[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 120 (Monday, July 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7543-H7548]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE IMPORTANCE OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood] is recognized for 60 
minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to the House this evening 
about a subject that does not seem at times to be the sexiest topic 
around here, although I think at times it does draw a great deal of 
emotion from many of the Members as was demonstrated when we began to 
and finished the debate on the ag appropriation bill.
  It is a subject that I know many Members are very interested in and 
that is the subject commonly referred to as agriculture.
  When I was running for election to this House, I told the people in 
my district that I wanted to serve on the Committee on Agriculture 
because of the importance of agriculture to my district, to the 
country, but because my district has had a very rich heritage of 
representation on the ag committee from former Congressman Paul Finley, 
who was the ranking member of the Ag Committee when he left the 
Congress in 1982; Congressman Ed Madigan, the late Ed Madigan, who was 
the ranking member and then went on to serve as the Secretary of 
Agriculture; and then my former boss and mentor, the former Republican 
leader, Bob Michel, who was on the ag appropriations subcommittee for 
25 years.
  We have had a rich heritage in my district of representing 
agriculture, and that is something that I wanted to continue.
  And there are three goals that I want to lay out and say to the 
American people that we need to strive for as we mark up the ag bill: 
No. 1, farm programs should not be singled out for spending cuts. All 
Federal programs should be on the table. Agriculture is willing to take 
its fair share, and I know that.
  From talking to the farmers in my district, I know they are willing 
to take their fair share. They have taken their fair share over the 
last 10 years and when you look at the decreases in agriculture 
programs, while all other programs of Government have increased, 
agriculture has taken its fair share.
  No. 2, spending cuts should go to reduce the deficit, not to spend on 
other programs, as has been the case in the last 10 years.
  And finally, Congress must deliver on promises to roll back the tidal 
wave of burdensome regulation, provide consistency and predictability 
in our export markets and restore fairness and sanity to our Tax Code. 
I think if we could meet those three goals, we would be serving 
agriculture well and serving all Americans.
  I am joined this evening by three distinguished colleagues from the 
House of Representatives, and I would like to provide an opportunity 
for them to sound off for a minute or two about some important issues 
related to agriculture in their districts.
  I think what I would like to do is yield to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], who comes here from an agricultural 
district, and having been appointed by the Speaker of the House to 
chair a task force for those members who do not sit on the Ag Committee 
and are not intimately involved in the everyday workings, as some of us 
are, for whatever comments.
  I yield to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], and 
welcome his comments with respect to what he has been doing with his 
task force and other matters that he would like to address the House 
with.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much not only 
for yielding but for his participation as a Member of the Task Force on 
Agriculture that Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Roberts, the chairman of the Ag 
Committee have approved as something that is vitally important to the 
agriculture industry in this country.
  You have been very involved in this task force, Mr. LaHood, and I 
really appreciate your input and your advice and your good counsel.

[[Page H7544]]

  There is no question but that agriculture is extremely important not 
only to my State and my district, but these United States of America. 
We, I think, are many times in this country too easily swayed to say 
that all farmers are wealthy and that they do not need any assistance 
or participation with the U.S. Government; that is just not the truth.
  Agriculture has gotten a bad rap over the years, and we are here, I 
think, representing our respective districts to try to bring some 
perspective on the issue of what agriculture does for America, and what 
the government can do to assist in a partnership with agriculture to 
make America more successful.
  We do have a wonderful task force, about 33 Members, freshmen and 
others, who are not from the Committee on Agriculture but are from 
agriculture-producing districts that care about agriculture, and that 
care about rural America.
  And that is really what agriculture is about, not only to America as 
a whole and the exports that agriculture brings to this country and the 
benefits of exports, but the benefits to rural America. And that is 
really the middle part of this country and really all parts of the 
Nation, especially the Northwest, which I am happy to represent and 
proud to represent.
  I am from the 5th district of Washington, as you know, and we have a 
tremendous wheat market there. We have oats and barley, we have apples 
and cherries and about every agriculture product we can imagine. We 
export about 90 percent of our agriculture products that are grown in 
my district, so programs that enhance exports and assist in the balance 
of trade in America are very helpful not only in my district but the 
rest of the country.
  There are a couple of programs that I think are worthy of discussion 
tonight for just a few minutes,
 and I am not going to take too long. The Export Enhancement Program is 
a program that was developed in 1985 as part of the farm bill, which 
was a vehicle for enabling American agriculture to compete with foreign 
governments who assist their farm sectors in reaching worldwide 
markets.

