[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 107 (Monday, August 3, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6925-H6930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  EMERGENCY FARM FINANCIAL RELIEF ACT

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the Senate bill (S. 2344) to amend the Agricultural Market 
Transition Act to provide for the advance payment, in full, of the 
fiscal year 1999 payments otherwise required under production 
flexibility contracts.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                S. 2344

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Farm Financial 
     Relief Act''.

     SEC. 2. SPECIAL RULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999 PAYMENT UNDER 
                   PRODUCTION FLEXIBILITY CONTRACTS.

       Section 112(d) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7212(d)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) Special rule for fiscal year 1999.--Notwithstanding 
     the requirements for making an annual contract payment 
     specified in paragraphs (1) and (2), at the option of the 
     owner or producer, the Secretary shall pay the full amount 
     (or such portion as the owner or producer may specify) of the 
     contract payment required to be paid for fiscal year 1999 at 
     such time or times during that fiscal year as the owner or 
     producer may specify.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have problems in farm country. Prices have declined 
for farmers and ranchers. Many producers are wrestling with multiyear 
crop losses and others are suffering as a result of this year's severe 
adverse weather. Feed is expensive, livestock prices are down and, in 
some parts of the country, forage is virtually nonexistent. For this 
reason, I rise today in support of Senate 2344, the Emergency Farm 
Financial Relief Act. This legislation was originally introduced in the 
House, cosponsored by 50 farm state members.
  Senate 2344 will allow farmers the option of receiving all of the 
Agricultural Market Transition Act payments for the year 1999 
immediately after the beginning of the fiscal year. Annual payments are 
now made twice a year, in December or January, and again in September. 
This means a farmer may elect to receive all his 1998 and 1999 payments 
in October this year.

                              {time}  1530

  The bill would make $5.5 billion available to farmers as much as 1 
year early to help them cope with the cash shortage that they now are 
experiencing due to low prices. It will have the effect of the huge 
interest-free cash loan to producers for up to 1 year.
  For example, the 1,000-acre wheat farm with a 30-bushel AMTA payment 
would have the option of getting the entire $19,000 payment in October 
1999 rather than waiting 3 months to get half the payment of $9,500 and 
the full payment 12 months from now of the remaining $9,500.
  The proposal leaves the option of early payments with the farmer, who 
can then make the decision on the basis of personal circumstances. If 
it helps, the farmer will ask for the advance payment. If it only 
creates tax or the other difficulties, the farmer will not choose to 
exercise the option.
  Because all of the 1999 AMTA payments occur within the same fiscal 
year, there is no CBO-scored cost to this proposal. Congress has the 
opportunity to address the current cash shortage on the farm without 
incurring any budget cost and give the U.S. farmers the opportunity to 
solve cash shortage problems immediately.
  We have taken previous action that responds to the current situation 
and we will continue to act. We have passed a sound agricultural 
research bill. We have found $500 million to save crop insurance. We 
reversed the Administration's decision to stop food exports to India 
and to Pakistan, and we took action on normal trading relations with 
China. Beyond that, we will act on IMF funding and Fast Track authority 
in the near future.
  We are developing new ideas and exploring recent proposals to address 
the crisis in our agricultural community. No one believes that the 
action we are taking here today is the complete answer to the 
difficulties that our farmers are facing. But it is a sound step that 
we can take today that will reassure producers and their bankers that 
the farmer's entire assets can be available to address the current 
situation.
  Secretary Glickman told our committee last week that the Department 
of Agriculture will complete a total assessment of crop loss and the 
extent of the disaster by August 12 this year. With that in hand, 
Members' personal assessments during the work periods, along with the 
committee, will work in September to formulate an additional action 
that the House might need to take.
  In addition, we will be calling upon the Secretary to use his full 
range of authorities already in his discretion to provide relief to 
suffering farmers.
  This is a very, very important tool, Mr. Speaker, for farmers to 
relieve short-term cash-flow problems. We need to act swiftly to allow 
farmers the advance knowledge of the possibility of using these AMTA 
payments early on this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in support of Senate 2344, the 
Emergency Farm Financial Relief Act, although I do so with 
reservations.
  Many farmers and ranchers today are faced with disastrous conditions. 
In my

