(00:00:00) I assume that will talk about the various things that have occurred in the last few years during the course of the debate. So I wouldn't talk about my opponents form program which had absolutely be considered a criminal act against the Forum Community when it's considered. It's worse than an embargo. Maybe it's worse than to embargoes. She wants to impose 80% of parody on crops 80% of parity would drive us out of world markets and two out of five acres that we plant in Minnesota go on to the world markets 80% of parity causes enormous World production. There are a hundred million acres in Brazil and Argentina that would be opened up to have never been plowed and that's an area the size of Minnesota Iowa and the third of Illinois put together 80% of parity would drive Cattlemen pork producers and other people who have animals absolutely to the wall 80% of parity would require mandatory Supply controls allotments. It would be hard to get into forming 80% of parity with drive dairyman to the wall if they are locked and feet were not adequate maybe even to silage 80% of Would cost Thirty billion dollars a year the USDA estimates and yet my opponent wants to cut the cost of Home programmed by 10 billion dollars a year the program this year all together cost 11 billion dollars. So you'd cut out research conservation 4-H FHA loans and targets. The program in short is a cruel hoax forming is a very tough business. It has good years and it has bad years. It's a marvelous way of life. It has to be preserved and I want to preserve it. Thank you senator boschwitz now secretary grow. (00:01:32) Thank you Bob and thanks to Minnesota Public Radio for sponsoring today's debate to ksjn and the College of st. John's for hosting us today. I grew up in rural Minnesota and over the last year. I've been listening to and learning from Farmers throughout the state very few of them find themselves better off today than they were just four years ago the vital signs of Agriculture show a near depression on the farm farm prices are lower and particularly, so For most of the major Commodities farming costs are about 12 percent higher than in 1981 real interest rates are at an all-time high and they were too high to begin with the debt load of United States farmers at 215 Point 1 billion is a heavy burden making it difficult for many farmers to continue Farm interest outlays at twenty one point 1 billion in 1983 far exceeded the 16 point 1 billion and net income which Farmers received bankruptcies foreclosures and liquidations have tripled since early 1981. And since I don't think that farmers were getting a fair Shake in 1981. I think that what we have today is a disaster senator boschwitz may be proud of his service on the agriculture committee good he can defend the disaster that his policies have created. I want to change those policies and I look forward to today's debate. (00:02:59) All right. We'll move on thank you secretary rolled onto the questions by the panelists beginning with League East room. Agriculture and Aroma to the industries haven't enjoyed an economic recovery. Now whether you use parity or any other index or measurement of farm income and purchasing power next year Congress will be writing a new Farm program. I would like to ask both candidates to explain what Provisions that bill should have to support farm income or manage supplies of production. Senator would you like to begin? Sure first of all, I'd like to make Reform Bill little longer more than four years. Perhaps ten years certainly some aspects of it so they can be better planning in Derry. I'd like to extend a diversion and I think there's about 40 out of a hundred chance of doing so I'd like to change Market orders so that we can ship some of our condensed milk into the further away States and provide more stability for middle western performers alone rates. I want think that we should consider loan rates. That would be more cat clearing in effect though. We should retain the more Target price concept to protect the income of farmers. I think we might need to find Lee the forms of that would be applicable to the farm bill. Let's say in a forty thousand to four hundred thousand dollar level and perhaps the $50,000 limit should to be removed in that case. So that more forms could be include included in the form programs would be a more realistic and have a greater chance of succeeding. I think we might not include for Is the South who have more than one crop a year because I don't think poem bills really were meant to include them to crops oftenly often a soybeans and wheat where they can form year-round and indeed that would help certainly or poor the world the pl 480 program. I think has to continue to be expanded the food for peace program that was started by by Senator Humphrey and ball go prevention has to be re-enacted and I think that we've been successful their export credits will have to be expanded my judgment. We're going to have to get a secretary of agriculture more more leverage with respect to subsidies that is in the early 1970s that used to be that there was a market price in this country in a world price. It was a little lower so that the exporter would get that subsidy with change every day and that way it would we would be able to ship more into the World Market cargo preference. We have to continue to fight that I think Soil Conservation will be a larger element in this building. Buster bill has to be passed Soil Conservation also for for animals and birds and things like that ethanol or I'm sorry that expires the amount of time you have in my rebuttal. Alright, and now secretary growth since that question was addressed to both of you. You also have two minutes to respond. (00:05:54) I think that the most important thing that has to be done before the 85 farm bill is drafted is that there has to be a policy established that our family farmers are important. Thank you laid out some of the statistics in your introduction of this forum today, but we have to have policymakers saying that yes family farmers are important. We know they're important in Minnesota. We know they're important to our economy and that policy has to be established. Then when you do that, I think you have to realize that our Farmers don't want handouts. They don't want welfare payments what our Farmers want our fair price. So the first thing you have to do is you have to guarantee them a fair