[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 118 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7368-H7377]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
                RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION 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}  2325


                     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. Shays (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose 
earlier tonight, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey] had been disposed of.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


                     amendment offered by mr. hoke

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hoke: Page 71, after line 2, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec. 726. The amounts otherwise provided in this Act for 
     under the heading ``Public Law 480 Program Accounts'' are 
     hereby reduced by the following amounts:
       (1) The amount specified in paragraph (1) under such 
     heading, $129,802,000.

       (2) The amount specified in paragraph (2) under such 
     heading, $8,583,000.
       (3) The amount specified for the cost of direct credit 
     agreements, $104,329,000.
  Mr. HOKE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, is there a 
problem with 20 minutes? 25?
  Mr. SKEEN. OK; 25 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the amended request 
of the gentleman from New Mexico?
  Mr. POMEROY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, does the 
amendment go to the appropriate title? To which title does the 
amendment address?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is adding a new section to 
the end of the bill.
  Mr. POMEROY. To the end of the bill?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Yes.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  Mr. HOKE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, just for 
clarification, the time will be controlled by me on our side and by 
someone that the chairman will designate in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] will be 
recognized for 12\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Durbin] will be recognized for 12\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, Congressman Meehan and I are offering an amendment that 
would reduce the funding level for title I of the Agricultural Trade 
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 by $113 million to the level 
requested by the President and approved in the fiscal year 1996 budget 
resolution that we passed.
  Our amendment does not reduce title II emergency humanitarian food 
aid, nor does it reduce title III food grants for the poorest 
countries. Indeed, the Hoke-Meehan amendment would not deny 
humanitarian food aid to Bosnia or any other war-torn or impoverished 
country.
  Under title I, U.S. agriculture commodities are sold on long-term 
credit at below market interest rates. The original objective of title 
I was to move large amounts of surplus U.S. agricultural commodities. 
In the 1950's the program amounted to more than 80 percent of U.S. food 
foreign aid and fully 20 percent of the total value of U.S. 
agricultural exports.
  Today we no longer possess huge agricultural surpluses. In 1994, 
title I represented only about 10 percent of U.S. food foreign aid and 
less than one-half of 1 percent of all U.S. agricultural exports.
  Supporters of title I claim that it promotes economic development, 
but according to the GAO and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, title 
I's contribution to sustainable economic development is minimal.
  In fact, title I sometimes results in a short-term increase in the 
food supply of some recipient countries, which in turn drives down the 
price of local farm products and distorts the agricultural markets of 
those countries. This has resulted in reduced domestic agricultural 
production, ultimately defeating our purpose of fostering long-term 
sustainable economic development.
  In fact, it is for that very reason that Egypt and Pakistan, whose 
local farm economies were disrupted by title I assistance, have pulled 
out of the program completely.
  Some supporters argue that title I develops foreign markets for U.S. 
agri-business conglomerates that they might not otherwise have. But GAO 
has found that because title I subsidizes agricultural commodities at 
below market rates, whatever market shares may be gained by U.S. 
companies in the short term won't necessarily develop into long-term 
commercial relationships at prevailing market prices. In other words, 
once the subsidy is eliminated, the market no longer exists.
  What title I does accomplish is it enriches a small number of giant 
agri-business conglomerates, like Archer-Daniel-Midlands, Cargill, 
Bunge, and Continental Grain Co., all of whom maintain a well-funded 
stable of Washington lobbyists.
  So we have to ask what possible justification is there for an 80-
percent increase in the title I program above the administration's 
request and the budget resolution, especially when we are trying to 
balance the budget.
  The Hoke-Meehan amendment does not affect humanitarian aid in any way 
whatsoever. It does not touch title II or title III. Rather, the Hoke-
Meehan amendment is about ending corporate welfare in the form of 
Federal subsidies for a program that not only does not work, but which 
has actually harmed the very people we have intended to help.
  This is a clear example of what happens when you give a person a 
fish, but refuse to teach them how to fish.

[[Page H7369]]

  Thus, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Hoke-Meehan 
amendment that will conform title I's funding level to that approved by 
the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution.
                              {time}  2330

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, this well-intended amendment is what I 
would call the shoot-yourself-in-the-foot amendment. It is P.L. 480 
funding which in fact over the years has been cut by 24 percent, just 
in the last 2 years. Total food aid tonnage has dropped from 8 million 
tons in 1993 to an expected 4 million tons in 1995, a 50 percent cut. 
The United States has retreated from giving food to the hungry. Other 
donor countries have not been able to fill the gap, and 750 million 
people in the world are hungry each and every day of their lives.
  Half of these people are children. If the children survive, most will 
suffer from lifelong disabilities and disease due to poor health and 
nutrition. We can and have helped millions of people through our Food 
and Peace Program and our Food for Progress Programs. But we cannot if 
we cut this program.
  Each dollar spent on food aid in this program has at least a double 
impact. First, the funds are spent here in the United States to grow, 
process, fortify, bag, can, rail, barge and ship agricultural 
commodities.
  Second, the commodities are provided to poor countries that cannot 
afford to buy adequate amounts of food to meet basic needs.
  In the marketing year 1992-93, 40 countries that had graduated from 
U.S. food assistance programs imported $13 billion of agricultural 
products from the United States, which was 31 percent of U.S. 
agricultural exports that year.
  The proposed cuts in P.L. 480 will cause pain not only for the 
countries that are recipients of our largesse, but also for our own 
people. We will deny money to the people that are starving, the 
chronically hungry. The food that is not sent to them which is used in 
the program not only provides food for today for them but also is 
linked to their health care, to their education, to their work 
programs, which provide opportunities for people tomorrow.
  Most importantly, in sum, Mr. Chairman, if we cut the money in this 
program, we will be denying jobs to Americans, American citizens, 
farmers, grocers, shippers, longshoremen, et cetera, et cetera, et 
cetera. People are dependent on this program in this country and around 
the world, and if we cut this program as severely as the gentleman has 
suggested, we will indeed be shooting ourselves in both feet.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the 
Hoke amendment to cut $113 million from the Food for Peace program. Mr. 
Chairman, the food assistance provided by P.L. 480 is not a favor we do 
for the world. For 40 years Congress has supported the Food for Peace 
program on a bipartisan basis because it serves our interests. P.L. 480 
not only responds to the humanitarian needs of people suffering from 
food shortages; it enhances our national security by promoting economic 
development and political stability in less developed countries while 
cultivating markets for U.S. agricultural commodities.
  The Food for Peace program is an important part of our Nation's 
foreign policy. In North Dakota we strongly believe an ounce of 
prevention is worth a pound of cure, and P.L. 480 is that ounce of 
prevention. By promoting economic development and political stability 
in less developed nations, P.L. 480 is a very cost-effective insurance 
policy against political unrest and even military conflict that could 
threaten our own national security.
  P.L. 480 also benefits our economy by cultivating foreign markets for 
U.S. agriculture exports. In fact, 43 of our top 50 consumer nations of 
American agriculture exports were once U.S. foreign aid recipients. 
Between 1990 and 1993, U.S. exports to developing and transition 
nations increased. Exports increased $46 billion.
  Finally, P.L. 480 is a vital tool in the post-GATT era. While the 
Uruguay round ratchets down export subsidies, other market development 
tools are no longer available. If history is our teacher, we know that 
the Europeans will redirect export subsidy reductions into GATT-legal 
market development programs. For us to cut programs like P.L. 480 is 
engaging in unilateral disarmament while other nations seek to develop 
their international markets.