  As I said, 90 percent or so of the wheat that goes from Washington 
State is exported, and it results in millions and millions of dollars 
to the balance of trade. It provides 30,000-some-odd jobs in our State 
and it affects exports in virtually every State in the United States of 
America.
  The Export Enhancement Program is a vehicle for America to compete 
with foreign governments where they are unfairly competing in the world 
market for ag sales. In 1980, you may remember President Carter imposed 
the embargo on the Soviet Union. That was devastating to agriculture 
because it took away by unilateral action of our country the ability to 
sell in foreign countries like the Soviet Union.
  As a result, our market share in the Soviet Union, the former Soviet 
Union, and other countries throughout the world has suffered. The 
Export Enhancement Program, which was developed in 1985 tries to remedy 
this imbalance and this inequity.
  This year, as we passed the Agriculture appropriations bill just last 
week, we provided $800 million in assistance for all agricultural 
commodities that are eligible for Export Enhancement protection and 
that is going to help farmers and rural America, and it is going to 
help the American economy.
  Those are the kinds of programs that I think get distorted in the 
media and get distorted in the debate on this House floor, and that is 
unjustified. The Export Enhancement Program is a minimal way that the 
Federal Government can assist agriculture in the United States.
  We have to have our American farmers able to compete in these world 
markets not only by Export Enhancement Assistance by the government, 
but in the area of research. Most small farmers and cooperatives of 
farmers are unable to garner the support and the financial commitment 
to conduct the very extensive research that needs to be done so that we 
can compete in markets like China and Japan and Australia and other 
places.
  The U.S. Government has a role in providing research funds, and we 
are doing that in this agriculture appropriations bill.
  We also want to make sure we promote our markets worldwide. Other 
countries promote their products in America and throughout the rest of 
the world. Our country should do the same. There is a minimal amount of 
money in the agriculture appropriations bill to do that, so I think we 
all have to be aware and take a part of the education requirements that 
we have to make sure America understands the importance of agriculture.
                              {time}  2245

  It is not a sexy subject or an exciting subject, but it is a very 
vital subject that is very, very important to millions of Americans 
around this country.
  I want to thank you for allowing me to have a chance to talk a little 
bit about the export enhancement program. I want all the Members to 
remember that particular program and support it. The Market Promotion 
Program is a good, wise use of American tax dollars, and ag research is 
very, very important to allow our farmers to compete in worldwide 
markets.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I thank the gentleman from Washington for bringing out 
those important points, and I wonder if the gentleman would just spend 
another minute or two talking about your task force and what you see 
your task force doing now that we are finishing with the ag 
appropriations bill, but we still have to mark up the authorization 
bill and authorize a number of programs, how you see your task force 
working, and then ultimately reporting to Speaker Gingrich and the 
House on what you have been doing.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Well, that task force, I think, is a very import one 
because we passed the appropriations bill just last week, but we have 
the so-called farm bill. Every 5 years as the gentleman knows, we 
reauthorize farm programs and farm policy in this country, which 
includes food stamps and Women, Infants, and Children funding as well 
as commodity supports and price supports and other programs within the 
Department of Agriculture.
  Our task force is mobilized to the point where we are bringing a 
diverse range of views to the Committee on Agriculture as it formulates 
a 1995 ag bill, a farm bill for the next 5 or 7 years. So we want to 
have input as nonmembers of the Committee on Agriculture to that 
committee and let you all know and others know that agriculture, 
whatever the particular aspect may be, is very important, and we want 
to have a voice in the formulation and preparation of the ag bill. We 
will be meeting periodically in this House of Representatives. We will 
be holding public meetings throughout our respective districts across 
the country to have input from the farmer and the banker and the local 
community person who depends on agriculture to make sure that the 
Committee on Agriculture is clearly aware of our views and America's 
views on what a farm bill should look like in 1995 and beyond.
  At a time where we are feeling tremendous budget pressure on 
agriculture, I think we need to have that extra input, and I am very 
thankful to all the Members who are part of this ag task force as we 
form these various opinion discussions and have a chance to have input 
into the process. We have not had that before to the extent that we 
will this year, and I thank you and Chairman Roberts and everybody 
else, Speaker Gingrich as well, who cares very deeply about 
agriculture, and so that we have a strong agriculture policy. I think 
that, in a changing world, we want to be sure that we use good judgment 
as we form a new farm bill in 1995 that affects millions of people 
across this country.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I thank the gentleman very much for his contributions.
  Two other gentlemen have joined us, one from North Carolina, Mr. 
Jones, and one from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, and both of you gentlemen 
were involved in the discussions as we were talking about the ag 
appropriations bill, and I know that you will be
 involved as we mark up the 1995 farm bill. Each of you comes to the 
House representing a different part of the country in a sense and also 
a different region of the country and certainly different interests as 
they relate to agriculture, and I think it would be interesting for you 
to sound off for a few 