price I'm saying. You can do that through minimum pricing we can do that through the support programs. But a fair price is what Farmers need and I believe that you need to Target the benefits so that the large corporate farmers are not receiving the most benefits to the family Farmers have the ability to compete it certainly think that I would hope that we need to reform the farmers home Administration an agency that is supposed to be serving the farmers turns out they have to fight against their own agency to get any kind of support out of them or any kind of work out of them. We need to have a better solution Andheri a longer-term solution so that we're not losing the Dairy Farmers that we are in Minnesota long-term trade agreements need to be negotiated. What we need is a national food policy. When you think that we have the most productive efficient farmers in the world and yet we have starving people around the world. There's something wrong and we have to establish a food policy to take care of that. Need to tackle the deficit get the interest rates down take care of that overvalue dollar so that we can export abroad. I think we've got to stop that boschwitz embargo suppose because of those High interest rates (00:07:50) Senator Joshua's if you'd like to take a minute Boggle my mind in any case. I hope that my opponent will be more specific. How is that minimum pricing system going to work? I mean geez dealing mostly in generalities. Let me also continue on the phone bill that we have to do something unethical. We have to lower lowering the lead in gasoline will probably be of some help to ethanol production. Hopefully, we'll be able to lower cost of ethanol production because that would be a new use for corn and other products and that indeed would be very helpful. I think we're going to solve the Rea problems. One of the things that have to be done by the farmers themselves when you get to Farmers together, they form three organizations and they have four different platforms and as a Old the farm community is pulling all different directions. The 1985 farm bill is not going to be a success unless the form organizations get together in advance and develop some kind of common cause I understand the NF only nfu of poem is Union are getting together. I compliment that them for it. But that is one of the first things that has to be done. Secretary Grody want to take a minute to respond (00:08:59) Senator. Let me explain minimum pricing minimum pricing is a concept that would give Farmers a minimum price for the crops that they produce it's generally considered that it be set at 80 percent of parity. There would be production controlled in effect at the same time. And this is something that farmers would make a decision on themselves. They would have an opportunity to have referendum of farmers to vote on whether or not they wanted this in effect Congress would give them the opportunity to do that. If for example, we had a minimum pricing at 80% of parity it would return Three additional three billion dollars into into the hands of farmers which would enable them to pay off their loans, which would enable them to continue farming and make some money at doing it would enable our small town businesses to go along. Let me ask you a question. You've been saying that you would support lowering support prices. How is that going to help our farmers? Senator (00:10:00) go ahead and we want another rebuttal. Well, if you want to answer your question, you may you don't have to have I have not said that I want to lower support prices. I would consider in the case of loan rates that they'd be more could clearing loan rate so that we don't develop these large surpluses that hang over the market. We are really going to develop surpluses if we have 80% of parity not only surpluses in this country. We're going to develop them in the entire world. I would like to know how you you know form is have never voted for production controlled the probably not going to do. So again, I don't know where you come with us figure of three billion dollars. It's out of the earth 80% of forming 80% the parity rather would absolutely be as I say be a criminal act that would absolutely destroy the former's of Minnesota and the farmers of this country. It would cause production around the world to be so enormous that we would lose our export markets. It would it would cause a lachlan's to be developed. That in the event like in Canada in the event you want to go into dairy or anything else you have to buy an allotment and that is not the way to go. All right, (00:11:08) if I might write and then when you talk about what the effects would be. What do you think has happened around Minnesota under current agriculture policies. Have you been out there? Have you talked to people do you know that we're going to lose five thousand and dad are Minnesota Dairy Farmers. Do you know that the study that was done by the Department of Agriculture showed that one out of four Minnesota Farmers expects to be out of business that we're going to lose another 15,000 farmers in Minnesota current policies aren't helping our Farmers you go out there and what you see are more bankruptcies. You see more farm foreclosures. You see more stress on the farm farm programs that you have been promoting. Haven't been helping the What I'm talking about is if they haven't been helping the farmers, let's try a new approach. It can't be any worse than what's been going on. Now. Let's try something new. (00:12:09) All right, we'll move on now to our second panelist Tom Rothman with a question Senator boschwitz since you oppose minimum pricing so strongly just exactly what is it going to take before commodity prices move up to a more profitable level. What is it going to take is probably a Worldwide Recovery so that our markets abroad will once again be strong as you know exports went about forty four billion to thirty four and a half billion dollars now have returned in this last year to 38 billion dollars. There is a recovery underway and if that recovery succeeds, there's no question that we will have better prices on the market place if we encourage production through 80% of parity and as a result of raised World Mark that says six dollars and then about 4:30 on corn the man there will be more wheat and corn grown in this world and it would flood the World Market and then we would begin to lose him again this is