The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 2344” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Agriculture was published in the Senate section on pages S9417-S9419 on July 30, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 2344
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I indicated to the majority leader, it is my intent to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the bill which provides $500 million in agricultural indemnity payments which was agreed to as an amendment to the agricultural appropriations bill, and the bill be read the third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
Mr. GREGG. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I heard on the other side of the aisle a chorus of ``I object.'' I am not quite sure why.
I was on a show this morning, WCCO Radio, in Minnesota. It is hard to explain to farmers why we can't take the action right now on the indemnity payment, the $500 million. We passed it. The correction would be made later on, but we can get assistance to farmers right now.
Why can't we send this over to the House? I say to my colleagues.
Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. CRAIG. I helped craft that indemnity payment. It is very important we do work with the House. Senator Conrad, I, and others, deserve to go to conference. Senator Dorgan was a part of that.
I can understand a rush to immediacy. That is in the next fiscal cycle. I think it is important we deal with it in a fair and balanced way. As it is written, already the circumstances of agriculture have changed significantly enough. We deserve to look at it in a broader spectrum.
We, the Senate, tonight acted to bring some immediacy to the difficulty you are expressing. There may be more to be done in the coming weeks as this whole difficulty with production agriculture increases across our country.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let the Record show I am speaking for myself, but let the Record show that there was no objection to moving forward on advance payments for this ``freedom to fail'' bill, which is just an admission what an awful piece of legislation it was on our side. In addition, we could have gotten a $500 million indemnity payment out to farmers.
People are asking, when are we going to see this assistance? People are thinking about a lifetime of 2 months or 3 months.
I hear this discussion that we need to take a broader view, it needs to go over to the House, and we need to work it in conference committee, and we haven't had a chance to meet yet in conference committee. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds to the people whom we represent?
Mr. President, I will just say I don't think it is just that simple. Obviously, I am not going to change the course of events tonight.
My colleague from Iowa came out here earlier and spoke about this. First, the minority leader asked whether or not we also could have unanimous consent to get this indemnity payment out to the countryside, out to families in rural America. Then the Senator from Iowa spoke about it. Then the Senator from North Dakota comes to the floor, after we have agreed to go forward--fast forward the advance payments was just fine with this Freedom to Farm bill. And now we come out and the Senator from North Dakota asks unanimous consent that we get the $500 million--when did we pass that? I ask my colleagues.
Mr. DORGAN. Almost a month ago.
Mr. WELLSTONE. A month ago. We get this out now, over to the House of Representatives; they take action this week or next week; and then we get the assistance out to farmers.
And what I hear on this side is this chorus of ``No,'' and then everyone leaves. With all due respect, it is not that simple. I want the farmers in Minnesota and I want the farmers across the country to know that there was an effort made tonight to get some additional help to people above and beyond these advance payments, which will help only a little.
It is a desperate situation. Many people are going to go under over the next several months. There was an effort tonight to get $500 million passed, over to the House, and out to farmers all across the country, especially in those areas that have been hardest hit. And my colleagues on the other side said no. And they are gone.
I will be willing to yield in 1 second. I would like to speak a little bit more about this for another 3 minutes. It is not that simple. I will just say to my colleagues on the other side, I see that it is late at night, but I will just say to them, it is not as simple as saying no. You said no to a proposal, to an effort to get assistance to people now. We could have done it. We have done it.
I think the Record should be very clear. I want every single farm family in northwest Minnesota that is in desperate shape to know that this proposal was turned down by the Republican Party--unwilling to do it. We were more than willing to help out a little bit with moving forward on the advance payments. No reciprocation or cooperation on the other side in getting the $500 million out to people right now.
I don't think it will be very easy to explain to people why we are waiting another month. I don't know whether we should have even left. It is sort of interesting to me, a bitter irony. Now we are gone. We probably shouldn't have gone. We probably shouldn't be going into recess.
How do you say to people, well, it will be in a conference committee and we haven't quite got that together and we just didn't want to do it tonight because there are some things that I am not satisfied with as a Senator and I would like to work on that longer?
