[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5110-5113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                SPRING PLANTING LOANS FOR FAMILY FARMERS

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the agenda for the Senate this week is to 
continue on the supplemental appropriations bill. Then at some point 
this week we will go to the budget bill. My hope is that we will finish 
work on the supplemental appropriations bill. I understand that we are 
heading towards a vote tomorrow on cloture on a Kosovo amendment to the 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill. So we are off on a range of 
other issues, that

[[Page 5111]]

being a foreign policy issue. We already had votes on tobacco and 
tobacco proceeds from the settlement, and so on.
  But my hope is that one way or another we will get through the 
supplemental appropriations bill in order to provide the resources in 
that legislation for spring planting loans for family farmers. There 
are not very many weeks until our family farmers will be in the fields, 
and they need some operating loans to buy the seed and the fuel and to 
pay the expenses to do spring planting. And we have many farmers in 
North Dakota who are not, under current circumstances, going to be able 
to get loans from the Farm Service Agency unless we pass this 
supplemental bill.
  So if we do not pass the supplemental appropriations bill this week, 
and we go home, then we are not in session the next 2 weeks, we are 
going to be leaving these farmers in pretty tough circumstances. Then 
this supplemental has to go through the House, the Senate, and go to 
the President for his signature. Frankly, the fate of a lot of family 
farmers rests on our ability to get this done.
  Last week, a friend of mine announced that he was quitting farming, 
which I suppose is not such unusual news these days. A lot of farmers 
are quitting farming. This friend happens to be Elroy Lindaas, who is a 
State senator. Elroy is a wonderful fellow. He farms near Mayville, ND. 
I have been to the barn dance on his farm a good many times. I guess 
the last time was about 5 months ago. The barn dances that Elroy has 
are held up in the hayloft of a very large white barn.
  Elroy and his wife have gone to various garage sales in and around 
Mayville over the years, and they would pick up a davenport here or a 
couch or a chair. So up in the hayloft of his barn he has this large 
expanse lined with very comfortable old chairs.
  He has built himself a little stage. He plays guitar and he has 
neighbors that play musical instruments, as well. At this barn dance 
that he holds every year, they get a little band together. They hang 
some crepe paper. They get a couple hundred people who come up and fill 
the hayloft at the Lindaas barn.
  On this farmstead, they have planted 120 consecutive crops. For 120 
years they have planted crops on the Lindaas farm. But this year, the 
121st year they won't be planting a crop because he is selling his farm 
this June.
  Here is a farm that has been in that family for 120 years, passed 
from granddad to dad and son. Why does that farm at this point cease 
operation? Why does the family decide it cannot make it any longer? 
Here is a family farmer trying to do business, with prices for wheat 
and other grains at Depression-era prices. In constant dollars, the 
price they get for a bushel of wheat today is no different than it was 
during the Great Depression.
  What does all this mean and what do we do about it all? The chart 
with this map shows what is happening in our country as we talk about 
the choices and priorities we will make in the supplemental 
appropriations bill and then the budget bill. This map shows those 
counties, which are marked in red, where we have had an outmigration of 
people. You will see the outmigration from the middle part of America, 
up and down the farm belt and especially in North Dakota. Up and down 
the entire farm belt in the Great Plains, we have an entire region of 
America that is being depopulated. People are leaving, not coming. Look 
at all of these counties, each of these in red are rural counties in 
which the population is leaving. These are the counties that have lost 
fifteen percent or more of their population in a fifteen-year period.
  My home county, Hettinger County, ND, is probably a good example. 
Hettinger County, ND, is right here in Southwestern North Dakota. It, 