[[Page H6926]]

area, one is more apt to see a bald eagle than to meet a beginning or 
new farmer. In some cases, these economic hardships are caused by low 
prices. In others, severe climatic conditions are causing major crop 
failures.
  In my own State of Minnesota, farmers are facing falling wheat, corn, 
and soybean prices, with plantings of those crops the highest levels 
that they have seen since the 1980's, particularly the feed grains.
  In the Red River Valley areas of North Dakota and Minnesota, the 
price loss is compounded by a multiple year loss of wheat and barley 
due to a disastrous disease known as scab.
  Texas is currently facing one of the worst droughts in decades. Some 
areas have experienced more than 125 days without significant rainfall 
in combination with record-setting temperatures. This severe drought 
has also spread to other States, including Arkansas, Louisiana, 
Georgia, South Carolina, New Mexico and Oklahoma, with additional 
States being affected daily.
  Today, with the passage of S. 2344, we are trying to address in a 
very modest way some of the economic hardships our farmers are 
experiencing. Under current law, producers who enter into an 
Agricultural Market Transition Act contract, or an AMTA contract, can 
elect to receive payment once or twice a year. Farmers can advance half 
of that total payment either to December 15 or January 15 and then 
receive the balance in September.
  This bill would change the current timing and allow farmers the 
choice of receiving either one full payment at any time during the 
fiscal year, which starts October 1, 1998, or two payments of 50 
percent at any time during the fiscal year at the producer's option.
  Let me explain the precise benefit this legislation would provide in 
terms of an example. If a producer who receives a maximum allowable 
AMTA payment, which is $40,000, chooses to take his payment 
immediately, he would receive 3 months' additional interest on 50 
percent of his payment and 12 months of additional interest on the 
other 50 percent of his payment. That is all of the clear calculable 
financial benefit, nothing more. If you put pencil to paper, with 8 
percent interest, this comes out to roughly $2,000.
  The legislation does not give producers $5\1/2\ billion in disaster 
assistance. That is not the case. These are payments that the producers 
are already entitled to. This payment merely allows producers to 
receive either 3 or 12 months earlier the money they were already 
expecting.
  This legislation provides no assistance to producers facing hardship 
because of low prices. This needs to be addressed by increasing export 
demand or by reexamining the proposals to remove the caps on marketing 
loans.
  Passing legislation as soon as possible to fund the International 
Monetary Fund will help raise the prices for our producers in the near 
future.
  It is also important to note that this does not help producers if the 
payments are going to landowners as opposed to the producer himself. 
Advancing AMTA payments raises a question of why we are attempting to 
alleviate such severe conditions with a proposal which some have 
characterized as putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound.
  I support this legislation because it is a modest first step in the 
recognition of the major problems that are facing American farmers. 
This legislation does not in any way address fully the severity of 
those problems. It is more like offering chicken soup. If you are sick, 
it cannot hurt. It may make you feel better.
  Senate 2344 will not solve the problems facing producers all across 
the country. We are going to have to provide real relief to our 
producers within the confines of the budget as soon as possible. I look 
forward for ways to work on a bipartisan basis to do this.
  In the meantime, we are working today to seek to do whatever we can 
with respect to the AMTA payments that may provide some financial 
relief to producers.
  Mr. Chairman, I have two matters I would like to raise in a colloquy. 
First, I understand that last week the Secretary of Agriculture voiced 
concerns about the Department's ability to implement S. 2344 as 
drafted. Because of technical limitations, the Department plans to 
offer producers the choice of receiving either one full payment at any 
time during the fiscal year or two payments of 50 percent at any time 
during the fiscal year at the producer's option.
  Would my colleague agree that the Department would be in compliance 
with Congress' intent by offering these options?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Yes. Because producers would be able to get all 
their 1999 payments as early as October 1998, this form of 
implementation would provide the necessary financial assistance and 
flexibility, I believe, to producers. Recognizing the Department's 
inability to provide a greater range of options, implementation of 
Senate 2344 in the manner stated I believe would comply with intent of 
this legislation.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, also I understand that 
this election to receive payments early is not intended by this body to 
change or create any tax liability with respect to payments that are 
not received in 1998 but are instead received in 1999.
  Is this the understanding of my colleague?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If the gentleman would further yield, yes, it 
is. I believe this should not be intended to change any tax situation 
with respect to this legislation.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to add in closing that 
speaking on behalf of many on the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, 
and Forestry, there is concern that the Farm Service Agency have 
adequate staff resources to effectively and efficiently comply with the 
legislation that we are currently considering. There certainly is 
continuing concern about the adequacy of staffing at the Farm Service 
Agency, and we urge the appropriators, as they consider the 
agricultural appropriations bill in conference committee, to take into 
consideration the legislation that we are acting on today.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1998.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

