[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 101 (Friday, July 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6422-H6423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EXPORT OF AG PRODUCTS STIFLED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Speaker, you may have seen in the Washington Post, 
the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and other newspapers, 
articles about the current farm crisis. The hard times in farm country 
are real and demand immediate attention.
  The $5.5 billion package introduced by the chairman of the House 
Committee on Agriculture and the half billion dollars approved by the 
Senate are good starters.
  Unfortunately, some folks cannot resist making a political football 
out of the misfortune of others. These folks say that the 1996 farm 
bill, which the President signed, is to blame for all the woes in farm 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to avoid the blame game, but if 
the goal of the Democrats is to place the blame they do not have to 
look very far. How about the congressional Democrats' unwilling less to 
pass fast track trade negotiating authority with their president? At 
least he used to say this was so critical to U.S. farmers and ranchers. 
When one-third of our farmers' cash receipts come from exports, how can 
congressional Democrats defend their opposition to fast track?
  When EU subsidies in 1997 were at their highest level in this decade, 
at nearly $47 billion compared to $5.3 billion here in the United 
States, how can they oppose fast track?
  When the start of the next World Trade talks are only 5 months away, 
why would Democrats oppose the President's request for fast track so 
that the United States can have a seat at the negotiating table in 
order to tear down these trade barriers?
  The answer may be the Democrats are more interested in collecting big 
labor PAC checks for their reelections than protecting their own 
farmers.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is, fast track is not my only priority but it 
is one of our most important priorities. It is the priority also of 
most of the U.S. leading farm and ranch organizations.
  It only makes sense. In 1996, when ag exports were at their all time 
high, $60 billion, farm income was up, but now that ag exports have 
dropped over the last 2 years by an estimated $5 billion, farm income 
is down.
  How about trade sanctions? Over the past 60 years, Mr. Speaker, we 
have imposed approximately 120 different sanctions. Despite relatively 
peaceful times, guess which administration has imposed over half of 
these sanctions in just the past 6 years? You guessed it. This one.
  This administration is willing to impose unilateral sanctions at the 
drop of a hat, and I am not sure what these sanctions have accomplished 
in the way of national security. What I do know is that it forecloses 
U.S. ag sales to millions of the world consumers. If we still want to 
place the blame, what has the administration been up to while ag 
exports have been precipitously dropping?

[[Page H6423]]

  You would think they would be scrambling to sell ag commodities using 
the ag export enhancement tools authorized under that dreadful 1996 
farm bill, but according to a recent General Accounting Office report, 
that is not true. The administration has used only 44 percent under the 
dairy export incentive programs to promote U.S. dairy exports. This is 
despite a mandate in the horrible farm bill that says that the DEIP 
program should be used to the maximum extent practical under GATT. 
Despite an annualized $5 billion authorization under the 1996 farm bill 
for the GSM export program to move our ag products, this administration 
has used only $3.2 billion and $2.9 billion in the 1996 and 1997 fiscal 
years respectively.
  In other words, $3.9 billion in GSM export assistance went to waste 
while our ag exports have tumbled.
  Guess how much of the 1.5 billion export enhancement program dollars 
authorized under the farm bill have actually been used by this 
administration? If you guessed only $7 million, you would be right.
  Mr. Speaker, the President and congressional Democrats know that the 
success of the 1996 farm bill depends on favorable tax and regulatory 
policy, improved research and crop insurance and perhaps, most 
importantly, trade. The Democrats resisted and continue to resist tax 
relief for farmers or for anyone else, as far as that goes.
  The administration is talking about a new EPA program with more 
regulations that could strangle many of my dairy, beef and pork 
producers who are already overregulated. The President held hostage ag 
research money until he got food stamp money for legal aliens. He also 
held hostage critical crop insurance money to fix funding problems that 
he created back in 1994.

                              {time}  1600

  When it comes to trade, the President and Congressional Democrats are 
AWOL.
  Democrats also charged that Republicans somehow have taken away the 
safety net for farmers. As a former Democratic Chairman of the House 
Agriculture Committee, Mr. De la Garza pointed out, over the last 
decade on the Democrat's watch, Congress has cut the agriculture farm 
bill by more than $60 billion.
  Importantly, the Republican House budget resolution does not call for 
a single cut in support of U.S. farmers and ranchers.
  Mr. Speaker, I could remind our Congressional Democrat friends that 
if we go back to supply management, for every acre we leave unplanted, 
Argentina will be happy to plant one.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to cut the rhetoric and work together. It is 
time to get the job done for American farmers. It is time to open our 
trade relations with our partners and get more export enhancement 
programs going so that we get more farm income to our farmers.

                          ____________________