Debate 1988, President, Democrat; Election 88: Prairie Fire Presidential Candidates Agricultural Debate; Gary Hart, Bruce Babbitt, Michael Dukakis, Richard Gephardt, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and Paul Simon participated. ; Part 1

Major funding for this program was provided by friends of Iowa Public Television. The slide of farm land values has halted farm foreclosures have slowed but the problems in farm country still persist. Get a 14 day Democratic presidential candidates confront those problems were better solutions in a candidate debate sponsored by the Iraq farm unity coalition. The rural voters and probably find a role on the debate. I would you know it's Rahm he wanted Steven's auditorium in Ames Iowa. Good afternoon I'm Ann Canton the assistant commissioner of agriculture from the state of Minnesota whose roots are common I will farm on behalf of the I we're from Unity Coalition the liger rural voters and prairie fire rural action. I want to welcome you along with our national television audience to the 1988 presidential forum on agriculture and rural life. Despite the snow we are pleased to have people from throughout the

heartland with us and Ames Iowa this afternoon. We extend special greetings to our friends throughout rural America participating in this war. Him at hundreds of house meetings by way of public television and C-SPAN. The next president of the United States must understand the central importance of agriculture in American and world economy farmers and ranchers are the very basis of the largest economic and industrial complex in our nation. The health and vitality of our entire economy is rooted in our sound and profitable family farm agriculture and widespread distribution of land. The farm prices of the 80s are severely damaged American food producers and eroded our national economy. Thousands of farm families have been driven off their land. Unemployment and farm related industries have soared. Small town businesses have collapsed and rural banks have been closed at record

rates and billions of dollars have been lost in our economy. As we enter the 1988 uner the conventional wisdom of Princeton many politicians is that the farm crisis is over nothing could be further from the truth. The crisis had in fact turned into long term economic stagnation. It has always been difficult to get the plight and concern. The rural people on the national agenda. We still suffer disproportionately high levels of poverty substandard housing poor and declining medical services and unequal access to technical and financial assistance through government programs. But that is beginning to change and our people are organizing all across rural America. We have changed a lot of public policy used and replaced a lot of politicians in recent years. We're getting stronger and we're in this productive heartland are going to help elect the president this November who will bring economic and social

justice to the people of the American countryside to address I to address these agricultural issues today we are pleased to have with us six presidential candidates from the Democratic Party Senator Gary Hart the reverend the Reverend Jesse Jackson Senator Paul Simon Congressman Richard Gephardt. Governor Mike Dukakis and Governor Bruce. Bad character Albert Gore has agreed had agreed to participate but notified us on Monday that he would not be joining us today. Republican candidates were also invited to join us for similar forum today but chose not to do so. We are also very pleased to have a questioning panel today. They are Helen Waller of the national soul of the Family Farm Coalition

Ben Bearcat of the Federation of Southern property lives. Ellen we star of the I will farm unity coalition. Marsha Katie of station KNTV Omaha and society of the Adair County Free Press for the next. Critics two hours the moments I precious. That's why I'm trying to hold your applause and the questions are important. Following two minute opening statements by each candidate. The order which has been determined by a draw. The panel will begin its questions. So all four of the opening statements we will begin with you Senator Hart. Thank you Madam Chairman. It's a great pleasure for me to be back and I will at this forum four years later after participating in a debate that I think helped change the direction of American foreign policy at least begin the debate in that direction than Today America stands at a

crossroads. We can either take a road forward or road backward. And I was farmers will be the first to choose which road we take. Well Fred we're going to have to restore democracy to foreign policy by letting the producers and not the government decide how to reduce excess stocks and increase prices to farmers. We're going to have to insist in instigate targeted systems whereby moderate income family farmers or those who benefit. From those farm programs which we do adopt we're going to have to restructure farm loans and restore fair credit terms to farmers and borrowers. We're going to have to put rural America on a level playing field in terms of education in schools housing and health for our people in transportation systems. We're also going to have to go back to a system of national attention to soil and water conservation. But I think most of all going to have to have big become major agricultural exports and world traders in commerce and in agricultural products. And here's where the road divides. I'm going to lead this country forward. I want to help

restore a a new fair trading system and fully participate in a real backward as well road called protectionism. Whatever you do don't take that road. Resist it. Say no to it. For your sake for your children's sake and for our country's sake there's no hope and no future down that road for you or for anybody in this country because the first casualties in the international trade war are going to be America's farmers. As president I intend to enforce existing trade sanctions under agreements and the law against unfair practices. But we don't need arbitrary unilateral percentage protectionism. I think it's dangerous and it won't solve our problems. Thank you Senator Hart. My Governor Dukakis. When I first came out here while a lot of people said to me that a governor from the east couldn't understand the problems the heartland of the problems of agriculture in the heartland. Thanks to the Iowa caucus process I've listened I've asked a lot of questions. I spent time with farm