       (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the 
     concerned agencies.)
     S. 2344--Emergency Farm Financial Relief Act
       (Sen. Coverdell (R) and 14 cosponsors.)
       The Administration supports House passage of S. 2344 in 
     order to accelerate the 1999 Agricultural Market Transition 
     Act payments to producers.
       The Administration regrets that the Senate did not include 
     the provision of the Senate-passed FY 1999 Agricultural/Rural 
     Development appropriations bill that would provide $500 
     million for new emergency funding for farmers and ranchers 
     who face financial stress as a result of natural disasters 
     and low prices. Nor does the House make in order such an 
     amendment. The Administration urges the Congress to enact 
     this provision as soon as possible. In the interim, the 
     Department of Agriculture is continuing to assess the actual 
     emergency needs of farmers and ranchers and will report to 
     Congress in the near future.


                             pay-as-you-go

       S. 2344 would affect direct spending; therefore, it is 
     subject to pay-as-you-go requirements of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1990. OMB's preliminary scoring 
     estimate is that the net budget cost of this bill is zero.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Combest), a capable member of our committee.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, as has been stated, the current conditions 
and crisis in agriculture is very broad and very wide and very deep. No 
single action that we can take or that anyone can take alone is going 
to solve this problem. In fact, many single actions that we take will 
not even address concerns of some farmers or ranchers.
  Tomorrow, it will be one month that the temperatures in Texas have 
been in excess of 100 degrees and most of that has been without any 
rain. In fact, I have some counties in my district that have had less 
than an inch and a quarter of rain since January 1.
  Even in those areas in which crops are irrigated, it is virtually 
impossible to keep up with the needs of a crop due to the fact of the 
high temperatures, the drought and the excessive winds. When that even 
is possible, the irrigation expenses this year are going to be 
phenomenal.

[[Page H6927]]

  Pastures are burned up, not all of them from the drought; some of 
them literally have burned up. Cattle prices are down. Ranchers are 
having to take their cattle prematurely to the market at a down market 
time, and this further complicates the problem.
  I once again call on the Secretary to allow a 5 percent a month 
penalty on the annual payments that would be made through CRP to allow 
the grazing of CRP lands. It might mean that some people can keep from 
having to send those cattle to the market, hopefully being able to 
preserve them until winter wheat pasture is available.
  There is a lot more that needs to be done. The Secretary, in fact, 
told our committee last week that it will be sometime later in August 
even before the Department has the loss figures. So it makes it very 
difficult for the Congress to act on anything further at this 
particular time when even the loss figures are not known.
  This is a tool. This is something that is going to provide some 
benefits to farmers if they wish to take advantage of it. It provides 
$551 billion October 1, across this country. That would be an infusion 
into the cash flow of the farmer if in fact they need to take it at 
this time and prevent them from having to take a loan. In Texas alone 
this would amount to over $536 million that would be available at a 
much earlier date.
  While again I recognize that there are other things that need to be 
done, this is, in fact, only one of the arrows in a quiver that we hope 
we can combat this crisis with. To those who would argue against this, 
for the fact that it does not go far enough, I would simply say that 
that is recognized. No one has contended that it does go far enough, 
but it is another of the steps that we think can provide some 
assistance at a much needed time to farmers who are facing a crisis.