                              {time}  2340

  Those who seek to destroy our export programs, like the amendment 
before us represents, will reap what they sow: lost jobs, a weaker 
economy, and little hope of regaining our share of the international 
market.
  Mr. Chairman, P.L. 480 feeds the hungry, supports our foreign policy 
objectives, and provides vital support for U.S. agriculture exports. 
Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the Hoke 
amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] has the 
time.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to go out of order and allow 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. I much appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out by two speakers tonight, the 
pole star of this whole debate is the fact that those countries that 
once were the recipients of this food for peace have graduated and are 
part of the export market of the United States of America. As we work 
on this amendment, as we think about it, we should think about the 
future, because our future is in exports, that is the balance of trade. 
That is where we make our money as a Nation.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say this is not 
humanitarian aid, this is not food grants for the poorest countries; 
these are grants to big agriconglomerates. This is corporate farm 
welfare.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will bring some reason back 
to the expenditure of taxpayer money for the Public Law 480, title I 
program. The present funding level in the bill is $120 million above 
the administration's request. That is an incredible 80 percent above 
the administration's request.
  In a letter to the Committee on Appropriations, OMB Director Alice 
Rivlin expressed the administration's opposition to this increase in 
funding. As Director Rivlin stated, ``The subcommittee has funded P.L. 
480 in excess of the President's request, title I has been shown to 
have limited effectiveness in advancing its goal of market development. 
The administration urges the committee to reduce this program so that 
higher priority programs can be funded.''
  As with scores of other Federal programs, this initiative, when 
begun, had a valid policy purpose. In the 1950's, impediments such as 
the inconvertibility of foreign currencies, and the lack of foreign 
exchange held by potential customers, limited the commercial export of 
large domestic agricultural commodity surpluses. The situation that now 
exists is a far cry from the circumstances that existed in the 1950's. 
Even though this program has been redirected in recent years these 
reforms have not solved many of its inherent problems.
  In a recent report, the GAO stated ``the importance of title I, 
domestically and internationally, has declined significantly since the 
program's inception. Increased food aid donations from other countries 
and the establishment of new USDA export assistance programs has 
reduced the importance of title I aid as a humanitarian, surplus 
disposal, and export assistance program.''

[[Page H7370]]

  Programs such as the Commodity
   Credit Corporation's short and intermediate-term credits, and the 
Export Enhancement Program, are also designed to penetrate new markets. 
In light of these complementary programs the current funding level in 
the bill for title I is excessive.

  I wish to assure my colleagues that this funding in no way diminishes 
the emergency and humanitarian food programs available through title II 
and III of P.L. 480. Nor is this amendment an attack on the ocean 
freight differential, otherwise known as cargo preference.
  This amendment is about providing a responsible level of funding for 
a program that needs additional reform and focus in order for it to 
accomplish its stated goal.
  The reduction provided for in this amendment will still enable the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture to continue this program, and to support 
the expansion of markets in developing countries.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong opposition to this 
amendment, which would effectively cause very significant harm, and 
would undermine an important market-building tool for this Nation's 
agricultural industry. Forty-three out of 50 countries that used to be 
recipients of U.S. food aid have developed into cash-paying customers 
of U.S. agricultural commodities. Titles I, II and III of P.L. 480 each 
have a distinct purpose in helping recipients evolve from nations in 
chronic poverty to countries with stable economies, and to diminish 
these operations undermines the integrity of the program overall.
  Public Law 480 is a very unique foreign aid program. I would 
appreciate Members' attention to this. Each dollar spent on food aid 
has an impact here in the United States, as well as the recipient 
Nation. First, the funds are spent in the U.S. to grow, process, 
fortify, bag, can, rail, barge, and ship agricultural commodities. Then 
the commodities are provided to poor countries that cannot afford to 
buy adequate amounts of food to meet very basic needs.
  Title I, the portion of food aid that is committed to countries that 
exhibit long-term potential to become customers of U.S. agriculture, is 
a meaningful program that allows countries to make the transition 
between grant beneficiaries to commercial customers of U.S. 
commodities. As such, the authorizers and the appropriators have agreed 
that it is very important that we maintain funding for this program at 
the 1995 level, the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
Agriculture, to meet the overall budget numbers. The plan presented in 
H.R. 1976 achieves this designated goal.
  Title I is a particularly important aspect of the P.L. 480 program 
because it is targeted at developing commercial markets for U.S. 
commodities. Many examples exist of countries that have successfully 
made the transition from a concessional buyer to a hard cash purchaser, 
one of the most poignant being Egypt, which now buys nearly one-half 
billion dollars a year in U.S. wheat and feed grains.
  How can we dispute the merits of investing in a program that has been 
so successful in cultivating a customer that now constitutes about 1 
percent of our total agricultural exports through its bulk grain 
imports alone? Let us not forget that the half-billion that Egypt now 
spends on grains creates an estimated 10,000 jobs right here in the 
United States.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will inform the Members that the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has 15 seconds remaining.
                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HOKE. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HOKE. Is it correct that we had 12\1/2\ minutes to begin with, 
Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The gentleman is 
correct, our time is not correct. We will correct that. The gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOKE. Could the Chair review all of the times, please?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would be delighted to. The 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close the debate?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The committee position closes the debate.
  Mr. HOKE. Therefore, the gentleman from New Mexico, with 15 seconds, 
gets to close debate.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. He may ask time from the gentleman from 
Illinois, but the committee position closes.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Royce].
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which would reduce 
spending for Public Law 480 to the level requested by the 
administration, and to the level provided for in the budget resolution 
which we adopted in May. The level proposed in the bill for this 
program is approximately 80 percent more than the administration 
requested. It exceeds the adopted 1996 budget resolution assumptions by 
more than $100 million.
  Proponents argue that the amount in the bill is the same as the 
current year level. However, those levels have been proposed for 
rescission, and a GAO study completed just three weeks ago at the 
request of the House and Senate authorizing committees concludes that, 
and I am going to quote from that GAO report, concludes that the 
program as currently instructed does not significantly advance either 
the economic development or the market objectives of the 1990 act.