families in farm communities I've learned a lot. If there's one thing that I'm convinced of today even more than I was when I came out here it is that we're all in this together north and south east and west urban and rural. We all think we're going together. There's a second thing that I'm convinced of even more than I was when I came out here and that is that the family farm is one of the most important institutions in this country in any agricultural policy by a president to Congress will be designed to strengthen the fam. We farm to swing from farm communities to strengthen the American. And what does this mean. First good solid credit policies. The new Credit Act I think goes a long way toward doing that. Secondly a combination of Supply Management a reasonable price supports to stabilize prices and give our farmers a fair price and it does so without massive government subsidies in the running or in excess of 20 billion dollars a year. So I had a strong focused program overall development something I know a great deal about because in my own state we've gone into rural counties and we've had great success in strengthening the

economic base creating our farm jobs strengthening the agricultural economy and doing so in a very dramatic way. And finally and in some ways one of the most exciting prospects for us and for a new president developing new commercial uses for agricultural products ethanol about degradable plastics Rody ices that can be made from corn or just a few of the things that we can do not only to take advantage of the productivity of our farmers but to clean up very serious environmental problems that we have all over this country what better way to match the productivity of our farmers and I need for improved environmental quality in this country than to use the products of our farmers to create new uses which can expand markets expand opportunities think you're going to get in the future of our farmers you've got it all over the United States senator that my I think you just promoted me from Governor Senator or is it would be motion. I have two friends in Iowa who have helped me understand the depth and complexity of this

crisis. One is a farmer named grandstander Reg he's worked all his life on a farm to keep it in the family and to make an honest living. He now finds that he can only do that by sending his son out three nights a week to drive the mail truck and they have his daughter in law working as a receptionist and I think something terribly wrong when people working on the land families can't make a living. The second person was there Cochran he's really a secretary of agriculture. He's my friend he's endorsed my candidacy. He's told me how it is that Republican Reagan farm policies have contributed to this crisis. He's helped me see that the farm program goes to support the wrong people. But Romney half Can you believe with one half of the well of the subsidies in this country go to the top 10 percent of corporate farmers. It's a policy which sends 10 million dollar support checks to one family some farm some family

and I think it's wrong because I think that family farm policy must begin with targeting the benefits and the supports and the policies to get that. This is I want to say that our obligation miles to that family farm and we can focus Democratic policies which will provide a real losing income for Last Samurai going his family. Now there are six Democrats here and we will share that goal of group prices and solid income for family farmers. Whatever details we may disagree on we agree on that. And that's right a Democrat will be elected president in 1988. Thank you. I thank you Governor. Congressman Gephardt thank you. The farmers that I talk to here in Iowa are skeptical about this election and you know I don't blame them. Candidates come and say the right words and give the right rhetoric about prices and income and then February the

8th comes and everybody leaves and the family farmers left here with the same problems excess commodities low prices and high debt and it's happened time and time again. So the critical test is not what we say. It's where we stand and what we're willing to fight for. That's why Tom Harkin and I wrote they Harkin Gephardt saved the family farm bill and we wrote it after two years of talking to family farmers and farm are going to say sions enough. You can't pass it this year. And I'm president. I'm going to make it a priority and we're going to pass the Harkin Gephardt save the family farm bill. I and those who oppose the bill I ask what is your alternative and how does it work and how much will it cost. Because in reality

it's your livelihoods that are at stake. And in the end it's your decision not the lobbyists not the establishment not the politicians. You can on February the 8th stand up for change to save a way of life to save a culture to save the family farm. Thank you. Congressman Gephardt Senator Simon I a farmer called my Springfield office and said I just had to talk to someone. I just left my neighbor in his driveway they just sold his farm machinery. He's been my neighbor for 29 years. He was crying. I've never seen my neighbor cry before but that's more than a statistic. It is a tragedy and a needless tragedy in this country. We can do much better for farmers in Florida. Real Economy my home is Route 1 like candy Illinois population 400 to my grandparents

were dairy farmers. Many of my relatives were and some still are farmers but we have to have a prices that can give farmers a profit and that's going to take political leadership and tough political leadership. I have great respect for all of my colleagues on this stage but there are some differences among us and I think you're entitled to know that. I voted against the grain embargo of 1980. My friend Dick Gephardt voted for 1085 farm bill. I joined Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley in voting against that bill that lowered farm commodities. Dick voted for that. We're not going to solve the problem of Agriculture by women hating farming farmers we're going to do it by restricting supply and increasing demand. There's going to be no grain embargo in the Simon administration. I've been

there fighting for farmers in the world economy not just election years. I've been there year after year after year and I'll continue to be there. But a president have to do is to fight for the national interest. And part of fighting for the national interests is fighting for family farms and a healthier world economy. Thank you notes the editor Simon Johnson. I thank you very much. And we have a real challenge today a choice between one awful day of farming and a family farming. This box of Wheat is costs about a dollar and 25 cents and a store this morning about farmers get less than five cents. I'm not running for secretary bag of thoughts I'm running for president. I want to talk. About the big picture for a moment the real sense of crisis on are driven down and then to deficiency of pain meds. We subsidize the Conagra and cargo