                              {time} 1545

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I appreciate the opportunity to rise to the 
floor today to speak on behalf of S. 2344, the companion bill to the 
gentleman from Oregon's H.R. 4265, an effort to reach out and address 
some of the needs that we see in rural America in production 
agriculture.
  In my very own western Oklahoma between the drought and the bugs and 
the supply problems, or should I say demand problems that have been 
brought on by the side effects of what some up here call the Asian flu, 
the Asian financial flu, I should say, we have some real problems that 
need to be addressed out in production agriculture. One of the efforts 
that I think provides a short-term band-aid that puts us in a position 
in a number of areas to be able to put another crop in the ground this 
fall is S. 2344. It makes available on or about the first day of 
October when you consider the option, the option, to take the entire 
1999 market transition payment if a farmer who signed up under the 1996 
farm bill chooses to do so, you take that money along with the funds 
that will come in the second half of the 1998 payment, it makes 
literally $8.3 billion cash available out in farm country for those 
farmers and ranchers to put into a crop. It does it in a way that my 
budgeteer friends sitting in the gallery right now who I have worked 
with, who are very dedicated to maintaining the financial integrity of 
this country, it does it in a way that does not impact the budget, 
because as the folks who have spoken before me pointed out clearly, it 
accelerates to the first day of fiscal year 1999 that farmer's option 
to take that money.
  Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, this is not a cure-all in itself but this 
provides us with a window of opportunity. It gives our farmers and 
ranchers a chance until we can do the things that are necessary to make 
agriculture as healthy as it could be and should be, things like using 
every cent in the export enhancement program fund. In the last 3 years, 
we have had about $1.5 billion that has not been spent. Perhaps that 
should have been used and should be used and could be used to defend 
our market share or grow our market share around the world.
  I am a strong supporter of the CRP program, the conservation reserve 
program. We have got about 5 million authorized acres out there that 
are not being used, another 5 million come out in just a matter of 
weeks, 10 million acres that could be channeled in States like the 
Minnesotas and the Dakotas and the Texases and the Oklahomas where we 
do not need to use that soil right now, and because of mother nature, 
we are going to start losing it into the air and have been losing it 
into the air. Let us fully utilize CRP. And, yes, the ultimate thing 
that we have to do as a body in this Congress, and, that is, work to 
open those markets. We have been grain exporters in this country since 
the very founding of this Nation. We literally are the breadbasket for 
the world. But the world has to have access to our commodities and we 
have to make sure they have an opportunity to purchase those.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins).
  (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to my colleagues and 
also to the American people today from the heart, to have an emotional 
concern, not a political concern.
  There is an emergency on the family farm in America. Forty years ago 
I served as State FFA president, the Future Farmers of America, in 
Oklahoma. I stated at that time there are 16 percent of us in the 
production of agriculture. Four years later when I was selected the 
outstanding agriculture student at OSU, I talked about the fact that 
there were only 12.5 percent of us in the production of agriculture. 
Today as I stand on this floor of the United States Congress, I have to 
say there are only 1.2 percent of us in the production of agriculture. 
And, Mr. Speaker, I saw figures just less than two months ago where we 
are probably going to lose 25 percent more of our farmers and our 
cattle people this year if something doesn't happen to assist them 
through this crisis.
  Why? Because we have seen markets close down. We see droughts. The 
gentleman from Oklahoma referred to Asia. Mr. Speaker, Asia normally 
buys 45 percent of our agriculture exports. But they have had a 
downturn in their economy and they cannot buy.
  Second, the European Union is using 75 percent of their budget to 
subsidize the agriculture in Europe, to subsidize the internal 
production but also grabbing export markets around the world.
  Third, because we see sanctions in countries that should be buying 
our agriculture products. Our country places those sanctions and we 
cannot sell the food and the beef and other products from the American 
family farms.
  And, four, we have now in 1998, as my friend from Texas said, the 
worst drought in history, since the Dust Bowl in 1934. The land is 
parched. The grass is burned up. Cattle are having to go to market 
because we have no water and no feed and no grass.
  What is the solution? This is not the total answer, but this is one 
step that we can move on today. That is, expediting the market 
transition, by budgeting $8 billion that is already in the budget, so 
that they can pay bills. Many of them are going to have working capital 
to have to survive and pay bills.
  Second, we have to utilize an emergency feed and hay program if we 
are going to keep many of the cattle and not just flood the markets. 
Let me say in the drought of 1956, which I barely survived, I sold cows 
for 10 cents a pound. I know the hurt and I know the pain that is out 
there on the farm and what the cattle people are going through. We have 
got to correct it. We have got to take the actions my colleague from 
Oklahoma said on the enhancement export funds. We have got to use those 
funds.
  Put off the long-term solution is international exports. We must pass 
fast track. It should be a bipartisan solution, not one that is 
partisan. We also must add the IMF funding in order to help Asia to 
purchase American agriculture products. We have got to also look at the 
sanctions, if medicine is a human need, food is also. We must do allow 
food to be exempt from sanctions.
  We can solve the problem. The question we have to ask ourselves is do 
we have the will to solve the problem. Let me tell my colleagues what 
they said

