[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 118 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7307-H7367]
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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1976.

                              {time}  1445


                     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. 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July 
9, 1995, the amendments en bloc printed in House Report 104-185 offered 
by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] had been disposed of.
  The Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:
                               H.R. 1976

       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, 
     1996, 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, $10,227,000, of which $7,500,000 shall be 
     available for InfoShare: 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.
                          Executive Operations


                            chief economist

       For necessary expenses of the Chief Economist, including 
     economic analysis, risk assessment, cost benefit analysis, 
     and the functions of the World Agricultural Outlook Board, as 
     authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1622g), and including employment pursuant to the 
     second sentence of the 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, $3,748,000.


                       national appeals division

       For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division, 
     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 $25,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, $11,846,000.
                 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, $5,899,000.
                        Chief Financial Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial 
     Officer, 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, $4,133,000: Provided, That the Chief Financial 
     Officer shall reinstate and market cross-servicing activities 
     of the National Finance Center: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act shall be used to obtain, modify, re-engineer, license, 
     operate, implement, or expand commercial off-the-shelf 
     financial management software systems or existing commercial 
     off-the-shelf system financial management contracts, beyond 
     general ledger systems and accounting support software, at 
     the National Finance Center until thirty legislative days 
     after the Secretary of Agriculture submits to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations a complete and thorough 
     cost-benefit analysis and a certification by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture that this analysis provides a detailed and 
     accurate cost-benefit analysis comparison between obtaining 
     or expanding commercial off-the-shelf software systems and 
     conducting identical or comparable software systems 
     acquisitions, re-engineering, or modifications in-house.
     
[[Page H7308]]


          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary salaries and 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, including authorities pursuant to the 1984 
     delegation of authority from the Administrator of General 
     Services to the Department of Agriculture,  for programs and 
     activities of the Department which are included in this Act, 
     $110,187,000, of which $20,216,000 shall be retained by the 
     Department for the operation, maintenance, and repair of 
     Agriculture buildings: Provided, That in the event an agency 
     within the Department 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 percent 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, $25,587,000, to 
     remain available until expended; making a total appropriation 
     of $135,774,000.
                       Advisory Committees (USDA)

       For necessary expenses for activities of advisory 
     committees of the Department of Agriculture which are 
     included in this Act, $800,000: Provided, That no other funds 
     appropriated to the Department in this Act shall be available 
     to the Department 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),  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 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 Personnel, Operations, Information Resources 
     Management, Civil Rights Enforcement, Small and Disadvantaged 
     Business Utilization, Administrative Law Judges and Judicial 
     Officer, Disaster Management and Coordination, and 
     Modernization of the Administrative Process, $27,986,000, to 
     provide for necessary expenses for management support 
     services to offices of the Department and for general 
     administration and disaster management of the Department, 
     repairs and alterations, and other miscellaneous supplies and 
     expenses not otherwise provided for and necessary for the 
     practical and efficient work of the Department, 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 salaries and 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, $3,797,000: Provided, That no other funds 
     appropriated to the Department in this Act shall be available 
     to the Department for support of activities of congressional 
     relations.
                        Office of Communications

       For necessary expenses to carry on services relating to the 
     coordination of programs involving public affairs, 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, 
     $63,639,000, 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, 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, $27,860,000.
  Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics

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

       For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in 
     conducting economic research and analysis, as authorized by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) 
     and other laws, $53,131,000: 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).

                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, $81,107,000: 
     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.

                     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 including the acquisition, 
     preservation, and dissemination of agricultural information; 
     and for acquisition of lands by donation, exchange, or 
     purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100, $705,610,000: 
     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 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 percent 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 Beckley, West Virginia: 
     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 Under Secretary for 
     Research, Education and Economics 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: Provided further, 
     That all rights and title of the United States in the 
     property known as USDA Houma Sugar Cane Research Laboratory, 
     consisting of approximately 20 acres in the City of Houma and 
     150 acres of farmland in Chacahula, Louisiana, including 
     facilities and equipment, shall be conveyed to the American 
     Sugar Cane League: Provided further, That all rights and 
     title of the United States in the Agricultural Research 
     Station at Brawley, California, consisting of 80 acres of 
     land, including facilities and equipment, shall be conveyed 
     to Imperial County, California: Provided further, That all 
     rights and title of the United States in the Pecan Genetics 
     and Improvement Research Laboratory, consisting of 84.2 acres 
     of land, including facilities and equipment, shall be 
     conveyed to Texas A&M University: Provided further, That the 
     property originally conveyed by the State of Tennessee to the 
     U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 
     Service, in Lewisburg, Tennessee be conveyed to the 
     University of Tennessee. 

[[Page H7309]]

       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, $30,200,000, 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.
      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service


                   research and education activities

       For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for 
     cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and 
     for other expenses, including $166,165,000 to carry into 
     effect the provisions of the Hatch Act (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i); 
     $20,185,000 for grants for cooperative forestry research (16 
     U.S.C. 582a-582-a7); $27,313,000 for payments to the 1890 
     land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University (7 U.S.C. 
     3222); $31,485,000 for special grants for agricultural 
     research (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)); $11,599,000 for special grants 
     for agricultural research on improved pest control (7 U.S.C. 
     450i(c)); $98,810,000 for competitive research grants (7 
     U.S.C. 450i(b)); $5,051,000 for the support of animal health 
     and disease programs (7 U.S.C. 195); $1,150,000 for 
     supplemental and alternative crops and products (7 U.S.C. 
     3319d); $475,000 for rangeland research grants (7 U.S.C. 
     3331-3336); $3,500,000 for higher education graduate 
     fellowships grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(6)), to remain available 
     until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); $4,350,000 for higher 
     education challenge grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)); $1,000,000 
     for a higher education minority scholars program (7 U.S.C. 
     3152(b)(5)), to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b); $4,000,000 for aquaculture grants (7 U.S.C. 3322); 
     $8,000,000 for sustainable agriculture research and education 
     (7 U.S.C. 5811); and $6,289,000 for necessary expenses of 
     Research and Education Activities, of which not to exceed 
     $100,000 shall be for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; in all, 
     $389,372,000.
       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.
              native american institutions endowment fund

       For establishment of a Native American institutions 
     endowment fund, as authorized by Public Law 130-382 (7 U.S.C. 
     301 note.), $4,600,000.
                          extension activities

       Payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
     Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and 
     American Samoa: For payments for cooperative 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, $264,405,000; payments for the nutrition 
     and family education program for low-income areas under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $59,588,000; payments for the pest 
     management program under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $10,947,000; payments for the farm safety program under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $2,898,000; 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, extension, and teaching facilities as authorized by 
     section 1447 of Public Law 95-113, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     3222b), $7,664,000, to remain available until expended; 
     payments for the rural development centers under section 3(d) 
     of the Act, $921,000; payments for a groundwater quality 
     program under section 3(d) of the Act, $10,897,000; payments 
     for the agricultural telecommunications program, as 
     authorized by Public Law 101-624 (7 U.S.C. 5926), $1,184,000; 
     payments for youth-at-risk programs under section 3(d) of the 
     Act, $9,700,000; payments for a food safety program under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $2,400,000; payments for carrying 
     out the provisions of the Renewable Resources Extension Act 
     of 1978, $3,241,000; payments for Indian reservation agents 
     under section 3(d) of the Act, $1,697,000; payments for 
     sustainable agriculture programs under section 3(d) of the 
     Act, $3,463,000; payments for cooperative extension work by 
     the colleges receiving the benefits of the second Morrill Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 321-326, 328) and Tuskegee University, $24,708,000; 
     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, $6,181,000; in all, $413,257,000: 
     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.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to 
     administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress 
     for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
     Agricultural Marketing Service, and the Grain Inspection, 
     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, $333,410,000, 
     of which $4,799,000 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 in fiscal year 
     1996, amounts in the agricultural quarantine inspection user 
     fee account shall be available for authorized purposes 
     without further appropriation: 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 
     percent: 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 diseases 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 percent of the current replacement value 
     of the building.
       In fiscal year 1996 the agency is authorized to collect 
     fees to cover the total costs of providing technical 
     assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other 
     political subdivisions, domestic and international 
     organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided 
     that such fees are structured such that any entity's 
     liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical 
     assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the 
     agency, 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, $12,541,000, to remain available until expended.
                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           marketing services

       For necessary expenses to carry on services related to 
     consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution, 
     transportation, 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, $46,662,000, 
     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 percent 
     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).

[[Page H7310]]



                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $58,461,000 (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 percent 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 $10,451,000 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.
       In fiscal year 1996, no more than $23,900,000 in section 32 
     funds shall be used to promote sunflower and cottonseed oil 
     exports as authorized by section 1541 of Public Law 101-624 
     (7 U.S.C. 1464 note), and such funds shall be used to 
     facilitate additional sales of such oils in world markets.


                   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 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), $1,000,000.
        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     United States Grain Standards Act, as amended, for the 
     administration of the Packers and Stockyards Act, for 
     certifying procedures used to protect purchasers of farm 
     products, 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 
     $25,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $23,058,000: 
     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 percent 
     of the current replacement value of the building.
                    inspection and weighing services


        limitation on inspection and weighing services 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 percent with notification to the Appropriations 
     Committees.
             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Food Safety to administer the laws 
     enacted by the Congress for the Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service, $450,000.
                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

       For necessary expenses to carry on services authorized by 
     the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as amended, the Poultry 
     Products Inspection Act, as amended, and the Egg Products 
     Inspection Act, as amended, $540,365,000, 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 not be available for shell egg 
     surveillance under section 5(d) of the Egg Products 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1034(d)): Provided further, 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 percent of the 
     current replacement value of the building: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture to promulgate, implement, or administer any rules 
     of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, as set forth in 
     parts 301-391 of title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     pursuant to the agency's proposed rule: Pathogen Reduction; 
     Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems: 
     Docket No. 93-016P; published on February 3, 1995, and any 
     successor dockets published thereafter, except that the 
     Secretary may take such action after a committee has been 
     established, in accordance with the negotiated rulemaking 
     procedures provided in 5 U.S.C. 561 et seq., and that 
     committee has transmitted, within nine months of 
     establishment of such committee, a report based on a review 
     of (1) HACCP principles; (2) current rules and other 
     administrative requirements; and, (3) proposed rules and 
     petitions pending before the agency.
    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by Congress for the Consolidated 
     Farm Service Agency, Foreign Agricultural Service, and the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation, $549,000.
                    Consolidated Farm Service Agency


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration 
     and implementation of programs delegated to the Consolidated 
     Farm Service Agency by the Secretary under the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
     Act of 1994, $788,388,000: Provided, That the Secretary is 
     authorized to use the services, facilities, and authorities 
     (but not the funds) of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
     make program payments for all programs administered by the 
     Agency: Provided further, That other funds made available to 
     the Agency 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 $500,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.
                         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.
                        dairy indemnity program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity 
     payments to dairy farmers for milk or cows producing such 
     milk and manufacturers of dairy products who have been 
     directed to remove their milk or dairy products from 
     commercial markets because it contained residues of chemicals 
     registered and approved for use by the Federal Government, 
     and in making indemnity payments for milk, or cows producing 
     such milk, at a fair market value to any dairy farmer who is 
     directed to remove his milk from commercial markets because 
     of (1) the presence of products of nuclear radiation or 
     fallout if such contamination is not due to the fault of the 
     farmer, or (2) residues of chemicals or toxic substances not 
     included under the first sentence of the Act of August 13, 
     1968, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450j), if such chemicals or toxic 
     substances were not used in a manner contrary to applicable 
     regulations or labeling instructions provided at the time of 
     use and the contamination is not due to the fault of the 
     farmer, $100,000, to remain available until expended (7 
     U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That none of the funds contained in 
     this Act shall be used to make indemnity payments to any 
     farmer whose milk was removed from commercial markets as a 
     result of his willful failure to follow procedures prescribed 
     by the Federal Government: Provided further, That this amount 
     shall be transferred to the Commodity Credit Corporation: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary is authorized to utilize 
     the services, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity 
     disbursements.
           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       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, $585,000,000, of 
     which $550,000,000 shall be for guaranteed loans; operating 
     loans, $2,300,000,000, of which $1,700,000,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans and $200,000,000 shall be for 
     subsidized guaranteed loans; Indian tribe land acquisition 
     loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $750,000; for emergency 
     insured loans, $100,000,000 to meet the needs resulting from 
     natural disasters; and for credit sales of acquired property, 
     $22,500,000.
       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, $28,206,000, of which $20,019,000 shall be for 
     guaranteed loans; operating loans, $91,000,000, of which 
     $18,360,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans and 
     $17,960,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans; Indian 
     tribe land acquisition loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, 
     $206,000; for emergency insured loans, $32,080,000 to meet 
     the needs resulting from natural disasters; and for credit 
     sales of acquired property, $4,113,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $221,541,000, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the following 
     accounts in the following amounts: $208,446,000 to ``Salaries 
     and Expenses''; $318,000 to ``Rural Utilities Service, 
     Salaries and Expenses''; and $171,000 to ``Rural Housing and 
     Community Development Service, Salaries and Expenses''.
                              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 

[[Page H7311]]
     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 Fund

       For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act, as amended, such sums as may be 
     necessary, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b).

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund


                 reimbursement for net realized losses

       For fiscal year 1996, such sums as may be necessary to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized 
     losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed (estimated to 
     be $10,400,000,000 in the President's fiscal year 1996 Budget 
     Request (H. Doc. 104-4)), but not to exceed $10,400,000,000, 
     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 1996, 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.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. WALSH

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Walsh: Page 24, on line 13 after 
     the word ``building'' strike all down through and including 
     ``agency'' on page 25, line 5.

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, in the movie ``Cool Hand Luke,'' one of my 
favorites, perhaps the most memorable line was that of the boss of a 
prison labor camp to a recalcitrant Luke: ``What we have here is a 
failure to communicate.''
  Well, that is what we have had here with these new regulations for 
meat inspection. There was bad faith between and among the 
stakeholders--FSIS, the inspectors, consumer activists, the industry, 
the State departments of agriculture and the USDA.
  We set about to solve this problem. My amendment would have 
established a negotiated rulemaking, a statutory process, formalized 
and detailed. It would have established this needed dialog--a process 
for communication.
  I did this because some of the principals had no faith in the current 
dialog. I did it out of a concern that small businesses might be put 
out of business for no good reason. And I did it, in spite of what 
critics said, out of a concern that there would be a delay in 
implementing the new higher standards because of lengthy litigation.
  I truly believed that given the alternatives we had, this was the 
best way to proceed.
  Obviously others disagreed with this approach. Mr. Durbin of our 
subcommittee and Secretary of Agriculture Glickman took issue. They 
said it was a delay, but they admitted there were problems with the 
process.
  We worked together, sometimes at odds, but always in the direction of 
finding the common ground. On Tuesday the Secretary sent a letter that 
I reviewed with Mr. Roberts, chairman of the Committee on Agriculture; 
Mr. Skeen, chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations; 
and Mr. Gunderson, chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on 
Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. All felt that the Secretary's personal 
commitment to involve himself was not only important but critical to 
providing good faith in a new, more inclusive process.
  The Secretary pledged a number of things.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the letter from Secretary Glickman for the 
Record.

                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 1995.
     Hon. James Walsh,
     House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Jim: I appreciated the frank exchange of ideas during 
     our recent meeting on the meat and poultry inspection 
     regulatory process. That and other discussions I have had 
     with Members of Congress convince me that we are all seeking 
     the same goal of modernizing and improving the current meat 
     and poultry inspection system to provide the safest possible 
     food to the American consumer. I am personally committed to 
     ensuring a thoughtful, thorough, and objective analysis by 
     the Department of Agriculture (USDA) of all comments.
       Unfortunately, I cannot agree that your amendment which 
     requires the Department to establish a committee and await 
     its report before moving forward is the best means of 
     attaining our common objective. The unnecessary delay 
     involved in suspending the current regulatory process is not 
     consistent with the need to move to a Hazard Analysis and 
     Critical Control Point (HACCP) based inspection system as 
     quickly as possible.
       I sincerely share the desire to ensure that the regulatory 
     process carefully weighs all relevant viewpoints in an 
     undertaking of this magnitude. I therefore intend to create, 
     as part of the rulemaking process, focused and extensive 
     public meetings for direct discussion of the key concerns 
     that were raised during the comment period. These public 
     meetings will begin within the next few weeks and will 
     provide all interested parties the opportunity for direct 
     discussion of the major issues as well as other issues 
     identified during the comment period and possible options for 
     resolving these issues. Participants will include 
     representatives of all stakeholders, including industry, 
     producers, the scientific community, consumers, the Food 
     Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and my office. These 
     public meetings will be held to ensure that all outstanding 
     questions are explored thoroughly and a full and frank 
     discussion and exchange of ideas occurs. These meetings will 
     be part of the record upon which the final rule is based. 
     Furthermore, I intend to host personally a food safety forum 
     this summer to identify both legislative and regulatory 
     mandates that need to be changed to improve and reform the 
     system. The public meetings and forum will not unnecessarily 
     delay the issuance of a final rule and should reassure all 
     parties that the regulatory process has included a 
     comprehensive debate of all significant issues and related 
     concerns.
       While the adoption of a HACCP-based inspection system is 
     needed, it is also important to address the integration of 
     the new HACCP system into the current meat and poultry 
     inspection system. I fully understand the importance of 
     preventing bureaucratic layering and ensuring the best 
     utilization of public and private funds. To ensure this 
     second step of regulatory modernization and integration is 
     achieved, FSIS will soon publish a comprehensive set of 
     rulemaking notices to review current FSIS regulations, 
     directives, policy notices, and policy memoranda. To be 
     consistent with the HACCP-based inspection system, USDA will 
     then review, revise, or repeal its existing regulations, as 
     needed. I have directed FSIS to accelerate its work in this 
     area. I am firmly committed to seeing that all existing food 
     safety and inspection regulations are improved so redundancy 
     is eliminated. Our proposed regulatory actions to achieve 
     those objectives, which will include addressing integration 
     of the HACCP system and the current system, will be published 
     in the Federal Register before the HACCP final rule is 
     published and any additional regulatory actions necessary to 
     achieve these objectives will be completed before HACCP is 
     required to be implemented.
       I am making these commitments recognizing that a successful 
     food safety system depends upon an active partnership among 
     government, producers, industry, processors and the consuming 
     public. I hope that with these steps we can avoid a divisive 
     legislative debate and proceed together toward our common 
     goal of improving our inspection system.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Dan Glickman,
                                                        Secretary.

  Mr. Chairman, most important is the Secretary's effort to put good 
faith back into this. He is a new Secretary and we need to give him 
this opportunity.
  The agreement that Secretary Glickman, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Skeen, Mr. 
Durbin, and I worked out is Government at its best. It demonstrates 
that the executive and legislative branches can work together in good 
faith to do the people's business. That is the reason we were sent by 
our constituents to Congress, and I firmly believe that this entire 
legislative process has benefitted the public, the industry, and will 
result in a safer food supply for American families.
  Mr. Chairman, for that reason, I have made my motion to strike the 
bill language.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that this has been an 
important debate, I think one of the more important debates over the 
period of time that I have served on this subcommittee, because it has 
focused on an issue which is literally a life and death issue for 
American families.
  I want to commend my colleague from New York. Over the past several 
weeks, we have had some real differences of opinion, but I want to 
salute the gentleman, because he has 

[[Page H7312]]
made an effort in a bipartisan manner to find a reasonable solution to 
a very difficult problem. Let me try to describe it to you in my terms 
and to give you an idea of why it is so important.
  It was my good fortune at an early point in my life to work in a 
slaughterhouse. I spend 12 months as a college student working my way 
through college in a slaughterhouse. I learned a lot. I still eat meat, 
but I learned a lot about the inspection process, its strengths and its 
weaknesses.
  There are many weaknesses in the current meat and poultry inspection 
system. But let me say at the outset, the United States is blessed like 
no other country in the world with one of the safest food supplies. We 
should never lose sight of that. As consumers, we can be more confident 
of what we buy in a store and eat in a restaurant than we can in most 
any other country in the world.
  But I came to understand as a young man working in that 
slaughterhouse that the system we have today does not reach the level 
of scientific sophistication which American consumers want. Literally, 
Federal meat and poultry inspectors stand and watch as carcasses go by 
on the line. If they do not see or smell something unusual, they end up 
giving it a blue stamp, and off it goes to the store and eventually to 
our refrigerators and tables.
  We now know that it not enough. The tragedy in the State of 
Washington 2 years ago, which my colleague, the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Dicks], will describe in a moment, riveted our 
attention on the fact that some of the most vulnerable people in 
America are subject to dangerous illness and in many cases death from 
contaminated meat and poultry.
  So we decided to do something about it, to move beyond the inspection 
system which we have used for over 85 years, to something more 
scientific and up-to-date. What an undertaking it is. Imagine all of 
the different groups interested in this issue, not just the obvious 
groups, the meat and poultry processors and producers, but also those 
who are interested in health issues and consumer issues, the business 
side of the equation, all of these people, some 200 different groups, 
coming together and trying now to reach an agreement, if they can, on a 
new system of meat and poultry inspection.
  The gentleman from New York I think accurately represented the 
anxiety of some of these groups that they are not being taken seriously 
at the table, that they do not have a voice in the process, and that 
their concerns are not being weighed as they should be. The gentleman 
has prevailed on the Secretary of Agriculture to step in personally, as 
we will and as he has promised, and his word is good, that he will make 
sure as best he can it will be an orderly process with a good 
conclusion.
  I might add, as Secretary Glickman has personally, we cannot 
guarantee that everyone will end up happy when it is all over. What we 
can do is get everyone their day in court, everyone an opportunity to 
express themselves.
  Over the past 2 weeks I have received phone calls from Tarpov Packing 
Co. in Granite City, and Hansen Packing Co. in Jerseyville, IL, small 
operations, saying, ``Dick Durbin, you are our friend, we know you want 
to help us, but do not do something that will put us out of business.'' 
I understand that. We do not want to put them out of business. We want 
to make changes that are sensible and reasonable, that protect American 
consumers.
  As I said before, the reason why this is a more important debate than 
most is it is literally a life and death issue.
  Nancy Donley of Chicago is a person I have come to know over the past 
several weeks. I talked to her just yesterday. This Tuesday was the 
second anniversary of the death of her 6-year-old son Alex. Alex ate a 
hamburger, it was contaminated with E. coli, and it killed him. She has 
written letters, which I will not read to you here but which have been 
part of the record in our committee, which I think would touch the 
heart of everyone.
  So as we focus on this issue, it goes beyond numbers, it goes beyond 
bureaucracy, it goes beyond agency, it goes to the very human tragedies 
which can occur if we do not do our job right.
  I salute the gentleman from New York, he is doing the right thing 
today. I think he has made real progress on this issue. I look forward 
to a satisfactory conclusion.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to be very brief here. I want to commend the 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Roberts, and I certainly 
want him to have an opportunity to speak, and I know he will, for his 
leadership in this effort. Also, I want to complement my colleague on 
the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Walsh]. Coming from the State of Washington, I see some of my 
colleagues from Washington State on the floor. We had a very serious E. 
coli breakout in our State 3 years ago. Three young children died, 
hundreds were sick, and so I was definitely very concerned in the 
appropriations committee when there was an effort to delay the 
implementation of the new regulations, which our ranking member, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], so carefully described, someone 
who has had great experience in this area.
  But I think this is a model of how we should work these problems out, 
and I commend the gentleman from New York for engaging Secretary 
Glickman and the chairman of the authorizing committee and the 
Democratic Members, and they were able to work out a reasonable 
compromise on this issue. We will not delay the new regulations from 
going into place.
  What the gentleman from New York wanted, properly, and I wanted to 
commend the chairman, too, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], 
for facilitating this, was that all the parties should be heard. He 
talked about a negotiated rulemaking, which I happen to believe this 
was too complicated an issue for that, but we got the same achievement 
by giving all the parties the ability to participate.

                              {time}  1500

  The most important thing is we are protecting the American consumers. 
Seven thousand people a year die from salmonella or E. coli and 
hundreds more, hundreds of thousands more are sick and ill. So this is 
a serious consumer issue, and some of us on the Committee on 
Appropriations have been very concerned that there has been a pattern 
of, in essence, gutting health, safety and environmental legislation in 
the name of helping the private sector. That is not right. The American 
people do not want unsafe meat. They do not want unsafe drinking water.
  So I commend the gentleman from New York for working this problem out 
and getting a satisfactory result that is in the interest of the 
country and in the interest of consumers and certainly in the interest 
of the people of Washington State, because we went through a terrible 
crisis just a year or so ago.
  So I commend the gentleman and I support his motion to strike.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the words of my 
friends, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], as well. Most of us had never heard of E. 
coli before a few years ago. A child in my district also was affected 
and died. If Members can imagine the parents, very loving parents 
telling them that they were relieved when their child died because of 
the extreme pain and agony that that child was going through, it kind 
of reemphasizes the issue to them.
  I think, second, and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has 
talked about this, E. coli is still out there. What happens in our meat 
processing, if you still have fecal material left on the meat and that 
meat moves on, it can turn into the E. coli. And they say, well, all 
you have to do is cook your hamburger well. I personally do not want it 
on there in the first place. I think it is something that in our food 
processing that we can. I would like to, again, thank the leadership of 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], because I do not think 
without his leadership this whole issue would have come to resolution.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], 
because I think at times when we look at dialog, it is good, but when 
we take action where children's lives are at risk, I think it is very, 
very important.

[[Page H7313]]

  We have a group in San Diego called Stop, and they have been very 
active. And I am sure that in Washington State they have got an equal 
group that are parents that have gone through this disaster with their 
children. I would like to commend all parties. I think this is 
something in bipartisanship that I think is a proud day. I thank God we 
had not a failure to communicate on this issue.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to also take this opportunity to 
congratulate my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York, [Mr. 
Walsh], and also especially my good friend and former colleague 
Secretary Glickman, for their hard work and statesmanship, I think, in 
resolving this very complex problem. This agreement in part grew out of 
a meeting between Secretary Glickman, the former chairman and current 
distinguished ranking minority member of the House Committee on 
Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. de la Garza], the current 
chairman of the appropriate subcommittee that will be bringing a meat 
inspection, a food safety inspection bill to the floor, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, [Mr. Gunderson], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Volkmer], and probably the godfather of all meat inspection legislation 
in regards to sound science, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Stenholm], 
and myself.
  I would like to thank each of these individuals for really coming 
together in a bipartisan spirit to underscore the importance of 
restoring really some credibility to the rulemaking process.
  By doing so, I think it is obvious we have averted what had been a 
very divisive debate on meat inspection policy. I think that really 
food safety goals are better served by careful, reasoned discussion 
than by real emotional rhetoric. It is understandable but I think this 
process certainly is preferable.
  Secretary Glickman has assured Mr. Walsh that he will personally take 
control of the rulemaking process for the Mega Reg. Secretary Glickman 
has also pledged that he will ensure all stakeholders, as has been 
indicated, consumers, small and large processors, scientists, inspector 
unions and producers, all now will have an opportunity to really 
participate in developing a balanced and workable inspection 
regulation.
  Our problem is not that we have too little inspection and also 
regulation. Our problem is that we have the wrong kind. We do not need 
some more additional regulatory burdens. We need a sound-science, risk-
based system.
  So, again, I want to really credit the Secretary and I also want to 
thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Gunderson] who will be 
bringing to the committee and to the floor a total comprehensive food 
safety plan. We are talking about meat. We are talking about poultry. 
And we are talking about seafood. So your House Committee on 
Agriculture will address this. It will be commensurate with the 
rulemaking process of the Secretary of Agriculture.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that I understand 
exactly what we are doing. The greatest problem I probably have in the 
19th Congressional District is the harassment of our small country 
butchers. We have never had an illness in the 19th Congressional 
District because of tainted meat or poultry from any of our local 
country butchers. The are harassed morning, noon, and night, and I am 
afraid they will soon all be out of business and then we will only have 
to rely, unfortunately, on big meat producers and packers and so on.
  I think I caught the gentleman saying that the small business person 
will get some protection in all of this.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Agriculture has indicated 
that they will give every consideration to the small business 
community, whether it be small meat locker plants or a small meat 
packing house.
  I would like to point out that 98 percent of all food-borne illnesses 
come from handling and preparation. If everybody would simply do what 
their grandmother and their home economics instructor and their 4-H 
instructor and common sense and the Department of Agriculture 
recommends, wash their hands and thoroughly cook their meat, we would 
not have this problem.
  And so I can assure the gentleman that Secretary Glickman has in 
effect assured me and the rest of the Members of the House Committee on 
Agriculture that the concerns of the small business community will be 
addressed. I thank the gentleman for raising this issue.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to commend all of the parties that have 
worked out a very satisfactory short-term compromise that gives this 
Member the hope for the first time in 8 years that we might actually be 
seeing a light at the end of the tunnel of dealing with our meat and 
poultry inspection system.
  As one who has authored legislation and passed legislation in 1986, 
only to have the frustration of seeing it torn apart by the 200-plus 
groups that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] spoke about a 
moment ago, each having their own idea about how best to improve upon 
the best food safety system the world has ever known, I see now the 
chance, thanks to the leadership of Secretary Glickman, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Walsh], and the efforts that he has made and all of 
the other parties, I see the opportunity now through the House 
Committee on Agriculture and other interested parties working with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the chairman, and the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], I see the opportunity for us to 
finally come to an agreement by bringing all of the parties together, 
having the free and open debate in this House Chamber of how best to 
deal with meat and poultry inspection.
  I look forward to that day, because I believe it is far overdue. Many 
of the tragedies that have occurred should not have occurred and would 
not have occurred, as Mr. Roberts has said, from some of the simplistic 
ideas but also from the standpoint that we could in fact make the 
necessary changes if we would all come to the table. That is not what 
was happening, as the proposed rulemaking was occurring. Mr. Walsh 
pointed that out and correctly so.
  But now we have an agreement in which everyone will come together, 
work on a resolution. I hope it is a light at the end of the tunnel and 
not another train coming toward us. But I do believe today that it is 
truly a light at the end of the tunnel. I look forward to being a part 
of eventually resolving this very important issue.
  Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the 
gentleman from Texas and to add my congratulations to all those who 
have given us truly a remarkable event in this session of the Congress, 
an event in which we have reached across the aisle to adopt a 
bipartisan accord, one that is reasonable and proper and in the public 
interest. It has come about because of the leadership of our chairman, 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], and his steady hand at 
providing an opportunity for each of us to participate; for the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] and his diligence and persistence 
and working with our own ranking minority member, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin]. It has truly been an excellent example of the 
kind of cooperation in the public interest which we need to have more 
of in this House.
  I want to commend all of those who are party to this and urge that we 
make a record of our support for this amendment.
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Walsh, and also the gentleman from Kansas, Chairman Roberts, and the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Gunderson, the gentleman from New Mexico, Chairman Skeen, and all the 
people who helped to forge this agreement with the Secretary of 
Agriculture, our former colleague, Dan Glickman, on 

[[Page H7314]]
new meat safety inspection rules that will benefit all Americans.
  This agreement is especially significant to those of us from 
Washington State, as my colleague the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Dicks] has said, because in January of 1993, my first year as a Member 
of Congress, three little children died and 67 were hospitalized in 
Washington State because of an E. coli outbreak that was traced to a 
local fast food outlet in my district.
  Now, a little over 2 years later, with the combined efforts of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the committees and the other 
gentlemen, and the Secretary of Agriculture, we can finally put into 
place a meat safety regime to ensure the production of clean, safe, 
quality meat that restores consumer confidence.
  I want to add a special note of thanks to our colleague from 
Washington State, Mr. Nethercutt, who is also a member of the 
subcommittee, for his help on this critical issue.
  Mr. Chairman, in memory of 2-year-old Michael Nole, 2-year-old Celina 
Shribbs, and 17-month-old Riley Detwiler, the little children who died 
from E. coli, my thanks for the diligent efforts of all the Members of 
Congress who are involved in bringing to fruition safer food for all 
Americans.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  [Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise is support of the proposed 
agreement between all of the parties concerned and the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Walsh], and endorse it.
  Mr. Chairman, in light of recent compromises I rise to support the 
removal of requirements within the Agriculture Appropriation bill which 
limit funding for work on the February 3, 1995, Pathogen Reduction/
HACCP proposed regulation. Agriculture Secretary Glickman has offered a 
reasonable resolution, as laid out in his July 18, 1995, letter to Mr. 
Walsh, the author of the limitation language, that allows for the rule 
development to proceed on schedule but grants additional input for 
stakeholders on a major regulatory change.
  The controversy surrounding the development of a rule for our meat 
and poultry inspection system pertaining to microbiological pathogens 
and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point methodology was over the 
process of how the rule is developed. Unfortunately, some in the media 
has started to turn this controversy into a discussion over whether 
children would or would not die because of this particular proposed 
regulation. It is always a human tragedy when anyone dies due to food-
borne disease and especially children who have their entire lives ahead 
of them. But I feel it is important to understand that the Secretary's 
letter makes commitments assuring that there is a continued development 
of a good rule that improves our meat and poultry inspection system. A 
rule that all can support. A rule that will minimize potential lawsuits 
concerning the final regulation which could cause real delays in meat 
and poultry inspection reforms.
  It is also important to note that modernization of the inspection 
system through a spirit of cooperation of all stakeholders is paramount 
to realize real improvements in the safety of the meat supply. The most 
important guidelight for all interested in changes to our food safety 
system must be the best science that can be afforded. The entire 
process should be driven by sound science not politics.
  I cannot emphasize enough that this rule is but a step in a 
continuous series of steps where the goal is reducing food-borne 
illness. Note that I said reducing food-borne illness, not eliminating 
it. Elimination of food-borne illness is not a reality. It is 
scientifically and economically impossible to achieve zero food-borne 
risks at this time and it becomes a disservice to the public to imply 
that the Government can supply or regulate a food delivery system into 
one without risks, but one we can rely on and that the people can trust 
and give us the maximum protection possible.
  I want to thank Secretary Glickman for his involvement in the matter 
and his interest in restoring confidence in the process. I commend Mr. 
Walsh of New York for his leadership in finding a path of compromise in 
which all sides win.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from New York, 
Congressman Jim Walsh, as being a man for all seasons. He not only 
leads the bailout of Washington, DC, now he leads the bailout for those 
of us in the ag community.
  I also want to speak on behalf of the Terry Joneses of the world. 
Terry Jones and his wife own a meat locker in Jacksonville, IL. I had 
the occasion to visit Terry and his wife recently about this issue of 
Government regulation or Government overregulation. What they told me 
was that, if these regulations had been put into effect, they would be 
out of business, as I think would many small business people who are in 
the meat locker business, who care a great deal about their customers 
and in no way would want to see harm come to them.
  I do not intend to take the 5 minutes, but I want to express on 
behalf of all the small meat locker business men and women, not only 
across Illinois but across the country, that a good compromise has been 
worked out, and their considerations will be considered. I compliment 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Durbin], and certainly the Secretary of Agriculture. Common sense 
is being used and will be used, and I think all consideration will be 
given now so that small business people's concerns will be taken into 
account.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply want to follow that of my colleagues to point 
out a couple of things. First and foremost, of course, is joining all 
my colleagues in our commendations of those who have worked out this 
agreement. You would think they were leaving Congress, with all the 
nice things we are saying about them, but we mean it. I think what has 
been done here is important. I want to point out three specific factors 
and then we will move the process along.
  First and foremost, this process, this agreement that has been 
reached is important because it has slowed the process down, and it has 
guaranteed that people are going to have input. As the gentleman from 
Illinois before me just articulated, there are real problems with these 
proposed regulations, as they affect the small slaughterhouses across 
this country, and we have got to make sure that their concerns are 
heard and considered in the development of the rules.

