[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7240-H7250]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 188 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1976.

                              {time}  2047


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1976) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Klug in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House today H.R. 1976, 
which makes appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration and related agencies.
  Before I begin in this discourse, I would like to say that I 
appreciate very much the opportunity to serve once again with the 
distinguished Member of this body, Mr. Durbin, as my ranking member. He 
was my chairman in our life a year or so ago, and it has been a real 
pleasure and it is a real compliment to me that he would come back on 
this committee as the ranking member.
  I also want to thank the members of the committee that have worked so 
hard and diligently and given of themselves to this process, and also 
the great staff that we have that support us all. I want them to know 
that I appreciate all their help, all their associations in the work we 
have done. I think the work product will reveal the quality of that 
work.
  Mr. Chairman, I know many of my colleagues think of this simply as 
the Agriculture appropriations bill. It does, of course, provide funds 
for the very
 diverse activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but its 
scope reaches every American citizen and goes far beyond the borders of 
this great country.

  Before I begin, I want to say we have been living in sin for a 
certain great span of time, Mr. Chairman. That is, as the Committee on 
Appropriations, we have poached on the area of the authorizing 
committee, so we have decided to have a prenuptial agreement and divide 
this territory up and to get a property settlement and so on.
  But, anyway, we are working together, and I am delighted to have the 
cooperation of the House Agriculture Authorization Committee. We 
understand the problems that we have had to go through to make this an 
equitable and very harmonious situation, and we hope that it continues.
  This bill provides funds for:
  A system of agriculture which allows less than 2 million farmers and 
ranchers to produce a safe and abundant supply of food for nearly 250 
million Americans and others around the world;
  Research programs at our universities, which keep us the most 
competitive producer of agricultural products in the world;
  The Food and Drug Administration's efforts to ensure safe supplies of 
foods, drugs, and medical devices;
  A wide variety of domestic feeding and nutrition programs, including 
food stamps, the Women, Infants and Children feeding program, known as 
WIC, and food distribution programs for the elderly and homeless, some 
26 nutritional or feeding programs we handle on a renewable basis every 
session of this Congress;
  Housing and economic develop programs, rural areas which provide not 
only shelter, but also create jobs and economic activity throughout the 
country;
  Export programs for bulk products and processed foods which this year 
will reach a record $50 billion, generating millions of jobs in the 
production, processing, and transportation industries, and contributing 
to yet another year of agricultural export trade surpluses;
  And food aid for developing countries and for emergencies such as the 
tragic situation in Bosnia.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is the result of 8 weeks of hearings in which 
325 witnesses testified, for which we have 7 volumes of hearings 
available to the public, covering every detail of the programs covered 
by this legislation.
  The bill totals $62.5 billion, which is $5.5 billion less than fiscal 
year 1995, and $4.4 billion less than the President's request.
  Mandatory spending is 80 percent of the bill and totals $49.2 
billion. Discretionary spending is 20 percent of the bill and totals 
$13.3 billion, which is $1.6 billion less than the President's request 
and $85.5 million less than the current year's spending.
  The bottom line is we are right on our discretionary allocation for 
both budget authority and outlays.
  Mr. Chairman, there are very few accounts in this bill which have not 
been reduced or frozen at current levels of spending. I would like to 
remind my colleagues that this comes on top of nearly 10 percent in 
cuts in the fiscal year 1995 bill.
  There are few small but essential increases in the bill including:
  The food safety and inspection service which protects every one of us 
as consumers;
  Conservation technical assistance for farmers as
   well as rural and urban communities;

  Guaranteed loans for rural housing which help offset a large cut in 
direct loans; and
  Money for USDA to begin an information sharing program to support the 
Department's plan to close field offices and consolidate operations 
which actually saves money in the long run.
  There is an additional $260 million for the Women, Infants and 
Children's program, known as WIC, but this does not, and I repeat does 
not, provide for an increase in the program. It only maintains program 
participation at the end of the fiscal year 1995 level of 7.3 million 
individuals.
  Otherwise, we have made large cuts in rural housing and development 
programs, freezing other accounts at current year levels, and 
eliminating some entirely.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no money for university construction, either 
for new buildings or to complete ongoing projects. More than 80 special 
research and extension programs have been eliminated.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill provides for current level funding 
for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and allows the Rural 
Telephone Bank to begin privatization.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take a minute to explain the difficulty in 
comparing this year's accounts with last year's. As most of you know, 
the USDA is the first Federal department 

[[Page H 7241]]
in many years to undergo massive reorganization. As that is happening, 
there are many well-known agencies such as the Farmers Home 
Administration and the Rural Electrification Administration that have 
disappeared. As their functions were consolidated and placed elsewhere 
in other agencies, such as the Consolidated Farm Service Agency and the 
Rural Utilities Service, it is very difficult to show increases and 
decreases in the budget.
  As often happens in the formulation of appropriation bills, the 
authorizing committee raised certain objections to provisions in our 
bill which were limitations on spending and mandatory programs. I have 
had several meetings with my good friend, the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] 
God love the gentleman, I do, too, and I am pleased to say we have 
worked out an agreement on these differences, at least for now.
  Mr. Chairman, shortly, I will offer an en bloc amendment which makes 
several changes in the bill as agreed to by the authorizing committee, 
and this amendment, which is part of the rule, makes the following 
changes to H.R. 1976:
  The limitations on the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands 
Reserve Program and the Export Enhancement Program are stricken, as is 
a provision that would have prohibited certain disaster payments for 
livestock feed producers who refuse crop insurance;
  The salaries and expense accounts of the Consolidated Farm Service 
Agency is reduced by $17.5 million;
  The Great Plains Conservation Program is eliminated for a savings of 
$11 million;
  The loan level for section 502 direct housing is reduced from $900 
million in the bill to $500 million, while the guaranteed program is 
increased from $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion, for a net savings of $83.6 
million;
  The Rural Development Loan Fund, one of several programs supporting 
economic development in rural areas, is eliminated, for a savings of 
$37.6 million; and
  Funds available for the Rural Development Performance Partnership 
Program for rural utilities, which is essentially a block grant for 
water and waste disposal loans and grants and solid waste management 
grants, is reduced from $562 million in the bill to $435 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is budget neutral. Producing this bill 
has been a long and difficult effort, Mr. Chairman, and I have told 
several of my colleagues that my joy at finally being in the majority 
and being a subcommittee chairman has been severely dampened when I 
finally got there and found out there was no money.
  But as difficult as producing this bill was, it would have been 
absolutely impossible without the active participation of my 
subcommittee colleagues from both sides of the aisle.
  I would like to personally thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Indiana, Mr. Myers, and my other Republican colleagues, Jim Walsh, Jay 
Dickey, Jack Kingston, Frank Riggs, George Nethercutt, and our 
chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Livingston, and their hard-
working
 staff members who put in so many long hours on this bill. A special 
thanks again to my good friend from Illinois, the distinguished former 
chairman and now ranking member of the subcommittee, Dick Durbin.