[[Page H6928]]

to me in Europe. When I asked them about all their subsidies, they 
basically stated, ``We'll pay whatever the price to maintain the family 
farm in Europe.'' They are using 75 percent of their budget to do it.
  What will do we have? Do we have the will that we want to keep a 
domestic food basket available for the American people? If we are 
concerned about the national security of this country, we had better 
maintain that food supply and the family farmer.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Hill).
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and I want to congratulate him for his efforts to bring this 
matter before the House and put it on the desk of the President before 
we begin the August work period. I am proud to have been a cosponsor of 
the House version of this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, Montana producers will have available in October under 
this plan $105 million which is about twice of what they would have had 
available without this measure. This is going to provide important cash 
flow for them this fall. It will allow them to cope with what are 
broken down markets that have reduced prices to some of the lowest 
prices in modern times. It will also help Montana producers deal with 
adverse weather conditions which has also provided for low production.
  I believe we need to do more. I am hopeful that we can work to try to 
increase the AMTA payments in the future. Perhaps we can make some 
revisions in the crop insurance program to help folks, particularly in 
the Northern Plains. We need to investigate the Canadian Wheat Board. 
We need to eliminate trade sanctions that involve food, that are 
eliminating markets.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not just losing markets to American commodities. 
The important thing is that we are losing market share. The problem 
with losing market share is that that threatens low prices for our 
commodities over the long term, not just over the short term. I am 
hoping that Congress can work from this measure forward together so 
that we can secure additional markets, so we can fight and defend our 
market share.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. This is a very important piece of legislation. I rise in strong 
support today.
  I just returned from Texas a little over an hour ago, Mr. Speaker, 
where we have had in south Texas the 34th day of triple-digit 
temperatures which has broken another record. Farmers and ranchers all 
over Texas and throughout the Southwest are being hit hard by this 
drought which is part of a one-two punch, the other being the falling 
commodity prices. There is no area harder hit right now than south 
Texas, although they are feeling it all across the State.
  This bill in the simplest of terms for those who are not in 
agriculture would be like when you were younger or you were struggling 
at some point in your life and you needed a little advance money on 
your paycheck and you asked the boss or the appropriate authorities, 
can I just have a little advance and I think it will get me through 
this tough time. It is not going to solve anyone's financial problems 
long-term nor is it going to make it rain, but it is going to provide 
that necessary capital to get through a very difficult time this fall.
  The situation is very critical in Texas now. There are burned-up 
fields, no grass for livestock to graze on, aflatoxin has hit the corn 
crop very hard. We all understand that the only long-term solution to 
this is to have more rain. This is the most powerful city on earth, Mr. 
Speaker, but there is not a person in this city who can make it rain. 
We must, as we all know, appeal to a higher authority for that long 
term.
  All of Texas has experienced less than 25 percent of normal rainfall 
for April through June and temperatures topped out above the century 
mark nearly the entire month of July across the State. Until the rain 
comes, these early payments are a first step in helping farmers get 
through this difficult time. I have committed to my colleagues on the 
Committee on Agriculture and the agriculture appropriations 
subcommittee to continue to work on this issue and develop a plan to 
provide assistance to our farmers and ranchers. As Americans we enjoy 
the world's cheapest, safest and most abundant food supply. I hope 
every farmer out there understands that there is not a day that goes by 
that Members on both sides of the aisle, both Democrats and 
Republicans, are thinking about our constituents out there and 
desperately trying to come up with more solutions to help them get 
through this very difficult time.
  I certainly appreciate all the members of the Committee on 
Agriculture, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) our chairman and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) the ranking member and all the 
committee members who are working side by side to help in this very, 
very critical situation.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I congratulate him for the manner in which 
he has brought this legislation to our attention so dramatically and so 
quickly.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise, of course, today in support of the bill. Even 
amid a booming economy nationally, there is a lot of concern out there 
in the Northern Plains and, of course, elsewhere where grain prices 
have soured, ag prices are down, and cattle prices are down. 
Regretfully, the continued rise of the stock market, which has 
benefited a lot of people, does not have a direct positive effect on 
our Nation's agricultural producers.
  This is a bad year, especially for grain prices, although it was 
unrealistic to assume that the high commodity prices of the 1996 and 
1997 marketing years would last forever, even under the best of 
conditions. As has been mentioned earlier, a large part of the decline 
in prices is due to the financial crisis that Asia is experiencing. The 
recovery of those economies will have a tremendous impact, of course, 
on U.S. agriculture.
  I think another reason for depressed prices is the Administration's 
lack of a focused export policy. Many national agriculture 
organizations have expressed concern in regard to our trade policies.
  I think Congress has been doing its part to help our beleaguered 
producers as evidenced by this bill. We passed antisanction legislation 
that would allow USDA to guarantee U.S. wheat sales to Pakistan and 
India. This legislation that we are considering today will ensure many 
producers will have much needed capital to continue their farming 
operations for another year. The farming business is a year-to-year 
enterprise and it would be unfair to deny strapped producers the 
capital necessary for next year's operation.
  I have been a consistent supporter of the new farm bill, and I remain 
so today. Regretfully, I think, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of 
needless, false and harmful rhetoric from both houses of Congress about 
this legislation. Farm bills do not set market prices. The 
Administration, I think, needs to take some responsibility in this 
regard. We need a clear and consistent trade policy to bolster our U.S. 
ag exports. With one out of three acres that we plant in this year 
going to export, fast track negotiating authority is absolutely 
necessary.
  I remain steadfast in my support. I strongly encourage my colleagues 
to support S. 2344. It will help our deserving producers.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Certainly this afternoon is an opportunity for bipartisan support of 
a measure that we all recognize is providing at least some relief. 
There certainly is room for debate about some aspects of trade policy. 
I am not sure that it would be productive this afternoon to try to 
fully ventilate that. Suffice it to say that folks in this body and on 
the Committee on Agriculture fully recognize the importance of 
immediate full funding for the International Monetary Fund that is not 
moving ahead. I notice it is not on the calendar for this week before 
we go home for recess. It is hard to understand why if that has been 
approved in

