[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 77 (Friday, June 17, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself to the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4554) making appropriations for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1995, and for other purposes.
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  0913


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 4554, with Mr. Spratt in the chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, June 
16, 1994, all time for general debate had expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
the bill, H.R. 4554, and all amendments thereto, close at 2 p.m.
  I have discussed this with the ranking minority member, the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I yield to 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on the question about time, last 
night there was some type of agreement that we come in at 9 o'clock so 
we could get out by 2, and I certainly concurred in that because it was 
a good idea. But we have 14 amendments on this bill that are coming up. 
What happens then? Are we going to hopefully vote on this bill at 2 
o'clock, or do we have to clear out of here by 2 o'clock?
  What is the agreement? We will have a motion to recommit and then 
final passage, but will that come at 2 o'clock? What is the intent?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I think we 
should aim to complete all action on this bill by 2 p.m., which would 
mean calling some of the motions the gentleman has noted even before 2 
o'clock.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. So, if I may continue, the idea is that we will 
be voting at possibly 1:30 or something like that? With 14 amendments, 
is there some way to manage it so we will not have 5 amendments left at 
1:30 to consider? How are we going to allocate the time?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, last year we 
had success with every Member who offered amendments. Each Member 
agreed by unanimous consent to limit debate on each amendment. We did 
that in an orderly fashion.
  I am going to propose, along with the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen], that each Member have some amount of specific time with the 
certainty that they will be allowed to offer their amendments.
  I will add, though, that this is an open rule, so we suspect there 
could be anywhere from zero amendments up to 14 or more. So I ask for 
the indulgence and the cooperation of every Member to please come to 
the floor and alert the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and 
myself of their intentions so that we can allocate a period of time for 
Members to debate their amendments and we can call it to a vote, if 
necessary.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will say that I concur 
with the sentiment just expressed by the chairman of the subcommittee. 
I think we have drawn the lines. All the Members are very familiar with 
the debate. There is not new material to be covered, so let us get on 
with the debate and get it done in a timely fashion and get out of here 
by 2 o'clock.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. By agreement, then, the House will complete its debate 
on this bill by 2 o'clock this afternoon.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4554

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1995, and for other purposes, namely:

                     TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and not to exceed $75,000 for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, $2,801,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000 
     of this amount, along with any unobligated balances of 
     representation funds in the Foreign Agricultural Service 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses, not otherwise provided for, as determined by the 
     Secretary: Provided further, That the Secretary may transfer 
     salaries and expenses funds in this Act sufficient to finance 
     a total of not to exceed 35 staff years between agencies of 
     the Department of Agriculture to meet workload requirements.

                 Office of Budget and Program Analysis

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program 
     Analysis, including employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed $5,000 is for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $5,795,000.

                        Chief Financial Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Chief Financial Officer to 
     carry out the mandates of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 
     1990, $580,000.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Administration to carry out the programs funded 
     in this Act, $596,000.


        agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the 
     Department of Agriculture which are included in this Act, 
     $106,571,000, of which $18,614,000 shall be retained by the 
     Department of Agriculture for the operation, maintenance, and 
     repair of Agriculture buildings: Provided, That in the event 
     an agency within the Department of Agriculture should require 
     modification of space needs, the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     transfer a share of that agency's appropriation made 
     available by this Act to this appropriation, or may transfer 
     a share of this appropriation to that agency's appropriation, 
     but such transfers shall not exceed 5 per centum of the funds 
     made available for space rental and related costs to or from 
     this account. In addition, for construction, repair, 
     improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed 
     equipment or facilities as necessary to carry out the 
     programs of the Department, where not otherwise provided, 
     $28,622,000, to remain available until expended; making a 
     total appropriation of $135,193,000.


                       advisory committees (usda)

       For necessary expenses for activities of advisory 
     committees of the Department of Agriculture which are 
     included in this Act, $928,000: Provided, That no other funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Agriculture in this Act 
     shall be available to the Department of Agriculture for 
     support of activities of advisory committees.


                       hazardous waste management

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to 
     comply with the requirement of section 107(g) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 
     6001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as 
     amended, 42 U.S.C. 6961, $15,700,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That appropriations and funds 
     available herein to the Department of Agriculture for 
     hazardous waste management may be transferred to any agency 
     of the Department for its use in meeting all requirements 
     pursuant to the above Acts on Federal and non-Federal lands.

                      Departmental Administration


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For Finance and Management, $4,477,000, for Personnel, 
     Operations, Information Resources Management, Civil Rights 
     Enforcement, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, 
     Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer, and Emergency 
     Programs, $21,710,000; making a total of $26,187,000 for 
     Departmental Administration to provide for necessary expenses 
     for management support services to offices of the Department 
     of Agriculture and for general administration and emergency 
     preparedness of the Department of Agriculture, repairs and 
     alterations, and other miscellaneous supplies and expenses 
     not otherwise provided for and necessary for the practical 
     and efficient work of the Department of Agriculture, 
     including employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of 
     which not to exceed $10,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109: Provided, That this appropriation shall be reimbursed 
     from applicable appropriations in this Act for travel 
     expenses incident to the holding of hearings as required by 5 
     U.S.C. 551-558.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out the 
     programs funded in this Act, including programs involving 
     intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive 
     branch, $1,764,000.

                        Office of Communications

       For necessary expenses to carry on services relating to the 
     coordination of programs involving public affairs, and for 
     the dissemination of agricultural information and the 
     coordination of information, work and programs authorized by 
     Congress in the Department, $8,198,000, including employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed 
     $10,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, and not to exceed $2,000,000 may be used for farmers' 
     bulletins.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General, including employment pursuant to the second sentence 
     of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 
     $63,918,000, including such sums as may be necessary for 
     contracting and other arrangements with public agencies and 
     private persons pursuant to section 6(a)(9) of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, and including a sum not to 
     exceed $50,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; and 
     including a sum not to exceed $95,000 for certain 
     confidential operational expenses including the payment of 
     informants, to be expended under the direction of the 
     Inspector General pursuant to Public Law 95-452 and section 
     1337 of Public Law 97-98.

                     Office of the General Counsel

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the General 
     Counsel, $25,992,000.

            Office of the Assistant Secretary for Economics

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Economics to carry out the programs funded in 
     this Act, $540,000.

                       Economic Research Service

       For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in 
     conducting economic research and service relating to 
     agricultural production, marketing, and distribution, as 
     authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1621-1627) and other laws, including economics of 
     marketing; analyses relating to farm prices, income and 
     population, and demand for farm products, use of resources in 
     agriculture, adjustments, costs and returns in farming, and 
     farm finance; research relating to the economic and marketing 
     aspects of farmer cooperatives; and for analysis of supply 
     and demand for farm products in foreign countries and their 
     effect on prospects for United States exports, progress in 
     economic development and its relation to sales of farm 
     products, assembly and analysis of agricultural trade 
     statistics and analysis of international financial and 
     monetary programs and policies as they affect the competitive 
     position of United States farm products, $54,306,000; of 
     which $500,000 shall be available for investigation, 
     determination, and finding as to the effect upon the 
     production of food and upon the agricultural economy of any 
     proposed action affecting such subject matter pending before 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for 
     presentation, in the public interest, before said 
     Administrator, other agencies or before the courts: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall be available for employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225): Provided further, That 
     this appropriation shall be available for analysis of 
     statistics and related facts on foreign production and full 
     and complete information on methods used by other countries 
     to move farm commodities in world trade on a competitive 
     basis.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

       For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural 
     Statistics Service in conducting statistical reporting and 
     service work, including crop and livestock estimates, 
     statistical coordination and improvements, and marketing 
     surveys, as authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
     1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) and other laws, $81,424,000: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $40,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109.

                    World Agricultural Outlook Board

       For necessary expenses of the World Agricultural Outlook 
     Board to coordinate and review all commodity and aggregate 
     agricultural and food data used to develop outlook and 
     situation material within the Department of Agriculture, as 
     authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1622(g)), $2,498,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225).

      Office of the Assistant Secretary for Science and Education

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Science and Education to administer 
     the laws enacted by the Congress for the Agricultural 
     Research Service, Cooperative State Research Service, 
     Extension Service, and National Agricultural Library, 
     $520,000.

 Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Revolving Fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Alternative 
     Agricultural Research and Commercialization Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 5901-5908), $4,000,000 is appropriated to the 
     Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization 
     Revolving Fund.

                     Agricultural Research Service


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to enable the Agricultural Research 
     Service to perform agricultural research and demonstration 
     relating to production, utilization, marketing, and 
     distribution (not otherwise provided for), home economics or 
     nutrition and consumer use, and for acquisition of lands by 
     donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to 
     exceed $100, $693,977,000: Provided, That appropriations 
     hereunder shall be available for temporary employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $115,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109: Provided further, That appropriations hereunder shall 
     be available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft 
     and the purchase of not to exceed one for replacement only: 
     Provided further, That appropriations hereunder shall be 
     available to conduct marketing research: Provided further, 
     That appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to 
     7 U.S.C. 2250 for the construction, alteration, and repair of 
     buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the 
     cost of constructing any one building shall not exceed 
     $250,000, except for headhouses or greenhouses which shall 
     each be limited to $1,000,000, and except for ten buildings 
     to be constructed or improved at a cost not to exceed 
     $500,000 each, and the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 per centum of the 
     current replacement value of the building or $250,000, 
     whichever is greater: Provided further, That the limitations 
     on alterations contained in this Act shall not apply to 
     modernization or replacement of existing facilities at 
     Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That the foregoing 
     limitations shall not apply to replacement of buildings 
     needed to carry out the Act of April 24, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 
     113a): Provided further, That the foregoing limitations shall 
     not apply to the purchase of land at Parlier, California and 
     Grand Forks, North Dakota: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $190,000 of this appropriation may be transferred to 
     and merged with the appropriation for the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Science and Education for the 
     scientific review of international issues involving 
     agricultural chemicals and food additives: Provided further, 
     That funds may be received from any State, other political 
     subdivision, organization, or individual for the purpose of 
     establishing or operating any research facility or research 
     project of the Agricultural Research Service, as authorized 
     by law.
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.


                        buildings and facilities

       For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
     extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
     facilities as necessary to carry out the agricultural 
     research programs of the Department of Agriculture, where not 
     otherwise provided, $23,400,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That funds may be 
     received from any State, other political subdivision, 
     organization, or individual for the purpose of establishing 
     any research facility of the Agricultural Research Service, 
     as authorized by law.


                     amendment offered by mr. goss

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Goss: Page 12, line 22, strike 
     ``$23,400,000'' and insert ``$20,500,000''.

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized for 
5 minutes in support of his amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment, and all amendments thereto, be limited to 10 minutes, 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] to control 5 minutes and the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and myself to control the 
remaining time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  0920

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I am merely standing here to clear up the 
record and close what I hope is a final chapter of what has been a very 
sordid story starting at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, there are six specific points I wish to make here today 
about the inclusion of $2.9 million of taxpayer funds for the 
relocation of the Orlando Agricultural Research Service Station to Fort 
Pierce:
  First, I hope to clear the record on the extent of support within the 
Florida delegation for this relocation. Contrary to testimony at 
hearings we are not unified on this matter. In fact, there are at least 
three camps within the delegation, with wide gulfs between them, 
representing different agricultural regions and interests in Florida.
  Second, I also want to point out that this is not a partisan issue--
we have experienced these difficulties over two successive 
administrations. It is however, a political issue, as shown by internal 
USDA documents and countless press stories and statements.
  Third, my third point is that the site selection committee clearly 
and definitively placed another site above the one selected. That is 
not debatable--it happened--and it was deliberately covered up. It is 
only through the extraordinary unilateral efforts of a local 
newspaper's freedom of information request that the documents are now 
public which prove this. I will insert in the Record after my remarks 
the relevant documentation.
  Fourth, because of the games played with the site selection process, 
it is the opinion of many southwest Florida agricultural leaders that 
the value to Florida agriculture of this research station has been 
significantly reduced by this USDA decision.
  Fifth, I have suggested a better solution--a compromise--with the 
advantages of lower costs and better use of available resources; but so 
far we have heard nothing meaningful in response from USDA to this 
suggestion.
  Sixth, my last, and most important point is that throughout this 
process, Members of Congress--myself included--have been deliberately, 
willfully, and knowingly misled by the USDA and its spokespersons. The 
record is clear: They were caught redhanded covering up, and they 
should be very red faced about it.
  This is not a scandal about high living and special favors for senior 
members of USDA or illegal gifts for people who regulate their 
programs. I am not talking about that. I am talking about legitimate 
oversight of the U.S. Congress and the individual Members of it, and we 
expect cooperation and timely and complete and forthright responses 
from all executive branch agencies.
  Today, in the overriding interest of avoiding protracted intrastate 
disharmony on this matter, I have decided not to proceed with this 
amendment, even though I believe $2.9 million would be better spent 
elsewhere. But I want the bureaucrats at the USDA to know that lying to 
Congress is no way to win friends on Capitol Hill. I want them to know 
that I will continue to work honestly, openly, and actively for the 
real victims of this process: The citizens of Immokalee. There are 
still ARS matters to be pursued there. And I want USDA to know that I 
will remember their sorry performance, disingenuousness, and inept 
management. In my view this chapter is a disgrace to public service. I 
hope they can to better.

                                   U.S. Department of Agriculture,


                                  Office of the Administrator,

                               Washington, DC, September 11, 1992.
     Decision Memorandum for the Secretary.

     Through: Duane Acker, Assistant Secretary, Science and 
       Education.
     From: R.D. Plowman, Administrator.

     Subject: Relocation of U.S. Horticultural Research 
       Laboratory, Orlando, Florida.


                               Background

       The 40-year-old U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory in 
     Orlando, Florida, is in major need of modernization and is 
     suffering from urban encroachment. Consequently, the 
     Laboratory is no longer able to carry out its mission and 
     serve the public as effectively as it has done in the past.
       The Florida Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, 
     representing a coalition of horticultural organizations in 
     Florida, has supported the relocation of the U.S. 
     Horticultural Research Laboratory, Orlando, to southern 
     Florida so as to better serve the industry in future years. 
     The Florida Congressional delegation supports this request 
     and Congress has provided funds in our fiscal year 1993 
     budget toward planning for this relocation.


                             recommendation

       We have recently evaluated two sites in southern Florida 
     that previously have been identified by the industry 
     coalition as potential relocation sites. We recommend the 
     Immokalee site in southwestern Florida as the site of choice 
     but no announcement has been made of our preference. The 
     attached briefing paper provides additional information.
       We request that you consider our recommendation and make a 
     public announcement of your decision.
       Enclosure.

Recommendation on Relocation of U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory, 
                              Orlando, FL


                               background

       The U.S. Horticultural Research Station, Orlando, Florida, 
     was built in 1952 to help solve production and marketing 
     problems of the U.S. citrus and other horticultural 
     industries. There is now complete urban encroachment of the 
     research facility, the citrus industry is moving to southern 
     production areas of the State, the vegetable and nursery/
     ornamental industries are expanding in southern Florida, and 
     there are many new production and marketing problems facing 
     these expanding horticultural industries. There is also an 
     increasing potential for exports, particularly for citrus and 
     ornamental plants. A coalition of horticultural organizations 
     in Florida, representing growers, processors, and marketing 
     specialists, has requested the Agricultural Research Service 
     (ARS) to relocate the Orlando Laboratory to southern Florida. 
     The coalition first identified five potential relocation 
     sites, then narrowed the sites to two--one at Ft. Pierce and 
     one at Immokalee. Congress has provided funds toward the 
     planning for relocation of the Orlando Laboratory.


                          evaluation of sites

       Using previously established criteria for relocation of the 
     Orlando Laboratory, ARS representatives twice visited the 
     Fort Pierce and Immokalee sites. While both sites were found 
     to be acceptable, the Immokalee site was found to be 
     superior. Immokalee is centrally located to the existing 
     citrus and vegetable production areas and would be centrally 
     located to the anticipated future expansion of the citrus, 
     vegetable, and nursery/ornamental industries. Approximately 
     175,000 acres already are in production, and State water-use 
     management permits have already been approved for an 
     additional 100,000 acres.
       With major expansion of horticultural industries in 
     Southwest Florida, research will be required to establish and 
     maintain efficient and sustainable production systems. Areas 
     of desired research would include land and water management 
     systems so as to protect the environment, especially surface 
     and ground water quality; biology of existing and potential 
     agricultural pests to include insects, diseases, nematodes, 
     and weeds; use of biological control and other integrated 
     pest management techniques to control agricultural pests with 
     a minimum use of pesticides; development of new improved 
     citrus scion and rootstock varieties; new improved production 
     systems for vegetable and nursery/ornamental crops; and 
     improved marketing systems for all horticultural crops for 
     both domestic and export markets. These distinct areas of 
     proposed ARS research would be different from existing State 
     programs but would complement University of Florida research 
     on horticultural crops.
       The South Florida Agricultural Council will purchase a 378-
     acre site at Immokalee and donate the land to the Department 
     for the new research station. This site is one of the highest 
     sites in Southwest Florida and would be better protected from 
     flooding and freeze damage than the site at Fort Pierce. 
     Based on the experience of the University of Florida, which 
     recently built a Research and Extension Center at Immokalee, 
     public utilities at the proposed ARS site could be provided 
     at a reasonable cost and adequately maintained.
       The University of Florida Research and Extension Center is 
     located 3 miles from the Immokalee site and would provide the 
     opportunity for cooperative research programs on all 
     horticultural crops, as well as sugarcane. Since sugarcane is 
     also expanding in Southwest Florida and ARS had a sugarcane 
     research station at Canal Point, ARS could cooperate with the 
     University of Florida on sugarcane research. ARS would also 
     plan to cooperate with the Department of Environmental 
     Sciences planned at the University of Florida Southwest 
     Campus which is scheduled to be built 30 miles from 
     Immokalee.


                             recommendation

       Immokalee is the site of choice for the relocation of the 
     Orlando Horticultural Research Laboratory. It is suggested 
     that after a public announcement is made on the relocation 
     site, the Department thank the Florida coalition of 
     horticultural industries and the entire Florida congressional 
     delegation for their support of the relocation of the Orlando 
     Laboratory and thank the South Florida Agricultural Council 
     for offering to donate 378 acres of land. Contact for the 
     Florida Coalition of Horticultural Industries: Mr. George F. 
     Sorn, Executive Vice President, Florida Fresh Fruit and 
     Vegetable Association, 4401 E. Colonial Drive, P.O. Box 
     141055, Orlando, FL 32815-0155 (Telephone: 407-894-1351). 
     Contact for the South Florida Agricultural Council: Mr. Tom 
     Perry, Chairman, South Florida Agricultural Council, P.O. Box 
     68, LaBelle, FL. 33935 (Telephone: 813-946-0854).


                            Followup action

       Arrangements should be made with the South Florida 
     Agricultural Council for transfer of the Immokalee site to 
     ARS. Some of the $1,270,000 identified in Orlando, FL, can be 
     used for a pre-design study for the Immokalee facility. A 
     budget request will be required in fiscal year 1994 to 
     provide funding for additional planning funds, followed by a 
     later request for construction funds. Personnel could not be 
     relocated from the Orlando Laboratory until after facility 
     construction is complete and ready for occupancy. It might 
     not be until 1997-1998 that relocation of the Orlando 
     Laboratory would be complete.

  SCORE SHEET FOR EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL RELOCATION SITES FOR THE U.S. 
             HORTICULTURAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, ORLANDO, FL             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The more important evaluation   Suggestedweight                        
            factors                                 SiteA        SiteB  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Potential of area for                     5    XX          X         
 agricultural production over                                           
 the next 50 years.                                                     
2. Proximity to existing or                  4    XX          X         
 potential agricultural                                                 
 production areas of citrus,                                            
 vegetable, and environmental                                           
 horticultural crops.                                                   
3. Reduced likelihood of                     4    X           X         
 potential freeze damage to                                             
 horticultural crops.                                                   
4. Suitability of site to                    4    XX          X         
 include size, configuration,                                           
 frontage, soil type, drainage,                                         
 lack of nematodes, etc.                                                
5. Accessibility of site by                  3    X           X         
 agricultural community and                                             
 potential visibility of                                                
 laboratory facilities.                                                 
6. Federal ownership of                      3    XX          X         
 building site and field plots                                          
 rather than lease. Outright                                            
 Federal ownership is preferred.                                        
7. Lack of easements or                      3    X           X         
 restrictive ordinances.                                                
8. Lack of industrial/urban                  3    XX          X         
 encroachment or potential of                                           
 such encroachment.                                                     
9. Proximity to State                        3    X           X         
 agricultural research and                                              
 extension centers or other                                             
 higher educational                                                     
 institutions.                                                          
10. Presence of horticultural                3    X           X         
 grower organizations in the                                            
 area and potential of active                                           
 involvement and support of                                             
 such organizations for ARS and                                         
 ARS/State cooperative research                                         
 programs.                                                              
11. Proximity to or                          2    X           XX        
 accessibility of technical                                             
 services needed to support                                             
 agricultural research programs.                                        
12. Anticipated ease of                      2    X           X         
 recruitment of professional                                            
 staff. (Access to airports,                                            
 hospitals, schools, churches,                                          
 and other community services;                                          
 quality of life available in                                           
 the area; and other similar                                            
 considerations.).                                                      
13. Access to public utilities.              2    X           XX        
14. Cost of land...............              2    X           X         
15. Relocation costs of Orlando              1    X           XX        
 staff.                                                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site A is Inmokalee, Site B is Fort Pierce; One X--Acceptable; Two X's--
  More acceptable.                                                      

       Use of Evaluation Factors to Compare Immokalee and Fort 
     Pierce Sites for Potential Relocation of the U.S. 
     Horticultural Research Laboratory, Orlando, Florida
       1. Potential of surrounding area for agricultural 
     production over the next 50 year (Weight of 5).

                               Immokalee

       Existing acreage of about 130,000 citrus (mostly young 
     trees), 50,000 vegetables, and 3,000 nursery/ornamental 
     crops.
       Considerable potential for expansion of acreages over next 
     50 years with water use management permits already approved 
     for an additional 100,000 acres of citrus.
       Availability and relatively low cost of land and reduced 
     likelihood of cold/freeze damage are primary reasons for 
     anticipated expansion of Southwestern Florida agricultural 
     production areas.
       Many production and marketing problems anticipated as 
     acreages of horticultural crops expand, thus increasing the 
     need for research.

                              Fort Pierce

       Existing acreage of about 220,000 citrus, 100,000 
     vegetables, and 10,000 nursery/ornamental crops.
       Potential of urbanization could reduce agricultural 
     production in area over next 50 years or certainly limit 
     potential expansion.
       Relatively high cost of land and higher potential threat of 
     cold/freeze damage compared to the Southwestern Florida 
     production area are considered to be primary reasons why 
     expansion of horticultural crop production is not 
     anticipated.
       Since this is a well established production area for 
     horticultural crops, many of the production and marketing 
     problems have already been solved and there is comparatively 
     less need for research.
       2. Proximity to existing or potential agricultural 
     production areas of citrus, vegetable, and environmental 
     horticultural crops (weight of 4).

