[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 132 (Monday, September 28, 1998)]
[House]
[Page H9165]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, fiscal year 1998 ends in 3 days,
and President Clinton has let cob webs grow on the Export Enhancement
Program.
Yes, as our farmer constituents struggle through one of the most
devastating downturns in commodity prices our country has seen, our
President has sat on $150 million that could have been and should have
been utilized to prevent the loss of markets in wheat, wheat flour,
vegetable oil, and other commodities.
The 1996 farm bill made over $1.5 billion available for EEP, and this
administration has used it to move some frozen chickens and some
barley. They should be ashamed.
This administration's trade policy should be called promises made,
promises broken. Understanding the need to open new markets for our
commodities, the President has promised to utilize EEP to its fullest.
This is a promise he has not kept.
In March of this year, I joined my colleagues from Oklahoma in
sending a letter to Secretary Glickman outlining our thoughts on the
need for the administration to utilize EEP. I would like to read the
letter we sent.
Dear Mr. Secretary: It has come to our attention that
according to the United States Department of Agriculture . .
. February supply/demand report, the season average price for
wheat is expected to decline by at least twenty percent
compared to the 1996/97 season. This price decline is causing
serious concern to our producers, and we strongly urge the
Department to use all discretionary programs to strengthen
market prices and export opportunities for U.S. producers.
We believe the Department should aggressively utilize
export enhancement tools in strategic markets, including the
Export Enhancement Program (EEP) and the GSM credit programs.
All agree that export growth is fundamental to improved
market prices for producers. As we talk it our producers/
constituents throughout Oklahoma, they time and time again
express great dissatisfaction with the Department's
reluctance to use the EEP to counter competitive
subsidization of wheat in world markets. The unwillingness to
utilize this program has weakened its effectiveness both as a
deterrent to unfair trade practices and as a means of gaining
access to markets.
As U.S. producers lose market share to a growing list of
countries with state trading enterprises, it is imperative
that the Department implement a long-term strategy to counter
these entities. As you begin the preparation for the next
round of World Trade Organization Negotiations in
Agriculture, we hope that you will utilize all export tools
available.
Thank you for consideration. We are looking forward to your
response. Frank D. Lucas, J.C. Watts, Jr., Ernest Istook,
Steve Largent, Wes Watkins, and Tom Coburn.
How did he respond? Nearly $50 million a month has sat idly by as our
markets have dried up throughout the world as the administration plays
partisan politics with the future of our producers. I would argue that
one of the main problems plaguing those trying to earn a living off
this land is this administration's lack of an agricultural trade
policy. Mr. President, this needs to change.
____________________