[[Page H7545]]
minutes about the kind of interest that you have, one involving tobacco 
in North Carolina, one involving peanuts in Georgia, and two areas that 
I am sure are very misunderstood by the American people and by many 
people in this House, by the way, and I think it would be enlightening.

  I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina for whatever comments he 
may have with respect to tobacco, to agriculture as it relates to your 
district or other matters related to this.
  Mr. JONES. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. I am delighted to be 
part of your program tonight.
  I also serve on the Ag task force. I am not on the Committee on 
Agriculture, even though in my third district of North Carolina 
agriculture is extremely important, from tobacco, which we grow more 
tobacco in my district than anywhere in the world, hog farming, turkey 
farming, corn, peanuts, not to the degree of the gentleman from 
Georgia. All of this is very important to my district.
  I appreciate having the opportunity as you know, with the Durbin 
amendment, I guess our colleague from Illinois, that I think took a 
shot, if you will, at tobacco farmers. I just wanted to give you 
tonight some brief information on my district and my State, because, as 
you said, so many people throughout America are just not as informed as 
I think they should be about the tobacco program as it is and also what 
it means to this Nation.
  Most of us from North Carolina feel very strongly that youth, people 
18 years and younger, should not be smoking cigarettes, and there is a 
State law that prevents that from happening. But we do feel adults, 
those 18 years and older, it is their constitutional right to make a 
decision whether they want to smoke or not. I do not smoke cigarettes. 
I do not have any tobacco allotments. But my wife does smoke, and that 
is her privilege.
  But what we feel that this really is coming down to is a 
constitutional right, if you will, for an individual to make that 
decision whether he or she wants to smoke.
  Let me tell you just a few facts about my district and my State, and 
then after the gentleman from Georgia speaks, I will be glad to answer 
any questions from you.
  In my district alone, which are 19 counties, there are 11,500 tobacco 
farms in my district, in 19 counties. The average tobacco farmer in my 
district farms less than 4 acres, so hardly can he or she be considered 
a corporate entity, if you will. The small tobacco farmer also 
contributes more than $30 million annually in various assessments. 
Tobacco growing requires about 250 man-hours of labor per acre 
harvested. Let me repeat that real quickly, 250 man-hours of labor per 
acre harvested.
  By comparison, it takes about 3 man-hours to grow and harvest an acre 
of wheat.
  The local and State taxes levied on the tobacco farmer, which 
accounts for $250 million in North Carolina, is used to make 
improvements to infrastructure, schools, community projects, churches, 
that again we are just talking about my district alone. Again, 
remember, this is a freedom-of-choice issue with the individual that 
would like to smoke, the adult male or female.
  In the State of North Carolina, the tobacco industry is one of the 
most significant economic forces in our State. The State leads the 
Nation in growing tobacco, warehousing, manufacturing, wholesale, triad 
of tobacco and tobacco products. The State employs, these are tobacco 
workers now, to the gentleman from Illinois, 154,713 individuals that 
are employed that work in tobacco at an estimate of $1.6 billion. Also, 
in addition to the 154,000 people that work directly with tobacco, we 
have 260,000 people that have tobacco-related employment that earn a 
total of $5.8 billion. More specifically, one in 12 people are employed 
by the tobacco industry in the State of North Carolina.
  So if you look at what the FDA Director, Dr. Kessler, and I say 
loosely, and I will talk about that a little bit later, if you will, 
that wants to classify nicotine as a drug, which we think he is way out 
of bounds on that, in that position, when I share those numbers with 
the people that are employed and what it means in salaries and revenue, 
the tobacco industry in North Carolina alone contributes $2.7 billion 
annually to the Federal Government in tax revenue, an additional $582 
million to the State of
 North Carolina.

