[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 106 (Monday, July 26, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H6387]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


             THE DISASTROUS STATE OF AGRICULTURE IN AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today. I do have 
the high honor of representing the Seventh District of Tennessee. Both 
that district and the State itself has a very strong and diverse 
economy.
  Included as part of the base of that economy is agriculture, and as I 
would follow on the heels of my colleague, the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Moran), his statements, our agriculture in Tennessee and in this 
country is in a disastrous state, something that we ought to all be 
concerned with here in Congress. As we work to satisfy the number of 
issues that are out there that cover the board, we cannot forget about 
agriculture.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had several meetings in my district where I 
talked to different constituencies, and that is a consistent complaint 
that we hear; that while we are doing well in our industries, our 
manufacturing, our distribution across the State, the agricultural 
communities, not only the farmers and beef producers, the pork 
producers, but the communities in which they live, the banks, the 
equipment dealers, the stores, the retailers, are all suffering along 
with them.
  I have been told that in effect what is happening in the agricultural 
communities is that they are being paid 1950s prices, but yet their 
expenses are 1999 expenses today. I would challenge any part of our 
economy to operate under those standards, that you are getting paid 
like you were in 1950, but your expenses are today's expenses. You 
cannot exist very long in that type of situation.
  When we came to Congress in 1994, we did a lot of good things. One of 
the good things we did was try to turn our farmers loose to compete 
like everybody else; to lift up all the programs and restraints that 
they had and to let them compete in this world market, this global 
market that we are in.
  One of the commitments we made to these farmers, in addition to 
lifting these restraints and saying, you are on your own, go out and do 
the best you can, one of the conditions we laid out was that we will 
help you with the estate tax.
  Despite what the previous speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, said, this tax bill that we passed last week does 
wonderful things for our farmers. It does in fact help them with the 
estate tax. When the family farm can be passed along with less estate 
tax being paid, it is more likely that the heirs, the children of that 
farmer, will be able to keep that family farm.
  I would suggest that this bill we passed last week, this tax reform, 
goes to more than just 300 of the richest Americans out there, it goes 
to our farm owners, our small businesses in our smaller communities.
  Another thing that we did in that tax bill was help our farmers 
through self-insured insurance. When they buy their own insurance, they 
can deduct that total premium for that. This 10 percent across-the-
board tax break, this applies to farmers, also.
  One of the other requirements that we promised them back when we 
lifted the programs was that we would help them in our markets, help 
them stabilize their markets. When they raise all their crops, have the 
good years, when they win the battle over the droughts and too much 
rain and bugs and pests that come out to destroy their crops, they 
still have to sell those crops somewhere. We promised them we would 
help stabilize the markets.
  I would simply ask my colleagues, every time that we have an 
opportunity to vote on these kinds of issues that pertain to boycots 
and embargoes against other countries, particularly as they deal with 
food and fiber, that we be careful there that we do not always do that 
at the blink of an eye.
  Another commitment we made to our farmers was regulatory relief. We 
said we would make it easier for them to farm, and yet, we hear stories 
in committees that I sit in about the Environmental Protection Agency 
coming in and wanting to take away some of the chemicals that our 
farmers use to be able to be as successful as they are in producing 
basically the food for the world.
  Now we are being told that maybe they cannot use some of these 
chemicals, or that some of their land may be a wetland and that it 
ought to be in a position where they cannot use it to farm. They pay 
taxes on it, they own it, but they cannot farm it.
  I am simply saying that our farmers are the best stewards of the 
lands that we have. They have to be good stewards. They have to be 
environmentalists. They want to take care of the land because it is 
their source of living. There are not any better stewards of land out 
there than the farmers.
  I would remind my colleagues that when we get into these kinds of 
issues, I would ask that we remember our farmers. We have to keep them 
in mind. A lot of people seem to think, and I say this jokingly, 
though, that the food starts in the grocery store, and that the fiber 
or clothing that we buy starts in the department stores. They do not 
think anything about what causes that to appear in the stores. They 
simply think it is there when they go buy something, and it will always 
be there. But we have to keep our farmers in mind as we deal with the 
panoply of legislation that we deal with.
  I simply use my 5 minutes of time this afternoon to remind my 
colleagues of the importance of our agricultural communities.

                          ____________________