                               Immokalee

       Site is centrally located within existing or potential 
     areas of production for citrus, vegetable, and nursery/
     ornamental crops of Southwestern Florida.

                              Fort Pierce

       Site is located in the extreme eastern edge of citrus 
     production of Florida and near the extreme eastern edge of 
     Fort Pierce-Indian River citrus production area. There is 
     proximity to the vegetable and nursery/ornamental crops 
     areas.
       3. Reduced likelihood of potential freeze damage to 
     horticultural crops (weight of 4).

                               Immokalee

       Some threat of potential cold/freeze damage but the 
     Immokalee area is located further south than the Fort Pierce 
     area and is somewhat protected by the warm waters of the Gulf 
     of Mexico. The Immokalee area has escaped much of the severe 
     freeze damage experienced by citrus and other crops during 
     freezes in recent years. This is the primary reason why 
     plantings of citrus and other crops are being expanded in 
     Southwest Florida.

                              Fort Pierce

       The Indian River citrus production area and the Fort Pierce 
     relocation site are both extremely close to the Atlantic 
     Ocean and are reasonably well protected from cold/freeze 
     damage. However, citrus and other crops planted just a few 
     miles further inland are subject to cold/freeze damage.
       4. Suitability of site to include size, configuration, 
     frontage, soil type, drainage, lack of nematodes, etc. 
     (weight of 4).

                               Immokalee

       The 378 acre site in question is a single parcel of land 
     and with good Frontage on a major highway, good soil type, 
     good soil drainage, absence of nematodes, and absence of 
     other potential problems that would adversely affect field 
     experiments.

                              Fort Pierce

       A site of 150-180 acres would be made available. This site 
     is in a single parcel of land and with good frontage on a 
     major highway, good soil type, good soil drainage, absence of 
     nematodes, and absence of other potential problems that would 
     adversely affect field experiments.
       Land in addition to the 150-180 acre site might also be 
     available nearby, but this land would not be contiguous to 
     the 150-180 acre site.
       5. Accessibility of site by agricultural community and 
     potential visibility of laboratory facilities (weight of 3).

                               Immokalee

       Site is on a major highway which soon is to be increased to 
     four lanes.
       Site would be readily accessible and visible to the 
     agricultural community.

                              Fort Pierce

       Site is on a major highway and very close to interchanges 
     with other major highways.
       Site would be readily accessible and visible to the 
     agricultural community.
       6. Federal ownership of building site and field plots 
     rather than lease. Outright Federal ownership is preferred 
     (weight of 3).

                               Immokalee

       The South Florida Agricultural Council would purchase the 
     378 acre site and make it available for research purposes at 
     no cost to the Department. The Department would have outright 
     ownership of land with a reversion clause if the land was no 
     longer used for research purposes.

                              Fort Pierce

       The University of Florida would make 150-180 acres of land 
     available for research purposes under conditions of a long-
     term lease.
       The St. Lucie County School Board has indicated that it 
     would negotiate for use of additional land which is in close 
     proximity to the University of Florida property.
       7. Lack of easements or restrictive ordinances (weight of 
     3).

                               Immokalee

       There are no known restrictive ordinances that would 
     interfere with research programs.

                              Fort Pierce

       There are no known restrictive ordinances that would 
     interfere with research programs. However, restrictive 
     ordinances might come with increased urbanization.
       8. Lack of industrial/urban encroachment or potential of 
     such encroachment (weight of 3).

                               Immokalee

       Being in an agricultural area, this site lacks industrial/
     urban encroachment or the potential of such encroachment in 
     the foreseeable future.

                              Fort Pierce

       Future industrial/urban encroachment can be anticipated in 
     the vicinity of this site and in the immediate surrounding 
     area.
       9. Proximity to State agricultural research and extension 
     centers or other higher educational institutions (weight of 
     3).

                               Immokalee

       The University of Florida plans to establish a new 
     southwest campus in Fort Myers which would be about 30 miles 
     from the proposed Orlando relocation site.
       The University of Florida Southwest Florida Research and 
     Education Center is located about 3 miles from the proposed 
     relocation site.

                              Fort Pierce

       The University of Florida Ft. Pierce Agricultural Research 
     and Education Center is located about a mile from the 
     proposed relocation site.
       10. Presence of horticultural grower organizations in the 
     area and potential of active involvement and support of such 
     organizations for ARS and ARS/State cooperative research 
     programs (weight of 3).

                               Immokalee

       There are organized and active horticultural grower 
     organizations.

                              Fort Pierce

       There are organized and active horticultural grower 
     organizations.
       11. Proximity to or accessibility of technical services 
     needed to support agricultural research programs (weight of 
     2).

                               Immokalee

       Technical services are available from the Ft. Myers area 
     which is 30-35 miles away.
       The Director of the University of Florida Southwest Florida 
     Research and Education Center at Immokalee reports that his 
     staff has had no difficulty obtaining technical services for 
     their research programs.

                              Fort Pierce

       Technical services are available from the Ft. Pierce area 
     which is only several miles away.
       12. Anticipated ease of recruitment of professional staff. 
     (Access to airports, hospitals, schools, churches, and other 
     community services; quality of life available in the area; 
     and other similar considerations.) (weight of 2).

                               Immokalee

       There would be no anticipated difficulties in recruitment 
     of professional staff.

                              Fort Pierce

       There would be no anticipated difficulties in recruitment 
     of professional staff.
       13. Access to public utilities (weight of 2).

                               Immokalee

       Electric and telephone utilities are available at the site. 
     Wells would have to be drilled and a self-contained waste 
     water treatment facility would have to be built as was done 
     for the University of Florida Southwest Florida Research and 
     Education Center located about 3 miles away. Cost of putting 
     in a well and building a waste water treatment facility is 
     estimated to be between $500,000-$1,000,000.

                              Fort Pierce

       Electric and telephone utilities are available at the site.
       City water and sewer are available about 1 mile from the 
     site and it would cost $800,000-$1,000,000 to bring them to 
     the site.
       14. Cost of land (weight of 2).

                               Immokalee

       Land would be provided by the growers at no cost to the 
     Department.

                              Fort Pierce

       About 150-180 acres of land would be made available under 
     long-term lease from the University of Florida at no cost to 
     the Department.
       Cost for leasing additional acreage from the St. Lucie 
     County School Board would have to be negotiated separately 
     and might incur additional expenses or certain future 
     restrictions on the use of land.
       15. Relocation costs of Orlando staff (weight of 1).

                               Immokalee

       Relocation costs have not been estimated but would probably 
     be more than the Fort Pierce site.

                              Fort Pierce

       Relocation costs have not been estimated but would probably 
     be less than for the Immokalee site because of the shorter 
     distance from Orlando.

  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment at 
this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   Cooperative State Research Service

       For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for 
     cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and 
     for other expenses, including $171,304,000 to carry into 
     effect the provisions of the Hatch Act approved March 2, 
     1887, as amended, including administration by the United 
     States Department of Agriculture, penalty mail costs of 
     agricultural experiment stations under section 6 of the Hatch 
     Act of 1887, as amended, and payments under section 1361(c) 
     of the Act of October 3, 1980 (7 U.S.C. 301n.); $20,809,000 
     for grants for cooperative forestry research under the Act 
     approved October 10, 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-582-a7), as 
     amended, including administrative expenses, and payments 
     under section 1361(c) of the Act of October 3, 1980 (7 U.S.C. 
     301n.); $28,157,000 for payments to the 1890 land-grant 
     colleges, including Tuskegee University, for research under 
     section 1445 of the National Agricultural Research, 
     Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3222), 
     as amended, including administration by the United States 
     Department of Agriculture, and penalty mail costs of the 1890 
     land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University; 
     $44,969,000 for contracts and grants for agricultural 
     research under the Act of August 4, 1965, as amended (7 
     U.S.C. 450i(c)); $103,123,000 for competitive research grants 
     under section 2(b) of the Act of August 4, 1965, as amended 
     (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), including administrative expenses; 
     $5,551,000 for the support of animal health and disease 
     programs authorized by section 1433 of Public Law 95-113, 
     including administrative expenses; $1,818,000 for 
     supplemental and alternative crops and products as authorized 
     by the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3319d); 
     $400,000 for grants for research pursuant to the Critical 
     Agricultural Materials Act of 1984 (7 U.S.C. 178) and section 
     1472 of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, as amended (7 
     U.S.C. 3318), to remain available until expended; $475,000 
     for rangeland research grants as authorized by subtitle M of 
     the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977, as amended; $3,500,000 for higher 
     education graduate fellowships grants under section 
     1417(b)(6) of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
     and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     3152(b)(6)), including administrative expenses, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); $1,500,000 for 
     higher education challenge grants under section 1417(b)(1) of 
     the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)), 
     including administrative expenses; $1,000,000 for a higher 
     education minority scholars program under section 1417(b)(5) 
     of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     3152(b)(5)), including administrative expenses, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); $4,000,000 for 
     aquaculture grants as authorized by section 1475 of the 
     National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching 
     Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3322), and other Acts; 
     $7,400,000  for sustainable agriculture research and 
     education, as authorized by section 1621 of Public Law 101-
     624 (7 U.S.C. 5811), including administrative expenses; and 
     $19,954,000 for necessary expenses of Cooperative State 
     Research Service activities, including coordination and 
     program leadership for higher education work of the 
     Department, administration of payments to State agricultural 
     experiment stations, funds for employment pursuant to the 
     second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 
     (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which $9,917,000 shall be for a program 
     of capacity building grants to colleges eligible to receive 
     funds under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 
     328), including Tuskegee University, to remain available 
     until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), of which not to exceed 
     $100,000 shall be for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; in all, 
     $413,960,000.
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.


                        buildings and facilities

       For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
     extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
     facilities and for grants to States and other eligible 
     recipients for such purposes, as necessary to carry out the 
     agricultural research, extension, and teaching programs of 
     the Department of Agriculture, where not otherwise provided, 
     $34,148,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b).

                           Extension Service

       Payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
     Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and 
     American Samoa: For payments for cooperative agricultural 
     extension work under the Smith-Lever Act, as amended, to be 
     distributed under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said Act, and 
     under section 208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for retirement and 
     employees' compensation costs for extension agents and for 
     costs of penalty mail for cooperative extension agents and 
     State extension directors, $272,582,000; payments for the 
     nutrition and family education program for low-income areas 
     under section 3(d) of the Act, $61,431,000; payments for the 
     pest management program under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $10,147,000; payments for the farm safety and rural health 
     programs under section 3(d) of the Act, $2,988,000; payments 
     for the pesticide impact assessment program under section 
     3(d) of the Act, $3,363,000; payments to upgrade 1890 land-
     grant college research and extension facilities as authorized 
     by section 1447 of Public Law 95-113, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     3222b), $7,901,000, to remain available until expended; 
     payments for the rural development centers under section 3(d) 
     of the Act, $950,000; payments for a groundwater quality 
     program under section 3(d) of the Act, $11,234,000; payments 
     for the Agricultural Telecommunications Program, as 
     authorized by Public Law 101-624 (7 U.S.C. 5926), $1,221,000; 
     payments for youth-at-risk programs under section 3(d) of the 
     Act, $10,000,000; payments for a Nutrition Education 
     Initiative under section 3(d) of the Act, $4,265,000; 
     payments for a food safety program under section 3(d) of the 
     Act, $2,475,000; payments for carrying out the provisions of 
     the Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978, $3,341,000; 
     payments for Indian reservation agents under section 3(d) of 
     the Act, $1,750,000; payments for sustainable agriculture 
     programs under section 3(d) of the Act, $2,963,000; payments 
     for extension work by the colleges receiving the benefits of 
     the second Morrill Act (7 U.S.C. 321-326, 328) and Tuskegee 
     University, $25,472,000; and for Federal administration and 
     coordination including administration of the Smith-Lever Act, 
     as amended, and the Act of September 29, 1977 (7 U.S.C. 341-
     349), as amended, and section 1361(c) of the Act of October 
     3, 1980 (7 U.S.C. 301n.), and to coordinate and provide 
     program leadership for the extension work of the Department 
     and the several States and insular possessions, $7,117,000; 
     in all, $429,200,000: Provided, That funds hereby 
     appropriated pursuant to section 3(c) of the Act of June 26, 
     1953, and section 506 of the Act of June 23, 1972, as 
     amended, shall not be paid to any State, the District of 
     Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, 
     Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and American Samoa prior to 
     availability of an equal sum from non-Federal sources for 
     expenditure during the current fiscal year.

                     National Agricultural Library

       For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural 
     Library, $17,845,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall 
     be available for employment pursuant to the second sentence 
     of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and not to exceed $35,000 shall be available for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $900,000 shall be available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for the 
     alteration and repair of buildings and improvements.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Inspection Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Inspection Services to 
     administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress 
     for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Food 
     Safety and Inspection Service, Federal Grain Inspection 
     Service, Agricultural Marketing Service, and Packers and 
     Stockyards Administration, $605,000.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, including those 
     pursuant to the Act of February 28, 1947, as amended (21 
     U.S.C. 114b-c), necessary to prevent, control, and eradicate 
     pests and plant and animal diseases; to carry out inspection, 
     quarantine, and regulatory activities; to discharge the 
     authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture under the Act of 
     March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C. 426-426b); and to 
     protect the environment, as authorized by law, $438,651,000, 
     of which $96,660,000 shall be derived from user fees 
     deposited in the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection User Fee 
     Account, and of which $4,938,000 shall be available for the 
     control of outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal 
     diseases and for control of pest animals and birds to the 
     extent necessary to meet emergency conditions: Provided, 
     That, if the demand for Agricultural Quarantine Inspection 
     (AQI) user fee financed services is greater than expected 
     and/or other uncontrollable events occur, the Agency may 
     exceed the AQI User Fee limitation by up to 20 per centum, 
     provided such funds are available in the Agricultural 
     Quarantine Inspection User Fee Account, and with notification 
     to the Appropriations Committees: Provided further, That no 
     funds shall be used to formulate or administer a brucellosis 
     eradication program for the current fiscal year that does not 
     require minimum matching by the States of at least 40 per 
     centum: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for field employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $40,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That 
     this appropriation shall be available for the operation and 
     maintenance of aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed 
     four, of which two shall be for replacement only: Provided 
     further, That, in addition, in emergencies which threaten any 
     segment of the agricultural production industry of this 
     country, the Secretary may transfer from other appropriations 
     or funds available to the agencies or corporations of the 
     Department such sums as he may deem necessary, to be 
     available only in such emergencies for the arrest and 
     eradication of contagious or infectious disease or pests of 
     animals, poultry, or plants, and for expenses in accordance 
     with the Act of February 28, 1947, as amended, and section 
     102 of the Act of September 21, 1944, as amended, and any 
     unexpended balances of funds transferred for such emergency 
     purposes in the next preceding fiscal year shall be merged 
     with such transferred amounts: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to law 
     (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and alteration of leased 
     buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the 
     cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year 
     shall not exceed 10 per centum of the current replacement 
     value of the building.
       In fiscal year 1995 the Agency is authorized to collect 
     fees for the total direct and indirect costs of technical 
     assistance, goods, or services provided to States, other 
     political subdivisions, domestic and international 
     organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, and such 
     fees shall be credited to this account, to remain available 
     until expended, without further appropriation, for providing 
     such assistance, goods, or services.

                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance, 
     environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration, 
     and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized 
     by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 428a, $6,973,000, to remain available until expended.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

       For necessary expenses to carry on services authorized by 
     the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as amended, and the Poultry 
     Products Inspection Act, as amended, $430,929,000, and in 
     addition, $1,000,000 may be credited to this account from 
     fees collected for the cost of laboratory accreditation as 
     authorized by section 1017 of Public Law 102-237: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall be available for field 
     employment pursuant to section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $75,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided 
     further, That this appropriation shall be available pursuant 
     to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of 
     buildings and improvements, but the cost of altering any one 
     building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 per 
     centum of the current replacement value of the building.

  Mr. KREIDLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last world.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and I want to thank the 
committee for all it is doing to improve the safety of meat and 
poultry.
  Last year, three children in the Pacific Northwest died because they 
ate Government-approved hamburger that was contaminated with a deadly 
organism known as E. coli 0157:H7. Since then, Agriculture Secretary 
Mike Espy has done more than any Secretary in history to bring modern 
science to meat and poultry inspection in order to prevent more of 
these tragedies. No one can question his commitment to food safety.
  But progress has been painfully, dangerously slow. According to the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as many as 20,000 Americans 
may be infected with E. coli each year, and as many as 300 people die 
from this infection. There has been and will continue to be legitimate 
debates about the best ways to keep meat and poultry from 
contamination, but there has also been foot-dragging and resistance to 
basic reforms like microbial testing.
  That is why the Appropriations Committee has directed USDA to work 
with other Federal agencies, to establish microbiological standards for 
food safety, and to sample for microbial pathogens in meat and poultry 
at critical points in processing to verify that pathogen levels are 
being controlled.
  That is the kind of oversight and direction the Department clearly 
needs. It's the kind of leadership this Congress ought to be taking. I 
want to thank Chairman Durbin and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. 
DeLauro], for what they have done to improve our food safety system and 
protect America's children.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Federal Grain Inspection Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     United States Grain Standards Act, as amended, and the 
     standardization activities related to grain under the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, including 
     field employment pursuant to section 706(a) of the Organic 
     Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $20,000 for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $11,325,000: Provided, That 
     this appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (76 
     U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 per centum of the 
     current replacement value of the building.


inspection and weighing services limitation on inspection and weighing 
                            service expenses

       Not to exceed $42,784,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for Inspection and 
     Weighing Services: Provided, That if grain export activities 
     require additional supervision and oversight, or other 
     uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded 
     by up to 10 per centum with notification to the 
     Appropriations Committees.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           marketing services

       For necessary expenses to carry on services related to 
     consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution, 
     transportatino, agricultural cooperatives, and regulatory 
     programs, as authorized by law, and for administration and 
     coordination of payments to States; including field 
     employment pursuant to section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $90,000 for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $55,728,000; including funds 
     for the Wholesale Market Development Program for the design 
     and development of wholesale and farmer market facilities for 
     the major metropolitan areas of the country: Provided, That 
     this appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 
     U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 per centum of the 
     current replacement value of the building.
       Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization 
     activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31 
     U.S.C. 9701).


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $57,054,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative 
     expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or 
     other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this 
     limitation by up to 10 per centum with notification to the 
     Appropriations Committees.


   funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (section 32) 
                     (including transfers of funds)

       Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 
     1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c) shall be used only for commodity program 
     expenses as authorized therein, and other related operating 
     expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the Department of 
     Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of August 
     8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in this Act; and 
     (3) not more than $10,309,000 for formulation and 
     administration of Marketing Agreements and Orders pursuant to 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, 
     and the Agricultural Act of 1961.


                   payments to states and possessions

       For payments to departments of agriculture, bureaus and 
     departments of markets, and similar agencies for marketing 
     activities under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing 
     Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(B)), $1,200,000.


                perishable agricultural commodities act

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for fiscal year 
     1995 the Agricultural Marketing Service shall recover the 
     full cost of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 
     including legal services provided by the Office of the 
     General Counsel.


                    amendment offered by mr. durbin

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Durbin: Page 26, strike lines 3 
     through 8, relating to the Perishable Agricultural 
     Commodities Act, 1930, and insert the following:


                perishable agricultural commodities act

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during fiscal 
     year 1995, the Secretary of Agriculture shall require persons 
     filing complaints under section 6(a) of the Perishable 
     Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930 (7 U.S.C. 499f(a)), to 
     include a filing fee of $60 per petition. In the event of 
     further action on such a complaint during fiscal year 1995, 
     the person or persons making the complaint shall submit a 
     handling fee of $300, which shall be reimbursed by the 
     commission merchant, dealer, or broker involved whenever the 
     Secretary issues a reparation order under section 7 of such 
     Act on the complaint. Such fees shall be deposited in the 
     Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Fund.

  Mr. DURBIN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, if I might explain this amendment very 
briefly. The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act provision was 
where the subcommittee was faced with the responsibility of finding 
additional revenue that we didn't have. I want to salute the Committee 
on Agriculture, which by unanimous consent yesterday proposed a filing 
and handling fee which will make up the difference that is needed to 
find this important program.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The compromise is OK with us on this side, and it is acceptable. We 
have no objection to it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Packers and Stockyards Administration

       For necessary expenses for administration of the Packers 
     and Stockyards Act, as authorized by law, and for certifying 
     procedures used to protect purchasers of farm products, 
     including field employment pursuant to section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $5,000 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $11,989,000.

      Farm Income Stabilization Office of the Under Secretary for 
              International Affairs and Commodity Programs

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for International Affairs and Commodity 
     Programs to administer the laws enacted by Congress for the 
     Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Foreign 
     Agricultural Service, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, 
     $549,000.

          Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Agricultural 
     Stabilization and Conservation Service, including expenses to 
     formulate and carry out programs authorized by title III of 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     1301-1393); the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (7 
     U.S.C. 1421 et seq.); sections 7 to 15, 16(a), 16(f), and 17 
     of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as 
     amended (16 U.S.C. 590g-590o, 590p(a), 590p(f), and 590(q); 
     sections 1001 to 1004, 1006 to 1008, and 1010 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1970, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1501 to 1504, 
     1506 to 1508, and 1510); the Water Bank Act, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 1301-1311); the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 
     1978 (16 U.S.C. 2101); sections 202(c) and 205 of title II of 
     the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, as 
     amended (43 U.S.C. 1592(c), 1595); sections 401, 402, and 404 
     to 406 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2201 
     to 2205); the United States Warehouse Act, as amended (7 
     U.S.C. 241-273); title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, 
     as amended (16 U.S.C. 3811 et seq.); and laws pertaining to 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation, $717,958,000; of which 
     $716,333,000 is hereby appropriated, and $1,036,000 is 
     transferred from the Public Law 480 Program Account in this 
     Act and $589,000 is transferred from the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation Program Account in this Act: Provided, That other 
     funds made available to the Agricultural Stabilization and 
     Conservation Service for authorized activities may be 
     advanced to and merged with this account: Provided further, 
     That these funds shall be available for employment pursuant 
     to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act 
     of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $100,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided 
     further, That no part of the funds made available under this 
     Act shall be used: (1) to influence the vote in any 
     referendum; (2) to influence agricultural legislation, except 
     as permitted in 18 U.S.C. 1913; or (3) for salaries or other 
     expenses of members of county and community committees 
     established pursuant to section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation 
     and Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, for engaging in any 
     activities other than advisory and supervisory duties and 
     delegated program functions prescribed in administrative 
     regulations.