  Just a couple of other points, then I will be glad to yield to the 
gentleman from Georgia. Let us talk about the Federal Government and 
what the tobacco industry and growers in my district in the South mean 
to the United States Government. In 1994 the Federal excise on 
cigarettes grossed a total tax of $5.7 billion. Federal, State, and 
local taxes on cigarettes in the year 1994 amounted to nearly $12.5 
billion or $49 per man, woman, and child. That is a great deal of 
money.
  Every year, the Federal Government counts on $25.9 billion in 
tobacco-related revenues, compared to the approximately $16 billion it 
costs the USDA to administer the program.
  The reason I share those figures with you and the gentleman from 
Georgia, which you both know, to begin with is that so many times the 
citizens of this United States do not realize what the tobacco industry 
means to the Federal Government. Quite frankly, in this era of budget 
cutting, as we should be doing, and I am a new freshman Member, as you 
well know, and I support all the budget cuts, how in the world would we 
make up $25.9 billion in revenues that are generated by the tobacco 
industry? Would it go back to the taxpayer? I think the taxpayers would 
not like that at all.
  So, in closing, and I look forward to talking a little bit later 
about the FDA and their regulations and how they, Mr. Kessler and the 
Clinton administration, are turning on nicotine, trying to designate it 
or classify it as a drug, which we think it should not be, and how they 
are dropping the ball, meaning taking 14 years to approve a 
pharmaceutical company that is trying to develop a drug that is trying 
to save someone's life.
  I hope the gentleman from Illinois will pick this up a little bit 
later, but I am delighted to have a few minutes to share some of these 
facts with the individuals that might be watching us tonight to let 
them know that tobacco is a freedom-of-choice issue for the adult that 
would like to smoke, and what it does in generating revenues for the 
Federal Government, State and local governments.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. I want to give 
an opportunity for the gentleman from Georgia to talk about another 
program that we will be working on as a part of the 5-year farm bill 
authorization, and certainly was an issue
 that came up in the ag appropriation bill, maybe not highlighted as 
much as it has been in years past, but it is a program that I know is 
misunderstood by the American people, but it is a very important 
program that has to do with the peanut program, and I know that there 
are other areas that you are interested in.

  But I think it would be enlightening, if you will, for the American 
people to have some sense of some of the issues that revolve around 
that particular program and any other issue that you would like to 
enlighten us about.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding to 
me.
  It has been a real pleasure to serve on the House Committee on 
Agriculture since I have been here from January 4 forward, and probably 
the greatest pleasure that I have in serving on that Committee on 
Agriculture is the fact that I get to sit next to you in our full 
committee hearings, and I so much enjoy the gentleman's comments on the 
side about what is going on in the hearings, and it is thoroughly 
enlightening to hear the gentleman from Illinois make hear the 
gentleman from Illinois make his comments about what the witnesses say 
and particularly what they do not say. It has been a real pleasure.
  You are correct, I do come from a peanut-producing district. My State 
of Georgia produces 42 percent of the peanuts that are grown in the 
United States. The United States is the third largest peanut-producing 
country in the world right now, and my district, the Eighth district of 
Georgia, is the second largest peanut-producing district in the United 
States, the district that adjoins me, the second district, being the 
largest district.
  I come from a very strong agricultural background. I come from 
Colquitt 