The future is now for people. Time is not neutral. We could have passed something which would have provided $500 million to farmer families that are in real trouble, and we didn't do it. I am embarrassed that we are going into recess. I am embarrassed that the U.S. Senate blocked this. I am embarrassed, specifically, that my Republican colleagues blocked it.
I didn't get a chance to talk earlier because the majority leader tried to move things along, said he would recognize two Senators, and the Senator from Georgia was the last Senator. So now I get to speak. I think it is just outrageous.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. I simply wanted to make the point that the reason I asked the unanimous consent request really has nothing to do with the request by others to advance the Agriculture Marketing Assistance Act, or AMTA payments as they are called, under the Freedom to Farm bill. I didn't object to that. If that will help a producer here and there, that is good. Anything that helps gets assistance into the pockets of family farmers, I am for that. So I didn't object to that. I told folks this evening I wouldn't object to that.
But, this is not new money at all. This is just a payment that they are supposed to get later on. Now, they might get this payment earlier or at least they will have the option to get it earlier.
I was thinking about the farmer who testified yesterday at our farm policy hearing. This was young fellow from South Dakota who testified. When he talked about putting the crop in this spring, he could barely continue. His chin was quivering, and he had tears in his eyes. He talked about having to find something on his farm to sell in order to get the money together to put in his crop. Then things went bad for him and he was out of money again. He had to sell some of the feed for his cattle that he put aside for this winter. He didn't have any money. He talks about the need to feed his kids, the need to provide for his family. He could barely continue because he was talking about something that is much more than a business. It is a way of life. This was life, and his dream. I had a call from a guy in Sarles, ND. You could hear the pain in his voice. Everything that he has, everything that he owns, everything that he aspires to, everything that he has fought and worked for in his family is on the line. He said, ``You know, I'm going to harvest my barley and I'm going to have to take it right to the elevator. Prices have crashed, I am not going to get anything for it. I don't have a choice. I have to pay back my lender, and feed my family.'' The pain was so evident in his voice. He was asking, ``What can I do? Is there help someplace?''
The point of both of these producers is that they didn't cause these conditions. They didn't cause the Asian financial crisis that has caused our exports to start to slow down and prices collapse. They didn't cause the crop diseases that have devastated these crops. They didn't cause the price collapse of wheat and barley. It is not their fault. The question for this country is whether we are going to have any family farmers left. And, does anybody care about that?
This Senate did something that I thought was the right thing to do. We passed an indemnity program of $500 million. Frankly, that is going to have to increase substantially. Since that time, in the last several weeks, we have learned that the Texas cotton crop is gone, with over $2 billion in damage. In Louisiana and Oklahoma, the agricultural economies are devastated. So the $500 million is going to have to be increased. The point is, while I think advancing the Freedom to Farm payments is fine, I think we can do more by deciding to take the $500 million we have already agreed upon and advance that and move that out.
The earliest farmers are going to get these indemnity payments would be perhaps November or December. Tonight, we could have taken that $500 million and made it available. We could have sent it to the House, and let them pass it. Next week, or the week after, the Department of Agriculture could have begun to try to deal with this deepening farm crisis. This isn't an ordinary crisis. I have mentioned before that we have so many auction sales of family farms in North Dakota that they were calling auctioneers out of retirement to handle the sales. You can go to those sales and see these little tykes wearing their britches and cowboy hats with hair in their eyes, wondering why mom and dad have to sell the farm, and why their life is going to change. You can see the husband and wife with tears in their eyes, watching people bid on their machinery. Most of the equipment is old because they can't afford the new machinery. You can see the pain being suffered out in the great plains.