too, is marked in red. When I left Hettinger County there were 5,000 
citizens living there. Now there are 3,000 citizens. The next county is 
Slope County. Both my home county and the next county are the size of 
Rhode Island, individually. Slope County has 900 people. A year ago or 
so they had seven babies born in the entire county.
  What is happening with the depopulation of rural areas, with people 
moving out, not moving in? Elroy Lindaas, after 120 years of planting 
crops and making a family farm work, is saying, ``I can't do it 
anymore.''
  What is happening? A lot of things. The Presiding Officer will not be 
surprised when I mention the current farm bill, which in my judgment, 
is a disaster. In fact, it is interesting that in 1995 when we 
discussed the Budget Act on the floor of the Senate, that budget bill 
provided the framework for changing the farm bill. The budget that year 
framed the requirements under which a new farm bill had to be 
developed. It was developed into what was called the Freedom to Farm 
bill.
  Freedom to Farm had two parts to it. One part made a lot of sense. It 
gave farmers the freedom to plant what they chose to plant, not what 
the Federal Government allowed them to plant.
  Second, it cut the tie between farm prices and government payments. 
The bill's sponsors said because farm prices were so good and so robust 
and healthy at that time, we would give a transition payment on top of 
the current strong market prices, and then farmers would be on their 
own. That payment would decrease over a number of years after which 
farmers would be on their own. That was essentially the theory of the 
program. It was called transitioning-the-farmers-out-of-a-farm program.
  The problem is, farm prices didn't stay healthy and family farmers 
discovered very quickly that as commodity prices for wheat, feed grains 
and others began to collapse, there wasn't much of a price support for 
them. There wasn't a government program that said, ``You are important. 
So, when commodity prices collapse, somehow we will build a bridge over 
that pricing valley to see if we can help you get across.''
  We have our farm people looking 2 years, 5 years, 7 years ahead. They 
hear the economists say prices aren't going to improve much. They say 
if that is the case and if the Federal Government is not going to help 
and doesn't care whether there are family farmers left, they will 
leave. That is what is creating the depopulation of a rural area.
  It is also true that the ability to raise grain here and ship it to 
Asia has diminished, as the Asian financial crisis took away our export 
markets. It is true that this administration has not been nearly as 
aggressive as it should have been on the Export Enhancement Program. It 
is also true that, frankly, the Congress did not provide what the 
administration asked for on EEP. The administration, Congress, and the 
markets shaped the circumstances that now conspire in ways that say to 
farmers there is not much hope for you out here.
  As we watch the depopulation of a major part of our country, let me 
make another observation. Those farmers that stay in business will 
harvest a crop this fall and receive a price that is pretty anemic. 
When the farmers get in the truck and haul the grain to the elevator, 
they will be told the food they produce doesn't really have much value. 
The farmers will scratch their heads and say, ``I don't understand 
that.''
  This world adds a New York City in population every single month. 
Every single month another New York City in population appears on the 
face of this globe. At least a half billion people and probably far 
more than that go to bed every single night with an ache in their belly 
because they don't have anything to eat. Yet, we are telling our 
farmers that what they produce has no value. There is something 
fundamentally wrong with that.
  Working on a bipartisan basis as a Congress, we have to find a way in 
this budget mechanism to say to family farmers that their presence in 
this country matters to America. It strengthens our country to have our 
food production produced by a network of broad-based economic owners, 
by our family farmers. It strengthens our country to have the family 
farm system existing in America.
  We must decide and decide quickly that the current farm bill doesn't 
work. It must be changed. People say, ``Do you want to go back to the 
old