                              {time}  2350

  That GAO report goes on to say that the program should either be 
seriously restructured or should be scrapped entirely. I believe we 
should take the time to study the GAO report findings before we dump 
$100 million more into this program than was requested.
  I urge my colleagues here to vote ``aye.''
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say in opposition to this amendment, I hope that 
the gentleman who is offering this amendment will be sensitive to the 
fact that we have cut Public Law 480 funding 24 percent over the past 2 
years. The needs around the world have gotten much worse. Some 750 
million people are hungry each and every day of their lives. This 
debate here turns on budgetary terms, dollar amounts, outlays and 
budget authority. But anyone who has traveled overseas and actually 
seen what the Public Law 480 program means to real living people I 
think can put it in a new perspective. The United States has a 
reputation of being a generous, charitable country, and we have come to 
the rescue of many people in distress in the past. Public Law 480 has 
been one of our best efforts. What the gentlemen from Ohio and 
Massachusetts seek to do with their amendment is to cut some 500,000 
metric tons of food aid in the next year. They insist that this will 
not hurt starving people, but history tells us they are wrong.
  Last year funds from Title I were shifted to Title II to cover some 
of the emergency food aid needs in the Rwandan crisis. This year 
additional emergency food aid is needed in Rwanda, Burundi, parts of 
the former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Who knows where next year's 
crises will be? We do know that if the Hoke-Meehan amendment is 
adopted, fewer funds and no surplus commodities will be there to 
provide in response.
  I know that it is not fashionable politically to be in support of 
food aid programs for starving people overseas. 

[[Page H7371]]
There are not many people who will cheer you back in your district for 
that. But the bottom line is this program has been around for 30 years 
and has been a great source of pride to Americans as we have seen 
heart-wrenching pictures on television and in the news media which have 
called our attention to the fact that with all our challenges in the 
United States, there are other places in the world in far worse 
conditions.
  This cut in Title I may seem very easy to us sitting here in the 
comfort of the United States of America. But for the people who are 
literally starving to death halfway around the world, this is a cut 
that should not take place. Our committee considered this Public Law 
480 and actually made a reduction below last year's expenditure. What 
we are trying to do now is to appeal to the gentlemen offering this 
amendment and those who will vote on it and ask them to take into 
consideration that there still will be a role for the generosity and 
charity of the United States in helping those poor people overseas who 
literally are the least of our brethren.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will 
join me in voting against it.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois referred to humanitarian 
aid and aid for those in the throes of poverty and those who are 
afflicted by warfare. Those portions of Public Law 480 are not affected 
by this amendment. This amendment deals with title I which was 
designated as a way to get rid of America's huge agricultural surpluses 
back when we had huge surpluses. Today title I is a program that gives 
good intentions a bad name. It wrecks local farm economies in countries 
we are trying to help by driving down the cost of food so local farmers 
cannot compete and earn a decent price. It creates short-term 
opportunities for select shippers and a coterie of exporters and 
shipping companies. But this is an advantage that is temporary and 
fleeting. It is a hothouse situation, because it depends on the below-
market financing that is provided.
  One point that has not been mentioned is that this program provides a 
tremendous opportunity for corruption in the countries that are 
receiving the assistance, and some of the recipients of money under 
this program are amongst the most corrupt in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that what we should do with this amendment is 
simply to reverse an astounding 80 percent increase that the committee 
adopted over the President's request and over our own budget 
resolution, keeping the essential and humanitarian aspects of this law 
and removing that part which is not justified.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shays). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hoke] is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this bill would like you to 
believe that what this bill is about is humanitarian aid and food aid 
and Food for Peace and all of these wonderful sounding things that none 
of us would ever want to oppose. But the fact is that that is not what 
this is about. What this is about is the baldest kind of corporate 
welfare, the very kind of corporate welfare that we are trying to 
eliminate, and in this case it is agri-corporate welfare. The money 
goes to the largest conglomerates of agriculture in the United States. 
It also goes to some shippers on a smaller basis. But this title does 
not in any way go to humanitarian or emergency aid. It is exactly the 
kind of subsidies that not only are wrong because they give 
disproportionate amounts of money to companies in the private sector 
that ought not get them but it is also wrong because what it does is it 
actually creates problems for the countries that receive the money 
themselves and it creates a kind of a welfare dependence that has been 
well-documented in other places with respect to the bad impacts that it 
has had on those local economies. It has happened in Africa, it has 
happened in El Salvador with respect to milk products, and we continue 
to do this.
  This is not to help with humanitarian aid foreign countries that are 
truly poor and need the help. This is to help American agri-
conglomerates that simply do not need it. I strongly urge my colleagues 
to look at this carefully and closely and to adopt this amendment. It 
is going to exactly what we already passed in this House and it goes to 
exactly what the President and the administration have called for.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have 15 seconds in which to close this 
thing. I oppose this vehemently and strongly and urge a ``no'' vote on 
it. I thank the Chairman for the 15 seconds.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

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


               amendment no. 41 offered by mr. mc intosh

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

       Amendment No. 41 offered by Mr. McIntosh: At page 71 of the 
     bill, after line 2, insert after the last section the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 726. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used to increase, from the fiscal year 1995 level, 
     the level of Full Time Equivalency Positions (whether through 
     new hires or by transferring full time equivalents from other 
     offices) in any of the following Food & Drug Administration 
     offices: Office of the Commissioner, Office of Policy, Office 
     of External Affairs (Immediate Office, as well as Office of 
     Health Affairs, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of 
     Consumer Affairs, and Office of Public Affairs), and the 
     Office of Management & Systems (Immediate Office, as well as 
     Office of Planning and Evaluation and Office of Management).