  The programs funded by this bill have been supported for years by 
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, and, likewise, I would 
like to express deep appreciation to my other Democratic friends and 
colleagues, Marcy Kaptur, Ray Thornton, Nita Lowey, and to the 
distinguished ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, and to their staffs for all their hard work and 
contributions to this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and it makes its fair share of 
contributions to the goal of a balanced budget. It looks out for the 
interests of farmers, ranchers, consumers, urban America, rural 
America, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to personally thank my colleague and friend, the chairman of 
this committee, Joe Skeen of New Mexico. There are accolades which are 
tossed around this floor very loosely. I want those who are listening 
to know that I am genuinely sincere in saying that my service in this 
Congress has been enhanced from the time I arrived by the fact that the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and I have worked together, first 
on the Committee on Agriculture and now on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  He is a gentleman. He is an honorable man. He is very bipartisan. It 
has been my pleasure to work with him, and I consider it to be one of 
the highlights of my service in the House of Representatives.
  That is not to say that we will not disagree on a few elements in 
this bill. I am sure we will. But the fact is that we work closely 
together to try to come up with a bill that addresses a very serious 
problem. We have an important area of Federal spending here when it 
comes to agriculture, rural development, the Food and Drug 
Administration and
 related agencies. And this year as last year, we were asked to cut 
more than $1 billion in discretionary spending.

  These are not the kind of illusory cuts that you might have heard of 
in other bills. These are real cuts and real programs. Some of them are 
cuts which I am not happy with and the chairman is not happy with 
either. But this is our fate in life, to meet this responsibility, to 
help reduce this federal budget deficit.
  I might say that the gentleman from New Mexico has done his very 
best, as I have, too, to preserve important programs for American 
agriculture which is too often taken for granted. I regret that some of 
the programs that we have cut which are important to rural development 
will in fact reduce the opportunity for building new housing in small 
town America and modernizing sewer and water systems. We will debate 
that a little bit later, I am sure.
  I do want to salute my colleague from New Mexico for one effort which 
he made at my request, and I know he took some grief for it. He 
insisted on maintaining the level of funding for the WIC program at 
this year's case load level. For those who are not familiar with the 
program, the women, infants, and children program is an effort by the 
Federal Government to make sure that low income and poor mothers and 
children do not go hungry, either during the pregnancy or after the 
child is born.
  This program has been a spectacular success. Across America, in 
clinics far and wide, men and women come together to counsel pregnant 
mothers on the appropriate nutrition during their pregnancy in the 
hopes that their children will be born healthy with a bright future. 
Time and again we have succeeded. What is a modest investment in 
tomorrow's leaders in America has paid off handsomely.
  The administration had hoped when elected that we could expand this 
program dramatically. Budget realities have reduced that prospect. But 
the gentleman from New Mexico was very diligent in his efforts to make 
sure that the case load of people, women and children, served this 
year, this fiscal year, would be maintained into the next fiscal year, 
which required several hundred million dollars of additional 
expenditure.
  I can assure the gentleman that I personally appreciate his efforts 
in this regard and his efforts
 overall in putting together a very difficult bill. As I said, we may 
disagree on some particulars as we go into the bill, but I know that he 
has come to the table in good faith in an effort as the new chairman to 
do a professional job. I can assure all those listening on both sides 
of the aisle he has done just that.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. I wish to rise in support of our agriculture appropriations bill 
this year, to commend our very distinguished chairman in his maiden 
voyage as chair of this subcommittee and also to thank our ranking 
member for his terrific service.
  This will be the last bill that, second to the last bill, that he 
will be handling 

[[Page H 7242]]
on this floor. We thank him for the tremendous contribution that he has 
made over the years both as chair and now as ranking member of this 
committee.
  I wanted to insert my full remarks in the Record tonight, because the 
subject of agriculture is so important to not just rural America but to 
urban America, to the nutrition needs of our people. But I wanted to 
say beyond that, as a member of this committee, I cannot think of a 
better committee in this Congress to serve on.
  In listening to some of the debate that occurred here this afternoon, 
frankly, I was embarrassed at the level of dialog on both sides of the 
aisle. At one point I had teenage students here with me from my 
district, and I had to usher them out of the gallery because I was so 
embarrassed at some of the language being used here on the floor.
  If I had to pick one committee in this Congress to say how the whole 
place should function, it would be this particular subcommittee, with 
the comity, the good will, with the gentlemanly and ladylike behavior 
that members of this committee display toward one another; frankly, the 
good humor as well.
  I think a lot of that is due to the leadership of our chair, the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] who is truly a man for all 
seasons. We appreciate what he is as a person as much as what he does 
as chair of this committee. Frankly, I think if we had more Members 
like him, with his spirit on both sides of the aisle in this 
institution, I think the Nation would be much better off.
  I rise in support this evening of this measure. I know with its 
passage, the Nation will have been bettered.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Agriculture 
appropriations bill and commend our chairman, the gentleman from New 
Mexico, and our ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois, for their 
outstanding leadership in putting together a responsible bill. This 
bill continues our support for American farmers which are the most 
productive in the world as well as fulfills an important commitment for 
advancing agriculture and nutrition to rural and urban America.
  The bill is fiscally prudent and includes a total of $13.3 billion 
for discretionary programs which is $135,571,000 less than the amount 
appropriated in Fiscal Year 1995 and $1.6 billion less than the budget 
request.
  For mandatory programs, which are 80% of the funding in this bill, 
the committee provides $49.2 billion a decrease of $5.5 billion below 
the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and $4.4 billion below the 
budget request.
  The committee faced difficult decisions in meeting the needs of U.S. 
agriculture and related programs in this bill. Only three programs, 
meat and poultry inspection, conservation and the Women, Infants, and 
Children's Feeding Program received increases in funds.
  Those who serve farmers and work with Agriculture are taught over and 
over again that there is a big difference between money and wealth. Our 
job on this Committee on Agriculture is to help create the wealth of 
America through the investments that we make through this department.
  To call this an agriculture bill is a bit misleading. Nearly 60 
percent of the programs funded by our subcommittee are nutrition 
programs, primarily foodstamps. The bill also funds rural development, 
food assistance, and export programs as well as the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  Mandatory spending not under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee 
accounts for a majority of the appropriations in this bill. 
Discretionary spending in this bill amounts to $13.4 billion in budget 
authority.
  I would like to commend the chairman and the members of the 
subcommittee for putting together a bill that meets the budget mandate 
bill. We were faced with tight budget constraints that forced us to 
eliminate a number of programs including the Great Plains Conservation 
Program as well as 80 special research and extension projects. The bill 
also places a moratorium on funding for all university research 
buildings and facilities.
  Tough choices had to be made. Yet while faced with tight budget 
constraints we were still able to shift resources to priority programs.
  We continued funding for TEFAP, the Emergency Food Assistance 
Program, which provides vital support to our community food pantries 
and senior centers.
  The Women, Infants, and Children Feeding Program is provided with a 
$290 million increase to cover inflation and food cost increases to 
maintain 1995 participation levels. WIC decreases infant mortality 
rates and investments in WIC are offset by decreases in long term 
Federal Medicaid expenditures.
  Traditional farm programs however continue to receive a decreasing 
portion of our spending. With the upcoming debate on the 1995 farm 
bill, it is my hope to begin targeting our scarce agricultural dollars 
to small family farmers.
  In the decade of the 1980's we have slowly eroded the basis of 
American agriculture--the family farmer--and are moving in the 
direction of large corporate farms. We must ensure that to ensure that 
prices are maintained at a level high enough to compensate for costs or 
production and to maintain standards of living in order to attract and 
retain individuals in farm production. We must also negotiate trade 
agreements which encourage and enhance the ability of family farmers to 
compete in world markets.
  In agriculture trade, we must also work to recapture lost markets and 
increase exports. As American agricultural exports grow, foreign 
agriculture exports are being shipped to the United States in greater 
magnitude. Since 1981, our agricultural exports have declined from 
$43.8 billion to a low of $26.2 billion in 1986 and back to $42.2 
billion for 1992. Under the USDA programs, the profit has gone to the 
exporter but the cost is charged to the farmer.
  Since 1981 agricultural imports have increased from $10.8 billion to 
$24.3 billion in 1992. In many cases these are products our own farmers 
could be selling.
  In closing, I want to again commend the chairman and the ranking 
member for putting together a solid bill under difficult budget 
constraints. I urge the Members to support this fiscally responsible 
measure.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to engage in a colloquy with my good friend from Kansas, 
Mr. Roberts, chairman of the authorizing committee, if I might.
  While I understand that some Members are anxious to see certain 
policy changes in the Federal farm programs, I am concerned that if the 
appropriations process becomes the vehicle for these legislative 
changes, the chances for true and longlasting reforms may be lost. I 
know my friend from Kansas shares these concerns, and I ask if he can 
offer any assurances to Members with amendments that their issues will 
be addressed in the coming farm bill debate.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his question, 
and I thank my longtime friend and colleague from New Mexico for the 
opportunity to really discuss this problem.
  Let me say that I would like to associate myself with the remarks 
from the distinguished gentleman from Illinois in regard to the 
accolades that are due to the gentleman from New Mexico. They are not 
loose, as he has described. There is a snug-fit accolade that is well 
deserved on the floor of the House. The gentleman from New Mexico 
should wear it proudly.
  Let me begin by saying how much the members of the authorizing 
committee appreciate the hard work that the gentleman and the members 
of his subcommittee and staff have really put into fashioning this 
very, very difficult bill. We have worked very closely with him to 
develop the legislation on the floor today, and this bill has our 
support.
  However, it would be unfortunate if the hard work he has done to 
really create a good bill was overshadowed by some amendments that are 
really inappropriate. I do share the concern that this bill should not 
be the vehicle to take up major farm policy debates. The Committee on 
Agriculture will be bringing a major and comprehensive reauthorization 
of all farm programs to the floor later this year.
  During the course of committee consideration of the farm bill, we 
will be considering major changes of all the programs addressed by the 
amendments that are proposed here today. The difference is that in the 
farm bill these changes can be considered, in the context of the total 
policy package that will provide long-term coherent framework for the 
farm and rural sector. The Committee on Agriculture encourages all 
Members of the House to bring their concerns to us and work with us as 
we mark up the farm bill.
  Let me repeat that: To every Member who has a concern about 
agriculture program policy, to all watching in their offices and all 
the staff that may be watching, the committee encourages all Members of 
the House to bring their concerns to us and work with us as we mark up 
the farm bill. Bring 