a competitive business to business of forming we will indeed do better if we perhaps a more aggressive with respect to combating some of the subsidies that are given by the European Community some the give him even by the Canadians Australians no argentines know the argentine's if you were to go to 80% of parity which my opponent the ones to do the origin teens have the Pampers which are an enormous area as you know and not unlike Iowa they use 2% of the inputs that often performers do 2% of the inputs with respect to fertilizer and other things if they really gear up because of a high price that we try to set the World Market on they are going to produce so much that we will have problem It'll it'll wherever it is happened, you know, either the taxpayer as in Europe pays an enormous amount of money or you have competitive forming. I think that we have to continue to get the Forum Community together Point. Number one. Secondly, we have to write a longer term form Bill thirdly. We have to be more aggressive in export markets. Their question was addressed to Senator boschwitz secretary grow a minute to respond. If you (00:14:28) wish Senator if the answer is in exports, that's not happening. Here's what happens with exports if farmers are exporting now at a loss if the export twice as much they're still exporting a loss. It isn't helping the farmers any it isn't helping the farmers get them a decent price and that's I think a point that you don't that you don't understand that you are taking into account if Farmers aren't getting a decent price now if they Twice as much or four times as much at a low price cost of less than production. It isn't helping the farmers. Anyway, let me say that 80% of parity. What is saved us ten billion dollars during the pick years. We wouldn't have needed that huge expensive pick program you talk about the costs that are involved in now what's happening? We've gone through that cycle once were right back where it's going to happen again, unless we change some of those (00:15:26) policies. I remember that. Mr. Ferraro said to George Bush don't be patronizing. Don't say that. I don't understand the marketplace. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the market place and to say and it and to say Joan that in the event we export twice as much we'll just export it a loss man alive if we exported twice as much and if the markets without strong the prices wouldn't be where they are. We simply have to expand our markets. This is a supply and demand Kind of business and then if we expand our Market that's when prices will rise 80% of parody of the USDA as says it's going to cost the federal government 30 billion dollars. I don't know what you expect to put the loan rates at but there's going to be a lot of fun forfeitures on those loans. The government is going to have a lot of corn and beans and other things and that going to hang over the market and we have experience with that when all that product hangs over the market. It drives the world market price down. All right, we'll move on to another question now from Steve Brant the senator you've expressed an interest in in lower loan rates as one way of dealing with the current problems in agriculture. I'd be interested number one in how are you would set that loan rate whose discretion whether it be the secretary of agriculture or Congress or whether you would index it in some way to a rolling average. I'm also interested in the problem that would create is as I see it with the increased expenditures that would be required of the federal Treasury under the Target price program. When you lower the loan rate you have to pay an increased efficiency payment to a farmer to get him up to the Target price. You're trying to get them to get in Marketplace. How would you pay for that? Stevens quite right. I have an interest and I'm not quite sure which way to go about market-clearing loan levels in the event. There are more could clearing loan levels one also has a sense that you will discourage production in the rest of the world. If you have a high higher loan level that probably sets the base of the market that probably sets the market price if you loan level is high enough, you're going to encourage production in the other parts of the world. If not of the similar product of a product that produces protein that in some way can be a substitute for it. Hopefully a not, you know, I expressed an interest as you say it in a lower loan level. Hopefully it would be a market clearing level. And in the event it is a market clearing level. Then the prices should rise in the event that we do not have the so much production worldwide and we have an economic. Cover as we seem to have underway if there is not large worldwide production and if we have market clearing devices here, the prices should rise in the expenditures On Target prices deficiency payments. Hopefully will be kept in mind. It's a gamble, you know, it's like forming in general to Campbell. All right secretary girl, would you care to respond in a minute (00:18:49) Senator? I know that when you had a group of farm leaders together and talk to them and ask for their input for the farm bill and 85 that what I think almost all of them said to you at least what was reporting the papers that are the real problem. And one of the things that has to be done is we've got to take care of the interest rates. The interest rates are hurting us out on the farm interest rates hurt us with the overvalue dollar. You've got a program to talked about the deficit getting interest rates and I think we agree on that that we have to tackle the deficit we have to get the in Straights down you talk about your Fairplay budget, but I think what the real point is Senator that you can't depend totally on an export program to getting the farmers a fair price. That's not going to happen. We've tried that in the past. We tried that all through the 70s where exports went up farm income went down the statistics don't show that to be true exports are not going to do it alone. (00:19:54) Well, let me respond by made to that to seventies were pretty good years and exports indeed did expand. I have gone out and talked to the farmers. I don't understand exactly what all that talk about the deficit had to do with a loan rates, but nevertheless I've had the 200 meetings at 250 meetings with Farmers all over the state more meetings and all the other members