                              CORPORATIONS

       The following corporations and agencies are hereby 
     authorized to make expenditures, within the limits of funds 
     and borrowing authority available to each such corporation or 
     agency and in accord with law, and to make contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the 
     programs set forth in the budget for the current fiscal year 
     for such corporation or agency, except as hereinafter 
     provided.

                   Federal Crop Insurance Corporation


                 administrative and operating expenses

       For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized by 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1516), 
     $72,796,000: Provided, That not to exceed $700 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses, 
     as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i): Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act may be used to offer a Federal 
     crop insurance policy in counties on crops where a loss 
     ratio, that has already been recalculated pursuant to law to 
     reflect the premium rates issued by the Corporation for the 
     1994 crop year, is in excess of 1.10 more than 70 percent of 
     the years that a policy has been offered since 1980: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     pay operating and administrative costs that exceed 31 per 
     centum of premium to insurers of policies on which the 
     Corporation provides reinsurance, except to reimburse said 
     insurers for excess loss adjustment expenses as provided for 
     in the Standard Reinsurance Agreement issued by the 
     Corporation: Provided further, That the second proviso shall 
     not apply in any county affected if the Corporation has 
     implemented a nonstandard classification system in such 
     county for those individual farms that have experienced 
     excessive losses since 1980 under which the premium rates, 
     notwithstanding the provision of section 508(d) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act, are increased over comparable 
     rates effective for the 1994 crop, or the insured yields are 
     decreased from comparable yields for the 1994 crop, or a 
     combination of both, by an amount or amounts sufficient to 
     ensure that an estimated loss ratio will not exceed 1.1 for 
     the crop produced on such farms during the 1995 crop year.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we face a peculiar situation here in the Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation. This is a critically important program for 
producers and growers across the United States of America. Last year 
the gentleman from New Mexico and I tried to lead an effort to start 
reform of this program, and I think we can claim some measure of 
success. We said in last year's appropriation bill that if a producer 
had had an experience on his farm where he had lost his crop 70 percent 
of the time or more over the last 10 years, that the crop insurance 
premium charged to that producer in the future would have to reflect 
that fact.

                              {time}  0930

  The premium would have to be increased accordingly on that farm or 
the insurance would not be written. It is our belief, and I think that 
it is a reasonable one, that if someone loses a crop that often, God is 
trying to tell them something. The Federal taxpayer should not be held 
accountable when the good Lord has made it clear that they cannot grow 
that crop on that farm.
  As a result of that measure by the subcommittee last year, the full 
Committee on Agriculture also embarked on a crop insurance reform 
undertaking. We can report to the Members of the House and taxpayers 
across this country that we have saved some $70 million this year in 
the expenses of this program and still have managed to maintain a good 
program across the United States.
  I agree with President Clinton and his administration, Secretary 
Espy, that more needs to be done. What they have proposed is that we 
embark on a more ambitious crop insurance reform program. Our goal with 
this crop insurance reform program is to make sure that producers 
across the country still have the protection they need. They are in the 
business, of course, which is vulnerable to changes in weather and 
prices. We need to provide crop insurance so that should a bad year 
occur, the good farmer will not be wiped off the books.
  What they have proposed is that basically we would eliminate Federal 
disaster payments which amounts to about $1 billion a year and instead 
come into the business of offering a very inexpensive crop insurance 
policy for producers across the country. What the administration 
proposes is there will be a $50 policy for each crop, no more than $100 
per farm, that will provide basic protection for most producers. All 
would agree that $50 or $100 charge is a nominal filing fee and does 
not reflect the risk that is being assumed by the Federal taxpayer.
  In return, we get out of the business of passing Federal disaster 
payments for agriculture. Of course, commercial insurance will still be 
available, and we will be involved in it. But this reform, I think, is 
a step in the right direction because this subcommittee faced 
extraordinary pressures in terms of reducing spending. We have included 
a provision in the Federal crop insurance section calling on the 
Committee on Agriculture to in fact reform crop insurance, use the $1 
billion which had otherwise been paid for disaster payments to 
subsidize a new program but, in return, find more savings for the 
taxpayers across the country. We anticipate those savings will be in 
excess of $200 million.
  I know that is a big responsibility for the Committee on Agriculture, 
but I believe they are up to the job. We are calling on them and 
hopeful that in the few months ahead, before we go to conference on 
this bill, that they will be able to institute meaningful crop 
insurance reform to give peace of mind to producers across this 
country, to save the Federal taxpayers money and to get us out of the 
business of Federal disaster payments except in the most extreme 
circumstances.
  I would say that this is one of the more contentious items in the 
bill, but I think we have handled it in the only responsible way.


                   amendment offered by mr. stenholm

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stenholm: On page 29, line 13, 
     strike ``$72,796,000'' and insert ``$62,790,000, Provided, 
     that $12,000,000 be made available for the Animal and Plant 
     Health Inspection Service.''

  Mr. STENHOLM (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is dealing with the exact 
same situation that the chairman has just talked about. We do have in 
the House Committee on Agriculture funds that have been provided under 
the budget agreement of this year in order to allow us and the 
appropriate committees to deal with the question of crop insurance 
reform. We all agree that it needs to be done.
  The gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], subcommittee chairman, 
is working on that at this point in time.
  The amendment that I offer today is attempting to help another matter 
which is, as the chairman has pointed out over and over, the difficulty 
of funding all of the needed programs in the budget which has been made 
very difficult. And what I am suggesting today is that by taking an 
additional $10 million from the crop insurance side of the ledger and 
transferring that over to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service, we will be able to see that the much-needed boll weevil 
eradication program be continued until we can find other ways to 
provide for that particular program. So that is the intent of my 
amendment. It is to transfer $ 10 million from the crop insurance 
account, which will provide $12 million additional for the boll weevil 
control program. And those monies, I am told, will be adequate to 
continue both programs in a way that will be acceptable to the 
agricultural community.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to where the gentleman 
is going with his amendment. I think it is a good one. It is a 
necessary one. I want to be assured, however, that the administrative 
funds for the reform and for the operation of the crop insurance 
program will be made whole. There is some $200,000,000.
  Can I have that assurance?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman can, as far as I am 
concerned, because I share the exact same concern. That is certainly 
the intent of the author of this amendment. If it turns out that that 
cannot be done, then I would understand this amendment would be 
stricter in conference and could not be moved forward.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
with that assurance and the gentleman's word, and knowing how well he 
keeps it, I have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman from New Mexico 
made that point, because it is one that I agree with. I am very pleased 
with the response by the gentleman from Texas.
  Let me add that I think that the program he is funding, the boll 
weevil eradication program, is an excellent program, is an excellent 
program. It is a good example of a program where the Federal taxpayers 
are making an investment that ultimately reduces the use of agriculture 
chemicals and still makes certain that we are helping cotton growers 
across the United States. It is a program that has a proven record of 
success.
  I like the gentleman's amendment, because it provides resources for 
this program.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
once again, we have proven if there is a will, there is a way.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member. I certainly, as a member of the full Committee on Agriculture, 
will work with them to accomplish the spirit as well as the intent of 
this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin] with a question about crop insurance reform.
  We all agree something has to be done especially with the disaster 
payments which have been completely out of control. However, there is 
one category that both of us who represents river districts, where a 
crop is not planted, disaster payments then apply where you cannot 
insure a crop that cannot be planted in the spring because of floods. 
Is there going to be some way that we can still accommodate those 
farmers who, through no fault of their own, are flooded and cannot 
plant a crop?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman completely. We 
both lived through this last year. Prevented plantings is a serious 
problem. The administration tried to respond to that crisis last year, 
but I think when we deal with crop insurance, we have got to find some 
way to address prevented planting. It is a very real problem caused by 
floods, wet weather, and some other natural disasters.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I hope the authorizing committee 
recognizes this and somehow takes care of these farmers. Hopefully, it 
does not happen that often, but it is still very real to that farmer 
who cannot plant a crop. They cannot plant rice, even, because we have 
too much water sometimes in the spring.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, certainly the authorizing committee I 
think, almost to a person agrees with this. And hopefully, as we get 
into the authorizing language, it will make the program work as all of 
us hope it would and do it under the restrained budget numbers that we 
have to operate under that we can accomplish just exactly that. It is a 
problem that is widespread and needs to be addressed.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, that is the main thing, so that 
we remember that there are those that will not fit into the insurance 
program as it exists today.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, on the subcommittee that is dealing with 
the crop insurance restructuring, I do want to say, I think it would be 
remiss if I did not say I am concerned that the funding level in this 
bill is not going to be adequate to fully cover the crop insurance 
reform as has been proposed by the administration. However, on the 
specific subject that the gentleman mentioned, prevented planting will 
be covered under the new provisions of the crop insurance proposal 
reform which is before the committee today.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, that is good. I thank the 
gentleman for that assurance.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                federal crop insurance corporation fund

       For payments as authorized by section 508(b) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act, as amended, $219,107,000, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund


                 reimbursement for net realized losses

       For fiscal year 1995, such sums as may be necessary to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized 
     losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed (estimated to 
     be $15,500,000,000 in the President's fiscal year 1995 Budget 
     Request (H. Doc. 103-179)), but not to exceed 
     $15,500,000,000, pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 
     17, 1961, as amended (15 U.S.C. 713a-11).


       operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management

       For fiscal year 1995, the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for expenses to comply 
     with the requirement of section 107(g) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as 
     amended, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 6001 of the Resource 
     Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6961: 
     Provided, That expenses shall be for operations and 
     maintenance costs only and that other hazardous waste 
     management costs shall be paid for by the USDA Hazardous 
     Waste Management appropriation in this Act.

                    TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

                 Office of the Assistant Secretary for

                   Natural Resources and Environment

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest 
     Service and the Soil Conservation Service, $677,000.

                       Soil Conservation Service


                        conservation operations

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of 
     the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-590f) including 
     preparation of conservation plans and establishment of 
     measures to conserve soil and water (including farm 
     irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for 
     soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent 
     floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control 
     agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation 
     plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil; 
     dissemination of information; acquisition of lands by 
     donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to 
     exceed $100; purchase and erection or alteration or 
     improvement of permanent and temporary buildings; and 
     operation and maintenance of aircraft, $576,562,000, to 
     remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); of which 
     not less than $5,756,000 is for snow survey and water 
     forecasting and not less than $8,070,000 is for operation and 
     establishment of the plant materials centers: Provided, That 
     except for $2,399,000 for improvements of the plant materials 
     centers, the cost of any permanent building purchased, 
     erected, or as improved, exclusive of the cost of 
     constructing a water supply or sanitary system and connecting 
     the same to any such building and with the exception of 
     buildings acquired in conjunction with land being purchased 
     for other purposes, shall not exceed $10,000, except for one 
     building to be constructed at a cost not to exceed $100,000 
     and eight buildings to be constructed or improved at a cost 
     not to exceed $50,000 per building and except that 
     alterations or improvements to other existing permanent 
     buildings costing $5,000 or more may be made in any fiscal 
     year in an amount not to exceed $2,000 per building: Provided 
     further, That when buildings or other structures are erected 
     on non-Federal land that the right to use such land is 
     obtained as provided in 7 U.S.C. 2250a: Provided further, 
     That no part of this appropriation may be expended for soil 
     and water conservation operations under the Act of April 27, 
     1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-590f) in demonstration projects: 
     Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available 
     for employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 
     706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225) and not to 
     exceed $25,000 shall be available for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That qualified local engineers 
     may be temporarily employed at per diem rates to perform the 
     technical planning work of the Service.


                 river basin surveys and investigations

       For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation, 
     and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, in 
     accordance with section 6 of the Watershed Protection and 
     Flood Prevention Act approved August 4, 1954, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 1006-1009), $12,970,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $60,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                           watershed planning

       For necessary expenses for small watershed investigations 
     and planning, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and 
     Flood Prevention Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008), 
     $10,546,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109.


               watershed and flood prevention operations

       For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures, 
     including but not limited to research, engineering 
     operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of 
     vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in 
     use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and 
     Flood Prevention Act approved August 4, 1954, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-1009), the provisions of the Act of 
     April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and in accordance with the 
     provisions of laws relating to the activities of the 
     Department, $65,000,000, to remain available until expended 
     (7 U.S.C. 2209b) (of which $10,000,000 shall be available for 
     the watersheds authorized under the Flood Control Act 
     approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701, 16 U.S.C. 1006a), as 
     amended and supplemented): Provided, That, not to exceed 5 
     per centum of the foregoing amounts shall be available for 
     allocation to any one State: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $200,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $1,000,000 of this appropriation 
     is available to carry out the purposes of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205), as amended, 
     including cooperative efforts as contemplated by that Act to 
     relocate endangered or threatened species to other suitable 
     habitats as may be necessary to expedite project 
     construction.


                 resource conservation and development

       For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out 
     projects for resource conservation and development and for 
     sound land use pursuant to the provisions of section 32(e) of 
     title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, as amended 
     (7 U.S.C. 1010-1011; 76 Stat. 607), the provisions of the Act 
     of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and the provisions of 
     the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451-3461), 
     $32,845,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209): Provided, That this appropriation shall be available 
     for employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 
     706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to 
     exceed $50,000 shall be available for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109.


                   great plains conservation program

       For necessary expenses to carry into effect a program of 
     conservation in the Great Plains area, pursuant to section 
     16(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, as 
     added by the Act of August 7, 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
     590p(b)), $11,672,000, to remain available until expended (16 
     U.S.C. 590p(b)(7)).

          Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service


                   agricultural conservation program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry into effect the program 
     authorized in sections 7 to 15, 16(a), 16(f), and 17 of the 
     Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act approved 
     February 29, 1936, as amended and supplemented (16 U.S.C. 
     590g-590o, 590p(a), 590p(f), and 590q), and sections 1001-
     1004, 1006-1008, and 1010 of the Agricultural Act of 1970, as 
     added by the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1501-1504, 1506-1508, and 1510), and including not 
     to exceed $15,000 for the preparation and display of 
     exhibits, including such displays at State, interstate, and 
     international fairs within the United States, $100,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended (16 U.S.C. 590o), for 
     agreements, excluding administration but including technical 
     assistance and related expenses (16 U.S.C. 590o), except that 
     no participant in the Agricultural Conservation Program shall 
     receive more than $3,500 per year, except where the 
     participants from two or more farms or ranches join to carry 
     out approved practices designed to conserve or improve the 
     agricultural resources of the community, or where a 
     participant has a long-term agreement, in which case the 
     total payment shall not exceed the annual payment limitation 
     multiplied by the number of years of the agreement: Provided, 
     That no portion of the funds for the current year's program 
     may be utilized to provide financial or technical assistance 
     for drainage on wetlands now designated as Wetlands Types 3 
     (III) through 20 (XX) in United States Department of the 
     Interior, Fish and Wildlife Circular 39, Wetlands of the 
     United States, 1956: Provided further, That such amounts 
     shall be available for the purchase of seeds, fertilizers, 
     lime, trees, or any other conservation materials, or any 
     soil-terracing services, and making grants thereof to 
     agricultural producers to aid them in carrying out approved 
     farming practices as authorized by the Soil Conservation and 
     Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, as determined and 
     recommended by the county committees, approved by the State 
     committees and the Secretary, under programs provided for 
     herein: Provided further, That such assistance will not be 
     used for carrying out measures and practices that are 
     primarily production-oriented or that have little or no 
     conservation or pollution abatement benefits: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed 5 per centum of the allocation 
     for the current year's program for any county may, on the 
     recommendation of such county committee and approval of the 
     State committee, be withheld and allotted to the Soil 
     Conservation Service for services of its technicians in 
     formulating and carrying out the Agricultural Conservation 
     Program in the participating counties, and shall not be 
     utilized by the Soil Conservation Service for any purpose 
     other than technical and other assistance in such counties, 
     and in addition, on the recommendation of such county 
     committee and approval of the State committee, not to exceed 
     1 per centum may be made available to any other Federal, 
     State, or local public agency for the same purpose and under 
     the same conditions: Provided further, That for the current 
     year's program $2,500,000 shall be available for technical 
     assistance in formulating and carrying out rural 
     environmental practices: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $15,000,000 of the amount appropriated shall be used for 
     water quality payments and practices in the same manner as 
     permitted under the program for water quality authorized in 
     chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985, as amended (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.).


                      forestry incentives program

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to 
     carry out the program of forestry incentives, as authorized 
     in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2101), including technical assistance and related expenses, 
     $6,625,000, to remain available until expended, as authorized 
     by that Act.


             colorado river basin salinity control program

       For necessary expenses for carrying out a voluntary 
     cooperative salinity control program pursuant to section 
     202(c) of title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
     Control Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)), to be used to 
     reduce salinity in the Colorado River and to enhance the 
     supply and quality of water available for use in the United 
     States and the Republic of Mexico, $5,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), to be used for 
     investigations and surveys, for technical assistance in 
     developing conservation practices and in the preparation of 
     salinity control plans, for the establishment of on-farm 
     irrigation management systems, including related lateral 
     improvement measures, for making cost-share payments to 
     agricultural landowners and operators, Indian tribes, 
     irrigation districts and associations, local governmental and 
     nongovernmental entities, and other landowners to aid them in 
     carrying out approved conservation practices as determined 
     and recommended by the county ASC committees, approved by the 
     State ASC committees and the Secretary, and for associated 
     costs of program planning, information and education, and 
     program monitoring and evaluation: Provided, That the Soil 
     Conservation Service shall provide technical assistance and 
     the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service shall 
     provide administrative services for the program, including 
     but not limited to, the negotiation and administration of 
     agreements and the disbursement of payments: Provided 
     further, That such program shall be coordinated with the 
     regular Agricultural Conservation Program and with research 
     programs of other agencies.


                      conservation reserve program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the conservation 
     reserve program pursuant to the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3831-3845), $1,743,274,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to be used for Commodity Credit Corporation 
     expenditures for cost-share assistance for the establishment 
     of conservation practices provided for in approved 
     conservation reserve program contracts, and for annual rental 
     payments provided in such contracts, and for technical 
     assistance.


                        wetlands reserve program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Wetlands Reserve 
     Program pursuant to subchapter C of subtitle D of title XII 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837), 
     $93,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary is authorized to use the services, 
     facilities, and authorities of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation for the purpose of carrying out the Wetlands 
     Reserve Program.

                              {time}  0940

  Mr. DURBIN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of title I and title II be considered as 
read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order against the remainder of 
title I and title II? If not, are there any amendments thereto?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.

         TITLE III--FARMERS HOME AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Small Community and Rural Development

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Small Community and Rural Development to 
     administer programs under the laws, enacted by the Congress 
     for the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Electrification 
     Administration, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, and rural 
     development activities of the Department of Agriculture, 
     $568,000.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we are moving fast this morning.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations and 
Nutrition, I can tell you that legislation to authorize the collection 
of fees to pay for more of the current inspection system, as 
recommended by the Appropriations Committee, will be highly 
controversial. What we intend to do is to begin drafting legislation 
that would implement an improve inspection system that is 
scientifically defensible, addresses current risks to human health, and 
is acceptable, cost-wise, to taxpayers, consumers, and producers.
  Until that time, I would like to ask the chairman if he would be 
willing to work with me in directing the USDA to review the manner in 
which it is presently providing inspection services, and to report to 
the Congress on how they intend to maintain or improve the integrity 
and effectiveness of the system, while operating within the proposed 
appropriation of $431 million which is in this bill?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Texas. We 
have had a conversation on this issue, and I believe we see eye-to-eye 
on the principles we are seeking to achieve here.
  As the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Kreidler] said earlier, it is 
important that we move to a new and better and higher level of 
inspection to give consumers confidence across this country. I think 
the Department of Agriculture, along with the Congress, has a unique 
opportunity, and I support the gentleman's suggestion.
  Mr. STENHOLM. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank the 
chairman of the committee for that.
  I again assure him that our committee will begin as soon as possible, 
hopefully next week, in doing something that all parties have been 
interested in doing, and in so doing, perhaps we can be helpful to the 
subcommittee in the otherwise difficult task of stretching out the 
available funds.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    rural development administration

       The Secretary may transfer funds from the Farmers Home 
     Administration in this Act to fund the Rural Development 
     Administration, as authorized by law.

    Rural Development Administration and Farmers Home Administration

              rural housing insurance fund program account

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing 
     Act of 1949, as amended, to be available from funds in the 
     Rural Housing Insurance Fund, as follows: $2,400,000,000 for 
     loans to section 502 borrowers, as determined by the 
     Secretary, of which $1,000,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized 
     guaranteed loans; $35,000,000 for section 504 housing repair 
     loans; $15,915,000 for section 514 farm labor housing; 
     $30,000,000 for section 515 rental housing; and $632,000 for 
     site loans: Provided, That up to $48,650,000 of these funds 
     shall be made available for section 502(g), Deferral Mortgage 
     Demonstration.


           amendments offered by mr. thompson of mississippi

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments and I 
ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc and considered as 
read.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi: On page 
     42, line 12, strike ``$2,400,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,323,339,000''. On page 42, line 16, strike 
     ``$30,000,000'' and insert ``$220,000,000''. On page 42, line 
     23, strike ``$282,640,000'' and insert ``$268,105,000''. On 
     page 43, line 2, strike ``$15,750,000'' and insert 
     ``$115,500,000''.