                              {time}  1515
  Second, along that same line, the very significant part of this 
agreement is that the Secretary has become involved, and he has taken a 
personal sense of responsibility in ownership of what has been done. 
Those of us who have worked with and known Dan Glickman when he was a 
Member of this House know that when he makes this kind of commitment he 
is going to keep it, and I think that is very important for all of us 
to understand.
  The third thing I want to point out, and part of the reason many of 
us have raised concerns about the so-called HACCP regulation, you 
cannot do HACCP under existing Federal statute, because they are 
diametrically opposed to each other in science, so if you want a 
science-based HACCP regulation, as I think every Member of Congress and 
every member of the industry and every member of the consumer groups 
do, then Members have to recognize there have to be some kind of 
statutory changes.
  As the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] says, we will in my 
subcommittee, at the conclusion of the farm bill, continue a process 
that was initiated this spring, and we will bring forth comprehensive 
meat, poultry, and seafood legislation, and we will give this 
committee, we will give this Congress, a chance to modernize our 
legislation in that regard.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, let me add my thanks and sincere appreciation for all 
of the hard work for all of the members of the Committee on 
Appropriations and Committee on Agriculture to get these food, meat, 
and poultry regulations well on their way.
  Members may recall that about 2 years ago we raised the issue in what 
was then called the Committee on Energy and Commerce, on the 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness. It 
is really very rewarding to see how, when the issue has been raised, 
even in the 

[[Page H7315]]
last Congress, early in the last Congress, about something as important 
as meat and poultry safety, food safety, to be able to be here and 
stand on this floor and say that we have seen that dream come to real 
fruition.
  Again, I want to sincerely thank all of those who worked so hard on 
this issue, because I, as well as other people, who were seriously 
concerned about what happened in the E. coli, the terrible things that 
happened to people, I am happy to say this has now happened. I cannot 
say enough about the hard work, the unity, and the cooperation between 
not only members of those committees, but between the administration of 
the Department of Agriculture as well. It shows government at its best, 
and I think we all did a good job, and everybody is to be 
congratulated.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask for a rollcall vote on 
this to establish the bipartisan support which we have discussed today 
on the floor, not only for the HACCP process, but for a speedy and 
expeditious process that brings these rules to a point where they will 
be protecting American families. I just wanted to make that point. I 
will be asking for a rollcall vote on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh]. I think it will demonstrate the 
bipartisan feeling we have on this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
19, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Walsh] will be postponed.


                    amendment offered by mr. allard

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Allard: No. 30: Page 2, line 11, 
     strike ``$10,227,000, of which $7,500,000'' and insert, 
     ``$9,204,300, of which $6,750,000''.
       Page 3, line 3, strike ``$3,748,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,373,200''.
       Page 3, line 15, strike ``$5,899,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,309,100''.
       Page 3, line 21, strike ``$4,133,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,719,700''.
       Page 4, line 19, strike ``$596,000'' and insert 
     ``$536,400''.
       Page 5, line 23, strike ``$800,000'' and insert 
     ``$720,000''.
       Page 7, line 19, strike ``$3,797,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,607,150''.
       Page 8, line 3, strike ``$8,198,000'' and insert 
     ``$7,378,200''.
       Page 9, line 3, strike ``$27,860,000'' and insert 
     ``$26,467,000''.
       Page 9, line 12, strike ``$520,000'' and insert 
     ``$468,000''.
       Page 9, line 17, strike ``$53,131,000'' and insert 
     ``$50,474,450''.
       Page 10, line 3, strike ``$81,107,000'' and insert 
     ``$77,051,650''.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
the amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, 10 
minutes on each side, the time to be divided equally.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment my colleague, the 
gentleman from New Mexico, for putting together a good bill which makes 
a firm contribution by achieving a balanced budget by 2002. I 
appreciate all the hard work he has put into allocating our very scarce 
resources among the many worthwhile projects covered by this measure.
  The Committee on Appropriations has made some important cuts in this 
bill; however, we see no reason for the House to ignore an opportunity 
to make additional reductions in the bureaucracy, especially here in 
Washington. I realize that it has been tough for the Members of this 
House, and particularly the Committee on Agriculture, to struggle with 
what priorities we should have in the agricultural area. However, Mr. 
Chairman, we simply need to keep in mind that we cannot go ahead and 
cut those programs that benefit farmers and not let the bureaucracy 
here in Washington share in those cuts.
  Last November, the people spoke clearly about their desire to 
downsize Federal Government. Taxpayers were tired of sending the hard-
earned money to Washington, DC, to pay for larger Federal 
bureaucracies. Farmers often ask why farm programs continue to get cut 
while the Department of Agriculture bureaucracy goes untouched. It is 
time to listen to the voters and start shrinking this huge 110,000 
person bureaucracy. It is in this spirit of downsizing that the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback] and I offer this amendment.
  In recent years the funding for the bureaucracy of the USDA has been 
held constant. Without our amendment, this bill would continue this 
trend, despite the reduced role for agriculture programs assumed in the 
budget resolution. Appropriations for administration for 1996 would be 
$313 million. This is slightly above the 1995 level. This number rises 
to $320 million if the new info share program is included. In times of 
baseline budgeting, we would have considered this to be a cut, but we 
have changed the way that Congress does business. Now a cut is only a 
cut if spending is actually reduced below the prior year's level.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment is supported by the National Taxpayers 
Union and Citizens for a Sound Economy. It cuts 10 percent from the 
offices of the Secretary, the chief economist, the office of 
communication, the chief financial officer, the advisory committees, 
the Assistant Secretary of Administration, and the Undersecretary for 
Research, Education, and Economics. We have provided for a 5 percent 
cut for the Economic Research Service, the National Agriculture 
Statistics Service, the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations, and the general counsel. Some offices, such as the Inspector 
General, have been exempted entirely from this amendment, because they 
have offered what we consider to be a sufficient justification to 
retain the funding allocated to them by the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is consistent with the budget 
resolution. The House-passed budget resolution assumed that $44 million 
in savings could be achieved by reduction in the funding for the 
administrative offices and programs covered by our amendment. We have 
scaled that back to $12 million in cuts. This is very reasonable in 
light of the over $320 million available for the Department's 
administrative expenses.
  Mr. Chairman, let me now address the Department's reorganization. The 
National Performance Review states that after reorganization, personnel 
at the USDA headquarters should be reduced 8 percent, resulting in an 
annual savings of about $73 million. To date, savings in the higher 
administrative levels have not appeared to be anywhere near this 
magnitude. Similarly, the Agriculture Reorganization Act mandated 
personal reductions of $7,500. However, this is to be accomplished by 
the year 1999. This is too far away. This amendment would provide the 
added nudge that is necessary to start the process of downsizing the 
bureaucracy now.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DURBIN. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the debate was limited to 20 
minutes, 10 on a side. Could the Chair tell me how the 20 minutes is 
divided between the majority and minority party?
  The CHAIRMAN. To the best of the Chair's understanding, the gentleman 
from Colorado [Mr. Allard] as the proponent of the amendment, controls 
10 

[[Page H7316]]
minutes, and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skeen] in opposition, 
controls 10 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 
control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is the understanding of the Chair that the gentleman 
from New Mexico is opposed to the amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. I am opposed to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous consent agreement, the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will control 5 minutes, and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I wonder if the 
gentleman from Colorado and those who are proponents to this amendment 
have any idea of what we have already done in the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, and what we are doing in this bill.
  The gentleman comes before us this afternoon with a suggestion of 
cutting $12 million out of 13 different agencies, $12 million is a lot 
of money. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], as chairman of the 
subcommittee this year, will cut $1.2 billion from discretionary 
spending in the Department of Agriculture. It is not as if we have not 
bitten the bullet. We have chewed right through it. Last year we cut 
$1.3 billion. This year we cut $1.2 billion. These are serious cuts. As 
a result of these cuts, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has had to 
make dramatic changes.
  Let me give Members an idea of some of the things USDA has done: 
Totally reorganized the agency, reducing from 43 to 29 the number of 
agencies under USDA; field offices being restructured; 1,170 county-
based offices will be closed or consolidated. As of June, offices have 
already been closed in 224 counties across the United States. Our goal 
in employee reduction is 13,000 employees over the next 6 years. It 
represents one-fourth of the headquarters staff, 20 percent of 
administrative staff years, and the savings from these reductions 
already in place will be over $4 billion.
  What the gentleman does with his amendment is to say: ``Well, my dog 
is bigger than your dog. I can cut more than you can. I am a real 
fiscal conservative. We will find some more to cut.'' We can all play 
that game, but when it is all over, while this department is 
downsizing, can it still perform its functions?
  I will say to the gentleman from Colorado, his phone will be ringing, 
as mine will be ringing, when farmers and others who want services from 
this department find their phone calls go unanswered. His phone will be 
ringing, as mine will, as people are calling and say, ``What happened? 
I am mired in bureaucracy and red tape. I cannot get an answer.'' We 
can all keep trumping one card higher than the other, but the fact is 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] made a substantial cut in 
this agency. We did the same thing last year. They are on board. In 
fact, they are out in front of the whole Federal Government in terms of 
reorganization and reinventing government. Now the gentleman just wants 
to do a little more. I am afraid if the gentleman does this, frankly, 
we will not only have to RIF people early, which may be unfair, but 
will in fact affect the very basic functions of this department.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just remind the gentleman that we are only talking about less 
than a 4-percent reduction. My phone in already ringing from farmers 
who say, ``Look, what is happening to us and our programs?'' Yet the 
bureaucracy in Washington seems to slide along with about the same 
spending levels. What I am talking about as the chief economist, we are 
talking about offices here in Washington, not the field offices out 
there that serve farmers.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the 
gentleman this. In the U.S. Department of Agriculture, what is the 
largest single agency employer? Does the gentleman know?
  Mr. ALLARD. I do not know that.
  Mr. DURBIN. I will tell the gentleman, it is the Forest Service.
  Mr. ALLARD. I would have guessed it is the Food Stamp Program.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Food Stamp Program is administered by the States, as 
I am sure the gentleman knows. It is the Forest Service. The USDA has 
about 120,000 employees, and out of that the Forest Service
 has approximately 33,000 employees. It has continued to grow, and 
incidentally, is not under our jurisdiction in this bill, while other 
agencies of USDA have been held stagnant and reduced.

  Therefore, if the gentleman is getting calls from people saying 
``What about that bureaucracy in USDA,'' tell them it is the Forest 
Service. That is the area where it has grown. In the other areas it is 
not growing. There are an awful lot of jokes that are tossed around 
about how many people work at USDA, but I will tell the Members this: 
They do a lot of hard work and important work. I am afraid the 
gentleman's amendment is an effort to trump us and go a little bit 
better, cut a little bit deeper, and in fact, when the services are not 
there, people are going to say, ``Why in the heck are we paying our 
taxes if nobody is there to answer the phone?''
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
have looked seriously at what I have proposed here and spent some time 
with the Committee on Appropriations staff. We initially looked at a 
$28 million cut. We are looking at some of the functions that we are 
carrying on here in Washington that were, we felt, of high enough 
priority that we should not include them in the amendment, things like 
the National Appeals Division and some programs in Department 
administration, the inspector general, the buildings and facilities, 
and hazardous waste management. There are other programs that need to 
be reduced.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the 
gentleman does not sit through the weeks of hearings that we sit 
through and listen to these agencies. Just to mention the inspector 
general's office, do you know what they spend half of their time 
investigating? Food stamp fraud.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. The inspector general's office spends half of its time 
investigating food stamp fraud.
  Mr. ALLARD. Would the gentleman yield for a correction?
  Mr. DURBIN. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to yield to 
the gentleman at some point, but please allow me to use my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] 
has expired.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds for a correction.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I had proposed does not cut the 
inspector general.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Brownback].
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I think some valid points have been 
raised here. Let me be succinct and brief on this.
  There are real cuts that are taking place in the agriculture 
programs. There are real cuts that have been taking place since 1986. I 
think I have lived through a fair number of those. I was Kansas 
Secretary of Agriculture for the past 6 years. I think I have a little 
bit of an idea what that is about. They are proposed in the budget 
resolution that has been passed by both Houses to a further cut next 
year of $1 billion of what the farmers receive out of the program, $1 
billion.
  The bureaucracy that we are talking about, and I recognize the valid 
comments of the gentleman from Illinois, the bureaucracy we are talking 
about is flat line spent for the next several years. It is a flat level 
spending while the farmers get less money in their pockets.
  I simply think we are going to have trouble going out to farmers and 
saying, yes, we have to balance the budget, make these cuts, and you 
are going 

[[Page H7317]]
to have less money. They say, ``What about the USDA in Washington, the 
bureaucracy?'' We say, ``We have to have the same amount of money, 
people and everything in the centralized office.''
  I think this is a good, prudent amendment. It is a 4-percent overall 
cut in the upper levels, the bureaucracy here, not out in the field 
staff, not out in the field offices.
  A second point I would quickly make is, the first year I came in as 
Kansas Secretary of Agriculture, I was presented a 7-percent across-
the-board agency cut. Recognize, I am talking millions at the State 
level and this is billions here, so I know the magnitude of the 
difference. But what it forced me to do is make real changes in my 
operation, the things we knew we needed to have take place but we did 
not have the political impetus and force to do it. It think it will 
help as well.
  What we are talking about, ladies and gentlemen, is being able to go 
out and face farmers that are going to be facing real continued 
reductions, and we have had reductions already since 1986, real 
continued reductions so that, yes, we start if first in Washington, we 
make real cuts there, and this is going to be difficult, but this whole 
process is.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment. I share the gentleman's concerns about cutting 
farm programs and not cutting the bureaucracy. I do not think the 
gentleman fully understands that this committee has made significant 
reductions in what he calls the bureaucracy in this bill.
  This bill does make real cuts in real programs, downsizes the Federal 
Government and ensures the most efficient use of taxpayers' dollars. 
Let me just cite several examples. All the programs that the 
gentleman's amendment proposes to reduce, with three exceptions, have 
already been reduced in this bill by $2.5 million.
  The Office of the Chief Economist: This office established pursuant 
to USDA reorganization by transfers was reduced by $66,000 below the 
1995 level.
  Office of Budget and Program Analysis was reduced by $104,000.
  Congressional Relations: The committee recommendation consolidated 
all the congressional affairs and activities into one account and cut 
it by 25 percent.
  Economic Research: The committee recommendation is $805,000 below the 
1995 level, or $1.5 million below the budget request.
  The National Agricultural Statistics Service is $317,000 below the 
1995 level.
  Mr. Chairman, we take our role very seriously in budget cutting. I 
think the committee has produced a bill that is responsible. I urge the 
Members of the House to support the committee's recommendation and 
defeat the gentleman's amendment. We have tried our level best to do 
the best we could with what we had. I think that this amendment goes 
too far and undoes some of the fine work that we have done.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Allard] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that calls for a $12 
million reduction out of the Washington bureaucracy but puts some of 
that money namely, $5.5 million, back to State and county offices.
  The substitute version that came out of the Committee on Rules cuts 
an additional $17.5 million out of State and county operations. I think 
that is more. If you want to talk about phone calls, where you get the 
phone calls is when they go into the county offices and they cannot get 
service.
  I worked in USDA in Washington for 4 years as deputy administrator of 
programs; a tremendous number of hardworking, good civil servants in 
that department. However, today we have 10,700 employees here in 
Washington, DC. They should be out in the country.
  I support the gentleman's amendment. I think it is reasonable. Out of 
that 10,000, out of every 100 employees we can reduce by 4 employees 
what is here in Washington, DC.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Stenholm].
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to reiterate the cuts 
that are already being made as a result of the reorganization of last 
year is one-fourth of the headquarters staff in Washington in USDA. We 
talk about the Chief Financial Officer alone, and you look at the cuts: 
a 17-percent cut from last year's spending.
  We will have an amendment a little later by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit] that will propose to add $200,000 to the 
account so that the Risk Assessment Office, which is awfully important 
to many of us in agriculture, can be adequately funded. The gentleman 
from Colorado would cut it $375,000 more. The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Condit] already says, and correctly so, he needs $200,000 to do 
the job.
  We are going to write a farm bill a little bit later on. There is 
going to be a request for a lot of information. The Chief Financial 
Officer will be required. We are not going to have the money to do it 
because we have already made the cuts.
  I wish the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] would have supported 
us last year in the Committee on Agriculture when we talked about this, 
when we had the reorganization bill up before the Committee on 
Agriculture. All of the things that we were talking about doing then, 
which are now cutting 1,170 county-based offices, are being cut as a 
result of actions that are already being taken. Please do not make an 
additional cut on top of that.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about cuts that are going to go 
back out in the field, and they are not. I remind the Members that 
these are cuts for bureaucracy here in Washington. Let me point out a 
few of the agencies that have not been cut: General Counsel; Building 
and Facilities; department administration; Inspector General; Office of 
Budget and Program Analysis.
  Let me again remind the Members of what the total budget figures look 
like for the bureaucracy here in Washington, DC, $314 million in 1994. 
In 1995, it is $311 million. And in 1996, we are looking at $313 
million.
  The funds available to the Department of Agriculture for 
administration total $313 million; $320 million if the new Info Share 
Program is included. This amendment is less than 4 percent of all that.
  One might get the impression, listening to this debate, that our 
amendment proposes to eliminate offices or accounts. The fact is that 
we are proposing only 10 or 5 percent cuts, and a number of 
administrative accounts are not cut at all.
  I have no doubt the department officials perform important work and 
that we are asking that we get by with less, but we are asking this of 
all aspects of the Federal Government. No one ever suggested balancing 
the budget would be easy. When we are cutting back on farm programs, 
slowing the growth of Medicare, eliminating some agencies entirely, we 
need to reduce bureaucracy as well. Every amendment counts.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment with 
a great deal of reluctance. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] is 
a good Member of this Congress.
  I am sorry that we just did not understand his interest, along with 
the interest of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], and some of 
the others, in making these cuts. We would have taken them under our 
wing in the committee and worked through this together, because right 
now from his own figures, we are still below the 1994 figure for the 
Department of Agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, we have made those cuts. We have made the reductions 
where we can, and there must be some reason or some rationale to what 
we do. We should not be out here just cutting without knowing what the 
consequences are. We should not just be making mindless cuts.
  Certainly part of our job here as legislators is to make sure that 
agencies 

[[Page H7318]]
of the Federal Government operate as intended in the laws that we have 
enacted. Many of these cuts have severe impacts on agencies, and 
starting right here from headquarters all the way up and down the line.
  We have made those cuts. We must understand that they have to 
function, the agency has to have some function left. We cannot add cuts 
upon cuts and still expect them to function. These cuts will not allow 
some of these agencies to operate if we adopt this amendment.
  I would suggest that these cuts fall in the area of not very good 
government. We should not be here doing these cuts when we do not 
understand the consequences.
  I urge Members to vote against this amendment. These agencies have 
already paid their fair share in deficit reduction. Let us not do 
things when we have no idea of what we are doing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
19, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Allard] will be postponed.


                     amendment offered by mr. camp

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Camp: Page 13, line 24, strike 
     ``$31,485,000'' and insert $31,930,000''.
       Page 14, line 2, strike $98,810,000'' and insert 
     $98,365,000''.

  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment to transfer 
$445,000 from competitive research grants to restore funding for 
special grant research for sustainable agriculture. Continuing research 
for sustainable agriculture is crucial to maintaining an acceptable 
balance between the need to protect American agriculture, the family 
farm, and our precious environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow Members to support this amendment. One 
of the reasons that American farm families are able to provide the best 
food in the world at the lowest prices is because our universities have 
been able to conduct revolutionary research. By continuing this 
research, we enable the agriculture industry to find newer and safer 
ways to expand their crops while protecting our precious environment.
  Michigan State University is on the cutting edge of such research. 
Their studies on the management of municipal and animal organic waste, 
and the use of grazing systems to improve livestock production are 
providing valuable data which will assist the farm families of today--
and tomorrow.
  Their studies, which also include the inclusion of cover crops in 
field crop rotations and water table management studies, are continuing 
to improve soil composition on American farms. This improves the health 
and productivity of crops and livestock which benefits us all.
  In addition to assisting the American farm family with productivity, 
their research also studies the effect of various pesticides on our 
environment.
  This amendment will restore the funding for Michigan State 
University's special research grant for sustainable agriculture. We 
offset the cost of this program, which is $445,000, by transferring 
these funds from the competitive research grants.
  Michigan State is strategically located in the sensitive 
environmental area of Michigan which includes 2,300 miles of shoreline, 
20,000 slow moving creeks, rivers and streams, and hundreds of inland 
lakes. Water table management is critical in this area. The lessons 
learned in this sensitive area can be applied elsewhere in similar 
situations.
  In these days of global competitiveness, it is vital that American 
farm families are given the opportunity to grow and prosper. With this 
research, they can continue to provide the kind of quality products 
we've come to appreciate. In order to ensure that research on newer and 
safer ways to provide those products continues, we must support 
programs like this one.
  Sustainable agriculture strikes a fair balance between increasing 
profits for the American farm families and preserving and protecting 
our precious environment.
  This is a minimal price to pay for all that we can benefit from 
effective and efficient research.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  (Mr. BARCIA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp]. I believe, also, that it is 
vital that we restore funds for sustainable agricultural research as 
part of this appropriation.
  This amendment restores $445,000, the same amount as was available in 
fiscal 1995, to continue work which seeks to develop production methods 
that are profitable for farmers and have less impact on the 
environment.
  All of our major advances in agriculture have come as a result of 
research. If we are to improve production practices with an eye toward 
a better management of the environment, then careful and sustained 
research will be necessary to develop better production methods.
  As the fiscal 1996 hearings for the Department of Agriculture pointed 
out, this research effort targets compost integration, rotational 
grazing, cover crops, and water table-nutrient contamination 
management. This last element is the continuation of subirrigation 
research work that is vital in my part of Michigan if we are to 
adequately protect and efficiently use our groundwater resources.
  The hearings most explicitly demonstrated that farm areas in Michigan 
are drained by more than 20,000 miles of slow-moving creeks and 
streams, and the leeching of nutrients into groundwater is a major 
environmental concern. This work is conducted at several locations 
throughout Michigan, including within my congressional district, and 
need to be continued.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Chrysler].
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by my colleague. Research in sustainable agriculture is 
necessary to continue to develop agricultural program methods that are 
profitable for farmers and have less impact on the environment. Not 
only will the farmers themselves benefit from this valuable research 
but also the economies of the surrounding communities. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting for the Camp amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we accept the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1545


                    amendment offered by mr. condit

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Condit: Page 25, line 20, insert 
     before the colon the following: ``(reduced by $300,000)''.
       Page 3, line 3, insert before the period the following: 
     ``(increased by $300,000)''.

  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would fulfill a commitment that the 103d Congress began on risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analyses. My amendment would transfer 
$300,000 from the salary and expenses of the consolidated Farm Service 
Agency to the Office of Chief Economist in the Department of 
Agriculture.
  I understand the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has a 
substitute amendment that he plans to offer to my amendment, and I want 
to thank the chairman and his staff for working with us over the last 
several days to ensure funding for this important office and what it 
intends to do.
  This money will be used to carry out the statutory requirement of the 
establishing of the Office of Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit 
Analysis. As some of you may be aware, the USDA office of risk 
assessment was a mandate under the USDA department reorganization 
legislation signed by the President last fall.
  Risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis has served as the 
cornerstone for regulatory reform during the first 7 months of the 
104th Congress. While steps taken by the Department to put this office 
on the right track, the current funding in the agriculture 
appropriations bill would not allow the office to meet its mandated 
obligation, as prescribed under the USDA reorganization legislation of 
the 103d Congress.

[[Page H7319]]

  I urge Members to support my amendment, and the Skeen substitute, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONDIT. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] who 
has been a strong supporter of the risk assessment effort.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to emphasize the 
gentleman has been a real leader in the unfunded mandates effort 
several Congresses ago when it was not popular, and now when it is, and 
his efforts to put an office of risk assessment within the Department 
of Agriculture was a real initiative, a real reform effort in the 
Committee on Agriculture during the last session.
  Unfortunately, because of the budget pressures, it was not funded. We 
need this money. It is a good effort and I commend the gentleman and I 
support the amendment wholeheartedly.


    amendment offered by mr. skeen as a substitute for the amendment 
                         offered by mr. condit

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Skeen as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Condit: On page 3, line 3 strike 
     $3,748,000 and insert $3,948,000; On page 14, line 2 strike 
     $98,365,000 and insert $98,165,000; and
       On page 14, line 20 strike $389,372,000 and insert 
     $389,172,000.

  Mr. SKEEN (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 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I will explain the amendment. This has to do 
with the Office of Risk Assessment, and my amendment transfers $200,000 
from the Competitive Research Grants Program under the Cooperative 
State Research, Education, and Extension Service to the Chief 
Economist.
  This money is needed to supplement existing funding and will be used 
to both enter into contracts with experts in the field of risk 
assessment to provide USDA with guidance in how its Office of Risk 
Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis should operate, and hire an 
economist to work in this office. That is the intent and the 
explanation of this amendment and I ask for its adoption and support 
its passage.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit].
  The amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Castle

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designated the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Castle: Page 25, line 20, strike 
     ``$805,888,000'' and insert ``802,888,000''.
       Page 31, line 19, strike $629,986,000'' and insert 
     $612,986,000''.
       Page 40, line 10, before ``for loans'' insert ``(plus 
     $200,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 20, before ``, of which'' insert ``(plus 
     $40,000,000)''.
       Page 57, line 20, strike ``$821,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$801,100,000''.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, how many 
more amendments do we plan to offer?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, it is my 
understanding the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the chairman 
of the committee, has suggested the time limit on the Castle amendment 
and all amendments thereto.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I did not mean 
to say the whole gamut. I would like to say 20 minutes on the entire 
gamut of amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, I will give the gentleman from Illinois 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The debate time will be limited to 20 minutes; 10 
minutes to be controlled by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] 
and 10 minutes in opposition, 5 minutes by the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and 5 minutes by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment that is based on 
two principles. One is that encouraging homeownership is good for our 
economy and society and, two, in the effort to balance the budget, 
spending cuts must be allocated fairly.
  My amendment would restore $200 million of the $400 million cut in 
the section 502 direct loan homeownership program made by yesterday's 
manager's amendment. The program was cut 45 percent last year and now 
the bill before us would reduce the 502 rural housing program by 
another 42 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and I know he is a supporter of rural housing. The 
Appropriations Committee originally recommended a level of $900 million 
for the 502 program. However, after the committee found that it could 
not include savings from certain mandatory spending programs, the 
chairman felt he had to make an additional $400 million cut in the 502 
direct program.
  I understand the difficult choices the gentleman from New Mexico has 
had to make. This budget is extremely tight and it has to be. I am not 
seeking to restore the 502 program to its fiscal year 1995 level
 or even to the level originally recommended by the committee. My 
amendment will still leave the program with $233 million less than its 
current year funding, a cut of 25 percent from last year.

  Mr. Chairman, what do these numbers mean to real people in our rural 
communities? They mean a lot. The 502 direct loan program is the only 
affordable homeownership program that serves low- and very low-income 
families in rural areas.
  The typical direct loan borrower is working and is making $15,165 per 
year. These are hard-working people trying to achieve the American 
dream of owning their own home. The 502 direct program is the most 
effective program to help them make that dream a reality.
  This program works. It helps people who would otherwise be unable to 
afford a home make the step to home ownership. While these families 
have very low income, they pay their mortgages. The 30-day delinquent 
rate is only 6.8 percent and the 90-day rate is 1.6 percent. There is 
currently a 2- to 3-year waiting list for these loans.
  We are not meeting the need with the current level of funding, much 
less with the cut proposed in this bill. A loan level of $900 million 
would assist about 14,000 new homeowners. Cutting it to $500 million 
would provide only 7,800 loans.
  Mr. Chairman, my proposed amendment would allow us to help almost 
11,000 families in rural areas across the Nation. Remember, the actual 
appropriations for this program are much lower than the loan levels 
they provide. In fiscal year 1995, an appropriation of $228 million 
provided $933 million in loans.
  Under this bill, we would appropriate only $102.6 million to provide 
$500 million in loans. My amendment would add a modest $40 million to 
an appropriation of $142.6 million and $700 million in loans.
  In southern Delaware, like many rural areas, affordable housing is 
scarce and often substandard. The economy in these communities is often 
more sluggish than more populated areas. When families can buy homes, 
they give the economy of the entire community a shot in the arm. 
Construction provides new jobs and expanded tax base for schools and 
other investments and increased sales and tax revenues.
  A single family 502 direct loan generates 1.75 jobs, $50,201 in 
wages, and 

[[Page H7320]]
$20,506 in annual tax revenues in rural America. In short, the program 
not only provides homes to low-income rural families, it provides jobs 
and tax revenues to rural communities.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a matter of fairness. The rural 
housing 502 direct loan program is taking a disproportionate cut in the 
effort to balance the budget. My amendment would simply restore some 
funding for home loans to low-income rural families.
  The amendment is budget neutral. Most important, it would help more 
rural families achieve the American dream the American dream of home 
ownership. I urge my colleagues to approve this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], my friend and colleague, is trying to do here to 
restore money to the section 502 direct loan program. But in doing so, 
his amendment would seriously damage other programs which have already 
been cut significantly. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I have to oppose 
this amendment.
  When we dropped the limitations against some mandatory programs and 
had to go back into discretionary programs to look for additional 
savings, we looked closely at every account and made our decisions 
after a great deal of deliberation. That includes all the accounts that 
the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] proposes to cut to restore 
funds to the 502 direct loan program.
  The en bloc amendment, which we have agreed to, cuts an additional 
$17.5 million from salaries and expenses of the Consolidated Farm 
Service Agency. Money for PL-480 humanitarian aid has declined steadily 
from $1.7 billion to just about $1 billion.
  The refugee situation in Bosnia grows more tragic every day and this 
program is essential to American aid efforts there as it is to American 
aid programs in central Africa.
  Conservation programs have been reduced by 40 percent in the past 2 
years and this amendment will mean less money for important soil 
erosion and water quality programs in both rural and urban areas, and I 
repeat, rural and urban areas.
  According to the Department of Agriculture, a $21 million cut in 
Conservation Operations would mean a reduction of 400 staff years, 
permanent closing of 140 field offices, 50,000 farmers will not be able 
to receive technical assistance, and 3.1 million acres of land will not 
be treated for conservation measures such as soil erosion.
  Mr. Chairman, we have tried very hard in this bill to distribute cuts 
fairly and to distribute the funds carefully to meet our budget-cutting 
obligations. The bill, as amended, does that and I urge my colleagues 
to reject this amendment which simply throws away many long, hard weeks 
of work and effort and makes severe cuts in essential programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, very briefly, the numbers on this are on the 
Consolidated Farm Service Agency, after this cut, and this is not the 
bill cut in that it is only $3 million, it simply freezes it at the 
1995 level.
  The Natural Resources Conservation Service, my amendment would still 
provide a $22.3 million increase over this year. In the grants program 
on transportation, the title 2 grants, my amendment would provide over 
$801 million for this program, an increase over the request and only 3 
percent cut from 1995, while this program is facing cuts of 45 and 44 
percent in each of the last 2 years. I do not think they are even 
comparable.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I was chairman of the working 
group in the Committee on the Budget dealing with HUD and with the old 
Farmer's Home Administration.
  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, and to this body, that it should not 
be the goal of the U.S. Government to be in the banking business. We 
should be moving to guaranteed loans, which is much more effective, 
much less costly for taxpayers.
  That is what this committee did. They moved and expanded the 
guaranteed loan program from $1 billion to $1.7 billion to serve many 
more clients than direct loan programs can. We should not be in the 
direct loan program.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to myself in response. 
The guaranteed loan programs do not serve this population. They serve a 
population at twice the income of this.
  Mr. Chairman, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Latham].
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that in the 5th 
district of Northwest Iowa, this is extremely important and I support 
this amendment. We virtually have no unemployment in the area. Our 
problem is housing. This goes right to the heart of the real needs of 
the people in my district, the rural areas, and I strongly support this 
amendment. I thank the gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
                              {time}  1600

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like very much to be 
supportive of the gentleman's amendment today for the reasons of 
housing, but again it is not that simple, and, when we look at the work 
that the committee has done, they had a tough call to make, and they 
have made that call, and, when my colleague says in the area of the FSA 
office he is only bringing it down to freezing at last year's level, he 
is overlooking two rather significant facts, and that was what I tried 
to point out to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] a moment ago. 
As a result of the reauthorization we are reducing from 43 to 29 
agencies in USDA. The FSA office on the same amount of money as last 
year is going to have to administer two additional programs. That is 
part of the reorganization. So what sounds like a very innocuous, 
simple amendment gets very complicated when it actually gets into how 
to implement it out there in the country.
  So this is one of those areas that we would all like to be very 
supportive of, but again, as a result of the reorganization ongoing and 
that we are plowing through ground that none of us really understand 
the true effects of as yet I, too, must reluctantly, but rather firmly, 
oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. 
Castle] today.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to rebut 
what the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] said.
  Three million dollars is the reduction in FSA in this particular 
amendment, $3 million, and yet we are looking at a program that is 
almost savaged in terms of the cuts which are going on. I think the 
comparison makes ours fair.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, a couple more facts here:
  Last year 130,000 people applied for what we used to call the 
farmer's home loan, and that is 130,000 that applied, 15,000 were able 
to take advantage of the money that was available. This year, under the 
present conditions, it would only be 8,000 people able to take 
advantage of it. Two years ago 27,000 people were able to take 
advantage of it. We have reduced those important farm programs by just 
a small amount. That small amount can be transferred into rural 
housing.
  The importance of rural housing cannot be expressed enough. We have 
people that are working with children that must rent. They are not 
really contributing to the tax base of the community, they are not 
building up equity for their family. With a small amount of rural home 
loans by the Federal Government we are not only going to help those 
rural families, we are going to contribute to the community, and many 
of those rural families that we are helping with this loan money are 
children of farmers who deserve the dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote for the Castle 
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.)

[[Page H7321]]

  Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with Governor Castle. I think 
that this 502 program is one of the finest government programs that has 
ever been concocted here in Washington. It does provide a very needed 
service to our American people, people who are working, people who are 
trying to make a substantial position in their life or their families 
who cannot go to a bank. It is very crucial and very important that we 
fund it, and I support the funding of it, but not in this way.
  I say to the gentleman, Governor, I think that you're on the right 
track, but I think that the committee has worked hard. We have found 
another $10 million, and I'm going to introduce an amendment which I 
think is going to be accepted. That will increase the lending authority 
another $50 million. So that's going to help some.
  The chairman of the committee has told me that they are going to try 
to work in the Senate with the Members of the Senate and in the 
conference committee to increase that, but I think that we ought to 
give due credit to the chairman of the committee for the hard work he 
has done under some very extreme circumstances, recognize he is 
supportive as the gentleman and I are, that we want to increase the 
funding for the 502 program. We are going to increase it, but just not 
in this manner.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the amendment and urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' in this case and trust us, and I know that 
that is something coming from a politician, but trust the chairman, 
that he is going to help us try to correct the problem that exists in 
the bill.
  So, I encourage my colleagues to continue to support the 502 program 
but to vote ``no'' on this particular amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against this amendment, and I 
would like to agree with the previous speaker from Alabama. What the 
gentleman from Delaware is setting out to do is very important. I think 
he has accurately identified a real problem that we face in small-town 
America. It applies to the State of Illinois, virtually every State, 
because in the smaller communities low-income families are finding it 
impossible to own a home and to certainly own a quality home. The 
average income of the families, the borrowers who applied for 502 
housing, is about $15,000 a year, and to put that in simple terms, it 
is a husband and a wife each earning a little bit more than the minimum 
wage who are trying to get their first starter home, and if there is 
ever anything we in America value as part of the American dream, that 
is it, and the gentleman from Delaware is trying to find resources to 
put into this program, and I am with him 100 percent.
  But, as the gentleman from Alabama and the gentleman from New Mexico 
said, he has turned to the wrong places to find them because he is 
causing pain in other areas which I am afraid is equal to or greater 
than the pain to be felt in the housing area. ``When you want to cut 
$21 million from conservation operations,'' I tell my friend from 
Delaware, ``you are going to permanently close 140 field offices across 
the United States, 3.1 million acres will not be treated with 
conservation measures, 50,000 farmers will not receive technical 
assistance, and 11\1/2\ million tons of soil erosion will occur.''
  Mr. Chairman, if someone is listening to that, they will say, ``So 
what? Water flows into rivers every day.'' The so what is that in my 
town of Springfield, IL, in Dover, DE, in places all across the United 
States where we rely on a public water supply, this sedimentation 
causes great pain and problems from the viewpoint of the quality of 
water and the quantity of water. So where we think we are saving money 
and cutting conservation we are adding to the expense of living in a 
city.
  The same thing can be said for other cuts proposed by the gentleman. 
His cuts in the consolidated Farm Service Agency of $17\1/2\ million--I 
am sorry; his cuts are in addition to the $17\1/2\ million made last 
night in the en bloc amendment. This is going to hurt that agency, in 
doing its job overall. The cuts in Public Law 480, on humanitarian aid: 
We have been cutting back in Public Law 480 year, after year, after 
year, and what is left is very little to try to respond to genuine 
world crises in a very moderate way. I know the gentleman is just as 
sensitive to that as I am.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would join with the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan], who said earlier that we want to help put more money in 502. 
I think the sources identified by the gentleman from Delaware are not 
the places to turn to, and I will be opposing his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Delaware for 
yielding this time to me, and I certainly do recognize and commend the 
work of the chairman and the ranking member in coming up with a bill 
under very difficult circumstances, and what I hear from a number of 
different Members is that the very commendable amendment being proposed 
in its principle by the gentleman from Delaware whose amendment I 
support is--wants to do the right thing, but takes the money from the 
wrong place. But here we are cutting out of a program of housing home 
ownership for low-income families. We are taking that one down by about 
50 percent, more than 50 percent, over a 2-year period, and the whole 
program is coming down, the whole program in agriculture coming down 
less than 10 percent in its total, so it seems to me we ought to be 
able to find a way of putting some more money into the program for the 
502 program here.
  It is a program that takes families who are on the edge of making it 
and allows them to have a stake in their community. It is their own 
chance for owning their own houses, in fact the only Federal program 
that gives assistance for low-income home ownership, so I would support 
the gentleman's amendment and hope that it would be adopted.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] 
and I have had conversations, and I support the direction he is going. 
I just disagree where he is taking his sources, and I do not know if I 
get in a colloquy with him to suggest later on we will have a better 
opportunity to discuss, and the gentleman probably disagrees with my 
amount and my source, but let me share with my colleagues I do support 
the gentleman's effort, and I do think that he and I share the right 
goals. It is just I do not want to devastate these other programs when 
that money is taken from them, leave them ineffective and inoperative.
  So, I am trying to find a way to accommodate the gentleman's desire, 
but I am also recognizing I am going to have an amendment in title III 
which obviously is more ideal, and I may not have the numbers. Do I 
offer to lose all of the compromise?
  But I think we will have a chance to visit this again, and I would 
just hope that the gentleman from Delaware can find it to be supportive 
since he wants to move in that direction anyhow. He would be able to 
amend mine, if necessary, to allow it to accommodate our goals.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Delaware is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, it is a very interesting amendment. I have 
never presented an amendment on this floor or anywhere else for that 
matter. Everybody got up and said, ``Gee, it is a great program, it is 
a great idea to fund it more. This is one of the best things we do in 
the United States of America, but we just simply can't do it.'' And I 
understand everyone's good will and am not being facetious at all when 
I say that, but the bottom line is I think we can do it. I think this 
amendment is the best vehicle in which to do it.
   Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina, but the bottom line is fairly simple. The FSA concern, 
we are reducing that by $3 million. In the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service my amendment would still allow $22.3 million 
increase over this year, and we only have a 3-percent cut in the title 
II grants for the various services to foreign governments on food 
grants.

