[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 106 (Monday, July 26, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H6380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               HARD TIMES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I spoke on this House 
floor about the crisis facing farmers and ranchers. This evening, I 
continue my efforts to inform my colleagues about the seriousness of 
the issues and the need to act now.
  Last week, I introduced with some of my colleagues legislation that 
takes an important step to help producers make it through this period 
of extremely low prices. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 
2568, the Market Loss Assistance Act of 1999. This straightforward bill 
provides producers an immediate shot in the arm. Under this bill, 
producers would receive an additional payment equal to 75 percent of 
their current farm payment. While this is only one part of a solution 
to help producers, it is an important part, and it provides immediate 
assistance. We need to assure our farmers that relief is on its way. 
Let us begin the debate on disaster assistance now.
  Part of the problem is the loss of exports. In 1996, agricultural 
exports hit a record of $59.9 billion, and since then, agricultural 
exports have fallen substantially. This year, exports are predicted to 
be $49 billion for a loss of over 18 percent since 1996, just 3 years 
ago.
  Not surprisingly, as exports have fallen, so has net farm income. 
Since 1996, net farm income has fallen to $45 billion, a decline of 15 
percent. That $45 billion net farm income now stands at the same level 
as a decade ago. Does anyone think the cost of fertilizer, land 
payments, equipment, and other farm inputs have remained the same price 
for the last decade? Of course not.
  In the world of agricultural export promotion we have lost the battle 
on behalf of farmers, and if the current trend continues, we may soon 
lose the war.
  This chart paints a very clear picture on where the United States is 
on its commitment to helping American farmers and ranchers compete 
around the world. About $8.45 billion is spent each year on 
agricultural subsidies. Of this, the United States represents $122 
million or roughly only 1.4 percent.
  We repeatedly tell our farmers and ranchers to produce for the world 
and compete for world markets. When your principle export competitor is 
the European community, the battle for market share under these 
conditions does not take long. In 1996, the EU spent 69 times more than 
we spent for export assistance. We cannot let this go on.
  Out of this pie, 83.5 percent of the export assistance programs are 
spent by the European community. Ours are 2.5 percent.
  When I first arrived in Congress, the Department of Agriculture 
indicated that we could not use export promotion funding because prices 
were too high and that shipping our U.S. farm products overseas might 
make them even more expensive. Now I am told we cannot use export funds 
because it would drive the prices even lower; a story I find 
particularly hard to believe in light of tight storage situation and 
low farm prices already well under the loan rate.
  If the bitter medicine of low prices must be taken, I would recommend 
we aggressively work through this period and move U.S. agricultural 
products. Our farmers are locked in a battle competing for 
international markets. We cannot continue to abandon them. We must use 
our export programs forcefully, and we must act now.
  Mr. Speaker, farmers are willing to compete in the global 
marketplace, but they cannot compete with foreign treasuries. I urge 
all my colleagues to join in the fight for the American farmer. We need 
short term disaster assistance; and for the long run, we need 
agricultural exports.

                          ____________________