of the agriculture committee put together. Let me talk for a moment about five thousand farmers. Reform is going out of business as a result of the diversion plan. I don't know where that figure comes from. But if you go out and talk to the dairyman as I have that diversion plan is working pretty well. And in the month of September the removals by the CCC were down 92% so that the cost of the dairy program to the government is is almost nothing in the month of December September and that's the way we want to go. I'll speak about the agricultural study that you referred to a little later. Secretary, do you want to take a (00:20:59) brought up the dairy program Senator? It's Commissioner of Agriculture. Jim Nichols who has said that the results of that Dairy program are that we're going to lose five thousand in a soda Dairy Farmers when that was passed cash flow needs weren't taken into account 15 months. There was a solution to to get through the election. Certainly not a solution for Dairy Farmers. I sat around the table with some Dairy Farmers up in Paynesville, just last week or week ago talking about it. None of them were satisfied with that program. What's happening is we might be reducing some mail for also reducing the number of Dairy Farmers. That's the reality of that program and what's going to happen when it runs out what's going to happen when they have to take another 50 cents less a hundredweight prove that the secretary of agriculture has the authority to put that into place again. Those Dairy Farmers were not satisfied with that Dairy (00:21:54) program. Apparently you haven't read the You'll see that if you read it that if the removals by the CCC are as low as they are now the price May indeed go up and the price has gone up to Minnesota Dairy Farmers in recent months. And that's the first time there's been a turn around for many moons. And I find that they're satisfied is a program to short. Yes. It's too short. You know why it's too short because all the form organizations couldn't get together on it. I have to fight the Southeastern formers the Western performers the Middle Atlantic form is they all had different ideas on what should be done in that program. Finally. We got them together on the last day before the program was going to be passed one of the major form organizations decided it wasn't against it but for it and under those circumstances we couldn't get along a program. We're going to try to extend it. Not too bad a program. I tell you without it a Dairy Farmers would really be in bad shape. (00:22:50) Well, I think it's a darn good program if you are huge Dairy Farmer down in Drought in California. Come on. There was an (00:22:58) opportunity. No Senator. Yeah. (00:23:01) No, Mommy. I have an opportunity to speak don't you don't have to interoperate there was an opportunity to make that bill a better bill for Minnesota Dairy Farmers. There was that opportunity Congressman Oberstar had some suggestions and some ideas and that bill where there would be targeted reductions at big big operations where there would be some quotas in place that didn't happen Senator. I guess the point I'm making is that sure you have to make compromises in the legislative situation. I know that you know, I've been in that situation, but I think we need is we need someone who's willing to stand up and fight for the rights of our Dairy Farmer someone who's willing to go to the wall for them. Someone who's willing to make sure that those family Farmers aren't hurting Senator. Believe me out in rural Minnesota where I know you travel and I wish you'd come back with me and visit where I have In both Dairy Farmers are hurting they're going under their suffering (00:24:01) the top you want to continue you may man, I sure it. May I continue some of some of Congressman Oberstar is the suggestions were worthy. We simply couldn't get them and indeed I negotiated long and hard and if you read about the the progress of that bill it took a long time to get through. We hope we're able to extend that program. It's a it's a good program. We got $10 a hundredweight in a diversion. In other words. If you don't produce you get $10 a hundredweight somehow the former's in in Florida who might get sixteen dollars a hundred wait for their milk because it all goes into great a somehow. They're supposed to have benefited more than the Minnesota Farmers who are getting about $12 a hundredweight were paying Minnesota poem is $10 to not producing. They would only get $12 if they Deuced we're paying Florida for his $10. If they don't produce they get 16 somehow. We favored them. It's a mystery to me. I'll try to get that program extended. There's about a one and three maybe 40% chance that we can all right, we'll move onto another round of questionings follow-ups tonight. Certainly as long as we're in Stearns County. Let's stay with dairy for a while since secretary grow. I'd like to ask you you've been very critical of the Senators Dairy diversion program yet when you were asked what you might do as an alternative. You said you might agree to its extension when you were interviewed a couple weeks ago and I'm curious what you would Advocate as a better plan better way of dealing with the dairy Surplus (00:25:42) situation. As I said there could have been and I wish there had been improvements in that bill when it was passed and if it's going to be extended then there need to be some changes. We all know that the 15 months really too short a period of time the cash flow needs a farmers were not taken into account. But I think we need to Target it for the size of those Farmers for the size of the number of cows that they have think if you target programs based on the size, that's one way that you can protect the smaller Farmers versus the large corporate Farmers. I think targeted reduction would make a great deal of different certainly to our Dairy Farmers here in Minnesota, (00:26:24) man. If you don't include the largest Dairy Farmers and some of those programs are just going to expand and you're going to defeat the program that that you're trying to enact perhaps a my opponent wants to come 80% a parody that will drive down now milk. Is it about 57 58 percent of parody something like That would really Drive consumption down and create. Do you want to give them 80% of a parody as well that would really drive down consumption to a degree that that we'd have to put a lot