[[Page H7546]]
County, Georgia, the most diversified agricultural county east of the 
Mississippi River. We not only grow peanuts, we grow an awful lot of 
cotton, tobacco, corn, livestock, cattle, all sorts of product. In 
fact, my son-in-law is a farmer in Colquitt County. He grows a little 
bit of peanuts, a little bit of tobacco, primarily produce. We grow a 
lot of squash, peppers, cabbage, eggplant, about any kind of produce 
you can imagine. I do come from a very strong agricultural background.
  I talked a lot on the campaign trail last year
   about the fact that the agricultural economy of this country is 
still the backbone of this Nation's economy, and without a good strong 
agricultural economy, this country is in real trouble. You know, what 
makes it so interesting for the four of us to sit here and talk about 
this, I mean we have got somebody from Illinois, we have got somebody 
from Washington, somebody from North Carolina, somebody from Georgia. 
All of us, really, from an agricultural standpoint, we come from varied 
backgrounds, but we all believe in the same thing, and that is a good 
strong agricultural economy, and I believe in the corn program just as 
much as you do, and you have been a strong supporter of the programs in 
my district and Walter and George likewise. I think that is what makes 
this House such a great institution that we can bring those kinds of 
ideas from all over the country together.

  Let me just dwell for just a minute on the peanut program, because as 
you mentioned, it came under fire a little bit last week. It has every 
year in this House of Representatives for the last several years. Some 
people in leadership positions have come out strongly in opposition to 
the peanut program.

                              {time}  2300

  Let me just tell you, those folks really have never been out to south 
Georgia to see peanuts grown in the field or see the farmers that are 
growing those peanuts, or else they would have a much greater 
appreciation for that program than what they have.
  We have an awful lot of folks who sit up here in their ivory towers 
in Washington and New York and other think tanks in this country and 
criticize not only the peanut program, but all other agriculture 
programs as being bad for the economy of this country and something 
that we need to do away with.
  Mr. Speaker, those folks that sit in those ivory towers have never 
gone out and grown a garden, they do not know whether those peanuts 
grow on a tree or underground, much less how a cornfield looks or how a 
cotton field looks. The folks who are out there on a day-to-day basis 
and driving tractors and planters and harvesters, those are the folks 
that make America go, and those are the folks that we in this House 
need to concentrate on, and those are the folks that we are 
concentrating on.
  I got carried away and I apologize. But the peanut program is a very 
complex and complicated
 program. It is concentrated on a small area, from Texas basically, 
although there is a little bit grown in New Mexico. It moves eastward 
all the way to the coast, with the peanuts primarily being concentrated 
in the Georgia and Alabama area, the largest number of them.

  Mr. Speaker, the peanut program that we have in place now is a supply 
side managed system, as are all farm programs. First of all, let me 
dispel one myth; that is, the peanut program is not an expensive 
program. People that are critics of the program talk about how much 
money it costs and if we did away with it, how much money we would 
save. That is a real myth. The peanut program itself has cost the 
American taxpayer an average of $15 million a year over the last 10 
years. That pales in comparison, not only to other farm programs, but 
other programs. That is not a large amount of money.
  The myth that the peanut program costs the consumer money at the 
grocery store is something else that I want to dispel. We have had 
testimony by two people, one who is a manufacturer, and one who is the 
current Secretary of Agriculture, over the last several months who have 
been asked the specific question, if the peanut price were reduced, 
would that decrease the price of peanut products to the housewife at 
the grocery store. Both of them have been directly and emphatically 
said no, it would not.
  We get a lot of criticism about the fact that the peanut program 
costs the taxpayer or the housewife $500 million a year, and that is 
simply wrong. Again, it is those folks that are sitting in those ivory 
towers that are making those off-the-wall statements that have no idea 
about what they are talking about.
  The program is more complex because of the fact that it is a quota-
type system. You will hear people stand on the floor of this House 
during our debate over the peanut program in September and they will 
tell you that the only way that you can grow peanuts and get the 
highest price for them is to have a Federal license. Well, being a 
supply-side program, it is controlled by the Federal Government. The 
Federal Government decides who has quota peanuts and who does not.
  Anybody can grow peanuts. There is simply no restriction on anybody 
from growing peanuts. There is a restriction on those folks who are 
allowed to participate in the program, the same way as there are
 limitations on folks going out and building a radio station and 
operating a radio station, operating a TV station, building a hospital, 
operating anything where you are required to get a license. There are 
controls that come out of the Federal Government.