they buy the grain cheap then take it to the elevator which they controlled the processing plant because they controlled the ships which they controlled. Then the Latin America what they began to dump these grains on to these markets and drive family farmers out of business in America as well as in Latin America and then began that important forward back into this country subsidized by the US government. We must look at the big picture we need to have another national conference on food and agriculture and stabilize prices and then take a hard look at anti-trust legislation on monopoly form and I submit to you it is easy to talk about program a BRC. We don't care. We all want to make a difference and supply and demand. And I submit to you my friends this if you go out tomorrow morning and you will ponder someone that is in this boat out and you know some our fish have been eaten up don't

come to Jackson ministration looking for a grant that asked me Can small for so many of you know a small fish can swim. Let's look at the Barracuda that ate those fish up in the first place I think. Thank you. Thank you Reverend Jackson. Thank you. Candidate Helen Waller from Montana will ask the first question of all candidates. You each have two minutes to respond and Senator Simon we ask you to answer first. Since 1980 market prices of major crops like corn and wheat have fallen by as much as 50 percent while farm program costs have risen from three billion to more than 20 billion dollars last year. American farmers were dependent on the federal treasury for almost half of their income. All of you

have the knowledge the need for long term government participation in the farm economy. Please explain how your program would provide for fairer farm prices while reducing government costs. Into what we eat. And yes what we need are basically two things one is good prices for farmers and number two is the genuine conservation on getting good prices. We're going to have to have two things. Supply Management and we're going to have to increase demand on the supply management side. What we have to do is restrict in a way that respects on the basis of bushels Balzer pounds not acres. What happens when we restrict on the basis of acres is we simply pour all kinds of chemicals onto the acres that we can produce. We then produce more on

those acres and we end up harming the soil and the water. The second side is on demand. And there there are a variety of things that we have to do we ought to be pushing exports more with Ron Reagan is cut back on the people who in the foreign farm service who who sell for us we also for example ought to be passing a. Ethanol bill that I'm the chief sponsor of in the Senate Congress and Dick Durbin is the chief sponsor of the House and Dick Gephardt and I do agree on quite a few thing lighter than that. And that's one we agree on. Seven percent of the gasoline now sold is 10 percent ethanol we can gradually move that up to 50 percent. That would consume the two billion surplus bushels we now have. It would raise prices tremendously. But there are all kinds of things like that that need to be done. We need to push research the right kind of research. And then finally we need to work on the whole soil

conservation side of things genuine conservation. Too many of the things that have gone under the name of conservation have not really been conservation. Thank you very sign Reverend Jackson. Basically I support the proposition of a family of farmers of fan prices. Supply Management and return the land a way to preserve our land is to have supply management style farming not be forced to exhaust the soil and poison the water there must be some sense of balance. We can buy the farm credit system and we are in is the right thing to do. Inform us who lost in land to that systems and likewise have their land returned a long term low interest basis I believe. And Sam the farming as a way of preserving a way of life and the integrity of the agriculture process. Second prong has to do with challenging the monopoly attendances that might be greater

competition among farming and thirdly export markets a few years ago I think years ago a third of our farm all of the out of the Latin American grain market was U.S. grain. Now they cannot buy the grain and we cannot sell it. So they saw while we have a surplus and then we go out of business. The reality is we all believe they are dead. Reduce our deficit and exported them grain and tractors and medicine and the rail road in exchange and drugs on the Contras next door we often want to make and neighbors for that million Latin American neighbors allies and customers that is a market next door for grain. But not the war on President Reagan's ass and these low prices is to export the farmers I say put a focus on saving the famo Supply Management X what President Reagan.

Thank you thank you thank you Reverend Jackson. Governor Governor Bev and I agree with Paul and Jesse. That there really are markets out there. There really are so I have an optimistic view of the future of the family farm because I believe that with aggressive leadership we can develop world markets the way Jesse describes I believe the Senator Simon that we can develop an extraordinary range of new uses in plastics road deicer ethanol. Western cities are choking in smog. The only way to change that is to mandate the use of oxygenated fuels. Colorado has already done that. It's going to be required when I'm president. You know all of the major cities of the United States. So I think there's a market out there for that production. If we're aggressive and imaginative and we recognize the opportunities now how do you cut

costs. Well you cut costs by getting a corporate agribusinesses out of the program. You get an ARM that 10 percent of getting 50 percent of the benefits you know how much benefits they ought to get. Somebody give me an answer. You got it now. That's how I'm going to save money and save so much money that I'll be able to move that loan right not down like the Reagan administration is doing it. But oh but not for the big guys only for the family farmer. So I'm going to cut costs and get that support back up to the point where I'll say to Russ and Reagan we're committed to keeping you in business and providing a fair return. Thank you Governor. That's Senator Dodd. I suspect one way or another most of us here most of us not all of us agree with basically the same outline of policies some of those I mentioned in my opening remarks. We come to the position of believing that producers ought to be able to reduce the surpluses that are choking