maybe the five thousand Farmers that my opponent talks about would then indeed go out of business. (00:27:01) The senator you can have everyone in a program, but Target them differently in the program based upon their size. There's also that option. (00:27:08) Well, if you don't give a an incentive that is similar across the board, you're not going to get people to be included in the program don't think for a moment that a large corporate Dairy Farmer produces more cheaply than a fellow with 40 or 50 cows here in eastern counties. There's no question that this guy who milks his own cows whose wife is involved in the business and perhaps whose children are as well and who gets to know his animals is getting a better production per cow in those large corporate farmers and is probably a more Efficient to do produce it in those large corporate Farmers agriculture has to be looked at as a whole and that's really what I'm trying to do. All right, we'll move onto another round of questioning is let me remind you that from the campus of st. John's University in Collegeville, Minnesota, you're listening to a debate on agricultural policy between the major party candidates for United States Senate dfl our secretary of state John grow and GOP incumbent Senator Rudy boschwitz. They're being questioned by a panel of three agricultural journalists. Tom Rothman from Minnesota news network Steve Brant from the Minneapolis Star Tribune and Lee Eager stream from the st. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press Lisa Anderson a student from the College of Saint Benedict is keeping time this afternoon. All right Lee your turn for a round number two. Well, I want to ask a question, but it doesn't it doesn't really change the direction from where the the last couple of topics of debate to vent. And that is I'm beginning to wonder if you are. Not on two different planes talking about price support mechanisms for the for the 1985 farm bill in when you talking about when secretary grow talks about minimum pricing is that not achievable perhaps with a Target price mechanism that would work independently from the loan rates that sinner boschwitz would like to reduce to a market clearing level. And I address that to both of you and you each have two minutes. Senator would you secretary? You want to begin? Go ahead Joan? (00:29:22) I'm sorry when I talk about minimum pricing talking about a program that will guarantee Farmers a minimum price for what they produce. Of course. You have to have control Senator course, you put production controls into effect when you do that, but what you are doing is you are guaranteeing that the farmer gets a fair price. You can have your set aside. You have your loan program everything can fit together. You're guaranteeing that that farmer gets a fair price. You don't just impose it on the farmers. You have a farmer referendum where they can vote on whether or not that's the program they want but the difference is that if you impose that kind of a program and if the farmers vote to have that kind of a program then everyone is in the program and that's how you manage that Surplus with it. Everyone has to be in that program. But what the farmers have voted to go in the program? (00:30:19) I don't understand her program. Everybody has to be in it. There has to be a vote Farmers have very consistently voted against it Lee. Would you restate your question just a little bit. I didn't quite understand what you were driving at. Well, it seems to me with the concept of the Target price was to provide for deficiency payments to assist Income Maintenance for Farmers. They loan rate started out to be a prop under prices, but it became a tool for managing the Surplus production and so on what I'm kind of wondering is between programs that now exists in what are likely to be written next year that would have some provision for both Target prices and loan rates. Are you not arguing kind of side by side points, but that but that aren't exactly contradicting each other. You could accomplish Farm. Come to Target price and deficiency payments and manage supplies or decide not to many supplies with the loan rates. Well, I think that you're quite right that you guarantee the former's a certain income in the event. They joined the program through the deficiency payment and the Target price method also to some degree through diversions in the event that you not only have set-asides but the versions as well I have to frankly talk with my friends and all of the commodity organizations that Wheat Growers has soy bean people in the Corn Growers and others to see what what we can come up with as a common thread on the loan rates and at what level they should be set. Certainly there is some some argument. Hi loan rates at desirable particularly for people who don't join the program, but there there has to be an effort made so that we don't have those Lord surpluses. And as you say the through the loan rate mechanism you can The operates a market clearing devices perhaps also they can be combined with the subsidy at the dock that I spoke of a little earlier early in the 70s when total exports were about four five six billion dollars and I believe they were six point seven billion dollars in 1972 be quite exact. We were giving a subsidy to the exporters so that in the event that the market price in the United States on wheat, let's say is four dollars and the world market price is 370. Then the exporter who has bought his wheat at four dollars would whether that exporter be call Gil or form Co-op or whoever it happens to be would get the 30 senses subsidy and we gained a large world market share perhaps that to is now in order and in combination with with loan rates and deficiency payments and A market clearing devices we will not have the large surpluses and we will get a larger share of the World Market the secretary girl (00:33:32) Senator is that helping our Farmers you talked about in yes experts were up in the 70s but farm income was down in the exports might have been there but Farmers weren't getting any benefits from it. You've said that the loan rate now on corn is 255 a bushel on we did 330. It seems to be working. How is it working? When we've seen farmers who can't make ends meet who aren't making enough money on their Farm to cover the cost of production. How can you say that that's working when Farmers aren't getting anything for their