[[Page H 7243]]
them to me or bring them to the former chairman and the distinguished 
ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  Let me assure the Members with interest in specific policy changes 
that, if the farm bill we bring to the floor does not satisfy the 
Members'
 policy concerns, there will be an opportunity for any Member to bring 
those concerns before the House at that time.

  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] shares in that concern and 
also shares in regard to that policy opportunity.
  Today we need to get down to the serious business of appropriating 
funds for rural America in the fiscal year of 1996. Issues concerning 
farm policy for the rest of this century should be deferred until the 
authorizing committee brings the farm bill to the floor. That will be 
in September.
  I urge my colleagues to withhold their amendments until the Committee 
on Agriculture has had time to consider the issues individually. This 
is not the appropriate time or place for authorizing amendments.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman and my friend 
for his assurance that all Members will be given an opportunity to 
address the issues that they deem important, and I thank him for the 
partnership that we have.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me. I take the time only to echo the words of our chairman and to agree 
with all of the accolades that he has made about the chairman and about 
our ranking member. We certainly appreciate the concern and the 
dedication and the sensitivity which the distinguished chairman has 
shown to the authorizing committee and to those that work in that area.
  I associate myself strongly and wholeheartedly with the remarks of 
our chairman, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey], the newest member of our subcommittee.
  I guess it is odd for people to be watching this and wondering what a 
resident of New York City is doing on the Committee on Agriculture. But 
I can tell you that she has noted, as many have, that this bill goes 
far beyond addressing the concerns of rural America. It addresses 
nutrition programs and environmental concerns which are of as much 
importance to her home city and home State as well.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and our 
minority ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for 
the cooperation they have shown me on this committee.
  This is an extraordinary bill, in fact, because, as our member said, 
Mr. Durbin is from Illinois, this bill serves all of our communities 
across this country. It has really been an honor and a privilege for me 
to serve on this committee. I want to especially thank the chairman and 
the ranking member for their help and for the knowledge which they have 
offered, and certainly our staff.
  At this moment I would like to engage the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Roberts] in a colloquy.
  I understand that there is quite a bit of discussion about the proper 
venue in which to alter the federal peanut program. But I must say that 
those of us who favor elimination of the program have heard that we are 
not going to be able to sufficiently debate and vote on this matter 
during consideration of the farm bill.
  I would ask the gentleman if he believes that debate on the 
agriculture appropriations bill is the only time during which we will 
be able to get a vote on this issue?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentlewoman, and I 
appreciate the question, the answer is no. I know that you and some of 
your other colleagues have serious concerns about the peanut program. I 
want to assure you that the Committee on Agriculture has heard those 
concerns and is working on some real policy changes and a plan to 
reform the program.
  It is my hope that we can come to an agreement on a reform plan that 
all the Members of this body will be happy with and that we can avoid a 
protracted floor fight at the time of the farm bill. With that in mind, 
I would ask the gentlewoman if she would consider withdrawing her 
amendment and let us continue the progress, and let me add, we are 
making real progress, to address your concerns about this program and 
the concerns of the growers and everybody connected with the program.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased to know that 
there is progress made on this issue, because I think the gentleman is 
aware of the serious concerns that I and many of our colleagues have 
with this program.
  I look forward to seeing the result of the Committee on Agriculture 
deliberations, but if the reform plan that the gentleman's committee 
comes up with does not adequately address the problems I and many of my 
colleagues have with this program, can the gentleman assure me that 
there will be an opportunity to discuss and vote on this issue on the 
floor during debate on the farm bill?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
I will tell the gentlewoman, the answer is a firm yes. If the Committee 
on Agriculture cannot reach an agreement on reforming the program that 
satisfies the concerns of you and your colleagues, I can assure you, as 
I have said in my previous colloquy with the gentleman from New Mexico, 
that you and your colleagues will have an opportunity to address these 
issues simply during the farm bill debate.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I will not offer the 
amendment this evening. I appreciate the gentleman's consideration of 
this very important issue.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I also wish to thank the gentlewoman 
for her cooperation and agree with the chairman in assuring her that 
because of her generosity and understanding our situation on this 
legislation, we will work nonetheless to assure her and those that feel 
like her that we will give them ample opportunity. In the meantime, we 
ourselves are trying to correct any deficiencies in the program. So I 
am assuring her we will work together, and we appreciate her 
understanding of the issue this evening.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman for his 
comments. I want to also make it very clear that those of us who 
consume the products of all your hard work on the farm are very 
involved with this issue, and we appreciate the gentleman's comments 
and we look forward to working with him.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller].
                              {time}  2115