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, the amendment increases 
the section 515 rural rental housing loan program by $190,000,000, from 
$30,000,000 up to $220,000,000. To offset this, the amendment decreases 
section 502 subsidized single-family housing loans by $76,661,000, from 
$1,400,000,000 down to $1,323,339,000.
  In terns of cost, this amendment reduces outlays for the section 502 
program by $11,970,000 and increases outlays for the section 515 
program by exactly the same amount. Therefore, there is no net cost as 
a result of this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, very briefly, the section 515 program under the Farmers 
Home Administration is a program which builds multifamily housing in 
rural America for Americans, usually senior citizens, but not 
necessarily, who are in lower income categories. In this subcommittee, 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and I directed our 
investigators to take a look at the program, and they investigated it 
in 12 different States.
  They found examples in some States, such as Florida, of excellent 
administration of the program. They found examples in other States 
which clearly were not what we wanted to see, and we felt the program 
was wanting.
  Therefore, in our subcommittee markup we reduced the appropriation 
for this important program to $30 million. I might add that it is about 
$540 million this fiscal year, so the Members can see this is a 
dramatic change.
  Our purpose, Mr. Chairman, was to alert both the Committee on 
Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, which is reauthorizing the 
program, as well as all parties interested in this program, that it was 
time for real reform, so we can tighten up some of the concerns we have 
about this program.
  The reason I am supporting this amendment at this moment to restore 
the level of funding to $220 million is because of the response not 
only from the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] in the Committee on 
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, but also from all of the 
representatives in the various groups interested in this program. They 
have come forward in a very constructive manner and have agreed with 
the conclusions of the committee. They are setting out to reform it, 
and I think, frankly, that is what we all had hoped would happen.
  Mr. Chairman, let me add this caveat. If after the reauthorization is 
passed and we have not solved the problems, I will be on my feet next 
year to make certain that this program does not receive the level of 
funding it has in this year's bill, but I am confident that that will 
not occur. That is why I support the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take the 5 minutes. I want to say that 
we concur on this side with the amendment. I think it is a good 
amendment, and it is a good program. We have to issue a wake-up call to 
not only the people handling this thing but the agencies who have the 
oversight responsibility, the people who are handling it, the 
contractors, and the rest of the people who use the program. It is an 
essential one for rural communities. It has been a good program, but it 
has some problems. We want the reform to take place. It is a good 
transfer of the funding. We have no objection to it, and support the 
amendment.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, today, Representatives Thompson, Clyburn, and I have 
offered an amendment to restore funding for the Farmers Home 
Administration section 515 Rural Rental Housing Program. We know fiscal 
year 1995 budgets are tight, and this amendment will not increase 
fiscal year 1995 outlays.
  Farmers Home Administration administers several important housing 
programs. This amendment would transfer lending authority from section 
502 to section 515. Both programs are equally important to rural 
America. However, a cut in section 515 from $540 million in fiscal year 
1994 to $30 million in fiscal year 1995 is not acceptable. This is a 94 
percent reduction in funds.
  Section 515 is the only housing program available for very-low-income 
families in rural America. The average tenant in a section 515 
apartment earns less than $8,000. This is only 30 percent of the median 
rural household income. Section 502 provides homeownership 
opportunities to rural families with substantially higher incomes. We 
cannot abandon our commitment to providing housing for Americans of all 
incomes, especially when there is a shortage of 600,000 affordable 
rental units in rural areas today. This amendment offers a balanced 
housing program within FmHA.
  Section 515 has led to the creation of 440,000 units throughout rural 
America. In fiscal year 1994, 14,000 new units will be produced. With 
the proposed fiscal year 1995, no new units will be produced. More 
importantly, the proposed $30 million budget will not provide 
sufficient funds to finance repairs to existing units.
  Recent reports prepared by the Surveys and Investigation Staff of 
this Committee have disclosed many vulnerabilities in section 515. We 
share these concerns; and I have enrolled H.R. 4579 to correct these 
deficiencies. H.R. 4579 offers widesweeping reforms in section 515.
  We are calling on you to support this amendment. Rather than not 
funding this worthwhile program, lets fix it, fund it and provide a 
balanced rural housing program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Thompson].
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: low-income 
     section 502 loans, $282,640,000 of which $17,200,000 shall be 
     for unsubsidized guaranteed loans; section 504 housing repair 
     loans, $11,690,000; section 514 farm labor housing, 
     $7,911,000; and section 515 rental housing, $15,750,000.

                              {time}  0950


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Bereuter

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as 
follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter: Page 43, after line 2, 
     insert the following:
       In addition, for the cost (as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974) of guaranteed loans under a 
     demonstration program of loan guarantees for multifamily 
     rental housing in rural areas, $1,000,000, be derived from 
     the amount made available under this heading for the cost of 
     low-income section 502 loans and to become available for 
     obligation only upon the enactment of authorizing 
     legislation.

  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member is offering an amendment 
which the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Durbin, has graciously 
agreed to accept. The Bereuter amendment will transfer $1 million from 
the 502 Direct Loan Program and reserve it for funding a Rural Rental 
Housing Guarantee Program which the Banking Committee is in the process 
of authorizing. This 50 project demonstration program to provide 
Federal loan guarantees for the development of multifamily rental rural 
housing is included in H.R. 3838 which passed the Banking Committee on 
June 15, 1994. We would specify that the $1 million transfer would 
become available only upon the enactment of the authorizing 
legislation. This amendment has the approval of Chairman Gonzalez of 
the Banking Committee, the Banking Committee's ranking member, Mr. 
Leach, and the Housing Subcommittee's ranking member, Mrs. Roukema.
  The demonstration being funded would finance 25 projects in each of 
fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and would provide a 90 percent guarantee on 
loans made by private lenders to the developers of rental housing for 
five or more families.
  Current law provides direct loans for the development of rental 
housing for low to moderate income families. The demonstration program 
will provide for additional housing for moderate income families at a 
limited cost to the Federal Government. Unlike direct loans, which 
require appropriations of the whole amount of a loan, loan guarantees 
only cost the Federal Government the amount of defaults on private 
loans.
  This amendment will allow us to move forward to provide a cost 
effective new method for financing rural rental housing. This Member 
thanks Chairman Durbin, the ranking member, Mr. Skeen, and the 
leadership of the House Banking Committee for their cooperation in 
making this amendment possible.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman on the 
amendment. I think it is a good innovation and one that should be 
tried. I think it shows the flexibility that we have toward some of 
these programs and the way they operate. We commend the gentleman and 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, based upon the experience with the 502 home loan 
guarantee for single family, it is very cost effective with the default 
rate being less than 1.59 percent and going down.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Nebraska that I 
rise in support of his amendment.
  I would like to acknowledge the important role the gentleman has 
played in establishing a program which I consider to be an unqualified 
success, that is, the 502 Guaranteed Unsubsidized Housing Program. This 
is a program which has demonstrated that through some creative 
thinking, we can bring together various agencies at the Federal level 
to provide families of modest incomes the opportunity for home 
ownership in rural areas. I have had three different seminars in my 
congressional district bringing together bankers, realtors, and 
developers to tell them about this program, and in each and every 
instance they were absolutely shocked to find out how simple this 
program was, how little paperwork was involved, and frankly they warmed 
up to using this program across my district and, as we see, across the 
Nation.
  The gentleman from Nebraska deserves credit for this. He has worked 
long and hard on it. I think what he is suggesting today is an 
extension of that concept and one which I hope will be just as 
successful. I appreciate the fact that we are awaiting authorizing 
legislation and his assurance that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Gonzalez], who also has supported this program very strongly, supports 
this amendment today. I rise in support of his effort.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his very kind 
words. I myself have had two such seminars lately in Norfolk and 
Lincoln, and frankly developers, lenders, home builders, and many other 
people involved cannot believe how simple it is to use the 502 Program.
  We hope it will be a model for this program for rural rental housing 
multifamily.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $389,818,000.


                       rental assistance program

       For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed 
     pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or 
     agreements entered into in lieu of forgiveness or payments 
     for eligible households as authorized by section 502(c)(5)(D) 
     of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, $523,008,000; and in 
     addition such sums as may be necessary, as authorized by 
     section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt incurred prior 
     to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the Rental Assistance 
     Program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act: Provided, That of 
     this amount not more than $5,900,000 shall be available for 
     debt forgiveness or payments for eligible households as 
     authorized by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, and not to 
     exceed $10,000 per project for advances to nonprofit 
     organizations or public agencies to cover direct costs (other 
     than purchase price) incurred in purchasing projects pursuant 
     to section 502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: Provided further, That 
     agreements entered into or renewed during fiscal year 1995 
     shall be funded for a five-year period, although the life of 
     any such agreement may be extended to fully utilize amounts 
     obligated.


        self-help housing land development fund program account

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     loans, as authorized by section 523(b)(1)(B) of the Housing 
     Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $603,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $11,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $14,000.


           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928-1929, to 
     be available from funds in the Agricultural Credit Insurance 
     Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans, $618,755,000, of 
     which $540,674,000 shall be for guaranteed loans; operating 
     loans, $2,465,000,000, of which $1,735,000,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans and $230,000,000 shall be for 
     subsidized guaranteed loans; $4,312,000 for water 
     development, use, and conservation loans, of which $1,415,000 
     shall be for guaranteed loans; Indian tribe land acquisition 
     loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $1,000,000; and for 
     emergency insured loans, $100,000,000 to meet the needs 
     resulting from natural disasters.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership 
     loans, $31,853,000, of which $20,870,000 shall be for 
     guaranteed loans; operating loans, $95,340,000, of which 
     $9,360,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans and 
     $29,425,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans; 
     $411,000 for water development, use, and conservation loans, 
     of which $31,000 shall be for guaranteed loans; Indian tribe 
     land acquisition loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, 
     $123,000; and for emergency insured loans, $26,060,000 to 
     meet the needs resulting from natural disasters.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $243,766,000.


            rural development insurance fund program account

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928 and 86 
     Stat. 661-664, as amended, to be available from funds in the 
     Rural Development Insurance Fund, as follows: water and sewer 
     facility loans, $834,193,000; community facility loans, 
     $300,000,000, of which $75,000,000 shall be for guaranteed 
     loans; and guaranteed industrial development loans, 
     $500,000,000: Provided, That none of the funds made available 
     in this Act may be used to make transfers between the above 
     limitations: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     appropriated above, $17,000,000 of direct water and sewer 
     facility, $7,800,000 of direct community facility, and 
     $11,000,000 of guaranteed industrial development loan funds 
     shall be available through July 30, 1995, for empowerment 
     zones and enterprise communities, as authorized by title XIII 
     of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: direct water 
     and sewer facility loans, $115,786,000; direct community 
     facility loans, $21,723,000; guaranteed community facility 
     loans, $3,728,000; and guaranteed industrial development 
     loans, $4,750,000: Provided, That of the amounts appropriated 
     in this paragraph, $2,360,000 for direct water and sewer 
     facility loans, $753,000 for direct community facility, and 
     $103,000 for guaranteed industrial development loans shall be 
     available through July 30, 1995, for empowerment zones and 
     enterprise communities, as authorized by title XIII of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $57,294,000.


              rural development loan fund program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $46,000,000, as authorized by 
     the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)): 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for 
     the principal amount of direct loans of $88,038,000: Provided 
     further, That through July 30, 1995, of these amounts, 
     $5,519,000 shall be available for the cost of direct loans, 
     for empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as 
     authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1993, to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans, $10,565,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan programs, $1,476,000.


                         state mediation grants

       For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural 
     Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106), 
     $2,000,000.


                 rural water and waste disposal grants

       For grants pursuant to section 306(a)(2) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (7 
     U.S.C. 1926), $500,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, pursuant to section 306(d) of the above Act of 
     which $19,047,000 shall be available, through July 30, 1995, 
     for empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as 
     authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1993, and of which $25,000,000 shall be available for 
     water and waste disposal systems to benefit the Colonias 
     along the United States/Mexico border, including grants 
     pursuant to section 306C: Provided, That, with the exception 
     of the foregoing $19,047,000, and the foregoing $25,000,000, 
     these funds shall not be used for any purpose not specified 
     in section 306(a) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act.


                 very low-income housing repair grants

       For grants to the very low-income elderly for essential 
     repairs to dwellings pursuant to section 504 of the Housing 
     Act of 1949, as amended, $24,900,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


                 Rural Housing for Domestic Farm Labor

       For financial assistance to eligible nonprofit 
     organizations for housing for domestic farm labor, pursuant 
     to section 516 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1486), $10,900,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                      mutual and self-help housing

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A) 
     of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $12,650,000, to 
     remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).


              supervisory and technical assistance grants

       For grants pursuant to sections 509(g)(6) and 525 of the 
     Housing Act of 1949, $2,400,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                 rural community fire protection grants

       For grants pursuant to section 7 of the Cooperative 
     Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-313), 
     $3,400,000 to fund up to 50 per centum of the cost of 
     organizing, training, and equipping rural volunteer fire 
     departments.


                 compensation for construction defects

       For compensation for construction defects as authorized by 
     section 509(c) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, 
     $495,000, to remain available until expended.


                   rural housing preservation grants

       For grants for rural housing preservation as authorized by 
     section 552 of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 
     1983 (Public Law 98-181), $22,000,000.

                    rural business enterprise grants

       For grants authorized under section 310B(c) and 310B(j) (7 
     U.S.C. 1932) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act to any qualified public or private nonprofit 
     organization, $47,500,000, of which $2,000,000 shall be to 
     assist in developing cooperative efforts to provide 
     information and technical assistance to under-represented 
     groups in traditionally agricultural or other natural 
     resource dependent communities for encouraging business 
     development; and of which $9,500,000 shall be available 
     through July 30, 1995, for assistance to empowerment zones 
     and enterprise communities, as authorized by title XIII of 
     the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: Provided, That 
     $500,000 shall be available for grants to qualified nonprofit 
     organizations to provide technical assistance and training 
     for rural communities needing improved passenger 
     transportation systems or facilities in order to promote 
     economic development.


                     solid waste management grants

       For grants for pollution abatement and control projects 
     authorized under section 310B(b) (7 U.S.C. 1932) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, $2,995,000: 
     Provided, That such assistance shall include regional 
     technical assistance for improvement of solid waste 
     management.


              outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 2501 of the 
     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 2279), $2,995,000, to remain available until expended.


          rural technology and cooperative development grants

       For grants pursuant to section 310(f) of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     1926(a)(11)), $1,500,000.


             local technical assistance and planning grants

       For grants pursuant to section 306(a)(11)(A) of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (7 
     U.S.C. 1926(a)(11)), $2,500,000.


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Farmers Home Administration, 
     not otherwise provided for, in administering the programs 
     authorized by the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1921-2000), as amended; title V of the Housing Act 
     of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1471-1490o); the Rural 
     Rehabilitation Corporation Trust Liquidation Act, approved 
     May 3, 1950 (40 U.S.C. 440-444), for administering the loan 
     program authorized by title III-A of the Economic Opportunity 
     Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-452 approved August 20, 1964), as 
     amended; the Cooperative Marketing Act of July 2, 1926 (7 
     U.S.C. 451-457); and for activities relating to the marketing 
     aspects of cooperatives, including economic research and 
     analysis and the application of economic research findings, 
     as authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1621-1627), and for activities with institutions or 
     organizations throughout the world concerning the development 
     and operation of agricultural cooperatives (7 U.S.C. 3291),  
     and such other programs which the Farmers Home Administration 
     has the responsibility for administering, $700,585,000; of 
     which $37,811,000 is hereby appropriated, $374,255,000 shall 
     be derived by transfer from the Rural Housing Insurance Fund 
     Program Account in this Act and merged with this account, 
     $229,735,000 shall be derived by transfer from the 
     Agriculture Credit Insurance Fund Program Account in this Act 
     and merged with this account, $57,294,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from the Rural Development Insurance Fund Program 
     Account in this Act and merged with this account, $1,476,000 
     shall be derived by transfer from the Rural Development Loan 
     Fund Program Account in this Act and merged with this 
     account, and $14,000 shall be derived by transfer from the 
     Self-Help Housing Land Development Fund Program Account in 
     this Act and merged with this account: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $515,000 of this appropriation may be used for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed $4,159,000 of this appropriation shall be available 
     for contracting with the National Rural Water Association or 
     other equally qualified national organization for a circuit 
     rider program to provide technical assistance for rural water 
     systems: Provided further, That not to exceed $2,000,000 
     shall be available through cooperative agreements to assist 
     in developing efforts to provide information and technical 
     assistance to traditionally under-represented communities to 
     encourage business community development.

                  Rural Electrification Administration

       To carry into effect the provisions of the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 901-
     950(b)), as follows:


       rural electrification and telephone loans program account

       Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     935), shall be made as follows: 5 percent rural 
     electrification loans, $100,000,000; 5 percent rural 
     telephone loans, $75,000,000; cost of money rural telephone 
     loans, $198,000,000; municipal rate rural electric loans, 
     $575,250,000; and loans made pursuant to section 306 of that 
     Act, $420,000,000, to remain available until expended.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     935), as follows: cost of direct loans, $19,120,000; cost of 
     municipal rate loans, $46,020,000; cost of money rural 
     telephone loans, $40,000; cost of loans guaranteed pursuant 
     to section 306, $450,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $29,982,000.

                  rural telephone bank program account

       The Rural Telephone Bank is hereby authorized to make such 
     expenditures, within the limits of funds available to such 
     corporation in accord with law, and to make such contracts 
     and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out its 
     authorized programs for the current fiscal year. During 
     fiscal year 1995 and within the resources and authority 
     available, gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans shall be $175,000,000.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct loans authorized by the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 935), 
     $2,728,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the loan programs, $8,794,000.


              distance learning and medical link programs

       For necessary expenses to carry into effect the programs 
     authorized in sections 2331-2335 of Public Law 101-624, 
     $7,500,000, to remain available until expended.


             rea economic development loans program account

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     loans, as authorized under section 313 of the Rural 
     Electrification Act, for the purpose of promoting rural 
     economic development and job creation projects, $12,865,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of 
     modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $3,077,000.


                     (Including Transfers of Funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     901-950(b)), and to administer the loan and loan guarantee 
     programs for Community Antenna Television facilities as 
     authorized by the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1921-1995), and for which commitments were made 
     prior to fiscal year 1994, including not to exceed $7,000 for 
     financial and credit reports, funds for employment pursuant 
     to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act 
     of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $103,000 for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $38,776,000; of which 
     $29,982,000 shall be derived by transfer from the Rural 
     Electrification and Telephone Loans Program Account in this 
     Act and $8,794,000 shall be derived by transfer from the 
     Rural Telephone Bank Program Account in this Act: Provided, 
     That none of the funds in this Act may be used to authorize 
     the transfer of additional funds to this account from the 
     Rural Telephone Bank.

  Mr. DURBIN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the balance of title III be considered as read, printed in 
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to the balance of title 
III?
  If not, are there any amendments to the balance of title III?
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to be here earlier but was unavoidably 
detained.
  Mr. Chairman, it had been my intention to offer amendments to restore 
at least half of the funding cut from the Food Safety Inspection 
Service. But after consulting with legislative counsel and 
Appropriations Committee staff, it was evident that an attempt at en 
bloc amendments at this point would not succeed, and an attempt to 
simply add the money--albeit with amendments to cut to follow--would be 
ruled out of order, because the addition of funding would push the 
bill's outlays over the 602(b) allocations.
  This is an extremely frustrating situation. Here we have a bill that 
unnecessarily harms production agriculture, and those of us who would 
like to try to do something about it, have our hands tied behind our 
backs.
  This bill reduces FSIS funding $85 million from the fiscal year 1994 
funding level. The cut actually translates into a $103 million 
shortfall, because that is the amount needed to retain services at the 
current level in fiscal year 1995. This is a 16.6 percent reduction, 
and it is not fair.
  By cutting FSIS, the beef cattle industry, which is already 
experiencing the lowest prices they have had in 10 years, will most 
likely take a deep nose dive.
  I have been getting calls and letters into my office by cattle 
growers all over Nebraska, that are being hit hard by the latest 
downward trend in cattle prices.
  On top of this, in this era of Government efficiency, this bill now 
tells producers they must pay a user fee, and if they're lucky, they 
will get their cattle into the slaughter house, because USDA will only 
have enough money to pay inspectors for one shift per day.
  This should not be the news Congress should be giving producers.
  I sat down with my staff and a calculator, and we quickly found a way 
to restore nearly half the cuts in FSIS, by reducing the increases--I 
repeat increases--in a number of programs and redirecting those dollars 
to FSIS.
  For example, giving the Rural Rental Assistance Program a 10-percent 
increase instead of a 17-percent increase, free's up more than $31 
million for meat inspection.
  FDA buildings and facilities got a 117 percent increase, an increase 
that was not requested by the administration. A mere 50 percent 
increase would have freed up $4 million for more meat inspection 
services.
  For FDA's salaries and expenses account, H.R. 4554 calls for 2.66 
percent increase. By only increasing FDA's salaries by 2 percent, there 
is an additional $5 million that can go to the FSIS.
  The irony in this example is that the FSIS and the FDA both have a 
common purpose--consumer protection. Yet, while the FDA is slated for 
increased funding, this bill guts the FSIS' mission.
  It is my understanding that a motion to recommit will be offered by 
Mr. DeLay. I have encouraged him to include instructions in his motion, 
for restoring FSIS funding, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
people who put the meat on the table, and support this recommit with 
instructions.
  This is supposed to be an agriculture appropriations bill. Let's make 
it so.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I might say to my colleague and friend from Nebraska 
that I concur with many of the points that he has made, and I 
understand the travails that are facing the beef and cattle industry at 
this moment.
  But this subcommittee really had its hands full. We had to cut, make 
drastic cuts, from last year's appropriations bill. We have assumed a 
recommendation made under the Reagan administration, the Bush 
administration, and the Clinton administration that a user fee be 
enacted that would cover second- and third-shift inspections at meat 
and poultry facilities. The Federal taxpayers would still assume the 
responsibility for first-shift inspections, but second and third shifts 
would be covered by a user fee paid by the industry.
  I wish this were not the case. I wish we did not have to request 
this. Unfortunately, if we are really going to reduce this deficit, if 
we are going to bring down spending, we are going to face choices like 
this every day on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Let me quickly add that our subcommittee does not have authority to 
impose this user fee. We have turned to the committee of jurisdiction, 
the Committee on Agriculture, to ask them to tackle this very difficult 
problem.
  Your friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], 
was on the floor earlier addressing this issue in a colloquy. He made a 
point which I agreed with, that we should work with the Department of 
Agriculture in the next few months to do our best to come up with the 
fairest way to reform the current system and to try to reduce any 
burden there might be on the processors and those that use this 
inspection service. I think he is on the right track.
  What we really need is a revolution in thinking about meat and 
poultry inspection. In my callow youth, I spent 12 months working in a 
slaughterhouse in East St. Louis, IL, working my way through college. 
The Federal meat inspectors were at that time men, all men, wearing 
white smocks, white helmets, who stood and watched as the carcasses 
went down the line. If they saw anything that looked unusual or smelled 
bad, they stopped it. That was it. That was a pretty good system when 
you consider the rest of the world.
  Today our consumers are demanding more. They are asking for more 
confidence in the products that go through this inspection process. We 
have a responsibility to meet those demands. I have given those 
responsibilities, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and I have, 
to the Committee on Agriculture. It is a tough job. We will work with 
them.
  But I think when it is all done, we are going to have a modern system 
of meat and poultry inspection to the credit of ranchers and cattlemen 
and pork producers and those in the poultry industry across the United 
States. It's a tough job, and I think the gentleman has acknowledged 
how tough it will be, but I think it is one we can be proud of that we 
are facing this responsibility in trying to address it.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
remarks, the explanation.
  I continue, however, to have my own serious concerns about not only 
the cattle industry but further reductions in agriculture 
appropriations.
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me just say this to the gentleman: We cannot continue 
to call for deficit reduction, spending cuts, program reductions, and 
be surprised or shocked that we come out with appropriation bills like 
this.
  We have to understand that all of the speeches we have made about 
deficit reduction eventually are going to result in appropriation bills 
that cut very important programs. I will say to the gentleman that, as 
we give our speeches about deficit reduction and balanced budgets and A 
to Z and line-item vetoes, let us cut more, we have got to reduce the 
deficit, ultimately we have to pay the piper. This is what this bill is 
faced with.
  So many farm groups came to me last year when the Clinton deficit 
reduction plan was on the table, and said we need to cut more spending, 
Clinton does not cut enough spending. I, frankly, think the President 
did. I voted for it. I know the gentleman did not. But if we had cut 
more spending then in deficit reduction, this bill would be even worse 
today.
  When we vote on the floor of the House to exempt the Veterans' 
Administration from any cuts in their budget, we put more burden on 
valuable farm programs. What I am suggesting to the gentleman is we 
have got to look beyond the big picture to the specific appropriation 
bills.
  The gentleman from New Mexico and I had the unenviable task of 
wrestling with deficit reduction policy in its extreme.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
  Mr. SKEEN. I want to respond to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  You have made an excellent point. As a cattle grower myself, we are 
always sensitive to any change in the processing or whatever that has a 
reflection on the price of beef. But, of course, the price of beef has 
gone down even without the system being imposed.
  It always bothers me about where are the variables in those markets. 
And we do not want the processors to have to assume more of a burden, 
because that is passed on to the consumer and not the producer.
  So it is a very ticklish situation, and it is one that takes a lot of 
introspection, a lot of deep thinking, and a lot of understanding, and 
I think together, I appreciate the representations you have made for 
those growers.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] 
has expired.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I will not 
take the 5 minutes, but this is an opportunity to say to the people of 
this country we ought to know more about the whole process rather than 
taking it for granted as we have in the past.
  Because there are a lot of people who are leaving the production area 
because there is just absolutely no way you can make a good living out 
of that. We do not want to exacerbate that by what we do in the 
Congress of the United States.
  So we do these things with a lot of concern and a lot of care. We 
appreciate your concern and your expression.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the remainder of title 
III?


               amendment offered by mr. burton of indiana

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Burton of Indiana: Page 51, strike 
     lines 1 through 5.