prices and incomes to farmers. We certainly many of us argued for long and hard over the past four five years for emergency credit relief. We hope now we we must press for the next year or so that that relief program will be fairly administered and that restructuring of Depp's and fair credit terms can be offered all of us one way or another for raising the standard of living in rural America as I I use the phrase a level playing field education transportation services basically housing and the rest. Soil and water conservation. I think there are several differences however between my approach and my colleagues here. I feel very strongly as I mentioned before about this issue of protectionism. American farmers should not vote for protectionist policies or those who advocate them. It is disastrous it's disastrous not only for the farmers and their children but it's also disastrous for this country we've never been a protectionist nation when we tried it. It's been a disaster for us and everyone we've dealt with that is a major difference in this in this contest on the Democratic side. There's

one other at least where I'm concerned what I've tried to do in formulation of policies is to try to get away from this political notion that there's a box of policies called farms in agriculture another box called national economics in the third box called International Economics or foreign policy. The fact of the matter is everything now relates. There's an interconnectedness between among all these things I believe very strongly that that's the salvation for agriculture in this country is in trade. It is not in locking up our borders. Reverend Jackson mentioned the Latin American debt he's absolutely right. I proposed several years ago in some of my policy statements a way to restructure that that while restructuring farmed out here we're not dumping agricultural products Jessye in Latin America they don't want you. They want our products and we can't afford to buy them. I think that's the difference. Governor. I think this country has got to make a basic and fundamental decision are we going to get our farmers a fair price which in practical terms

means raising that alone right and engaging in a thoughtful and sensible supply management. Or are we going to continue with a massive program of food subsidies both here at home or abroad. I don't know of any other alternative that. Are we going to continue to spend 20 23 26 billion dollars a year subsidizing the price of the cost of food here in the United States and dumping overseas because that's basically what we're doing and those practices of the same practices that we get very argumentative about when other people do them to us. Or are we going to try to achieve kind of balance between supply and demand which can give our farmers a fair price certainly the cost of production and hopefully a modest return on their investment. I'm not sure as a nation we made that decision and I'm sure as a nation we resolved it for me. The notion of spending billions and billions to subsidize the cost of food just doesn't make any sense. Just doesn't make any sense and that's why I think we're all for a combination of Supply Management and

and a reasonable level of price support. I think there are at least two other things that we can do some of which have been mentioned here as well. One is interest cost. I met a young farmer the other day and I was paying 14 percent of his loan 14 percent of his lawns and that's the direct result of failed and irresponsible fiscal policies that we've had for the past seven years beginning back in 1981. If we're going to get interest rates down is we've got to have a president who understands with strong fiscal and economic leadership is all about. That's the way we get those interest costs down and help to relieve our farmers of the interest burdens that they have of the other of course is expanding demand and we've already heard some very creative and imaginative things that can be done we're spending eight hundred million dollars a year in the United States Department of Agriculture I think you know in research three percent of it thank you Revenue commerce uses regular products. Congressman. Well this issue is the real test on foreign policy because the problem farmers have today is that they cannot get a price for their product. It

costs two dollars and eighty cents to make a bushel of corn. But a farmer today in Iowa gets about a dollar and a half for it in a few months ago it was about a dollar. It would be like if you went to the restaurant and had a good mail and they brought you the bill and you said well I enjoyed the meal but I think I'll pay about half the bill that's all I want to pay. That's where farmers are today because they have no help from the government in trying to set a price through the loan right. And they have no supply management to try to back that up so that it can eventually happen. The Harkin Gephardt Bill goes directly to this question. And most importantly it lets farmers decide what the farm policy should be. I'm tired of Cargill and fertilizer companies and ConAgra dictating what the policy should be. Why shouldn't the farmers be able to vote on what the policy should be. Now on the issue of trade obviously in addition to getting a price for

farmers we've got to be able to get more of our product into the world. Senator Hart I think maybe you're talking when you talk about protectionism you may be pointing at me because some of the editorial writers around the country have wanted to use that word with my name lives. Well let me tell you this. I think we've got to get markets open and I think we have to change the policy we have I disagree with you. I don't think the law today is adequate. I think we've got to push markets open and the only way we're going to do it is to engage other countries in an across the board negotiation on all of the products that were excluded that are excluded from their marketplace. So I want change. I want to stop foreign protectionism. And I don't think farmers should be satisfied just to sell grain we should be able to sell processed foods and beef in other markets when August and get right. Mr Bearcat when I asked you candidates the second question