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture concerning the 
ability to offer amendments on the agriculture reauthorization bill 
later on this year. As the gentleman may know, I am the author, along 
with 95 other Members of Congress, of a bill to repeal the sugar 
program.
  As we balance the budget, the American people want a fair process and 
must see that everything is on the table. America's wheat growers, corn 
growers and others have seen farm programs slashed since 1985. Yet 
unlike the other programs of wheat and corn, the sugar program has 
conspicuously not been on the table. The generous benefits to the large 
cane and beet producers have not been reduced at all during the last 
two farm bills. Meanwhile, benefits to wheat farmers have been 
effectively reduced by 40 percent since 1985 and the budget process may 
require cuts amounting to another 25 percent.
  In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's equity analysis 
dramatically indicated that the Federal government supports sugar 
growers at $472 per acre, more than 20 times the $23 per acre 

[[Page H 7244]]
that wheat farmers receive. Faced with a broken sugar program and the 
farm bill inequity, we believe our bill, H.R. 1687, which has 96 
cosponsors, a fair way to provide America's sugar farmers with a 
market-oriented sugar policy.
  It removes the excessive price supports and domestic cartel-like 
provisions, taking the government out of micromanaging the sugar 
industry, yet it leaves in place the program's import quotas to protect 
our farmers from subsidized sugars.
  Many in the House of Representatives are eager to see what the 
Committee on Agriculture will do with respect to sugar.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished Chairman of 
the committee, and inquire about his intentions regarding the sugar 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman what are his intentions with 
respect to the sugar programs?
  Mr. ROBERTS. We have very good intentions.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I hope so.
  Mr. ROBERTS. The road to a good farm program is paved with good 
intentions.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] and 
some of his other colleagues have serious concerns about the sugar 
program, as well as other farm programs. I want to assure him, as I 
have assured the gentleman from New Mexico and the gentlewoman from New 
York, that the Committee on Agriculture plans to pursue a market-
oriented policy to this program.
  It is my hope that we can come to an agreement on policy changes that 
all Members of this body will be happy with and that we can avoid a 
protracted floor fight at the time of the farm bill.
  With that in mind, I would ask the gentleman, as I have asked the 
other Members of this body, to withdraw his amendment and permit the 
authorizing committee to address these issues.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, then I understand and appreciate 
the chairman's commitment to reform the sugar program. I look forward 
to seeing the results of the Committee on Agriculture's deliberations. 
Indeed I have already testified before the specialty crops subcommittee 
for over two hours, a very enjoyable two hours I might remind the 
gentleman, of my concerns about the programs.
  Many members have expressed concerns with the domestic marketing 
allotments and the high loan rate. After the committee finishes its 
work, if Members believe that more needs to be done, can the gentleman 
assure us that we will be afforded the opportunity to debate and vote 
on our amendment to the sugar program?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes, I would tell the 
gentleman. And after the Committee on Agriculture finishes its 
consideration of the sugar program, if he is not satisfied with the 
committee's actions, I can assure the gentleman and his colleagues that 
they will have an opportunity to amend the sugar program during the 
farm bill debate.
  Many are called; few are chosen. The gentleman from Florida will be 
one of the chosen.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
commitment to the honest and open debate on the issue. We respect the 
right and the prerogative of the distinguished chairman of the House
 Committee on Agriculture to have the initial opportunity to address 
the sugar program and I will not be offering the amendment to the 
appropriations bill.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I think the 
gentleman from Virginia would like to be recognized to address the same 
concerns and questions that the gentleman from Florida has.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  (Mr. DAVIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. First of all, I want to 
thank my colleague from Florida, Mr. Miller, for his leadership in this 
matter and I thank my friend from Kansas for the assurances he has 
given us today.
  This fall, in the House we will be debating a new farm bill. We will 
also be debating the budget reconciliation bill that will balance the 
Federal budget in 7 years, which is going to force substantial cuts in 
farm commodity programs, such as wheat, dairy, corn, cotton and rice.
  While these programs have faced an average 40 percent cut since 1985, 
sugar has not been cut one iota. I believe this is unacceptable and we 
can face this issue during the farm bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to add I think every citizen is paying a 
hidden tax today because of the sugar program. It takes money out of 
the pockets of American consumer to the tune of $1.4 billion every year 
in higher food prices. I thank my colleagues for their efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss the Miller amendment to repeal 
the government sugar program. There is no plausible reason why our 
government is involved with setting and controlling the price of sugar. 
It is big government at its worst. It benefits a wealthy few. It 
promotes the destruction of one of our prized environmental landmarks--
the Florida Everglades.
  The November elections signaled that the American people wanted a 
change in the way we in Washington do business. Getting the Federal 
Government out of this program is a very good place to start. Every 
citizen pays a hidden tax that takes money out of the pockets of 
American consumers to the tune of more than $1.4 billion every year in 
higher food prices according to GAO. This hidden tax has cost Americans 
more than $10 billion over the last decade. In addition, the consumer 
interest group Public Voice has recently estimated that the sugar 
program has cost the Federal Government $110 million annually because 
of higher purchase prices for sugar and sugar-containing products used 
in domestic feeding and food programs. This is money that the American 
people could be saving, investing, or using to buy needed items for 
their families. But because of this program, they must pay higher 
prices on everything containing sugar all because of the Federal 
Government controls in the marketplace.
  I have great respect for the distinguished chairman of the House 
Agriculture Committee, Mr. Roberts and also respect his committee's 
right to deal with the future of the sugar program. I want him to know 
that the nearly 100 co-sponsors of the Miller amendment to repeal the 
sugar program are watching his committee closely. We look forward to 
working with him in this endeavor, and working with my friend, Mr. 
Foley, from Florida, who represents many of these growers and shares a 
different perspective on this issue.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I also want to add my commendation and 
also observation that the authorizing committee in agriculture works 
with a certain amount of respect across party lines. And it is good to 
also see that the appropriating and authorizing committees are also 
working well with each other.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both my colleague, the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Lowey], who is respectful of the fact that with the 
farm bill we will have the opportunity to discuss the issues that she 
is concerned about.
  Mr. Chairman, I do want to raise some concerns that I have about this 
particular bill, not because it has not been well intended, but there 
are some cuts, Mr. Chairman, that I think we need to observe and bring 
to the attention of our colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, Speaker Gingrich last week cautioned this House about a 
mindless march towards a balanced budget, without regard to the merits 
of certain programs, I agree with that statement.
  The Agriculture appropriations bill, which we are considering, is 
typical of that kind of budget cutting, a mindless march, without 
regard to the great pain and suffering we will cause a large number of 
people, and without regard to the dislocation of communities.
  It is for that reason that I intend to support and perhaps offer 
amendments, designed to spare programs of merit that are slashed by 
this bill or by other amendments.
  Agriculture has consistently reduced spending and has absorbed 
drastic cuts over the last several years.
  Again, we will absorb reductions in operations and support of our 
commodities programs. But, much in this bill goes too far.