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, a new program was 
started. It was an outreach program for socially disadvantaged farmers 
and ranchers, and we put $1 million into that program. I objected to it 
at that time because nobody in this Chamber could give me a definition 
of what a socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher was, and then 
somebody, and I think it was the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la 
Garza], came down and said, well, it is people who have been 
discriminated against because of ethnicity, their ethnic background, 
because of their social background and so forth.
  Then we involved ourselves in a colloquy. We found that under the 
civil rights laws we have right now anybody who is discriminated 
against for those reasons can go to court, and there are criminal 
penalties. So we really do not need it for that purpose.
  So today we have not $1 million in here. It was raised to $3 million 
last year. This year it is $3 million again.
  I noticed the chairman and ranking Republican on this committee cut 
$5,000 out of it. I appreciate that. But it is still really $3 million, 
three times what it was just 2 years ago.
  The fact of the matter is we do not need this program. Nobody knows 
what a socially disadvantaged farmer is. As a matter of fact, the 
money, the largest part of it, went to 21 different universities and 
colleges around the country to implement the program. It looks like to 
me it is a pork-barrel project for 21 or 22 universities, because the 
money is not getting to the farmers in the first place.
  We have extension programs to help farmers with problems they have 
like filling out forms or understanding what kind of herbicides or 
pesticides to use or anything that has to do with farming. Yet here is 
a program nobody knows what it is for, nobody knows who it is supposed 
to help, they cannot explain it on the floor of the House, and we are 
spending $3 million for it.
  So I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska, and my 
colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico, we are talking about this 
bill being cut because of other programs, other appropriations bills 
not being cut, and this bill has been cut unfairly. Here is $3 million 
we can take out that nobody is going to miss, because it is not helping 
anybody except 21 universities, and nobody knows what they are doing 
with the money.
  If you look at the definition on page 1, it says, and here is what 
this money is used for, one-on-one assistance in filling out the forms 
required for participating in agricultural programs. Your extension 
programs do that. There will be special training courses and meetings 
to explain the provisions of these programs. They do that as well. Both 
individual and group training and assistance will be provided on such 
matters as land preparation, planting, seed selection, harvesting, and 
marketing. They do that as well. Sources of financial assistance 
including Farmers Home Administration's own lending program will be 
identified. They do that as well.
  So what is the purpose of this program? If it is to make sure there 
is no discrimination based upon people's ethnic background or social 
background, that is already in the law under the civil rights law.
  We have got the Farmers Home Administration; we have got the 
extension programs. What do we need to be spending this $3 million on 
this program for? It makes absolutely no sense, and if somebody can 
explain to me in some detail what a socially disadvantaged farmer or 
rancher is, I would love to hear it, because I have been waiting for 3 
years, and I still do not have an answer.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana.
  If I might, I would like to explain a little bit about this program. 
The gentleman understands that the Extension Service has a 
responsibility nationwide to help many individuals including farmers, 
ranchers, and other producers to deal with some of the challenges they 
face in farming and ranching.
  The Extension Service does an excellent job. I have been surprised 
that their reach goes far beyond the farm and rural areas. In fact, it 
is even felt in many cities around the country.
  What was done in the last farm bill was to try to separate a small 
part of the Extension Service budget and to focus on those farmers and 
producers who are socially disadvantaged, as the bill characterizes 
them.

                              {time}  1010

  We are talking about African-Americans, American Indians, Hispanic-
Americans and they comprise about 3 percent of our farm population 
nationwide. The money which is given to the 21 colleages and 
universities under this act is used to establish programs of outreach 
to help these minority and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers 
deal with the challenges that they face today in farming. It is a 
specialized program, I will concede, but it is not unique. The services 
the Extension Service offers nationwide really parallel what is being 
offered through this program. We are trying to focus though on colleges 
and universities which serve a special constituency.
  I think the gentleman, if he will review the colleges which receive 
the money, will find among them many rural colleages and those that are 
historically black colleges, and cooperatives in the areas where 
American Indians can be found, which really try to focus on minority 
needs. I might say to the gentleman that some 81 different institutions 
applied for moneys under this program for this purpose. The 21 that are 
enumerated; I am sure the gentleman has seen this list, were the 
winners in that competition.
  I do not think it is unreasonable for us to do this. The Extension 
Service has a valuable job, an important job. What we are tying to do 
with a small sliver of funding is to focus on what we consider to be a 
special problem.
  I have dealt with the Committee on Agriculture, which, of course, has 
created the authorizing language for this program, and I frankly hope 
that the gentleman will reconsider his position, and I rise in 
opposition to his amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's disconcertion over whether 
or not what is a socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher. Already we 
have discussed this morning about our economic disadvantageous 
situations, and most farmers or agriculturalists are in that position 
to begin with, but coming from a State like the State of New Mexico 
where we have a tricultural background, 48 percent of my district is 
Hispanic, also we have the native Americans and one who has worked in 
the field with Extension Service and some of the rest, there are just a 
lot of cracks in this thing that cannot be spanned by any existing 
programs other the socially disadvantaged program that we put the $3 
million in, and we took $5,000 out of it, I know.
  But this is a program that has a place. It can be used because there 
is not available to some of these people the regular Extension Service 
from the land grant colleges. There is an absolute and essential need. 
There is no question about that. If the gentleman is not convinced, 
then I invite him to come take a look at the way the program is 
operating in my State and some of the other States that have these 
cultural, large cultural, groups that are agriculturally based 
primarily, and to see ho it works, because the money has been well used 
and has not been wasted, and I think it is a program that we should 
continue until there is no such thing, or even a need, to define what 
is socially disadvantageous or economically disadvantageous just 
insofar as agriculture is concerned.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to tell my colleague, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Burton], that some of the people who benefit from his 
program are the people who live on the Navajo Nation. We have some of 
these moneys going to the Navajo Community College and also Crown Point 
Community College.
  As my colleagues know, the land that they have sometimes does not 
produce most effectively, and also we want to make sure that the land 
they do have, that they take care of it and make sure that we do not 
have soil erosion, et cetera, use the water, proper planning.
  So, in my particular area, and also with the area that the ranking 
member represents, this area, or these moneys, help the Navajo Nation 
to produce more effectively.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this is a time of severe fiscal 
and budgetary problems for this Nation. There is just no question about 
it. Everybody knows that. Even the President has talked about that. The 
deficit has been out of control. The national debt is about 4.5 to $5 
trillion, and we should be economizing everywhere we can.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] has said that this is a 
parallel program. It is a duplicate program. Parallel, duplicate; it is 
the same thing. The fact of the matter is that we are spending $3 
million for a program that is already being provide by the farmers 
extension programs, by the Agriculture Department and anybody who feels 
like they are being discriminated against already has protection under 
the civil rights laws. There is just no reason for this.
  Now, when we look at the universities that are getting this money: 
Arkansas Land and Farm Development, the Association for Community Based 
Education, Salinas, CA, University of Vermont in Burlington, VT, 
Lincoln University in Missouri, Jefferson City, MO, Southern University 
A&M College, Baton Rouge, LA, Florida A&M University in Tallahassee, 
Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, AL, University of Arkansas at Pine 
Bluff, AR, we do not need this program. It is a duplication. It is $3 
million that is really a waste of taxpayers' money. Nobody really has 
given us a true definition of what a socially disadvantaged farmer is. 
If a farmer has a problem and needs additional education, needs help in 
filling out forms, as is alleged in this bill that this is supposed to 
help, they can get it already. We do not need to spend this $3 million, 
and, if we have the fiscal problems that we all know we already have, 
then here is a way to save $3 million of taxpayers' money, and it can 
be used on another, possibly better, program for the farmers.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, the Minority Farm Outreach Program funded 
under section 2501(a) of the 1990 FACT Act is a serious, critical and 
long overdue effort to redress the years of discrimination faced by 
minority producers in this Nation. Mr. Burton last year, during his 
attempt to delete these funds, repeated a question posed to him of 
whether a socially disadvantaged farmer is one who cannot get a date to 
a barn dance. This statement mocks the seriousness of a situation which 
should cause us great shame.
  The Socially Disadvantaged Farmer/Rancher Program is extremely cost 
effective because it provides the assistance directly to the 
organizations who can work directly with these farmers to keep them on 
the land. In 1975 there were only 175 African-American farmers under 
the age of 25 in the entire Nation. Lets bring our young people back to 
the land, and develop diversification and marketing plans essential to 
the future of minority farm agriculture. We need this program for our 
farmers.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise outraged at this amendment and ask 
for all my colleagues in the House to oppose this amendment. This 
program was authorized under the farm bill under the leadership of the 
current Secretary of Agriculture at $10 million per year. The 
subcommittee has cut the program below the President's request and 
below last year's level. There is a longstanding history of 
discrimination at USDA and this program provides technical assistance 
to members of our society which have been discriminated against over 
the years.
  Let us look at the facts. In 1920, 900,000 black farmers owned over 
15 million acres of land. That is almost 1 million black farmers. By 
1960, that number had dropped to 100,000 black farmers with less than 6 
million acres. By 1980, only 57,000 blacks owned less than 4 million 
acres. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, in 1987, the U.S. 
Agricultural census could only document 25,000 black farmers owning 
less than 2.5 million acres. So where have we come. From 900,000 
farmers to 25,000. That my colleagues is shameful and unacceptable.
  We must first admit there have been longstanding problems regarding 
USDA's treatment of the black farmer. The 1982 U.S. Civil Rights 
Commission Report stated that without comprehensive action, no black 
farmers will remain by the year 2000.
  This is an essential program which demands our support. I resent the 
gentleman from Indiana offering this amendment and would like to give 
him the opportunity to withdraw the amendment at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139, 
noes 264, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 254]

                               AYES--139

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cox
     Crapo
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--264

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Andrews (ME)
     Boehlert
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Crane
     Derrick
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Flake
     Gallo
     Grams
     Hayes
     Hilliard
     Laughlin
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Machtley
     McCurdy
     McMillan
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Moran
     Neal (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rush
     Slattery
     Smith (OR)
     Talent
     Tucker
     Washington
     Weldon

                              {time}  1040

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grams for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.
       Mr. Quinn for, with Mr. Tucker against.

  Messrs. McCANDLESS, CUNNINGHAM, and FOGLIETTA changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CAMP, TAYLOR of Mississippi, SAXTON, HALL of Texas, EWING, 
BARCA of Wisconsin, and HOBSON changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the remainder of title 
III?
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to, among other things, congratulate the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Skeen] for the tremendous job they have done in a very, very 
difficult budgetary environment.
  Having congratulated the chairman and the ranking member, I want to 
say that I was particularly troubled, though, by some of the debate 
that took place last night as part of general debate on this 
agricultural appropriations bill and some of the information that has 
been disseminated in ``Dear Colleague'' letters that urge a no vote on 
this bill, because, in fact, it cuts agricultural programs too deeply.
  It seems to me that it is rank hypocrisy to advocate spending cuts, 
specific spending cuts in the agricultural area, and then urge Members 
to vote no because this bill cuts spending.
  In fact, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
voted for spending cuts that are far deeper than those that the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Skeen] have been required to bring to the floor on this bill.
  I wanted to point out that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the 
Republican ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, has 
deservedly won plaudits for his very specific budget resolution; the 
fact that when it was submitted to the House, it contained detailed 
spending cuts. And so for the first time in many years, we are really 
able to trace Republican spending priorities on agricultural issues.
  The proposal of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], which was 
defeated but supported by an overwhelming number of Republicans, gives 
us a blueprint as to Republican priorities in the agricultural spending 
area.
  Only nine Republicans opposed the proposal of the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kasich]. In fact, of the 158 who supported it in a losing cause, 
an overwhelming number of agricultural district Republicans supported 
it.
  I have looked through the voting records. I note that in Colorado, in 
Georgia, in Indiana, in Iowa, and in Kansas, in fact, Republicans 
unanimously supported the Kasich budget as it relates to agriculture.
  But let me tell Members what that does. It specifically cuts $8.9 
billion over 5 years. And this, of course, is in discretionary 
spending, in most cases the same kind of spending cuts that the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Skeen] have been dealing with in this bill. Much deeper cuts were 
recommended and supported by the Republicans in the Kasich budget.
  Let me read into the Record just what they have proposed we do before 
they come to the floor and urge we defeat this bill.
  They have proposed that we reduce the Farmers Home Administration 
farm loan program by $423 million, cut over 5 years. They have proposed 
a reduction in the Agricultural Research Service of $830 million cut 
over 5 years. They have proposed a reduction in the Agricultural 
Extension Service of $505 million cut over 5 years. They have proposed 
to cut $889 million in farm agency field offices over 5 years. They 
have proposed to restructure the nonfarm service agencies within the 
Department to the tune of a $535 million cut over 5 years.
  They went after the Foreign Agricultural Trade Service, cut it $33 
million over 5 years; proposed a reduction in the funding for the 
Cooperative States Research Service to the tune of $331 million cut 
over 5 years.
  They proposed a reduction in a number of programs that are really in 
tune with rural development, including water and sewer program and 
propose to cut the WIC Program by $882 million cut over 5 years.
  The Department of Agriculture's overhead was supposed to take a $3.4 
billion reduction over 5 years. This sort of program reduction, of 
course, is felt by people on the farm.
  And a reduction in loan guarantees under the USDA Export Credit 
Commodity Program, the Commodity Credit Corporation, a $1.1 billion cut 
over 5 years. And of course, just for good public relations, they threw 
in the honey program for $3 million, quite in contrast to the billions 
and hundreds of millions that are cut in programs that really do serve 
the needs of agriculture in its most basic sense.
  So I am here today to say that I think this committee has done an 
excellent job. The net reduction in discretionary spending is forced by 
the need to reduce the overall deficit of this country. And for 
Republicans to urge a no vote on this bill, after savaging agricultural 
programs in their budget, is rank hypocrisy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Food and Consumer Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and 
     Nutrition Service, $540,000.

                       Food and Nutrition Service


                        child nutrition programs

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751-1769b), and the applicable 
     provisions other than sections 3 and 17 of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773-1785, and 1788-1789); 
     $7,451,351,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     1996, of which $2,202,274,000 is hereby appropriated and 
     $5,249,077,000 shall be derived by transfer from funds 
     available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 
     U.S.C. 612c): Provided, That funds appropriated for the 
     purpose of section 7 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 shall 
     be allocated among the States but the distribution of such 
     funds to an individual State is contingent upon that State's 
     agreement to participate in studies and surveys of programs 
     authorized under the National School Lunch Act and the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966, when such studies and surveys have 
     been directed by the Congress and requested by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture: Provided further, That if the Secretary of 
     Agriculture determines that a State's administration of any 
     program under the National School Lunch Act or the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (other than section 17), or the 
     regulations issued pursuant to these Acts, is seriously 
     deficient, and the State fails to correct the deficiency 
     within a specified period of time, the Secretary may withhold 
     from the State some or all of the funds allocated to the 
     State under section 7 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 and 
     under section 13(k)(1) of the National School Lunch Act; upon 
     a subsequent determination by the Secretary that the programs 
     are operated in an acceptable manner some or all of the funds 
     withheld may be allocated: Provided further, That only final 
     reimbursement claims for service of meals, supplements, and 
     milk submitted to State agencies by eligible schools, summer 
     camps, institutions, and service institutions within sixty 
     days following the month for which the reimbursement is 
     claimed shall be eligible for reimbursement from funds 
     appropriated under this Act. States may receive program funds 
     appropriated under this Act for meals, supplements, and milk 
     served during any month only if the final program operations 
     report for such month is submitted to the Department within 
     ninety days following that month. Exceptions to these claims 
     or reports submission requirements may be made at the 
     discretion of the Secretary: Provided further, That up to 
     $3,849,000 shall be available for independent verification of 
     school food service claims: Provided further, That $1,706,000 
     shall be available to provide financial and other assistance 
     to operate the Food Service Management Institute.


                          special milk program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the special milk 
     program, as authorized by section 3 of the Child Nutrition 
     Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772), $18,089,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 1996. Only final 
     reimbursement claims for milk submitted to State agencies 
     within sixty days following the month for which the 
     reimbursement is claimed shall be eligible for reimbursement 
     from funds appropriated under this Act. States may receive 
     program funds appropriated under this Act only if the final 
     program operations report for such month is submitted to the 
     Department within ninety days following that month. 
     Exceptions to these claims or reports submission requirements 
     may be made at the discretion of the Secretary.


  special supplemental food program for women, infants, and children 
                                 (wic)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the special 
     supplemental food program as authorized by section 17 of the 
     Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), $3,470,000,000, 
     to remain available through September 30, 1996, of which up 
     to $5,500,000 may be used to carry out the farmer's market 
     coupon program: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act 
     shall be available to pay administrative expenses of WIC 
     clinics except those that have an announced policy of 
     prohibiting smoking within the space used to carry out the 
     program: Provided further, That no State will incur an 
     interest liability to the Federal Government on WIC rebate 
     funds provided that all interest earned by the State on these 
     funds is used for program purposes.


                  commodity supplemental food program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the commodity 
     supplemental food program as authorized by section 4(a) of 
     the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 
     612c (note)), including not less than $8,000,000 for the 
     projects in Detroit, New Orleans, and Des Moines, 
     $94,500,000, to remain available through September 30, 1996: 
     Provided, That none of these funds shall be available to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities 
     donated to the program.


                           food stamp program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2011-2029), $28,817,457,000: Provided, That funds 
     provided herein shall remain available through September 30, 
     1995, in accordance with section 18(a) of the Food Stamp Act: 
     Provided further, That $2,500,000,000 of the foregoing amount 
     shall be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts and 
     at such times as may become necessary to carry out program 
     operations: Provided further, That funds provided herein 
     shall be expended in accordance with section 16 of the Food 
     Stamp Act: Provided further, That this appropriation shall 
     be subject to any work registration or work fare 
     requirements as may be required by law: Provided further, 
     That $1,143,000,000 of the foregoing amount shall be 
     available for Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico as 
     authorized by U.S.C. 2028, of which $12,472,000 shall be 
     transferred to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service for the Cattle Tick Eradication Project: Provided 
     further, That no funds provided herein shall be available 
     to provide food assistance in cash in any county not 
     covered by a demonstration project that received final 
     approval from the Secretary on or before July 1, 1994.


              food donations programs for selected groups

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 4(a) of the 
     Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 
     612c (note)), section 4(b) of the Food Stamp Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2013(b)), and section 311 of the Older Americans Act of 1965, 
     as amended (42 U.S.C. 3030a), $183,154,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 1996.
       For necessary expenses to carry out section 110 of the 
     Hunger Prevention Act of 1988, $40,000,000.


                 the emergency food assistance program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Emergency Food 
     Assistance Act of 1983, as amended, $40,000,000: Provided, 
     That in accordance with section 202 of Public Law 98-92, 
     these funds shall be available only if the Secretary 
     determines the existence of excess commodities.
       For purchases of commodities to carry out the Emergency 
     Food Assistance Act of 1983, as amended, $40,000,000.


                      food program administration

       For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic food 
     programs funded under this Act, $106,465,000; of which 
     $5,000,000 shall be available only for simplifying 
     procedures, reducing overhead costs, tightening regulations, 
     improving food stamp coupon handling, and assistance in the 
     prevention, identification, and prosecution of fraud and 
     other violations of law; Provided, That this appropriation 
     shall be available for employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $150,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

  Mr. DURBIN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that title IV be considered as read, printed in the Record, and 
open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1050

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order or amendments thereto?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service, 
     including carrying out tile VI of the Agricultural Act of 
     1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development 
     activities abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to 
     coordinate and integrate activities of the Department in 
     connection with foreign agricultural work, including not to 
     exceed $128,000 for representation allowances and for 
     expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act approved August 3, 
     1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), $118,011,000, of which $4,914,000 may 
     be transferred from Commodity Credit Corporation funds, 
     $2,792,000 may be transferred from the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation Program Account in this Act, and $1,425,000 may 
     be transferred from the Public Law 480 Program Account in 
     this Act: Provided, That in addition, funds available to the 
     Department of Agriculture shall be available to assist an 
     international organization in meeting the costs, including 
     salaries, fringe benefits and other associated costs, related 
     to the employment by the organization of Federal personnel 
     that may transfer to the organization under the provisions of 
     5 U.S.C. 3581-3584, or of other well-qualified United States 
     citizens, for the performance of activities that contribute 
     to increased understanding of international agricultural 
     issues, with transfer of funds for this purpose from one 
     appropriation to another or to a single account authorized, 
     such funds remaining available until expended: Provided 
     further, That the Service may utilize advances of funds, or 
     reimburse this appropriation for expenditures made on behalf 
     of Federal agencies, public and private organizations and 
     institutions under agreements executed pursuant to the 
     agricultural food production assistance programs (7 U.S.C. 
     1736) and the foreign assistance programs of the 
     International Development Cooperation Administration (22 
     U.S.C. 2392).
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tabocco 
     products.

