[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
   MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO 1990 FARM BILL AND OMNIBUS BUDGET 
                       RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993

  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from 
the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2005) to make certain technical 
corrections, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, under my 
reservation, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. de 
la Garza], chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, to explain the 
bill.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, S. 2005 corrects language that was omitted or 
mistakenly changed in the drafting of the 1990 farm bill and the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
  Three changes are provided for in S. 2005. First, it restores 
language allowing cotton and rice farmers to count prevented plantings 
toward the 50 percent planting requirement under the 50/85 programs. 
Second, it clarifies the payment rate calculation for barley. And 
third, it clarifies how the reduction in price received by dairy 
farmers would be calculated in the event of a 7 billion pound surplus.
  I urge the House to support the passage of S. 2005.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Speaker, what the chairman has stated is 
absolutely correct. This is a technical bill; the CBO says it has no 
cost; it has been passed by the Senate, and the minority urges passage 
of this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

                                S. 2005

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 101B(c)(1)(D)(v)(II) and 103B(c)(1)(D)(v)(II) 
     of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1441-
     2(c)(1)(D)(v)(II) and 1444-2(c)(1)(D)(v)(II) are each amended 
     by inserting ``without regard to clause (ii)'' after ``clause 
     (iii)''.
       (b) Section 105B(c)(1)(B)(iii)(IV)(bb) of such Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1444f(c)(1)(B)(iii)(IV)(bb)) is amended by striking 
     ``clause (i)(I)'' and inserting ``clause (i) and (ii)''.
       (c) Section 204(g) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1446e(g)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting for ``purchase'' the 
     following: ``(less sales under section 407 of unrestricted 
     use)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``purchases'' each 
     place it appears the following: ``(less sales under section 
     407 for unrestricted use)''.

  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________