[[Page H7322]]

  This is in comparison, my colleagues, to a 45-percent reduction last 
year in this wonderful program we run, a 42-percent reduction this year 
if we do not do anything about it, which is simply incredible in light 
of the fact that we have people standing in line, the program works, 
people pay back their loans, practically everybody supports it.
   Mr. Chairman, in my judgment this is a program which seems to meet 
all the litmus tests we want of trying to balance our budget, give 
people an opportunity and particularly help in our rural areas where we 
have good people who are out there working, earning a small income but 
enough to be able to buy a home. I have been in these homes, I have 
been at these settlements, I have seen how this program works, and it 
is an excellent program, and I am just worried if we wait until some 
other time we will not be able to resolve all the problems before us.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would encourage us to go ahead with this 
amendment and perhaps that will be the jumping-off point for future 
negotiations, and I hope we would all support the Castle amendment to 
help keep this program we all agree is outstanding alive.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 30 seconds of my time 
to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I, too, rise in reluctant opposition to the 
gentleman from Delaware's amendment. We all agree on the importance of 
this program. The difficulty is our subcommittee has spent countless 
hours allocating very scarce resources to the many important programs 
that we have. This delicate balance that we have woven together is 
affected very heavily by the offsets that the gentleman from Delaware 
[Mr. Castle] provides, so I look forward to, in title II of this bill, 
supporting Mr. Callahan's amendment to do precisely the same thing, 
just not at the same magnitude.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
19, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Delaware [Mr. Castle] will be postponed.

                              {time}  1615


                    amendment offered by mr. sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, numbered 71.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: Page 3, line 3, insert 
     after ``$3,748,000'' the following: ``(increased by 
     $1,000,000).''
       Page 56, line 16, insert before ``, of which'' the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 60, line 15 insert before ``, of which'' the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we are 
talking about the survival of the American family farm. I would ask for 
30 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on 20 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The gentleman from Vermont is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, did the chairman say 25 minutes?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman I will meet the gentleman halfway, 25 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] that debate on this amendment and all amendment 
thereto be limited to 25 minutes?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Time for debate on this amendment is limited to 25 
minutes, which means the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will 
control 6 minutes and 15 seconds, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin] will control 6 minutes and 15 seconds, and the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] will control 12 minutes and 30 seconds.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the CBO scored this amendment and found it saves both 
budget authority and outlays. This amendment is simple: It cuts funding 
for the Foreign Agricultural Service by $3 million, and adds back only 
$2 million, $1 million to the chief economist to report on the impact 
of synthetic RBGH on small dairy farms, and another $1 million to the 
FDA to develop an RBGH level test. The remaining $1 million goes into 
deficit reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, injections of synthetic bovine growth hormone, 
otherwise known as RBGH, or BST, are presenting a very serious and 
multifaceted problem since the Monsanto Corp. introduced the product 
into the market last year.
  RBGH or BST is a new genetically engineered hormone that forces cows 
to produce greater than normal amounts of milk. The introduction of 
RBGH is having the impact of lowering farm income and threatening the 
very existence of the family dairy farm. Soon after the introduction of 
BST, the Milwaukee Sentinel reported on the ``Sea of new milk triggered 
in part by the introduction of bovine growth hormone.''
  As milk production increases, the prices that farmers receive for 
their product declines. Given the reality that family dairy farmers 
have already seen a major drop in the real prices that they receive for 
their milk, the further decline of milk prices because of Monsanto's 
BST is an absolute disaster.
  The truth of the matter is that in my State of Vermont, family 
farmers are being driven off of the land in increasing numbers. This is 
happening in Wisconsin, in Minnesota, all over the America, and this is 
a terrible tragedy for those of us who believe in family farming.
  The Office of Management and Budget estimates that dairy surpluses 
caused by BST injections will cost farmers $1.3 billion in lost income 
over the next 5 years. They acknowledge that farmers are going to be 
receiving significantly less income.
  Let me tell you something, Mr. Chairman, that the loss of family 
farms in Vermont or Wisconsin is not only a tragedy for our States, it 
is a tragedy for America. It will be a very bad thing when a handful of 
large agribusiness corporations control the production and distribution 
of dairy products in this country. It will be a tragedy when all over 
this country we see family farmers going out of business. That is why 
this amendment provides the chief economist in the Department of 
Agriculture with $1 million to report on the economic impact of BST on 
the small dairy farms in America.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members to support this study and vote 
for this amendment.
  The introduction of RBGH to dairy farming also results in higher 
Federal spending. Deficit hawks, listen up. With more milk being 
produced, more money is spent on purchasing the milk surplus. OMB 
estimates it will cost the Federal Government $500 million over the 
next 5 years to pay for the surplus created by the introduction of BST.
  Further, Mr. Chairman, the irony of all ironies is that the synthetic 
bovine hormone serves no useful purpose other than making Monsanto, a 
multibillion dollar corporation, a little bit richer. That is all that 
it does.
  If you are interested in deficit reduction, you should support this 
amendment that provides $1 million in direct savings and addresses this 
expected $500 million lost.
  Synthetic BGH is not just an economic issue, it is a consumer issue. 
Consumer polls show us that up to 90 percent of American consumers want 
RBGH milk labeled. They want it labeled. State labeling legislation 
that has been passed in Vermont and other States clearly underscores 
this very strong consumer support for labeling. Labels would enable 
consumers to support the continued existence of family farms, deficit 
reduction, and the humane treatment of cows.
  Consumers around the world are leery of RBGH. The European parliament 
voted unanimously to extend its ban on the import of dairy and meat 

[[Page H7323]]
products from animals which had been treated with the drug.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides $1 million to the FDA to 
develop a simple and inexpensive test so that we will know whether the 
milk coming from a cow, if that cow has been injected with BST or not. 
It is a very important consumer issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself two minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand where my colleague from Vermont is coming 
from. There is no doubt that many changes in science are changing 
farming, and that has been the case since the turn of the century. 
There is no question that these changes have forced many small 
operations out of existence, and they will continue to. And with their 
disappearance, we will lose part of the American way of life, and some 
of that will be to our detriment as a nation.
  But it is literally impossible for us to ignore scientific change and 
advances and its impact on farming. This chemical, this bovine growth 
hormone, has a consequence of increasing the milk production of 
America's dairy cows.
  Now, the fact is, we did not need more milk. We had plenty already, 
but now this chemical is helping each cow to give more milk. My dairy 
farmers in my district are using it because they believe it is the wave 
of the future. They believe that fewer cows producing more milk can be 
the wave of the future.
  The gentleman from Vermont I am sure is correct that some dairy 
producers will not be able to accommodate this change and may go out of 
business, but we cannot turn back the hands of time. We cannot ignore 
the science that has come about.
  I disagree with my colleague from Vermont in his suggestion that 
there is something inherently dangerous with this chemical. There have 
been no fewer than 2,000 separate studies of this chemical, and we have 
found no harmful effects from the bovine growth hormone. The trace 
elements which we find of this chemical in milk are so minute, one part 
per billion, and if you want to put that in perspective, I am told that 
is the equivalent of one second in approximately 32 years, that is the 
concentration we find of this chemical in milk, and it causes no 
problem because it is already a naturally occurring hormone in a cow's 
milk.
  Our Nation's milk supply is the very safest in the world. It is 
tasted over and over and over again before it reaches the consumer. Mr. 
Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will not make any bones about it. I do not 
like BST. I do not like BGH. I think its effect on the economy and 
rural sociology will be profound. But we do not have to get into that 
to assess the desirability of the gentleman's amendment.
  My good friend from Illinois says that the consequence of BGH use is 
to increase dairy production. That is true. That is the problem, 
because that leads to other consequences. And when you have a large 
increase in dairy production, you are going to also have a large 
increase in turmoil in rural communities and a great disruption of the 
rural economy and rural sociology.
  I hate to see anything happen which further weakens rural areas, 
which further weakens small towns, and which, therefore, further 
weakens the work ethic, which I think is rooted more deeply in those 
small communities than any other place in America.
  I would observe that all the gentleman is asking, if I understand the 
amendment correctly, is that in the context of an amendment which saves 
$1 million on the deficit, he simply asks that a study be done to 
determine what the economic impacts of this chemical will be.
  Now, I know that many farmers in my district think that if you took 
every agriculture economist in the world and laid them end to end, that 
it would be a good thing. But nonetheless, I think that it would be 
very good for everybody on all sides of this issue to have a full 
understanding of the impact of this chemical. All the gentleman is 
asking for is that we know not only what the scientific effect will be 
in terms of increased dairy production, but what that will lead to in 
terms of the dairy economy, the consequences that has for rural 
America, and the consequences it has for the Federal budget.
  Regardless of how you feel about the chemical, there is nothing wrong 
with this amendment. In fact, it could put a lot of political arguments 
about it to rest. I would urge that Members support the amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, We should all be concerned about milk safety and 
supply, and believe me, in Wisconsin, for example, and around the 
country we are. Everything is stainless steel, as clean as can be. But 
that is not the issue here. The issue here, as I interpret this 
amendment, is we are going to spend $1 million to do another study. But 
we have already done so many studies. Every study has shown that BGH is 
safe. It has even been approved by FDA.
  So what is the purpose of another $1 million study? To take it out of 
our market promotion program? If there is anything we need in 
agriculture, especially in dairy, it is to sell more of our products 
overseas. So I do not want to see any money diverted from that for 
another meaningless study.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman tell the people of 
America, his colleagues, how many family farms in Wisconsin have gone 
out of business and how many farmers have been thrown off the land?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, yes, we have had too many 
dairy farms go out of business in the State of Wisconsin and in other 
parts of the country. But that is not the issue here. That is not the 
issue here.
  BGH is not going to be decided here in this Chamber. BGH is not going 
to be decided on the dairy farm. You know where BGH is going to be 
decided? It is going to be decided by the consumer when they walk into 
the grocery store and supermarket, and if they buy the milk, it is 
going to be produced by BGH. If they do not, it will not be. It is a 
consumer's issue here.
  Mr. SANDERS. The gentleman comes from the great State of Wisconsin. 
Farmers are being driven off the land in Wisconsin. I had farmers 
coming to my office in tears because they are working 80 hours a week 
and losing their farm. Here is the question: Will the gentleman tell 
his colleagues how many farmers in Vermont have been driven off the 
land because of the introduction of BST? Do you know the answer?
  Mr. ROTH. No one knows the answer.
  Mr. SANDERS. That is why I want the study.
  Mr. ROTH. People have not been driven off the farms because of BGH. I 
am not in favor of BGH. We have enough milk production. There are a lot 
of other reasons. That is not the issue.
  Mr. SANDERS. What is the issue?
  Mr. ROTH. I have read your amendment. You want to take $1 million for 
another study, and I am saying we do not need any more studies. We 
already know the answer.
  Let me just say that what the issue basically here is, we do not want 
to divert this money from the market promotion program, because that is 
a promotion program that is helping our dairy farmers. We already have 
enough studies in BGH. We do not need any more.
                              {time}  1630

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has 4 minutes 
and 15 seconds remaining, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has 
3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] 
has 4 minutes and 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H7324]]

  My good friend from Wisconsin has got it wrong, and my good friend 
from Illinois has got it wrong. So-called progress is not necessarily a 
good thing. It is the function of human beings to determine what is 
good and what is not good.
  Right now one of the reasons that family farmers all over this 
country are being driven off of the land is the prices that they are 
receiving are dropping precipitously. The reason their prices are 
dropping is we have too much milk. If we believe in the importance of 
the family farm, and I know the people in Vermont do, I know the people 
in Wisconsin do, and I know the people in America do, then we have a 
right to say, why are we using a synthetic hormone. And here is where 
my friend from Illinois is wrong. All of the studies that I have seen 
suggest that BST makes cows sicker and increases the rate of mastitis. 
That is not, that is an established fact by many studies. When cows get 
sicker, farmers are obliged to use more antibiotics.
  Nobody here suggested that the milk that comes from those cows is 
unhealthy. What we are simply saying is, what sense does it make when 
we already have too much milk to be supporting a product which 
increases milk production, which makes cows sicker, which drives family 
farmers off of the land?
  Whether we can do anything about that or not, I do now know. But at 
the very least, we can do two things:
  No. 1, $1 million for a study so my friend from Wisconsin will know 
what the impact of BST has been on his farmers. No. 2, a simple study 
developed by the FDA so we can have a test to know whether the milk 
comes from BST cows or does not.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, a friend of mine who is a farmer in Jacksonville, IL, 
who has been in the business for a long time told me that when he 
started in the early 1950's, after getting out of World War II, it took 
him up to an hour to cultivate an acre of land. With today's equipment 
he can do it in a few minutes. He can also find out that his production 
on each acre has grown dramatically because of the fertilizer and the 
herbicides and pesticides which we have developed. So now he is farming 
acreage which used to be farmed by many other farmers. That is the 
march of science.
  I would also say to my friend from Vermont, please do not create the 
suggestion in anyone's mind that there is anything suspicious about 
America's milk supply. At the Prairie Farms Dairy in Carlinville, IL, I 
walked into the sterile room with the stainless steel tanks and was 
told that that milk is tested no fewer than four different times before 
it reaches the consumer to find any evidence of impurity or any 
evidence of antibiotic. If any of it is found, the entire shipment is 
cast aside.
  It is the safest milk supply in the world. To suggest otherwise is 
unfortunate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment for a number of reasons. First of all, we have done the 
studies mandated by this Congress in the past to determine its effect 
before it was approved. The reality is, it is here. We cannot change 
that. We have got to go on from this point forward.
  Second, what you are doing to fund a study that has already been done 
by OTA is to take money from the foreign ag service. The number one 
thing we can do to help America's dairy farmers is to do the export 
promotion after GATT, after NAFTA, so that we can get the market 
development. We are not going to get our dairy farmers the income we 
would like to through a government price support system as we balance 
the budget. That is not going to happen.
  The only place we are going to get income for those dairy farmers is 
increasing our exports, tightening up our domestic supply. I want to 
point out to the gentleman, a year ago, just after BST was approved, 
the MW, the Minnesota-Wisconsin price, was 11.25. Today it is 11.42. 
The prices have not gone down because of BST.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very much in support of this 
amendment because I believe it will help us save the small family dairy 
farmer, and it will also promote health and safety for dairy consumers 
across the country.
  It has been alleged that we ought to leave this to the marketplace, 
let consumers decide. The fact of the matter is that consumers do not 
know. They do not know when they walk into the marketplace, to the 
supermarket whether or not the cheese or the milk that they are buying 
comes from cows that have been injected with bovine growth hormone. We 
want them to find out. We want to have it labeled, and we want that 
study to produce the kind of information which will result in that 
labeling.
  This current project, this injection of this hormone is already 
costing family farmers more than $200 million a year. We want to get 
the dairy herds of the United States off of drugs. They are now getting 
hooked on drugs. Bovine growth hormone leads to the imposition of other 
drugs to alleviate the causes of the imposition of bovine growth 
hormone. Let us get the dairy herd of the United States off drugs.
  The tests that we have currently to ensure the purity of milk in this 
country do not account for the presence of these drugs, so people do 
not know whether there is a problem with these drugs. We want that 
information, and that is what the Sanders amendment will produce.
  Finally, the Europeans have rejected the importation of American 
dairy products into Europe. The European Union has said no to American 
dairy products because they are fearful of the effects of this bovine 
growth hormone on consumers in their countries. They have said that 
they cannot guarantee their safety. The British journal Lancet and 
others have recently outlined that very clearly.
  Let us pass this amendment. It is very important.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, let me say that the bovine growth hormone 
is naturally occurring in milk now. It is virtually impossible to 
differentiate the synthetic growth hormone from that naturally 
occurring. It is in such limited concentrations that it poses no health 
risk based on these 2,000 studies.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two main aspects to this issue. No. 1, in my 
view it is not inevitable that we continue to see a decline in family 
farms who in Vermont and throughout this country are the backbone of 
America.
  It is important that this Congress stand up and fight as hard as we 
can to protect those extraordinarily hard-working Americans who have 
given us so much.
  No. 2 is, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] pointed out, 
this is also a consumer issue. Without getting into a great debate, the 
time is not now to do that, consumers do have a right to know whether 
the dairy products they are injecting come from cows that were injected 
with bST or whether they do not.
  My friend from Illinois is not quite right, because tests, if made 
available, if developed, can tell us whether the milk comes from bST-
injected cows or not. That is why we are providing funding to develop 
that test. My friend from New York also pointed out that in Europe they 
are concerned about the issue. They have placed a moratorium on the use 
of bST.
  So, from the point of view of saving the family farm, from the point 
of view of giving the consumer the right to make a choice about the 
product he or she ingests, let us pass this amendment. It is terribly 
important.
  I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding time to me.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].

[[Page H7325]]

  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, as one of the few dairy farmers 
that still is milking cows on my farm, I would like to put out a 
statement in the Record in opposition to this amendment.
  The hormone bST occurs naturally in all milk. The FDA determined that 
bST will neither adversely affect the health of cows, nor the 
individuals who consume the milk produced from the these cows. This 
determination was based on over 2,000 studies. Extensive testing has 
been going on for the past 10 years. Supplemental hormones, for 
example, estrogens treating women during menopause, have been used in 
humans for the past 20 years.
  The issue now is whether the Government discourage biotechnologies 
which have been proven safe. I believe that producers, not Government 
bureaucracies, ought to make decisions involving the economics of their 
respective operations.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  History is a marvelous teacher. This argument that the future, the 
future of the family farm will be affected by this vote, I think, is 
somewhat in doubt. Several hundred years ago, there was a group of 
individuals in England, I believe, referred to as the Luddites who 
opposed the imposition, ``imposition,'' of mechanization tractors on 
farmers. They went around hitting the tractors with hammers.
  In the early 1970's, I, as a Peace Corps volunteer, went to Asia to 
work as an agriculture extension agent. India was a net importer of 
grains and there was a marvelous American scientist named Norman 
Borlaug who developed the triple gene variety of wheat, it was a dwarf 
variety of wheat that outproduced the domestic varieties, the native 
varieties by twofold without fertilizer, merely by just changing the 
seed. By adding fertilizer, you could increase yields by fourfold. The 
net result is India now exports wheat and rice.
  Yes, we are losing family farms. New York in the 1980's lost 10 
percent of its farms per year. That was 10 years before bST was 
licensed to be used in the United States.
  It is more of a function of high property taxes that is driving small 
family farms out of business. Too much Government is the answer there.
  Mr. Chairman, we all have concerns about bST. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] explained quite clearly, as did the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth]. We had 10 years of testing in the laboratory 
before it was even brought to the farm for field tests.
  And once it was brought to the farm for field tests, the results were 
positive. There was some increase in mastitis because the animals were 
milked more.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that under this amendment, 
we would be labeling bST. That would give the Europeans just another 
reason to discriminate against our products and keep them out.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] is recognized 
for 2 minutes and 15 seconds.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely untrue what the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] said. This does not call for labeling on BST.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my friend, the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and his concerns and so forth, but 
he is barking up the wrong tree. He has already contradicted himself 
several times in his statement.
  First of all, we have been doing the tests. They have been 
exhaustive. We have gone over and over and over this thing.
  There is nothing wrong with BST. It is a naturally occurring hormone 
in milk today. You cannot distinguish the synthetic from the natural. 
It does not take family farmers off of the farm. It allows them to stay 
there because with fewer cows, they can produce the same amount of milk 
and the feed increment is a lot less. So it is also an economical 
concern as well. It helps small farmers compete because they do not 
have to increase herds to increase production. They just use the 
hormone.
  The FDA and the World Health Organization have confirmed that milk 
from these supplemented cows is safe and that the level of BST is the 
same as in any other milk, as I have said before. FDA did not require 
labeling of milk from supplemented cows because the milk is safe and 
the same in composition as other milk.
  The following facts illustrate the high degree of practical 
difficulty in developing a test to distinguish rbST in milk:
  All milk contains bST. The level of bST is unchanged in milk from 
supplemented cows. bST is present in milk only in extremely minute 
levels. rBST and BST are biologically and functionally 
indistinguishable. Four variants of BST occurred naturally in all milk 
and the four naturally occurring variants in the Monsanto rbST all 
differ from each other by only one or two amino acids. These amino 
acids are normal constituents of bST and milk.

                              {time}  1645

  Fearmongering is a wonderful practice in this country today when it 
comes to food. Any time we have an issue related to food, it is easy to 
take it out and start fearmongering that particular product. Mr. 
Chairman, I think, with all due respect to the gentleman, we ought to 
concern ourselves with understanding the effect of our scientific 
improvements and not be afraid of them, because it has made this 
country the best producer of milk.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
19, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to title I?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
                                TITLE II

                         CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

                   Office of the Under Secretary for

                   Natural Resources and Environment

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest 
     Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
     $677,000.
                 Natural Resources 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, water, 
     and interests therein for use in the plant materials program 
     by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to 
     exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 
     428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of 
     permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and 
     maintenance of aircraft, $629,986,000, of which not less than 
     $5,852,000 is for snow survey and water forecasting and not 
     less than $8,875,000 is for operation and establishment of 
     the plant materials centers: Provided, That appropriations 
     hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for 
     construction and improvement of buildings and public 
     improvements at plant materials centers, except that the cost 
     of alterations and improvements to other buildings and other 
     public improvements shall not exceed $250,000: 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 this appropriation shall 

[[Page H7326]]
     be available for technical assistance and related expenses to carry out 
     programs authorized by section 202(c) of title II of the 
     Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, as amended 
     (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)): 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.
               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, and only high-priority projects authorized by 
     the Flood Control Act (33 U.S.C. 701, 16 U.S.C. 1006a), 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, $100,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): 
     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 
     $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.


                     watershed surveys and planning

       For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation, 
     and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, and 
     for small watershed investigations and planning, in 
     accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 
     Act approved August 4, 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-
     1009), $14,000,000: 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 $110,000 shall be available for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109.


                         conservation programs

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, 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. 1011; 76 Stat. 
     607), and 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), 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, and 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, to be used 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 Secretary, and 
     for associated costs of program planning, information and 
     education, and program monitoring and evaluation, 
     $36,000,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209, 16 U.S.C. 590p(b)(7)): 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.


                        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), 
     $210,000,000, 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.

                    Consolidated Farm Service Agency


                   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, $75,000,000, 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 percent 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 Natural 
     Resources 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 Natural Resources 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 percent 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 not to exceed 
     $11,000,000 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.).


                      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), $1,781,785,000, 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, for annual rental 
     payments provided in such contracts, and for technical 
     assistance.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:
                               TITLE III

           RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

    Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community 
                              Development

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development 
     to administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress 
     for the Rural Housing and Community Development Service, 
     Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service, and the 
     Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture, 
     $568,000.

            Rural Housing and Community Development Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Rural Housing and Community 
     Development Service, including administering the programs 
     authorized by the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act, as amended, title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as 
     amended, and cooperative agreements, $53,315,000: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall be available for employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of 706(a) of the Organic Act 
     of 1944, and not to exceed $500,000 may be used for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.
              rural housing insurance fund program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing 
     Act of 

[[Page H7327]]
     1949, as amended, to be available from funds in the rural housing 
     insurance fund, as follows: $2,200,000,000 for loans to 
     section 502 borrowers, as determined by the Secretary, of 
     which $1,700,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed 
     loans; $35,000,000 for section 504 housing repair loans; 
     $15,000,000 for section 514 farm labor housing; $150,000,000 
     for section 515 rental housing; $600,000 for site loans; and 
     $35,000,000 for credit sales of acquired property.
       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: section 502 
     loans, $107,840,000, of which $2,890,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans; section 504 housing repair 
     loans, $14,193,000; section 514 farm labor housing, 
     $8,629,000; section 515 rental housing, $82,035,000, provided 
     the program is authorized for fiscal year 1996; and credit 
     sales of acquired property, $6,100,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $390,211,000, of 
     which $377,074,000 shall be transferred to and merged with 
     the appropriation for ``Rural Housing and Community 
     Development Service, Salaries and Expenses''.


                       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, $535,900,000; 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 1996 
     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

       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, $31,000.


                community facility loans program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $34,880,000, and for the cost 
     of guaranteed loans, $3,555,000, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
     1928 and 86 Stat. 661-664, as amended: 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 such sums shall remain available 
     until expended for the disbursement of loans obligated in 
     fiscal year 1996: Provided further, That these funds are 
     available to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans not to exceed $200,000,000 and total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $75,000,000: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     available for the cost of direct loans not to exceed 
     $1,208,000, to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount not to exceed $6,930,000, shall be available for 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as authorized 
     by Public Law 103-66: Provided further, That if such funds 
     are not obligated for empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities by June 30, 1996, they remain available for other 
     authorized purposes under this head.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $8,836,000, of which 
     $8,731,000 shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses''.
                 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), $10,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
                  mutual and self-help housing grants

       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).


                 rural community fire protection grants

       For grants pursuant to section 7 of the Cooperative 
     Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-313), 
     $1,000,000 to fund up to 50 percent 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), $11,000,000.
           Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Rural Business and 
     Cooperative Development Service, including administering the 
     programs authorized by the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act, as amended; section 1323 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985; the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926; 
     for activities relating to the marketing aspects of 
     cooperatives, including economic research findings, as 
     authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946; for 
     activities with institutions concerning the development and 
     operation of agricultural cooperatives; and cooperative 
     agreements; $9,520,000: Provided, That this appropriation 
     shall be available for employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944, and not exceed 
     $250,000 may be used for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.
           rural business and industry loans program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $6,437,000, as authorized 
     by 7 U.S.C. 1928 and 86 Stat. 661-664, as amended: 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 such sums shall 
     remain available until expended for the disbursement of loans 
     obligated in fiscal year 1996: Provided further, That these 
     funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for the 
     principal amount of guaranteed loans of $500,000,000: 
     Provided further, That of the amounts available for the cost 
     of guaranteed loans including the cost of modifying loans, 
     $148,000, to subsidize gross obligations for the loan 
     principal, any part of which is guaranteed, not to exceed 
     $10,842,000, shall be available for empowerment zones and 
     enterprise communities, as authorized by Public Law 103-66: 
     Provided further, That if such funds are not obligated for 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities by June 30, 
     1996, they remain available for other authorized activities 
     under this head.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $14,868,000, of which 
     $14,747,000 shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses''.
            rural economic development loans program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       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, $3,729,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $584,000, which shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``Salaries and Expenses''.
 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), $5,000,000 is appropriated to the 
     alternative agricultural research and commercialization 
     revolving fund.
                    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, $45,000,000, of which $8,381,000 shall be 
     available through June 30, 1996, for assistance to 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as authorized 
     by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993, after which any funds not obligated shall remain 
     available for other authorized purposes under this head: 
     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.
          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. 1932), 
     $1,500,000.
                        Rural Utilities Service


       rural electrification and telephone loans program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       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, $90,000,000; 5 percent rural telephone 
     loans, $70,000,000; cost of money rural telephone loans, 
     $300,000,000; municipal rate rural electric loans, 
     $500,000,000; and loans made pursuant to section 306 of that 
     Act, $420,000,000, to remain available until expended. 

[[Page H7328]]

       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, $35,126,000; cost of 
     municipal rate loans, $54,150,000; cost of money rural 
     telephone loans, $60,000; cost of loans guaranteed pursuant 
     to section 306, $2,520,000: Provided, That notwithstanding 
     sections 305(c)(2) and 305(d)(2) of the Rural Electrification 
     Act of 1936, borrower interest rates may exceed 7 percent per 
     year.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $29,982,000, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses''.
                  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 1996 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), 
     $770,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the loan programs, $3,541,000.
               distance learning and medical link grants

       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.
           rural development performance partnerships program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants, 
     as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1928, and 1932, $435,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, to be available for loans 
     and grants for rural water and waste disposal and solid waste 
     management grants: Provided, That the costs of direct loans 
     and loan guarantees, including the cost of modifying such 
     loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated, not to exceed $4,000,000 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 of the total 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $18,700,000 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 further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated, $18,688,000 shall be for 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as authorized 
     by Public Law 103-66: Provided further, That if such funds 
     are not obligated for empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities by June 30, 1996, they shall remain available for 
     other authorized purposes under this head.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants, $12,740,000, 
     of which $12,623,000 shall be transferred and merged with 
     ``Rural Utilities Service, Salaries and Expenses''.
                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Rural Utilities Service, 
     including administering the programs authorized by the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, as amended, and the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, $19,211,000, of 
     which $7,000 shall be available for financial credit reports: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944, and not to exceed $103,000 may be used 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.
          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
19, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh]; the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard]; the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]; and the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     Amendment offered by mr. walsh

  The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Chairman. This first vote will be 15 minutes. Pursuant to the 
order of the House of Wednesday, July 19, the Chair announces that he 
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a 
vote by electronic device will be taken on each additional amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 427, 
not voting 7, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 538]

                               AYES--427

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen

[[Page H7329]]

     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Jefferson
     Lewis (CA)
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1706

  Messrs. BLILEY, HEFLEY, and GREENWOOD changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                 amendment no. 40 offered by mr. allard

  Mr. CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 232, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No 539]

                               AYES--196

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Deal
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Owens
     Oxley
     Paxon
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Callahan
     Canady
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Collins (MI)
     Cubin
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Torres
  Messrs. TORRICELLI, NUSSLE, TAYLOR of Washington, KLECZKA, GILMAN, 
FORBES, and FOLEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall 539, I meant to vote ``yes'' and 
I accidentally voted ``no.''
                 amendment no. 48 offered by mr. castle

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 96, 
noes 332, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 540]

                                AYES--96

     Andrews
     Baker (LA)
     Barr
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Burton
     Canady
     Castle
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Cooley
     Davis
     DeFazio
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     English
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Filner
     Foley
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Furse
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goss
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Luther
     Martini
     McCollum
     McHale
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Neal
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Roukema
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Torkildsen

[[Page H7330]]

     Velazquez
     Vento
     Wise
     Wyden
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--332

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Durbin
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Collins (MI)
     Dicks
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1722

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia and Mr. TEJEDA changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. EDWARDS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                amendment no. 71 offered by mr. sanders

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 70, 
noes 357, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 541]

                                AYES--70

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Brown (OH)
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Stupak
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Woolsey
     Wyden

                               NOES--357

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz

[[Page H7331]]

     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Ballenger
     Calvert
     Collins (MI)
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Owens
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1731

  Mr. FOLEY, Mr. RADANOVICH, and Ms. McKINNEY changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, and Mr. OLVER 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 541, I was 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of 
the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the bill, H.R. 1976, 
provides funding for the treatment and reduction of atrazine in three 
lakes in Illinois.
  Mr. Chairman, knowing of your commitment and the commitment of the 
distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], 
to the environment and your concern for human safety, I want to let you 
know that Lake Springfield, which is in my district and also in the 
district of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], is experiencing 
the same problems as the other three Illinois lakes. Lake Springfield 
is the drinking water source for the city of Springfield, the capital 
city of Illinois. Lake Springfield has experienced the floodwaters and 
constant rain that fell throughout the Midwest this year. Consequently, 
this forced the city to spend an additional $200,000 for water 
treatment.
  For instance, the atrazine levels in Lake Springfield reached a high 
of 25 parts per million during the high water levels in the spring.
  Mr. Chairman, I have some articles that I am including in the Record 
detailing the severity of the problem in Lake Springfield.
  The atrazine level in Springfield was a subject of a comical parody 
of the top 10 good things about having atrazine in our water, to name a 
few, makes Lipton iced tea more brisk, restaurants will now ask, 
``Atrazine or no atrazine?'' And finally, smoke detector, carbon 
monoxide detector or, now I get an atrazine detector.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend you and the committee for proactively 
assisting central Illinois in dealing with this problem.
  I would ask, with the chairman's indulgence, to include Lake 
Springfield to share equally in any final conference report that 
appropriates funds to reduce atrazine in the State of Illinois.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct, and I would be 
happy to work with the gentleman from Illinois when we get to 
conference on this bill to ensure that his request is addressed.
  Mr. LaHOOD. I would also like to acknowledge my friend, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], the ranking member, who fully supports this 
effort and has lent his support to it. I thank him. I know the 
residents of Springfield, both the 20th and the 18th districts, 
appreciate our mutual efforts.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me add my voice in support of the effort of the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood] here. He represents the watershed 
which serves Lake Springfield, which is in my district, and we have a 
common concern, because we both represent that city and many residents 
who rely on that water supply. I think his suggestion is a very valid 
one. I will do my best in conference to work with the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] to implement it.


                  amendment offered by mr. de la garza

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. de la Garza:
       Amendment No. 50: On page 41, line 3, strike out 
     ``$390,211,000, of which $377,074,000'' and insert 
     ``$385,889,000, of which $372,897,506''; and
       On page 46 after line 7 insert the following paragraph:


             ``rural development loan fund program account

       ``For the cost of direct loans as authorized by the rural 
     development loan fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)) for empowerment 
     zones and enterprise communities, as authorized by title XIII 
     of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, $4,322,000, 
     to subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans, $7,246,000.''.