[[Page H 7245]]

  This bill intrudes heavily into the jurisdiction of the Agriculture 
Committee, legislating, in many instances, instead of appropriating.
  Among the many provisions to H.R. 1976, there is one that is 
particularly egregious to Republicans and Democrats alike--the 
unamendable en bloc that is to be offered by our colleague, Congressman 
Joe Skeen, who is, acknowledged, a very considerate person and a good 
person to work with.
  That amendment, among other actions, zeros out funding for the Rural 
Development Loan Fund Account.
  That account funds the vital empowerment zones and enterprise 
communities program, including loans and grants for water and waste 
disposal; community facilities; guaranteed business and industry loans 
and other programs.
  We are also facing drastic cuts in two housing programs that 
effectively serve rural and low-income Americans--the 502 Direct Loan 
Program and the 515 Rural Rental Housing Program.
  Section 502 provides the opportunity for home ownership for people 
who otherwise would have no chance to own their own home. It also 
provides loans to farmers for housing for themselves and their workers.
  Section 515 is the only housing program available for very low income 
people. It is essential to the housing needs of citizens in rural 
areas.
  All of these programs should be the recipients of our unwavering 
support; instead they face decimation.
  These programs often provide the only means for rural communities to 
support local initiatives and also provide avenues in which to combine 
Federal, State, local and private funding initiatives--thus allowing 
limited Federal dollars to be expended with the support from other 
resources.
  Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities are prime methods 
through which government can encourage self-sufficiency, a key element 
of the Contract With America.
  In my district, funds from the Rural Development Loan Fund Program 
Account have been allocated to renovate a defunct hospital site into a 
facility the citizens of Wilson can use for jobs, training and business 
expansion.
  In addition, it is expected that in fiscal year 1995, the Rural 
Housing and Community Development Service will provide over 30,000 home 
ownership loans to rural families.
  Moreover, thousands rely on the Section 515 Program. At one time, 
this program was funded at $540 million. Last year, I and others joined 
in an effort to restore the program to its current level of $220 
million, after a proposed cut which nearly eliminated the program.
  Another cut in the Section 515 Program will render it nearly 
ineffective.
  What happens next year? How much more deeply can we cut? It is our 
intent to phase out all rural programs?
  And, while this bill is cutting programs to help people survive, it 
is also cutting programs that could allow them to thrive.
  The bill severely limits the Export Enhancement Program, for example. 
Agriculture exports have been vital to our balance of trade situation, 
yet this bill will make it more difficult for us to compete globally.
  Cooperative State research, education, and extension programs are 
cut.
  The implementation of new meat and poultry inspection regulations are 
hindered by this bill.
  The list seems unending.
  It would appear that we are engaged in a mindless march.
  A balanced budget is important, but if in seeking to balance the 
budget, we create a serious imbalance among our citizens and in our 
communities, this march could lead us to places we do not intend to go.
  Let's heed the admonition of the Speaker.
  Let's balance the budget, but let's make program cuts that are 
meaningful, not mindless.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Foley].
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen] for his fine work on this document dealing with agriculture. I 
would like to thank our colleagues for their colloquy earlier on the 
sugar and peanut program.
  Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to all Americans listening and to 
Members of Congress, when we talk about America's food supply we have 
one of the finest, safest, most affordable food supplies in the world. 
I think it important when we talk about these programs that we put them 
in the context that they deserve; that we are feeding America's 
families.
  We are doing it efficiently, we are doing it safely, and we are 
supplying the world's food needs. So when we talk about farm bills and 
we talk about in the abstract of eliminating programs, let us look at 
the consumers that would be affected by our actions.
  Let us remember that when we order ice tea in the restaurant, they 
give you sugar. When we are riding on the airplanes, they give you 
peanuts. There is a reason for that; because they are inexpensive, 
because they are abundant, and because they are available.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] 
tonight to give us the opportunity in September to fully debate the 
farm bill in the appropriate forum, in the farm bill where it belongs.
  I thank the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the chairman, for 
his efforts to bring this bill to the floor ultimately when we can 
discuss it, debate it in the full context of making certain that 
America continues to be the leader in food production, not only for 
ourselves and our citizens, but for occupants around the globe.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word to my colleagues 
from America's great cities, or from those places that do not have 
farms or agriculture production at all. I know that sometimes the farm 
portion, the ag portion of this bill, and particularly the ag bill that 
will come later out of the House Committee on Agriculture, can get a 
little arcane if you do not deal with production farming. But there are 
a couple of facts that I want to share with my urban or non-agriculture 
colleagues.
  One out of every six jobs in America happens because of agriculture. 
Agriculture makes up 16 percent of America's gross domestic product. 
Now, what are the cost of farm programs and are they going up or are 
they coming down? In less than the last 10 years, in just 9 years, 
since 1986, the cost of agriculture programs has dropped 60 percent. 
The Federal cost of farm programs has dropped 60 percent in 9 years.
  By the way, entitlements, the Federal cost of entitlements, have 
doubled during that same time period.
  Farm programs amount to less than 1 percent of Federal spending, so 
the farm portion of this program that we may vote on tonight and will 
complete tomorrow, will be less than 1 percent of all the Federal 
spending we will be called upon to enact this year.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to make this point to my colleagues. 
Americans paid just 8 percent of their income for food. Our European 
friends spend an average of 17 percent of their income for food and our 
Japanese friends spend 20 percent of their income for food. Why? 
Because Federal farm programs stabilize price by stabilizing 
production.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston], a committee member.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, fellow Members of the House and 
Representatives representing grocery buyers, let me talk to you a 
little bit about what the previous speaker just said about our European 
counterparts spending 17 to 20 percent of their energy on groceries.
  In America we do not do that, and yet every time I pick up the 
Readers Digest, it seems that the way to balance the budget is always 
on the back of agriculture. Americans spend 11 percent of their income 
on farming. And what is the investment your government makes in order 
to make this possible?
  Look at this chart right here. We see what the Federal Government 
spends money on: Social Security, defense, Medicare, Medicaid, interest 
on the debt. Where is agriculture? Under 1 percent. That is what the 
farm programs are costing our taxpayers, and 