each of you will answer that question in two minutes. Mr Burke at the question first to Governor Babbitt in July of last year the Reagan administration proposed to begin a 10 year plan to create a one world market for you and I go close. All you have rejected his proposals. What will be your approach to world trade taught on a cold. First of all the Reagan proposal amounts to abandon American agriculture. Why keep talking about opening markets up about freeing up the farmer. Their real agenda is to abandon the family of family farmers. What they're really telling you is they're going to walk away. And they understand the day will come when the result will be no family farms and you'll drive across Iowa and you'll see a great big Tenneco saw from wall to wall in which all of the family farmers will be wearing straw hat

as plantation employees. Now that's what we're voting in fighting against. What is my export policy. Forty percent of what's grown in this state is export abroad. And I think our policies have to recognize that that's an important piece of our agriculture. My reservations about Dick Gephardt suggestions. So I haven't heard a good explanation of how it is that keeps us from losing why it is we won't lose those markets. You see if we lose those markets under drastic cutbacks. What will happen to the John Deere plant. Their output will drop 30 percent. What will happen to all of the merchants and suppliers in the small towns while their sales will drop 30 or 40 percent. It will contract our agriculture. We can't do that because I believe agriculture has got a better future than drawing it down and losing all those markets and all those sales. I think the better approach is

the structure alone right program focused on family farms and then grad aggressive about hanging on to that market promoting promoting third world development in a way that will create markets because you see when world countries begin to develop the food scale begins to go up and as more and more meat consumed more and more demand. I think our kids have a tremendous shot at that market. Thankfully those mountains of corn can be turned into ethanol. Thank you we can Governor Babbit foreign markets. Governor Dukakis. While I oppose the Reagan policy because I think it's totally unrealistic I don't know of a nation in this world that produces food and most of them do. That isn't going to try to develop or maintain a policy which preserves and strengthens their farms and food production. We all want that security we all think it's important. You know the notion that over the next 10 years somehow agriculture is going to be deregulated all over the world. Seems to me to be ludicrous and ought to be rejected out of hand. But there is a basic contradiction here which I'm not sure anybody at

this point has really dealt with. If we're going to get our farmers a fair price in this country if prices in this country are at least going to cover the cost of production and hopefully provide some reasonable rate of return on a firm's investment and that means that our prices are going to go up. Now if I understand correctly here people are suggesting that the way to promote exports is essentially to subsidize your exports and dump them on the international market and that's what we've been doing out of this administration. We're in the middle of a fierce price war all over the world in which we keep driving down the price. Others try to undercut ours. Governments all over the world are subsidizing exports to the tune of billions and billions of dollars and I don't see that anybody's gain. And that's precisely the kind of practice that we argue other nations are imposing or trying out on us and we call it unfair trade practices. And it is. So we're going to have to engage in some serious discussions with our trading partners and with the major food producing

nations on how we're going to make sure that prices all over the world if they are that we do not any longer engage in what really has been a vicious price war and by the way a price war which is isn't benefiting the United States. We're spending about 10 billion dollars on farm subsidies in order export about three billion dollars worth of product in case of corn. Now that's terrific isn't it. We're increasing the federal budget deficit. Our great deficit is going up and that is a result of this policy. Thank you Governor Dukakis. Senator Simon. Iowa farmers gave President Reagan a huge vote a bonanza of votes and this administration in return has offered bankruptcy to too many farmers. That's the reality that was done in a variety of ways. Part of it was the 1901 Reagan tax bill that has caused much of the trade deficit. We have to

move away from some policies of this administration. One of the things that I mentioned this earlier today President Reagan has cut the funding of the foreign agricultural service that sells our products of our broad that doesn't make much sense. But the most important thing I think we can do is to enter into bilateral negotiations with other countries. I am all for the international agreements where we can work sensible agreements out. But the reality is what we were just work out with Canada and I haven't seen the details yet. I don't know whether I'm for it or against it but it is a quick way to get of getting something done. We're going to have to do the same thing with Japan for example. You buy beef in Japan will cost about 40 dollars a pound. The thing that is sold more at the Los Angeles Airport but for Japanese tourists and anything else are 10 pound boxes or bags of rice. We simply have to say to Japan

you're going to send as your cars you're going to send us other things. There has to be some reciprocity. We're going have to send you beef and pork and agricultural products from this nation. Trade has to be a two way thing. And one of the things we can produce and produce in abundance in this country is agricultural production and we ought to be selling it. We have to be making sure we not only have value but we sat down with Senator Simon Senator Hart. Mr Burke at this Reagan's utopian trade policy doesn't make any more sense than is the Star Wars policy. We need international agreements and that's why we establish help establish the General Agreement on Trade and tariffs in order to regularize trade and set the terms and conditions by which nations would trade with each other. I don't think anybody believes given national policies for self-survival in times of war that we're ever going to eliminate government involvement in stabilizing

