercyclical program could now be in 
jeopardy because of the administration's framework agreement.
  For producers in South Dakota who have seen years of drought and have 
now suffered a large production loss due to an early frost, the 
President's trade negotiators have once again called into question 
whether this administration is willing to back up its rhetorical 
support of farmers, ranchers, and rural Americans with the policies 
that will actually make a difference for our rural economy.
  South Dakotans understand the benefits of free trade, but they also 
understand that free trade must be fair if we are going to avoid a 
destructive race to the bottom. And right now, the situation 
confronting American producers is anything but fair.
  The average worldwide tariff facing American producers is now 62 
percent, while the average U.S. tariff on imported goods is only 12 
percent.
  With the playing field already so slanted, it is inexplicable to me 
that we would do anything to further tip the scales against American 
producers. But that is exactly what the Bush administration has done by 
agreeing to cut domestic farm support without getting anything concrete 
in return.
  Even worse, the President's top agricultural negotiator has already 
indicated that the administration may agree to further reductions, and 
he has actually told the media that the cuts to domestic support 
programs could be as high as 50 percent.
  This is no way to conduct negotiations on behalf of America's farmers 
and ranchers. We should be demanding mutual concessions from our 
trading partners, not giving up vital safety-net

[[Page S9997]]

programs based on some vague hope that other countries might open their 
markets in the future.
  When I spoke about the challenges facing our rural communities back 
in July, I said we had a moral obligation to do right by our family 
farmers and ranchers. That should be our standard whenever we make 
decisions on agricultural policy: Are we doing right by rural America?
  The administration's proposal to cut farm support and safety-net 
programs fails that basic test. Like so many other decisions this 
administration has made, it puts the interests of large agribusinesses 
ahead of farmers and consumers, and it threatens the future health of 
our rural communities.
  In short, the administration's proposal does wrong by rural America.
  Last month, I wrote a letter to President Bush asking him to rescind 
his administration's offer to cut farm support programs. Much to my 
disappointment, the President's top trade negotiator, Ambassador 
Zoellick, responded by saying that my concerns were outside the 
``mainstream of American agriculture.''
  Well, I have some news: In South Dakota and across rural America, 
selling out farmers and ranchers for the benefit of big agribusiness is 
not part of the mainstream.
  I am also not reassured by Ambassador Zoellick's claim that, somehow, 
the 20-percent cuts will not actually impact our support and safety net 
programs.
  Ambassador Zoellick has already touted these cuts as ``concessions'' 
that brought other nations back to the table.
  So, which is it, are they concessions or not? Who is being fooled, 
the other 146 nations or American farmers and ranchers?
  The administration can't have it both ways. Either the concessions 
mean something and that is what brought the negotiators to the table, 
or the administration fooled all our trading partners. Neither is good 
policy.
  My experience with this administration--an administration which 
opposed a robust farm bill--tells me that if there is a trade deal that 
is bad for agriculture but good for other segments of our economy, 
agriculture will lose out, whether that means a 20-percent cut, or even 
a 50-percent cut.
  And at that point, States like South Dakota, and all of rural 
America, will be on the short end of the stick. That is simply 
unacceptable.
  We can do better. We can return mainstream values to our agricultural 
policies, and we can do right by America's heartland. It is not too 
late to reverse the administration's misguided agricultural and rural 
policies. The WTO negotiators are going back to the negotiating table 
early next month. They can ensure that we do not give up important 
safety-net programs without getting anything in return.
  Those of us who stand with America's farmers and ranchers will 
continue to fight to ensure that they are once again treated with the 
dignity and respect that they not only deserve but are entitled to as 
the anchors of so many of our Nation's communities, and a vital part of 
our Nation's economy.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________