  So the peanut program is something that has received unfair criticism 
because of the myths that are outstanding out there.
  Be that as it may, the folks who are involved from a grower, 
manufacturing and a sheller standpoint have been working on reforms in 
the peanut program for the last eight or nine months since I have been 
elected to Congress and we have been working very hard on it. We have 
met on a regular basis time and time again to make reforms in the 
peanut program that number one, are going to move it to a no-net cost 
program so that it would no longer cost the American taxpayer one dime.
  Second, we are going to make it more market-oriented. We are going to 
do things such as allow for the sale and the transfer of peanut quota 
across county lines, so that anybody who wants to get involved in the 
peanut growing business with quota peanuts can do so. They simply make 
the same investment that those folks who now own quota have made over 
the years.
  We are also going to move the peanut program into the 21st century 
where we will have to comply with the terms of NAFTA and GATT. We know 
that all farm programs have got to transition to that point, and we are 
going to be able to do that through the implementation of a more 
market-oriented system.
  The third thing we are going to do is we are going to continue to 
provide a safety net to the farmers of this country who grow peanuts to 
ensure that they are able to continue to grow them and to make some 
sort of return on the investment that they have made. Those are the 
types of things that we are doing, and it is a very complicated 
program, as are all farm programs.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a great leader in the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. 
Pat Roberts, who is moving all of us on the Agriculture Committee 
towards designing farm programs all across the agricultural spectrum to 
allow us to move into that 21st century with a good, solid farm bill 
over the next 5 years. I am kind of excited about it. It has given the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood] and myself an opportunity to be a 
part of what I think is
 implementing the most important farm bill that we have ever had to 
deal with in this country, because it is a farm bill that is going to 
dictate how our children and our grandchildren are able to farm for the 
next generation.

  Mr. LaHOOD. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Georgia, 
and your contribution here in trying to enlighten those of us who need 
enlightening about that program and other programs that we will be 
considering as a part of the 1995 farm bill.
  Our time is limited here. Let me throw out one other issue and get a 
response. I think the thing that drives people, particularly those in 
agriculture in my district up the wall, if you will, or drives them a 
little crazy is this idea of overregulation, the idea that some agency 
of the Federal Government can come in and designate, for example, a 
part of their land as a wetland, or they can designate it as an 

[[Page H7547]]
area that cannot be used for growing crops.
  I have heard, like so many of the other people in this House, and Mr. 
Chambliss, I am sure that you hear the complaints about overregulation. 
We passed a good regulatory reform bill. We need to do more. We are 
going to be working on reform of EPA and OSHA and FDA and some other 
agencies that have frankly gone too far, and try and bring the pendulum 
back, bring back some common sense.
  In the Transportation Committee we passed a clean water bill which I 
think brings common sense back to this idea that the Government can 
come in and just dictate to local government or State government or to 
an individual farmer or rancher that they have to do certain things. I 
know that this whole definition of wetland has been a real problem in 
the area that I come from, and I would be curious to know if Mr. Jones 
from North Carolina or Mr. Chambliss from Georgia has encountered that 
from any of your constituents that you could cite for us as an example 
or two of some areas where we have just gone overboard in some of these 
things.
  Mr. JONES. If the gentleman would yield a moment, I will be glad to 
share with you that 60 percent of my district, which again is the third 
district of North Carolina, is considered wetland, 60 percent. We held 
a congressional hearing about 4 months ago down in my district, 
Congressman Pombo from California and the members of the committee, and 
I also serve on that committee. We had a public hearing, and I will 
never
 forget the story of one farmer. There are many stories I would like to 
share with you, but because of time I will share this one with you.