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, is 10 
minutes acceptable?
  Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will yield, it certainly is acceptable to 
me, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I have about 
6 or 7 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Shall we make it 12 minutes?
  Mr. DURBIN. Twelve minutes is acceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] 
will be recognized for 6 minutes, and 6 minutes will be equally divided 
between the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].

                              {time}  0000

  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the employment in the front 
office at FDA. The FTE levels at FDA's nonoperational managerial 
offices have increased by over 25 percent from fiscal year 1989 levels. 
This growth in overhead expenditures represents an inefficient use of 
resources that must be reversed.
  The savings that will be achieved in overhead reductions can be used 
to redirect their efforts toward hiring additional employees to provide 
additional approval for much-needed drugs, devices and other medical 
products. Such a reinvestment will increase the ability of the agency 
to timely review product applications.
  The amendment I am offering would prevent an increase from the fiscal 
year 1995 levels in the level of full-time employees in the following 
offices: the 

[[Page H7372]]
Office of the Commissioner, the Office of Policy, the Office of 
External Affairs, and the Office of Management Systems.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one of several amendments that I was planning 
to offer tonight. The other amendments I am not going to offer. I have 
spoken with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman of 
the authorizing committee, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Bilirakis], the chairman of the subcommittee. They share my concerns.
  I wanted to address some of the issues and the problems that have 
been caused by the failure of FDA to have sufficient employees in some 
of the agencies that are operational, that do approve the drugs, the 
devices and the other medical products.
  First of all, we have discovered that there is an increasing amount 
of surveillance and oversight that the agency does of the industry. 
This oversight effort has increasingly led them to slow down the 
approval of new drugs and new therapies and in many ways harass the 
manufacturers of products who may disagree with the FDA's chosen method 
of operation.
  I hear time and time again from people who we have suggested could 
come and testify before my Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, 
Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs that they are afraid to do so 
because the agency has such an overwhelming enforcement authority. My 
amendment would have simply directed them to limit expenditures on 
enforcement to 10 percent so that they can turn their efforts to 
seeking new product approvals.
  I plan to work with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] in making sure that that 
redirection of priorities occurs in their reauthorization bill later 
this fall.
  Finally, another issue is off-label uses. I was going to offer an 
amendment that would have said the FDA had to discontinue efforts to 
prevent the distribution of medical literature and other means of 
promoting off-label uses in drugs.
  Let me give the body a little background in this, and I have to tell 
you that working with FDA in this areas is a little bit like entering 
into Alice in Wonderland.
  The FDA has an unwritten policy that prevents manufacturers from 
disseminating enduring materials such as medical journals, the Journal 
of the American Medical Association, and other highly reputable 
journals and textbooks if they contain information about nonapproved, 
that is, the FDA has not yet sanctioned, uses of a manufactured 
product, even through the agency has determined the product is safe for 
use for other purposes.
  They do not allow this until the agency has either examined the 
journal article or the material or approved the product for the off-
label use.
  This is where Alice meets the Mad Hatter. It takes years and years to 
get that type of approval for additional uses and costs the companies 
millions of dollars. Meanwhile, patients suffers because they are not 
able to have their doctors learn about this treatment and be able to 
get the most recent medical information.
  Let me tell you, off-label uses are critical for treating children 
and others such cancer. Virtually all of the new treatments developed 
in this country come about when doctors start using labeled existing 
drugs in new ways, off-label uses.
  The FDA has also a draft policy that prohibits virtually all support, 
financial or otherwise, by drug and medical device manufacturers of any 
educational activities designed to disseminate truthful, accurate 
information and designed to provide training with respect to off-label 
uses.
  This is just nuts. You have got big, powerful,
   wealthy drug companies and device manufacturers willing to spend 
their money to train doctors on how to use these newest techniques, and 
the FDA has a new draft policy saying they cannot do it. The Mad Hatter 
strikes again.

  FDA's actions raise serious first amendment concerns. Are we to say 
that manufacturers of these devices cannot disseminate truthful and 
accurate information? FDA's policies already have and continue to 
significantly inhibit the free flow of peer reviewed, scientific 
information about drug uses.
  Ironically, while the agency does not prevent physicians from 
prescribing uses of therapeutic products, in other words, the doctor 
can use the off-label use, the devices and the drugs have, even though 
they have not been approved by FDA for that use, the agency policies 
have significantly curtailed the ability of doctors to receive 
information about that, to receive the understanding in journals, such 
as the Journal of the American Medical Association, about what they 
think these off-label uses are.
  Of course, in the world of Alice in Wonderland, as the Queen said, 
execute first, trial later. I urge the body to adopt my amendment and 
send a message to the agency that this is no longer going to be the 
practice.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, we on this side would be glad to accept the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota 
[Mr. Gutknecht].
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support and I stayed up because I wanted to 
talk on this issue of the McIntosh amendment.
  Earlier tonight we had a rather heated exchange here on the floor of 
the House talking about the FDA between the gentleman from Kentucky and 
the gentleman from California. I think the gentleman from Kentucky 
referred to the FDA as a rogue agency out of control. That may have 
been too strong, Members of this body. But I do believe that Mr. 
Kessler and his agency needs to have their horns trimmed and be put on 
a shorter leash.
  Earlier today, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] talked 
about a credibility question about a story that was shared on the floor 
of this House. I want to share a couple of stories tonight, several of 
them that I believe to be true, one that I absolutely know to be true.
  I have in my district and in the State of Minnesota a number of 
medical device companies and an awful lot of physicians who work with 
them. Among other things, they have developed a number of new 
technologies which are being used in other countries, but they cannot 
or have not gotten approval here in the United States.
  For example, there is a simple device which can prevent people from 
having a second heart attack called a stint. I have cardiologists in my 
area who literally have to go now over to Europe to do the research on 
those technologies because they cannot get the approval, and it takes 
so long, and it is so expensive in the United States.
  In fact, when they go to Europe, sometimes they actually smuggle back 
into the United States liquid injectable aspirin because it is not 
available in the United States because it is too expensive to get FDA 
approval, and it takes too long, and it is not worth it. There are not 
enough people that need it.
  In fact, one of my cardiologists was in this town a few months ago 
for an international exposition, and he went down to look at 
technologies which are available in virtually every other country in 
the world but they are not available in the United States because the 
FDA takes so long and it is so expensive to get them approved.
  Let me just share this also. I believe this to be true. The last time 
the FDA approved a new food additive in the United States was 5 years 
ago.
  We are going to have hearings I understand next week, and they are 
going to be talking about some of the raids that this agency has been 
conducting on medical device companies. I know that we are going to, 
hopefully, have some hearings in the McIntosh committee.
  I do support this amendment, but I do believe what we really need is 
to rein in on this agency so that we can have the same devices here in 
the United States that they are enjoying in Europe and Japan.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. Wyden].
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, first, I wanted to say to the gentleman from 
Indiana that I appreciate the way he has addressed this issue. It seems 
to me that all Members should want to see more dollars devoted to the 
drug approval process and less to bureaucracy, 

