[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10320-10321]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           INTRODUCING LEGISLATION TO HELP AMERICA'S FARMERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt ) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Madam Speaker, American agriculture today and rural 
communities today face an extraordinary challenge, the challenge of 
having farm policy change in 1996 with the consent and approval of this 
Congress and the consent and approval of the President of the United 
States for the good, to have an opportunity to have less farming for 
the government and more farming for the market. Overall, combined with 
the freedom that this new agriculture policy provides and the 
additional expenditure of taxpayer dollars for agriculture research 
with the movement toward reduction of Federal regulations that hampered 
the farmer's freedom to do what the farmer does best, and that is farm 
for the market and other changes that were made in the 1996 farm bill, 
it has overall been a good thing. What the American farmer faces today 
is low prices and lack of markets. Our farmers do not have the ability 
to market overseas the products that we grow so well in this country.
  My State of Washington is a perfect example, and the Fifth 
Congressional District is a more narrow example of a perfect example. 
That is, our farmers in the Fifth District grow wheat and barley and 
oats and peas and lentils and potatoes and apples, the best in the 
world. But yet most of our products, on our grain products and 
commodities, are exported overseas. My farmers are limited in those 
exports because of unilateral American sanctions on countries that used 
to be wonderful trading partners of Washington State farmers and 
agriculture in the West.
  I have introduced legislation, H.R. 212, earlier in this Congress as 
a priority matter for not only the farmers of the Pacific Northwest but 
the farmers of the country. What that bill does is lift the unilateral 
sanctions that are currently in place by our government that prevent 
our farmers from selling to countries that other farmers around the 
world can sell to. We used to have a fine market in wheat sales to Iran 
and Iraq and the Sudan and other places that are currently sanctioned. 
The sanctions are imposed because of our disagreements with the 
terrorist policies and the enemy policies of these governments.
  I disagree with those policies of those rogue nations that have used 
terror in the world and oppression in the world. But yet selling 
agriculture and medicine to those countries does not in my judgment 
pose a national security threat on our country. What it does as we 
unilaterally impose those sanctions is hurt our farmers. So H.R. 212 
does two things. It lifts the sanctions that are currently in place for 
food and medicine only, and it gives the President the opportunity in 
the event that the President feels that lifting those sanctions poses a 
national security threat, the President has the ability to reimpose 
those sanctions on that basis. But in the meantime, it allows our 
farmers, then, to seek to reclaim those markets that we have lost by 
virtue of the sanctions.

[[Page 10321]]

  In 1980, President Carter imposed a sanction on the Soviet Union for 
political purposes. Who did that hurt? It hurt the Olympics, and the 
American interest in the Olympics, and it hurt American farmers, a 
market that was a prime market for my farmers in the West. We have yet 
to get that agriculture market back by virtue of those sanctions back 
in 1980.

                              {time}  1630

  Yesterday in the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies on which I serve as a 
subcommittee member I introduced a narrower version of H.R. 212 which 
would lift of the sanctions on food and medicine for these countries 
that are currently sanctioned, but it would not allow any government 
spending in connection with the lifting of those sanctions. In other 
words, the taxpayer would not bear any of the burden for allowing our 
farmers to deal directly with those countries and make sales. It is a 
$6 billion plus market for our farmers in commodities as diverse as 
rice and corn and peas and wheat and barley. It is a great market that 
is exposed to our farmers.
  Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, my friends on the appropriations 
subcommittee defeated this amendment by a vote of 28 to 24. It was a 
very close vote, but it was a great debate, and we ought to have that 
debate again on H.R. 212 and on this next version of this amendment 
that went into the appropriation bill yesterday.
  So, I urge my colleagues to study H.R. 212, study the concept of 
lifting sanctions on food and medicine. It is a humanitarian basis that 
is good policy for our country, and it will absolutely help our 
agriculture markets who are struggling to find markets overseas.
  One final point: In the event that we lift these sanctions and allow 
farmer-to-country correspondence and sales, it prevents the agriculture 
community that is in straits from coming to the Congress and seeking 
Federal tax dollars. It is the free market approach to agriculture 
success.

                          ____________________