efforts the deficiency payment. I noticed that you voted for for the advanced deficiency, you know, just before the election was it was it September that the vote was held? Last spring when Farmers really needed that advanced efficiency when there was a proposal in the conference committee. You gave your proxy to Jesse Helms he voted against it explain please to me how you say it's working. How is it helping the farmers? How is that loan rate now helping the farmers how (00:34:42) secretary your time your time has run out if you wish to respond you want you want why didn't I didn't understand her. I really don't understand her comment. The 70s were pretty good years in the farming business and matter of fact that day there were such good years that form has decided to expand in the late 70s particularly as they was an inflation. They went out and borrowed and those who know their bankers and the PCA and land bank and others the FHA even came over and said put on a few more cows and you're born, you know expand by your neighbors quarter section. It may not come up again and so forth and they got them. Help too heavily into debt, you know, I don't know Joan that that we can have a forum program that is not that is going to accommodate absolutely every former. If you try to accommodate absolutely every farmer and keep every farmer in business. You have a phone program that you're simply not going to pass the Congress and you will form program that probably doesn't bear much on realism. (00:35:47) All right, but should our farm program be devised to benefit the family Farmers the ones who are are really the backbone of the economy or should that be devised to benefit the corporate Farmers mean. I think that's a very valid question and I think that's a policy decision that has to be made. (00:36:05) Well, I know you said that we should preserve the Family Forum and answer to what was in the 1985 5 farm bill will put that in the first line the way we should preserve the family form is perhaps to some way Define it and limit the application of the farm bill as I say Two forms that are in a bracket and forty thousand four hundred thousand forms that are under that bracket probably a not full-time farmers and probably have a job in town and therefore shouldn't be under the phone bill the forms that are over $400,000 bracket of gross income and it may be that different types of forms should have different types of numbers perhaps they should not be included you have to approach that whole thing with care. If you have a large portion of your production and in whatever form of commodity it is on large farms and you say they can't be included in the Forum program. The net result is that the only thing they can do is plan fencerow to fencerow and produce as much as they possibly can in order to combat the their form program and they will destroy the form program in the process and that times up senators are not the sensible. All right. Let's move on to another question now from panelists Tom Ross. And I'm sure both candidates are aware of the problems with the farmers home Administration over the past few years. I'd like to ask both of you. Do you think the program's the loan programs of the FHA are perhaps an adequate is the staff spread too thin to help farmers who need government help and if so, how would you change the agency to better help farmers? (00:37:46) Well, I think what we've seen in what we have seen in the past is that the farmers home Administration and agency that is supposed to be serving. Our Farmers hasn't done. So most people will remember what happened up in Thief River Falls where the farmers had to get on their tractors and come down and literally Circle the agency to get any response from it. I've suggested several changes that should be made in the farmers home Administration. I think that the committee ought to be elected. I think that there should be a place for people to go quasi-judicial person or body so that if you're turned down you have some recourse so you have another opportunity like the set-asides with low interest loan should be certainly mandatory and then it should be in place in the rules and the law that they have to expedite or they have to service your loans give you an answer within a certain period of time within 30 days so that you have an answer. So the farmers can make some decisions. I've talked to Farmers who have told me that they Couldn't figure out half of the applications that were coming out. They were so complicated. They took them to their attorneys and their accountants and everything else. They couldn't figure it out. It's an agency that is there that is supposed to be serving. The farmers Farmers shouldn't have to be fighting their very own agency. There has been money available through Farmers home. So the farmers can get their operating loans, but it doesn't do you any good. If you're going after your operating loan, you can't get an answer if you don't know if it's going to be approved or not. If it's 60 80 90 days when we had the crisis in Minnesota when the farmers came down and made that agency react they sent in extra staff to help expedite the loans. I think the real problem lies in Washington Farmers home Administration that didn't want a process didn't want to expedite didn't want that get that money out for the farmers when I talked to the chairman of the subcommittee in the house who oversees the farmers home Administration. Told me he told me there was enough money there. They just weren't getting it out to the farmers who needed it. (00:39:53) Senator your response to that question. You have to I might say that that my opponent. I don't disagree in all aspects of the FHA have to put the FHA into some type of perspective in 1983 the FHA had six point one percent to 6 percent of the real estate loans, Minnesota and about eight and a half percent of the non real estate of the operating loans in Minnesota. So fixing up the FHA is not going to solve the form credit problems. But by any means we were able this year to increase the amount that the mha in the state could borrow rather substantially. We were initially allotted 65 million. We got increases piece by piece and working away at it to a hundred and fourteen million dollars. I quite agree that the former's up in Northwestern part of the state had real problems. Governor purpose came down to Washington. We held a meeting. In my office