establishment and establishing agricultural production. I think that gap has to include agriculture. And as president I would insist that it did. We're now negotiating a new round of trade agreements and I think that round must include agriculture and our leadership must insist on it. But we can have bilateral trade agreements nation by nation outside of GATT we do that. And contrary to what Congressman Gephardt says those those agreements and the laws that we have do include sanctions provisions. What's missing. Isn't the absence of sanctions What's missing is strong leadership to enforce those sanctions my trade policy and my trade bill which predates Congressman Gephardt takes away presidential discretion and requires the president absent national security considerations to impose trade sanctions against those who deal with us unfairly that would alleviate the necessity or the temptation of the kind of unilateral protectionism that Congressman Gephardt is proposing. And it would give the American

farmers and producers a chance to compete. It is in that arena that the future of this nation rests. We're not going to be able to isolate American agriculture from the world marketplace. Indeed we have to jump with both feet into that world marketplace instead of put up trade barriers. Thank you Senator Hon. Congressman Gephardt. I think the first thing we have to look at is what this disastrous foreign policy we have now is caused because we have low prices we are exporting more to other countries yet our farmers are getting less from those exports. Listen to these facts. 1986 we exported seventy three million tons of agricultural products and we got nine point seven billion dollars from those tonnes. In 1987 we exported 90 million tons. But yet we only got nine point five billion dollars in return. And when you put in the two hundred

million dollars of petroleum we imported to put into fertilizer to make those agricultural products we lost 400 million dollars on the deal. So we exported more but we got less. And that's the whole point. Until American farmers get a fair price for their product trade is not going to work to their benefit. So we've got to handle that first. Second on trade. Second on trade we do need a new a new policy and I think my policy is that a new policy get as important as it's been hasn't worked. Last week we had a ruling from gas that said that Japan should let in 10 agricultural commodities that they haven't been willing to let in. When the prime minister came here to talk to our president the farmers in Japan demonstrated against the prime minister complying with that GATT ruling. And when the prime minister came here he didn't agree to comply with that ruling. It's time to stop

talking about one commodity at a time. We have to have bilateral negotiations on a whole range of commodities that once we got to have Mr. Toyoda talking to the farmers in Japan about what the trade policy in Japan changes you. Congressman Gephardt Reverend Jackson. We obviously must have free trade but the heart of free trade is free on trade I want to plant a couple years ago and before going on that was some time the farmers in South Carolina. One was gone out of business standing on the back of the tractor crying and praying and having prayer and reading and seeing in him as he was standing on the back of a Yamaha tractor and I got into the fandom a key agricultural products that they would not allow. Again that's on my own train but then we can negotiate for honest because our ranger relationships are still growing. After all we export more than Japan then we do the Great Britain France and it's a look combines that with nice we should not

be demagogic in this process we need Japan and Japan needs us we're in the position with leadership to negotiate fair on theirs and to make crooked ways straight. We must address is that that is no free market. US sets the price for grain all around the world. And for conglomerates from for old 80 percent of that market. We're really not talking about Japan all Washington we're talking mot cog wheel Conagra and the barracudas. We must address that today. We need to stabilize supply management. That's why I support and that the National Congress. Have done so for five years now. I know them as a Congress on food and I recall just about to stabilize prices and production around the world. OPEC's your sense that the Convener oil produces so as to have a sense of stable prices or produced around the world and

they will but need which no producer will fall. We must have a floor beneath which no farmer in the world will follow the most international aspect of American life is farming. Thank you Reverend Jackson. Excellent candidates thank you all of you. The panelists questions will not be directed to a specific candidate. The first question will be from Mr. Wise Howard to Congressman Gephardt Congressman Gephardt and recent ads. You have been critical of corporate America today Cargill and four other multinational grain companies control world markets and exports and exert tremendous influence over U.S. farm and food policy. Would you support the appointment of a special Justice Department task force to investigate possible antitrust violations by the multinational grain corporations. Well do better than that when I'm president we'll have an attorney general that spends more time in the courtroom as a prosecutor than as a defendant.

I. And the enforcement of the ANA trust laws really starts at the top. It starts with the president and it starts with your attorney general. If they are committed to enforcing the ANA trust laws and this president and this attorney general has not been you wind up with that kind of concentration in the food industry and in other industries that we see today. What's happening. What's happening is that cheap grain prices are really what these giant corporations want because they now have vertical integration they're controlling all parts of the food industry. And so the thing they want most is to keep grain prices that's what they've dictated in the farm policy we have. And then as they grain gain a greater concentration of power in their particular commodity they have the ability to dictate to workers to dictate to consumers both the wages and the

prices that they're going to pay are get. So there has to be not only a commission there has to be an attorney general but there has to be a new value sent from the White House from the Oval Office to this country and that news value is that we're not going to have concentration of power that new values that we're going to treat workers right. We're going to treat them as if they're an asset not a bother. We're going to pay people fair wages. We're not going to try to ride over them and pull their wages down and we're going to worry about the customer and the consumer. In short we're going to make this country great again great because of the good products we make great because we have a team between labor and management to be excellent and great because we have negotiated settlements with our trading partners so that we have access to their markets and they have access to ours. We can do these things if we stand up for change. We can't do them if we let the status quo go on. And the reason I'm running for