[[Page H7373]]
and I think we can agree on that on a bipartisan basis.
  We do need comprehensive FDA reforms. I have introduced legislation 
towards this end. I know a number of our colleagues have as well.
  We ought to be pushing for tighter time lines to get products out, 
save money, save time, and on this matter of off-label drug uses, I 
think we can come up with a policy that ends FDA's censorship over 
important medical journal articles and at the same time protects 
consumers.
  For example, what I have proposed is we say that these journal 
articles would be made available, but the FDA, if they found questions 
in a journal article, would be in a position to add additional 
information so this would supplement what was out in a journal article.
  This, I found, has been acceptable to industry. It has been 
acceptable to the cancer groups that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
McIntosh] has correctly
 discussed. This is the kind of constructive work we can do on a 
bipartisan basis.

  I want to tell the gentleman from Indiana, I am very pleased that he 
has kept his amendment on the question of freezing front-office 
dollars.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ 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 commend the gentleman for the way he was 
offered his amendments and that he has not offered the others. I want 
to tell him I will be pleased and happy to work with him on his concern 
with regard to the Food and Drug Administration.
  I do want to inform my colleagues that the food and drug law has been 
written in a very harsh fashion by the Congress of the United States 
because of the fact that it is susceptible to serious abuse, not by the 
honest people in the prescription pharmaceutical industry or in the 
device industry but rather by fly-by-nights who come in and go out and 
who will use pharmaceuticals and use other devices in an improper 
fashion.
  The law requires that these devices and that these prescription 
pharmaceuticals and other things be, first, safe and, second, that they 
be effective, that they do not hurt and that they do what they are 
supposed to do.
  It is FDA's difficult mission to see to it that products are used in 
the fashion for the purposes that they are used for. They can be 
tested.
  I will tell my colleagues that the testing process is long, and it is 
so for a very good reason. Other countries have had massive scares over 
pharmaceuticals and other things which have caused huge health problems 
in the country, and I would just remind my colleagues about the 
thalidomide scare of some years ago where a whole generation of 
European children were born with flippers and without hands and arms 
and were otherwise deformed. That was something which created a massive 
scare in this country and resulted in a very major change. The result 
was a good piece of legislation which has been balanced.
  It is possible, I think, that it shall and can be reviewed, and I 
would look forward to working with the gentleman toward that purpose.
  Mr. SKEEN. May I inquire of the Chair how much time we have left?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shays). The gentleman from New Mexico 
has 30 seconds remaining. He is the only gentleman who has time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield that to my ranking member, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. I want to thank my colleague from New Mexico for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am glad that the gentleman from 
Indiana has offered this amendment this evening, and we look forward to 
working with him, and I hope we do not lose sight of the fact of the 
important mission that the Food and Drug Administration has.
  They should be reformed, they should be improved, and we can work 
toward that end, but they certainly perform an invaluable function 
which no other Federal agency does. I hope that in our criticism of the 
present practices we do not overlook much of the good that is being 
done by a lot of hard-working professional people.
  I support the amendment by the gentleman from Indiana.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  The amendment was agreed to.
                    amendment offered by mr. sanford

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanford: Page 71, after line 2, 
     insert the following new section:
       ``Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in this Act shall be used for the construction 
     of a new office facility campus at the Beltsville 
     Agricultural Research Center.''.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Sanford] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford].
                              {time}  0015

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prevents the construction 
of a new 350,000-square-foot office building in Maryland. With so many 
pressing demands on our Nation's budget and so many different ways to 
cut this budget, the logical budget is: Why here? Why now?
  I think there are 4 good reasons that make a lot of sense as to why 
we ought to look at this. The first, GSA, Government Services 
Administration, controls 644 million square feet, let me say that 
again, 644 million square feet of office space. That is enough office 
space to fill the commercial cores in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, 
and Houston combined. That says to me, with that kind of office space 
intact and this revolution that is supposedly taking place here in 
Washington, do not we have enough? Do we really need to go out and add 
another 350,000 square feet of space.
  Second, even if we do, I think we would be putting the cart before 
the horse if we built this building now. The reason being, this fall 
the farm bill comes out, and that is going to have a lot to do with 
whether the Ag Department is growing, staying the same
 or shrinking. If it happens to be shrinking, which could well be the 
case given the fact we have got 114,000 folks on staff which roughly 
works out to about one for every six working farmers, if it were to 
actually be cut, we may not need this building, or if it were not to be 
cut, look at the number of different agencies ceilings and different 
departments that are talking about being closed here in Washington.

  Again, I think that has done to do with why the National Capital 
Planning Commission, which is the Federal agency in charge of watching 
out how different agencies control space, has disapproved this plan and 
disapproved this building. They, in fact, say the following: ``It 
appears that the opportunities may exist for meeting virtually all of 
USDA's fiscal year 2000 administrative space requirements within its 
existing inventory, without construction of the Beltsville office 
complex.'' I think they know more about this than most of us. I ask we 
heed their advice.
  Third, the budget. Kasich and his budget crew came up with a plan 
that gets us to a balanced budget by the year 2002. This building was 
not included as part of that budget.
  Finally, National Taxpayers Union and Citizens for a Sound Economy 
think this amendment would make a lot of sense.
  I hope my colleagues will join.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

[[Page H7374]]

  I wonder if the gentleman from South Carolina would take a microphone 
at his leisure. I would just like to ask him two or three questions.
  First, I would like to ask the gentleman, has he ever be in the south 
building of the Department of Agriculture?
  Mr. SANFORD. If the gentleman will yield, I have run by it 
practically every morning.
  Mr. DURBIN. Ever been inside?
  Mr. SANFORD. No.
  Mr. DURBIN. I think it is important you go inside before you get 
deeply into this amendment. You know what you are going to find? A 60-
year-old building that is a fire trap. The reason we got into this 
debate, because many of us are worried about the safety and security of 
the men and women who work in that building. When a fire alarm goes off 
anywhere inside that building, they literally have to evacuate every 
employee. It is not divided by corridors or sections so that in the 
event of a fire or emergency
 they can even protect the people inside.