  A young farmer who was probably in his late 30s had inherited 
farmland from his father and grandfather. He had been farming that 
property up until about 6 years ago. Then, all of a sudden, from the 
bureaucracy, they determined that part of that farmland was wetlands. 
So he does not farm any more. He cannot afford to.
  He made a very compelling presentation to the committee. You are 
absolutely right, the Endangered Species Act, the Wetlands Act, all of 
these regulations have gone too far, and all that this new majority is 
trying to do, which I am delighted, as you two gentlemen are, to be 
part of this new majority, is to find some middle ground, some balance.
  I do not know anyone in our party that is not concerned by what is 
truly, I use that word truly, an endangered species or wetland. But we 
have seen the extremists go too far and we are trying to bring it back 
to a balance, and I can assure the gentleman from Illinois and the 
gentleman from Georgia that the farmers in my district are extremely 
pleased to see this new majority deal with these issues and try to find 
some fairness.
  Mr. LaHOOD. The gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, one thing that was somewhat surprising to 
me when I got up here, I thought that by being from Georgia, we are 
pretty close to sea level, we have the Okefinokee Swamp not too far 
from my district. I thought we were the only ones that had wetlands 
problems.
                              {time}  2310

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I come up here and I find out that the 
gentleman from North Carolina says 60 percent of his district is; and 
Illinois has severe wetland problems; Idaho, North Dakota, all over 
this country folks have wetland problems, and it is a very expensive 
issue to deal with. It is one issue that we have got to provide relief 
to the agriculture community. It is one area that we can provide relief 
that will make them more efficient farmers and allow them to produce a 
crop at less cost, because we know that we are going to have less money 
to deal with as far as farm programs are concerned. It is one thing 
that we can do to make the agricultural community a better place to 
make a living.
  We have numerous situations down in my area regarding fields where we 
have center pivot irrigations. When they go to make their complete 
circle, they have one area out here that the folks have come in from 
the Soil Conservation Service or the Corps of Engineers and said this 
is a wetlands and you cannot run your irrigation system over that area. 
What they have to do is to run that system for the 199 acres to this 
point, and bring it back around the other way to that point, and bring 
it back around, instead of going all the way through an area that is 
really just a low spot in a field, but yet it has been designated as 
wetlands.
  It is just as frustrating as it can be to the American farmer to have 
to deal with those types of regulations. That is the type of 
regulations that we dealt with in our Contract With America, and that I 
am hoping will get through the Senate side over there so we will have 
something positive to take back home and say, folks, we know we have to 
change these programs. We know we have less money to deal with, but 
this is what we are doing to offset that and to make you a more 
efficient farmer and allow you to continue to make the same money you 
are making even though you will not have as much money from the Federal 
programs as what you may have had in the past.
  Mr. JONES. Would the gentleman from Georgia yield for a moment?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I would relate to the gentlemen from Georgia 
and Illinois a little story.
  About 2 years ago a good friend of mine, who is
   the President of a community college in North Carolina, had a 
situation develop, because about 6 or 8 years ago the environmentalists 
come down and designated or said that there are cockaded readheaded 
woodpeckers in a group of pie trees on this community college campus. 
In 1992-93, obviously, again, I am going back six years ago when they 
told the President of the college that you have this cockaded 
readheaded woodpecker, and some of us have trouble saying that, in some 
of your trees, well, the college was growing and they had determined 
that they needed to clear some land to put up a new school building on 
campus. They cut down pine trees.