  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I repeatedly hear on this floor talk about how cuts on 
the discretionary agriculture budget are to reduce the deficit. I would 
like to have the leadership on the other side, who orchestrates this, 
tell us about the cuts in the President's program before. How many 
times has the gentleman cut the operating budget of agriculture? He 
knows he has done it repeatedly, and at the same time, he increases the 
spending on the social side of the agriculture budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, please quit putting out 
that word that only discretionary spending is being cut for the 
deficit. Of course it is, but the gentleman is putting it back in 
spending on the nondiscretionary side.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EWING. I certainly will.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to concede to the gentleman 
that there are increases in this bill. They are very limited. Of the 90 
some different programs that we have jurisdiction over in this 
appropriation bill, a handful received increases. Our committee report 
enumerates most of those increases.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] 
believes, as I do, that the WIC program, which now serves 40 percent of 
the infants in America, is a critical investment in the future, not 
only of urban America, but also of rural America.
  Mr. Chairman, we have provided $90 million less than the President 
asked for, but we are on the track toward full funding for WIC. The 
gentleman represents a rural area, as I do, and he knows that there are 
many senior citizens and poor families in rural areas that need public 
housing. We provide some $76 million in rental assistance to help those 
senior citizens, and to help those poor families find housing.
  Mr. EWING. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say that that is 
probably very true, but the gentleman is increasing WIC. He did not cut 
WIC.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is true.
  Mr. EWING. The gentleman is cutting the production programs that 
provide the cheap food policy of this country and assist every family, 
poor and rich, in this country, and particularly the poor.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EWING. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Committee on Agriculture, and I would 
have to say that the Republicans on the committee were willing to look 
at the need to reduce deficit spending. Those of us who represent 
agricultural districts were willing to make our shared sacrifice in 
reaching that goal.
  However, what is happening with this appropriation bill, and 
generally what is happening in the Department of Agriculture, is that 
60 percent of the Department of Agriculture is going into nutrition 
programs, and only about 20 percent is actually going to production 
agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that we are taking away from those 
who are working and trying to produce and feed this country, in fact, 
feed the world, and giving to those who are becoming more reliant on 
the Government and not actually producing people.
  When we look at the continued burden we are putting on the farmer in 
the way of rules and regulations, we are making it more difficult for 
him to do business. We are increasing his taxes. In addition, Mr. 
Chairman, we are knocking him out in the agricultural department and 
not giving him the support that he really needs.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, very simply, no one can 
dispute this, except maybe the figures, and I do not have them here in 
front of me, but we know we cut the agriculture budget about $4 billion 
for the President's deficit reduction program in production 
agriculture, and we know that we have cut it repeatedly, and that it 
has been going down every year.
  The farmers in my district, the agricultural producers in my 
district, want to take their share of the deficit reduction. They just 
cannot take it all. Neither can defense. That is exactly what the 
gentleman is doing on that side of the aisle, cutting defense and 
cutting agriculture, and putting it into social spending. Let me tell 
the gentleman, the American people it is not lost on. They know what is 
happening.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EWING. I certainly will.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I just need to know, does the gentleman 
support full funding of the WIC program?
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that I support 
funding of the WIC program at its level of last year. Any increases 
over that should not be done at the expense of production agriculture.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, if the President wants funding, he can 
allocate more money to that without the gentleman taking it from 
discretionary funding of the agriculture budget.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EWING. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman remember voting for the 
Kasich budget?
  Mr. EWING. I did, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. FAZIO. If the gentleman will yield further, does the gentleman 
realize that the cut over 5 years was $8.9 billion, and much of that 
out of discretionary spending on agriculture?
  Mr. EWING. I do, Mr. Chairman, and I do that because, as I said 
before, I am willing and the people in my district are willing to take 
their share of the cut for deficit reduction.
  The Kasich budget cut many other things.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] has 
expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title V be considered as read, be printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of title V is as follows:


       scientific activities overseas (foreign currency program)

                 limitation on administrative expenses

       For payments in foreign currencies owed to or owned by the 
     United States for research activities authorized by section 
     104(c)(7) of the Agricultural Trade Development and 
     Assistance Act of 1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1704(c)(7)), not 
     to exceed $1,062,000: Provided, That not to exceed $25,000 of 
     these funds shall be available for payments in foreign 
     currencies for expenses of employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), as amended by 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                    Public Law 480 Program Accounts


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise 
     recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including 
     interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1691, 1701-
     1715, 1721-1726, 1727-1727f, 1731-1736g), as follows: (1) 
     $291,342,000 for Public Law 480 title I credit, including 
     Food for Progress programs; (2) $29,000,000 is hereby 
     appropriated for ocean freight differential costs for the 
     shipment of agricultural commodities pursuant to title I of 
     said Act and the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as amended; 
     (3) $821,100,000 is hereby appropriated for commodities 
     supplied in connection with dispositions abroad pursuant to 
     title II of said Act; and (4) $157,442,000 is hereby 
     appropriated for commodities supplied in connection with 
     dispositions abroad pursuant to title II of said Act: 
     Provided, That not to exceed 15 per centum of the funds made 
     available to carry out any title of said Act may be used to 
     carry out any other title of said Act: Provided further, That 
     such sums shall remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b).
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of direct credit agreements 
     as authorized by the Agricultural Trade Development and 
     Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, and the Food for Progress 
     Act of 1985, as amended, including the cost of modifying 
     credit agreements under said Act, $236,162,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     Public Law 480 title I credit program, and the Food for 
     Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to the extent funds 
     appropriated for Public Law 480 are utilized, $2,461,000.


                        short-term export credit

       The Commodity-Credit Corporation shall make available not 
     less than $5,000,000,000 in credit guarantees under its 
     export credit guarantee program for short-term credit 
     extended to finance the export sales of United States 
     agricultural commodities and the products thereof, as 
     authorized by section 211(b)(1) of the Agricultural Trade Act 
     of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641).


                       intermediate export credit

       The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available not 
     less than $500,000,000 in credit guarantees under its export 
     guarantee program for intermediate-term credit extended to 
     finance the export sales of United States agricultural 
     commodities and the products thereof, as authorized by 
     section 211(b)(2) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 
     U.S.C. 5641).


                   emerging democracies export credit

       The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available not 
     less than $500,000,000 in credit guarantees under its Export 
     Guarantee Program for credit expended to finance the export 
     sales of United States agricultural commodities and the 
     products thereof to emerging democracies, as authorized by 
     section 1542 of Public Law 101-624 (7 U.S.C. 5622 note).


       commodity credit corporation export loans program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out CCC's Export 
     Guarantee Program, GSM 102 and GSM 103, $3,381,000; to cover 
     common overhead expenses as permitted by section 11 of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act and in conformity 
     with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, of which not to 
     exceed $2,792,000 may be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for the salaries and expenses of the Foreign 
     Agricultural Service, and of which not to exceed $589,000 may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for the 
     salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Stabilization and 
     Conservation Service.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order or amendments to the 
balance of title V?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

      TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration, 
     including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for 
     rental of special purpose space in the District of Columbia 
     or elsewhere; and for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the 
     Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's 
     certificate, not to exceed $25,000; $914,394,000, of which 
     not to exceed $79,423,000 in fees pursuant to section 736 of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act may be credited to 
     this appropriation and remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That fees derived from applications received during 
     fiscal year 1995 shall be subject to the fiscal year 1995 
     limitation: Provided further, That none of these funds shall 
     be used to develop, establish, or operate any program of user 
     fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.
       None of the funds in this Act may be used to enforce rules 
     or regulations for a selenium supplement level in animal 
     feeds below 0.3 parts per million.
       In addition, of the foregoing amount such sums as may be 
     necessary may be used for the inspection of mammography 
     facilities, notwithstanding section 354(r) of the Public 
     Health Service Act. Fees collected under said Act shall be 
     credited to the foregoing account and shall remain available 
     until expended.
       In addition to amounts provided, proceeds from the sale of 
     any animals that are surplus to FDA's needs shall be retained 
     by the Food and Drug Administration and credited to the 
     salaries and expenses appropriation for 1995.


                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of 
     or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not 
     otherwise provided, $18,150,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That the Food and Drug 
     Administration may accept donated land in Montgomery and/or 
     Prince George's Counties, Maryland.


                         rental payments (fda)

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and 
     Drug Administration which are included in this Act, 
     $46,294,000: Provided, That in the event the Food and Drug 
     Administration should require modification of space needs, a 
     share of the salaries and expenses appropriation may be 
     transferred to this appropriation, or a share of this 
     appropriation may be transferred to the salaries and expenses 
     appropriation, but such transfers shall not exceed 5 per 
     centum of the funds made available for rental payments (FDA) 
     to or from this account.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                      Financial Management Service

  Payments to the Farm Credit System Financial Assistance Corporation

       For necessary payments to the Farm Credit System Financial 
     Assistance Corporation by the Secretary of the Treasury, as 
     authorized by section 6.28(c) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, 
     as amended, for reimbursement of interest expenses incurred 
     by the Financial Assistance Corporation on obligations issued 
     through 1994, as authorized, $57,026,000.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), 
     including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) in the 
     District of Columbia and elsewhere; and not to exceed $25,000 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; $47,480,000, including 
     not to exceed $1,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided, That the Commission is 
     authorized to charge fees to cover the cost of Commission-
     sponsored educational events and symposia, and 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, said fees shall be credited 
     to this account, to be available without further 
     appropriation.

                       Farm Credit Administration


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $40,420,000 (from assessments collected from 
     farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural 
     Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current 
     fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under 
     12 U.S.C. 2249.

  Mr. DURBIN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that title VI be considered as read, printed in the Record, and 
open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to title VI?
  If not, are there amendments to title VI?


                amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Texas

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Texas: Page 68, line 14, 
     strike ``$914,394,000'' and insert ``$913,927,000''.

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment 
to the House Agriculture appropriations bill that makes a $467,000 cut 
in the Food and Drug Administration's appropriation level. This tiny 
cut is designed to make a large point: It is past time that the Federal 
Government cease to allow unnecessary, unjustified, and in this case, 
downright unusual, spending to continue merely because it occurs in the 
dark recesses of the Federal budget.
  My amendment cutting $467,000 is designed to equal the difference in 
the cost of new Public Health Service Commissioned Corps hires and 
general schedule hires in the next fiscal year. This amendment will not 
affect a single individual now serving in the corps, nor will it even 
affect any person who will join the corps before October 1 of this 
year. What the amendment will do is to send a direct and indisputable 
signal that it is time the corps shipped out of the FDA.
  Why is this necessary? The answers are as many as the corps is 
obscure. First, allow me to provide a little background on the corps 
itself. The Public Health Service Commissioned Corps was founded in 
1798, when John Adams was President, to treat disabled seamen. Today, 
there are about 6,500 total individuals in the corps and it is the 500 
in the FDA that we are dealing with in this amendment.
  The Commissioned Corps is one of the seven uniformed services and 
they receive benefits that are equal to that of the military. The 
section of the Public Health Service Act that deals with the corps 
states:

       Commissioned officers of the Service or their surviving 
     beneficiaries are entitled to all rights, benefits, 
     privileges, and immunities now or hereafter provided for 
     commissioned officers of the Army . . .

  While the corps are equal to the military in their benefits, they are 
not in their duties. Corps officers are not subject to the uniform 
military code of conduct, which means they have the right to refuse an 
assignment or transfer simply by exiting the corps. In addition, the 
corps has not served in a military capacity for a generation.
  Quoting from testimony of then-Assistant Secretary for HHS, James O. 
Mason, before the Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Health and, the 
Environment, he explained the reason that none of the corps' officers 
were activated or called up for Desert Storm as follows:

       The last time the Commissioned Corps was ``militarized'' 
     was during the Korean conflict. Historically, this power has 
     been used very sparingly by the President. It was not done 
     during the Vietnam war even though the draft was in effect at 
     the time . . .

  So the Federal Government is giving military-equal benefits for 
civilian-type service. A corps officer with 6 years of service receives 
approximately $15,000 more annually than a GS-13. This is neither fair 
to the military officers who make the military sacrifices for the same 
benefits, nor is it fair to the FDA's civilian employees who do the 
same work as the FDA's corps officers but at much less cost.
  Even if this basic unfairness between Federal employees did not 
exist, there would still remain the basic unfairness to the American 
taxpayer. They are the ones required to pick up the tab for the day-to-
day discrepancy of paying military benefits for a civilian job. This 
discrepancy adds up to a huge unfunded liability that the corps is 
accumulating through their officers' retirement benefits.
  Unlike either the military or civilian employees they resemble, corps 
officers' retirement benefits are not pre-funded as are other Federal 
workers'. Instead, we rely on the antiquated cash-in, cash-out 
accounting system, whereby we merely pay the current year's retiree 
costs without ever looking ahead to set anything aside for when that 
day will come for the current officers. The same myopic approach 
virtually bankrupted the Social Security trust fund and is one we have 
wisely abandoned for all current Federal employees.
  But we have not abandoned it for the corps. As a result, according to 
the independent audit of the corps' retirement system, the unfunded 
accrued liability for the corps was $3.6 billion as of September 1, 
1992. Every day that we do nothing to correct this, it increases. This 
amendment says that day has come today.
  This amendment is about small money but big principles. It is time 
that we get rid of basic unfairness. It is time we get rid of the 
illogic of having two personnel systems to do one job. It is time we 
get rid of an antiquated anachronism that racks up costs we don't need 
to be paying today and makes no plans to pay them tomorrow.
  We can do these things now by passing this amendment. We can do it 
without unfairly hitting anyone in the corps. We can do it without 
unfairly hitting American farmers, because the FDA, which alone will be 
affected by this amendment, it not part of the USDA.
  I urge Members of this House, who have supported governmentwide 
reforms, to support this one today and vote to pass this amendment.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, for those who are following this debate, we have now 
shifted into the Food and Drug Administration. I hope we will take a 
moment to reflect on the fact that this important small agency is under 
continuing pressure. FDA responds to consumers across America who rely 
on it for the safety, effectiveness, and wholesomeness of all of the 
food and drugs which come across the tables of our homes and in our 
medicine chests. The agency also responds to Congress. Year in and year 
out Congress adds new responsibilities to the Food and Drug 
Administration, valuable important responsibilities which each of us as 
Members of Congress consider to be necessary for the health of our 
Nation.
  In the not too distant past, we have given new responsibilities to 
FDA to inspect mammography clinics across America. This is to make sure 
that our wives and mothers and sisters and friends who visit those 
clinics can leave confident that the person who has been there to help 
them is a qualified professional person and that the equipment works 
accurately. I think we all understand the importance of this.
  When we consider the critical issues related to the Nation's blood 
supply, particularly in this era of sexually transmitted diseases, the 
role of the Food and Drug Administration is so important.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas because he is striking a little over $400,000 from 
the Food and Drug Administration. His quarrel is with the Public Health 
Service Commissioned Corps, and I understand that. But the net effect 
of his amendment is to take money away from the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  Because of deficit reduction, the Food and Drug Administration is 
already going to see a reduction in the personnel available to perform 
its valuable functions. In effect, they have told us that some 350 
employees, or about 4 percent of their personnel, are going to be at 
risk because of our budget recommendation. The gentleman's cut of 
$400,000-plus will mean even more people will be gone from the Food and 
Drug Administration. I would submit to the gentleman that this is not 
the time to do this. If there was ever a moment in our Nation's history 
when we should value this agency and strive to find ways to increase 
funding for the professional personnel who work there, this is the 
moment. For the gentleman from Texas to come before us and to suggest 
that we cut back in those personnel I think is shortsighted.

  Mr. Chairman, let me address his specific point. I do not quarrel 
with the gentleman from Texas that the Public Health Service 
Commissioned Corps itself should be evaluated. We should ask the hard 
questions of this group of Federal employees as we do so many others, 
whether their job is necessary, whether in fact they are cost efficient 
in the way they perform it and what their future might be. But I would 
suggest to the gentleman that just making a cut in the Food and Drug 
Administration budget is not going to have that effect. It will reduce 
the number of people needed for the important jobs we described earlier 
at a time when we should not do that.
  I am told the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps is a valuable 
part of the Food and Drug Administration. At a time when we need 
doctors and medical professionals to review new drugs and new medical 
devices to find the medical breakthroughs which our families rely on to 
save lives across America, we should not be reducing the number of 
people who work at the Food and Drug Administration.
  I will say to the gentleman, we have faced the responsibility under 
this budget resolution to reduce their budget as we have had to, but we 
should not cut it any further. I stand in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas. I hope he will reconsider.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would support the gentleman if he could accomplish 
what I think he is trying to do here, is to question the work of the 
Public Health Service. I think a lot of us question that. But certainly 
our chairman has said about the need. We are constantly asking the Food 
and Drug Administration to assume more responsibility and they cannot 
do it without the people. We maybe ought to move their people around a 
little bit and help them do that, but this cut the gentleman is doing 
here will not accomplish really what he is trying to do, unfortunately. 
Just a mere dollar cut will not do that.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of points and also respond to 
what my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, has stated as well.
  This amendment does not have to result in the cut of one individual 
in the Commissioned Corps. The cuts that I have proposed represent only 
the difference in salary between a typical Federal employee and a 
Commissioned Corps officer in the next year. It is not adversely going 
to impact one individual who is now serving as a member of the 
Commissioned Corps.
  Second, we still have not addressed the problem of a $3.7 billion 
unfunded liability that is involved here. This is the only group of 
employees, whether we talk about Federal employees, civilian employees, 
or military personnel, who do not have to prepay their retirement. I 
suspect that the gentleman from Illinois would agree with me, we do not 
want more unfunded liabilities, and we certainly ought to abolish this 
type of antiquated accounting.
  Lastly, I would certainly say to my friend from Illinois that I agree 
with him on the importance of the FDA. No one is quibbling about that. 
We are talking specifically about the Commissioned Corps which was 
founded in 1798 when John Adams was President to try to help disabled 
seamen. If there is anything, any Government program that is out of 
date, it is this one.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments.
  Again I think that this amendment he has offered does not accomplish 
what he is intending to do here. I cannot speak for the committee, but 
I think there ought to be a review, an examination next year.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I concur with that. I have expressed that 
opinion to the gentleman from Texas, which is why I hope he will 
consider withdrawing this amendment. This is an agency which provides 
core personnel for many different Federal agencies, not just the Food 
and Drug Administration. The gentleman raises serious and legitimate 
questions about its need, its future an how it is funded. I would 
implore the gentleman not to cut the FDA personnel budget in his effort 
to raise this issue.
  I will join the gentleman in suggesting that we take a bipartisan 
look at the future of the corps. I think his contribution today has 
been very valuable to this debate, but I hope he will not cut the 
personnel at FDA.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the director of the Food and Drug 
Administration has come before us continually every year begging for 
more money. He just cannot do the job that we are requiring of FDA, to 
make all the examinations, the tests, everything we require them to do. 
There are new drugs coming on. Right now they do not have adequate 
personnel.
  Again, the gentleman from Texas is trying to accomplish something 
that the amendment just simply is not touching. I think the Chair has 
given us some assurance that we will examine the uniformed service 
again next year, making sure we are getting efficiency and effective 
dollar for what we are spending on the program. I think the commitment 
the chairman has made here, I hope the gentleman from Texas will 
consider it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana 
and the gentleman from Illinois. I appreciate them saying we are 
raising a serious and legitimate issue. I look for the chairman's 
support in the future. I would not ask for a recorded vote right now.

                              {time}  1110

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VI?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, there is an issue of enormous consequence 
that I fear has not gotten the kind of discussion and attention that it 
needs from this body, and that has to do with the introduction of rBGH, 
Monsanto's bovine growth hormone, into the marketplace and the impact 
it is going to have on family farming, on animal health, and perhaps on 
human health.
  Also I must tell you that I am extremely concerned about the role 
that Food and Drug Administration has played in this entire process, 
and among many other concerns that I have is that at least three high-
ranking members in the Food and Drug Administration formerly were 
employed by the Monsanto Corp., and we believe may have played an 
important role in the whole approval process.
  Mr. Chairman, the simple fact of the matter is that at a time when we 
already have a milk surplus in the United States, we do not need bovine 
growth hormone, which is increasing milk production and increasing the 
surplus. The fact of the matter is that the Office of Management and 
Budget has estimated that because of the use of BST, there will be an 
increase in the Federal deficit by $500 million over the next 5 years.