[[Page 5112]]

support prices?'' I don't know. I am willing to discuss that. If you 
have a better idea, let me know. But, do you really want to go to any 
community in this area and say our nation's policy is more of the same? 
Do we want to keep seeing outmigration, and collapsed farm prices? Do 
we want to keep transitioning farmers out of farming?
  Whatever ideas exist in this Chamber, I am willing to discuss. I have 
an idea for the first step. Let's take the caps off the price support 
loan rates and at least give farmers what the big print said it was 
going to give them in the farm bill, and what the fine print took away. 
Let's take the caps off the loan rates, and get the loan rates up to 
where they ought to be. That is the first step.
  We have all the farm organizations around town who purport to support 
family farmers. I assume that is who is financing them. Yet, every 
single one has a different message about what ought to be done. Some do 
not support taking the cap off the loan rates. They don't have ideas, 
but they oppose those who do have ideas.
  At some point, if we are going to save family farming for this 
country, we have to get together and find some kind of approach that 
will reconnect a decent income to those who produce.
  This isn't the fault of family farmers. This is not their doing. They 
didn't cause the markets to collapse. They didn't cause the financial 
crisis in Asia. They didn't cause the unfair trade from Canada that 
allows a massive quantity of spring wheat and durum wheat to flood into 
our marketplace. They didn't cause that, and they ought not be victims.
  They didn't cause the foreign policy problems that require us to have 
sanctions against other countries, or the foolish notion that we ought 
to have any sanctions at all on food and medicine. Farmers didn't cause 
that.
  That is another step we ought to take. I don't say this suggesting 
that it will solve the farm problem, because it won't. We ought to 
decide all sanctions on food and medicine anywhere in the world ought 
to be ended. I may offer that to the budget resolution this week. Does 
anyone think Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro missed a meal because we 
can't ship food to Cuba or Iraq? Not hardly. All that sanctions hurt 
are our farmers here in this country and poor people and hungry people 
abroad.
  My point is we must pass this supplemental bill in order to allow 
some of these family farmers to get into the field this spring. Without 
it, many of them won't get into the field. Then we must fix this farm 
program because this farm program doesn't work. We must work on a range 
of other issues, including trade to deal with the unfair trade problems 
our farmers face. There are a whole series of other steps that we can 
and should take.
  I want to mention this issue of priorities. I come from one of the 
most rural States in America, and our family farmers are in desperate 
trouble. Even as we debate these issues, we are told there is limited 
money available and we just can't do all of these things. If that is 
your priority, then farmers don't matter much.
  I mentioned that in 1995 the genesis of the current farm bill 
originated here on the Senate floor in the Budget Act that was brought 
for a vote to the Senate. And so better farm policy could start this 
week here in the budget resolution that is brought to the Senate later 
this week.
  Let's talk about what the priorities are. The majority party will 
bring a domestic budget mark to the floor this week that decreases 
domestic spending by slightly over $20 billion. The proposed mark of 
the Budget Committee will have a $9.1 billion increase for defense over 
that which was assumed in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. So, in 
defense, their budget will provide $290 billion, a $9 billion increase. 
But, in other domestic discretionary spending, their budget would take 
$20 billion in cuts.
  Now, last year in the fall, we passed some emergency aid for farmers. 
In that omnibus appropriations bill Congress provided aid for a range 
of things, including agriculture. $1 billion was added for the national 
missile defense program. $1 billion. It was money that wasn't asked for 
by the Defense Department. This money wasn't needed by the Defense 
Department. The Defense Department said it was spending money as 
rapidly as it could to find the technology and the solutions to hitting 
a bullet with a bullet, which is what the national missile defense 
program is.
  The Defense Department said it really didn t have the capability of 
using any more money. The Congress said it didn't matter to them and 
demanded that they have $1 billion more. So $1 billion more emerged. I 
tried to get a few thousand dollars, a few hundred-thousand-dollars, or 
a few million dollars to deal with the emergencies in Indian housing 
and Indian health care. I couldn't do it. But $1 billion, which the 
Department of Defense didn't want, didn't ask for, and didn't need 
emerged mysteriously. In fact, it turns out that they could not even 
spend it.
  Of the $1 billion, the Department of Defense could only find $150 
million in uses in fiscal year 1999. Do you know what that was for? A 
third of it, amounting to $56 million was used for contract transition 
and rebaselining. Does anybody know what that is? Does that sound as if 
you are building a weapon? Contract transition and rebaselining. They 
are going to allocate another $50 million in the next fiscal year 
because they could not use it in the last fiscal year. They want to use 
$400 million on things other than national missile defense because they 
could not find a use for it in national missile defense.
  This priority comes from a Congress that says that we don't have 
enough money and we can't help these farm folks. It doesn't matter that 
these farmers aren't doing very well. They say we can't help them much 
because we don't have the money.
  My point is that this is about making choices. We have a 
responsibility to make thoughtful choices, good choices, choices that 
will strengthen our country. I find it more than a bit disappointing to 
discover that there is plenty of money for someone else's priorities, 
but not enough money to deal with what I think is a priority for this 
country such as the long-term economic health of family farming.
  I want to also mention one contributing factor to the farm troubles 
in this country of ours. I mentioned trade just a moment ago. I want to 
go back to it because our prices have collapsed for a range of reasons. 
These are the prices that our farmers receive for grain when they haul 
it to the elevator. One of the reasons is that we have a trade policy 
in this country that is a terrible trade policy. We say to the rest of 
the world that we are for free trade, open trade, come and trade with 
us. Yet, we refuse to stand up and have any backbone at all to stand 
for our producers when we are the victims of unfair trade.
  Let me give you an example. The Canadians continue to flood our 
country with their durum wheat and their spring wheat, undercutting our 
farmers' prices. Our nation can't seem to do a thing about it. For 
years now, it has gone on. I acknowledge that our Trade Ambassador and 
this President have taken some action, which is more than previous 
Presidents have done. Previous Presidents would not give the time of 
day to this issue. But this President's action and the action of the 
Trade Ambassador is far short of what it should be, and they know it.
  I found it interesting when I was in Europe a few months ago and I 
picked up the paper. I read that we are going into a trade war with 
Europe over bananas. I am sitting there in Europe thinking, gee, that 
is strange. Let's see, where do we produce bananas in the United 
States? I guess maybe we produce a few bananas in Hawaii. But by and 
large, we don't produce bananas in the United States. So why do we have 
a Trade Ambassador prepared to go into a trade war over bananas, 
something we don't produce? I guess it is because U.S. corporations 
produce bananas in Latin America and they are trying to sell them to 
Europe. Europe won't let the bananas in, so we get all exercised and we 
are going to have a trade war over bananas.
  I want to ask the Trade Ambassador this: If you are willing to go 
into a

