[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 15656-15657]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        STANDING FOR AGRICULTURE

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague from South Dakota described 
the circumstances on the family farms and ranches in this country and 
why folks who are out there living on the land trying to grow a crop 
and raise some animals wonder whether the Government is on their side, 
wonder what is happening here in Washington, DC, with this 
administration and this Department of Agriculture, and why they won't 
stand up for their interests.
  My colleague described many circumstances. Let me describe at least 
one. I am going to talk later today about the United States-Australia 
Free Trade Agreement, so-called, that I think undermines once again our 
agricultural interests.
  Let me describe one example of this administration again deciding we 
are not going to stand for farmers and ranchers. It deals with China. 
It deals with wheat. An official from the U.S. Trade Ambassador's 
office in the last week in which he served in the Government gave a 
speech. He said the recommendation was that inside the administration 
they take action against China because China has been unfair in its 
decisions on trade with respect to U.S. agriculture.
  If I can interpret that, we have farmers and ranchers who are trying 
to make a living, who are trying to raise some products and move them 
around the world and the Chinese, with whom we have a very large trade 
deficit--the largest in human history--have decided they are not going 
to play fair with us.
  What is the result of a recommendation inside this administration to 
take action against China because China is not playing fair with 
respect to our ability to sell wheat to China? They say we are not 
going to take action against China because that would upset the 
Chinese. What do you think it does to farmers and ranchers out there 
who are trying to make a decent living?
  About a week ago, I was out on a ranch in North Dakota, owned by the 
Ebers. They are out there by themselves. They are not a big 
conglomerate or a big corporation, only themselves. They run some 
cattle. They run a ranch, try to do a good job and try to make an 
income at the end of the year. I asked them, Where do you buy your 
groceries? It is an hour and a half away to go buy groceries. They are 
way out in the country.
  You would expect and they would expect their Government would at 
least stand up for them when it comes to fairness with respect to trade 
agreements, whether it is CAFTA, or U.S.-Australia, or NAFTA, or the 
bilateral with China. Nobody is willing to stand for them.
  This administration says with respect to China that we know the 
Chinese Government made commitments. We know the Chinese Government was 
supposed to do certain things and has not done them with respect to 
agriculture, but we are not going to do anything about it.
  March 17 of last year is when a U.S. Trade Ambassador's official in 
the USTR office told a wheat industry meeting here in Washington, DC, 
that the USTR should file a case against China at the World Trade 
Organization in response to the failure of the Chinese to keep their 
commitments. He was leaving the USTR and going to another agency. 
Finally, somebody was candid about what was happening inside the 
administration.
  This official expressed his frustration with the Chinese Government. 
He noted that Chinese officials have never disagreed with U.S. 
technical criticism of how China has been administering these so-called 
tariff rate quotas. He said the Chinese only make the political 
argument: You have to understand China. China is a special case, they 
say.
  So this fellow said publicly that the trade policy review group in 
this interagency process in the Bush administration has given the U.S. 
Trade Ambassador's office the green light to move forward with a WTO 
case against China. That means in English that China is being unfair to 
our farmers and ranchers. So the technical folks said clearly we ought 
to take action against them. But he noted that many in the 
administration decided we can't do that; that would be an ``in your 
face'' action with respect to the Chinese.
  Right after this official made these candid remarks, the 
administration disavowed those comments saying: No, no, he was not 
speaking for the administration. Of course he was. He made a very big 
mistake. He told the truth. He was candid.
  My colleague from South Dakota asked the question: Why will they not 
stand up for the interests of farmers and ranchers? These are the 
bedrock entrepreneurs of our country who live on the land and try to do 
a good job and make a decent living. They expect their government to 
stand for them, to be on their side, to help them.
  When they are confronted with an unfairness--and the example here is 
with respect to the Chinese who are mistreating our farmers and 
ranchers in international trade--they expect their government to stand 
for them. This administration, this trade ambassador, this trade policy 
from this administration fails to do so. It is a shame.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, in this discussion of farm policy and 
policy toward the rural parts of the country, I looked at the 
President's Web site for his campaign. It says, ``President Bush 
understands that America's

[[Page 15657]]

farmers are the heart and soul of this country. That is why he has 
worked so hard to help protect the rural way of life. He has proven his 
commitment to rural America time and time again. He pushed for and 
signed the 2002 farm bill.''
  I was one of the negotiators of the farm bill representing the Senate 
in the conference committee with the House. We spent well over 100 
hours in negotiation. To say the President's assertion that he ``pushed 
for'' the farm bill is within hailing distance of the truth is to 
totally rewrite history.
  Those who were involved in writing the farm bill have quite a 
different recollection of the history of that period than the President 
now portrays it. Let's go back to the time when we were negotiating the 
farm bill and see what the administration said then and see if it 
stacks up to the claim he is making now that he pushed for the new farm 
bill.
  When the House of Representatives was working on the farm bill, on 
October 3, 2001, the President put out this Statement of Administration 
Policy:

       [T]he Administration does not support H.R. 2646 and urges 
     the House of Representatives to defer action on the bill.

  Does that sound like pushing for the bill? Or is that pushing for 
delay of the bill?
  Then the statement of administration policy said:

       [N]ow is not the appropriate time for consideration of this 
     bill.

  And

       More time is needed for the fiscal picture to clear.

  Then the administration said:

       The Administration believes that acting now on the 
     significant fiscal and policy commitments of H.R. 2646 would 
     be premature.

  Does that sound like they were pushing for the farm bill, or were 
they pushing for delay of the farm bill?
  Then when the Senate turned to the farm bill, the administration put 
out another Statement of Administration Policy. This is what they said:

       The Administration believes it is unwise, in this time of 
     uncertain and changing federal resources and priorities, to 
     enact policies that create unknown and potentially huge 
     future demands on taxpayers.

  Was that pushing for the farm bill? Or was that pushing for delay of 
the farm bill?
  The President now claims he was pushing for the farm bill. The truth 
is, he was pushing for delay. He was pushing for deferment. He was 
pushing to wait.
  What would have happened had we followed that advice? What would have 
happened?
  First, the money that had been set aside in the budget for the farm 
bill would have run out. Then with the deteriorating fiscal condition 
of the Federal Government, resources for a new farm bill would have 
evaporated. In addition, a new estimate was about to come out about the 
cost of a farm bill that would have increased the cost and made it 
impossible to write the farm bill that was written.
  For those who are concerned about taxpayers, they should understand, 
the farm bill that was written has thus far cost significantly less 
than projected. That almost never happens around here. The farm bill 
was projected to cost $18 billion this year alone. Instead, it will 
cost $14 billion, dramatically less than forecast.
  But it is not just that savings. The even larger savings is to 
compare the current policy with the previous policy. If we make that 
comparison, we find the savings under this farm bill are even more 
dramatic, a huge reduction in expenditure, and yet this is a much more 
favorable piece of farm legislation for which the President now says he 
pushed. But at the time what he was pushing, he was pushing for delay. 
The fact is, delay would have killed the farm bill.
  I remember working feverishly to convince my colleagues to move 
ahead, telling them that from my position on the Budget Committee I 
could see where this was all headed. If we had followed the Secretary 
of Agriculture's advice in this administration, we would have waited 
and waited and waited and the opportunity would have been lost.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________