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will restore $4,332,000 
in budget authority for the rural development loan fund program to 
continue direct loans to rural empowerment zones and 30 rural 
enterprise communities established last year.
  We know, and we sympathize with the problems of the appropriators, 
but I think that we have found a way to restore these funds, Mr. 
Chairman, by reducing the amount given to the administrative function 
of the rural housing, because the loans on rural housing have all been 
reduced by substantial amounts, and it is our intention that the 
reduction that would accrue from not having to do that work be taken 
from the administrative side and provided for the technical assistance 
to the empowerment zone.
  Mr. Chairman, the empowerment zones and enterprise community are the 
poorest of the poor. The nominated areas have to be less than 30,000, 
must have an unemployment below the poverty line, over 35 percent. They 
must have pervasive poverty and unemployment. And with all of the good 
intentions that these programs were dedicated to last year, I think 
that it would be in our own best interests to establish them, establish 
confidence in the community, get them to working together, matching 
funds and all of the work that has been done basically by the poor 
themselves, and I think it would be appropriate.
  I do not think that we do any damage to the area where we are 
transferring from, and it is not our intention to do any damage, but I 
think, and hopefully, that novel and innovative ways could be found 
between now and final passage. We will leave that to the distinguished 
Members, the chairman, and ranking member and their staff.
  Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment. 
It would restore $4,322,000 in budget authority for the Rural 
Development Loan Fund Program account to continue direct loans to the 
three Rural Empowerment Zones and 30 Rural Enterprise Communities 
established last year. This will support a loan amount of $7.2 million, 
the same level as was contained in the version of H.R. 1976 reported 
out by the Appropriations Committee.
  The Empowerment Initiative involving these areas will help them to 
help themselves by providing Federal loans and grants that will be 
matched with State assistance and other nonmonetary assistance such as 
targeted tax credits and technical assistance from a variety of 
Federal, State, and local agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, the localities involved in this initiative are some of 
the most impoverished rural areas in the United States. Each zone or 
community selected to participate in this effort put together a long-
range detailed plan for utilizing the funds and technical assistance 
that will be provided to them. The loans that go out under the Rural 
Development Loan Fund are among the most effective in creating jobs in 
rural America. The lending history of the RDLF program shows an average 
job creation of 25-30 jobs for every $110,000 loaned out. This 
combination provides the potential for a tremendous return on the 
Federal Government's investment in areas in desperate need of economic 
activity.
  My amendment as drafted would pay for the restoration of the 
Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities funding through a decrease in 

[[Page H7332]]
the appropriation available for the administrative expenses of the 
Rural Housing and Community Development Service. I will work with my 
colleague, Mr. Skeen, and the Department to find alternative sources 
should they indicate that a cut in this agency would hinder its ability 
to effectively deliver the programs under its jurisdiction.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of my colleagues for the amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. I want to say to my very good friend from the great State 
of Texas and distinguished ranking member and former chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, and, by the way, my chairman when I was a 
member on the Committee on Agriculture. I will never forget your 
advice, ``Don't overtalk an issue, and if you see me run that gavel 
handle across my throat, it means sit down.'' Well, you do not have the 
gavel, so I can go on.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] has offered an amendment 
to restore $4.3 million for empowerment zones and enterprise 
communities under the Rural Development Loan Fund program account. 
Funds for this program were eliminated as part of the en bloc 
amendment, because in order to make the necessary additional savings 
from discretionary spending, we eliminated all funding for this 
account.
  The gentleman's amendment appears to be budget neutral because it 
takes a like amount from the administrative expenses of the Rural 
Housing and Community Development Service. I say to my good friend from 
Texas, the committee knows about the importance of the empowerment 
zones and enterprise communities and has funds for them in three other 
accounts in this title.
  However, each of these accounts has different objectives, and so I 
will be happy to accept the gentleman's amendment and thank him for his 
interest and strong support for rural America.
  Mr. de la GARZA. I thank the distinguished chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   amendment offered by mr. callahan

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Callahan: Page 40, line 10, strike 
     ``$2,200,000,000: and insert ``$2,250,000,000''.
       Page 40, line 20, strike ``$107,840,000'' and insert 
     ``$118,335,000''.
       Page 39, line 24, strike ``$53,315,000'' and insert 
     ``$42,820,000''.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, this afternoon and last night and all 
through this debate and all through the debate in the Committee on 
Agriculture as well as the Committee on Appropriations, we focused an 
awful lot on the 502 housing program, and I think that has been most 
healthy because a lot of people know about this in the House that did 
not know about this wonderful program that exists here in our country 
for people who need financing capabilities who cannot get it because of 
low income.
  We have such a program here in this great country of ours, this 502 
program. Firemen and policemen and other hard-working people for the 
first time in their lives have an opportunity to have the financing 
capability of a nice home at a reasonable cost, and let me tell you, it 
is a working program, one of the finest programs that this country 
knows, and I think that all of us now, through all of this debate, 
finally recognize how important it is.
  We do have a dilemma, though, in this appropriation process, and let 
me tell you, both the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and our 
colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], have helped us 
tremendously as have their staffs, trying to find an opportunity to 
insert some more money, but there is just no capability here.
  But we are optimistic that there will be a capability, as we flow 
through the process and get into conference committee with the Senate, 
and they have pledged to me that they are going to do even more to make 
certain that this program receives the necessary money that it needs.
  We have 130,000 people whose applications have been approved who are 
waiting in the fiscal year starting October 1, hoping to get their 
first home. We are not going to be able to provide this service of all 
of them, but this is going to be a good start, and with the cooperation 
of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen], we have come up with opportunities to add another 
$10 million as displayed in my amendment, which will create a 
capability of another $50 million in lending capability.
  So I appreciate the staff of the committee working with me to find 
this resource. I am hopeful that we will finds more moneys, more 
resources, but I appreciate the spirit of working cooperation that I 
have received from the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], as well as the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], who has worked hard at this on her own.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague in support of this amendment. I 
tell you, I do it reluctantly, but I do it very proudly because I know 
he is moving in the right direction.
  Obviously, I would have my amendment that would have restored it up 
to the level, or at least yesterday I wanted it restored up to the 
level we had it originally. Today I tried to restore it up to $1 
billion and found I could not sustain a point of order.
  I think the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has done us a 
service of finding a way where we can begin the process.
  Let me speak to the need of it. I think we need not underestimate 
because we have this compromise working. There is need to push for 
more, as the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] said, in terms of 
the numbers. Already in my State there are 2\1/2\ years' worth of 
applications at the level at which we were funded last time, $1.4 
billion. So now that we are moving back, can you understand where we 
moved to $500 million, and now we are raising this to $50 million, that 
we are cutting back essentially all of the opportunity for 3 and 4 
years.
  My plea to you is to recognize what we are doing in destabilizing 
these communities. Having an investment in your first home not only is 
an investment for the families and their children but it is an 
investment in the community. It is a tax base. It is really having a 
piece of the American pie.
  I would urge both sides of the House, if, as the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has indicated, if in the conference we could 
find more money, we would encourage you to do that because this is just 
such a small opportunity. But I do urge that we support this because it 
means that at least this Congress recognizes that 502 has been a very 
effective program. It is a program that not only serves families well 
but also serves our communities well.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the Callahan-Clayton 
amendment. This 502 program is critically important to lower-income 
working families and smalltown America. The gentleman from Alabama is 
right. There are people waiting in line for a piece of the American 
dream. We have got to not only add the money that was suggested, but 
keep looking for more. I will be working with the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen] to accomplish that, and I thank my colleague for his 
leadership as well as the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I think, demonstrates very clearly the 
difficulty that we were in and we have been in. To make additional cuts 
in the discretionary program, an increase of $50 million in the loan 
level for section 502 direct loans, requires more than $10 million of 
subsidy, and this amendment would take that money from the salaries and 
expense accounts of the Rural Housing and Community Development 
Service. In 1996 that account will be used for, among other things, the 
closing and restructuring of USDA field offices, and that 
reorganization plan will save many millions of dollars in the long run. 
I know how important the 502 housing program is to many Members, 

[[Page H7333]]
and it is important, as well, to me, and I will agree to this 
amendment. If we can do better for the 502 in the conference, we will 
certainly be trying to do exactly that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
  The amendment was agreed to.


            amendment offered by mr. watt of north carolina

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Watt of North Carolina:
       Amentment No. 46: Page 40, line 16, before the period 
     insert the following:
       ``: Provided, That notwithstanding section 520 of the 
     Housing Act of 1949, the Secretary of Agriculture may make 
     loans under section 502 of such Act of properties in the Pine 
     View West Subdivision, located in Gibsonville, North 
     Carolina, in the same manner as provided under such section 
     for properties in rural areas''.

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this provision would permit 
the subdivision in my congressional district, known as Pineview West 
subdivision, to be eligible once again for financing for the 502 
program which was just discussed in the prior amendment. This was an 
eligible rural area as of the 1980 census. As a result of the 1990 
census this still-rural area became a part of the standard metropolitan 
statistical area, and so it lost its designation as a rural area that 
would qualify under the 502 program.
  Last year in the 103d Congress I offered this amendment which was 
adopted by the House Banking Committee in the housing reauthorization 
bill, and the housing reauthorization bill of course passed the House 
last time but was not acted on by the Senate.
  This would not add any additional money. It would simply allow this 
one subdivision to compete along with other rural areas for 502 funds, 
and I ask the support of my colleagues.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of this amendment. I think it is a 
reasonable request by the gentleman, I think it has been reviewed by 
the majority as well, and I hope that we can pass this with a voice 
vote very quickly.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we were reluctant to accept it, but we know of no real 
objection to it, so we accept it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word for the purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, a number of fruit producers in my central Washington 
district have expressed concern about the report language pertaining to 
the United States importation of Mexican avocados. They fear that it 
could continue current restrictions on United States imports of Mexican 
avocados, and we will have the unintended consequences of diminished 
access to Mexico for our products.
  In Washington State the apple industry expects to suffer a 50-percent 
reduction in exports to Mexico this year due to a costly onsite 
inspection program mandated by Mexico. Washington cherry exports to 
Mexico were also halted 4 years ago in response to alleged pest 
concerns. Representatives of the tree fruit industry have told me that 
these actions were in response to United States restrictions on Mexican 
avocados.
  The language in the report states that in order to modify the current 
restrictions on Mexican avocados this product must be scientifically 
viewed, adequately safeguarded with enough time provided for public 
comment.
  Mr. Chairman, does this mean that, if adequate pest risk assessment 
is concluded, if APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
has certified that adequate safeguards have been taken and that 
industry has been afforded adequate comment period as spelled out in 
the proposed APHIS rule announced earlier this month, that the United 
States importation of fresh avocado fruit grown in Mexico will go 
forward?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, my response is ``yes.''
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I know that our fruit 
industry producers in central Washington will be very relieved to know 
that they will not be the target of inappropriate retaliation by the 
Mexican Government due to the overly stringent United States 
restrictions on avocados.


                   amendment offered by mrs. clayton

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Clayton:
       Amendment No. 34: Page 40, line 10, insert ``(less 
     $70,000,000) before ``for loans''.
       Page 40, line 11, insert ``(less $70,000,000) before 
     ``shall''.
       Page 40 line 14, strike ``$150,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$220,000,000''.
       Page 40, line 20, insert ``(less $119,000)'' before ``, of 
     which''.
       Page 40, line 20, insert ``(less $119,000)'' before ``shall 
     be for''.
       Page 40, line 23, strike ``$82,035,000'' and insert 
     ``$92,973,000''.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase the level 
of 515 by an amount of $70 million raising it back to the $220 million 
which is currently. I understand I am going to have a point of order, 
so it may not indeed be allowed, but let me share this with my 
colleagues.
  This is a program that 2 years ago had $540 million, and it was cut 
last year to $220 million, and it was several of us who worked on that 
to retain the $220 million for 515.
  Why is this important? Mr. Chairman, this is the only housing 
available to rural America at very low rates. Rental housing is very 
scarce to find. In fact, adequate housing period is very scarce to find 
in rural areas, and to conceive of not having this little resource to 
advocate for the poorest of the poor seems to me is unfounded, and it 
has moved in the wrong direction, and the $70 million would only bring 
it up to the $220 million which is the current area.
  I would like to think that we could perfect this, that we would not 
have to have a point of order. I ask the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen] if he could help us out on that, help me understand. Is there a 
possibility that we can perfect this without having a point of order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. I understand the gentlewoman, and I have gained a great 
deal of respect and fondness for her, but I have to tell my colleagues 
this. I must make a point of order against it, the amendment, because 
it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act, 
as amended, and the Committee on Appropriations filed a subcommittee 
allocation for fiscal year 1996 on July 20, 1995, House Report 104-197.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide new budget authority in 
excess of the subcommittee allocation. It is not permitted under 
section 302(f) of the act. However, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the 
amendment be ruled out of order, but I want to tell the gentlewoman I 
want to work with her on her problem.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Could we get a commitment that we try to find money if 
it is possible during the conference?
  Mr. SKEEN. The gentlewoman has that commitment from me, and I 
appreciate her forbearance. This breaches our 602(b) allocation by 
$10,819,000 by the way.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] is withdrawn.


                   amendment offered by mr. bereuter

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H7334]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 31: Page 40, after line 25, 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, to be derived from 
     the amount made available under this heading for the cost of 
     low-income section 515 loans and to become available for 
     obligation only upon the enactment of authorizing 
     legislation.

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that this Member is 
offering is virtually identical to a provision included in last year's 
Agriculture appropriations measure.
  This Member has taken a strong interest in rural housing programs, 
and has been successful in efforts in the Banking Committee to 
authorize new, more cost-effective approaches to rural housing 
development. One such initiative, which the distinguished chairman of 
the subcommittee, Mr. Skeen, and the distinguished ranking Member, Mr. 
Durbin, have helped to make a reality, was the highly successful 
Section 502 Middle Income Loan Guarantee Program. This Member is 
pleased that this measure contains $1.5 billion in guarantee authority 
for that program. Now, this Member is seeking support to help make a 
new multifamily loan guarantee program a reality.
  In the 103d Congress this Member introduced legislation to create a 
new multifamily loan guarantee program. That legislation would create a 
demonstration for a new Federal loan guarantee program for the 
construction of multifamily rental housing units. That legislation 
passed the House in the 103d Congress as part of H.R. 3838, the Housing 
and Community Development Act of 1994, passed July 22, 1994. Because 
H.R. 3838 died when the Senate failed to act on it in the last hours of 
the 103d Congress, this Member reintroduced the legislation, which was 
passed by the Housing Subcommittee as part of H.R. 1691, and is now 
awaiting further action by the full House.
  Also, with bipartisan support on the Appropriations Committee, we 
were successful in including $1 million funding for this program in the 
Department of Agriculture appropriation for fiscal 1995, making it 
possible to finance approximately $25 million in guarantees, contingent 
upon the authorization of the demonstration program. Unfortunately, 
because the Senate never passed an authorization bill, that $1 million 
was never used. As this Member fully expects that the demonstration 
program will gain an authorization this year, this Member is offering 
this amendment to H.R. 1976 to allow $1 million of the credit subsidy 
allocation to be used to fund the new multifamily loan guarantee 
program, contingent upon that authorization. This amendment is similar 
to the final language adopted in the 103d Congress. This Member's staff 
has discussed this amendment with the distinguished Chairman's, Mr. 
Skeen's, staff, and this Member understands that he is supportive. This 
Member greatly appreciates that support, and asks that the amendment be 
accepted.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to help me understand 
how this would work with the current 515 program. This is at a slightly 
higher income level, and it is a guaranteed loan.
  Mr. BEREUTER. It is a supplementary program to the 515 program which 
is a direct loan program, and it would be for those people whose income 
is 80 percent to 115 percent median area income, just as the 502 loan 
guarantee program, which is now 2 years old, serves this category, 
economic category, above the 80 percent by meeting income level.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. So it is identical to the 502 unsubsidized guarantee 
for the same income level.
  Mr. BEREUTER. It is almost identical, but that is of course a single-
family program, and this would be for five units or more multifamily 
unit construction.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I support strongly 515. Obviously I support 515 for 
reasons that it serves the very poor, but I also supported 502 because 
it serves both the very poor as well as those not so poor who do not 
qualify for loans that are not guaranteed. So I want to join the 
gentleman in support.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the distinguished 
gentlewoman from North Carolina's support, and I know how important her 
interest is, and successful, in housing.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a great idea, and we hope 
the gentleman can get his authorization through. We will accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois who has been so 
crucial in helping me with the 502 loan guarantee program.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] 
has really shown us some leadership. This is an innovative approach to 
providing housing with limited exposure for Federal taxpayers and 
maximum investment in good housing for people living in rural areas. We 
were glad to support him last year. I am sorry the authorization did 
not go through, and I am happy to support him again this year.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I rise in support of this amendment, offered 
by Mr. Bereuter, that will appropriate one million dollars for a rural 
rental multifamily loan guarantee demonstration program. This type of 
loan guarantee will leverage private-sector resources in order to 
provide and expand affordable rental housing opportunities. This 
provision is not new; during the 103d Congress, the House passed a 
similar provision in the housing authorization bill--H.R. 3838, The 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1994, which was not enacted 
into law. During this Congress, the Housing and Community Opportunity 
Subcommittee, of which I serve as chairman, has reported out 
legislation in H.R. 1691 that will authorize a sec. 515 multifamily 
loan guarantee program to be operated by the Rural Housing and 
Community Development Service. During this period of severe budget 
constraints, this type of demonstration provides Government an 
opportunity to form partnerships with the private and nonprofit sector 
to provide and expand affordable housing in rural areas. I urge support 
of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendments offered by mr. owens

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments which were printed in 
the Record as amendment No. 22, and I ask unanimous consent that these 
amendments be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Owens:
       Page 49, line 20, strike ``RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM 
     ACCOUNT'' and all that follows through line 12 on page 50.
       Page 70, strike lines 12 through 14.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  Mr. OWENS. The gentleman objects to what; the amendment being offered 
en bloc?
  Mr. SKEEN. To the amendment being offered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.


                     amendment offered by mr. owens

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Owens: Page 49, line 20, strike 
     ``RURAL TELEPHONE BANK PROGRAM ACCOUNT'' and all that follows 
     through line 12 on page 50.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a continuation of the 
effort to get truth in budget balancing and to have it be made clear to 
the American people, have it on the record, that we are continuing to 
rob the cities and the people of the cities in order to take care of 
the programs and the institutions that support rural America.
  I have nothing against giving all the possible support to farmers and 
institutions that serve farmers and rural America, but why are we 
robbing the cities? Why are we taking away a program for summer 
employment for youth? 600 young people will not be employed because the 
Committee on Appropriations is going to strike that 

[[Page H7335]]
program, cut it to zero. We are cutting away job training programs for 
youth, job training programs for adults. We are drastically cutting 
title I programs, almost $1 billion for poor youth.
  When it comes to this bill, we continue old institutions that have 
been draining the taxpayers for some time, even though they promised 
they would have a limited life and go out of existence.
  Here is an example of one of those situations. Suddenly silence has 
descended on the House in terms of challenging some of these programs, 
but I think it is very important to get on the record exactly what is 
going on with respect to the robbing of the cities in order to take 
care of defunct and obsolete rural institutions.
  This amendment would strike legislative language in H.R. 1976 which 
blocks the pending privatization of the Rural Telephone Bank and would 
delete the more than $3.5 million in appropriations provided for the 
operation of the bank. The Rural Telephone Bank was created in 1971 to 
provide an additional source of credit for rural telephone companies 
which did not qualify for subsidized direct loans and loan guarantees 
available from the Department of Agriculture.
  At the time, taxpayers were promised that the RTB would be a time 
limited venture, comparable to the Federal land banks. We were assured 
that the initial Federal capital outlay would be repaid by eventual 
privatization of the bank. Privatization. The other side is fond of 
privatization when it comes to programs that are serving people in the 
cities. Why don't we have privatization here for this program?
  The bank's enabling legislation directed that this
   privatization would begin on September 30, 1995, this year. The 
Clinton administration has been preparing to carry out the bank's 
privatization and has not requested any additional funding to support 
the bank, but H.R. 1976 derails those plans. It blocks privatization 
and it provides a new infusion of tax dollars to keep it running as a 
Federal entity. We are going to continue a government program which is 
slated to be a private program.

  Yes, I want to remind my colleagues that this is in addition to the 
loan subsidies that were provided already by the USDA's rural utility 
service. In doing this, the Committee on Appropriations insists it 
supports privatization. It just wants more time to study the issue. 
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think 25 years is long enough to study the 
issue.
  This privatization of the Rural Telephone Bank is not coming out of 
the blue. It was mandated 25 years ago. This was a promise that 
Congress made to the taxpayers in 1971. If we tell people on welfare 
two years is enough, you have to get off, five years is enough, you 
have to get off, tell people in public housing, two years is enough, 
you have to get out, why don't we set some limits on the other 
subsidized programs across the country? We have farm subsidy programs 
not being discussed here, $20,000, $30,000 going to a family. It has 
been happening for the last 30 years, but nobody is talking about 
ending it.
  This amendment will strike the legislative language and move on to 
have the privatization take place. I think it is very important that we 
support this amendment, which is consistent with all we have been 
preaching. It would assure this promise is kept and the privatization 
proceeds on course.
  It should also be noted that this is one of those rare issues on 
which President Reagan and President Clinton agree. President Reagan 
tried to privatize the Rural Bank in 1981 and was rebuffed. He was told 
it was too soon and we should wait until 1995 to privatize. 1995 is now 
here, and President Clinton wants to follow the lead of President 
Reagan.
  No more studying, stalling, no more excuses. Let us keep the promise 
and scrape this barnacle off the hull of the Federal Government. We do 
not want the taxpayers to be burdened with this any longer than they 
have to. Let us privatize the Rural Telephone Bank. I urge a yes vote 
on this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Rural Telephone Bank was created by Congress in 
1971 as a supplemental source of financing for the rural telephone 
program, and nothing is more essential to rural America than good 
telecommunications systems. I ought to know. I am probably the last 
Member of Congress to ever have a phone after I became a Member of 
Congress, and I appreciate the effort of this particular program, and 
appreciate it very much, because it allows families to live where they 
work, and particularly in rural country.
  Nothing is more essential than good telecommunications systems for 
basic telephone services for individuals, communication systems that 
can attract manufacturing and service companies to create jobs. You do 
not have to have a headquarters company in the United States now 
because we have the kind of telecommunications that allows you to 
locate your headquarters anywhere you want it and put your warehouses 
somewhere else and your printing somewhere else, and that is a boon to 
rural communities, to educational and medical programs that give rural 
schools, and health care centers access to data bases in urban areas.
  The Rural Telephone Bank is an important part of this particular 
picture, Mr. Chairman. Almost every State in the union has districts 
which need rural communications service. I have already pointed out 
that we have had to freeze or cut many of the accounts that provide 
services to rural areas, and this account is among them.
  The loan level remains at the same loan level as fiscal year 1995, at 
$175 million. The cost of the loan subsidy is very modest, $770,000, 
which is also the same as 1995. Administrative expenses are $3.5 
million, which is $5.2 million less than fiscal year 1995.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is simply no need for this amendment. By 
law, the Rural Telephone Bank must privatize, and our bill provides for 
that process to begin in fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment, and ask my colleagues 
to oppose it as well.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take exception to my friend from New 
York, who suggested that somehow there is a war on cities and the rural 
areas have been exempted. This bill is a perfect example of a bill 
which is balanced in what it tries to do for the entire Nation.
  It is true it serves rural areas and agriculture, which is important 
to all of us, regardless of where we live. But it is also a fact that a 
major portion of the spending in this bill literally goes into the 
gentleman's home city, as it does in mine, and all across the Nation, 
for programs like the food stamp program, child nutrition program, 
special milk program, the WIC Program, feeding for the elderly, and so 
many others that are important.
  In the area of nutrition, this bill literally serves the Nation. It 
is not a bill directed to rural areas. There are specific programs that 
are directed to rural areas, and the gentleman addresses one, the Rural 
Telephone Bank.
  I think we all concede and the committee report language says 
explicitly we are moving toward privatization of this bank, and I think 
it should be done. But we have to do it in an orderly way. What is at 
stake here is telephone service in areas of very sparse population, 
where in fact many of the large telephone companies have decided they 
do not want to build their subsidiaries. We have over the years created 
telephone cooperatives and others to deal with that service, much as we 
did in delivering electricity to those areas.
  None of us want to jeopardize that. These are good, hard working 
people. We want to modernize it, we want to privatize it. I think the 
gentleman from New York is on the right track, but I think to do it 
precipitously with this amendment eliminating it may cause unintended 
consequences.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman tell me what date will be 
an acceptable date for the final privatization? We are past the 
deadline.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the administration has 
made the proposal to privatize, and we are still waiting for their 
suggestions. The authorizing and appropriating committees are waiting 
for specific 

[[Page H7336]]
language. I wish I could tell you when that would be forthcoming.
  Mr. OWENS. Would you estimate September 1996 instead of 1995? Can you 
make an estimate of how long it is going to take? It has been 25 years.
  Mr. DURBIN. President Clinton does not take all my calls directly, 
but I would be happy to join the gentleman in perhaps a party line call 
that the two of us could make on maybe even a rural telephone program 
and get in touch with him to find out.
  Mr. OWENS. Could the gentleman tell us what percentage the food stamp 
program has been cut?
  Mr. DURBIN. The cuts for the food stamp program? I would have to look 
at it to be sure here, but it looks like in the fiscal year that we are 
presently in it was $25.1 billion, and that in the next fiscal year it 
will be $25.9 billion. So there is an increase, if I am not mistaken, 
in the food stamp program expenses.
  Mr. OWENS. You are saying it has not been cut at all?
  Mr. DURBIN. No, there are no cuts.
  Mr. OWENS. With inflation as a factor, there are no cuts?
  Mr. DURBIN. It looks like it is an increase of about $770 million 
over last year.
  Mr. OWENS. The proposal to block-grant the food stamp program has 
been dropped?
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me tell the gentleman, it is not part of this bill. 
It is my understanding we do not have any proposal in here relative to 
block grant. The gentleman and I share an opinion on block granting. 
The bill addresses the program as it currently exists.
  Mr. OWENS. The food stamp program is now an entitlement. It will no 
longer be an entitlement once it is block granted, and there are 
proposals to block grant it, so areas like mine will have to take a 
huge cut if they depend on the States to continue after it reaches the 
levels it is funded at the Federal level.
  Mr. DURBIN. The gentleman and I share the same view on this. I hope 
what you just described does not occur. This bill does not do that. 
This bill does not fund the program anticipating that will happen.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I share the concern in reference to the 
food stamp program. This appropriations bill actually increases that. 
It was this gentleman on the Committee on Agriculture that made a very 
determined effort simply not to block grant the food stamp program.
  I would say what has already been said by my colleague from New 
Mexico and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, this bill allows 
us to privatize. We are going to do that. The OMB wanted to do it 
immediately. We would end up here with a situation where many rural 
telephone companies would not have access to the money to borrow from. 
It would cause utter chaos in the communications system out in our 
rural areas. It is really not commensurate with the food stamp program.
  We will privatize. We will get there from here. I would just urge the 
gentleman to allow us to do this work under the bill that we would like 
to do, and I will be happy to work with the gentleman in regard to food 
stamps.
  Mr. OWENS. If the gentleman will yield further, I am happy to hear 
that the Committee on Appropriations is committed to the privatization 
of the program with all deliberate speed. I hope that speed is not too 
deliberate.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
   Mr. Chairman, I just want to briefly talk about this particular 
amendment. As I look at this amendment, what this amendment will do is 
eliminate $4.3 million in appropriations for the Rural Telephone Bank 
Program, and, second, it strikes a provision barring any of the bill's 
funds from being used to retire more than 5 percent of the Bank's Class 
A stock.
  I am really concerned about the impact of this amendment on areas in 
our country where we have small independent telephone companies, States 
like Wisconsin. I cannot think of a State that is not impacted by this 
amendment.
  Now, in this Congress we have been told a lot and talked a lot, we 
hear a lot about competition in the communications industry. In fact, 
we are in a major bill here this fall on this particular issue. But 
this program has fostered competition. This program has fostered 
competition by providing a source of capital to these small companies. 
The effect of the gentleman's amendment would be to terminate this 
program, which will lead to less competition. Let me say that again, 
less competition, and poorer service.
  So I am asking and request that Members, especially from rural 
districts, look at this amendment, because it is going to hurt service. 
But it is going to do more than that, because if you do not have a good 
telephone service you are never going to have industry that produces 
jobs in those areas, and we need jobs in these rural areas. So this is 
not only going to harm our telephone and associated services, but it is 
going to harm the economies in these rural areas.
  So I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment for those reasons.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. OWENS. Is the gentleman saying he is opposed to privatization of 
the Telephone Bank? He never wants to privatize it? He wants it to 
remain as it is forever, so the Federal Government will subsidize it 
for anything?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I never said anything 
about privatizing. I am in favor of privatizing. I am interpreting this 
amendment as to how it would affect our rural areas, not only my own 
State but every State of the Union. It is going to hurt not only 
telephone service, but hurt those areas in expanding their economy for 
jobs, because if you do not have good telephone service, good 
communication service, especially in the high-technology world we are 
moving into, you are never going to have industry locate in those rural 
areas. That is precisely what we are trying to do, so as to entice 
industry to those areas.
                              {time}  1815

  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman be offering the same 
agreement next year? The logic will still be there. You are saying we 
should never privatize again?
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I am just saying what this amendment is going 
to do to your rural areas.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I would ask the gentleman a question, if I might. I appreciate his 
concern.
  Would the gentleman take the word of this chairman and the chairman 
of the House Committee on Agriculture that we will get something done 
in this area and give it every consideration? Would the gentleman 
withdraw his amendment?
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman repeat that? Do I have 
the chairman's word?
  Mr. SKEEN. The Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, myself, the gentleman 
from Kansas, [Mr. Roberts] of the full House Committee on Agriculture, 
that we will work with the gentleman on this particular issue. We would 
appreciate very much the gentleman withdrawing his amendment at this 
time. Because I do not think it gets the gentleman where he wants to 
go. But we want to help the gentleman if he is interested in 
privatization. We would like to work with the gentleman.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, can I interpret that the gentleman will be 
willing to set a date for privatization?
  Mr. SKEEN. Absolutely, set a date any time.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's pledge.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:
  
[[Page H7337]]


                                TITLE IV

                         DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

                 Office of the Under Secretary for Food

                    Nutrition and Consumer Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and 
     Consumer Service, $440,000.

                       Food and Consumer 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 section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act 
     of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772-1785, and 1789); $7,952,424,000, to 
     remain available through September 30, 1997, of which 
     $2,354,566,000 is hereby appropriated and $5,597,858,000 
     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 up to $3,964,000 shall be available for 
     independent verification of school food service claims: 
     Provided further, That $1,900,000 shall be available to 
     provide financial and other assistance to operate the Food 
     Service Management Institute.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds other 
     than provided in this Act may be available for nutrition 
     education and training and the Food Service Management 
     Institute.


               special supplemental nutrition program for

                   women, infants, and children (wic)

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the special 
     supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), 
     $3,729,807,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     1997: Provided, That for fiscal year 1996, $20,000,000 that 
     would otherwise be available to States for nutrition services 
     and administration shall be made available for food benefits: 
     Provided further, That $4,000,000 from unobligated balances 
     for supervisory and technical assistance grants may be 
     transferred to and merged with this account: Provided 
     further, That the participation level on September 30, 1996, 
     shall not exceed 7.3 million: Provided further, That up to 
     $6,750,000 may
      be used to carry out the farmers' market nutrition program 
     from any funds not needed to maintain current caseload 
     levels: Provided further, 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.


                           food stamp program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2011-2029), $27,097,828,000: Provided, That funds 
     provided herein shall remain available through September 30, 
     1996, in accordance with section 18(a) of the Food Stamp Act: 
     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 workfare 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 7 U.S.C. 2028.


                      commodity assistance 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)), section 204(a) of the Emergency Food Assistance 
     Act of 1983, as amended, and section 110 of the Hunger 
     Prevention Act of 1988, $168,000,000, to remain available 
     through September 30, 1977: Provided, That none of these 
     funds shall be available to reimburse the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation for commodities donated to the program: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act or any other Act 
     may be used for demonstration projects in the emergency food 
     assistance program.


              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), $215,000,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 1997.


                      food program administration

       For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic food 
     programs funded under this Act, $108,323,000, 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.
                 amendment offered by mr. hall of ohio

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio: Page 53, line 24, 
     strike the colon and all that follows through ``7.3 million'' 
     on line 26.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, the time to 
be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] will be recognized 
for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am very glad to introduce the bipartisan amendment with the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. Our amendment will simply 
remove the cap on the number of people who can participate in the WIC 
program.
  As many of my colleagues know, WIC is a very effective program at 
reducing infant mortality. This legislation, if passed, would be the 
first time ever that a cap is placed on the number of people who may 
participate in WIC.
  While we have always funded WIC in our annual appropriation bills at 
a specific level, we have never capped the number of people who may 
qualify. By striking the cap, our amendment allows for greater 
flexibility at the local level. It encourages the WIC directors to find 
the most cost-efficient ways to run the program in order to serve the 
most people.
  The Hall-Roukema amendment has been scored by the Congressional 
Budget Office and is budget neutral. It will not change the level of 
WIC funding in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, of all of the domestic hunger
   programs in America, few are as efficient, effective and respected 
as the WIC program. By promoting breast feeding and providing nutrition 
supplements and food prescriptions to qualified participants, WIC 
serves a critical need for America's most vulnerable people, low-income 
mothers, infants and children.

  WIC also provides access to maternal, prenatal, pediatric health care 
services for this targeted high-risk population. It is a short-term 
intervention program designed to influence lifetime nutrition and 
health behaviors.
  Five Wall Street CEOs called WIC in written testimony the health care 
equivalent of a AAA-rated investment. The WIC program reduces infant 
mortality and low birth weight. The GAO says that for every dollar 
spent on WIC, America realizes a $3.50 saving in health care cost.
  WIC fights hunger among our poor, but it is also a good investment. 
It will prevent spending money down the road.
   Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned that the cap on participation will 
create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. It will create an 
administrative nightmare for USDA and the States as they attempt to 
determine an appropriate cap formula to ensure that States do not add 
too many participants to their rolls.
   Mr. Chairman, the cap could hold up the distribution of funds until 
appropriate administrative procedures are in place at the Federal, 
State and local levels. Since a set amount is appropriated for WIC, 
there really is no need to cap the number of people who may 
participate.
  A cap would force local WIC directors to turn participants away from 
the program, even if they have the money to serve them through 
efficient program management.
   Mr. Chairman, I would urge you to vote for the Hall-Roukema 
amendment. It is budget neutral. It provides for more flexibility to 
the local WIC directors. It would allow cost savings to help poor 
people.
  Please support this amendment and remove the cap on participation in 
the WIC program.
   Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
              perfecting amendment offered by mr. goodling

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.

[[Page H7338]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Goodling: Page 53, line 
     25 insert after ``1996,'' the following: ``with Federal (and 
     not State) funding''.