  Why do we need a synthetic hormone to increase milk production when 
we already have a milk surplus?
  Second of all, the facts are very clear that BST makes cows sick. It 
significantly increases the rate of mastitis in cows. With increased 
mastitis in cows, farmers are obliged to use more antibiotics. Why, in 
fact, would the American people want to consume milk from sicker cows 
than is presently the case?
  The Food and Drug Administration has said that antibiotics will 
control the problem, and that it is ``a manageable risk.'' But why do 
we need any risk at all when we already have a surplus of milk on the 
market?
  Mr. Chairman, in my State of Vermont over the last 20 years, we have 
lost many, many family farms, and that is true all over this country. 
The reason that we are losing family farms is because the milk surplus 
is driving milk prices down, and farmers in many instances are 
receiving 50 percent of the income that they did 15 years ago, and they 
cannot survive on this income.
  For those of us who are concerned about the preservation of the 
family farm, it seems to me we must address this issue, and it is 
incomprehensible to me that at a time we hear so much discussion about 
the deficit that we are not addressing this issue. At a time when we 
consumers are more and more concerned about the quality and the purity 
of the foods that they are ingesting, it seems to me that when 
scientists have concerns about the BST residue that will remain in the 
finished product, the milk we drink, it is an issue we must address.
  Mr. Chairman, Monsanto is a multibillion-dollar corporation. They 
have spent $300 million on the development of this product. It seems to 
me that it would be appropriate for the U.S. Congress to begin to stand 
up for family farmers all over this country who have enormous concerns 
about the impact of this development on their future. It seems to me 
imperative that the Congress stand up for consumers who are saying, 
``We want a pure product. We do not want cows to be injected with a 
synthetic hormone which makes them sicker so that Monsanto can make 
more money.''
  Mr. Chairman, I have been asked to withdraw the amendment which I 
presented today, and I will do so.
  I intend next week, however, to introduce a major piece of 
legislation which deals with the labeling issue that the FDA has done 
such a terrible job on, the labeling issue which says that consumers in 
America have the right to know whether the dairy product they are 
consuming comes from cows in injected with BST or whether it does not.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would hope the chairman of the committee 
will work with me in allowing more debate, more exploration of this 
terribly important issue that has not gotten the attention that it 
deserves, and I would hope that I will be able to work with the 
chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], further on this 
issue.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Although I may disagree with the gentleman from Vermont on his 
position on this issue, he certainly deserves an opportunity to be 
heard on his position, and I think some of the questions he has raised 
should be answered.
  I will work with him to try to achieve that.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that those of us on 
the Committee on Agriculture have looked at this issue, and I want to 
assure the American public here and now that every drop of milk that 
they are drinking today and every drop of milk that a schoolchild is 
drinking today, whether it comes from cows that have had the additive 
or not, is healthful, wholesome, and delicious, and I hope that people 
continue to drink milk, because no matter what some of these people 
say, all the milk is wholesome. Every cow that has ever, every cow that 
has ever given milk has BST or BGH naturally forming. There is no 
difference between what Monsanto has produced and what the cow 
produces. It is all the same milk, and you cannot tell the difference, 
and it is all delicious.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I also come from a dairy State, and we 
also want people to continue to drink milk, which we agree is very 
healthy. But would the gentleman disagree with me that scientists have 
determined quite clearly, and I think Monsanto itself would not deny, 
that cows injected with BST become sicker, and there is a significant 
increase of mastitis?
  Mr. VOLKMER. If the gentleman will yield further, no, I will not 
agree with that. I disagree with that strenuously.
  Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman disagrees with that? Really?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Wholeheartedly. They do not become sick.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reclaiming my time, I believe that the gentleman have 
suggested that perhaps another debate is needed on this.
  I will tell you this: I have visited a large dairy in my area, 
Prairie Farms Dairy; the milk that comes from those cows before it 
comes to the table is examined and tested three different times, three 
different times for the presence of antibiotics. If there is any 
evidence of an unwanted residue, the entire load of milk is destroyed.
  There is a very careful testing procedure, monitored by the Federal 
Government. Consumers across America should understand, as the 
gentleman from Missouri says, that the milk that they are being given 
in their stores and in classrooms is healthy, safe, and wholesome.
  The gentleman from Vermont has raised other issues which we can 
address, but that, I think, we all agree on.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not prolong the argument, but I think the 
gentleman from Vermont has a very important request to make, and that 
is something that we should have been doing a long time ago is getting 
to the real scientific basis accurately about what is in foodstuffs, 
what does BST amount to and all the rest of it, because too many times 
we have those kinds of media hypes and some of the rest to fear-monger 
the food supply, and it has gone awry and worked to our detriment for 
two many years.
  I think we ought to have a real good discussion on this and some real 
good factfinding and real good knowledge and also turn around and tell 
the American people: ``Quit listening to these folks that are trying to 
scare the living bejiminies out of you over what is in the milk.''
  If there is a danger, let us find it. If there is not, let us decide 
to go on about our business and get on with the business of being good, 
healthy consuming Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

                              {time}  1120

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely agree with the gentleman. We 
certainly do not want fear mongering. But what we absolutely do want, 
especially in this era when more and more pesticides and chemicals are 
being used; I think the American consumer does want to know absolutely 
and unequivocally that the product that he or she is consuming is, in 
fact, a healthy product, and I look forward to working with the 
gentleman to move in that direction.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. 
Sanders], and I think we need to build that level of confidence.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to put in a word here because I know of the 
concern of the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]; I know of his 
genuine concern about this issue, not just on human health, but also on 
dairy herds and smaller farmers who may be disadvantaged because of the 
additional use of this particular additive. Let me say to the 
gentleman: ``Mr. Sanders, I know you had several amendments, and you 
have kindly withdrawn them today, but, in reading some of them, I think 
that at the same time our committee extends the offer to work with you 
wholeheartedly, I think some effort has to be put in at the authorizing 
committee level as well with the new farm bill that is coming up.'' And 
I would just say to the gentleman: ``If you have not pursued those 
courses as fully as you might this year, I think in the future we would 
be happy to help you on that score as well.''
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what we intend to do. I 
think one of the major issues, as I mentioned a moment ago, that we 
want to address is the labeling issue within the authorizing committee. 
I think there cannot be debate about whether or not the American people 
have the right to know where the milk comes from that they are 
drinking. They do have that right, and I am very proud to say that in 
the State of Vermont we have, in fact, passed labeling legislation, and 
I think similar legislation should be passed nationally. But I would 
love to work with the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] in the 
authorizing committee on these issues.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law, 
     appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of 
     Agriculture for the fiscal year 1995 under this Act shall be 
     available for the purchase, in addition to those specifically 
     provided for, of not to exceed 706 passenger motor vehicles, 
     of which 705 shall be for replacement only, and for the hire 
     of such vehicles.
       Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of 
     Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances 
     therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 703. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of 
     the Department of Agriculture in this Act for research and 
     service work authorized by the Acts of August 14, 1946, and 
     July 28, 1954, and (7 U.S.C. 427, 1621-1629), and by chapter 
     63 of title 31, United States Code, shall be available for 
     contracting in accordance with said Acts and chapter.
       Sec. 704. The cumulative total of transfers to the Working 
     Capital Fund for the purpose of accumulating growth capital 
     for data services and National Finance Center operations 
     shall not exceed $2,000,000: Provided, That no funds in this 
     Act appropriated to an agency of the Department shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the approval 
     of the agency administrator.
       Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the 
     following appropriation items in this Act shall remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Animal and Plant 
     Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund to meet 
     emergency conditions, and Integrated Systems Acquisition 
     Project; Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 
     salaries and expenses funds made available to county 
     committees; Foreign Agricultural Service, Middle-Income 
     Country Training Program; higher education graduate 
     fellowships grants under section 1417(b)(6) of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(6)); and capacity building 
     grants to colleges eligible to receive funds under the Act of 
     August 30, 1890, including Tuskegee University.
       New obligational authority for the Boll Weevil Program; up 
     to 10 per centum of the Screwworm Program of the Animal and 
     Plant Health Inspection Service; funds appropriated for 
     Rental Payments; and higher education minority scholars 
     programs under section 1417(b)(5) of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(5)) shall remain available 
     until expended.
       Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations 
     available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall 
     be available to provide appropriate orientation and language 
     training pursuant to Public Law 94-449.
       Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to 
     pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements 
     or similar arrangements between the United States Department 
     of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 per 
     centum of the total direct cost of the agreement when the 
     purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out 
     programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This 
     does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on 
     grants and contracts with such institutions when such 
     indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all 
     agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act.
       Sec. 709. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     commodities acquired by the Department in connection with 
     Commodity Credit Corporation and section 32 price support 
     operations may be used, as authorized by law (15 U.S.C. 714c 
     and 7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide commodities to individuals in 
     cases of hardship as determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to reimburse the General Services Administration for payment 
     of space rental and related costs in excess of the amounts 
     specified in this Act; nor shall this or any other provision 
     of law require a reduction in the level of rental space or 
     services below that of fiscal year 1994 or prohibit an 
     expansion of rental space or services with the use of funds 
     otherwise appropriated in this Act. Further, no agency of the 
     Department of Agriculture, from funds otherwise available, 
     shall reimburse the General Services Administration for 
     payment of space rental and related costs provided to such 
     agency at a percentage rate which is greater than is 
     available in the case of funds appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 711. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of 
     other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such 
     space will be jointly occupied.
       Sec. 712. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to pay indirect costs on research grants awarded 
     competitively by the Cooperative State Research Service that 
     exceed 14 per centum of total Federal funds provided under 
     each award.
       Sec. 713. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, 
     all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered 
     estimates, not limitations.
       Sec. 714. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture 
     for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in 
     fiscal year 1995 shall remain available until expended to 
     cover obligations made in fiscal year 1995 for the following 
     accounts: Rural Development Insurance Fund Program Account; 
     Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account; the Rural 
     Telephone Bank Program Account; the Rural Electrification and 
     Telephone Loans Program Account; and the REA Economic 
     Development Loans Program Account.
       Sec. 715. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries of 
     personnel who carry out a Market Promotion Program pursuant 
     to section 203 (7 U.S.C. 5623) of the Agricultural Trade Act 
     of 1978, with respect to tobacco or if the aggregate amount 
     of funds and/or commodities under such program exceeds 
     $90,000,000.
       Sec. 716. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to enroll in excess of 
     100,000 acres in the fiscal year 1995 Wetlands Reserve 
     Program, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3837.
       Sec. 717. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to enroll additional 
     acres in the Conservation Reserve Program authorized by 16 
     U.S.C. 3831-3845.
       Sec. 718. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1995 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 719. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act 
     of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the 
     ``Buy American Act'').
       (b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement 
     made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 720. Notwithstanding the Federal Grant and Cooperative 
     Agreement Act, marketing services of the Agricultural 
     Marketing Service may use cooperative agreements to reflect a 
     relationship between Agricultural Marketing Service and a 
     State or Cooperator to carry out agricultural marketing 
     programs.
       Sec. 721. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries of 
     personnel who carry out an export enhancement program 
     (estimated to be $1,000,000,000 in the President's fiscal 
     year 1995 Budget Request (H. Doc. 103-179)) if the aggregate 
     amount of funds and/or commodities under such program exceeds 
     $850,000,000.
       Sec. 722. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries of 
     personnel who carry out a sunflower and cottonseed oil export 
     program authorized by section 1541 of Public Law 101-624 if 
     the aggregate amount of funds and/or commodities under such 
     program exceeds $27,000,000.
       Sec. 723. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act shall be used by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to provide a total amount of payments to a person 
     to support the price of honey under section 207 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446h) and section 405A of 
     such Act (7 U.S.C. 1425a) in excess of $0 in the 1994 crop 
     year.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act shall be used by the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 
     for a total amount of payments and/or total amount of loan 
     forfeitures to a person to support the price of honey under 
     section 207 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446h) 
     and section 405A of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1425a) in excess of 
     zero dollars in the 1994 crop year.
       Sec. 724. None of the funds in this Act may be used by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture to warrant to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury a payment out of the Treasury of the United States 
     for purposes specified in the tenth and eleventh paragraphs 
     under the heading ``Emergency Appropriations'' of the Act of 
     March 4, 1907 (7 U.S.C. 321, et seq.): Provided, That 
     $2,850,000 is hereby appropriated for higher education 
     challenge grants under section 1417(b)(1) of the National 
     Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 
     1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)), including 
     administrative expenses.
       Sec. 725. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act 
     $25,000,000 is hereby appropriated for unforeseen expenses 
     due to the reorganization and streamlining of the agencies of 
     the Department of Agriculture which may be transferred to any 
     agency of the Department funded in this Act for its use in 
     meeting these unforeseen needs: Provided, That such funds 
     shall not be available for obligation prior to September 29, 
     1995.
       Sec. 726. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Food Stamp Program may be used in violation of 7 U.S.C. 
     sec. 2015(f) or of any applicable Federal law or regulation 
     of the United States.
       Sec. 727. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Conservation Reserve Program may be used in violation of 
     7 CFR 1498.4(a) or of any applicable Federal law or 
     regulation of the United States.
       Sec. 728. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Wetlands Reserve Program may be used in violation of 7 
     CFR 1498.4(a) or of any applicable Federal law or regulation 
     of the United States.
       Sec. 729. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the Agricultural Water Quality Protection Program may be used 
     in violation of 7 CFR 1498.4(a) or of any applicable Federal 
     law or regulation of the United States.
       Sec. 730. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Integrated Farm Management Program Option may be used in 
     violation of 7 CFR 1498.4(a) or of any applicable Federal law 
     or regulation of the United States.
       Sec. 731. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Farm Labor Housing Grants (Section 516) may be used in 
     violation of 7 CFR 1944.9(c) or of any applicable Federal law 
     or regulation of the United States.
       Sec. 732. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Rural Housing Loans (section 502) may be used in violation of 
     7 CFR 1944.9(c) or of any applicable Federal law or 
     regulation of the United States.
       Sec. 733. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Rural Rental Housing Loans (section 515) may be used in 
     violation of 7 CFR 1944.9(c) or of any applicable Federal law 
     or regulation of the United States.
       Sec. 734. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Rural Rental Assistance Payments (section 521) may be used in 
     violation of 7 CFR 1944.9(c) or of any applicable Federal law 
     or regulation of the United States.
       Sec. 735. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Rural Housing Self-Help Technical Assistance Grants may be 
     used in violation of 7 CFR 1944.9(c) or of any applicable 
     Federal law or regulation of the United States.
       Sec. 736. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Rural Housing Site Loans (sections 523 and 524) may be used 
     in violation of 7 CFR 1944.9(c) or of any applicable Federal 
     law or regulation of the United States.
       Sec. 737. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants may be used in violation 
     of 7 CFR 1944.9(c) or of any applicable Federal law or 
     regulation of the United States.
       Sec. 738. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Rural Rental Housing Loans may be used in violation of 7 CFR 
     1944.9(c) or of any applicable Federal law or regulation of 
     the United States.
       Sec. 739. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Farm Ownership Loans may be used in violation of 7 CFR 
     1943.12(a)(1) or of any applicable Federal law or regulation 
     of the United States.
       Sec. 740. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Emergency Loans may be used in violation of 7 CFR 
     1945.162(b)(1) or of any applicable Federal law or regulation 
     of the United States.
       Sec. 741. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     Farm Operating Loans may be used in violation of 7 CFR 
     1941.12(a)(1) or of any applicable Federal law or regulation 
     of the United States.

  Mr. DURBIN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 83, line 2, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there points of order to title VII?
  If not, are there amendments to title VII?


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kreidler

  Mr. KREIDLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kreidler: On page 80, strike lines 
     3 through 10, and renumber the following section numbers 
     accordingly.

  Mr. KREIDLER. Mr. Chairman, we all support the savings Secretary Espy 
wants to achieve by reorganizing the Department of Agriculture. Most of 
those savings are assumed in this bill.
  But in case this Congress does not pass a reorganization bill, the 
Appropriations Committee has included a contingency fund of $25 
million. While that might seem like a sensible fallback plan, in this 
case, it would make more sense to move forward and enact the 
reorganization.
  In fact, that is happening. The House Committee on Agriculture is 
marking up a reorganization bill, and the Senate committee has already 
done so. We should pass that legislation and lock in those savings. We 
should not create a contingency fund that makes it any easier to delay 
the streamlining USDA needs.
  The committee report says ``there might be additional expenses that 
were not foreseen'' when the reorganization plan was submitted to 
Congress. With the greatest respect to the committee, I do not think 
that is a good enough reason to spend taxpayers' money.
  This amendment would strike the $25 million contingency fund. It 
would not affect the funding of any of the current programs in this 
bill. But it would help us make sure that reorganizing the Department 
actually saves money.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Kreidler].
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, I have a similar amendment at the desk, 
and what I would urge my colleagues to do is to slash what amounts to a 
$25 million slush fund that was not requested by the administration and 
showed up, I think, as something of a curiosity to pay for ``unforeseen 
experiences'' due to the reorganization and streamlining of USDA's 
legendary bureaucracy. Why on earth we need $25 million in an effort to 
downsize and make the existing bureaucracy smaller than it is today is 
completely beyond me, and I am sure it is beyond the taxpayers. Nowhere 
other than in Washington do we appropriate extra dollars to save money.
  Interestingly, Mr. Chairman, the authors of the provision apparently 
believe that the Secretary's reorganization plan is going to incur 
costs that even the Department itself failed to anticipate because the 
White House has not asked for any of this money in the budget.
  The other curious thing about this particular line item is that the 
subcommittee only allows the Secretary of Agriculture to use this money 
during the last 48 hours of the fiscal year, and the end result of that 
budgetary sleight of hand is that the bill for the provision will not 
come due until fiscal year 1996, 16 months from now, which means that 
CBO does not score it for fiscal year 1995, and yet the money is still 
appropriated in committee.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the trick is on the American taxpayers. 
It is a remarkable way to appropriate money that is not otherwise 
appropriated.
  Adopting the amendment will not in any way impede Secretary Espy's 
efforts in this manner, and adopting this amendment will ensure that 
downsizing will actually save money for the taxpayers, which is what 
downsizing is supposed to do.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Kreidler] and urge a ``yes'' vote on striking 
section 725 from the bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I also have an amendment that would delete section 725 
and save that $25 million appropriation. A lot of common sense and 
logic has already been stated, and I, therefore, ask that we support 
this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Kreidler]. Let me tell my colleagues why.
  When we crafted this provision in the bill, we were not certain that 
the Committee on Agriculture would be addressing the question of 
reorganization. I am happy to report they have started that, and that 
gives us some assurance that our assumption of savings through that 
reorganization of $135 million will take place. We have set this $25 
million in place for the Department's reorganization much as major 
corporations will set off a charge against income when they either lay 
off personnel or go into some major reorganization. The fact is that in 
reorganization there is initial expense involved, and we were trying to 
anticipate it with this language. But because of the activity of the 
Committee on Agriculture moving forward on reorganization, Mr. 
Chairman, it is our feeling at this point that it will not be 
necessary.
  So, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
[Mr. Kreidler], and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we also support the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Washington [Mr. Kreidler] on this side, and we think it is a good 
move and have no objection to it.

                              {time}  1130

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Kreidler].
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment offered by mr. smith of michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, it is our intention to withdraw 
this amendment, but I think it is important that this body be informed 
of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will suspend, the Clerk will first 
report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan: Insert on page 
     83 after line 2, the following new section:
       ``Sec. 742. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     as may otherwise be provided in this Act, funds appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by this Act for the salaries and 
     expenses of employees of the Department of Agriculture its 
     agencies and offices who are located in the Department's 
     national headquarters shall be reduced in a proportionate 
     amount and in a manner determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture that will produce an amount equal to $103,000,000 
     that shall be utilized by the Secretary for an increase in 
     the salaries and expenses of the Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service as otherwise provided in this Act: Provided that the 
     amount provided for salaries and expenses of Food Safety and 
     Inspection Service to carry on the services authorized by the 
     Federal Meat Inspection Act, as amended, and the Poultry 
     Products Inspection Act, as amended, shall be a total 
     appropriation for fiscal year 1995 of $533,929,900.--

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Durbin] reserves a point of order on the amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, still reserving my point of order, if the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] would agree, I make the following 
unanimous consent request: that all debate on this amendment, which 
will be withdrawn, be limited to 10 minutes, with the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith] controlling 5 minutes, and I will control the 
other 5 minutes and share the time with the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Skeen] if he seeks time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, of great concern to agriculture in this country is the 
taking away of $103 million of needed funds in the food safety area for 
inspection of meat animals. This amendment takes out $103 million from 
the overstaffed, somewhat bloated Washington, DC bureaucracy of the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture and makes sure that we have enough money 
to keep food safe in this country by applying these funds, $103 
million, to the Food Safety Inspection Program.
  We have a serious problem because this budget is predicated on the 
assumption that there are going to be fee increases passed on to pay 
for the funding of this food inspection service, and one of two parties 
is going to pay for that user fee increase. It is either going to be 
the consumers of this country or it is going to be the farmers of this 
country as lower prices are offered to farmers for their products, to 
pay for the ensuing fee increase for food inspection, or a more likely 
result is an increase in costs to the consumers of this country because 
these fees are going to be passed on, either up or down. If there is 
any lack of availability of supply, then what will happen in this 
country is that the consumers are going to pay for that fee increase.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we are suggesting that we at an earlier time start 
reducing the bureaucracy in the U.S. Department of Agriculture to pay 
for these services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  I am a cosponsor with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] on this 
amendment. I think it is a well-intentioned amendment, and I think it 
goes to the heart of the problem, which is that we have a large 
headquarters staff, some 15,000 Department of Agriculture employees in 
this city whose payroll and support expense in close to $1 billion. If 
we cut that by 10 or 15 percent, we would have the money to meet the 
meat inspection standards that are presently required.
  I understand that the Department of Agriculture is going to take, 
over the next 5 years, a hit in terms of about 7,500 employees. But my 
feeling is, along with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], that we 
could take a bigger cut in the headquarters employees, the employees of 
USDA who are here in Washington, DC, and make this meat inspection 
program work, which would accrue not only to the consumers who have an 
interest, obviously, in healthy meat products but also those who are 
involved in the agriculture industry, particularly the ranching 
industry and the meat-production industry throughout this country.
  So we need to start this process a little bit earlier. We want to go 
on record to let the House know we are going to be doing that.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his authorship 
of this amendment.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by 
reminding our colleagues in this Chamber that the consumers in this 
country eat the best food, the highest quality at the lowest price 
relative to their incomes, than any other place in the world. We are 
spending 10 percent of our take-home dollar for food that is much 
better than that in any other country. So we should be very careful of 
taking action that is going to increase the price of food in this 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, with the concurrence of my cosponsor and if there is no 
objection, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


               amendment offered by mr. smith of michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] reserves a 
point of order, and the Clerk will report the amendment subject to the 
point of order.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan: Page 83, after 
     line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 742. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) salaries and 
     expenses shall be reduced $52,000,000 and such amount shall 
     be deposited in the salaries and expenses account of the Food 
     Safety Inspection Service (FSIS).