  This gentleman is a farmer by trade. Again, he is president of a 
community college. I do not know of anyone who cares more about family 
and land than this individual. It happened a nest of the cockaded 
readheaded woodpeckers in one tree was cut down, and I would advise the 
gentleman from Georgia and Illinois, that my friend was fined $100,000 
because that one tree went down with that nest in it. Again, that is 
why the people, not only farmers, but the people are looking for some 
fairness and balance in these rules and regulations.
  That is just one example. I am sure you will have many more.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, there are many other examples, I know, and I 
think, as we get into the farm bill, I think what the farmers from your 
part of the country and my part of the country want is fairness.
  Many of the people in agriculture are for a balanced budget. They 
want it. They know that it will help them, and they know it will bring 
down interest rates, improve their ability to borrow the money to put 
their feed and seed into the ground, and so they are committed to that, 
but they want it to be fair and balanced. They want less regulation, 
they want less rules, they want less government intervention, and they 
want an export market.
  If we can deliver on that through our farm bill, I think we will have 
done a great deal as the 104th Congress moves ahead and really tries to 
improve the idea that agriculture is important; that people work hard 
at it. They want to make a fair wage. They don't need a lot of 
government involvement, and that is what I am hearing from the folks in 
my district.
  I am going to wrap up here.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Would the gentleman from Illinois yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, let me just mention one thing we have not 
really touched on, and I know there are a lot of folks out there 
looking tonight that really are like so many Members of Congress, and 
they have no concept of why you need farm programs. All they hear about 
are these farm subsidies. Let me just say that they are not really farm 
subsidies, they are investments in the economy of this country. The 
farm programs are investments in the U.S. agricultural industry.

[[Page H7548]]

  For example, in the peanut industry, we have over 150,000 U.S. jobs 
that are directly related to the peanut industry. It generates over $6 
billion a year in the economy of this country. It generates some $200 
million in exports. That is just one small segment of the agricultural 
community.
  Why we have these programs is that in order for our farmers to be 
able to compete on the world market against countries like France and 
like Spain, who so heavily subsidize their farmers, we have to put our 
farmers on somewhat of a level playing field.
  Even though our programs do not put them there, we are still way 
below the subsidies that are paid in France and in Spain, but we are 
putting our farmers in a position where they can compete in the global 
market.
  As we move into the post NAFTA and post GATT era, we have to do a 
better job of that, and I just wanted to mention that because I know 
there are a lot of people out there that just think that subsidies are 
bad and they ought not be paid to farmers and they do not understand 
why farm programs even exist, and I wanted to mention that.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia's 
contribution, and I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina for any concluding remarks.
  Mr. JONES. -I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, just very quickly, I wanted to repeat one figure I 
shared early on. The USDA spends $16 million to administer and oversee 
the tobacco program, which, again, is a no net cost program. That $16 
million, I would mention to the gentleman from Illinois and Georgia, 
brings back in the way of revenues $25.9 billion. You gentlemen are 
very smart, good businessmen, Do not know anywhere where you can
 invest $16 million and you can bring back $29.9 million? I would buy 
that opportunity every day.

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, that is a significant contribution.
  Let me conclude by saying that we can reform farm programs to make 
them more accountable to taxpayers and program participants, but in 
doing so we must not take for granted the incredible success of 
American agriculture and the role prudent public policy has made to 
foster this success.
  In conclusion, I want to mention that I have developed, like I know 
both of you gentleman have, a new respect for the men and women who 
till the soil, who work hard every day in terms of the crops that they 
grow. Since being elected to Congress, I have had several 
opportunities, as I know you have to meet the men and women who till 
the soil, and I have concluded that they love their way of life, are 
deeply proud of the country and the benefits it has bestowed on each of 
them, and ask for no compliments for feeding the world each and every 
day, but want, for their children, the ability to pass along the 
heritage and the fruits that they have so richly worked for and who 
could ask for more than that.
  I know each of you, as I do, commend those men and women who till the 
soil every day, and work hard every day, and make America the great 
country that it is, and provide the food and fiber for all Americans 
and many, many citizens in this country and around the world.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  

                          ____________________