[[Page H 7246]]
yet time and time again you hear, ``Cut the farm bill, cut the farm 
bill.''
  Have we ever cut the farm bill? This is what we have reduced in 
discretionary agricultural spending since 1986, almost $26 billion, and 
today, 1995, we are at $10.6 billion.
  What other Federal Government program has dropped like that?
  Support the farm bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
  (Mr. ROSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise and thank the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] for 
their colloquy with the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, and I 
want to also associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Foley].
  I held a hearing on the General Accounting Office audit of the peanut 
program and the sugar program, and what we found was that the General 
Accounting Office was saying that the consumer was paying too much, and 
by that they meant the first purchaser of sugar and the first purchaser 
of peanuts, who is not the housewife, not the consumer, but the 
manufacturers. I asked them, ``Did you ask the sugar and the peanut 
people if we give them a reduction in the price level, will you pass 
that on to the American housewife?'' They said, ``Yes.'' We asked them, 
``What did they say?'' ``They said `no,' they could not do that.''
  My friends, we could give sugar and peanuts to the candy 
manufacturers of this country, and that is who is driving this train, 
we could give them the peanuts, we could give them the sugar, and you 
would not see one nickel decrease in the price of a candy bar.
  I hope that between now and the farm bill we can have an opportunity 
to go into this. I would be glad to reduce the price of port levels of 
both of these commodities if the savings were passed directly to the 
American housewife.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise to discuss in support of this appropriation. I represent the 
State of California. You are always hearing about California being a 
state of 32 million people. But what you may not know is the largest 
industry in California is agriculture.
  Per year, $18 billion in farm sales generates over $70 billion in 
economic activity annually and employs over 2 million people on the 
farm and related jobs. Nearly 1 out of every 6 California jobs depends 
on agriculture.
  The fastest-growing sector of this economy is the agricultural export 
market, which now derives nearly $13 billion in economic activity and 
supports over 137,000 jobs in California.
  Despite the Uruguay round agreement on GATT, California's 
agricultural exports are up against the heavily subsidized foreign 
competition that still dominates the global marketplace. The European 
Union, for example, outspent the United States in export subsidies by 
more than 6 to 1 and will be able to maintain this historical advantage 
under GATT.
  Chile just announced a $25 million export promotion, and Norway has 
initiated a $20 million program to promote just salmon exports.
  This is the real world of global competition.
  With the help of the market promotion program, we run a trade surplus 
of $14 billion per year with Japan, our biggest agricultural export 
market, and it grew by $500 million just in last year alone. The market 
promotion program helps California agriculture develop, expand, and 
maintain foreign markets. Eliminating the market promotion program 
would amount to unilateral disarmament.
  The USDA estimates that for every dollar in the market promotion 
program, the funds generate an average of $16 in agricultural exports. 
I support the market promotion program in this bill and would urge my 
colleagues to reject any amendments to delete or diminish it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins], who has been a leader in this Congress on many 
issues and has a recognized expertise in the area of meat inspection 
and food safety.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
   Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for 
withdrawing his language that would have blocked issuance of the new 
meat safety rule. The Agriculture Department has been working on this 
rule for about 6 years and is finally about ready to issue the rule.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], who 
has worked very, very hard on this issue, and even though he has 
mentioned that I have been a hard worker on this particular matter, so 
has he. He has been a yeoman on this particular issue which is 
critically important--to all Americans.
  To block it now would only further delay bacterial testing of meat 
and poultry which is the only way, I repeat, the only way to determine 
whether meat has the deadly E. coli or other bacteria.
  Bacteria contamination of meat is what caused the death 2 years ago 
of young Alex Donley of Chicago, IL. It is also what killed 4 children 
and made 600 others gravely ill 2\1/2\ years ago in the Jack-in-the-Box 
food poisoning incident in Washington State.
   Mr. Chairman, the new meat rule has been the object of constant 
attack from the very beginning of this Congress. Opponents of the meat 
safety rule tried to kill it in the regulatory moratorium bill; they 
tried to kill it last week in the Senate's regulatory reform bill; and 
they tried to kill in this bill.
  I, for one, completely oppose any further delay in the issuance of 
this regulation. Only bacterial testing can tell us whether the meat 
and poultry our families consume may be deadly.
   Mr. Chairman, again I thank the gentlemen, both gentlemen, in fact, 
for withdrawing, first of all, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] 
for withdrawing his amendment. I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin] who worked so hard on this issue, and I am very pleased the 
Agriculture Department will be able to go forward with this important 
new meat inspection program.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I must register my very 
strong opposition to the Republican proposal to limit the number of 
people who can participate in the WIC program, a program that for 
decades has sought to reduce some of the effects of severe poverty on 
infants and children in this country.
  WIC's annual appropriation already limits the number of women, 
infants, and children who can be served. An additional participation 
cap, as proposed by the Republicans, would likely result in serving 
fewer eligible people next year, by creating additional administrative 
burdens.
  Currently, some 3 million eligible women, infants, and children are 
unable to receive WIC benefits. These are overwhelming statistics, 
given the fact that WIC saves lives and is highly cost-effective. WIC 
reduces infant mortality, low birthweight and anemia and therefore, 
saves money by averting medical and other related expenditures. For 
every dollar spent by WIC on pregnant women, taxpayers save between 
$1.92 and $4.21 in Medicaid costs for newborns and their mothers.
  Not only is such a cap morally wrong, but it simply does not make 
good fiscal sense. The participation gap would discourage State 
innovation, cause taxpayer dollars to be spent less efficiently, and 
result in participation declines. There are better ways to achieve the 
Appropriation Committee's goal of fiscal responsibility. We owe it to 
our country to show greater moral leadership than my Republican 
colleagues have shown. And we owe it to our country to show the kind of 
compassion that will lead to a brighter, healthier future for our 
children.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with regard to the Federal 
peanut program. There are several members of this House, including 
myself, which would like to see major reform or the outright 
elimination of this program.
  I am pleased that the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. 
Roberts of Kansas, has made a commitment to this entire body that this 
issue will be addressed when his 

[[Page H 7247]]
committee takes up the reauthorization of the entire Federal farm 
programs later this year.
  The peanut program has two peculiar aspects to it. First, and 
foremost, the peanut program subsidizes the price of peanuts received 
by farmers and raises the cost of peanuts and peanut products for the 
consumers. Second, in order to grow peanuts to be sold for human 
consumption, peanut farmers have established a quota system that forces 
potential farmers to rent licenses from a few ``quota-holders'' that 
were granted over a century ago. This license system along with other 
Federal Government restrictions raises the cost of peanut production by 
26 percent. This cost is also passed along to the consumer. These 
consumers are the individuals who make up my Congressional District in 
northern New Jersey.
  The General Accounting Office estimates that the peanut program costs 
American consumers between $314 and $514 million a year in higher 
prices. In an era of tight budgets and a promise to achieve a balanced 
budget it is clear this program needs to be restructured. We have made 
a promise to make the Federal Government smaller, smarter, and less 
costly, and ending this program would be another step toward that end.
  All businesses are required to produce revenue or face the harsh 
reality of termination, why should the Federal Government treat peanut 
producers any differently? In a country that values competition, a 
peanut program that shelters the industry from competitors is contrary 
to the very principles that founded this great nation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is why I call upon the Chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee to restructure or eliminate the quota and price supports for 
peanuts. I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to 
eliminate the peanut program from the folds of the Federal Government's 
wings.
  Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 
1976, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
  This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], the ranking member 
of the subcommittee for their hard work in bringing this bill to the 
Floor.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget 
constraints under which the subcommittee operated. The subcommittee was 
forced to make some difficult funding choices in order to stay within 
its budget allocation. In light of these limitations, this Member is 
grateful and pleased that this legislation includes funding for several 
important projects of interest to the State of Nebraska.
  First, the bill provide $423,000 for the Midwest Advanced Food 
Manufacturing Alliance. The Alliance is an association of twelve 
leading research universities and corporate partners. Its purpose is to 
develop and facilitate the transfer of new food manufacturing and 
processing technologies.
  The Alliance awards grants for research projects on a peer review 
basis. These awards must be supported by an industry partner willing to 
provide matching funds. During the first year of competition, the 
Alliance received 30 proposals requesting nearly $1 million, but it was 
limited to funding 14 proposals for a total of $393,617. Matching funds 
from industry totaled $623,148 with an additional $134,000 from in-kind 
funds. These figures convincingly demonstrate how successful the 
Alliance has been in leveraging support from industry.
  Mr. Chairman, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S. 
agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing 
world-wide demands for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good 
exports. In order to meet these changing world-wide demands, 
agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on 
adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food 
Manufacturing Alliance can provide 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 United States agricultural industry remains competitive 
in a increasingly competitive global economy.
  This Member is also pleased that this bill includes $200,000 to fund 
a drought mitigation project at the Agricultural Meteorology Department 
at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This level of funding will 
greatly assist in the further development of a national drought 
mitigation center. Such a center is important to Nebraska and all arid 
and semi-arid states. Although drought is one of the most complex and 
least understood of all natural disasters, no centralized source of
 information currently exists on drought assessment, mitigation, 
response, and planning efforts. A national drought mitigation center 
would develop a comprehensive program designed to reduce vulnerability 
to drought by promoting the development and implementation of 
appropriate mitigation technologies.