together together with the head of the mha also together with his assistant undersecretary of State under secretary of agriculture on that. We got things going and I might say that the whole business of Agriculture really should also not only involve the form organizations but should be bipartisan and I've tried to make it that because if we decide to make it a Republican versus Democrat, we're not going to go very far in the whole business of helping the farmers. So I think that that was an instance when we perpetuate I were able to do something that was very useful. The FHA does need to be changed in this County boards need to be changed. You have to get more professional people on the county boards people who are familiar with lending people who are experts and form operation. And also one of the changes that has been suggested which I agree with is that other lenders Banks pcas and others Should be allowed to process FHA Loans be done faster them. Alright, we are is rapidly slipping away. Let's move on to the question from Steve Brant. I'd like you to tell us why you think in any rural community of farmer is any more deserving of federal subsidy than say a hardware store owner or a Lumberyard owner or any other small? Businessman? Why aren't Farmers continue to be subsidized in the way we have in the past you intend that for both both can right. (00:42:27) I'm sorry. I did not hear the last part of your question. I went like (00:42:30) I was asking why a candidate a farmer ought to be subsidized in any rural community by the federal government in contrast to some of the other small businesses in that Community. (00:42:43) Well Steve under the program I'm suggesting which is minimum pricing which which is think of it in the concept and perhaps our friends in the city will understand it if you think about the minimum wage government is in subsidizing that program the marketplace pays that price that minimum price. It's like the minimum wage. So I think our friends in the city understand that but we know how important is I said agriculture is to our entire economy. We know and small town businesses know how important it is to them. You know, I grew up in a rural community. We only did as well in town is our Farmers did and that's not talking about subsidizing farmers. Don't want subsidies. So I said I think in the very beginning of this our Farmers don't want subsidies. They don't want handouts. What they want is a decent price for what it is. They produce one of the ways you get there is through minimum pricing and if you end up that's hard for people to understand you and compare it to the minimum wage. The other way you can get there is through support programs, but you've got to get Farmers that basic minimum price and if you ask farmers if they want that basic minimum price and in exchange for that will they accept some controls on the amount that they can produce most farmers will agree with that but in the program that I'm suggesting they would have an opportunity to decide that for themselves. Excuse (00:44:09) me. (00:44:11) We just had one thing that I think everyone understands now, we've got hunger in the world. We've got hunger in the state. We've got hunger in the cities and people in the city see everybody lined up all the time trying to get free cheese or whatever. They're giving out see what people understand is that we do have food. We've got productive Farmers somehow in this country with all the technology all the knowledge that we have. There's something wrong when we've got people who are producing food. We don't give them a decent price for it and we can't get that food to the people who need it. Maybe what we need to do is we need to start putting back into place that free milk program for the Dairy Farmers would sure like that if everybody got that free milk program at school again increase that school lunch (00:44:58) program secretary. I'm sorry time (00:44:59) is running at the food whatever (00:45:01) Senator your response to so Steve. I have no apology whatsoever for the farm program. The amount of money that we as a government pay in those foam programs. Let me just say for a moment to my opponent talks about our friends in the city. They're going to rise up against this 80% of parity. They're going to man alive. They're going to love it when food prices go up due to the the higher prices and they're going to consume less of they're going to make changes or they're going to do something. They're going to upset the form economy. But I have no apology getting back to that for the amounts of money that are allotted to the form programs furthermore back in my lumber yard days that you referred to I had a lot of benefits from government programs by George, you know people who build houses who use my products could go out and get loans from the government GI loans guaranteed loans all kinds of things then they could deduct the interest from their income taxes the result that they would pay less taxes and we encouraged him. Ownership and that was the right thing to do but men that's your help my business. I want to tell you Steve and then we gave him all kinds of Grants and loans that they would repair or if they would insulate or if they would do this net form is as a as a group probably receive less than most other groups in our society yet. They are at the very base of our economy. And when the former's prosper in our economy because demand goes up on a worldwide basis when the form is Prosper not only do they prosper and Jones hometown of Buffalo, but they prosper in all of rural Minnesota all of Rural America and they are the very basis of our economy there the producers and their buyers to they get a few dollars in their pocket bang up they go in they make them really turn seven eight times. As a matter of fact, I have no apologies and I think that or form programs are cheap All right, Secretary of a minimum (00:47:03) pricing average price to Consumers would go up a one-time increase of about 6% Senator. What we've got in this country is a cheap food policy. Our farmers are hurting. I totally agree with your comments that when farmers are successful. Everyone else is successful. But Farmers aren't successful under current programs. You cannot deny the statistics. You cannot deny that we're going to lose more and more Farmers. We've lost two hundred thousand Farmers. Since Reagan came into office the estimates and