[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 147 (Thursday, October 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10997-H10998]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      RELIEF FOR AMERICAN FARMERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr.

[[Page H10998]]

Nethercutt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the most beautiful 
agriculture districts in the country, the Eastern District of the State 
of Washington, the east one-fourth of our state, the largest geographic 
district in the State of Washington. We have abundant wheat farming. 
Peas and lentils are grown there, potatoes and other agriculture 
commodities. So agriculture is a very important component of this 
budget agreement legislation that has been agreed upon by the leaders 
of the House, both Democrats and Republicans, and by the White House. 
It has specific interest to me coming from an agriculture-producing 
area.
  Washington farmers export about 90 percent of our commodities that 
are produced each year, and we have had a great crop this year. We had 
a great crop last year. Hopefully, we will have great crops in the 
future.
  The genesis for the freedom to farm, the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement Act, which was signed into law by the President and passed 
in a bipartisan way in 1996, was right in the Fifth District of 
Washington.
  When I first got elected to Congress in 1994, started serving in 
1995, I approached agriculture producers and farmers in the Fifth 
District of Washington and said what do we need in the way of farm 
improvements, agriculture improvements, policy improvements? They came 
up with a lot of that which was eventually signed into law as the 
freedom to farm concept and the freedom to farm legislation, that 
allowed farmers across this country to have a transition out of the old 
system into the new, the freedom to market system whereby our farmers 
would market our products around the world with several understandings.
  Number one, that there would be some tax relief; that there would be 
some sanctions relief; that we would not be imposing sanctions which 
inhibited the export of our commodities overseas; regulatory relief and 
certainly agriculture research.
  So it was with these issues in mind that I have approached whether to 
support this legislation that has now been crafted or not, and I am 
proud to say that as a person from a farm community and a farm region, 
that this is a good bill.
  It provides about $6 billion in additional relief, in disaster 
payments and in market shortage sanctions payments, essentially, 
because of the reduction in demand from our Far Eastern trading 
partners; frankly, I think not as aggressive an approach to agriculture 
marketing as our USDA ought to have. I think our USDA, our government, 
ought to be out there pushing our products worldwide and helping our 
farmers in this transition period, this 7-year period of getting some 
payments so that they can farm for the market, not for the government.
  So I am pleased that this particular legislation, even though the 
President vetoed the ag appropriations bill, and I happen to serve 
proudly on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, and we thought that was a 
good bill, had good research dollars in it, it had additional 
transition payments under the existing system that would help farmers, 
but it was vetoed, unfortunately I felt, because we wanted and knew in 
this negotiation that we would be adding additional disaster payments 
and sanctions relief for our farmers.
  Nevertheless, the product that has been produced out of these 
negotiations is a good one. It provides a total of $5.939 billion in 
additional spending, total spending, I should say, under the ag 
appropriations bill for market loss payments for 1998 disaster 
payments, for multiyear disaster payments, for livestock fee payments 
for a Farm Service Agency loan authority and for Farm Service Agency 
administration.
  Our farmers are now inundating these farm service agencies with 
assistance requests and these people are needing help. We provide that 
help in this bill. We did it in the ag appropriations bill but it is 
reinforced in the final budget negotiation bill that has been approved 
and will be approved, I should say, in this House and has been approved 
by our leadership.
  The tax relief that is provided in this bill is good for farmers. It 
will be talked about by my good friend and my colleague, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Latham) here shortly, but it is a good bill. It is a 
good tax relief package.
  It is not what we want totally, because I am one that favors greater 
tax relief for farmers and all Americans. I think we were not able to 
get that in this negotiation but we will get it next year. So I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill, support the relief that is provided by 
this legislation for farmers.

                          ____________________