I am disappointed tonight. I wish we could have done what we have already decided to do. We should make $500 million available now. We should do it sooner rather than later. We will come back in September and have another significant debate. Advancing the Freedom to Farm payment is fine. It may help some producers. If it does, I am for that. But we must do more. This Congress must decide that family farmers matter. This isn't just about dollars and cents, or about economic theory. With all that is going on in agriculture, including unfair trade, unfair competition, a choked market, monopolies up and down and sideways, and everywhere, we are losing something very important. We are losing family farmers. Then all the yard lights will be turned off on these farms. You will fly from California to Maine and you won't see family farms because agri-factories don't have yard lights. They plow as far as you can plow for 10 hours, and they plow back. There will be nobody living out in the country. That seed bed of family values that existed and that nurtures us from small towns to America's cities, and which has always refreshed this country will be gone. Then somebody will scratch their head and say: What happened to our country? What will have happened is that this Congress didn't understand, as some other countries do, that family farmers make a difference in our national life. It is not just dollars and cents. It is a lot more than some economic calculation made by those who give us a bunch of constipated theories about agriculture. This is everyday living by farm families that just ask for an even chance to make a decent living. Yet they are confronted in every direction by monopolies, price collapse, disease, and then by a Government that says they want to pull the rug out from under them on price supports.
What if the Government tried to do that on the minimum wage? They would say, ``Let's reduce the minimum wage to $1 an hour and call it freedom to work.'' It's the same thing. The fact is, we must come back here in September and have a real debate about real policies that will give family farmers in this country a real opportunity to make a decent living. They are the economic all stars in this country. Make no mistake about it. This country will make a serious mistake if it turns its back to the economic opportunity that ought to be offered to the family farmers in this country.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, perhaps it is healthy that we had a discussion on the farm crisis started again tonight. It is unfortunate the way it came up because, typically, those of us who represent farm country have tried to work together. That did not happen tonight. That is unfortunate. There is no great harm done. In fact, we passed something that will be modestly helpful, although it represents no new money.
Mr. President, the reason there is such a high level of feeling about what is happening in farm country is because we face an unmitigated disaster. In North Dakota, farm income declined 98 percent from 1996 to 1997. The result is a massive number of auction sales, and the result is that the Secretary of Agriculture came to North Dakota and his crisis response team said that we are in danger of losing 30 percent of our farmers in the next 2 years. That is a disaster of staggering proportion.
Of course, it is not limited to North Dakota because we have the lowest prices for wheat and barley in 50 years. Those prices continue to crash. I just received a phone call from a farmer back home in North Dakota, who heard this debate occurring and he said, ``Don't they know down there that just shuffling payments is not going to solve the problem? Don't they know that this kind of shell game is not what is needed? What is needed are additional resources to fight what is an international trade war. Don't they know that Europe spends 10 times more supporting their producers than we do supporting ours? Don't they know Europe is spending 100 times more than we are supporting exports? Don't they understand the result is not only the lowest prices in 50 years, but in addition to that, disasters that are not being addressed?''
The disaster in North Dakota is the outbreak of a disease called scab, a fungus that is loose in the fields, which cost us a third of the crop last year. That combination of the lowest prices in 50 years and losing a third of the crop to this horrible disease, scab, has meant devastation to farm income. As I indicated, there has been a 98 percent reduction in farm income from 1996 to 1997, with literally thousands of farmers being forced off the land this year, and many more coming next year. One of the major agricultural lenders in my State called me and told me, ``Senator, there is something radically wrong with this country's farm policy. If a State like North Dakota, which is one of the breadbasket States of our country, is in a farm depression, then there is something radically wrong with the farm policy.
Mr. President, I just want to conclude by saying that we do face low prices in North Dakota. It is not just in North Dakota because now it is spreading to other States as well. They are being hit by the low prices, but they are also being hit by these disaster conditions. In different parts of the country, it is different kinds of weather disasters. In Oklahoma and Texas, it is overly dry conditions, a drought. It's the same thing in Louisiana. In our part of the country, it is overly wet conditions that led to this outbreak of the fungus called scab. In other parts of the country, it has been hurricanes.
The combined result is a farm crisis worse than anything we have seen since I have been in public life. I have been in public life now for over 20 years.
Mr. President, I hope when we return that we are ready to aggressively address this problem. What we did tonight will help. It is not new money. It just moves money forward. That will be of some assistance. But it in no way solves the problem. We have a crisis of staggering dimensions, and it requires our full response.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, we are now in the closing process for the evening, and we have several matters to be considered.
____________________