president is because I want these policies to change. And I believe if we as Americans ask for it and demand it we can get it done. Congressman Gephardt thank you. This Katie will direct her question to Reverend Jackson Reverend Jackson all the Democratic candidates have talked about expanding the use of products like ethanol to increase markets and broaden agricultural base. How would your administration direct agricultural research to find other new products. Well first of all a key factor and dealing with redirecting the research is to commit ourselves to the verse about slam the farms over these corporate three lumps A-Q the mention of that is that the research I've put forth several weeks ago a five point package which would include crop prices and supply management also found out there were a price and quota system to allocate production to family farms also to shift.

Federalist support research the family farm livestock production owned salmon farms that would bring about the marking of more quality food. It would increase in strength and Land Stewardship have a tremendous impact upon not exhausting our soul as well as stop horsing on the ground water. A key to the progress we seek is to stop the conglomerates of the barracudas up top. On the one hand on the other hand the strip them from the foremost by supply management but also access to the best of resources they can take a marketable product. My friends if we stop subsidizing the conglomerates. And pulverizing the farm the farmers and we began to invest more and they a moratorium on into further foreclosures and give these and the farmer some breathing room and help to bail them out and with good research we can be like a friend with a Nelson says back on the road again.

Thank you thank you Reverend Jackson. Mr Sainty will question Governor Babbit governor Babbit at the recent Des Moines Register debate you rejected production controls saying that production controls would raise farm prices and jeopardize export markets. Yet in your if you brief on foreign policy you call for a fair price to guarantee farmers the cost of production plus a reasonable return and you advocate reduction of supply and increases in demand to eliminate bulging stockpiles. Do you favor higher prices for farm commodities and supply management or not. I favor higher prices for commodities. I think there is a role for Supply Management in the form of the Conservation Reserve a set aside program that's already operating. Let me explain my question and my

reservation about mandatory cuts. I recognize it's an appealing idea. I've already explained why it is I think that it may add could jeopardize our export markets and result in a 30 or 40 percent contraction of agricultural output a reduction in the entire farm economy the loss of a couple of million jobs in the farm supply industry in the farm implement industry. And I think that's an awful risk to take when my approach guarantees prices without those risks. Now the second problem with the mandatory production control approach is this it continues to feed the Barracuda because you'll see the benefits go not only to family farmers. Yeah the barracudas the barracudas get the benefit of all of those price increases as well and

I'm willing to say to the American people sure we should pay a little more for food but I can't ask them to pay a little more for food. In the context of a program that sends their increased prices to benefit corporate agriculture So my question to you is Why not look at my program. I'm saying I'm going to take that loan right program into focus it just on family farmers I'm going to starve the barracudas get back to family agriculture and send alone right not down but up. Now that's my idea of a family farm program. Thank you Governor Abbott. This is Walter's question is directed to Sen. Simon Sen. SIMON You've stated that we need some form of supply management to get farm subsidies or some farm surpluses under control. What

plan would you implement to accomplish affective supply management. As I indicated in an earlier answer I think it has to be on a bushels in the case of grain bales in the case of cotton and pounds in the case of dairy products for example. We simply have to have that control not on the basis of acres. What happens in Iowa and Illinois if a farmer has 100 acres and you have 30 acres set aside you pour all kinds of chemicals and you just increase that production on the land that you can produce on. We aren't going to solve our problem that way. We have to have supply management that says your you can grow so many bushels and we're going to have then you'll get the the price. And as we do that. We're going to have a solid sensible farm program. Let me if I

can refer back to a question asked of Jesse in my remaining time here on this area of research. We're primarily doing agricultural research on producing more from the cop crops already in surplus. Just doesn't make sense. What we ought to be doing research on is on how we can have non petroleum based fertilizers because just as sure as I'm sitting here at some point the price of petroleum is going to go through. You should shoot through the ceiling again. We can do that we can protect our soil better. We can do a variety of things that's the kind of research that we ought to be pushing. I don't suggest that's a substitute for Supply Management. What we need is a good supply management and a case of grains based on bushels. And then we have to increase demand so we get prices up where they ought to be. And when that happens agriculture is going to do better and those rural communities that we haven't even talked about yet here those rural communities are going to do

better and this nation is going to do much better. Thank you Senator Simon. This is the first pet's question Senator Hart said of the haut fell to fund it at a cost research emphasize some production through capital energy and chemical and tested methods give them still Budget them a taste of what research products would you give your secretary of my old post. Well first of all I think with the exception of the governor Babbitt to his credit I'm the only person here indeed in the whole 13 person field who put forward a budget. I've challenged all of our colleagues here to do so and also the Republicans. First thing the president's going to have to do is draft a budget governor Babbitts done it I've done it. My budget shows not only how to get the Reagan deficits down by a whole variety of measures but also how to invest in the projects this country has to invest in creation of the best education system in the world. Job training research and rebuilding the public facilities of this nation the Hart budget