                             point of order

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a variation of the same 
theme in the prior amendment, and I make the point of order that it is 
in violation of rule XXI, clause 3, and that it is legislation on an 
appropriation bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] is entitled to 
be heard on the point of order.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not violate 
a point of order because it specifically reduces appropriations that 
are now a line item in the bill, and it transfers part of that line 
item to the Food Safety Inspection Service. That would be my objection 
to the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Spratt). The Chair will rule that this amendment is 
legislation requiring the reduction of salaries and not merely confined 
to funds in the bill. Therefore, the gentleman's point of order is 
sustained.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by saying that 
it is an expression of the seriousness of cutting out money from the 
Food Inspection Service.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] move to 
strike the last word?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I would withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment was ruled out on a point of order.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments----
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will suspend, first the Clerk will 
read the last three lines of the bill.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I expect, since the floor manager has, 
as we just saw, indicated that he will move that the Committee rise and 
report the bill back to the House----
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure I understand the 
parliamentary state of play here.
  If, in fact, the Clerk finished reading the last three lines of the 
bill and I make a motion to rise----
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that I was on my 
feet.
  Mr. DURBIN. No, no, I am not objecting to that at all. I am going to 
protect the gentleman's right to object and make whatever statement he 
might want to make. But I think I may have inappropriately started to 
make my motion before the Clerk had read the last three lines. So I 
will protect the gentleman's right to make his statement in reference 
to this same motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, did the Clerk finish reading the bill? Did 
the Clerk read the last three lines?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk has not read the last three lines.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to see the Clerk read the last three lines.
  The CHAIRMAN. First, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] 
is recognized for 5 minutes. The gentleman from California has the 
floor.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, we were talking about a motion to 
rise, and this is not just a procedural matter at this point.
  Mr. Chairman, if the motion to rise succeeds, it will mean that for 
another year money in this agricultural appropriations bill will go to 
illegal aliens even as many citizens have to go without the very same 
benefits.
  This policy is wrong, Mr. Chairman. This is a policy that is wrong 
because our country should be handing out any benefits to illegal 
aliens on the same basis as American citizens. This policy is wrong 
because it also entices more and more people to come into our country 
illegally. It is especially wrong because it adds an irresistible lure 
to women of other countries to come here and to have their babies. It 
is already a major problem when we see pregnant women surging across 
our borders, knowing that their children once born in the United States 
will become U.S. citizens immediately and thus also immediately making 
them eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

                              {time}  1140

  Of course, the benefits under the WIC Program, which is part of this 
bill, start even before the baby comes.
  Mr. Chairman, this policy is wrong because it is unfair to American 
citizens and legal residents, who should always come first when 
taxpayers' money is being spent.
  A yes vote on the motion to rise is a vote to continue this failed 
policy. This motion will deny me the right to offer an amendment which 
I have which says basically ``no more.'' My proposed amendment will 
stop the nonsensical funding of giving benefits and funding benefits to 
illegal aliens.
  Let me offer my colleagues a major example of what will happen if 
this motion to rise passes. This will funds the Women, Infants and 
Children Program, the WIC Program, a program which I have strongly 
supported in the past and do so today. But committee staff estimates 
the money in this bill will only be enough to serve 75 percent of those 
eligible.
  Under current policy, if this bill continues, 75 percent of illegal 
aliens, 75 percent of legal residents, and 75 percent of American 
citizens who are eligible can actually be helped by the bill. Because 
we do not have enough money to help everybody, every illegal alien who 
receives benefits under this program is getting those benefits instead 
of an American citizen or legal resident.
  Now, some may say surely we do not want people coming here and giving 
birth, illegal aliens or whatever, to low weight babies and babies that 
are not healthy. But that is misplaced compassion toward illegal 
aliens, because it means that a pregnant American citizen or legal 
resident will have the same malnourished or unhealthy baby.
  Let us stop this insane policy. If we defeat this motion to rise, I 
have an amendment proposed that will actually make it illegal and end 
the policy of providing benefits to illegal aliens. So I ask for a 
``no'' vote on this motion.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to engage in some dialog on 
the issue of whether or not we are really talking about American 
citizens or not. Regardless of whether the mother is legal or not, if 
the child is born in this country, that will be still, under our 
constitutional system, an American citizen, and our responsibilities 
for that low-birthweight baby, as the gentleman indicated, are not only 
real, they are very, very costly. So are we not being a little penny-
wise and pound-foolish to not treat children who are likely to be born 
here as American citizens?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the logic of the 
gentleman's argument and the compassion of his argument is reasonable. 
However, if you take a responsible look at what that also creates, it 
also creates a lure for women all over the world who are pregnant to 
come to the United States, and that makes the problem in the long run 
even more difficult to solve, because we have limited resources.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
understand the concern about the lure. Most evidence reports that 
people who come here come here for employment, for work, for income, 
and the relative number who come for benefits is still to be documented 
as any sizable amount at all.
  The point is, there are people who are here. Whether they should be 
or not, they are here. And if we end up with the burden of that low 
birth weight child, we end up incurring costs as taxpayers that far 
exceed what would normally occur. So it seems to me that we are missing 
the point, if we think we should exclude benefits from American 
citizens.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it is a major 
problem in California, as the gentleman are aware, of people coming 
across the border to have babies. If the bill only funds 75 percent of 
those eligible, what we are duly saying is if we are servicing an 
illegal alien, that means that that money comes directly from the funds 
that are available for another American citizen or legal resident who 
is not getting those funds, because they will not have the funds now.
  Mr. FAZIO. If the gentleman will yield further, I share the 
gentleman's support for WIC. I would like to see a greater percentage 
of our population gaining access to the program. Funding is not the 
only issue here. We have an awfully difficult time reaching the low 
income mothers and children who benefit from this program. There are 
many obviously who would not support this bill. But I would hope we 
would be certainly careful about the misallocation of resources.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I ask a no vote ``on'' the motion to 
rise.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment at the desk that will not be 
considered once we rise, but I would just like to call to the attention 
of my colleagues the composition of this amendment.
  Last year I introduced an amendment in the Committee on the Budget 
that would allow the Secretary of HUD to examine the IRS documents to 
verify income of those requesting rental assistance through the HUD 
administration of housing. This amendment gives that same authority to 
the Secretary of Agriculture for the one million homes that are now 
being subsidized for rental income in that department.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, matching IRS data with 
housing recipients' reported income will save $1.6 billion over 5 years 
for HUD. If you apply the same ratio of housing to the Farmers Home 
Administration within the USDA, the savings will be between $300 
million and $400 million over 5 years. In general, we simply subsidize 
rental income based on the calculation that one-third of an 
individual's income should go to rental housing.
  GAO did a study in 1992 that demonstrated that one out of five 
subsidized households understated income. The potential savings to the 
U.S. Government is substantial. I am informed by the esteemed chairman, 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], that the process of putting 
that amendment in language of legislation that is moving through the 
body and out of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs is 
in place.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I support the idea. The gentleman is on the 
right track with wage verification. The gentleman from New Mexico and I 
and the subcommittee have investigated this. It is an important part of 
any reinvestigation of any housing programs. This is on the right track 
to make sure deserving people are the ones that are given the 
opportunity to live in this housing.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
comments.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman from 
California, who has suggested that the motion to rise should be a 
referendum on the question of whether or not the WIC Program provides 
benefits to those who are either undocumented or illegal aliens.
  The gentleman raises an interesting policy point, but I do not 
believe that it is a point that can be or should be addressed in the 
agriculture appropriations bill. The gentleman's quarrel is not with 
our appropriations bill. The gentleman's quarrel is with the 14th 
amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which I will read:

       All persons born or naturalized in the United States and 
     subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the 
     United States and of the State wherein they reside.

  I think there is opportunity and I think perhaps a need for us to 
debate the wisdom of that language. But unless and until we do, the 
simple fact of the matter is that a mother who is an illegal alien, who 
presents herself to a WIC Program for services, may in and of herself 
not be documented and not be legal, but if the baby she is carrying in 
her womb is born in the United States, by virtue of the 14th amendment 
to the Constitution that baby is a U.S. citizen. And if that baby is a 
citizen, I believe that we have a vested interest in that new citizen 
being healthy, that that mother have milk to drink during her 
pregnancy, that she have nutritional information, so that that new 
American citizen is not born sick and a burden not only to the family, 
but also to our Treasury.
  The gentleman raises an interesting point, but his point should be 
addressed to the Bill of Rights, and not to the Agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman at least then 
concede that with the limited funds that we have, whether it is for 
this program or for other programs, but especially this program where 
only 75 percent of the eligible are actually being funded, that that 
means U.S. citizens are then being denied those funds to give to people 
who are not here legally?

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman misses the point. The 
baby in the womb is going to be a U.S. citizen. The baby who benefits 
from WIC is going to be a U.S. citizen the moment it is born on U.S. 
soil. That is what our Constitution says. Until that has changed, that 
baby is receiving the same type of benefits as any other citizen of the 
United States.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to 
yield, that baby in the womb is not a citizen until he or she is born 
in the United States. I guess the gentleman is suggesting that those 
people should not be sent back to their home country, if they are here 
illegally, but, instead, should be provided benefits.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, the point I have to make to the gentleman 
is that we have to make a decision here. The decision is pretty basic. 
A pregnant mother presents herself for milk that she can drink during 
pregnancy to deliver a healthy baby. I think what the gentleman from 
California is suggesting is that we should turn her away. I do not 
believe that is really the thing that we should be doing. If the 
gentleman wants to suggest an amendment to the Constitution, I think he 
will be addressing the issue where it should be addressed.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I disagree on the 
constitutional question. I think that we have to make some tough 
decisions here in this body. It is tough, because those who are moral 
people do not want to say no to a pregnant woman or do not want to say 
no to anyone else who is in need. But if someone is here illegally and 
we have limited funds in this country, if we do not have the strength 
to say no, we are denying these resources to our own people.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think I have made my 
point. I really believe the gentleman has a good constitutional 
argument and an interesting one, but it is not an argument for the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  For those of my colleagues who are pro-life, I would think that they 
would agree that a person living in this country who is going to have a 
U.S. citizen and has made the decision to keep that child that we would 
do everything because we believe in pro-life to make sure that that 
baby is a healthy baby, is born healthy and will not be a drain to our 
system if that baby is born a preemie. Because we know, when babies are 
born with low weight, that then they take intensive care to continue 
living.
  So for my colleagues who are pro-life and once the mother decides to 
keep the baby, we ought to ensure that that baby is a healthy baby.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to the 
agriculture, rural development, and related agencies appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1995. I do respect and appreciate the efforts of 
the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Durbin, and the ranking member, Mr. 
Skeen, and other members of the subcommittee for their hard work and 
diligence in preparing this package.
  Indeed, the Appropriations Committee has probably done the very best 
it can do in the unfortunate circumstances with which it was 
confronted, given the budget measure passed by this House and the 
resulting allocation for agricultural purposes. The cuts in this bill 
of certain vital programs, however, do not get committed to true 
deficit reduction purposes. This is genuinely disconcerting to those 
hard-working American men and women whose livelihood is dependent upon 
production agriculture.
  Clearly, agriculture is willing to pull its fair share of the budget 
reduction load. Unfortunately, this appropriations measure burdens 
agriculture far beyond what is fair. The Export Enhancement Program and 
The Market Promotion Program are both programs that serve a direct link 
to farm income and profitability--though they both suffer explicit 
budget hardships under this measure. The Food for Peace Program bears a 
similar fate. This is a worthy program which serves a dual role of 
providing a global market source for our farm commodities while feeding 
the hungry and needy overseas. This is not the time to undermine 
potential farm commodity sales while our foreign competitors take full 
advantage of our budgetary miscues.
  Another area of significant cuts includes the watershed and 
conservation program. At the current level of funding, responsible 
conservation programs can hardly be maintained--let alone promoted or 
expanded. Last year in Missouri alone, we witnessed a natural disaster 
of epic proportions and the scars clearly remain. There are presently 
miles of terraces and waterways that are not floodworthy and pose a 
tremendous threat to the safety and welfare of thousands of men and 
women along with their homes and property. These needs are urgent and 
pose an imminent threat.
  In addition, this measure imposes a user fee structure on the meat 
production industry. This establishes a dangerous precedent. Will we 
now call upon the meat industry to pay for a service that benefits all 
consumers but further diminishes a marginal profit line and jeopardizes 
the jobs of many employed in the meat industry? Meat inspection user 
fees have been repulsed by this Congress during the years of Republican 
White House rule and I urge this body to do the same today.

  I am also disappointed that The Emergency Food Assistance Program 
[TEFAP], which received no support from the Clinton administration in 
this year's budget proposal, was cut $40 million from last year's 
funding levels to $80 million. This serves as an efficient use of 
moneys to serve as a bridge between our agricultural communities and 
our Nation's hungry. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the 
other body to try to get TEFAP funding back up to last year's levels.
  Likewise, I will continue to work with my colleagues to reinstate 
some of these cuts in order to better reflect the fiscal needs of our 
rural communities and their dependent farming and ranching livelihood. 
Severe budget reductions in the name of deficit reduction is a goal 
worthy of debate; however, it must be done in a balanced and equitable, 
even-handed manner.
  I look forward to working with our colleagues in achieving this goal. 
My ultimate statement on this measure will be my vote on the Conference 
Report.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the WIC 
Program, one of the most important programs we will vote on today. I 
heard from hundreds of residents of the 12th District in Michigan who 
want to ensure that all eligible women and children can participate in 
WIC. I agree with them that the benefits of funding WIC far outweigh 
the costs: Every dollar spent on the WIC Program saves between $1.77 
and $3.13 in medical costs for mothers and infants in the first sixty 
days after birth, and even more after 60 days. A 1992 GAO study 
estimated that the $300 million in 1990 invested on WIC benefits for 
pregnant women would avert more than $1 billion in health-related costs 
over the next 18 years.
  It is clear from this information that WIC has a remarkable record of 
success in providing nourishing food to the neediest women and children 
in our communities, but unfortunately has not been able to meet the 
demand for its services. We must work to meet the President's goal of 
fully funding the WIC Program so that we can serve all eligible 
applicants by 1996. Today's bill takes positive steps toward this goal 
by increasing funding for the deserving WIC Program even as we struggle 
to reduce the deficit.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], the chairman of the 
subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen], the ranking member of the subcommittee for their hard work in 
bringing this bill to the floor.
  Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, severe budgetary constraints and the 
rapid growth of mandatory programs--which now account for 80 percent of 
the total agricultural budget--have forced the committee to reduce 
discretionary spending by nearly $1.3 billion from fiscal year 1994. In 
addition, questionable discretionary spending priorities in this 
legislation, which include severe cuts to agricultural research, 
conservation, farm lending, and agricultural export promotion programs, 
threaten to seriously undermine the viability and competitiveness of an 
$18 billion trade surplus industry--the American agricultural industry.
  For example, this legislation cuts U.S. agricultural export programs 
including the Export Enhancement Program, $150 million; Market 
Promotion Program, $10 million; foreign market development, $10 
million; and the Food for Peace Program, Public Law 480 title I, $200 
million.
  Mr. Chairman, in 20 years the United States has lost approximately 20 
percent of the world's wheat market, 30 percent of the world's soybean 
trade, and 15 percent of the world's feed grain market. Efforts are 
currently underway to implement a coordinated ``truce'' in agricultural 
subsidy wars through GATT, so American farmers can once again compete 
fairly with other agricultural producers. But this legislation hurts 
our farmers' ability to compete by unilaterally reducing agricultural 
export subsidies beyond our commitments under GATT. These cuts are 
unwise and jeopardize a substantial portion of an $18 billion trade 
surplus industry.
  Additionally, Mr. Chairman, this legislation neglects important soil 
and water conservation programs at a time when farmers are facing a 
congressionally mandated deadline for conservation compliance by 
cutting funding for watershed and conservation programs from $242 to 
$65 million.
  Mr. Chairman, last year's flooding washed away billions of tons of 
topsoil and destroyed miles of terraces, levees, and dams. If the U.S. 
agricultural industry intends to remain viable, we cannot force farmers 
to follow strict conservation compliance requirements while 
simultaneously failing to give them the necessary resources to protect 
our Nation's streams, waterways, and topsoil.
  The budget constraints on the subcommittee also act to undermine 
efforts to significantly reform the current disaster and crop insurance 
programs and rewards the administration's reluctance to adopt 
innovative and reasonable science-based inspection requirements for the 
U.S. meat industry.
  Mr. Chairman, year after year at my Agriculture Advisory 
Committee meetings, budget-conscious farmers strongly criticize the 
Federal Government's haphazard approach to crop insurance and 
agricultural risk mitigation. These farmers and agri-business leaders 
correctly assert that the nearly annual passage of ad-hoc disaster 
assistance has created a reverse incentive for producers to purchase 
their own crop insurance. According to the Congressional Research 
Service, last year's $1.1 billion disaster package for agriculture 
marked the 9th consecutive crop year for ad-hoc farm disaster 
assistance legislation.

  Unfortunately, by underfunding the Federal crop insurance program by 
$217 million, this legislation greatly impedes the much-needed reform 
of the Federal crop insurance programs--as for example, the proposal 
offered by USDA Secretary Espy--and, therefore, thwarts efforts to move 
away from the costly ad-hoc approach to disaster assistance which 
annually exposes the American taxpayer to billions of dollars in 
supplemental disaster appropriations.
  Similarly, the budget constraints on the subcommittee also apparently 
caused a cut of $103 million for the Food Safety Inspection Service's 
meat inspection systems while assuming that Congress will make up for 
the cuts by imposing user fees on meat processing facilities. By 
shifting the cost of this consumer-oriented inspection system directly 
to meat processors, this legislation eliminates the incentive for USDA 
to lower inspection costs and reward the administration's lethargy to 
adopt scientific risk-based inspection methods.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly opposed this approach and result, and I 
urge--once again--USDA to move toward greater science-based inspection 
techniques and technology. This is long overdue. The National Academy 
of Sciences and the General Accounting Office have long recognized that 
USDA's meat inspection programs are both expensive and not necessarily 
the best way to protect consumers from food borne illnesses. GAO said 
in its March report that the system--which was originally designed 
around the turn of the century ``is hampered by inflexible requirements 
and relies on outdated, labor-intensive inspection methods.'' 
Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, this legislation simply rewards the 
``labor-intensive inspection methods'' that GAO and the NAS have 
criticized.
  Mr. Chairman, in light of these significant budget constraints, this 
Member is nevertheless grateful and pleased that this legislation 
includes $1 billion in loan authority for the Farmers Home Section 502 
Middle Income Loan Guarantee Program. This is a housing program this 
Member proposed and pushed through his membership on the House Banking 
Committee. After a very successful 20 State demonstration program in 
1991, the Section 502 Unsubsidized Loan Guarantee Program was expanded 
to all 50 States in 1992. The committee members are to be commended for 
recognizing the value of this program and providing funding levels more 
in line with the demand for the program from lenders, borrowers, and 
future homeowners.
  Additionally, this Member is pleased that the committee has agreed to 
provide $425,000 in agricultural research funding for the Midwest Food 
Manufacturing Alliance. The Alliance is an association of 12 leading 
research universities whose purpose is to develop and facilitate the 
transfer of new food manufacturing and processing technologies.
  Mr. Chairman, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S. 
agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing 
worldwide demands for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good 
exports. In order to meet these changing worldwide demands, 
agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on 
adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food 
Manufacturing Alliance provides the necessary cooperative link between 
universities and industries for the development of competitive food 
manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn, ensure 
that the U.S. agricultural industry remains competitive in an 
increasingly competitive global economy.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on the 
Agriculture appropriations bill as a member of the subcommittee and as 
a representative of a rural State. As a member of the subcommittee, 
this bill is one of the hardest bills I have ever had to work on. How 
do you truly trim the budget deficit while providing citizens the 
programs and services which are needed. It is not an easy question and 
there is much of this bill that I do not agree with. But as an 
Appropriations member, I am challenged with reducing our deficit and 
this bill will do that.
  On the good side, the bill makes major steps toward improving the 
health of our children. It increases funding for WIC to $3.47 billion. 
It protects the safety and health of women by ensuring that the FDA can 
implement the Mammography Quality Standards Act. I am pleased we have 
made the changes necessary to ensure housing for our rural residents 
under the 515 program.
  But this bill is just a start and must be changed in conference. As a 
rural Representative I believe we must provide local communities with 
the means to meet Federal conservation mandates. And we must stop 
allowing the use of user fees on American businesses as a method to 
reduce the deficit.
  This bill is just a beginning. An ugly duckling. Let's help it become 
a beautiful swan in conference.
  Mr. BARCIA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4554, 
a bill making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, Food 
and Drug Administration, and related agencies for fiscal year 1995. I 
note that this bill that is very important to our farmers once again 
demonstrates agriculture's willingness to lead the way on budget cuts 
by coming in nearly $4.2 billion below the amount appropriated for 
fiscal 1994.
  The is a bill that is largely controlled by entitlements. Only about 
one-fourth of the bill represents discretionary spending, and that is 
largely for research and conservation programs that help us maintain 
our productive and competitive edge in world markets.
  I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Durbin from 
Illinois, for his assistance in pointing out in the committee's report 
the fact that the Department of Agriculture has failed to take 
advantage of lower priced varieties of dry beans in the Food for Peace 
Program. This has the consequence of failing to provide as much food as 
possible to needy nations while helping to move surplus commodities 
from our domestic markets, two of the very important purposes of the 
Public Law 480 program.
  I have specifically proposed to him that we require the Department to 
utilize only those varieties of a commodity whose market price is 90 
percent or less of the average market price for all varieties of that 
commodity, except in those cases where the offered varieties would be 
unacceptable to the recipient nation for cultural or dietary reasons. 
Hopefully the Department will heed the committee's report directive, or 
we will all have to take a more specific look at this issue next year.
  Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the Department has its own catch-22 
in the Public Law 480 program. They say they order only the commodities 
that recipient nations request. But the representatives of the 
recipients claim that they only request what the Department says is 
available. We need, especially in tight budge times, to make a more 
frugal use of our resources, and concentrating on lower priced 
varieties will help us to achieve this goal.
  I also want to thank the chairman for his understanding of the fact 
that the line item for improved fruit practices research in Michigan 
under the Cooperative State Research Service's budget for special 
grants will continue to include research funding for work done at the 
Saginaw Bean and Beet Research Farm. This was the intent of the 
Congress a year ago following conference on this appropriation bill, 
and it remains as its intent for fiscal 1995.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank a 
specific former employee of the Agricultural Stabilization and 
Conservation Service for excellent assistance to Members of Congress 
throughout her career, and during my first year as a Member. Dreama 
Hinton has now gone on to a well-earned retirement, and she will be 
missed. She was most helpful early in 1993 when we were again dealing 
with a disaster program in Michigan. Her responses have always been as 
quick as possible, and any delay was only to insure the accuracy of her 
information. This diligence is appreciated and should be commended. I 
am sure that her colleagues at ASCS will continue on in her tradition. 
I would like to hold this office out as an example for other 
Congressional Affairs office throughout the executive branch. Prompt, 
accurate, honest, and often friendly answers. I can think of no better 
testimony to Dreama's career.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the fiscal 1995 Agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the remainder of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Agricultural, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995''.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 146, not voting 61, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 255]

                               AYES--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Applegate
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Klein
     Klink
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Linder
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--146

     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--61

     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Bacchus (FL)
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Coyne
     Flake
     Ford (TN)
     Gibbons
     Grams
     Hancock
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hoagland
     Houghton
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Kopetski
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Michel
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Payne (VA)
     Pickle
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rostenkowski
     Rush
     Santorum
     Shaw
     Slattery
     Smith (OR)
     Stark
     Thomas (CA)
     Tucker
     Washington

                              {time}  1212

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Grams against.
       Mr. Tucker for, with Mr. Smith of Oregon against.

  Mrs. BENTLEY changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. HARMAN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to rise and report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gephardt) having assumed the chair, Mr. Spratt, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4554) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, had directed him to 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                motion to recommit offered by mr. delay

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. DeLAY. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. DeLay moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 4554, to the 
     Committee on Appropriations.

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I just take this 1 minute to say that the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett] and others have expressed concern 
over the Food Safety Inspection Service and its funding by user fees. 
The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett] and others have been talking 
to the chairman of the subcommittee and to the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  I just wanted to ask the chairman, I think the chairman has said that 
he will look at the issue and consider it and try to take care of the 
problems of the Members that have expressed their concern. Is that 
true?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett] 
has raised some very valid concerns. I have also spoken to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who is chairman of the 
subcommittee responsible for this reorganization. We will be working 
very closely with both of them and the Department to make certain that 
we maintain a high-level, cost-efficient meat and poultry inspection 
system.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 278, 
noes 127, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 256]

                               AYES--278

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--127

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallo
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Huffington
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Levy
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Schaefer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Bacchus (FL)
     Boehlert
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Bunning
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Flake
     Grams
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hilliard
     Klink
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Machtley
     McCurdy
     McMillan
     Michel
     Murphy
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Ridge
     Rush
     Slattery
     Smith (OR)
     Tucker
     Washington

                              {time}  1232

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Brooks for, with Mr. Bunning against.
       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Grams against.
       Mr. Tucker for, with Mr. Quinn against.
       Mr. Washington for, with Mr. Smith of Oregon against.

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________