  Another important project funded by this bill is the Alliance for 
Food Protection, a joint project between the University of Nebraska and 
the University of Georgia. The mission of this Alliance is to assist 
the development and modification of food processing and preservation 
technologies. This technology will help ensure that Americans continue 
to receive the safest and highest quality food possible.
  This Member is also pleased that this legislation includes $1.5 
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 502 unsubsidized loan guarantee program was expanded to all 
50 States in 1992. The subcommittee 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.
   Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member supports H.R. 1976 and 
urges his colleagues to approve it.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, as a former member of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I recognize the difficulties faced by the 
Chairman and ranking member and I commend them for their efforts on 
this bill. H.R. 1976 provides $15.9 billion in agricultural programs 
but still saves $5.2 billion, compared to spending last year. However, 
with tough challenges come tough decisions, and I am faced with one 
today. I am concerned about an amendment to be offered later during 
this debate and the effect this will have on low-income housing for 
people in my State of Nevada and throughout the Nation. Specifically, 
502 direct housing loans help those low and very-low income families 
who are unable to obtain financing elsewhere. Without these funds, it 
will be difficult or impossible for people to achieve the American 
Dream of owning their own home. In addition, I am concerned about other 
reductions to rural programs including rural waste disposal projects 
and rural development.
  Although reluctant, I will support this amendment because it does 
have some good provisions in it regarding the Conservation Reserve 
Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program. However, I urge the Chairman 
to continue to fight to restore funding for the 502 housing program and 
some of the other rural programs in conference.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, the sugar program fixes the price of 
sugar, guaranteeing business high profit margins in an industry that is 
not suffering significant losses. In fact, the Federal Government takes 
it a step further by limiting imports to further increase the price of 
sugar. These efforts swell the price of sugar to double the price paid 
in most foreign nations.
  My colleague, Dan Miller of Florida, has been a leader in the effort 
to reform this program. Congressman Miller should be commended for 
going against an interest which has a strong representation in his home 
State. He said, long before the election results told us, that the 
American people expect changes in Washington, beginning with the 
elimination of programs like the sugar subsidy. I am pleased that Mr. 
Miller has received the commitment from the chairman of the Agriculture 
Committee, Mr. Roberts, to work to restructure this program.
  While the wealthy sugar producers claim that the industry can not 
survive without the subsidy, nothing could be further from the truth. 
In fact, Mr. Chairman, the sugar program subsidizes the wealthiest 
plantation owners. The 33 plantations represent only 0.2 percent of all 
sugar producing farms, yet they receive one-third of all farm-level 
benefits from the program. In addition, the General Accounting Office 
estimates that the program costs American consumers $1.4 billion a year 
through the increased prices of products that contain sugar.
  The citizens of my district sent me to Washington with a specific 
goal in mind. That goal was to eliminate or restructure all the Federal 
programs that are outdated. The Federal sugar program is exactly the 
type of program that I seek to eliminate from the government books.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Federal Government to get out of the sugar 
business. While it may be a sweet deal to the sugar producers, it 
leaves a bittersweet taste in the mouths of the American public.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment printed in House Report 104-185 
is now pending. That amendment shall be considered read, shall be 
debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand 
for division of the question.
  If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be 
considered as 

[[Page H 7248]]
the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 5-
minute rule.
  Further consideration of the bill for amendment shall proceed by 
title and each title shall be considered read.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during further 
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded 
vote on any amendment made in order by the resolution.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less 
than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic 
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting 
by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not 
be less than 15 minutes.


            amendment made in order by house resolution 188

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment printed in House 
Report 104-185.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment made in order by House Resolution 188:
       On page 25, line 20 strike $805,888,000 and insert 
     $788,388,000.
       On page 34, line 16 strike the ``and'' and all that follows 
     through ``590p(b)),'' on line 20; and on page 35, line 13 
     strike $47,000,000 and insert $36,000,000.
       On page 35, line 25 strike $77,000,000 and insert 
     $210,000,000.
       On page 40, line 10 strike $2,400,000,000 and insert 
     $2,200,000,000; and on line 11 strike $1,500,000,000 and 
     insert $1,700,000,000.
       On page 40, line 20 strike $191,460,000 and insert 
     $107,840,000 and strike $2,550,000 and insert $2,890,000.
       On page 46 strike lines 8 through line 2 on page 47.
       On page 50, line 22 strike $562,000,000 and insert 
     $435,000,000.
       On page 67 strike lines 10 through 17.
       On page 67 line 18 strike 717 and insert 715.
       On page 67, line 21 strike 718 and insert 716.
       On page 69, line 6 strike 719 and insert 717.
       On page 69 strike lines 12 through 18.
       On page 69, line 19 strike 721 and insert 718.
       On page 70 strike lines 5 through 11.
       On page 70, line 12 strike 723 and insert 719.
       On page 70, line 15 strike 724 and insert 720.
       On page 70, line 20 strike 725 and insert 721.