[[Page 5113]]

trade war over bananas, which we don't produce, would you be willing to 
take some reasonable action against countries that inundate our markets 
and cut our prices on something we do produce, such as spring wheat, 
durum, and barley? Why is it that we are willing to go to bat here and 
ratchet up a big trade dispute with Europe over bananas when we don't 
produce any real bananas. Yet, we seem unable, or unwilling, to take 
action against the Canadians, who clearly are violating our trade laws 
and who are causing massive dislocation in the center part of our 
country by undercutting our grain markets and hurting our family 
farmers.?
  Oh, I have thought from time to time about getting a truckload of 
bananas and dumping it on the front steps of the USTR's office to say 
at least here you can see some bananas when you walk out. You won't see 
any in the fields and you won't see any banana trees anywhere you look 
in the continental United States. You have this big trade dispute going 
on over bananas, which you won't be able to find in most corners of 
this country. That would at least give our trade office a chance to see 
bananas. But I decided I could not afford to do that, and it would 
probably be a stupid stunt anyway.
  Somebody needs to say: You are not thinking straight. If you want to 
stand up for the economic interests of this country, then stand up for 
things we produce. Then someone will say to me: Mr. Senator, you know 
there are some agricultural groups that support action against Europe 
on the banana issue? Yes, I am sure there are. We have dozens of farm 
organizations in this country who say they speak for farmers, and they 
wouldn't know a pair of coveralls from an oil rag. I mean, they 
wouldn't know a pickup truck from a razorback hog. In fact, they don't 
know much about farming. They are about agribusiness. They lobby under 
the name of farmers, but they really represent the agrifactories of 
this country.
  I say to them: You are off supporting this dispute about bananas, and 
you are probably all upset that I am undercutting you. No, all I am 
interested in doing is getting the limited resources of the U.S. Trade 
Ambassador's office to start fighting for the economic interests of 
what we produce in this country. Things like wheat and steel? Sure, we 
have people concerned about steel. I will join them. How about focusing 
on wheat coming in from Canada at secret prices, sent to us by a state 
trading enterprise that would be illegal in this country? We send 
auditors up to Canada and they say, ``We want information about what 
price you are selling for.'' They say, ``We are sorry, we don't intend 
to give you any information at all.'' That is violative of our trade 
laws, and we ought to have a Trade Ambassador who will do something 
about that and a President who will join her to say it is time to stop 
that kind of unfair trade.
  Well, Mr. President, my time is about over. I know that, as we begin 
the budget process this week and as we complete, hopefully, action on 
the supplemental this week, we will have a discussion about choices. I 
have talked a great deal about agriculture and the farm program.
  Let me conclude by saying that one of the most significant choices we 
will make, in addition to those I have described, will be the issue of 
the broad choices of what we are able to do with the future surplus. 
One of the major choices will be to determine whether there will be 
reserves left from that surplus to invest in Social Security and to 
protect Medicare. I am especially concerned with the issue of Medicare, 
which is the major issue that represents the difference between the two 
budget resolutions that will be brought to the floor of the Senate.
  That, I think, will be an aggressive and healthy debate and an 
appropriate one.
  There are those who stood on this floor some 35 or so years ago and 
said that the Medicare Program would make sense for this country for 
senior citizens who had no health care. They found that insurance 
companies were not lining up to ask if they can insure older folks. 
They didn't run around looking for older folks to insure, because old 
folks aren't the kind of people you make money from. You insure young, 
healthy people, and make money from those folks.
  Sixty percent of the senior citizens of this country had no health 
insurance, and we passed Medicare over the objections of many. Now, 99 
percent of the senior citizens in this country have health care. They 
don't go to bed at night worried about whether their health 
circumstance will change in a way that will cause them very substantial 
trouble because they won't have the money to deal with their health 
care needs. Medicare relieves them of that kind of anxiety.
  We must, it seems to me, commit ourselves, in the context of choices 
that we make in the budget this year and in future years, to the long-
term financial future and solvency of both Social Security and 
Medicare. I think in the next 2 or 3 days we will have a robust, 
healthy, and aggressive debate on this. Perhaps the debate will include 
some who never liked Medicare in the first place, and who wouldn't vote 
for it now, if they had a chance. I have heard a couple of people 
suggest as much in recent years. But, there are those on that side and 
perhaps many of us on the other who believe very strongly that this is 
a program that has been very, very healthy for tens of millions of 
American people and who believe that we ought to continue to provide 
solvency for it in the long term.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________