MAWG: U.S. Senate Candidates From Minnesota

U.S. Senate candidates from Minnesota Grams, Wynia on Rural Issues

Following are responses to questions put forth by the MAWG to U.S. Senate candidates Rod Grams and Ann Wynia:

1. What's your position on GATT?

   GRAMS:

   By dismantling unfair trade barriers on an international level, GATT will increase incomes of Minnesota's agribusinessess and grain producers. Although I support the intent of GATT, I have serious concerns about how it will affect spending levels on the U.S. ag budget. Rural lawmakers in Congress, like myself, need more definitive answers on this matter from the Clinton Administration before committing fully to GATT.

   While GATT is important, Congress must also be concerned about the unfair influx of Canadian wheat into our border. While the tentative one-year agreement between the countries is a step in the right direction, Congress needs to ensure a more extensive and long-term review of Canada's wheat promotion practice.

   WYNIA:

   I have indicated that I would support the GATT. I believe this agreement will open foreign markets for Minnesota goods and services, including our crops such as wheat, corn and soybeans. Fundamental to my support for the GATT is the agreement that was reached between farm-state Senators and the Administration to minimize the impact of reduced U.S. spending on agriculture imposed by the GATT.

   I want to ensure that the benefits from expanded trade are widely distributed, and that protections for the rights of workers are made an integral part of future trade agreements. Additionally, I want to ensure greater accountability in the negotiating process and strengthen the U.S.'s resolve to build environmental provisions into trade agreements.

2. What do you think are priorities for the 1995 Farm Bill? If elected, how would you become involved in its drafting?

   GRAMS:

   Generally, the 1995 Farm Bill should continue the trend towards more market-oriented policies enacted under previous farm bills. Congress must recognize the potential for long-term growth based on free and fair trade under international trade agreements. Also, the 1995 Farm Bill should provide more farmer-friendly environmental regulations. And we must allow farmers more flexibility to adapt to the market.

   The 1995 Farm Bill should promote the use of value-added products, like ethanol, continue CRP, provide meaningful crop insurance reform and fund effective overseas marketing programs.

   If elected, I plan to seek a seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee and other ag-related committees to achieve these goals.

   WYNIA:

   If elected, I plan to seek a seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee because I believe Minnesota's farmers need to be represented as the 1995 Farm Bill is written. I have secured the support of several key Senators in that effort.

   Minnesota lost 2,000 farms last year in part because budget constraints have limited farm price support programs to the point that commodity prices are below the cost of production. We need to do a better job of coordinating supply management with a loan rate that reflects the cost of farm production. Measures which I support to accomplish that goal include:

   • Wider use of ethanol and the continued research and development of new alternative uses for farm products to increase demand, as well as the promotion of farmer-owned co-ops to process and market value-added products to strengthen rural economies.
   • Continuation of conservation programs such as the Wetlands Reserve and CRP to keep highly erodible lands out of production, protect wildlife habitat and water quality. Further, the promotion of sustainable ag practices which ultimately lower production costs for farmers and reduce the use of inputs.
   • A fairer and more economical system of price supports that target family farms with certain gross income levels, and careful monitoring of loan programs to focus resources on smaller, family-run businesses.
   • Evaluation of overseas marketing programs to ensure that they are productive and cost effective for both farmers and taxpayers.
   • Revising the crop insurance and farm disaster programs to encourage greater ongoing participation and the use of sound actuarial principles.
   • Increasing the fees charged for grazing livestock on public land.

3. What is your position on a national health-care plan, particularly on how rural America might be affected?

   GRAMS:

   I believe consumers, not the federal government, should be in control of their health care decisions. With 85% of Americans satisfied with their health care, we need targeted reforms that help those in need, maintain current high quality, ensure affordable access, while encouraging greater consumer control.

   To achieve these reforms, I have cosponsored the "Consumer Choice Health Security Act," a free-market alternative to a government run health-care proposal. This legislation, modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, which has provided flexible low-cost insurance to the President, Members of Congress and federal employees for over 30 years, would achieve real reform without rationing services at rural clinics and increasing taxes.

   WYNIA:

   From the outset of my campaign, I have stressed the need for health care reform. I believe that coverage must be universal. Second, any set of benefits must be comprehensive, including long-term care, prescription medicines, mental health, substance abuse, reproductive services and coordination of care. Third, we must maintain the patient's right to choose their own providers. And finally, states should be permitted to experiment with their own health reform concepts. This must include an option for states to chose a single payer system.

   I would support a proposal authored by Senator Harkin from Iowa. It would allow the self-employed 100 percent deductibility, much like corporations, reduce paperwork by moving to a uniform electronic filing system, eliminate pre-existing condition clauses, guarantee portability and increase in-home care for seniors and the disabled.

4. Explain your views on the U.S. Federal ag budget. Are areas for budget reductions or spending increases needed?

   GRAMS:

   With fewer rural lawmakers, Congress has unfortunately continued the disturbing trend of transferring funds from ag programs to social welfare provisions within the USDA budget.

   Debate on the 1995 Farm Bill and the influence of GATT on the ag budget means spending priorities will once again be subject to intense debate.

   To start, Congress should stop giving away funds authorized for farmers to inefficient social welfare programs that are in urgent need of reform. In addition, with international agreements opening up trade opportunities for ag products, U.S. farmers need the proper tools to market their products worldwide. Converting our funding of current export programs, like EEP, into GATT-legal provisions is one option for increased trade opportunities.

   WYNIA:

   Ag programs represent just over one-fourth of the total USDA budget. The largest agriculture expenditures by far are for commodity price and income support programs. Other portions of the budget include ag research, agriculture statistics, farm credit, extension service, crop insurance, overseas export activities and inspection fees.

   Over the past several years, there have been deep reductions in ag programs. In 1993, federal farm commodity programs made a $3 billion contribution toward deficit reduction. I believe at this time, the U.S. should maintain spending on USDA ag programs at or above the FY 1995 levels.

5. Why should farm voters select you over your opponent?

   GRAMS:

   Having grown up on a farm and serving as a small businessman and a member of Congress, I have the experience necessary to represent Minnesota's rural interests in the U.S. Senate. A broad coalition of Minnesota's ag leaders has endorsed my campaign for those exact reasons.

   I will bring my agricultural experience, fiscal responsibility and my belief in a smaller, but more effective and less obtrusive government to the Senate committees important to Minnesota's ag sectors.

   WYNIA:

   My public service, both as an elected official and as a volunteer, has been devoted to solving problems faced by many Minnesotans. Whichever the issue, the next U.S. Senator must be able to bridge the differences and build coalitions to get a job done.

   I have always felt that one of my greatest accomplishments was being elected by my colleagues as the Majority Leader of the Minnesota House and, perhaps more important, being re-elected to that post. Serving successfully as Majority Leader requires an ability to work with diverse political perspectives -- liberal, conservative, urban, rural. It requires good listening and consensus building skills, a willingness to make tough choices, and an ability to solve problems.

   Now, I want to put my skills to work for Minnesota in the United States Senate. I think it is time for more consensus-building and problem solving, and less partisan bickering and game playing on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

   During my campaign, I have worked with an agriculture advisory committee that includes men and women with farm experience, individuals such as Jim Nichols and Dave Frederickson. If elected, I want to continue this open door policy with Minnesotans.