  The ventilation system is so antiquated that not only it does not 
heat and cool the building, in fact what it does is endanger the people 
working in there.
  So we are talking about in the first instance a genuine fire trap 
which on any given day could cause a great embarrassment to the 
gentleman from California when a tragedy might strike.
  Point number 2, does the gentleman know how much money we expect from 
the Federal taxpayers by building the new campus at Beltsville and 
replacing the leased space which we are currently using for U.S. 
Department of Agriculture across the city of Washington?
  Mr. SANFORD. I have heard upwards, close to $1 billion.
  Mr. DURBIN. The figure I have is not that high, $200 million over 10 
years. Unfortunately, the Department of Agriculture, with reduced 
status, fewer functions, fewer employees, is spread all over the D.C. 
area. We are paying rent. Unfortunately, we are paying too much for 
that rent. We went through this battle last year and said there has got 
to be a better way.
  It turns out if we build the building and occupy
   it and depreciate it, it is cheaper for taxpayers. It is not just a 
matter of building a building. It is a matter of getting out of 
expensive leased space to do it.

  The reason I asked the gentleman these questions is my first reaction 
when I heard about a new building was the same as his, for goodness 
sakes, at this time, this is the wrong place and time to do it.
  Yet I went down there and took a look at the south building.
  Mr. SANFORD. On those two points, if the gentleman would yield, on 
the south building, as you might notice, my amendment does nothing to 
preclude reconstruction to the south building.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reclaiming my time, here is the practical difficulty. In 
order to do the kind of work that is necessary on the south building, 
the GSA did extensive surveys and found that they had to take the 
employees out as the construction was taking place.
  That is why this whole plan that we have developed involves moving 
out to Beltsville for temporary quarters and eventually moving back 
into a renovated south building, and then using what is constructed at 
Beltsville for permanent facilities so all the leased
 space can come together into something we own.

  I am sure the gentleman's life experience, like my own, we rented for 
years, it was not worth much, finally bought a home, and now I take a 
lot more pride in it.
  Mr. SANFORD. If the gentleman will yield, I would agree absolutely in 
a static environment, but the problem is we know right now we are not 
working in a static environment. I think that actually has a lot to do 
with why the National Capital Planning Commission, in fact, disapproved 
the plan and, in fact, said because things like the Department of 
Commerce may one day be an empty building and because a host of other 
agencies are looking at dropping numbers rather than increasing 
numbers, there may be more than enough space in Washington, DC.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reclaiming my time, I will tell the gentleman there are 
many possibilities. There are many eventualities. There is one solid 
hard cold fact. The south building of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture today is a fire trap. It is dangerous to tens of thousands 
of people who go there every day. It could not pass the most basic fire 
and safety inspection. And I do not think the gentleman from
 South Carolina, certainly the gentleman from Illinois, would not want 
it on his conscience that we are not doing everything we can to protect 
those employees.

  That is why I got into this. I think what we have come up with is a 
reasonable approach that ultimately will save taxpayers $200 million 
and do it in a very professional way.
  I would add that I am not an expert at this. We gave to the General 
Services Administration the responsibility to come up with a plan. They 
came up with one. We went back and forth and negotiated with the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture.
  From the gentleman to come in now and say, well, we have got 
problems, let us get rid of that, you still are going to have a south 
building that is a fire trap. You are still going to have leased space 
that costs you dearly.
  Mr. SANFORD. If the gentleman will yield again, I want to reemphasize 
my amendment in no way precludes renovation to the south building. The 
whole idea is putting the cart before the horse. All I am suggesting by 
this amendment is, given all that may be happening in terms of 
downsizing the Federal Government, maybe, just maybe since it is 
federally owned land, this building would be going on out in Maryland 
since that space is not going anywhere.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Sanford].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. (Mr. Shays). Pursuant to the order of the 
House of Wednesday, July 19, further proceedings on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford] will be 
postponed.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


                     amendment offered by mr. olver

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Olver: Page 71, after line 2, 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec.  .(a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     made available in this Act shall be used to pay the salaries 
     of personnel to provide assistance to livestock producers 
     under provisions of title VI of the Agricultural Act of 1949 
     if crop insurance protection or nonuninsured crop disaster 
     assistance for the loss of feed produced on the farm is 
     available to the producer under the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act, as amended.
       (b) Corresponding Increase in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided in this Act for ``Rural Development Performance 
     Partnerships'' is hereby increased by $60,000,000.

  Mr. OLVER (during the reading), Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  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, the time 
to be equally divided, I will claim 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The language of my amendment prohibits benefits under the livestock 
feed program for losses which could be covered under the crop insurance 
program.
  The subcommittee had provided $80 million for the livestock feed 
assistance program, and by the language that I offer, by limiting that 
livestock feed assistance program to those who could not use the 
Federal Crop Insurance Program, we can reduce the needs for the 
livestock feed assistance 