has an increase in agricultural research along with energy environmental research general science and technology and the rest. My agricultural budget research would go into. Finding out how to reduce input costs for farmers and how to use modern technologies to reduce environmental risks. One of the dangers I think we ought to worry about given the regen Reagan legacy environmentally the pollution of our air and our water and toxic waste and nuclear waste is the downside of the dangerous side of new pesticide technologies and the rest what we've got to do is use agricultural research to reduce those dangers not only reduce cost to farmers but reduce environmental dangers to farmers their families and consumers. I don't know how you're going to do that I know my colleagues are for all these great things. I don't know how you're going to do that unless you put a budget forward. Everybody's for education everybody for helping the farmers everybody's for this Everybody's for that. Let's find out where the money's coming from. Let's find out whether we're going to have to raise taxes.

Let's have the courage to deal straight fairly with the people of Iowa in this country and I don't know how else to do that except put forward a budget. That's what I've done so I don't know how I think. Mr. Weiss are you have a question for Governor Dukakis governor to talk of blacks and other minorities in America have lost millions of acres of productive farmland in this century. A recent U.S. Civil Rights Commission report predicted the total elimination of the remaining 37000 black farmers in America by the end of this century. What specific programs will you implement to assure blacks and other minority farmers access to land every tension of their existing land base. And will you support specific legislation such as a minority Farm Act that would provide minority farmers access to land access to one access to land. The same things that we have to do in this country to make farming and agriculture prosperous to provide support for family farms to do the kinds of things that we've been discussing this afternoon

are the things that are going to benefit minority farmers. If we can get prices up if we can provide a strong and sensitive credit policy if we can provide support for small or medium sized family farmers those policies will help all farmers and they certainly will help minority farmers who for the most part are small family bases with small amounts of acreage. There are I think some special things that we can do to help an already farmers I think would be a tragedy in this country if the minority community lost its traditional involvement in some cases leadership in agriculture. And I would want to reach out to minority farmers in minority communities to work with the Month particular projects I had a terrific afternoon with Jim Hightower in Texas a few months ago where I joined him as he was making a small grant to a predominantly black cooperative in Texas that with the help of his department was not only growing products but marketing directly to supermarket chains all over the southwest and doing so very successfully very effectively. And they were making

great progress and becoming direct marketers and putting that co-operative together. One of the other things however that we've got to do is to make sure that other policies do not put burdens on farmers. All of our farmers especially family farmers minority farmers at least three of the candidates have peer support and will import tax I guess is one of the ways of sort of hard things we have to pay for his budget. The oil import tax would not only impose a 50 billion dollar burden on these nations the kind of at a time we don't need it can't afford it. About two thirds of it would go to the oil companies and it would impose almost a billion dollars in additional costs on the farmers of this country. And one of the few breaks the farmers got in this country over the past few years have been Loera energy costs. And here we are suggesting that we're going to impose hundreds of millions of dollars of additional costs on our farmers on a manufacturers on our homeowners on elderly couples trying to heat their homes. There are dozens and dozens of ways to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. And one of

them is an oil import tax that's a bad policy for this country and it will hit small and medium sized farms including minority farmers especially hard. Thank you Governor Pataki. You have been going to be an opportunity right now. You have been Mark most gracious to respond to that ever ticking clock. And I know that it's sometimes frustrating. But now each of you have one minute to respond to any of the issues raised by the piano or to respond to a statement made by any of the candidates. And we will begin with you Congressman Gephardt. Let me pick up on the trade question because I think it's one of critical importance to farmers. I think we've got to change our trade policies so that we can get more of our farm products into other countries. And the problem I have with the present policy is that it's all targeted at complaining about unfairness in one area. The Gephardt trade Amendment expands the discussion with another country to every problem we

have with them. It's not mandatory it doesn't require the president to put tariffs our quotas at all. It simply forces a discussion among all of the unfair practices that they're practicing. And to me it's the only way we're truly going to get more of our products out there why should farmers be satisfied only selling grain to other countries why shouldn't we sell our value added agricultural products like processed foods and beef and other products that we make still well in the United States. So I don't. Reverend Jackson I think the question about black land loss deserves a at least a different answer. Nine hundred twenty six thousand black farmers in 1920 and now about 37000 first these farmers need affirmative action. They have a double burden. And I want a small and family but they're also black

which means Oakland they cannot get loans. Often they cannot get access to the market. They need a strong affirmative action provision. Secondly they need a commitment by the administration to give deference to the particulars of their predicament. Most of that man has not gone to all the white farmers which is the big racial play out it has gone either to the to the current AG was of this world. They have gone into some land bank that's wassup whatever term all of the land to those farmers who lost it when they are black all white I'm a long term low end.