[[Page H6929]]

the Senate and is being requested by the administration it cannot be 
completed by the House.
  So I would hope that we in the Committee on Agriculture could get 
fully behind that and at least do some things that we see that we agree 
with the Senate on and do them promptly.
  Mr. Speaker, for purposes of control, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for 
yielding the time and the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding to him.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2344, the Emergency Farm 
Financial Relief Act. This important legislation would provide farmers 
the option, of course, of receiving all of their Agriculture Market 
Transition Act contract payments for fiscal year 1999 immediately after 
the beginning of the fiscal year. Currently it is an option at least. 
Currently producers receive two separate payments, one in December or 
January and one in September. This change would provide farmers with 
much needed infusion of cash at a time when they clearly need it. Since 
the payment would occur in the same fiscal year, there is no additional 
cost to the Federal government.
  Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to be a co-sponsor of the original House 
legislation, and I commend the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture 
for his initiative.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the agricultural sector is hurting. 
While this legislation is certainly helpful, it is also important to 
continue efforts to improve agricultural trade since about 40 percent 
of U.S. farm production is exported. Several of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle have already mentioned that.
  One of the root causes of the current low commodity price is the 
current drop in exports, especially to Asia, as a result of the 
region's economic downturn and the relative value of the U.S. dollar 
versus the currencies of our export competitors. My State, for example, 
over 85 percent of all of our exports total go to Asia. To combat the 
drop in exports it is crucial that efforts continue to approve fast 
track trade authority, increase pressure on the European Union to 
reduce subsidies and anti-competitive trade practices and to approve 
legislation designed to block unilateral sanctions which we too often 
impose in this body and in the other body which do harm agriculture. 
Such actions are clearly long-term approaches to improving the economic 
outlook for the Nation's producers, however S. 2344 will provide 
immediate help for farmers, and, Mr. Speaker, therefore I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The Chair advises that the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) has no time remaining, although the 
gentleman from Oregon has the right to close. The gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge) for the time, and, Mr. Speaker, I want to 
emphasize a point that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) made, 
and he is well known as an international trade expert, and to reinforce 
the statement that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) made, and 
that is simply that he has heard all of us emphasize the importance for 
this country to pay its full share of the International Monetary Fund, 
and I will continue to work towards that, that goal, and he knows that 
that will be before this Congress before we adjourn this session of the 
Congress.
  In addition to that and equally as important, as the gentleman knows, 
we must pass what we call fast track legislation to give this President 
of the United States the opportunity to enter into agreements with 
other nations at a time when it is most important to us, at a time when 
we are going to review the whole Uruguay Round of the WTO, of the World 
Trading Organization, and we are going do that in 1999. Going into 
those negotiations without fast track would severely injure this 
Nation's opportunity to trade, to discuss, to enter into agreements 
which would open borders for us and give us the opportunity to 
entertain agreements with other countries.
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. WATKINS. First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) for his leadership and his foresight 
on the committee and my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) in moving 
this a step forward. I think we all know that the drought is an 
additional thing that is coming in right on top of low prices and that 
we have got to have help for our cattlemen in getting emergency feed 
assistance, emergency hay assistance, especially in the Southwest, and 
I know my colleagues helped provide that leadership in helping us move 
forward in the agriculture appropriations committees, and I think the 
Senate under Senator Conrad is adding $500 million, and we are probably 
going to need more to assist the drought stricken cattle country of the 
Southwest.
  Will the gentleman be helping us in that area of feed and hay 
assistance?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, we have 
entertained all of the issues, including the problems in Minnesota and 
North Dakota and South Dakota which are in crisis. Beyond that there 
are disasters all over the country, in Oklahoma and Texas. We are going 
to be looking at all those if we can identify finally with the 
Secretary's assistance, and we are going, within reason we are going to 
try to help everyone.
  Mr. WATKINS. I was in Bennington, OK, my boyhood home area July 4, 
and they are feeding cattle cubes and hay. That is at least a month to 
six weeks earlier than when we ever fed before, and that is eating up 
the financial equity. Equity they do not have.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman. I have 
been in the cattle business for 35 years and broke twice, so I 
understand.
  Mr. WATKINS. I thank the gentleman from Oregon for his leadership.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to commend the chairman 
of the House Committee on Agriculture for moving this program forward. 
As my colleagues know, it sounds like a novel when we say times are 
tough in ag country, and it really is. It is certainly not fiction.
  Times are particularly difficult in ag country in Georgia this year. 
We are coming off one of the worst disasters in 1997 we have ever seen. 
1998 has not been any better. This will significantly help our farmers 
and ranchers, and we appreciate the House Committee on Agriculture 
chairman championing this proposal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Smith) has expired.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman from Oregon has 
two other speakers, and I will yield to them as well, but I have a 
speaker who has arrived that I would like to reserve some time for as 
well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota first 
of all, and I rise in support of S. 2344.
  I have heard a lot from home about the problems we have in farm 
country, the disasters we have. I just want to say that I think this 
will help a great deal to get us through an immediate crisis, but if we 
have a disaster, I want to state that the administration's policy has 
been, number one, to cut crop insurance when we have these disasters. 
Last year we had to fight to the mat to be able to save crop insurance. 
In the past 3 years they have had a billion and a half dollars 
available for market export programs. They finally used about $7 
million of that. Today, as far as trade sanctions, the administration 
has put on 61 sanctions in the last 6 years compared in the last 80 
years we had 120 sanctions. Forty percent of the world's population is 
under sanctions from this administration today which cuts off any 
possibility of selling agricultural products.