[[Page H7375]]
amount from $80 to $20 million, and in that process we are able to free 
up $60 million which then can be used for the rural development 
performance partnerships, which is essentially the moneys that hundreds 
of communities all over this country use in districts all over the 
country in rural areas of the country, use to develop drinking water 
systems, waste water treatment systems, by either grants or loans, or a 
combination of grants and loans in most instances, and for solid waste 
management systems.
  The communities that get this money are small communities, the most 
stressed communities probably in this country outside of the very core 
urban areas. They are communities without a strong tax base, without a 
strong commercial base. They are continually under stress, and they are 
of a severely limited capacity to deal with what are extremely capital-
intensive programs and where the per capita costs of those capital-
intensive programs happen to be exceedingly high, therefore, because of 
the low population of rural communities.
  All that is required here is that if crop insurance is available, it 
is to be used rather than using the livestock feed assistance, and that 
gives us the $60 million available for the program.
  Now, this is a program which in the present fiscal year was counted 
at almost $700 million. Under the program as it now stands in the bill, 
it would be down to $430 million, and so the addition of 60 would bring 
that up a little bit and change a 40-percent cut in this program for so 
many communities all over the country, in infrastructure grants and 
loans, it would allow that cut to be only a 30-percent cut.
  So I would hope that we would adopt this amendment and help these 
hundreds of communities all over the country that this money can be 
used for.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my good friend and colleague from New Mexico for 
yielding me the time.
  I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The 
amendment, while I am sure really redirects funds into an important 
program, and the gentleman and I have discussed this at length, for 
example, the cuts in the water and sewer programs which we all hope can 
be restructured, and we all hope that we can find additional funds for 
these very important programs, but the gentleman's amendment also 
restructures, or throws a monkey wrench is a better word, into an 
important reform of the crop insurance and disaster program that was 
just implemented by the Committee on Agriculture just this past year.
  This major new reform that was designed to save the taxpayers 
billions of dollars and move our farmers away from dependence on the 
Government disaster programs really has not had a chance to work, and 
already the gentleman has simply brought an amendment that has not been 
considered by the authorizing committee. We have had no hearings, and 
it would fundamentally change the protections designed for the 
livestock industry.
  We left the livestock disaster program in place because there was no 
other way to cover them. As I have indicated, it is entirely possible 
that some changes in the newly reformed crop insurance disaster 
protection program will be needed. As a matter of fact, we are going to 
have a major overhaul of the crop insurance program. It is underfunded, 
and it is mandatory, and we have several proposals that I think would 
be very, very salutory.
  But these proposed changes should receive the same careful 
consideration as the original reform provisions. For example, this 
amendment does not make it clear how we are to treat a livestock 
producer who grows 25 percent of his feed and then purchases the rest. 
Is this producer to lose all of his disaster protection because he is 
prudent enough to provide a fraction of his own feed?

                              {time}  0030

  Mr. Chairman, these are exactly the kind of problems that caused us, 
after long thought, to design the program in its present state. 
Certainly a more careful consideration should be given before the 
program is changed or simply used for a bank for vitally needed sewer 
and water programs. We should reject this amendment.
  I would only add that this amendment also abridges the agreement that 
the authorizers and the appropriators have reached, at least on our 
side of the aisle, after many, many meetings, and the $60 million that 
would be used by the gentleman would be into a situation where we would 
either double-score it and it would not count in regards to our scoring 
responsibilities or the Ag Committee is going to have to go find 
another $60 million to cut in regards to our budget responsibilities.
  We have an agreement with the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] 
and the chairman of the committee, and the chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget that the appropriators will make the appropriate cuts in 
regards to their budget responsibilities and the authorizers in our 
pasture will make our cuts.
  I know the gentleman is extremely concerned about the water and sewer 
programs. This is the wrong way to go about it. I will be more than 
happy to work with the gentleman to find some money in the appropriate 
discretionary account.
  And one last thing: In the last several weeks we have had a real 
disaster in farm country more especially with our cowboys in reference 
to the terrible weather, 100 degrees, 105 degrees, 110 degrees. In 
feedlots all across the country and on ranches all across the country 
we have had heavy livestock losses, and all prices in the livestock 
sector are very depressed. This is exactly the wrong time to take the 
emergency program for livestock producers that we hope we will not use 
during a time when they are experiencing very heavy losses due to 
weather-induced conditions.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman to perhaps work with us, 
perhaps maybe withdraw his amendment, but if he insists on going on 
ahead, we will have to oppose it very, very strongly.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds, and then I will 
yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that, if there is a 
livestock loss which would not now be covered, not now be coverable, 
under the crop insurance program, that the livestock loss is still 
covered under the livestock feed program. That is the provision, that 
is the language of the legislation, that I have provided. So there is 
no problem, at least as I understand it, there.
  Secondly, if what we are doing is banking $60 million so that it will 
be easier there for the dealings on the problem of mandatory 
expenditure, then I think this will be much more valuable to put this 
where it can be used where 40 percent cuts were being made and use only 
30 percent cuts in the infrastructure accounts which all of our 
communities do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, everyone seems to agree that we should put 
more money into water and sewer programs. We all know there are a lot 
of communities that need them. Otherwise they cannot improve their 
systems for public health reasons. The obvious question here is whether 
or not this provision, when it comes to livestock feed programs, should 
be allowed to continue.
  I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts it should not. So many 
of these farmers, and cowboys and ranchers want to be rugged 
individualists and say, ``No, I'm not going to buy crop insurance, I'm 
on my own, buddy, leave me alone,'' and then things get tough, and 
guess what?
  They come and knock on Uncle Sam's door and say, ``Well, now I need 
some help.''
  What this amendment says is, ``Grow up.'' If you got crop insurance 
available, buy it, and, if you don't, you're going to pay. If you have 
a disaster, you're not going to get as much money from the Federal 
Government.''
  Is that a radical suggestion? I think that ought to be the policy 
across the land, to tell producers and business people that, if there 
is insurance available, use it, and, if they do not use it, 

[[Page H7376]]
they are going to suffer as a result of it.
  Now, to say we are going to hold them harmless regardless I think 
creates bad conduct on their part. The gentleman from Missouri and I 
were co-chairs of a disaster task force. We now spend or compensate for 
about 95 percent of the disasters and losses in the United States. We 
cannot afford to continue to do it. Individuals have to accept more 
personal responsibility.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shays). The gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Skeen] has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I would really hope it would not come to 
this, to get back into this whole argument on the disaster program and 
crop insurance. The mandatory crop insurance program is underfunded. It 
is not working well in high-risk agriculture country mainly because of 
the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois.
  Now we will adhere to our responsibilities in regards to crop 
insurance, and we are trying to move away from the disaster program. 
But to try to rewrite an unworkable crop insurance bill right in the 
middle of an appropriation bill when we are trying to do it in the farm 
bill is just not the way to do business. I want water and sewer 
programs, but that was a very untoward remark by the gentleman from 
Illinois, and I resent it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Wednesday, July 19, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver] will be postponed.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the 
record a copy of a letter from Agriculture Secretary Glickman 
expressing the administration's support and commitment to agricultural 
export programs such as the Market Promotion Program and the Export 
Enhancement Program.