Minnesota are we're going to lose fifteen thousand farmers in the next two years. Those are the statistics you go out in the countryside. You see what's happening. How can you say that farmers are surviving that the small communities are surviving under current policies when that's literally what's (00:47:57) happening. I don't think fifteen thousand farmers are going to go. The tubes in the next couple of years that Ag Department Of Agricultural study, that's not worth bearing on here to talk about moratoriums on death to if we have time we are running very close to the end of the hour here. So what I'm going to have to do is change the rules on you slightly and ask that you limit your responses to this next question to one minute each so that we are able to end on time. All right, and that question goes to lead. All right real quick. We've been talking here about what the farm program can do next year, but that farm programs can only manipulate suicide at the supplies to an extent and to assist Farmers with income. The demands of the market comes from World Trade monetary policies and fiscal policies, how can you bring interest rates down and weaken the dollar so we can trade One minute each secretary girl. You want to start (00:48:58) you bring interest rates down by tackling the deficit I've suggested we do that through Cuts in spending through greater efficiency. And if necessary, we increase taxes on those people who benefited the most from the Reagan tax bill those with incomes of over a hundred thousand opponent. Would Bosh with his said that he would delay indexing which taxes middle-income people. I've said that I would not cut Social Security to balance that budget centered boschwitz is voted against minimum benefits for Social Security four times. He has not joined me in a pledge to protect Social Security. We have to tackle the deficit we have to get the interest rates down. We have to do it in a fair and Equitable way (00:49:42) Senator boschwitz one night new Social Security, but get back in here. We do have to balance the budget and we I voted for Social Security 61 times. Apparently in Jones eyes against it for time but we won't get into that. We do have to reduce the deficit. As long as there is this real rate of interest of eight and a half percent lie, we're going to have a an expensive dollar and expensive dollar makes our exports expensive as well and precludes us from going into Lloyd segments of the World Market my approach to the budget and the budget deficit is that all parts of the budget should grow at a slow rate the income of the federal government during recovery periods has normally grown at 12% as it did this year the spending of the federal government this year only Rose at 6% We cut the deficit by 24 billion dollars. If next year we can slow the growth of government to 4% and keep 12% coming in will cut it again. We have to cut the deficit through a formula approach to the budget my judgment and in that way we will cut interest rates as well. That is really the principal form problem. I'm sorry. We've run out of time Jones. Going to have to move on to the closing statements. We just will run past. If we don't we can't do that in radio. Each of you gets 90 seconds for a closing statement will take them in the reverse order of the opening statements. So Joan grow you go first. (00:51:07) Again. Thank you for hosting this debate. The election on November 6th is a choice between two Futures between because Senator boschwitz and I hold very different priorities as you've heard today. My priority is Family Farm agriculture. I will fight for the future of family Farmers Senator boschwitz his not a fair farm price lower interest rates expanded markets a moratorium now on farm foreclosures and bankruptcies. That's what's needed for the future of family farming Senator boschwitz has failed on all counts. Net farm income is at its lowest since the Great Depression Farm debt is higher than the national deficit payments on the farm debt exceed annual net farm income. They've declined foreclosures are at their highest family Farmers simply cannot afford six more years of boschwitz six more years of failed policies and six more years of farm disasters. I would protect Social Security Senator under your Fairplay budget. Seeing us Social Security recipients would be cut one thousand dollars over the next five years. I would protect the legal rights of consumers Senator boschwitz would not the plain fact is that on item after item Senator boschwitz looks out not for us but for himself and it's your United States Senator, I would fight for new priorities I would fight for your family and I would fight for your future. I'd ask you to join with me in this campaign I want and I need your help. Thank you very much (00:52:46) Rudy who final words in 97 process of looking out for myself. I've enjoyed very much my service on the agriculture committee. And I think we've made some progress. We've changed the government's attitudes towards embargo. We have gotten the contract sanctity bill which Dave durenberger and I worked on and Senator Moynihan of New York who wanted to impose an embargo again at the time of the Korean Airline has tested that and and we indeed stood up. We got a dairy built through That was my principal responsibility. We got a two-year program on wheat and corn and that was pretty good that we finally got onto a two year cycle and I was also had a law degree of responsibility their cargo preference. I'm going to keep fighting that the FHA Northwestern Minnesota. We talked a good deal about that and I think that Governor perfect and I did some good work up there sugar and principally responsible. I'm Clara proud to say for the sugar program and that's been working estate taxes. One of the first things I did when I got to the US Senate PL 480 program. I'm the head of that subcommittee and I'm going to continue to expand that all I can for him credit big problem. We have to keep working on it right along its Urban oriented Congress and the form organizations have to get together. We're going to have a good 1985 farm bill. We have to strengthen the form economy. The only three four percent of the whole population and unless we do so and unless we remove forming and partisan politics. We're not going to be able to preserve the family form, which is so important to our heritage. And is it the very Bedrock of our whole economy?