[[Page H6930]]

  Lastly, we have got to pass this fall fast track legislation to help 
agriculture, and I would hope the administration would finally get on 
board and decide to push it. I have been reading all the articles now 
saying they are going to sit on the sidelines, encourage the Democrats 
to sit on the sidelines. We have got to have negotiation authority so 
that we can move our agricultural products. Long term that is the 
solution for agriculture, is to sell the production we can have in this 
miracle in the U.S. called agriculture.
  Again I want to support this bill, I encourage everyone to do that, 
but we have got to change our policies if we are in effect going to 
save agriculture in the long term.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this 
bill and commend the chairman and the ranking member and others for 
bringing this forward. But I want to bring a little bit different 
perspective to the situation.
  I fully understand that those areas of the country where they are now 
experiencing a disaster, whether it be drought or other things, this 
will be a big help because it will move up the cash flow situation and 
put them in a little better shape. However, in our part of the world, 
in northwestern Minnesota and North Dakota, we have had a disaster for 
4 or 5 or 6 years, depending on the individual farmers, where this 
disease problem that we had, primarily scab, has caused us to lose 
crops 4 or 5 or 6 years in a row, and I am not so sure for those people 
that are in that situation whether this is going to make a whole lot of 
a difference to them just because of the situation that they are in.
  So I am here today supporting this. This will help people that have 
gotten into this situation recently. It will help farmers that are 
experiencing the problem with low commodity prices and the resultant 
cash flow problems. But we need in our part of the world, and the 
chairman knows this, we need in addition some help with making crop 
insurance, making it whole for that period of time where it was not 
covering people, trying to get the CRP program changed so that those 
people that have experienced these losses for 4 or 5 years can 
potentially get that land into CRP.
  One of the things that people need to understand, we have got this 
scab disease that lives in the soil and in the residue. One of the 
reasons we have got this problem, in my opinion, is because we have 
given up mould board plowing and we have been using no-tail which 
allows this stuff to live even longer and better, and if we could put 
this land into CRP, get it out of production, get it out of wheat 
production for a while, we might be able to do some good in this area.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized 
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, we have had a fair amount of talk here in the 
last few minutes about the administration and trade, and I would just 
like to set the record straight.
  There is no administration that I am aware of in recent history that 
has been as strong an advocate of trade, liberalization of trade 
policies, as the Clinton administration, and I think that all of us 
really ought to respect the record that they have established and not 
try to drag it down.
  I have sat on the floor in this body on several occasions when my 
colleagues have considered trade sanctions or restrictions on trade, if 
this happens or that happens, and we tend to vote with almost a herd 
mentality. Well, the administration is asking for us to show restraint.
  The administration has been a very vocal supporter of IMF, and I 
think all of us have acknowledged that. We all know the administration 
has been a very strong supporter of fast track. The administration has 
indicated it would like to have the fast track vote after the first of 
the year.