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering would 
retain the $7.3 million cap for participation on the WIC program. 
However, it would limit the effect of participants served with Federal 
program dollars.
  I have been a strong supporter of WIC over the years and have worked 
to make sure that WIC works and is a good program. This said, I also 
believe there is a strong need for us to balance the Federal budget. 
However, we cannot reduce the cost of Federal programs contained in 
this appropriation bill solely through reductions in programs which 
support our Nation's farmers.
  I understand concerns have been raised about the participation cap 
and the need to continue to increase WIC participation. My solution to 
the problem is to restrict the cap to Federal dollars. This is 
important because if you will look at the dollars that some States have 
spent beyond what is spent on the Federal level, you will discover my 
State, for instance, spends $6 million additional money. New York 
spends $21 million additional money. Other States spend additional 
money. And, therefore, the cap would not affect what the State puts in.
  However, I think it is very, very important to understand that in 
doing this I in no way believe that next year we should count what the 
State puts in as far as numbers we are to serve with Federal dollars. 
We serve numbers with Federal dollars that we put in. The State dollars 
then would provide for the additional that they want to spend.
  So my amendment merely says that the cap does not include dollars 
that are spent by State and local governments on the program.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I will try to address both of these interests.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hall] strikes the provision capping WIC participation at 
7.3 million. That cap is only a 1-year cap in 1996. It is not to be a 
cap in future years.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and 
let me tell you why.
  First, let me say that this committee has always been a great 
supporter of the WIC Program, and with the track record of the program 
over the years, I do not think anyone on the committee or in Congress 
can be accused of being against poor pregnant women, infants and 
children. And this year is no exception.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell you what the committee has done this year 
for WIC and why. Because of inflation and food cost increases, it costs 
the Federal Government more every year just to maintain the existing 
participation level for certain programs such as WIC and school lunch. 
What the committee has done is provide enough money to cover inflation 
and food cost increases to maintain the same number of participants in 
fiscal year 1996 that will be in the program at the end of fiscal year 
1995.
  Mr. Chairman, to do this, the committee had to find $290 million from 
an allocation that was $424 million less in outlays than the previous 
year. To find this kind of money, we had to make severe reductions in 
rural development, conservation, and research programs that are vital 
to keeping this country prosperous.
  Capping participation at the end of fiscal year 1996 at 7.3 million 
allows the program to continue at the same level as 1995 while the 
Congress decides what to do with the program in the welfare reform 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, without an adjustment in the committee's allocation to 
account for inflation costs, we cannot afford $300 million increases 
every year to maintain existing caseloads at the expense of other 
programs in the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would request that the gentleman from Ohio withdraw 
his amendment and allow the program to continue in fiscal year 1996 
while Congress works its will on the welfare reform.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will attempt to clarify the situation for 
Members who are confused. The amendment of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] is a perfecting amendment to the original 
text.
  Pending the decision on that amendment, then the Hall amendment will 
attempt to strike that entire section which may or may not include the 
Goodling amendment.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, we agreed to a time limitation at the 
outset of 20 minutes to the Hall amendment and all amendments thereto. 
If I understand the Chair's explanation, the Goodling amendment does 
not amend the Hall amendment so it is not subject to that time 
limitation.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. The Chair is certainly willing to 
entertain an agreement to include that time consideration for the 
Goodling amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
limitation include the Goodling amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Reserving the right to object, I think we need to get 
a handle on how much time has been consumed on both sides regarding the 
Hall amendment so we have some idea out of that 20-minute allocation 
what is left to understand the difference between the Hall and Goodling 
amendments before we agree to a time limit.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will attempt to clarify the time situation as 
best as he can.
  The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has only used 3 minutes of his 10 
minutes, which means he still has 7 minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] still controls 5 minutes.
  The time of the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] since it was 
directed at the Goodling amendment, does not count against the original 
cap, so the gentleman has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield under his 
reservation, I say to my friend and colleague from New Mexico, the 
difference here is that the Hall amendment has been printed in the 
Record and has been subject to review.
  The Goodling amendment, I am sure offered in good faith, was first 
brought to us just a few minutes ago, and we have not had a chance and 
really need an opportunity to discuss it, I think, on the floor so that 
we understand it and its impact on the proposal by the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the 
Goodling amendment be limited to 10 minutes, the time to be equally 
controlled.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] 
will be recognized for 10 minutes. After that debate is completed, the 
Committee will then return to the Hall amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
my good friend and my chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling].
  Mr. Hall and the gentlewoman from New Jersey, Mrs. Roukema, have 
worked very hard and researched their amendment. I know exactly what it 
will do. It will give some flexibility to WIC directors if the food 
inflation rate is down. It will serve more people, and food inflation 
may very well be down this year. It looks like it will be down.
  If they save some money on infant formula bidding, competitive 
bidding, which is going to be restored, I am sure, in the Senate, we 
know then that it would not cost the taxpayers any more money, that 
they will have more flexibility to serve more people.
  For example, just on the question of the competitive bidding for 
infant formula, that saves about $1 billion a 

[[Page H7339]]
year, enabling us to serve well over 1 million extra people a month.

                              {time}  1830

  I would ask the gentleman, what will the effect of his amendment be 
that will be different from the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] 
which will leave this flexibility and not cost the taxpayers any more, 
because this is not an entitlement, not even a cap entitlement?
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. My amendment does not need any research. My amendment 
is very, very simple. It says: ``Insert after 1996 the following: `with 
Federal, not State, funding.'''
  What I am saying is the cap does not apply to money that is spent by 
States. For instance, the $6 million that my State spends, I do not 
have Michigan on here, so I do not know how much more the gentleman 
spends, but the $15 million that Massachusetts spends and the $21 
million that New York spends is not part of that cap. In other words, 
if they put on, if my State puts on another 10,000 people, using the 
State money that they got from saving on their competitive bidding and 
all of these kinds of things, or money from their own funds, that is 
not part of the cap.
  Mr. KILDEE. The money they rebate?
  Mr. GOODLING. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that would be 
State money.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about this amendment because it 
appears to be a gutting amendment, and I believe it is. The reason I 
say that is that I have known all day that in fact the amendment was 
going to be offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]. 
We had asked his office several times if we could see it, it was never 
produced. We just saw it about 2 minutes ago.
  In fact, what he is trying to do is in fact produce a vote on his 
first, which confuses the issue and which we have before us. The issue 
is we are not trying to increase the money for the WIC program. I wish 
personally it could be increased, but we have to live with that fact. 
What we are trying to say is that we want to take the cap off the 
number of people. We want to give the flexibility, the creativity, the 
innovation to the WIC directors around the country to add more people, 
still using the same amount of money.
  I took the chance and I bothered a number of WIC directors around the 
country and called them by phone, and said, ``What is going to happen 
here with this whole process if we put a cap on people?'' And all the 
WIC directors said: ``We are going to be very conservative, we are not 
going to be aggressive, we are not going to be innovative. There is 
going to be a lot more money in the program that there will be 
penalties on, probably. What will happen is that more people that could 
participate in the WIC program will probably drop off the program, 
because as the publicity comes out that we are really restricting the 
program, less people will apply, and in the long run, you will have 
less people. What will happen is next year you will say, `See, there 
are less people participating,' more money probably will be sent back 
to the Government, and you will say, `You did not even spend the money 
in the first place, because what you are doing is you are stopping the 
WIC directors from doing their job. You are wasting money.'''
  For that reason I certainly oppose the Goodling amendment. It is a 
gutting amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. I just want to 
take issue with the gentleman from Ohio. I do not take second seat 
anyplace to him in my effort to make sure that WIC is effective and WIC 
works. I have worked just as hard as he has, and maybe longer. If he 
wants to make a statement that I am trying to gut something, he had 
better have some facts and figures. The reason we have not had anything 
to present before is because we were clearing with the Parliamentarian 
exactly what the language would have to be. That is why it took as long 
as it took.
  Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, we are talking as if somehow or other 
we are restricting people from participating in WIC. In 1993 $97 
million was returned. In 1994, $100 million was returned. In 1995, $125 
million of that will be returned. We will need $70 million of that when 
the late vouchers come in; however, there will still be $55 million 
additional money. Why has it been returned? Primarily because we pumped 
so much money in so rapidly that there was not an infrastructure out 
there in order to do the job and do it with quality. Therefore, I do 
not want to take a back seat to anyone in relationship to my efforts on 
the part of WIC over the years.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLING. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, there is no one over here who questions the 
gentleman's intentions at all, we are just worried about the language. 
We know that. We are worried about the language, what the effect will 
be, not the gentleman's intentions at all, because his record is very 
good in that.
  What I worry about is one thing. It appears that food inflation costs 
will be down this year, less than in previous years, so that food 
inflation being down, it would appear, then, that we could feed more 
people. If we cap the number of people, we cannot take advantage of 
that low inflation for food costs. That is one of the problems I see 
with the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GOODLING. The gentleman served 6.3 back in March, he will 
probably serve about 7.2 by the end of the year. They are allowing him 
to go to 7.3. I can understand what they are doing. The only way they 
can slow down the growth, and that is what we are talking about on 
every issue that comes to the Congress of the United States, the only 
way they can do that is to cap the numbers. Otherwise, every time we 
say ``the numbers are,'' then the Agriculture Department will say, 
``This is how much money you need to feed that many people in WIC.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Obviously, I rise in support of the Goodling amendment, Mr. Chairman. 
I think it is important to understand with the Goodling amendment, 
along with what the committee has done, it is to try to put together 
the means by which we can manage this program in an intelligent way.
  The gentleman is probably right, that food inflation will be down 
this year, but I do not think just because food inflation is down that 
we ought to send a signal that in the year of welfare reform being 
developed in this country, that we want to go around and stack the 
rolls, build up the baseline, and then if something happens in welfare 
reform, all of a sudden we are back here next year and we go, ``What do 
we do?'' We have falsely created this hope that all these people are 
going to get covered, we do not have the money to cover them. Then we 
have a real problem.
  I think what we are trying to do here is recognize that in order to 
fully serve that baseline that exists, the committee has increased WIC 
by $260 million this year, and we are saying there is no indication 
that in order to serve that baseline we have to increase the caseload 
above that, because inflation is not going to cause that.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I just merely want to say that what I am 
trying to do is make sure that those extra participants that the State 
can add to the program have that opportunity; that this cap does not 
affect what the State does with State money.
  Mr. KILDEE. If the gentleman will yield to me further, I want to make 
it clear to all the body here that the WIC program is not an 
entitlement program. It requires an appropriation each year. It is not 
even a capped entitlement, which I tried to get it to be, but 

[[Page H7340]]
it is not. Each year we have to appropriate for this, so it is not an 
entitlement program, it is not something that we are going to be 
obligated to. We have to appropriate each year.
  Mr. GOODLING. I am not involved in this entitlement fight, or how 
much you increase, or anything else. I am involved in the State, that 
those the State put on are not part of that cap. It is just as simple 
as that. I think the amendment is about as clear as any amendment could 
ever be.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say at the outset that I believe the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] is attempting to improve the 
appropriations bill, but I think there is a flaw in the approach that 
he is using. If I am not mistaken, I believe the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania stated during the course of the debate that if a State 
should save money in the WIC program by competitive bidding for infant 
formula, and getting a lower cost per can, saving money, that the money 
that they saved he believes would be State funds that could be used to 
increase participation. The gentleman is nodding his head in agreement, 
and I believe that is what he said.
  Unfortunately, we have received information that suggests that that 
is not the case. What we have been told is that the rebates that the 
States receive under WIC cost containment contracts are legally Federal 
funds and not State funds. As a result, what the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania has done is to create disincentives for the States to make 
this a more cost-efficient program.
  That is not what we want to do here. I think what we want to do is to 
say to each one of the States: ``Feed as many pregnant women and new 
mothers and their children as possible at the lowest possible cost, and 
if you can do that more cost-effectively and save money in the process, 
we want you to expand your program and bring in more eligible people.'' 
That is the intent of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], it is my 
philosophy, and I think it is one we ought to share.
  I think the difficulty here is that the money saved on cost 
containment is going to be considered Federal, and as a result, with 
the amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], that 
money cannot be used to expand participation, so I would like to urge 
that we defeat the Goodling amendment and adopt the Hall amendment. By 
defeating the Goodling amendment, we will overcome this problem I have 
just described. By adopting the Hall amendment, we will say to the 
States, ``Be more cost-efficient, do the best you can for the mothers 
and their children, and if you can save money and expand the program to 
help more mothers and kids have a healthy pregnancy and healthy kids, 
that is a goal that we all share.''
  I would urge the defeat of the Goodling amendment and the adoption of 
the Hall amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Goodling].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
19, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] will be postponed.
  The debate is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hall].
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I think in view of that last debate, I 
would hope that this is more direct and straightforward, if not less 
controversial. However, I have to rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall]; I like to call 
it the Hall-Roukema amendment, and I want to express appreciation to 
the author of the amendment because of his untiring commitment to 
hunger and family issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to explain again what this amendment is. It is 
very direct. It eliminates the cap on the number of people who 
participate in the WIC program. It has nothing to do with the amount of 
money. We are talking about the numbers of people, not the volume of 
money.
  Currently approximately 6.9 million families are enrolled in WIC, and 
under the bill the enrollment would rise to 7.3 million. That is not 
the end of the story. It has been amply outlined by both the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hall] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] that 
the Department of Agriculture will have to divide these slots up, and 
really create another bureaucracy in and of itself among the several 
States.
  However, there are other reasons why I am in favor of this and 
opposed to the committee approach, because what we need is smaller 
government and more efficient government, and it should go back to the 
States, as we did in H.R. 4, the original bill, of which I am a member 
of the committee that wrote that bill. The participation cap in this 
bill does very little to make government smaller. The cap will 
substantially increase the WIC bureaucracy, and undermine the program, 
in my opinion.
  More to the point, however, the fact is that there will be no reason 
without the Hall amendment to pursue strong cost containment measures 
at the State level, since any savings could not be used to bring more 
needy women and children into the program, but the money would be 
turned over to the USDA as unspent funds. That is the most important 
thing, because it is completely contradictory to what we did in H.R. 4, 
the family nutrition program, which was a Republican-initiated program 
to direct back to the States the opportunity for less bureaucracy, 
streamlining of the program.
  Really, in many ways, and in a direct way, the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] is completely consistent with 
eliminating bureaucracy and giving the WIC directors at the State level 
the complete flexibility they need for more efficiency within their 
State. I think that it must again be remembered that this amendment 
does not change the amount of money. We are simply saying, ``WIC 
directors, you improve your program, you increase the opportunities for 
women and children, and you will not have a cap on the number of 
people.'' I think it is clear that it is the kind of efficiency that we 
sought to have, it is the kind of efficiency that Republicans talk 
about, about being smarter and better, and I think it will bring 
benefits for all of the people that are under this program. It is not a 
welfare program, but it is a nutrition program that has proven itself 
as a cost-saver from beginning to end, not only in terms of better 
health, but in terms of efficiency of delivery at the State level.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hall/Roukema amendment 
and urge its adoption. I would like to particularly thank my good 
friend from Ohio for his tremendous work on hunger issues for so many 
years. In an institution that is built on words, there is no one in 
this House who has displayed such an untiring commitment through his 
actions. He has been a champion of the children and families.
  Having had the privilege of serving as the first ranking minority 
member of the former Select Committee on Hunger, I know something about 
this subject. I had the honor of working closely with then-Chairman 
Mickey Leland and his successor, Mr. Hall, on a range of hunger 
issues--both domestic and international.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment is simple. It eliminates the cap on the 
number of people who can participate in the WIC program. Currently, 
approximately 6.9 million families are enrolled in the WIC program 
nationwide. Under this bill, enrollment is allowed to rise to 7.3 
million and no higher.
  But that is it. End of story. No matter the economic conditions. No 
matter the need.
  Without the Hall amendment and with the participation cap in place, 
however, there is absolutely no reason to pursue strong cost-
containment measures, since any savings could not be used to bring more 
needy women and children into the program, but 

[[Page H7341]]
would be turned over the USDA as unspent funds.
  Finally, allow me to address specifically my Republican colleagues--
my colleagues who joined me in voting in March to move the WIC program 
into the family nutrition block grant of H.R. 4.
  And why did we do that? To give the Governor's and the States 
flexibility to operate their programs as effectively and efficiently as 
possible.
  Now you can make the case that the participation cap defeats the 
purpose of the block grant by removing the incentive to streamline your 
State's program. Why should they go through the motions of reforming 
their programs when the USDA will be the bureaucracy that benefits--and 
not the children?
  Let me be clear: our amendment does not say that we will increase 
funding for WIC next year. It simply says that WIC offices around the 
country should have the ability to help those who need assistance.
  Let me spell out for you just what that means.
  It means that the Department of Agriculture will have to divide 7.3 
million slots among the various States. In effect, bureaucrats in 
Washington will be establishing a state-by-state WIC quota system. That 
alone should cause everyone in this chamber to think twice about 
opposing the Hall amendment.
  But there are other reasons.
  While I am the first to say that we need to make government smaller 
and more efficient, this bill presents the wrong approach.
  The participation cap in this bill does very little to make 
government smaller. In fact, the cap will substantially increase WIC 
bureaucracy, undermining a program that is nothing short of an American 
success story.
  I want to point out to my colleagues that one of the most important 
elements of WIC, and perhaps the element that distinguishes the WIC 
program from others, is the incentive to save money through cost-
containment.
  WIC is not welfare. It is an effective, efficient and respected 
health-based nutrition program. At a time when only 66 percent of 
eligible participants are enrolled, we would be derelict in our duty if 
we refused to educate more eligible women about this life-saving 
program.
  While it is easy to get lost in a debate about mandatory and 
discretionary spending, about how much money to spend and where to do 
it, we must not lose sight of the human element here.
  When the health and well-being of expectant and postpartum mothers 
and their children hang in the balance, we cannot afford to be wrong.
  Support the Hall-Roukema amendment. Eliminate the cap place on WIC 
participation, and support a program that protects the women and 
children who need our help.
                              {time}  1845

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for the 
Hall-Roukema amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill that 
would lift the WIC participation cap.
  How would the participation cap be enforced? Would each State be 
assigned a participation cap? How would the USDA come up with an 
appropriate and fair formula that would prevent States from adding more 
participants to their rolls?
  This cap would create an administrative nightmare for the USDA and 
would most likely ensure a decline in WIC participation. In an effort 
to comply with the law, most States would probably come in below the 
participation cap. Moreover, States with a surplus at the end of the 
year would be forced to turn away eligible participants.
  WIC is an effective prevention program that saves on future health 
care costs. WIC provides food, education, and child care to poor women, 
infants, and children. It is estimated that one in five children in our 
country is living in poverty, and five million children under the age 
of 12 go hungry each month. No child in our country should go to bed 
hungry. Only well-nourished children reach their full potential and 
become productive, contributing members of society.
  Hunger is caused by poverty. Poverty and hunger are a violence 
against humanity, whether they occur in the streets where we live or in 
a far-off Bosnian village.
  I urge my colleagues to allow WIC directors the flexibility to manage 
their State WIC programs. Allow the States the flexibility to include 
as many WIC participants as their budgets will allow. Vote for the 
Hall-Roukema amendment.
  Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hall-
Roukema amendment to remove the cap on WIC participation.
  Considering the cost-effectiveness of WIC, and by now we are all 
familiar with the statistics on Medicaid savings that this program can 
provide, we should try our best to expand WIC's rolls, not limit them.
  The WIC program in my area serves only about 60 percent of the 
eligible population.
  Nationally, the number is closer to 65 percent.
  I understand that we will never be able to serve 100 percent of the 
eligible WIC population.
  Some people we will never be able to reach, and realistically 
speaking, we simply do not have the Federal resources to cover everyone 
right now.
  So the status quo already forces us to place limits on WIC each 
fiscal year when we determine a funding level in an appropriations 
bill.
  This is unfortunate, but merely a recognition of the actual 
situation.
  That said, why are we now implementing a numerical cap?
  As we reformed the welfare system last March, and as this new 
majority has taken various and new approaches to making the Federal 
Government work better, one overriding theme has been consistently 
stated.
  How many times in the 104th Congress have we heard the phrase: ``We 
must get government to do more with less''?
  Well, we have not given WIC less money this time around.
  In fact, we have increased its funding.
  But this cap in effect tells WIC administrators across the country: 
Don't bother trying to implement new policies to be more efficient. 
Don't bother trying to stretch your budgets to reach more people with 
the same amount of funds.
  You can't expand the rolls of your clients beyond what they have 
already reached, despite your best efforts to the contrary.
  This is big-government, top-down management at its worst, and it 
should be eliminated. Without a cap, we can send a signal to WIC 
administrators that we want them to expand their clientele. We will 
reward their innovative and expansive outreach efforts, not discourage 
them.
  Support flexibility and decentralization in the delivery of our 
social services by voting in favor of the Hall-Roukema amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hall amendment. Let me tell 
what has happened in my home State. The State of Illinois put out for 
competitive bid infant formula, and it turns out that the WIC Program 
in the United States, which I understand serves 40 percent of the 
infants in America, obviously is one of the major purchasers of infant 
formula.
  So when a State like mine, as large as it is, decides to ask the 
companies that make the formula to enter a competitive bid, they had 
quite a bit of competition and quite a bit of savings.
  They ended up with a rebate of $2.06 on every can of infant formula 
purchased under the WIC Program in Illinois and because they were so 
successful in competitive bidding, turned around and took this money 
and expanded the program, just what we want them to do, to be cost 
efficient, save money and expand the program.
  We do not want to create an incentive, or disincentive I should say, 
for States to enter into competitive bidding. Just the opposite. Let us 
have them spend their tax dollars as effectively as possible, save the 
money and help as many families as possible. That is why the Hall 
amendment should be agreed to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very good program and I still must oppose the 
amendment because if we do take the cap off and if you do have the 
efficiencies in the State operations, that is wonderful except we will 
put more people on the rolls and that is going to cause us to raise 
more money next year.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not have the money. It is not here, and if we 
raise 

[[Page H7342]]
that capital, take the lid off of the 7.3 million, it puts us in 
jeopardy because it does allow the States to put more people on, which 
is wonderful from the States' perspective, but from the national level, 
it is very precarious because we just do not have any sources to raise 
the money. That is the problem.
  I still, Mr. Chairman, have to oppose the Hall amendment, and 
reluctantly so because it is a good program. It has been one of the 
best feeding programs we have got, of the 26 nutrition programs that we 
are funding today in the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do and 
admire the work that he has done, but it puts us in an untenable 
position, and we maintain our opposition to this proposal to remove the 
cap because, once again, we did overfund it last year.
  States could not pick up the slack, they could not get the 
organization work done to put more people on, so we had to take money 
out in the rescission package. It has been kind of an ungodly 
nightmare, but I think that I understand where you are going and I hope 
the gentleman understands our position and I have to oppose it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would say that what we are doing here is 
we are removing the cap of 7.3 million people who can participate in 
this program in 1996. This does not change the level of funding which 
is appropriated in this bill. This is budget neutral according to CBO. 
We are not trying to increase the money.
  It provides more flexibility to the WIC directors to manage their 
State programs. Just ask them. They want the flexibility. They want the 
ability to be innovative.
  It is bipartisan. The administration is strongly in support of this 
amendment. The National Association of WIC Directors, strongly in 
support of it. Bread for the World, strongly in support of it. Center 
on Budget Priorities, strongly in support of this amendment.
  Vote against the Goodling amendment. Vote for the Hall-Roukema 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of July 19, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is 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 title 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), $123,520,000, of which $5,176,000 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 $1,005,000 may 
     be transferred from the Public Law 480 program account in 
     this Act: Provided, 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 tobacco 
     products.


               public law 480 program and grant 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) $25,000,000 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) $50,000,000 is hereby 
     appropriated for commodities supplied in connection with 
     dispositions abroad pursuant to title III of said Act: 
     Provided, That not to exceed 15 percent 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, $1,750,000.


                        short-term export credit

       The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available not 
     less than $5,200,000,000 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 202(a) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 
     1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641).


                    intermediate-term export credit

       The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available not 
     less than $500,000,000 in credit guarantees under its export 
     credit 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 202(b) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 
     1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641).


       commodity credit corporation export loans program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation'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 Consolidated Farm Service Agency.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title V?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VI.
  The text of title VI is 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; $904,694,000, of which 
     not to exceed $84,723,000 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 1996 shall be subject to the fiscal year 1996 
     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.
       In addition, fees pursuant to section 354 of the Public 
     Health Service Act may be credited to this account, to remain 
     available until expended.


                        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 provide, $15,350,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).


                         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 

[[Page H7343]]
     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 percent of 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 obligation issued 
     through 1994, as authorized, $15,453,000.

                          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; $49,144,000, including 
     not to exceed $1,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided, That the Commission is 
     authorized to charge reasonable fees to attendees of 
     Commission sponsored educational events and symposia to cover 
     the Commission's costs of providing those events and 
     symposia, and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, said fees shall 
     be credit to this account, to be available without further 
     appropriation.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title VI?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VII.
  The text of title VII is 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 1996 under this Act shall be 
     available for the purchase, in addition to those specifically 
     provided for, of not to exceed 665 passenger motor vehicles, 
     of which 642 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 (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; and Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income 
     country training program.
       New obligational authority for the boll weevil program; up 
     to 10 percent of the screwworm program of the Animal and 
     Plant Health Inspection Service; Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service, field automation and information management project; 
     funds appropriated for rental payments; funds for the Native 
     American institutions endowment fund in the Cooperative State 
     Research, Education, and Extension Service, and funds for the 
     competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) 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 
     percent 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, Education, 
     and Extension Service that exceed 14 percent 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 1996 shall remain available until expended to 
     cover obligations made in fiscal year 1996 for the following 
     accounts: the rural development loan fund program account; 
     the Rural Telephone Bank program account; the rural 
     electrification and telecommunications loans program account; 
     and the rural economic development loans program account.
       Sec. 715. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1996 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 716. (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. 717. 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. 718. Prohibition on Use of Funds for Honey Payments or 
     Loan Forfeitures.--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 Agriculture 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, 1995, and 1996 
     crop years.
       Sec. 719. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     retire more than 5% of the Class A stock of the Rural 
     Telephone Bank.
       Sec. 720. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to provide benefits to 
     households whose benefits are calculated using a standard 
     deduction greater than the standard deduction in effect for 
     fiscal year 1995.
       Sec. 721. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for any program, project, or activity when it is made 
     known to the Federal entity or official to which the funds 
     are made available that the program, project, or activity is 
     not in compliance with any applicable Federal law relating to 
     risk assessment, the protection of private property rights, 
     or unfunded mandates.


[[Page H7344]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title VII?
  If not, the Clerk will read the last 3 lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996''.

  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I support the Hall-Roukema amendment, 
and I commend my colleagues for bringing this important issue to the 
floor. It will maximize the potential of a time-tested and needed 
program, while remaining completely budget neutral.
  The program's motto is ``WIC Works Wonders'' and indeed it does:
  In over 70 evaluation studies, WIC has demonstrated improved 
pregnancy and reduced anemia in children;
  Medicaid beneficiaries have experienced a lower infant mortality 
rate;
  Four- to five-year-old children have increased immunization rates and 
improved vocabularies.
  WIC serves 6.5 million women and children monthly, saving the 
Government over $700 million every year in health and education 
expenditures. With such a significant return on our investment, I 
regret that this Congress is unable to provide for additional cases in 
the coming year. However, this amendment will at least give cost-
conscious States the opportunity to expand their own caseloads if 
additional funds become available. A participation cap is 
counterproductive and potentially harmful to a program that deserves 
our full support.
  I urge my colleagues to support WIC by voting for the Hall-Roukema 
amendment.
          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
19, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: The amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]; the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.
              Perfecting Amendment Offered by Mr. Goodling

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Goodling] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
19, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be 
taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 193, not voting 11, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 542]

                               AYES--230

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     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
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--193

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Abercrombie
     Collins (MI)
     Gallegly
     Goodling
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Pallone
     Reynolds
     Saxton
     Volkmer
     Waters
                              {time}  1916

  Messrs. VENTO, BARCIA, TAUZIN, and JACOBS changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. PRYCE, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. FLANAGAN, and Mr. TORKILDSEN changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the perfecting amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 542 on H.R. 1976 
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted 
``nay''. I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record 
immediately following rollcall vote No. 542.
                 amendment offered by mr. hall of ohio

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded. 

[[Page H7345]]

   A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 278, 
noes 145, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 543]

                               AYES--278

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--145

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Porter
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watts (OK)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cardin
     Collins (MI)
     Dreier
     Gallegly
     Goodling
     Jefferson
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Saxton
     Smith (WA)
     Volkmer
                              {time}  1925

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Dreier against.

  Messrs. WELLER, WAMP, GRAHAM, FORBES, and LONGLEY changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend this 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to comment on title V of the bill. I 
strongly support title II funding to feed starving people, and I urge 
the committee to preserve and enhance funding for the P.L. 480, title 
II, program.
  Mr. Chairman, with the budget constraints we are under, we need to 
make cuts in foreign assistance. My committee's bill, the American 
Overseas Interests Act passed the House on June 8 by reducing spending 
over $3 billion in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997. We did this 
while increasing funding for programs that actually saved lives--
disaster assistance, refugee relief and food aid. Simply put, the 
Public Law 480 title II program saves lives by feeding starving people.
  Through the title II food aid program, the American people feed 2.7 
million displaced and war-affected people within Bosnia and another 2 
million in Angola. Thirteen million mothers and children on the Indian 
subcontinent depend on this program for daily nutrition. Closer to 
home, over 1 million Haitians depend on this program for nutrition, 
helping to ensure the survival of the democracy there. The title II 
program is designed to work with the leading American relief agencies 
such as Care, Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children and World 
Vision. These organizations, which raise most of their funds through 
private donations, represent the best in America and our mission to the 
poor.
  This year, the Appropriations Committee wisely chose not to make 
budget savings for the title II program by recommending last year's 
level of $821 million. Unfortunately, this will still represent a cut 
for the program. Under a little known provision--section 416(b) of the 
Agricultural Act of 1949--the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to 
provide commodities acquired by the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] 
to the title II program. In fiscal year 1993, over 2 million metric 
tons of foods were donated under 416. Because CCC stocks have dwindled, 
in fiscal year 1994 only 160,000 metric tons were delivered and this 
year no ``416'' food will be available.
  Mr. Chairman, for all the work we have done, hunger is still a 
problem in the developing world. Even under the optimistic estimates of 
the administration, we will fall over 400,000 metric tons of food short 
of the needs of starving people around the world. Recognizing this 
need, the International Relations Committee included a 2-year 
authorization for a minimum of 2.025 million metric tons of food to be 
delivered under the title II program. Cost estimates show this would be 
equal an authorized funding level of $863 million for this program in 
fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997.
  Mr. Chairman, the Title III Government-to-Government Program is a new 
one, created in 1990. While it has worthy goals, it clearly does not 
have the priority that the title II program has in saving lives. The 
administration recognized this when it proposed cutting the title III 
program by $100 million, down to $50 million. The Budget Committee 
recommended ending the title III program altogether. Working with 
Representative Bereuter on the House floor, we saved the program in the 
American Overseas Interests Act at the $25 million level. Given the 
needs of starving people, I believe that the Appropriations Committee 
should reflect the authorizing committee levels and 

[[Page H7346]]
emphasize the life-saving mission of the title II program.
  I want to thank Chairman Skeen and Representative Durbin for their 
work on this issue. They have done good work on this bill and I will 
strongly support it on final passage.
  I ask that since I will be unable to offer my amendment to title V to 
transfer $25 million from the public law 480 Title III, Government-to-
Government Program; to the public law 480 Title II program. I strongly 
support funding for the title II program.
                    amendment offered by mr. durbin

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Durbin: Page 71, after line 2, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 726. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Agriculture may be used (1) to carry out, 
     or pay the salaries of personnel who carry out, any extension 
     service program for tobacco; or (2) to provide, or to pay the 
     salaries of personnel who provide, crop insurance for tobacco 
     for the 1996 or later crop years.

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I 
would like to inquire of the chairman of the committee if he would like 
to enter into a unanimous consent as to the time for the debate on this 
amendment relative to the tobacco program, and I would like to suggest 
to the chairman that we limit the debate on this amendment and all 
amendments thereto to 1 hour, 30 minutes on each side.
  Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will yield, would the gentleman accept 40 
minutes, 20 minutes on each side?
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to think that could happen. But honestly I 
have 20 requests for time to speak. I think 30 minutes is realistic on 
each side.
  Mr. SKEEN. The gentleman is bound and determined to extend this 
thing. Thirty minutes each side?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 1 hour, 30 
minutes, equally divided by myself and the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Skeen].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time on this side to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin]?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time limitation on this amendment will be 1 hour, 
equally divided, 30 minutes by proponents and opponents, and all 
amendments thereto. Time for the proponents will be controlled by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], and the opposition by the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
                             point of order

  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
Durbin amendment and ask that he explain the amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, may I correctly assume this time will not 
be taken from the debate time on the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will make that concession.
  Mr. DURBIN. Soon?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I might respond to the inquiry from the gentleman from 
Illinois that this amendment has been changed and does two things. It 
says that none of the funds made available in this act, this 
appropriation to the Department of Agriculture, may be used, No. 1, to 
carry out or pay the salaries of personnel who carry out any extension 
service program for tobacco or, No. 2, to provide or to pay the 
salaries of personnel and provide crop insurance for tobacco for the 
1996 or later crop years.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair clarify the status of time 
on this inquiry and this point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN. The inquiry does not come out of debate time.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, rule XXI, clause 2(c) provides that no 
amendment to a general appropriation bill shall be in order if changing 
existing law.
                              {time}  1930

  The burden is also on the proponent of an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill to prove the language offered under the guise of a 
limitation does not in fact change existing law (Congressional Record, 
pp 18666-7, June 16, 1976), or impose additional duties on Federal 
officials, not required by law (Congressional Record, May 28, 1968, p 
15350), or implicitly requires Federal officials to make judgments and 
determinations not otherwise required of them by law (Congressional 
Record, July 31, 1969, pp 21653, 21675). It is submitted that even an 
implicit restriction on authority to incur obligations otherwise 
included in an existing contract is legislative in nature and not a 
limitation on funds (July 13, 1987, Congressional Record, p 19507).
  Section 508(b)(1) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act requires the 
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to offer a catastrophic risk 
protection plan to indemnify producers for crop loss due to loss of 
yield or prevented planting and such coverage is provided for tobacco.
  Section 508(b)(5) of the Federal Crop Insurance Act provides that 
producers shall pay a fee for such catastrophic coverage and section 
508(b)(7) provides that to be eligible for price support and a number 
of other benefits from USDA the ``producers must obtain at least the 
catastrophic level of insurance for each crop'' grown on the farm (with 
certain exceptions for minor crops not applicable here).
  What is mandated in the Federal Crop Insurance Act, that is, 
catastrophic insurance coverage, whether obtained from a Federal Agency 
in the field (a county office of USDA) or a private insurer under an 
agreement for sale from the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation is not 
only limited by this amendment, but is effectively denied to producers. 
The provisions of Public Law 103-354 (the Federal Crop Insurance Reform 
Act of 1994) would be suspended by the Amendment, at least for the 
period of the 1996 fiscal year, for catastrophic as well as ``buy-up'' 
coverage of insurance.
  Moreover, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Board of Directors and 
the manager of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation [FCIC] would have 
added duties of changing their regulations, changing their contracts 
with their insured producers many of whom are automatically renewed 
through a continuing contract and whose contracts would have to be 
cancelled by the Secretary, an additional duty. They must also change 
their reinsurance agreements with private insurance companies who serve 
as agents for the Government in offering catastrophic and buy up 
insurance coverage under existing agreements that would have to be 
amended. The reason for the latter is that, the agreements between the 
FCIC and the private insurers are normally multiyear, but for fiscal 
year 1996 because there is an element of Government funds, over and 
above the premium, involved in the catastrophic and buyup coverage in 
crop insurance, some action would have to be taken by the Secretary or 
the manager of the FCIC to change the insurance company agreement. 
There would also be costs involving advertising notices to producers, 
banks, and other
 lending institutions about the proposed change to cancel coverage. 
Other ``wind-down'' costs involving cancelled coverage in 1996, as well 
as the duties and costs involved in reinstituting notices and 
regulations concerning coverage availability in fiscal year 1997. 
Heretofore, because tobacco was covered by general notices on major 
crop coverage there would be a need for notices to banks and 
institutions offering credit and to tobacco producers when the coverage 
would be terminated in 1996 and the reinstituted for 1997 tobacco 
crops.

