[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4006-4007]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              FARMERS AND RANCHERS ON NATIONAL AGRICULTURE

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today marks National Agriculture Day. 
Unfortunately, what should be a celebration is instead overshadowed by 
the grim reality that many of the hardworking families producing food 
for this Nation and world are having a difficult time making ends meet.
  I salute our farmers and ranchers for many reasons. First, Americans 
spend less than anyone in the world on their grocery bill. Roughly 11 
percent of our household income is spent on food, and it takes a mere 
38 days to earn enough income to pay a food bill for the entire year. 
We truly enjoy the most nutritious, affordable, and stable food supply 
in the world.
  Furthermore, the American economic engine depends upon a strong 
agricultural sector to run on all cylinders. Indeed the agricultural 
economy is central to my State's prosperity or adversity. According to 
South Dakota State University, the multiplied value of agriculture's 
impact on South Dakota's economy was $16 billion in 1999, one-fourth of 
our total economic output and more than double that of any other 
industry in my State. I believe the public institutions and private 
businesses that lay the foundation for rural communities thrive only 
when we have a strong base of independent family farmers and ranchers 
in South Dakota.
  Finally, agricultural producers are the day-to-day stewards of our 
land. Environmental and conservation benefits like clean water and air, 
rich soil, and diverse wildlife habitat are enjoyed by the public 
largely due to the care and management of family farmers and ranchers.
  So, why aren't we truly celebrating National Agriculture Day?
  Because current economic conditions are poised to squeeze many of 
South Dakota's 32,500 farmers and ranchers right out of business--
conditions set to reverberate across the entire country. Absent farm 
aid and long-term farm policy fixes that provide true economic security 
to family farmers and ranchers, the environmental benefits and food 
security enjoyed by so many in this country may not survive on a 
sustained basis.
  I believe Congress must take two fundamental steps to remedy this 
situation: modify the farm bill now and strengthen our laws so the 
marketplace is truly competitive and fair for all.
  Since 1997, U.S. farmers have experienced a price crisis of enormous 
proportions, exacerbated by a series of weather-related disasters in 
many regions of the Nation. Surplus crop production, both here and 
abroad, weak global demand, marketplace concentration, and an 
inadequate farm income safety net are prime reasons for this price 
crisis.
  Moreover, given the input-intensive nature of production agriculture, 
many farmers and ranchers are paying more each year for critical inputs 
like fuel and fertilizer. Corn and wheat farmers in South Dakota may be 
forced to pay up to twice per acre for fertilizer this year, and still 
not cover enough acres to boost yields to profit-producing levels. This 
situates farmers in a price-cost squeeze making it nearly impossible to 
earn income that covers total expenses.
  As a result of an inadequate farm bill, Congress has enacted multi-
billion dollar disaster programs in the last 3 years--a record $28 
billion in fiscal year 2000. USDA economists predict 2001 may be the 
worst year ever. Without supplemental income or emergency aid, USDA 
estimates that net farm income in 2001 could approach its lowest level 
since 1984. Clearly, the 1996 farm bill fails to provide a meaningful, 
fiscally-responsible, safety-net for farmers when prices are poor on an 
annual and sustained basis.
  I am concerned that the administration's budget blueprint apparently 
does not grasp the economic obstacles facing the Nation's farmers, 
ranchers, and rural communities, as illustrated by the fact that the 
budget includes zero funding for emergency aid or a farm bill rewrite. 
This seems ironic, since every major farm group has sent myself and 
others on the Senate Budget Committee a letter agreeing that roughly 
$10 billion per year will be needed to modify the farm bill for future 
years, and that around $9 billion is needed in fiscal year 2001 to 
offset income losses due to low prices and failed farm safety-net 
policies.
  Already, these farm groups and some Members of Congress are 
suggesting that we will simply assemble a fourth consecutive aid 
package for farmers in 2001. I will support this imperative aid when 
the time comes, but suggest American farmers and taxpayers deserve 
better. These ad hoc emergency bills, totaling billions of dollars each 
year, are a poor excuse for a long term policy fix. I believe Congress 
can and should amend current farm policy immediately to provide a more 
predictable, secure safety-net for farmers now.
  One farm bill alternative I have introduced is S. 130, the Flexible 
Fallow farm bill amendment. Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-NE) has introduced an 
identical bill in the House. Under my Flex Fallow bill--an idea 
developed by two South Dakota agricultural producers--farmers 
voluntarily devoting part of their total cropland acreage to a 
conservation use receive greater price support on their remaining crop 
production. My proposal embodies the planting flexibility so popular 
under ``Freedom to Farm,'' yet strengthens the underlying farm income 
safety net. In fact, my Flex Fallow bill has been endorsed by Iowa 
State agricultural economist Neil Harl, who believes the proposal works 
in a market-oriented fashion and said Flex Fallow ``is the missing link 
to the 1996 Farm Bill.''
  Furthermore, I believe agricultural producers want to derive income 
from the marketplace, and in order to assure that can happen, Congress 
must restore fair competition to crop and livestock markets. The forces 
of marketplace concentration are squeezing independent farmers and 
ranchers out of profit opportunities.
  The livestock market is one case in point. Meatpacker ownership and 
captive supply arrangements tend to transpire outside the cash market. 
As a result, the process of bidding in an open fashion for the purpose 
of buying slaughter livestock--which is central to competition--is 
fading away. As such, livestock producers--who depend upon competitive 
bidding to gain a fair price--are forced to either enter into 
contractual, ownership, or marketing arrangements with a packer or find 
themselves left out of market opportunities.
  I have authored a bipartisan bill, S. 142, with Senators Grassley, 
Thomas,

[[Page 4007]]

and Daschle to forbid meatpackers from engaging in these 
anticompetitive buying practices. While my legislation is just one of 
many steps that should be taken to bolster our laws to protect true 
market competition, I believe Congress should move to address this 
issue in earnest.
  Former President Eisenhower once said, ``farming looks mighty easy 
when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles away from a 
farm.'' Because we live in a country where the food is safe and 
affordable, and the environment is not taken for granted, perhaps some 
have forgotten President Eisenhower's simple yet honest-to-goodness 
words.
  So today, let us not overlook the critical role farmers and ranchers 
play in weaving the economic, social, and environmental fabric of this 
country. Instead, I join all Americans to salute farmers and ranchers 
on National Agriculture Day. And I invite all Americans to support 
efforts to ensure a brighter future for the families who put food on 
our tables every day.

                          ____________________