  The Chairman. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Skeen] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will each be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like again to explain the en bloc amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, the limitations on the Conservation Reserve Program, 
the Wetlands Reserve Program and Export Enhancement Program are 
stricken from the original bill, as is the provision that would have 
prohibited certain disaster payments for livestock feed producers who 
refused crop insurance.
  The salaries and expenses account of the Consolidated Farm Service 
Agency is reduced by $17.5 million. The Great Plains Conservation 
Program is eliminated for a savings of $11 million. The loan level for 
section 502 direct housing is reduced from $900 million in the bill to 
$500 million, and the guarantee program is increased from $1.5 billion 
to $1.7 billion, for a savings of $83.6 million.
  The Rural Development Loan Fund, one of several programs supporting 
economic development in rural areas, is eliminated for a savings of 
$37.6 million. Funds available for the Rural Development Performance 
Partnerships Program for rural utilities, which is essentially a block 
grant for water and waste disposal loans and grants and solid waste 
management grants, is reduced from $562 million in the bill to $435 
million.
  Mr. Chairman and colleagues, this amendment is budget neutral, and 
that is the en bloc amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time.
  I rise to oppose the chairman's en bloc amendment because it contains 
further reductions in direct loans available through the section 502 
rural housing program. My district covers most of the rural areas of my 
State. Over the past year these low-interest loans have allowed 89 
families in my district who otherwise could not secure a loan to buy or 
build their own home. these families earn an average of about $22,000 a 
year, which is only a little bit more than half the average income in 
Massachusetts.
  Even in the most rural areas of my district, homes cost upwards of 
$85,000. The 89 loans this year in my district are worth almost $5 
million.
  This loan program is the one chance that many families have to own 
their homes. In fact, it is the only Federal assistance for low-income 
rural homeownership.
  Section 502 funding has already been cut by about 20 percent over the 
past 5 years, and the Skeen amendment would so reduce the funding for 
the direct loan portion of the program that only about 8,000 families 
in the whole country could be assisted next year. This is no way, in my 
view, to encourage people who are working hard to pay their bills and 
raise their kids, yet dream of owning their own home.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote against the Skeen amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree very much with the former speaker 
here with respect to the 502 housing program. It is a very valuable and 
essential program that is working in America.
  There are 130,000 people standing in line waiting for this.
  We have 13,000 people here in America standing in line waiting for 
October 1 and waiting for the money under the 502 program. 
Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to put it in this bill at 
this time, but I will assure you that the chairman of the committee is 
sincere in his effort to work with us to try to find some opportunity, 
try to find some way to properly fund the 502 program, because he 
agrees with us that it is essential that we do it.
  There is just not enough money under the agreement that they have 
with the Committee on Agriculture to do it now. I think that we have 
worked out a way where we can get an additional $10 million put in. 
That will be offered by me under title III.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. We are essentially looking for other monies to put back in 
the program. If we find any, which I think we can, we will put it back 
in the 502 housing. We also have the concern for and respect for that 
program and how well it has worked.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I know you do, Mr. Chairman. That is my point here. I 
am encouraging people to support your en bloc amendment. Let us get on 
with it. Let us get to title III. We found a way to recapture some of 
it. We can probably recapture some more during the process.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, this 
is exactly what we have had to do because we did the en bloc very 
quickly, and so we are going to do everything that we can to make that 
program whole again.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I know that, and I appreciate that.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the authorizing committee I 
want to make it very clear for everybody on the floor and who has 
concerns about the housing programs the gentleman will be offering an 
amendment under a different title, we have $10 million, staff informs 
me that really leverages to $50 million, and the gentleman has 
indicated that while he has some concerns over the housing situation, 
he will vote for the en bloc amendment. We will address that issue in 
other titles.
  I would urge a yes vote on the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. That is right. I encourage my colleagues to vote for 
the en bloc amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the minority 

[[Page H 7249]]
spokesman on the appropriations subcommittee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that farmers in my area 
have virtually given up on that expectation that they will get any kind 
of rational national farm policy which will be at all fair. They face, 
for instance, milk marketing arrangements which are ridiculously 
outmoded and biased against our region of the country. But at least 
they held out some hope that there would be some modicum of rural 
development which would help in terms of housing, and in terms of 
water, and in terms of sewer, and the problem with this en bloc 
amendment is that it further damages those programs. It cuts help for 
the program which provides people to buy their first home in rural 
America. I do not think that is a good idea. It amazes me that the 
reductions in the rural sewer, and water loan and grant programs will 
mean, for instance, that if this House buys the B-2 program, that we 
will spend more on just one B-2 bomber than the entire cost of all of 
those programs for 4 years on just one of those bombers.
  Mr. Chairman, it makes absolutely no sense to me, it makes absolutely 
no sense to the farmers I represent or certainly to the nonfarmers who 
occupy rural America in districts like mine, and therefore, while I 
have great respect and affection for the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee, I do not much approve of the amendment which will be 
offered, and I would urge Members to vote against that amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern and 
also appreciate the respect and so on, and I would be disappointed if 
he had not made some comment contrary to the best efforts of this 
thing. We are going to try to get there.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skeen en 
bloc amendment. This amendment reflects the work done between the 
authorizers and appropriators to put forward a bill that both 
committees can support. This amendment makes the difficult choices in 
discretionary spending to reach the requirements of the budget 
resolution.
  Many of the spending choices reflected in the en bloc amendment are 
painful. I wish we didn't have to make them, but we do. Later this 
year, the Agriculture Committee will be bringing a farm authorization 
bill to the floor that will contain ever harder choices. The en bloc 
amendment before us today will allow the House to make clearer and more 
accurate decisions on how we should approach all farm and rural 
spending.
  The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and his colleagues on the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee have faced up to their budget 
responsibilities and provided in this amendment honest spending 
reductions in their discretionary area of responsibility. Adoption of 
this amendment is crucial to securing the support of all the 
agriculture community for this bill. I strongly urge the House to pass 
the Skeen en bloc amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that I understand why the chairman entered 
into an agreement with the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture on 
this amendment, but I do not particularly care for the terms of it. Let 
me tell my colleagues two specific areas that I think are wanting in 
this en bloc amendment and give them two specific reasons to vote 
against it.
  My colleagues have heard about the cuts in the rural housing program. 
Last year we spent $1.2 billion on rural housing programs under 502, 
which is a single-family dwelling program, usually for communities of 
50,000 population or less. The administration asks for the same amount 
of money. With this en bloc amendment we will cut the spending to $500 
million, less than half of what it is in the current fiscal year.
  The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] was correct. We have over 
100,000 people hoping and praying that they will be able to realize the 
American dream in their small towns through this housing program, and 
we will be saying no to more than half of those. In fact, we will be 
saying no to virtually all of them in the outyears if we follow the 
course predicted by this en bloc amendment. So there is a substantial 
cut in rural housing.
  Now my colleagues say, ``Well, Mr. Durbin, now that you've said that, 
where will you come up with the money?'' One of the things the 
Committee on Agriculture insisted on was a provision which allows those 
who are in livestock to have special benefits. In other words, we have 
a provision in the law now which says:
  If your livestock feed could be covered by crop insurance; in other 
words, if you had the ability to protect yourself in case of a 
disaster, then the Federal Government is not going to race to your 
rescue if a disaster occurs.
  Now that is a provision in law that is sensible because we ought to 
encourage people, ``Buy insurance. Cover yourself. Don't come begging 
to Uncle Sam.''
  Well, the Committee on Agriculture insisted on lifting that provision 
and saying that livestock feed that is lost because of a disaster will 
now be eligible for a disaster payment even if the livestock producer 
could have bought crop insurance and could have protected himself.
  My colleagues, that is the wrong message. If we are going to cut back 
in Federal spending, and particularly in disaster spending, the message 
should be, if insurance is out there, buy it, and if you don't buy it, 
it is at your own peril.
  Please join me in opposing the en bloc amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment made in order by House 
Resolution 188.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240, 
noes 173, not voting 21, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 535]

                               AYES--240

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)

[[Page H 7250]]

     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--173

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Blute
     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Jefferson
     Manton
     Martinez
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Moran
     Murtha
     Reynolds
     Schiff
     Sisisky
     Studds
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Volkmer
     Yates

                              {time}  2211

  Mr. GILCHREST and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment made in order by House Resolution 188 was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Kingston], having assumed the chair, Mr. Klug, 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. 1967) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, rural development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and related agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________