  Finally, it is submitted that if the Amendment were adopted that it 
could have the effect of denying conventional crop insurance coverage 
for tobacco, but make tobacco producers eligible for the Noninsured 
Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) of section 519 of the Federal 
Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1519). This program provides disaster 
assistance, without insurance premiums being paid, mainly where 
catastrophic coverage is not available. I note that crops specifically 
included 

[[Page H7347]]
are Christmas trees, turf grass and industrial crops. However because 
there could be added cost to the Government of $17 million in FY 1996 
according to USDA if such coverage was given for tobacco crops if this 
Amendment were to be adopted, that possibility should be considered in 
the ruling on this Amendment as a violation of section 602 of the 
Budget Act.
  Also, Mr. Chairman I point to the colloquy last night between 
Chairman Roberts of the Agriculture Committee and other members when he 
urged them to take up matters such as this in the farm bill and not try 
to change the appropriations bill into a farm bill. He stated he would 
work with them in such an undertaking.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the point of order?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I have offered neither 
changes the law nor imposes any new duties on any Federal employee. 
Under the rules of the House, the House is free to specify what is not 
to be funded in a bill. The House may decline to fund specific 
activities under rule XXI. This is a strict limitation and totally 
within the four corners of the existing rules and limitation amendments 
which have been allowed time and again.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I believe that I have answered those remarks 
by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and I would insist on my 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does insist on his point of order, and 
the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] makes the point of order that 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois violates clause 2 
of rule XXI by legislating on a general appropriation bill.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is in the 
form of a limitation. It prohibits funds in the bill from being used to 
carry out, or pay the salaries of personnel who carry out, certain 
tobacco programs, including crop insurance for tobacco.
  The precedent cited by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] (July 
13, 1987, which appears in the Congressional Record at p. 19507) is 
distinguishable. The language ruled out on that occasion was a proviso 
in a paragraph of a general appropriation bill proscribing the 
incurring of obligations for certain facilities that was not in the 
form of a proper limitation on funds in the bill.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] 
however, is in the form of a straight limitation. It is a negative 
restriction on the availability of funds in a general appropriation 
bill that merely restricts the availability of funds and refrains from 
prescribing duties or requiring determinations of governmental 
officials. A straight limitation on funds is not considered as changing 
existing law but as merely constricting the range of objects to which 
the accompanying appropriation may be put.
  Accordingly, the Chair overrules the point of order under clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to salute my colleagues who have 
joined me in offering this amendment. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen] and the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith] have been kind 
enough to join me in this bipartisan effort. This is an important and 
perhaps historic debate on the floor of the U.S. House of 
Representatives. We will decide tonight in no small measure whether 
Uncle Sam is going to get out of the tobacco business.
  Let me tell my colleagues what ever Member of Congress in this 
Chamber has faced and what I have faced many times throughout my career 
in town meetings where ordinary Americans asked a very difficult 
question. ``Congressman,'' they say, ``if the Federal Government tells 
us that tobacco kills you and is dangerous for you, why in God's name 
do the Federal taxpayers have to subsidize the growth of this 
tobacco?''
  And time and again my colleagues on the floor here will answer, 
``Well, perhaps it is not such a good idea; we ought to do something 
about it.'' Tonight my colleagues have a chance to do something about 
it because tonight this amendment addresses two specific areas of 
spending on the Federal tobacco program, mainly the Extension Service 
and the crop insurance program.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish it were within my legislative power to 
completely abolish the tobacco programs at the Federal level tonight 
with this amendment, but, because of budgetary constraints, I cannot. 
What I will attempt to do with this amendment is to address two large 
parts and very serious parts of our Federal tobacco program, and I hope 
in so doing to not only demonstrate why this is good philosophically, 
but good from a budgetary viewpoint.
  First and foremost, the tobacco growers and their supporters on the 
floor will tell us time and again until they are blue in the face that 
the tobacco program does not cost the taxpayers anything. My colleagues 
will hear that tonight at least a dozen times and believe each time 
they have heard it that it is not true. The tobacco program costs 
American taxpayers each year $42 million, $42 million of Federal tax 
money going to support an industry that generates $40 billion a year in 
sales, 40 billion. These are not mom-and-pop pauper operations. These 
are huge tobacco companies working in many instances with huge tobacco 
growers, and we still subsidize their effort.
  The amendment which I have introduced addresses the Extension 
Service. We have men and women in the Extension Service traveling 
across the country giving advice to growers and farmers as to the best 
way to grow their crop. What we are saying is get them out of the 
tobacco business. They can advise people who are growing crops that are 
good for us how to grow those crops more efficiently, but tobacco, 
tobacco is the only subsidized crop by the Federal Government which, 
when used according to manufacturers' directions, will kill us. It is 
not an ordinary agricultural crop. It is a killer, and each year it is 
the No. 1 preventable cause of death in America. We cannot say that 
about cotton, or corn, or wheat, sugar beets, or any other commodity 
that the Department of Agriculture deals with.
  The second area is crop insurance. Those who grow tobacco buy 
insurance in the likelihood or in the circumstance where their crop 
might be endangered because of floods or drought, whatever it happens 
to be. They pay a premium, but the premium does not cover the cost of 
the program. In other words, when they get paid back, they receive more 
back from the Government than they paid in premium. The difference is 
paid for by America's taxpayers, and that unfortunately adds again to 
the cost that we pay each year to the tune of about $23 million.
  Today's debate is not about whether small tobacco farmers will 
survive. One acre of tobacco can generate 2,000 pounds of product a 
year, currently selling, I understand, for about $1.80 a pound; in 
other words, $3,600 gross. Now it is much more labor-intensive than 
most other crops, but a person with 1 acre of tobacco under cultivation 
can expect to make several thousand dollars from that 1 acre. In my 
part of the world where we grow corn, if someone can net $200 an acre 
from growing corn, they are lucky. If someone is a tobacco grower under 
the program, we are talking in terms of several thousand dollars.
  The program continues, the tobacco allotment program will continue, 
those profits will continue for those families. They can afford to buy 
their own crop insurance.
  The issue here is should the Federal Government use taxpayers' 
dollars to subsidize this crop. I will tell my colleagues I would like 
to have every Member of Congress tonight to have an opportunity the 
next time that a town meeting comes up to say, ``Yes, I cast a ``yes'' 
vote for the Durbin-Hansen-Smith amendment to make it clear that Uncle 
Sam ought to get out of the tobacco business. We have no business 
subsidizing the growth, production, and processing of a product which 
kills hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
                              {time}  1945

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendment. Let us be clear 
what 

[[Page H7348]]
the Durbin amendment does. This amendment does not reduce spending in 
this appropriations bill. Read it for yourself. We will not cut a penny 
in this bill. What the amendment does do though is discriminate against 
the small farmers in the tobacco growing regions of this country in 
favor of large corporate growers.
  Let us be sure what we are doing here. You are giving the big 
advantage to the big corporate growers, and you are cutting out the 
very small one acre plot growers. That is who you are hurting, I would 
say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]. That is who this 
amendment hits. Whether the gentleman is aiming there or not, that is 
where it hits. They will be denied basic assistance available to any 
other farmer, particularly the big farmers.
  The corn farmer in the gentleman's district is welcome to get help 
from the extension agent, thank you very much. But my farmer is told, 
``No, we don't like what you grow, we are going to refuse to help 
you.'' It says to my farmers, ``Even though Federal law requires you to 
participate in the crop insurance program, we are prohibiting you from 
doing so,'' forcing that small family farmer to break the law that this 
Congress wrote.
  The intent of this amendment, as the gentleman said, is to get people 
to quit smoking. Well, let me explain to Members how this thing works. 
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] does not understand that the 
tobacco allotment program holds down production of tobacco. If you lift 
that program, the big, huge corporate growers are going to grow tobacco 
like it is going out of style. They will import tobacco from all over 
the world. People are going to smoke cigarettes, it will be foreign 
tobacco or big producer tobacco, and the cigarette prices will plummet, 
and you will see a rash of smoking increases. The tobacco control 
growth program holds down the production of tobacco, propping up the 
price of cigarettes. You remove that, and cigarettes go dirt cheap.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask you, is that what you really want? While you 
promote smoking, you are killing off the small growers in the country 
in favor of the large corporate growers. I urge Members, reject Durbin.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah [Mr. Hansen], a cosponsor of the amendment.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me point out to Members that this 
amendment we are working on does not hurt the family farmer. They still 
have access to tobacco price support programs and their crops will 
still be in demand. Furthermore, tobacco is a very lucrative business 
and I am sure they can afford to stay in this business.
  Let me tell you about a man who is my neighbor, Dr. Chuck Edwards. 
Chuck Edwards is the foremost expert in the West in taking care of 
people who have cancer of the jaw and the larynx. You ought to see 
that. I wish Dr. Edwards was here and everybody in this House was 
forced to look at this, and everybody in America, because what he does 
is he shows these films. He takes their face off and puts it up over 
their head, and then he goes into that area and he cuts off their jaw, 
and then he puts a hole in their trachea, and that is how they breathe.
  He talks about all these young people who take this little round can 
they keep in their back pocket, and take it like this and stuff it down 
in their mouth. He says, ``There is 100 percent chance, if they live to 
the age of 60, we will take their jaw.''
  Who in their right mind can tell me, what doctor will stand up and 
say that this is not one of the greatest killers there is in America 
today? And we subsidize it. This is a Kevorkian budget subsidy if I 
have ever seen one.
  We find ourselves in the position where we talk about 350,000 people 
that went up in smoke in a mushroom cloud in the days of Hiroshima and 
Nagasaki. Now we kill 400,000 of them, and this group, this Congress, 
supports it. It is unbelievable to me that Congress will take it upon 
themselves to support this kind of thing.
  I do not worry about my friends here that smoke. That is fine. Go 
ahead. We are old guys. We are going to die anyway. I am worried about 
that kid, that teenager. Do not tell me the Marlboro man and Joe Camel 
is there to try to get him to change from one to another. That is there 
for one reason and one reason only, and that is to get youngsters to 
smoke. There is a 31 percent increase in 2 years of 8th graders, 31 
percent increase, that are now smoking.
  I would suggest that Members read this month's issue of Reader's 
Digest. It talks about a tobacco lobbyist. It talks about all the money 
he received to walk around here and convince you and convince me that 
we are supposed to do everything in our power to keep this subsidy on.
  This is the time that America can make a difference. This is a time 
to do something for the American people. I urge Members to support the 
Durbin-Hansen-Smith amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, that is a kind of tough act to follow. This 
the first time you have heard there is no subsidy for tobacco, and if 
this amendment passes, not one person, not one person is going to stop 
smoking. It has nothing to do with people stopping smoking, and it is 
not going to affect the argument that the gentleman made.
  Let me tell you who it is going to hurt. It is this small farmer who 
averages about three acres. People in North Carolina are already 
telling me they are losing two-thirds of their crops this year, and if 
they do not have insurance, they are broke. They cannot go diversify. 
They cannot go and become some other kind of farmer. They cannot go to 
Illinois and rent some land and grow corn on three acres. You cannot 
make enough money growing corn on three acres.
  This is not going to stop one individual in this country of ours from 
beginning to smoke, or quit if they already smoke. But what it is going 
to do, it is going to hurt that small farmer, that is trying to send 
his kids to school, to get them through school and get them through one 
of our universities where they can go out, get some training, and get a 
better job. They are trying to raise their families. They made 
commitments. They cannot diversify.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a health amendment, this is an economic 
amendment. You are not going to stop one individual in the United 
States of America from smoking because of the Durbin amendment. What 
you are going to do is you are going to penalize this small farmer that 
is up to his ears in debt, he has obligated his farm, and he is trying 
to make it from year to year. That is who you are going to devastate, 
and that is who we are not here to devastate, is the small farmer.
  I would urge Members, when you consider your vote, consider that 
small farmer and his family that is trying to make a living. He and the 
wife both work and the children work, and it is a legal product, and it 
was $5.8 billion that came into the economy of this country last year 
because of tobacco. It is legal. Vote against the Durbin amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the cosponsor of the 
amendment, the gentlewoman from the State of Washington [Mrs. Smith].
  (Mrs. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. 
Hansen] for having the courage. I found out over the last couple of 
days it takes courage to go up against the tobacco industry. You not 
only get a lot of calls to your office, you get a lot of pressure.
  This amendment will not just save $23 million, but it is the right 
thing to do. On my desk each day I read in front of me, it is a quote 
from Abraham Lincoln, and it says ``I am not bound to win, but I am 
bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up 
to what light I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right and 
part with him when he goes wrong. Abraham Lincoln.''
  I am parting with you who are supporting the tobacco industry because 
I think you are wrong. I have to tell you that when I go into my home 
area one 

[[Page H7349]]
of the top issues that they ask me is, Linda, in downsizing government, 
have you got rid of that tobacco subsidy yet? And I said no, but I am 
going to do it. I just did not realize how bad it would be.
  I want to tell you clearly this is a subsidy. Some say when the 
government pays for your insurance it is not a subsidy. Some say when 
they pay for the extension agents to help you grow a better crop to 
market to our children, it is not a subsidy. But when I tell you the 
bottom line is $23 million spent from your taxes, folks, you in this 
room and the other folks out there in America, I have to tell you, it 
is $23 million, and they should be giving us money.
  My mother died younger than I am of cancer. I had a friend die over 
the weekend of cancer, a young man, a pack-a-day smoker. There is no 
justification for subsidizing tobacco. Teach them to grow another crop. 
It is a lucrative crop, but they can grow another crop. I am not saying 
right now they cannot grow the crop. I am just saying, do not spend the 
taxpayers' money. Please folks, do what is right. Do not do what the 
tobacco industry wants.
  They were prowling the halls here yesterday and the day before. 
Ignore them and do what is right and vote against the tobacco subsidy 
and for this amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
western Kentucky [Mr. Whitefield] to explain that there is no tobacco 
subsidy anymore.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of discussion this 
evening about the tobacco industry, and when you talk about the tobacco 
industry, what you are talking about is 126,000 small farmers around 
this country who have grown tobacco legally in America since really the 
founding of this country in Jamestown.
  Really what this amendment is about, this administration has made a 
conscious effort to try to destroy the tobacco industry. It is a legal 
crop and there are many things in our society that we do not like. We 
do not like to see bad things happen to children or women or anybody 
else.
  My mother-in-law, for example, smoked until she was 94 years old, and 
we know that smoking does cause cancer in some instances, and other 
times it does not cause cancer. But it is an individual decision. It is 
not something that the Government should be dictating.
  This amendment, this Durbin amendment, is a discriminatory amendment 
against small tobacco farmers who have the right to grow a legal crop, 
and I think it would be a serious mistake to adopt the amendment, and I 
urge its defeat.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Bishop].
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Durbin amendment. It would 
devastate the economy of key Southern States like Georgia. Tobacco 
growers would be only farmers who will be punished. This is a punitive 
effort.
  Since the Depression, we have been denied access to government 
research, to education, and to extension services for a legal crop. We 
are not talking about growing marijuana here. We are talking about a 
legal crop. And it is an administrative nightmare that is about to be 
created here. It is misguided.
  What the amendment says with regard to extension agents' salaries is 
that the salaries will not be paid if they provide any services to help 
tobacco growers. But what about the people in those counties that do 
not grow tobacco? Their salaries would be cut, so they cannot even help 
the ones who grow corn.
  That does not make any sense. This amendment is misguided, it is 
punitive, it is a slap in the face to southern States. It is a slap in 
the face of farmers, small family farmers, who work hard. Why shouldn't 
they have crop insurance if they grow a legal product? Why should they 
not be able to help support their families and the economy of this 
Nation?
  Nine thousand farmers in my State of Georgia make their living 
growing tobacco. Twenty-eight thousand warehouses, other in the retail 
industry. Overall, the tobacco industry contributes to the economy of 
Georgia thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars for a legal 
product.
  I submit to you that the amendment is misguided, it is an 
administrative nightmare, it will punish the growers of crops that are 
non-tobacco crops in counties where they do grow tobacco. It just makes 
absolutely no sense. It is a case that reminds me of the years of 
prohibition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has 23 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] has 20 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of debate that mystifies 
the American people. The Federal Government and every medical expert in 
this country has told us that cigarette smoking is the leading cause of 
preventable death. On tonight's news, we heard that young people are 
starting to smoke again in large numbers. That is a public health 
menace.
  So on the one hand, we are telling people not to smoke, and on the 
other hand, we are subsidizing the tobacco industry. What kind of 
signal is this to the American people? What kind of signal is it to our 
children? How are we going to explain to people that we are going to 
cut back on school lunches, we are going to cut back on programs for 
poor people and the elderly, but we are going to continue subsidizing 
the tobacco farmers?
  We do not dictate whether a person smokes or not. That is an 
individual decision. But it ought not to be sudsidized by the American 
people in any way, shape or form.
  This amendment is a small step. There are other subsidizations that 
we have through the tax deductions that the tobacco companies take in 
order to promote their product, and there is no product for which more 
money is spent to promote than tobacco itself, something like $3-, $4-, 
$5-billion a year.
  They are making an enormous amount of profit from the disease and 
death of people who are their customers. I believe they are enlisting 
kids to become smokers to replace those that are dying off.
  Do not subsidize it with taxpayers' funds. I urge adoption of the 
Durbin amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Burr].
  (Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, in fact, we are here tonight and I rise in 
opposition to an amendment that does need exploring. The truth is that 
we are here to talk about an amendment that will, in fact, eliminate 
crop insurance to one small segment of our agricultural industry, 
tobacco, while corn, wheat and everything else continues to receive 
that special privilege.
  We say to an extension agent, you can go to a farm and you can talk 
about other agricultural products. You can even discuss the grass in 
that farmer's front yard. But if he asks you about tobacco, by law, 
Congress says you cannot talk to him about it. It does seem a little 
strange, and it does not make a lot of sense.
  The authors of this amendment are not trying to balance the budget. 
They are not even trying to streamline the Department of Agriculture. 
They want to kill a crop. They want to kill tobacco.
  Will they kill the family farm? Absolutely. Do they care? Absolutely 
not. Farmers are trying daily to survive, to pay their mortgage, to 
educate their children, to contribute to their community. But they do 
not care.
  I would say one thing to the authors of this bill. If you want to 
kill tobacco, then introduce a bill. Be brave enough to ask for what 
you want. Do not hide behind something that kills people who do not 
have a voice in it, the small farmers in this country.
  This is exactly the type of legislation, Mr. Chairman, that in fact 
the American people are sick of and I as a Member of Congress am sick 
of it. Do what is right. Defeat the Durbin amendment.

[[Page H7350]]

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz].
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Chairman, the discussion tonight is not about 
whether this is a legal crop. It is. This is not about trying to drive 
farmers out of business. We are not trying to take anyone's livelihood 
away from them.
  The question tonight is about whether the Government of the United 
States is going to encourage behavior that we know kills people.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking in this Congress about how to preserve 
and protect Medicare. We are tearing our hair out to figure out how we 
can preserve those benefits for people for the coming generations. Yet, 
it has been estimated that over the next 20 years we will spend $800 
billion on Medicare patients who need treatment for smoking-related 
illnesses, $800 billion.
  It is not just impacting seniors. It is impacting children. Pregnant 
women who smoke have a 50 percent greater chance of a miscarriage or a 
low birth weight child. So we are impacting our children. We are 
impacting our seniors.
  The question we have to ask ourselves tonight is why the government 
of the United States should encourage and subsidize that behavior by 
paying for people to find out how to grow more tobacco, by paying for 
crop insurance for tobacco.
  Yes, it is a legal activity, but pay for it on your own. The 
government of the United States should no longer encourage a behavior 
that harms our children, that harms our seniors, by continuing to pay 
for this activity.
  Those who want to continue to smoke, to use tobacco, to grow tobacco, 
let them do it on their own. But let us stop paying for it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, let me first recognize the sincerity of the 
proponents of this amendment, but let me also say very clearly I rise 
in opposition to this amendment, and I want to clarify what this 
amendment is not about.
  This amendment is not about smoking, whether juvenile or adult 
smoking. It has nothing to do with smoking. This amendment is not about 
deficit reduction. It has nothing to do with deficit reduction.
  Every small family farmer pays an assessment on every pound of 
tobacco that they grow. This amounts to over $30 million a year that 
goes to the Treasury, so it has nothing to do in any way with deficit 
reduction.
  What it does have something to do with is whether or not small, rural 
counties and communities in the South can exist. Tobacco is the only 
crop they can grow in these communities, unlike in Illinois and other 
communities where they have farms with hundreds of acres, long rows 
where you get on that tractor, and you drive a half mile and your turn 
around and you drive back.
  You cannot do that in these little communities. These are hilly 
country, rocky country. About the only thing they can grow is tobacco, 
and that is why the average tobacco patch is only 3.3 acres. It takes a 
family. It is squat labor. It is the whole family that gets out and 
works together to get this crop in and then get it in the barn.
  Without the tobacco, it means that there are no grocery stores, 
because there is no one to buy groceries. There is no filling stations, 
because there is nobody to buy gas. There is no pharmacies, because 
there is no one to go to the drugstore.
  So make no mistake about it. This amendment is not about deficit 
reduction. This amendment is not about smoking. It is about allowing 
small communities in the South to continue to be able to exist and 
allowing farmers to raise their family and see that they are able to 
improve their life, just like everyone here wants to see their family's 
life improved.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Ewing], chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk Management 
and Speciality Crops.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to 
speak out on this.
  I wish that my colleague from Illinois would have introduced a bill, 
if he really wanted to get smoking, to make it illegal. I am a reformed 
smoker, and I understand that. I do not encourage it.
  But what you are doing here, you are not affecting the program at 
all. You are just twiddling with it around the edge. You are doing 
things to a program that provides income to the American Treasury, that 
provides export and helps us with our balance of trade.
  My colleagues, go to Kentucky, go to Georgia, go to North Carolina 
and see how these people live and see if the Durbin amendment is not 
affecting the lives of small people. It is.
  If you want to make tobacco illegal, do it. Try and do it up front. 
But do not twick around the edge. That is not fair to the people you 
are messing with, and it certainly is not fair to this Congress.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Durbin-
Hansen-Smith amendment.
  I would like to address three sets of people here: children, farmers, 
and tobacco companies.
  The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] in his remarks earlier said that 
smoking among eighth graders has increased 30 percent in the last 3 
years. As the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] asked rhetorically 
several years ago, would any of you be happy if your eighth grader came 
home tomorrow and said, dad, mom, I started smoking today? Would you be 
happy if that happened?
  We talked about a lot of farmers here today. We ought to talk about a 
lot of kids and the $6 billion that the tobacco companies spend every 
year on promotion and advertising to get these kids addicted.
  Second, I represent a district that lost 38,000 jobs, count them, 
between 1977 and 1987, and I am very sympathetic with the problem that 
the tobacco farmers are having. But I find it very interesting that the 
tobacco companies do not care. If they care, we, 2 years ago, would not 
have had to enact a limitation on imported tobacco coming into this 
country because so much of the tobacco that the companies use was from
 other countries, not from those poor farmers who are losing their jobs 
who they trot out in front of them to take that first volley of fire, 
because they have no place to hide.

  Finally, the issue of saving $23 million, that is still a lot of 
money from where I come from, and if you want to protect those farmers, 
if you want to give them insurance, let the tobacco companies take some 
of their $6 billion in profits and spend $23 billion to help those 
farmers insure their tobacco so they can continue to grow it in safety.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Baesler], the only tobacco farmer in the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a lot of discussion 
about what this amendment is not.
  Being a tobacco farmer, this year in June we are all in Kentucky 
putting out tobacco and working with it. What this amendment tells me 
as a tobacco farmer and all of the other farmers in Kentucky and North 
Carolina, if I have a disease in my crop this summer, if I have 
something going wrong in my field, I cannot go ask the county extension 
agent what the problem is.
  It also tells me later on when that disease, blue mole or black shag, 
takes all of my crop, that I am not entitled to Federal crop insurance 
to help pay for that disaster. If the Ohio River floods, on one side we 
might be in Illinois, those farmers can acquire Federal crop insurance 
to take care of them. A tobacco farmer from Kentucky cannot.
  This is not about health. This is about fairness. We are going to 
tell one group of farmers in the United States who pay their taxes, 
tobacco generates $12 billion a year to the United States, States and 
local governments. We are going to tell one group of farmers, you are 
not deserving to go to the extension service to get help. Every other 
farmer
 in the United States is, but you cannot.

  We are going to tell that same group of farmers, if the Durbin 
amendment passes, you cannot have Federal crop insurance to protect 
your investment.
  You folks do not know the first thing about the profitability of 
tobacco. I 

[[Page H7351]]
have heard three people here talk about the profitability who are 
basically ignorant about the profitability of tobacco.
  So it is a question of fairness. It is not a question of health. It 
is a question of fairness. Tell these farmers they are not as deserving 
as all of the other farmers, and continue [Mr. Durbin], continue, the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith], continue to take the money 
from these farmers and what they generate throughout this country, but 
do not let them participate like the other farmers.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, we have heard numerous times, maybe 50 
times in the course of all of these amendments, that we want to send 
somebody a message. It is stated in a variety of ways, generally 
dealing with small amounts of money in some way or another. I think we 
send the most confused message possible with respect to our tobacco 
policies in the United States of America.
  We indeed have support systems for crop insurance, for extension and 
for various other aspects, but it would indicate in that way that we 
bless the growing and the selling of tobacco and the Federal Government 
is a part of it.
                              {time}  2015

  On the other hand, we condemn it. The Surgeon General condemns it, we 
have studies which have condemned it, we have proclamations which do 
so. We do know a few things. We know tobacco is very deadly, that it 
can create great mischief in our society, but we know there are huge 
costs attached to this well beyond the $23 million we are talking about 
here tonight.
  We have other costs. When we look at Medicare, Medicaid, we look at 
lost productive time in our economy, there are all manner of ways in 
which we can measure the cost in terms of what has happened with 
tobacco.
  We know our children suffer because of tobacco. I did not even know 
what Joe Camel was. I thought it was sort of a joke when I heard about 
it. Then somebody pointed out to me that it was appealing to children, 
and was a very serious problem in terms of tobacco is concerned.
  I believe even if the Federal Government removes itself from the 
ring, the big tobacco companies will probably move in and help out with 
the small farmers. I do not think there will be any loss there. I think 
at that point the Federal Government will be sending one clear message 
to everybody in the United States of America, and that is that we are 
not going to be involved in tobacco; that if you are going to smoke, 
smoke with great caution; that we can sell the programs of trying to 
make sure we go out and point out the problems to the people of the 
United States of America.
  It is for this reason that I support the Durbin-Hansen-Smith 
amendment. I hope that all of us would, and all of us would realize the 
problems caused by tobacco. Tonight we can start to make the changes in 
this country that will be in the best interests of all of us.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Jones].
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in opposition to the Durbin 
amendment. The denial of extension services and Federal crop insurance 
will destroy the family farmer and the economy of rural America. In my 
State of North Carolina alone, the production of tobacco employs 
approximately 260,000 people; more specifically, one in 12 people have 
a tobacco-related job.
  Every year the Federal Government counts on $25.9 billion in tobacco-
related revenues, compared to the approximately $16 million in costs to 
USDA to administer the program, quite a return for the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my fellow Members, who will 
shoulder the revenue loss? The taxpayer? I think not. In this time of 
budget cuts, we need to think twice before attacking the very heart of 
an industry that gives back so much to this country. Mr. Chairman, I 
ask Members to vote no on the Durbin amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Durbin-Hansen-Smith Amendment. 
This amendment would save $23 million by eliminating Federal funding 
for tobacco extension services, and crop insurance.
  Under the Durbin proposal, debate on the future of the tobacco price 
support program is deferred to the Farm Bill. However, there are other 
tobacco-related activities that are costing the taxpayers money. 
Administrative costs to run the price support program and related crop 
insurance, as well as marketing costs to promote the auction sales and 
production of tobacco are subsidies that keep the red ink flowing.
  The tobacco industry makes large profits on their products. As a 
matter of fact, 68 cents of each dollar that is spent by consumers on 
tobacco products goes to manufacturers and distributors. Only 3 cents 
goes to the growers. Manufacturers are turning their sights overseas, 
while the number of tobacco
 farms and manufacturing jobs have dropped. Ironically, the policies 
set forth by Congress to help the small family tobacco farmer are 
actually benefiting the tobacco industry. I believe that we will be 
able to address the plight of the small family farmer when the House 
debates the 1995 farm bill.

  The amendment before us is merely an extension of legislative actions 
taken by past Congresses. In 1994, the Agriculture appropriations bill 
extended the prohibition on tobacco assistance to the Agriculture 
Department's research programs. This amendment extends the prohibition 
to crop insurance and extension services.
  It is time for the Federal Government to get out of the tobacco 
business. I urge my colleagues to seize the opportunity to move one 
more step toward accomplishing that goal by supporting the Durbin-
Hansen-Smith amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Payne].
  Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Durbin-Hansen-Smith amendment. This misguided amendment will not 
allow small tobacco farmers to call upon the guidance of their USDA 
agent about some important environmental concerns, such as how to 
distribute fertilizer without causing damage to soil or water, or how 
to apply insecticide safely and properly, or how to combat agricultural 
plagues, such as blue mold and target spot. These are matters important 
to our environment. It would also strip away from the tobacco farmer 
his ability to purchase crop insurance, like all other farmers can do.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a direct assault on the hardworking 
men and women, farmers who grow tobacco in my district and in the 
southern part of the United States. Even worse, some would have us 
believe that this amendment eliminates the Federal Government subsidy 
to tobacco-related programs.
  Let me set the record straight. There is no direct government subsidy 
for tobacco. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has already 
spoken to that. Furthermore, and I think importantly, tobacco's 
importance to our Federal, State, and local government can be summed up 
in one figure. That figure is $62,300. Sixty-two thousand dollars is 
the amount of money per acre that tobacco generates for the public 
sector. This is money that flows into the general revenue of the U.S. 
Treasury and that of many of our States, to be used for discretionary 
spending on such things as agricultural programs.
  I believe these numbers in fact speak for themselves. The Federal 
Government does not subsidize the tobacco program. Tobacco does 
contribute very positively to the U.S. Treasury. However, this 
amendment would allow any farmer in the Nation to utilize USDA 
services, except our tobacco growers. This amendment would allow any 
farmer in the United States to participate in Federal crop insurance, 
except tobacco growers. Do not be fooled by this amendment. It is not 
about smoking, it is blatant discrimination against small tobacco 
farmers. Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Durbin-Hansen-Smith 

[[Page H7352]]
  amendment, to finally end the $23 million giveaway to the tobacco 
industry. Each year 420,000 people die from tobacco-related illnesses, 
which makes it the leading cause of preventable death in the United 
States today. Each day 3,000 kids pick up their first tobacco product. 
According to the FDA's diagnosis, they become inflicted with a 
pediatric disease. This epidemic costs our Nation's economy over $100 
billion in health care and lost productivity. How can we give one cent 
of taxpayer money to support this industry?
  The tobacco industry spends billions, not $23 million, Mr. Chairman, 
but billions of dollars in advertising and marketing to entice 
children. An industry that snares 3,000 new customers a day into a 
lifelong addiction does not need our help. Already Joe Camel is more 
recognizable to 5-year-olds than Ronald McDonald. We should be debating 
how to regulate and restrict this industry, not how to support it.
  Not only does the tobacco industry target children, it has the 
distinction of not being truthful to the Congress, to numerous Federal 
agencies, and to the American people. How many times have we heard that 
the tobacco industry does not market to children, that nicotine is not 
addictive, or that the level of nicotine is not manipulated by tobacco 
companies?
  Mr. Chairman, the tobacco industry has not been telling the truth. 
The American Medical Association knows that they are lying. The FDA 
knows that they are lying. The American people know that they are 
lying. According to their own internal documents, the tobacco industry 
knows that they have consistently misrepresented the truth. When are 
we, my colleagues, going to learn?
  Usually when I rise in favor of eliminating programs, I like to point 
out that in order to balance the budget, difficult choices need to be 
made, and that as conscientious legislators, we have to balance the 
good programs and what they achieve with their cost to the American 
taxpayers. Not today, not with tobacco, not with this amendment. The 
Durbin-Hansen-Smith amendment is an easy choice. We must pass this 
amendment tonight.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, does he realize 
that the amendment that is being offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Durbin] is being directed at the small tobacco growers, not 
Phillip Morris? They would benefit. They would be allowed to grow 
tobacco by the tons of acres. It is the small farmers that are being 
hurt by this amendment, does the gentleman realize that?
  Mr. MEEHAN. I am well aware of it. That is a $23 million giveaway 
long, long overdue. I think it is time we turn around and give the 
American taxpayer a break and give the American public a break.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose what I 
call ``the harass the tobacco farmer'' amendment to the agriculture 
appropriations bill. Having lived in Georgia's farm belt all my adult 
life, I understand farm programs. I live in the most diversified 
agricultural county east of the Mississippi River. I have had the 
privilege of working with farmers on a daily basis for the last 26 
years. I understand how farm programs work. I understand that there is 
a big difference in improving farm programs and harassing farm 
families.
  Let me tell the Members what the difference is, why we are talking 
about corporate farmers versus small farmers. A corporate farmer does 
not depend on crop insurance to pay his bills. He does not depend on 
crop insurance to educate his children or pay his operating loan. The 
small farmer does.
  The corporate farmer does not depend on the extension service agent. 
The corporate farmer can afford to go to Athens or Tifton or Lexington 
and hire a specialist to come in and check his field. The small farmer 
depends on that extension agents who comes to his field and work 
tireless hours, day and night. If Members do not want to throw a 
blindsided knockout punch to the family farmer of this country and to 
the rural district of America, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the 
Durbin amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Durbin amendment. This is a mean-spirited attack on the small 
farmer throughout the South. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] 
does not like smoking, but this amendment will not stop one person from 
smoking. It will only hurt the small tobacco grower in my district and 
throughout the South.
  The opponents of tobacco always imply that we should not pay farmers 
to grow tobacco. We do not. Let me repeat that, the Federal Government 
does not pay subsidies to farmers to grow tobacco. The government only 
pays for the administrative cost of the tobacco program, which the 
farmers pay back to the government. Over $20 billion in Federal, State 
and local taxes are paid by the tobacco companies annually into the 
Treasury of Kentucky and the United States of America.
  Sure, our government also offers some of the same programs, like crop 
insurance and extension service, to tobacco farmers, but we should 
offer them the same services that the other farmers receive. We need 
that help with out small tobacco farmer. We have to have the same help 
that the farmers of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] have in 
Illinois from our extension service, so we know how to do it better in 
Kentucky. Remember, it is a legal commodity. They are not outlaws, our 
small farmers.
  This bill will do not one thing, I say to the gentlewoman from 
Washington [Mrs. Smith] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], to 
prevent smoking. It will not only hurt the big tobacco companies, it 
will not decrease the deficit, it will only treat the small farmers of 
America like criminals.

                              {time}  2030

  It is bad policy. It is unfair. It is wrong to do it, and I urge the 
defeat of the Durbin amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, this debate is neither about the morality 
of smoking nor the mortality of tobacco. This amendment offered by my 
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] who I respect, does 
not either address the value or disvalue of smoking, although I respect 
his position. In fact, I am one who does not advocate smoking; in fact, 
fear that smoking is a health problem.
  Mr. Chairman, this is misdirected. This is misdirected to achieve a 
noble goal, a noble goal to say to people they should not smoke because 
smoking is bad for your health. It is an adult election. Certainly we 
do not want to encourage tobacco companies, to make sure they advocate 
smoking for children, at least this Member does not.
  The Durbin amendment does neither of these issues, address health 
value, nor does it raise the opportunity for people to cease smoking. 
It actually will hurt our Nation's farmers. You have heard that over 
again.
  Mr. Chairman, in my district, I have more flue-cured tobacco grown in 
my district than any other part of this country, and I expect you 
naturally to say that, Eva Clayton, because you are from North 
Carolina. Yes, I am from North Carolina and I know that my farmers are 
not the villains. They are, indeed, the victims.
  They are people who often tell their boys and girls, ``I teach you to 
grow it but I teach you not to smoke it.'' They are trying desperately 
to make a living, a decent living for their life. In fact, many of them 
wish they did not grow tobacco, but that is their fate in life.
  Mr. Chairman, why should we discriminate against those who happen to 
be growing a legal crop that they will receive no extension service, 
and when they need crop insurance, they will not receive any crop 
insurance? This is misguided. It is discriminatory in its application, 
whether worthy or not.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of the Durbin amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Peterson].

[[Page H7353]]

  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr.Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Durbin amendment. I 
understand the gentleman's objectives, but I think he misses the mark. 
What happens here is we are not going to reduce the consumption of 
tobacco. We are going to reduce perhaps production.What does that do? 
It ruins the economy of many southern States and communities, and it 
ruins millions of small farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, it is wrong to hold our tobacco farmers responsible for 
the consumption of tobacco products, just as it would be irresponsible 
to hold grain farmers responsible for the local drunk.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we have the wrong target. We are hurting the 
wrong people. We are going at this in the wrong way. This is the wrong 
place with the wrong amendment.
  Mr.Chairman, I urge strong opposition to this amendment and ask you 
to vote against it tonight.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute, Mr. Chairman, to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
and I do so because there are really two issues here. One is economic 
and one is philosophical. Economically the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin] is telling us that this is going to save $23 million, then 
$10.6 million, when, in fact, the USDA estimates that this will cost 
$5.4 million.
  Let us not fool ourselves. This is not saving money. It is not 
directed to save money. What it really is is philosophical. And 
philosophically, the gentleman from Illinois feels passionately against 
tobacco and I understand that, but I would say to him that this is 
authorizing; it is not appropriating.
  I do not understand why we do not have legislation introduced. We are 
seven months into Congress. I do not think any of the three authors of 
this amendment have authored legislation so that we could have the 
great tobacco debate in the committees of Congress, and I think that is 
what we need to do.
  Mr. Chairman, we should get this thing over with. There are vehicles 
to get probably where we want to go, but as it is, when Members take 
noble aim at the tobacco industry, they only hit the tobacco farmer.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, about 8 years ago to the day I 
stood in this well and offered an amendment. It was an amendment to ban 
smoking on airplanes. When I offered that amendment, it was opposed by 
every leader on the House of Representatives floor, Democrat and 
Republican alike.
  I had been around here for 5 years. My staff and my closest friends 
told me I was crazy to take on the tobacco lobby; they were too big and 
too powerful and I was not only going to lose, but I was going to be 
embarrassed in the way that I lost. Eight years ago on this floor, by a 
margin of five votes, we passed the ban on smoking on airplanes.
  The people who spoke that day represented the diversity of the U.S. 
House of Representatives as those who have spoken this evening in 
support of this amendment. The gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith], so many others, represent 
political points of view far different than my own on most issues. But 
we have come together on this issue because we find common ground and 
agreement in a basic understanding and a
 basic premise.

