[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20285-20287]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 20286]]

  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 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.

[[Page 20287]]

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 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.

                          ____________________