                              {time}  1615

  It feels like it is going to be a highly politicized vote, and if we 
are going to promote international trade, this is not the context in 
which to do it and this authority is not needed before the end of the 
year. The Secretary of Agriculture told us this at a hearing last 
Thursday.
  So even though the majority controls the floor and we will vote on 
what the majority brings up, it is tragic if we turn the Fast Track 
debate into simply a pre-election game. I would urge that we work on a 
bipartisan basis on this trade issue, just like we have worked on this 
matter that is under consideration this afternoon.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, television can take us many places, but 
it can't make us experience the pain and hardship people feel when 
they're going through difficult times.
  Night after night for the past several weeks, the network news shows 
have been filled with images from my home state of Texas and stories of 
how people are dealing with the drought. By now, the stories are 
familiar.
  Ground too dry for seed to take root in. Farmers having to plow under 
their crops. The livelihood of towns and communities literally blowing 
away in the wind. The drought is putting a real squeeze on farmers and 
ranchers trying to make a living. Economically, it's figuring to be 
even worse than the drought Texas went through in 1996.
  The bill we're voting on today will clearly not solve all of the 
problems people are facing because of these severe weather conditions. 
But it is a start, and it will put money in people's pockets quicker 
than any other plan being discussed in Washington. Perhaps just as 
important, it's a sign that we're finally getting through in convincing 
people that something needs to be done to help farmers in our area deal 
with the drought.
  Over the past few weeks, some people have been trying to play 
politics with this crisis. That is wrong. Congress and the 
Administration need to work together to do what's right for farmers. 
The government can't make it rain. But it can help farmers cope with a 
major national disaster. This plan is the first step in doing that, and 
will likely be the first of other agriculture-related proposals coming 
out of Congress in the coming weeks.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join you and Chairman Smith in 
support of S. 2344 and ask for its unanimous consideration by the 
House. As a cosponsor of its House companions S. 2344 would allow 
farmers the option of receiving all the Agriculture Market Transition 
Act (AMTA) contract payments for fiscal year 1999 immediately after the 
beginning of the fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, the bill would make $5.5 
billion available as much as one year early to help farmers cope with 
the cash shortage they are now experiencing due to low prices. For the 
State of Illinois, the changes will mean an extra $500 million into the 
hands of farmers who choose the advance payment schedule.
  The bill also increases the flexibility we gave farmers with the 1996 
farm bill. It will let them, not the government, decide if receiving 
payments early is the best thing for their farms.
  Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, because the AMTA payments occur in the 
same fiscal year, there is no Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored 
cost to this proposal. Congress has the opportunity to address the 
current cash shortage on the farm without incurring any budget cost and 
give U.S. farmers the opportunity to solve cash shortage problems 
immediately.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, S. 2344 does not lessen the urgency for 
Congress and the Administration to use important trade tools. The 
Administration promised farmers that it would use the Export 
Enhancement Program (EEP) to its maximum to secure foreign markets for 
U.S. Agricultural products. The 1996 Farm Bill made over $1.5 billion 
available for EEP in 1996-99. To date, the Administration's use of EEP 
has been anemic. Also, Congress needs to pass Fast Track and fully fund 
the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Without these tools, America, 
and American farmers will continue to lag behind in the international 
trade arena. Let's stop the erosion in farm exports. S. 2344 is a good 
start.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend 
the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2344, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill, as amended, was 
passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________