  Mr. Chairman, the premise is the one I began this debate with. Why on 
God's green Earth, if we tell every American that this crop will kill 
you, do we, as taxpayers, go on year in and year out subsidizing the 
growth, production and processing of this product?
  I want to commend my colleagues for their fortitude in standing up 
this evening and speaking on behalf of this amendment. For those who 
are watching, it may seem like an easy thing to do. Believe me, it is 
not. They have risked, I am sure, some evil glances from colleagues and 
perhaps more. Some of them have decided not to come to the floor this 
evening and I can understand why they did not. This is not an easy 
issue to deal with.
  The tobacco lobby in this town is one of the most powerful and 
pervasive. They are everywhere. They are undoubtedly watching this and 
writing down every word to use it against all of us. I thank my 
colleagues for coming up and supporting this amendment.
  Let me tell you about this amendment.
  Yes, it is only $23 million out of a $1.5 trillion budget. It could 
be a lot more money we could be
 talking about, but it is a significant change that we are talking 
about here.

  If this amendment passes this evening, it will clearly send a signal 
to the Committee on Agriculture when they write their tobacco program 
that Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, have had it 
with the Federal subsidy of tobacco. When we passed the ban on smoking 
on airplanes 8 years ago, people said, ``So what? Two-hour flight, so 
what?'' It ended up triggering a debate across America on secondhand 
smoke that reached every restaurant and every public building in the 
last 8 years. You see it when you even walk into this building.
  Right behind me, if you want to know what the tradition is in this 
Chamber, carved on that little podium up there are tobacco leaves. That 
is right. We have been into tobacco in this place for a long time. 
Tonight is our chance to break it, for Uncle Sam to finally get off the 
tobacco habit.
  There is a lot at stake here. This is not another farm crop. This is 
the only crop subsidized by American taxpayers which, when used 
according to manufacturers' directions, will kill you. It is the only 
one.
  My colleagues who come up here and say treat it like any other farm 
crop would like to ignore the death and destruction caused to American 
families every year by this insidious crop. It is time for us once and 
for all to break the tobacco habit at the Federal level, to put an end 
to this subsidy. This measure tonight, the Durbin-Hansen-Smith 
amendment, is a step in that direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unrealistic, 
unnecessary and unfair.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment prevents people who grow tobacco from 
taking part in the Federal Crop Insurance Program.
  But just last year congress passed a bill making the crop insurance 
program mandatory. Sounds like a catch-22 to me.
  The Durbin amendment will hurt small farmers the most. It's the 
family farmer who depends most on the advice and help of extension 
services.
  It is simply unfair to single out one crop and one type of farmer.
  Mr. Chairman, maybe some people think the tobacco farmer has an easy, 
lucrative life. I'd say those people have never watched folks work in a 
tobacco patch.
  I'll be happy to show them around Kentucky's second district.
  First the Clinton health plan, then the FDA, now the Durbin 
amendment.
  All for a crop using a few million dollars worth of assistance that 
brings in nearly 20 billion in taxes and trade surplus. 20 billion!
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Durbin amendment, and call 
an end to the war on tobacco.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk].
  Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, yesterday morning I addressed the 
opening of the Smithfield, North Carolina tobacco market. I spoke to 
hundreds of farmers who made their way across my district to sell their 
crop in rural Johnston County.
  These farmers are not the giant tobacco corporations the Clinton 
administration, the FDA and some in Congress attack. These are small 
farmers who struggle from year to year just to make ends meet. These 
are the people who provide the jobs, pay the taxes, and fight our wars.
  If you have been on a tobacco farm, you know it is the most 
backbreaking work in agriculture. This year the small farmers of North 
Carolina have been hit by twin disasters, bad weather 

[[Page H7354]]
and President Clinton. Too much rain weakened the crop, too much 
Clinton and Kessler threaten the industry's survival.
  If that were not enough, here comes the Durbin amendment with another 
kick in the teeth to the 200,000 men, women and children in my State 
who depend on tobacco for survival. This amendment is bad legislation. 
It does nothing the authors claim. It punishes no one they want to 
punish. Vote ``no'' on Durbin.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, we have heard from the opposition. We have 
heard from the proponents. What we have heard from the proponents is 
that only 3 cents of a dollar that is spent on cigarettes goes to the 
farmer.
  But, listen, tonight we are going after that very farmer who gets 
only 3 cents on the dollar. We are punishing families who grow on 
average 3 acres of tobacco. To make ends meet, members of that family 
work day and night on that farm. Tobacco is a very laborious job. But 
also to make ends meet, they work in factories in my district in 
Louisville.
  Not one bit of tobacco is grown in my congressional district, or just 
a tiny bit. It is grown around the Commonwealth of Kentucky by people 
who rely on its income to keep their family farm. Let us not attack the 
lease of the people who benefit from tobacco in this country. Vote 
against the Durbin amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I knew the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin] had been too nice all night and all day, that he had a sword in 
his pocket somewhere, and here it came.
  But listen to me carefully, my friends. I have spent 24 years working 
on this particular crop and this particular problem. If you want to put 
American farmers out of the tobacco business, support the Durbin 
amendment.
  And if you then want the companies that buy tobacco to smile all the 
way to the bank, and go to Brazil and buy tobacco for 30 and 40 cents a 
pound, support the Durbin amendment. If you want the cigarette 
companies to make more money than they are making tonight and be able 
to sell cigarettes cheaper to the young people of this country, support 
the Durbin amendment.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] said it very well. 
If you want to take a family, rural, poor, black and white, that has 5 
acres of tobacco that can make 2,000 pounds an acre, 5 acres times 
2,000 is 10,000 pounds of tobacco.
                              {time}  2045

  A poor rural family can supplement their income with $10,000 to 
$12,000. That is the difference between them staying on the farm or 
moving into your city and getting on your welfare program. If that is 
what you want, some more poor people in your cities, vote for the 
Durbin amendment.
  This is incredible, to offer an amendment to deny price support and 
pesticide advice to farmers and then piously walking around here 
saying, we are saving the people of this country from the dangers of 
smoking. You all can do better than that.
  Make cigarettes illegal. Go after outlawing cigarettes. I will join 
you in banning unattended cigarette machines.
  Please, vote against the Durbin amendment. Ye know not what you do if 
ye vote for it.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind our guests in the gallery, 
please, that public demonstrations of either support or opposition are 
not permitted.
  The Chair thanks them very much for their courtesy.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, to close the debate on our side, I yield 
the remaining time to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the 
chairman of the Republican Conference.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for yielding 
time to me.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we know this amendment that is before us 
tonight has nothing to do with smoking. It is not even about public 
policy. It does not even have anything to do with the tobacco program.
  What this is tonight, ladies and gentlemen, is about politics, not 
about policy. This is about big government telling the American people 
what they can and they cannot do. It is nothing more than harassing 
small farmers in 23 States in America that have grown tobacco for 300 
years. It is another step down the path toward political correctness 
that some on the left want to continue to advance in this Chamber.
  My colleague, tonight let us say no to more, bigger and better 
government here in Washington. Let us say no to political correctness, 
and let us say no to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Durbin-
Hansen-Smith amendment. I have often spoken of the need for our 
Government to have the right priorities as we move to balance the 
budget. Funding tobacco-related programs is more than a bad priority; 
it is wrong for our Government to directly or indirectly encourage the 
use of tobacco.
  Tobacco use kills over 400,000 people every year in America. What 
makes these deaths even more tragic is that they are wholly 
preventable. Uncle Sam must stop simultaneously spending taxpayers' 
dollars to encourage tobacco use through these Agriculture programs, 
then discourage tobacco use through public health campaigns, and then 
pay for medical treatment when smoking gets people seriously ill. This 
policy just doesn't make sense. Let's stop it today.
  In Congress, we should be in the business of preventing deaths, not 
encouraging them. I urge all my colleagues to support the Durbin-
Hansen-Smith amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
19, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will be postponed.


                    amendment offered by mr. bunning

  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bunning of Kentucky:
       Page 71, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       ``Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     none of the funds in this Act shall be made available to or 
     for the Food and Drug Administration.''.

  Mr. BUNNING (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It strikes all funding for 
the food and drug administration from the bill.
  The amendment is meant to send a shot across the bow of the FDA. It's 
a rogue agency that's out of control and Congress needs to slap it 
down.
  At a time when we are cutting the size of Government and slashing red 
tape, the FDA is heading in the opposite direction. It wants broader 
regulation and bigger bureaucracies.
  Dr. David Kessler, the FDA Commissioner, summed up his philosophy 
pretty well a couple of years ago when he proudly noted that the FDA 
was ``Getting new regulations out faster than ever before.''
  When you stop to consider that the FDA is probably the most powerful 
government agency in the world with direct regulatory authority over a 
trillion dollars worth of our economy, Dr. Kessler's regulatory glee is 
more than a little frightening.
  But, still, what have all of these new regulations got us?

[[Page H7355]]

  Back in the 1970's it took 5 to 7 years to develop a new drug and get 
it approved. Now it takes 12.
  As recently as 1992 the median approval time for medical devices was 
102 days. Last year it climbed to 182 days.
  It took 3\1/2\ years for the FDA to approve the kidney treatment drug 
interlukin-2, even though nine other countries had already approved it. 
During this time, an estimated 25,000 Americans died of kidney cancer.
  Because of a 7-year delay in the approval of a heart medicine 
commonly known as beta blockers, the director of Tufts University 
Center for the study of drug development estimates that 119,000 
Americans died who might have been helped by this drug.
  All of this has happened in spite of the fact that the FDA has 
continued to expand. Since 1990, the FDA's budget has grown 27 percent. 
The number of employees who work for the agency has climbed 14 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, we might have more regulations than ever before. But I 
believe that in their zeal to safeguard the American public from every 
possible evil, Dr. Kessler and the FDA have actually been slowly 
regulating America to death.
  Mr. Chairman, last November the voters told us they don't want more 
Government and more regulation. They want less.
  They want less Government interference in their day-to-day lives. 
They want less micromanaging by Federal bureaucrats.
  And the American people certainly don't want Federal agencies pumping 
out rules and regulations faster than ever before.
  But, in case the FDA hasn't noticed, the age of the welfare state is 
ending. The time when the Federal Government acted as a nanny for the 
public is passing.
  In a recent op-ed piece, former Delaware Governor Pete Dupont even 
went so far as to dub Dr. Kessler the ``National Nanny''. This is one 
nanny who has been slowly suffocating the children.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm a realist. I don't hold out much hope that my 
amendment will pass the House. But I want to send a message.
  We have to let Dr. Kessler and the FDA know that some of us in 
Congress are watching. Some of us recognize that the Commissioner is 
out of control, and the FDA is out of control.
  And more importantly, I think that we need to continue sending the 
signal that the time of Government passing more and more regulations in 
the name of compassion for its citizens is passing. FDA regulations are 
raising health costs. FDA regulations are killing people.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see the gentleman from 
Kentucky offer this amendment, and I congratulate him for it. This 
makes the issue very clear.
  This is the kind of amendment that we Democrats love to see 
Republicans offer. It is the kind of amendment that will lead the 
voters of America and the consumers of America to vote the offeror out 
and all who vote for it. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the 
gentleman from Kentucky.
  What does the Food and Drug Administration do? It protects against 
bad and dangerous blood and dangerous blood products. It protects 
against filthy, dirty, adulterated, contaminated food manufactured and 
imported into this country. It protects the American public against 
unsafe biological products.
  It protects the American people against unsafe products which are 
medical devices. It protects the American people against contaminated, 
dangerous, and unsafe commodities such as cosmetics. It protects the 
American people against the distribution of materials which affect the 
health of the American people and which are, in fact, not safe. It 
assures that products which are sold in commerce are, in fact, 
efficacious.
  It has come into being because the Congress needed a body which would 
protect the American people against things like sulfanilamide elixer, 
which killed millions of Americans in the 1930's or against milk which 
was made safe and preserved by the addition of formaldehyde. It 
protects Americans against the kind of situation which we saw created 
generations of European babies who were born with flippers and without 
hands and legs, because of thalidomide.
  I have been more critical than anybody else in this body about the 
Food and Drug Administration and about their failures, and I have seen 
to it that one administrator of the Food and Drug Administration has 
left public service and that a number of them have gone to jail.
  I have seen to it that the entirety of the generic drug portion of 
the Food and Drug Administration has left that service, and we have 
cleaned it up.
  Drugs are safe in this country, and they are safer here than anywhere 
in the world. Foods are safer in this country than anywhere in the 
world because of Food and Drug, and American women can buy cosmetics in 
the knowledge that they are safe, and the American mother can buy food 
for her baby in the knowledge that that food is going to be safe and 
not risk the health and the welfare of that child.
  America can look to its food, America can look to its cosmetics, 
America can look to its appliances, to its blood and every other 
commodity that affects health and that sustains life and know that it 
is safe because of the Food and Drug Administration.
  No other country until the world can have that comfort and 
satisfaction, and I would urge my colleagues, as they vote on this 
piece of legislation and on this particular amendment, to understand it 
is easy to criticize, but it is very, very hard to make the situation 
better.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to 
control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues in the strongest 
possible way to oppose this amendment.
  The FDA needs reform, and I have introduced the first comprehensive 
bill in this session to get that reform. But make no mistake about it, 
the Bunning amendment would cripple the safety mission of the Food and 
Drug Administration.
  My colleagues, let me say I know of no major industry group in our 
country that wants to go as far as the Bunning amendment. The 
biotechnology industry, which we have so much hope for in the 21st 
century, is certainly not going to want to cut all of this funding. The 
device industry, which also shows such great promise, does not want to 
go this far. The pharmaceutical industry does not want to go this far. 
They all believe that the Food and Drug Administration needs reform.

                              {time}  2100

  We can do that on a bipartisan basis, but let us not turn back the 
clock, let us not play Russian roulette, with the safety of the America 
public. Vote no on the Bunning amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen] for yielding this time to me.
  Colleagues, make no mistake about it. This is a very, very unwise 
amendment, and I guess in a sense it is appropriate that it follows on 
the heels of the Durbin amendment, which was in my view of very modest 
amendment. This is a shot across the bow of the FDA all right, but it 
comes from the cannons of the American tobacco industry, and the reason 
for this amendment is one reason and one reason only, and that is that 
the FDA in the face of overwhelming medical and scientific evidence is 
on the verge of classifying nicotine as an addictive substance. So we 
need to be clear on, frankly, the motives behind this amendment.

[[Page H7356]]

  Again, Mr. Chairman, it is very unwise. The FDA is making 
improvement, and working with industry, and expediting the rulemaking 
process, and I strongly urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I response to the gentleman from Michigan I would like to just give 
him some information he might not have, that on July 14 of this year 
the FDA agents swooped into the headquarters of Synthetic Systems of 
Seattle, WA, to seize a device that poses a serious threat to the 
American people. What was the device? It was a chair that had a massage 
machine attached to it. They came in, and it was a relaxation machine, 
and the FDA, without warning, came in and removed it, stopped the sale 
of a relaxing chair machine that had a massage motor attached to it. If 
that is not an agency out of control, I have never seen one.
  I would like to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs]. I understand that the timber industry in his 
area needs help, and we understand that this Congress took steps to 
take care of that. I really personally resent the implication that the 
only reason that we are offering this amendment is that the FDA might, 
might, consider classifying tobacco as an addictive drug. There is no 
proof of that, and he knows it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am just shocked at the debate that we are 
hearing this evening. The story the gentleman just told, as far as I 
know, is an anecdote that is not correct. It did not happen. I have 
heard these stories over and over again, and they turn out, when we 
investigate them, to be untrue. This is not the basis for ending an 
agency that protects the safety of the American people by approving 
drugs to be effective and protecting us from a food supply that may 
poison us.
  I think this an irresponsible amendment. If this amendment were to be 
adopted, it would keep the FDA from getting drugs and devices on the 
market. Our industry in this country for drugs and devices are the 
marvel and leader of the world because they work with FDA, and, when 
FDA approves them, everyone recognizes that the FDA approval means that 
those products do what they are intended to do. They are safe, they are 
effective, and our industry has been profitable and saves lives.
  Let us preserve the FDA and defeat this amendment. I think it is 
thoroughly irresponsible to want an appropriations bill to do away with 
the Food and Drug Administration. I wonder what the authorizing 
committees are all about, what the policy committees are supposed to be 
doing, if we are going to have amendments dropped out here on the floor 
without any debate, without any hearings, without any real thought 
being given to whether the FDA ought to be preserved, in some ways 
reformed, but made to work as it has done and can continue to do in the 
future.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] 
has expired.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, in yielding such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] for the 
purposes of a colloquy, does the gentleman believe the things written 
in CRS are factual?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I would.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. The gentleman called me a liar.
  Mr. WAXMAN. I did not call the gentleman a liar, but let me tell my 
colleague, if he would yield to me, I will explain to him my point, and 
I have heard the story over and over again about the FDA sneaking into 
offices, and when I investigated it, it just was not true, it just was 
not accurate.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. So the fact of the matter is the FDA did 
swoop down on this company in Seattle and do exactly what I said, and 
that is right here, in case the gentleman is interested, on page 28 of 
the Congressional Service. Let me get the date for the gentleman.
  Mr. WAXMAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, perhaps they 
were enforcing the law. I think the gentleman is overreacting to 
something that is not accurate.
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. I say to the gentleman, ``If you call me a 
liar, I react to it.''
  Mr. WAXMAN. This is about the anecdote he is relating to the House.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bunning 
amendment. I understand that there are some very volatile, negative 
opinions surrounding the FDA, but it would be irresponsible to simply 
eliminate all of the programs the Agency oversees.
  Reforms at FDA may be necessary, but there are effective and far less 
draconian methods of accomplishing that than by obliterating the 
Agency.
  Last year I worked with a broad, bipartisan group of Congressmen to 
pass the Dietary Supplements bill, which brought common sense to the 
treatment of dietary supplements.
  In that effort, we addressed what some considered to be regulatory 
excess and unreasonable restrictions on the part of FDA. However, even 
those in the nutrient and supplement industry who objected to FDA's 
tactics would not suggest that the entire Agency be abolished.
  FDA governs the safety of all drug products, is working towards an 
AIDS vaccine and AIDS diagnostic tests, researches veterinary medicine 
products and devices, and ensures that food labeling is truthful. 
Surely we will not say to our constituents that these functions are no 
longer necessary.
  Committees of jurisdiction in this body are free to use their 
oversight authority to curb overzealous FDA activity, and the 
appropriations process is always available to shift an Agency's 
priorities. But to destroy these health research and enforcement 
programs without a full and open debate would be careless and 
unproductive.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Bunning amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Think about this amendment for just a second. The amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] will close down the Food 
and Drug Administration. It will close it down, no funding, and then 
tomorrow what will happen? The Food and Drug Administration, which is 
responsible for monitoring the Nation's blood supply so that when 
someone is in an accident and goes to the emergency room they do not 
have to worry about that transfusion passing the HIV virus to them? Out 
of business. The Food and Drug Administration which inspects 
mammography clinics where our wives and loved ones who go in for 
breasts examinations can be assured the instruments are accurate and 
the people working there are professional; the FDA inspects those. Out 
of business. The Food and Drug Administration which review drugs on the 
market to try to protect us from disease and help live our lives a 
little longer, live a little longer, out of business. I ask if this is 
the Republican revolution that was voted for last year. Is this what 
they were looking for to get Government off our back, to take the Food 
and Drug Administration out of business of making sure that the foods, 
and drugs, and medical devices coming into our homes are safe and 
effective? I do not think so. I think what Americans are looking for 
are smart people here in this Chamber pushing for legislation to make 
more effective Government, not closing down the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a kind of extreme position which I hope all 
Members of Congress would understand is unwise for America's future. 
Democrats and Republicans alike should defeat this amendment and 
perhaps join the gentleman from Kentucky in reforming this agency. 
There are things we can do to reform it, but turning out the lights is 
hardly reform. It really closes down an agency that is vitally 
important to every American family. I hope we will all join in 
defeating this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
19, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 

[[Page H7357]]
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] will be postponed.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Chair to proceed now 
to have the votes at this time, and I ask unanimous consent that we do 
this.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rescind that request, and we will let the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] proceed, and I think then we will 
have the votes immediately after, and that will take 10 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] withdraws his 
request to proceed with votes that had been rolled over from earlier 
this evening.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].


                     amendment offered by mr. obey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Page 71, after line 5, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 726. 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 that provides assistance to recipients other than 
     those identified at 7 Code of Federal Regulations 
     1485.13(a)(1)(i)(J), 1485.12 (a)(2)(ii), and 1485.15(c) or 
     that provides assistance to organizations with annual gross 
     sales of $20,000,000 or more unless it has been made known to 
     the official responsible for such expenditures that the 
     organization is a cooperative owned by and operated for small 
     organizations that are members of the cooperative.

  Mr. SKEEN (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 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I have 
proposed an amendment that has a considerable amount of support that 
deals with the same general program that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] is addressing, the market promotion program.
  I intend to offer my amendment as a substitute for the amendment of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and the agreement that had 
been reached with the leadership and with the chairman of the 
subcommittee was that the discussion of the market promotion program 
would be 1 hour, 30 minutes, divided between the two sides.
  Continuing under my reservation, Mr. Chairman, if the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin is passed, it will in effect 
preempt the amendment that I have offered in a timely manner, and so I 
must object to this unanimous-consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is willing to entertain suggestions from the 
gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman if we will have a 10-
minute debate, we will accept his amendments, and no votes on that 
tonight?
  Mr. ZIMMER. I reluctantly reject that proposal. The understanding 
that I reached with the gentleman was that my amendment would be 
entitled to 1 hour of debate. There are many Members who feel very 
strongly about this on both sides of the issue, and in effect that 
debate will be preempted, it will be truncated, by the debate on the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey's amendment. Mr. Obey is trying to 
deal with the problem in a good-faith manner, but in a much more 
limited way than our striking amendment and elimination of the program.
  I believe it is entirely appropriate for us to debate the elimination 
of the program and the limitation and the reduction of the program in 
the same general debate, and so I must reluctantly object to any 
unanimous-consent request that does not give proponents and opponents 
of Mr. Obey's amendment and my substitute an aggregate of 60 minutes.
                              {time}  2115

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield under his 
reservation, I simply ask a question.
  Mr. Chairman, the situation, as I understand it, is simply that we 
are trying to work out a mechanical problem. We are trying to 
facilitate the completion of all of these appropriation bills this 
week.
  The difficulty we have is that I cannot be on the floor at the same 
time I am supposed to be in the committee helping to move forward the 
Labor-HEW appropriations bill.
  I do not believe that the gentleman's amendment is in any way 
inconsistent with mine. Frankly, I had expected that there would be a 
very truncated discussion on mine, vote up or down, and then we would 
proceed to the gentleman's, which I think has probably much more 
interest than mine. But I think the gentleman misunderstands if he 
thinks that our amendment in any way precludes his amendment. It does 
not. The gentleman's amendment is simply much more restrictive than 
ours and can be offered, even though ours is offered, even in the 
unlikely event that mine is adopted.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, with all respect, I understand that the 
gentleman has proposed the same amendment in years past, and it is not 
designed intentionally as a way to inoculate against the complete 
elimination of the MPP, but that will be its effect, and that is why I 
am insisting that we be able to debate them both in the same hour.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, there is a dissimiliarity in the two 
amendments. One is a limiting amendment; the other one is an omission, 
a complete omittance of a program. The Zimmer amendment is freestanding 
and will get its own time, and I will assure the gentleman that he will 
have a full hour of time, regardless.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, you have been very fair and very 
understanding. We have had a number of conversations about this. But 
with all respect, it is not a question of time, it is a question of 
timing.
  If the Obey amendment is to succeed, it will, for all practical 
purposes, forestall any reasonable debate on my amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, we will not have any votes on the amendment 
of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] this evening.
  The CHAIRMAN. With all due respect to my colleagues on the floor, 
this has gotten a little bit out of the bounds of normal operating 
procedure. We have already heard objections to the suggestion of a time 
limitation by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. The Chair is inclined to proceed 
with the Obey amendment and recognize for 5 minutes on each side, 
unless the chairman of the committee has a suggestion on how else we 
proceed, very quickly.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, all I am trying to do is to offer an 
amendment which I expect will be opposed by both sides for opposite 
reasons. I am simply rising today to offer an amendment that is trying 
to put some rationality in the export marketing program, which is going 
to be debated a good deal tomorrow or later this evening as well.
  I simply am offering an amendment which suggests that it does not cut 
any money out of the marketing program. All it suggests is that support 
under this marketing program should not be allowed for any corporation 
that has sales of $20 million or more unless it is essentially a co-op. 
That is all the amendment does.
  I have 10 reasons for proposing this amendment. They are the Ernest 
and Julio Co., the Dole Co., Pillsbury Co., Tyson's Foods, M&M Mars, 
Campbell Soups, Seagrams, Hershey, Jim Beam Whiskey, Ralston Purina.
  I enjoy virtually all of those products. I just do not want to have 
to subsidize all of them.
  At the same time, I think there is room for an export marketing 
program provided that it is not gobbled up by the big boys.
  Now I recognize that those who want the program to stay as is are 
going to oppose my amendment because they think they have a better 
chance of killing an amendment to cut off the program. I also recognize 
that some Members think they have a good chance to 

[[Page H7358]]
cut off the entire program, and they do not want to vote for my 
amendment because they think it gets in the way. I apologize for that 
inconvenience. But I do think that once in a while around here there is 
room for a middle way. That is all I am trying to do.
  With that, in an effort to simply try to move this forward so that 
Members can go home and the committee can continue to debate the rest 
of the amendments and roll the votes until tomorrow, I thank the 
chairman.
   AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ZIMMER AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE AMENDMENT 
                          OFFERED BY MR. OBEY

  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Zimmer as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Strike the text of the 
     amendment and insert the following:
       ``Sec. 726. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the 
     funds made available in this Act may be used to pay the 
     salaries of personnel who carry out a market promotion 
     program pursuant to section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act 
     of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623).
       (b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided in this Act for ``Commodity Credit Corporation 
     Fund--Reimbursement for Net Realized Losses'' is hereby 
     reduced by $110,000,000''.


                         PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, during the course of the evening, we have 
had suggested time limitations on debate. Does the chairman want to 
make a time limitation request on the Zimmer amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will consider a time limitation request.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 1 hour and that the 
time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman refer to debate of both the 
substitute and the underlying Obey amendment or only to the Zimmer 
substitute?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, yes, both.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does it refer to both the Zimmer amendment and the Obey 
amendment or only the Zimmer amendment?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, that is my understanding.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, just a 
clarification. I presume the one hour, I do not care what kind of limit 
is on the Obey amendment, which we did not know about and came as a 
surprise, but we were promised one hour on the Zimmer amendment last 
night for foregoing doing it last night, and I would ask that it be one 
hour on the Zimmer amendment and then whatever time the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is willing to accept on his substitute amendment 
be added to that.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object, I would ask the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] to modify his proposal for 1 hour on the 
Zimmer amendment and whatever he wants to add, 10 minutes or whatever, 
to the Obey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to point out that if we 
are going to start cross-walking these things, I have an amendment to 
the gentleman's amendment, and that also ought to be included in the 
discussion. I would simply prefer to have a five-minute debate on my 
amendment on the other side. I do not care if the vote is taken tonight 
or tomorrow, and as far as I am concerned, I do not care how long we 
stay here tonight debating the gentleman's amendment. I would suspect 
that they could all be rolled until tomorrow.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, 
does the gentleman care which order they are debated and voted upon?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
have already debated mine. I do not need any more time on mine. I would 
offer another substitute.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, the proposal I would make is that we spend 
1 hour on the Zimmer amendment, no more debate on the Obey amendment, 
and then move to vote on the Zimmer substitute and then the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have a counter for the gentleman, and I 
would say this, let us do two votes now and get them out of the way, 
and then we will give you all the time necessary for the Obey and 
Durbin and Bunning.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification from the 
gentleman, those two votes are not either the Zimmer or the Obey 
amendment?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
neither one of those.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I have no 
objection to rolling over votes while we are all here listening to the 
debate, but if we are going to vote and then have debate while all of 
the Members are gone and then vote tomorrow, I find that a highly 
offensive procedure. There will be no one to hear the debate on either 
side. So if the proposal is to have our votes and have the debate on 
that one amendment only and roll it over to have the vote thereafter or 
roll it over until tomorrow and not have all of the other amendments 
brought up tonight, I will not object, but I do not think it is proper 
to have a lot of amendments debated when members are not even here to 
hear the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will enforce regular order. There is no 
pending question.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The amendment is not withdrawn.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, everybody is a little offended about 
everybody's other little offenses tonight, and I am sure it is becoming 
a very prickly situation. I would once again offer, let us do the two 
votes that we have pending now that we have rolled over and do them 
now. We will also discuss this amongst the interested parties during 
the vote, and we will then come up with some resolution on what time to 
afford the two interested parties during the vote, and we will then 
come up with some resolution on what time to afford the two interested 
parties on the issue that we have got that the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] are 
interested in.
                              {time}  2130


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DEUTSCH. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, the inquiry is very similar to what the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] just mentioned. Is it the 
intention of the chairman of the subcommittee to have debate tonight 
and then no votes tonight after those next two amendments?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is not a parliamentary inquiry. A parliamentary 
inquiry must be directed to the Chair.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Chair to ask the chairman. 
I think a lot of us are concerned that we are going to have debate this 
evening on a lot of significant matters.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has a number of responsibilities, one of 
which, however, is not to announce the program for the evening.
  There is a pending proposal by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen] to proceed to the two votes that were postponed from earlier in 
the evening. That would be possible if the pending amendment to the 
bill were withdrawn. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, are those 
two votes first on the Durbin-Hansen-Smith amendment on the tobacco 
program, and second on the Bunning 

[[Page H7359]]
amendment, on the Food and Drug Administration?
  Mr. SKEEN. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Those are the two votes we would have now, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of 
objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. There is still a pending amendment by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. He cannot withdraw his amendment because of 
the objection of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. We must 
dispose of the pending business involving the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] before we can move to the other one.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey]?
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to order of the House of Wednesday, July 19, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: The amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series. The first vote is 15 minutes.
                  amendment offered by the mr. durbin

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 223, not voting 12, as follows:
                             [Roll No 544]

                               AYES--199

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Coburn
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stokes
     Studds
     Talent
     Tate
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--223

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Meek
     Mica
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rose
     Sabo
     Sanford
     Schaefer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
                             NOT VOTING--12

     Collins (MI)
     Dreier
     Gallegly
     Goodling
     Jefferson
     Lewis (GA)
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Stark
     Volkmer
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  2153

  Messrs. WAMP, CHRISTENSEN, and MASCARA changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. COSTELLO, MFUME, HYDE, SAWYER, SAXTON, ENGEL, and KIM changed 
their vote form ``no'' to aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    amendment offered by mr. bunning

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my demand for a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The demand for a recorded vote is withdrawn.
  So the amendment was rejected.


                 amendment no. 8 offered by mrs. lowey

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mrs. Lowey: At the appropriate 
     place in the bill, insert the following new section:
       Sec.  . None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to provide deficiency payments and land diversion 
     payments described in paragraph (1), or other payments 
     described in paragraph (2)(B), of section 1001 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) to any person when it is 
     made known to the Federal entity or official to which the 
     funds are made available that the person has an annual 
     adjusted gross income of $100,000 or more from off-farm 
     sources.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 

[[Page H7360]]

this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, everyone 
else objected this evening, I just thought it was my turn. Under my 
reservation, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman from New 
Mexico what the arrangement is in regard to the many amendments we have 
pending, and of course the very important amendment by the two 
gentlemen who are not on the Authorizing Committee and not on the 
Appropriations Committee, but must have 1 hour of debate and an 
immediate vote as opposed to the 10 or 15 or 20 other votes that affect 
policy, but we are going to debate them tonight, not have votes, roll 
them over into the next day so nobody will know what they are voting 
on.
  Mr. Chairman, is that the business of the committee?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I tell this 
wonderful gentleman that he is exactly right and to not have a fit 
until we get this thing reduced to some kind of a settlement. I 
appreciate everybody's patience. This has been a very difficult 
situation.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I 
would tell my dear friend and all the sheep that he has and the one he 
rode in on with a saddle. With a saddle.
  Mr. SKEEN. I thank the gentleman. The beauty is in the eyes of the 
beholder.
  Mr. ROBERTS. In the saddle. My concern is this.

                              {time}  2200

  My concern is that the agreement has been reached between two of our 
colleagues, and I was a tad sarcastic when I said neither were members 
of the authorizing committee and the appropriating committee, reserving 
1 hour of debate, which is essential to the market promotion program, 
which is a very important program not only for the farm program but for 
American export and all of that.
  However, we have at least 8, 10, 15 other amendments on means 
testing, the farm program, on the Export Enhancement Program, on the 
Food for Peace Program and on and on. Now, we are not going to have an 
hour of debate in that regard. We are going to announce that we are 
going to roll the votes until tomorrow.
  I doubt if there are more than six people on the floor when we 
announce that, and so the debate will not be heard, but we will come in 
very quickly as of tomorrow, and we will vote, and we will roll those 
votes, and I have a little problem with that because it is so late at 
night.
  I think each issue deserves this kind of a policy debate, and I will 
tell you that if some of these key amendments are passed which I 
consider to be very counterproductive I will urge every member of the 
Committee on Agriculture to vote no, and this bill will go down.
  Now I am not for that. I am not for that. But I think we are getting 
a little far afield here in terms of reasoned debate on the very key 
amendments that affect our Nation's policy.
  If that is what we are going to do I guess we will just have to go 
and do it. I do not want to be obstreperous, well, I do want to be 
obstreperous; I do not want to really pose an obstacle, but the 
gentlewoman is going to offer an amendment here on means testing. It 
should have a 30 to 45 minutes at least an hour debate. It will gut the 
current farm program.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. If that is how 
we are going to do this, why, fine, but I am just telling you this is a 
hell of a way to run a railroad.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I do not 
want to threaten or anything else. I just do not know what we are 
doing. What is it that has been requested? What is the unanimous-
consent request?
  Mr. SKEEN. Once again, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes, and that 
is the business before this committee on the Lowey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. THOMAS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, does that 
include a vote on that amendment?
  Mr. SKEEN. No.
  Mr. THOMAS. Does the gentleman from New Mexico intend to have a vote 
tonight following debate on this amendment?
  Mr. SKEEN. No; at this present time, no.
  Mr. THOMAS. Then I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There is no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pending the recognition of the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Lowey], the gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, let me first express my appreciation to the 
managers of the bill, both on the Republican and the Democratic side, 
and to those Members who have exercised their right to bring forward 
amendments for their willingness to work together and try to negotiate 
time limits on this bill, even though they are free under the rule to 
hold each amendment to the 5-minute rule. They have worked very hard 
together trying to work out time limits for the convenience of the 
body, and I want to express my appreciation for everyone who has worked 
with the floor managers toward that end.
  This is a rough schedule, I know. I have heard about it quite a bit.
  Let me just tell you, 2 weeks ago, or was it a week ago, the 
leadership team on both sides of the aisle as well as that from the 
Senate went to the White House and we talked to the President about how 
seriously important it is for us to move these appropriations bills as 
quickly as possible. The President of the United States, in his concern 
for this process, knowing how much we must get done before this year is 
over, encouraged both the House and the Senate to work through the 
August recess, and the President was most sincere in his encouragement 
out of a desire to have this work done, knowing what we must do later.
  We made a decision that we would prefer to preserve the August recess 
out of consideration for the fact that each and every Member of this 
body already has a scheduled recess period that should not be 
disrupted.
  We further hope to make it possible for each and every Member of this 
body to avoid working on weekends between now and that August recess, 
and yet we share the President's conviction we must complete these 
bills before we adjourn for the August recess.
  In that interest, we are, in fact, keeping a rigorous schedule. We 
prefer not to deny any Member their right to have an amendment. 
Irrespective of whether or not they are on the authorizing committee or 
the Committee on Appropriations, the Member has a right to offer this 
amendment.
  We prefer not to write rules where the Committee on Rules would 
dictate the terms of debate in terms of the time. We prefer instead to 
place our confidence in the bill managers working in conjunction with 
the people who have the amendment to make reasonable time limit 
agreements freely and voluntarily among themselves out of consideration 
for their colleagues. And that is working reasonably well.
  How badly must it work before we write rules that diminish the right 
of another Member to participate in the process in the interests of 
time? I do not think it is working that badly, and I again applaud 
those folks.
  Now it is an innovation for us to roll votes while we are in the 
Committee of the Whole, and we understand it is an innovation that 
probably does not have a lengthy tradition, but it's something that we 
thought we could do out of consideration for the Members, and I think 
to some extent it has worked fairly well.
  I must say that some Members with amendments like the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Lowey] are able to feel confident working with the 
bill managers that a 20-minute time limit will suffice for the purpose 
of the debate. Others feel very strongly that maybe an hour might be 
required. But 

[[Page H7361]]
I should ask you, is that Member who says, ``I really feel like I need 
an hour'' being more unreasonable than that Member that says, ``I 
insist on operating under the 5-minute rule''? It does
 not take that many Members to talk for more than an hour under the 5-
minute rule.

  So I think even that Member that might have said, ``I would like to 
have an hour working with the bill managers'' should be appreciated for 
the effort they made.
  Now, again, let me just say I am sorry that the objection has been 
made. I think it is unfortunate with respect to the good effort that 
was made by the people involved in negotiating this time. But still, 
nevertheless, we still have our hopes to complete our desire and that 
of the President with respect to the completion of these bills before 
we adjourn on recess on the fourth of August. We still have our hope 
and our desire that we can do so without working weekends between now 
and then. We still have our hope and our desire we can do so without 
diminishing the rights of the Members to participate, and we will 
continue to work toward that.
  But I must tell you, for us to maintain that schedule, we will have 
to finish this bill tonight. Now, we can, in fact, make a decision to 
not finish tonight, if you would prefer to not have your adjournment 
for the weekend at 3 o'clock tomorrow.
  These are tough tradeoff decisions we have to make, and again let me 
thank the bill managers and those with amendments for their willingness 
to participate freely and voluntarily in negotiating limits on this 
time so that we can accommodate these tough configurations of choices.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that we have 
worn out this body with night after night meetings until 9 and 10 
o'clock, and if your announcement means that without being able to get 
this unanimous-consent request we are going to sit here and grind 
through both amendments and vote through the night in order to get 
done, we are going to leave the Members totally exhausted and unable to 
come back here tomorrow and get the rest of the work done.
  We understand what you are trying to do, and we are trying to be 
helpful. Our Members on both sides, as you have said, have worked hard 
together to try to reach unanimous-consent agreements, and they have 
had a good deal of success.
  It is late. One of the reasons we are having trouble keeping the 
agreements coming is because people are getting short of temper. They 
are wearing out. With the greatest of respect, I suggest that we leave 
tonight and we come back tomorrow, maybe with a fresher attitude, and 
we try to go back to getting unanimous-consent requests and vote on the 
amendments as they come.
  You have every right in the world to say that we are going to meet on 
Friday, maybe to a later time. Maybe the Friday and Monday of next week 
that you asked for us to be off has to be taken away. But I think 
people would rather work in the daylight hours and into the early 
evening. Nine o'clock might be a time beyond which we should not go. 
And if you will do that I think you will finish your schedule.
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, the 
distinguished minority leader for that recommendation, and again I 
would like you to know we try to take as many innovations as we feel 
are feasible under consideration.
  At this point, I think all of our work would be more facilitated, Mr. 
Chairman, if I would surrender my time and let the floor managers get 
back to work on this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York controls the time. No 
other Member may be recognized unless she yields time.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, given the 
statements of the distinguished majority leader and minority leader, to 
renew the request that was previously made by the distinguished floor 
manager of this bill, that is that the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Lowey] be entitled to, as I recall, a half an hour, and that the votes 
would then be rolled until tomorrow.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California reserves the right to 
object.
  First, does the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] yield for that 
request?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I certainly accept that Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York yields for that request.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, the original request, I believe, was for 20 
minutes, if I am correct, 30 minutes, which could have been already 
completed. We would have started to vote, and we would have gone home.
  To say that we are going to roll the vote over until tomorrow on an 
issue which is absolutely critical to my district when somebody else 
decides they have an amendment, it is going to be a half an hour 
debate, but the vote will not occur until later.
  I commend the majority leader for packaging votes on a rollover basis 
during the day. It has certainly been a time saver. But when you have a 
half an hour debate and say you are going to postpone the vote until 
tomorrow, that is an aberration of the concept of rolling votes. That 
amendment is critical.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry, who controls the 
time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York controls the time. Will 
she yield to the majority leader?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. ARMEY. Reserving the right to object for just a clarification, 
and I beg the gentlewoman's forgiveness. The gentleman from California 
did make an important point, and I am sorry I forgot to make this 
point, and I think the body should know it. There will be no more 
rolled votes this evening.
  That is to say again, we will not roll votes over, collect votes. The 
votes will take place at the time they are called.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York controls time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I just want to be sure that at the end of yielding the 
time I still have the 30 minutes, 15 minutes on each side to debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. There is objection to the unanimous consent request. 
There is not a time limitation, and at this time, the gentlewoman is 
recognized under the 5-minute rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia will hold his request. There 
is no pending unanimous consent request. The gentleman from California 
has objected.
                              {time}  2215


                             point of order

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I did not object on the last unanimous-
consent request.
  The majority leader has told me there will be no rolling of votes, 
and that the vote will be called when the amendment is ended, and I 
will serve notice, I will not object, but when the debate is ended, I 
will ask for a rollcall vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous-consent request the amendment is 
debatable for 30 minutes, 15 minutes controlled by proponents, 15 
minutes by opponents.
  Mr. LINDER. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, is 
it in order for the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] to move for 
a motion to allow the debate to occur and the vote to occur also?
  The CHAIRMAN. There is no objection. We can enter the order 
immediately, and we can begin debate.
  Hearing no objection, there will be a 30-minute cap on this debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. There was no objection. The gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey] will control 15 minutes, and an opponent will control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment until the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] has 
explained her amendment.

[[Page H7362]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] reserves a 
point of order against the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey] but asks first she have the opportunity to 
explain her amendment.
  The point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] for 
15 minutes.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary inquiry.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from Kansas proceeding 
with his point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas reserves his point of order.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, has the gentlewoman explained her 
amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] may proceed 
with explaining her amendment. She controls 15 minutes of time.
  Is the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] opposed to the 
amendment?
  Mr. SKEEN. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Then the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will 
control 15 minutes of time as well.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Chairman, the Lowey-Greenwood-Andrews-Schumer amendment would 
disqualify those earning more than $100,000 in off-farm income for 
receiving subsidy payments. That is off-farm income. The proposal would 
stop wealthy landowners who often do not live or work on their farms 
from receiving these subsidies.
  Mr. Chairman, the farm subsidy program was originally intended to 
help family farmers stay on their land and produce a crop. Today, too 
many subsidies go to independently wealthy, non-resident farm owners 
who do not work their own land. This amendment affirms our commitment 
to those family farmers who struggle each year to keep their farms an 
grow a crop.
  There are many people engaged in this debate who are saying we should 
eliminate all agricultural subsidies. I do not agree. But clearly we 
must make this program more accountable to the needs of America's 
farmers. This rational change in the program will ensure that those 
people receiving these subsidies truly deserve them.
  In an era of tight budgets, how can we justify giving these subsidies 
to millionaires like Sam Donaldson? It just does not make sense.
  According to USDA, this proposal will only affect 2 percent of farm 
owners. The proposal is supported by the Clinton administration, and 
groups as diverse as Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a 
Sound Economy, the Environmental Working Group, the National Taxpayers 
Union, and USPIRG. It is in the CBO's Spending and Revenue Options, and 
even the Heritage Foundation supports the concept.
  CBO estimates that this amendment will save $41 million in fiscal 
year 1996 alone, and USDA estimates a 5-year savings of $450 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this proposal makes fiscal sense, and it makes policy 
sense. I urge my colleagues to support the Lowey-Greenwood-Andrews-
Schumer amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kansas insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order and ask the 
gentlewoman for several clarifications, if I might.
  Would the gentlewoman advise me as to how people would make known to 
the Secretary of Agriculture that a person has an annual adjusted gross 
off-farm income in excess of $100,000 and what the Secretary would do 
to obtain such information?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I received assurance that the Department of 
Agriculture would understand the intent of this amendment and would put 
in place appropriate steps to carry out the intent of this amendment.
  Mr. ROBERTS. That the Secretary would put into place appropriate 
steps to carry out the amendment?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I am saying that I understand that the Department of 
Agriculture would understand the intent of the amendment and the 
appropriate process would follow.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Well, let me keep on with my questioning if I might.
  Would the gentlewoman advise me whether the Secretary would verify 
the information received on off-farm income and what the Secretary 
would do with that information?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as I believe this body is aware on 
appropriations bills, we have the right to offer a limitation 
amendment, but we do not have the right to dictate the policy. The 
intent of the amendment is clear.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Would the gentlewoman please clarify for me and the 
membership what calendar year does her amendment apply to--1995? 
1996?--and what duties it would impose on the Secretary or other 
Federal agencies?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, may I have clarification on the gentleman's 
questions? Are they all part of the point of order?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I am just reserving the point of order under the 5 
minutes. If I could, I will reclaim my time for clarification to 
determine if this gentleman would raise a point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is extremely important to know how the 
gentlewoman's amendment would be administered if, in fact, it even 
would be administered.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Would the gentleman clarify the point of order?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to know if the gentlewoman's amendment, if 
the restriction that somehow the Secretary of Agriculture would 
administer without the gentlewoman telling the Secretary how to 
administer it, would that be applicable to 1995, or 1996, or what year?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I believe, as the gentleman is aware, the 
amendment is printed in the Record, and the gentleman will have to 
state his point or order.
  Mr. ROBERTS. In other words the gentlewoman cannot tell me whether 
this is applicable to crop year 1996 or 1995. I am just asking the 
gentlewoman a simple question.
  Mr. Chairman, I can understand the concern of the gentlewoman because 
she does not know.
  In order to implement her amendment, and this is the final question, 
and we will get to the end of this, would the Secretary obtain income 
tax returns from the IRS, or require producers to bring in a tax 
return, or require producers to certify their off-farm income in order 
to verify any off-farm income?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment speaks for 
itself. The intent is clear, and, if the gentleman does not have a 
point of order, I believe we should proceed.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I will raise the point of order once I get 
the clarification if, in fact, the gentlewoman can tell me. I am not 
trying to be argumentative. I am trying to find under clarification 
whether a point of order should lie against the gentlewoman's 
amendment. I have discussed this with the gentlewoman prior to 
discussion as of this late hour. What I am trying to determine is will 
her amendment in any way require anybody to come in and ask for 
information of our Nation's farmers. Will her amendment require anybody 
to go and obtain information? If the information does come in, will 
anybody verify it?
                              {time}  2230

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, is there any additional duties required of 
the secretary under the gentlewoman's amendment?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, it is not the 
responsibility of myself to develop the point of order.
  Mr. ROBERTS. So the answer is no.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, the intent of the amendment is clear.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, so the answer is no.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, I do not have the 
obligation to develop the point of order.
  Mr. ROBERTS. So then would the gentlewoman agree that what we have 

[[Page H7363]]
  here is the equivalent of a strong intent, and I am not trying to put 
words in the gentlewoman's mouth, a strong intent, a sense of the House 
then in terms of intent, sort of a sense of the House resolution that 
this would be the intent of the gentlewoman? In terms of mandatory 
legislation, that that would not apply here; this is more of a sense of 
the House of Representatives that this would be the case?
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the intent of this amendment is 
clear. It was ruled in order by the parliamentarian, and as I 
understand it, we do not have an obligation to define it further. This 
amendment certainly expresses the intent.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to raise a point of order. 
I will not raise a point of order. I will simply, for discussion 
purposes, proceed.
  I think the House can understand what is apparent here. We have no 
way of knowing how this is going to be enforced. It is a simple attempt 
here that the only option the secretary has in this regard, and I am 
talking about Secretary Glickman, a former friend and colleague of us 
all, is to somehow sit back and let the information in regard to all 
farm income simply come to him.
  Now, maybe a farmer, in a fit of taxpayer-induced guilt, will walk 
into the secretary's office with a certified copy of his tax return and 
tell Secretary Glickman that he makes more than $100,000 off the farm 
and please request that the secretary now pay him. However, barring 
this kind of situation, this amendment will be, because the secretary 
cannot, I repeat, cannot, deny any farm program payments for which a 
producer is eligible under current law without making some kind of 
active determination that some producers off-farm income exceeds the 
$100,000.
  In other words, passively waiting for off-farm income information to 
come floating into his office is not a basis for denying payments that 
the courts, the courts will find acceptable when the secretary begins 
denying payments to producers.
  Let me also say that other than the point of order concern and that 
there are no marching orders whatsoever on how this is going to be 
implemented and that every farmer in America, the 98.3 percent who do 
not make anything close to $100,000, will have to fill out forms and 
paperwork if this is administered, and the gentlewoman is careful to 
say that she will not do that, think of the forms and the regulations 
that everybody is going to have to put up with.
  Now, there are several other reasons why this is not a good idea.
  Mr. Chairman, the real victims here are not the people that have been 
pilloried simply because they have off-farm income, the doctors, the 
lawyers, the Sam Donaldsons. Lord knows, I do not care if Sam
 Donaldson gets a farm program payment. It is the tenant. The tenant 
will lose their lease. The tenant will be forced to go to cash rent 
because the landowner will not continue with crop share.

  This amendment will hurt the very people that we are supposed to be 
helping. Every farmer in the country, if this is implemented, is going 
to have to deal with the IRS in some form; 1.7 of America's farmers are 
in this category.
  I can tell you if they have off-farm income in excess of $100,000, 
this will be the lawyer and CPA full employment act of 1995. They will 
separate out that income, and it will not achieve what is intended. We 
will not have the savings.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not raise a point of order. I thank the 
gentlewoman. I respect the gentlewoman. I urge a no vote on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentlewoman from 
New York for offering this fiscally conservative and well considered 
amendment. The Lowey amendment simply ensures that those who need 
subsidy payments receive them.
  This not only benefits the American taxpayers but it greatly benefits 
those small-independent farmers who need subsidies to survive.
  Too often, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government gives subsidies to 
those who simply do not need them. We have seen this in too many of our 
Federal programs, however, this has been particularly true with 
agriculture subsidies.
  Independently wealthy, non-resident farm owners have been collecting 
taxpayers dollars for farm subsidies, and in turn, taking resources 
away from those farmers who depend on these subsidies for their very 
existence.
  This assistance was never meant to support someone's hobby, which 
happens to be farming. To the contrary: It was developed to help those 
farmers who truly depend on the land; those farmers who every year have 
the threat of the bank foreclosing on their only means of income; and, 
those farmers who live day-by-day with the threat of losing their land 
and their crop because of inclement weather.
  Mr. Chairman, I need not remind any of my colleagues what the message 
was last November. The American Public wants real reform, no more 
giveaways, or out of control programs.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the Lowey amendment. We can no 
longer mortgage our children's future to subsidize those who do not 
need it.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas].
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I have no quarrel whatsoever with any of 
the statements that were made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The 
problem is, none of that applies to this amendment. If someone is 
passively involved, if it is a hobby of farming, if they do not have 
labor or management involvement, the 1987 Budget Reconciliation Act 
said that they cannot participate.
  Those people have already been taken care of. Please read this 
amendment. What it says is that you are going to deny the funds to 
these people when it is made known to the Federal entity. When it is 
made known? How? When it is made known, it is going to be denied. And 
it is adjusted gross income of $100,000, adjusted gross income.
  Come with me to Shafter, California, to Wasco, California, to Pixley, 
California. Who runs the tractor equipment shop? Who runs the 
fertilizer shop? Who are the small businessmen in these agriculturally 
oriented towns? The folks who farm as well. You deny them $100,000 
gross income, and they are not either going to be able to be the 
businessmen or they are not going to be able to farm, and those small 
towns need both to survive.
  It is a poorly conceived amendment. You are going after the wrong 
target. I am with you if you want to get the Sam Donaldsons and the 
passive people who do not really put labor or management into farms. We 
have already gotten rid of those folks. You are creating a nightmare in 
terms of IRS forms, and you are going to destroy small towns by taking 
small businessmen who are also farmers who provide two good services. 
And you are saying, you cannot do both.
  It is a bad amendment. Please vote no.


 amendment offered my mr. minge to the amendment offered by mrs. lowey

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Minge to the amendment offered by 
     Mrs. Lowey: Line 8 is amended to insert the following 
     language after the word ``person'': ``who resides in an 
     incorporated municipality with a population that exceeds 
     50,000, as determined by the 1990 census, or the person''

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Under the previously agreed to unanimous consent agreement, the 
amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota is not separately debatable 
and must be dealt with in the time parameters now controlled by the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey].
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment being 
offered by the gentlewoman from New 

[[Page H7364]]
York, and I would like to put this into a perspective that may not have 
been noted to this point in the debate.
  Several years ago, the United States Congress passed a law which 
recognized that we have a limited amount of resources available to pay 
farmers in America. We came to the understanding that we cannot pay 
every farmer all of the eligible amounts that they might be entitled to 
under a program. So we said, there is a $50,000 payment limitation. No 
matter how large your farm might be, no matter how complicated your 
personal circumstances, that is it, $50,000.
  Many farmers then raced off to meet with their accountants and 
attorneys to figure out how to get around it, how to put the farm in 
the brother's name or in the uncle's name, the son's and daughter's, 
wife and everybody so that they could split it up and everybody would 
get $50,000. But it did not work in some instances and some of the 
wealthy or bigger farmers in my part of the world basically got out of 
the program.
  What the gentleman from New York is suggesting is that we recognize 
this reality again. It is not just a $50,000 payment limitation now. It 
is who will receive it. Who will receive it. Pick up your investment 
manuals, and you will find a lot of recommendations and advice on where 
to put your money. Stocks and bonds and mutual funds and investments 
and gold and silver and this and that, some will suggest, buy farmland. 
Good investment.
  Well, the folks that make that decision, the investors who buy 
farmland are interesting people, but I do not think we should shed a 
lot of tears about those folks.
  What we are dealing with here are people with off-farm income in 
excess of $100,000. How many farmers today receiving money under the 
program fall into that category? Off-farm income in excess of $100,000? 
A few Members of Congress, I might add. But 2 percent, overall 2 
percent of the farmers have off-farm income in excess of $100,000. So 
are we going to decide now to sacrifice these programs and to cut back 
severely to benefit that 2 percent of investors? I hope not.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] have a 
point of order against the amendment offered by the gentleman form 
Minnesota to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this well-
intended but having an entirely different effect amendment than the 
gentlewoman proposes.
  It is true, several years ago, in fact, 1981, this Congress decided 
to move farm policy in a market-oriented direction and away from 
subsidization. And we have proceeded steadily in that direction and we 
will continue so in this year, the 1995 farm bill.
  Applying an income test fundamentally modifies the function of 
agricultural programs and breaks the link between the programs and the 
accomplishments of national objectives under the current law. Producers 
would be excluded on the basis of a randomly selected income test.
  Listen again to the answers of the gentlewoman from New York as she 
attempted to answer the questions of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Roberts]. She could not and would not for a very good reason. There are 
no good answers.
  If she did answer them, there would in fact have been a point of 
order logically applied to this amendment, because we ought not to be 
dealing with these kind of matters on an appropriation bill. We ought 
to be debating them as we change the direction of farm policy.
  If we want to go back to a fully subsidized, away from market-
oriented direction, then let us do that in the 1995 farm bill. But to 
fundamentally change tonight by means testing, you simply will move 
away from market orientation.
  The unintended consequences are many. Means testing could cause a 
decline in the number of producers who participate. We know what will 
happen with means testing. The 2 percent that we are talking about 
tonight will immediately cash rent their farms to their tenants. When 
you cash rent, that will have an obvious effect on that tenant farmer. 
The tenant farmer will have to go to the bank, will have to borrow the 
money to put it up. That is the rules of the FSA office today.
  There are so many reasons to oppose this amendment tonight. I could 
go on, but time is limited.

                              {time}  2245

  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment, and would urge the 
gentlewoman to seriously consider withdrawing the amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Minge amendment and support the 
underlying Lowey amendment. Mr. Chairman, this has been a revolutionary 
year, or promises to be a revolutionary year with respect to the budget 
of the United States. This Congress has made decisions to give school 
districts less money to teach children how to read, for better or for 
worse, I think for worse. It has made decisions to dredge fewer rivers. 
It has made decisions to raise rates of interest for students for 
student loans. It has made decisions to reduce school lunch 
allocations.
  Now we are being asked to do the following: we are being asked to say 
that people who own farms, who have gross adjusted income other than 
from farming of more than $100,000 a year, other than from farming, 
should no longer be given a Federal welfare check.
  In the same year, my colleagues, in which we are saying that we can 
cut back on school lunches and student loans and environmental 
protection, are we not ready to say to those who own farms and have 
income other than from farming, other than from farming, in excess of 
$100,000 a year, that it is about time that they took a cut, too?
  If this is to be a revolutionary year in the Federal budget, let the 
revolution continue with the Lowey amendment. Support it. It is the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas].
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, most in America understand the term ``learn 
from our mistakes.'' However, it seems Congress sometimes forgets this 
fundamental dogma of society.
  Does the author of this amendment realize that over the years 
numerous changes have been made in the way Federal farm program 
payments have been made, limited and targeted to certain individuals? 
These changes have always been made by the Committee on Agriculture and 
have had a wide variety of results, sometimes intended, sometimes not 
so intended.
  Who does this amendment really impact? Banning the so-called wealthy 
landowners with large off-farm incomes from participating in the 
programs will create collateral damage, surely unforeseen by the author 
of this amendment. This amendment will not hurt rich people, it will 
hurt the small tenant farmers who rent from someone, who inherited 
their property, or left agriculture for other opportunities. These 
amendments hinge on many factors, or agreements, I should say, 
including crop yields, weather, good management, and yes, Federal farm 
programs.
  If a source of income was stripped out of this equation, the small 
tenant farmer is likely to be pushed off the land or forced to move to 
a cash rent agreement, which moves all the production risk to the 
producer and away from the landowner.
  Mr. Chairman, let me make a personal observation about this issue. I 
am a career farmer and rancher from western Oklahoma. I have 
experienced the euphoria of a bountiful harvest, and the financial 
burdens of a short crop. I know what it is like to be a young farmer 
just starting out, being primarily a cattle rancher, a cow-calf 
operation. It has been about 10 years since I have participated in any 
Federal program, and I have no plans to start in the future.

[[Page H7365]]

  Being a Member of Congress, and the compensation that comes along 
with this job, the author's amendment would prohibit me from 
participating in any of these programs. I do not quibble with that. I 
do argue the fact that should I decide to change the focus of my 
agribusiness, this amendment would place a young farmer-rancher from my 
home county who is just trying to start out in farming at a 
disadvantage. With this limitation, Mr. Chairman, we force them to cash 
rent, take them out of crop share, put the burden only on the small 
producer, and wipe him or her out.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Let me just make a 
couple of points. First, I think every one of us knows that farming is 
very tough work. It is backbreaking. It depends on weather and other 
vicissitudes far away from what people do. I think that there is a 
great deal of sympathy, with justification, for the American farmer. 
However, we are not really talking about the American farmer here. We 
are talking about people who have large, large non-farm incomes who are 
not farmers. They may own land, but they are not farmers.
  Everyone says that this will decimate the farm programs. Mr. 
Chairman, let me tell the Members who we are dealing with. We are 
dealing with a number of people who receive less than 2 percent of all 
the deficiency payments, not 2 percent of the farmers. It is far less 
than 2 percent of the farmers. It is probably less than half of 1 
percent of the farmers. It is 2 percent of the entire farm income. What 
does the average family farmer make? Between $30,000 and $35,000 for 
getting up early in the morning, working late at night, working hard, 
worrying about the weather. We are not talking about those people. We 
are talking about the people who do not deserve this kind of price 
support from the Government, and who ruin it for the rest of the 
farmers.
  Every time there is one of these TV things on, the whole program gets 
knocked. If Members want to reform the program before it goes away, 
this is a very, very logical amendment to support, and I urge my 
colleagues to do it.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  With all due respect to the gentlewoman from New York, we are not 
talking about windowbox gardens, we are talking about large farming 
operations that provide an abundant and affordable food supply on the 
grocery stores shelves of this Nation.
  I would like to reiterate what the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture, the gentleman from Kansas, [Mr. Roberts] says; it is 
impractical to try to implement this amendment. To the gentleman from 
California, we have taken care of the extreme situations like Sam 
Donaldson, with active participation language in the 1987 budget 
reconciliation. We are talking about the difference here between crop 
rent and cash rent. We are not hitting the people that the gentlewoman 
from New York is fully trying to get at. We are going to be damaging 
the small farmers across this Nation that are providing an affordable 
and abundant food supply on the grocery store shelves.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment. With all due respect to the gentlewoman, I do believe she 
does not quite understand. I come from a seventh-generation farm 
family. Most of the farmers in my district are hardworking farmers. 
They understand, too, that if they do not have that subsidy in order to 
be able to pay back that cash rent, there is absolutely no way they 
will be able to continue farming.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, entitlement spending is the fastest growing 
portion of the Federal budget. And if we don't do something to slow the 
rate of growth now, in 35 years the entire budget will be spent on 
mandatory programs.
  Most people know that Medicare and Social Security are entitlement 
programs, but they don't realize that farm subsidies and business tax 
breaks are entitlements, too. If we want to be even-handed about making 
spending cuts to eliminate the deficit, every mandatory spending 
program will have to be on the table.
  The Lowey-Schumer amendment is a reasonable and fair approach to 
curbing farm entitlements. Let's face it, a farmer with an annual non-
farm adjusted income of more than $100,000 doesn't need any more 
government handouts.
  If we're serious about balancing the budget, and getting a handle on 
the growing national debt, we need to stop giving money to people who 
clearly don't need it.
  Vote for the Lowey-Schumer amendment, and put some reasonable limits 
on farmers' access to the Federal trough.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin], the ranking minority member.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman from Minnesota offered 
his amendment under this restricted time, we will not have any time to 
debate it, but I would like to explain what he has done, or tries to do 
with his amendment. He wants to say it just is not a question of 
whether or not you happen to be a person with off-farm income over 
$100,000, he wants to limit it to only those people who live in 
incorporated municipalities with a population that exceeds 50,000. I 
guess that is the city folks he has gone after, but the fact is I live 
in a part of the world where rich people live out in the country, too. 
If we are going after folks with off-farm income in excess of $100,000, 
it really does not make any difference to me where they live.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? I think he has 
misinterpreted the amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. I do not thing I have.
  Mr. MINGE. Yes, he has turned it inside out.
  Mr. DURBIN. What we have here is a restriction that only applies to 
those who reside in incorporated municipalities. I do not know what the 
gentleman is doing this for, but frankly, it goes beyond the intent of 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York. I hope we will 
defeat the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Minge], and then adopted the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the intent of this amendment is very clear. We want to 
be sure that the farm subsidy programs are helping the farmers who are 
farming the land, keeping the farmers on their land. This amendment 
only pertains to those people, too often very wealthy investors with 
more than $100,000 in off-farm income.
  We understand many of the questions which have been posed to us 
today. They are just not relevant. This amendment only pertains to 
those investors with off-farm income over $100,000. They should not be 
receiving a subsidy in these very difficult times. We were on a 
committee today that was cutting student loans and cutting all kinds of 
programs that help our people in all of our communities around this 
country. Why should somebody with an income over $100,000 get a farm 
subsidy paid for with taxpayer dollars? It is the right thing to do. I 
hope Members will support this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
  (Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time, I rise in strong opposition 
to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Lowey amendment, to limit 
farm program payments based on a producer's off-farm income.
  You've already heard it said on the floor today, you've heard it from 
other members of the Agriculture Committee, and now I'm going 

[[Page H7366]]
to say it again. This is not the time, nor the proper bill, to be 
reforming and tinkering with Federal farm programs.
  In just 2 months, we will have a farm bill out here on the floor, and 
I will welcome debate on this issue. Save your amendment for that time.
  Agriculture will do its share and more, toward deficit reduction and 
a balanced budget. We're going to report out a farm bill that saves 
$13.4 billion in mandatory farm program spending over the next 7 years, 
just as was proposed in our final budget resolution. That's a chunk of 
money out of the pockets of the people who put the food on your table, 
but we are going to do it.
  Finding that $13.4 billion in savings may mean that we may have to 
abandon totally the whole price-support, supply-management farm program 
we've had around since the 1930's. I can assure you as chairman of the 
subcommittee that will start to draft the farm bill, that we are 
looking at all alternatives.
  We may bring out a bill that has an expanded payment limitation, tied 
to off-farm income as proposed in this amendment; or the issue may be 
moot under some new agriculture support system. The amendment proposes 
a cut-off of $100,000--how do we know if that is the correct cut-off, 
without knowing the context of the program for the next 5 or 7 years?
  Let's wait and debate payment limitations in the proper context, that 
being the 1995 farm bill. Oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, we have had lots of folks here from large 
metropolitan areas telling us how we should micromanage our farm 
program. However, once again, those who would like to micromanage this 
program have created a rule that is going to hurt the very people that 
they say they are trying to help. What will this program, which affects 
at most only 1.7 percent of the participants in agriculture, do? It is 
going to do just as other speakers have said. It is going to cause 
those landowners who then will not be able to participate in this 
program to shift from their rent programs to cash rent programs. Then 
the risk is all going to be shifted to the tenants.
  This will allow the landlord to protect against his loss, and the 
tenants will then not be able to share with the landlord some of the 
benefits of this program. The tenant will then have his ability to 
secure bank financing risked and put at jeopardy, and the net result 
will be no loss of income to those who are being attacked in this 
proposal, and instead, an economic harm to the farmer-tenant.
  Why should we take a step now in this House to try to micromanage the 
farm plan when the Committee on Agriculture, which is served by those 
who understand these programs, is going to be getting a full review of 
it in the next few months? Let us let those who know what is going to 
be done by these programs do the managing.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by my good friend, Congresswoman Nita Lowey, which 
would prohibit commodity payments to producers with off-farm income 
exceeding $100,000.
  This amendment is short-sighted because it severely undervalues the 
critical importance of the off-farm contribution to agriculture.
  But I also think it conveys a basic lack of understanding of what is 
happened on the farm in the U.S. today.
  First, let's realize how small a target the gentlelady is shooting 
at--the Department of Agriculture tells us that the households targeted 
by the this amendment represent less than 2 percent of all farm 
operator households and receive just 2.3 percent of all deficiency 
payments.
  Second, let's examine the American firm today so we can put this 
amendment in a little context.
  Today, only 57 percent of the 945 million acres of U.S. farmland is 
actually owned by those who farm it. The rest is cash-rented or crop-
shared.
  Excluding this rented land from payments would undermine the 
conservation and supply control objectives of Federal farm policy.
  It is important to remind my colleagues that these are not income 
distribution programs.
  We are talking about price stabilization programs for important crops 
which, in turn, permit American consumers to pay less of their incomes 
for food than any other country in the world.
  We are talking about conservation programs for important cropland to 
protect our farmlands from erosion and to protect our waterways from 
excessive runoff.
  Without the incentive of farm payments, these owners would be longer 
be bound by strict conservation and land management rules.
  As a result, we would jeopardize vast amounts of environmentally 
sensitive land, and we would impair the ability of the program to 
stabilize markets for important crops.
  We must also remember that these owners share the financial risks of 
crop production with farm operators. These off-farm investors infuse 
significant capital into the agricultural sector, generating many of 
the jobs, and much of the economic activity in rural America.
  Without this capital, farmland values could decrease, creating equity 
problems for farmers and creditors alike.
  This investment is a critical source of funding for those who would 
not be able to farm otherwise.
  This amendment would deny the right to farm to thousands of young 
farmers who are starting off with limited resources, and who lack the 
large amounts of cash that would be needed to buy their own land in 
order to farm.
  These owners are, in many cases, retired farmers, or sons and 
daughters of farmers, who are only trying to keep the farm in the 
family. Often, they make it possible for their siblings or offspring to 
remain on the farm.
  In short, farm programs are not welfare programs. income tests like 
this amendment help to discourage productivity and efficiency, and in 
the long run, undermine the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture in 
world markets.
  I strongly oppose the gentlelady's amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Lowey amendment.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, imagine this scenario: A so-called farmer 
who lives in a fancy Los Angeles home, drives a luxury car, and enjoys 
a salary of well over $100,000 from a downtown Los Angeles business may 
receive a check every year from the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a 
deficiency payment for the wheat on his Kansas farmland. He may never 
even visit this land, yet checks are delivered, without fail, to his 
home in Los Angeles every year.
  Unbelievably enough, checks for gentlemen farmers just like this are 
arriving in mailboxes in big cities across the country at taxpayer 
expense. There are 735 so-called farmers receiving subsidies in the 
city of Los Angeles alone, and I know they are not living on family 
farms. They may grow tomatoes in their backyards, but certainly not 
wheat, rice, feed-grain or cotton--the crops for which deficiency 
payments are made.
  The U.S. Government has been paying so-called farmers who live in big 
cities and have an annual adjusted gross income of $100,000 or more 
from off-farm sources far too long. Over the past decade, taxpayers 
have paid more than $1.3 billion to city-dwelling farmers whose 
permanent full-time residence is in the heart of one of the 50 most 
populous urban areas in the United States.
  I strongly support the Lowey amendment, and I encourage all of my 
deficit hawk colleagues to join me. During a time when reducing the 
deficit is of tantamount importance, this Government handout should be 
among the first to go. This amendment will save taxpayers $41 million 
in fiscal year 1996 alone.
  As a supporter of the balanced budget, I believe that cutting 
payments like those to city-dwellers making over $100,000 is critical 
to achieving our goal. For this deficit hawk, there are many tough 
budget choices ahead, but this is not one of them. Cutting subsidies 
for those who don't need them is fiscally responsible, and it's the 
right thing to do.
  This amendment will keep subsidies out of the hands of wealthy, 
nonresident farmowners who don't need or deserve them without 
curtailing subsidies to hardworking, family farmers. Please join me in 
supporting the Lowey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge] to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  The amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 249, answered ``present'' 8, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 545]

                               AYES--158

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis

[[Page H7367]]

     Blute
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Cardin
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Horn
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Zimmer

                               NOES--249

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Gunderson
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--8

     Dooley
     Ewing
     Ganske
     Meyers
     Myers
     Sabo
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Collins (MI)
     Dreier
     Foglietta
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Goodling
     Jefferson
     Martinez
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Shuster
     Solomon
     Stark
     Studds
     Volkmer
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  2319

  Mr. EWING changed his vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          Personal Explanation
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as I have a pecuniary 
interest in the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey], I am abstaining from rollcall vote No. 545.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I think my colleagues may be interested in hearing this.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to present this proposal to give us a road 
map, and I hope that we have got agreement. To begin with, no more 
votes tonight. We will finish the debate on everything on the bill, 
debate only, with the exception of MPP, which we will take up tomorrow 
morning under the following agreement: Zimmer, 60 minutes; Obey, 10 
minutes; Kennedy, 20 minutes; Deutsch, 20 minutes.
  Tomorrow we would proceed as follows: The House will meet at 10 a.m. 
We will do 10 1-minutes on a side, rule on the transportation bill, 
general debate on transportation, get into transportation for about an 
hour. Then we would rise after the first vote is ordered, take record 
votes on the agriculture bill rolled from this evening, 5-minutes to 
summarize Hoke, take debate plus the votes on MPP as I described, and 
the final passage on the agriculture bill and hope to go home by 3 
p.m., not a.m.

                              {time}  1120

  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. 
LaHood] having assumed the chair, Mr. Klug, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union reported that the 
Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.


                          ____________________