                                    Department of Agriculture,

                                    Washington, DC, July 19, 1995.
     Hon. Bill Barrett,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities, Committee 
         on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Bill: As the United States House of Representatives 
     considers the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill for the 
     Department of Agriculture (USDA), I would like to express my 
     commitment to USDA's export programs.
       With the help of the Market Promotion Program (MPP), the 
     Export Enhancement Program, and USDA's other export programs, 
     U.S. agricultural exports are expected to reach a record 
     level of $51.5 billion in 1995. These programs have proven 
     that they work, achieving export growth nearly every year 
     since they were first enacted in 1985. MPP, in particular, 
     has proven its worth, helping the high value exports that it 
     targets to quadruple over the last decade. Our farmers and 
     ranchers depend upon foreign markets--23 percent of cash farm 
     receipts is now earned from exports.
       In the current world trade environment, I view these 
     programs as critical tools. The Uruguay Round Implementation 
     Act was enacted last year largely because of the support it 
     received from American agriculture. The agricultural sector 
     will benefit greatly from that agreement, but funding for 
     export promotion and the so-called ``green box'' programs is 
     critical. The Uruguay Round agreement permits countries to 
     continue to subsidize and promote agricultural exports. Our 
     competitors are doing just that.
       The fact is, the competition is well on its way towards 
     seizing new market opportunities. The European Union (EU) 
     will spend $54 billion under the Common Agricultural Policy 
     to support its agricultural sector in 1996, including $9 
     billion for export subsidies. The EU will spend $7 million 
     more for wine export promotion this year ($93 million) than 
     USDA will invest in promotion for all products under MPP. 
     Competitors are also increasing GATT-legal spending for 
     export promotion and credit guarantees. Last year, 
     competitors spent $500 million on export promotion. This 
     year, Canada announced a new credit guarantee program for 
     about $713 million.
       I know there is an urgent need to control spending and to 
     reduce the federal deficit, but I urge you to resist efforts 
     to balance the budget on the backs of America's farmers and 
     ranchers. I appreciate your support of our joint efforts to 
     promote U.S. agricultural exports.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Dan Glickman,
                                                        Secretary.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the committee report 
accompany H.R. 1976, the fiscal year 1996 Agriculture appropriations 
bill, contains a provision that will seriously affect the availability 
of food on Indian reservations. In the report, the Appropriations 
Committee directs the Secretary of Agriculture to begin the termination 
of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, commonly known 
as the commodities program. Indians who benefit from the commodities 
program are to be transferred to the Food Stamp Program. Given the 
current levels of poverty and hunger on Indian reservations, the phase 
out of the commodities program is an unwise and uninformed maneuver 
that is nothing short of another clear breach of this Nation's trust 
responsibility to native Americans.
  The administration requested $78.6 million for reservation 
commodities in fiscal year 1996. The committee's bill provides for $65 
million, a decrease of $13.6 million--17 percent. The President's 
request reflects the fact that the commodities program must operate 
with a $0 carry-in for fiscal year 1996 as opposed to carry-ins of 
$13.4 million in fiscal year 1994 and $27.3 million in fiscal year 
1995, as well as the fact that food costs have risen steadily, from 
$45.6 million in fiscal year 1994 to $47.7 million in fiscal year 1995 
to an estimated $49.2 million in fiscal year 1996.
  The commodities program serves more than 110,000 native Americans 
each month who reside on or near reservations in 24 States. The 
reservation commodities program was the only commodities program 
maintained by the Nixon administration following the institution of the 
national Food Stamps Program in 1974. Both Congress and the Nixon 
administration carefully examined food needs and determined that the 
Food Stamps Program would not adequately meet the needs of native 
Americans living on or near reservations.
  The main reason that the Food Stamps Program is unsuited for Indian 
reservations is that the program requires individuals to trade food 
coupons for food at grocery stores. In many reservation areas there are 
simply no or few grocery stores, round trips of up to 100 miles to buy 
groceries are not uncommon, and transportation is often unavailable. In 
addition, the prices for foods at existing on-reservation stores are 
generally much higher than those at off-reservation stores. In other 
words, food stamps will buy less at reservation stores than off-
reservation stores. Thus, this bill not only makes it harder for 
Indians to get food, but it also makes it likely that they will end up 
with less food.
  In addition, while tribes operate the distribution of commodities, 
States operate the Food Stamps Program. Conversion to the Food Stamps 
Program will require native Americans to travel vast distances to the 
nearest State food stamp office. Other problems with the food stamps 
program include a differing set of eligibility rules, and the 
likelihood that nonperishable foods, which make up the bulk of the 
commodities programs, will be less available under the food stamps 
program because stores are less likely to stock them.
  Finally, it appears that conversion to the Food Stamp Program will 
result in increased costs to the Federal Government. In fiscal year 
1994, the average per month cost of food stamp benefits was $69.01 
compared to $33.51 for commodities. Thus, conversion to food stamps 
would more than double the per-person food cost of service to Indian 
beneficiaries.
  In sum, the Appropriation Committee's plan to phase out the 
commodities program will not only increase hunger and hardship on 
Indian reservations but will also increase costs to the Federal 
Government. This policy is clearly anti-Indian and, without any hint of 
hesitancy or remorse, literally takes food out the mouths of the 
poorest of the poor. Mr. Chairman, the Indian population which is 
dependent upon the commodities program needs our protection and not our 
spite. As trustees and fiduciaries to the more than 550 native American 
tribes, we should treat them better.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 1996 
Agriculture appropriations bill, which carries through on the 
directives of the House Republicans' welfare reform plan by cutting 
food stamps and other nutrition programs.
  As we saw with their welfare reform measure, the new majority in the 
House wants to launch an extreme and broad-based attack on poor 
children and families. As part of this attack, they are cutting the 
Food Stamp Program, one of the most essential programs for people in 
need, and capping the number of participants which may receive 
assistance from the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children [WIC]. WIC is a program with such proven benefits 
as fewer premature births, fewer fetal deaths, and better cognitive 
performance in children, one family would have to leave the WIC program 
for another to be served.

[[Page H7377]]

  Under this appropriations bill, inflation will no longer be 
considered as a factor when determining a family's eligibility for food 
stamps. This means that families will either become ineligible for 
benefits or see their benefits reduced as inflation impacts their 
income and ability to meet their basic needs. The bill also cuts 
overall funding for food stamps in 1996 by $1.7 billion compared to 
this year 1995. States predictably will tighten eligibility 
requirements in order to try to keep down costs and the result will 
mean that fewer poor families will be able to receive food assistance. 
Furthermore, this bill completely eliminates the food stamp contingency 
reserve which is used to shore up the program when the need for food 
stamps becomes greater than optimistically low limits estimated. 
Republicans claim that cutting funding for food stamps and other public 
assistance programs will move people off of welfare. The question is: 
where are the children, women and the elderly going? Not only is the 
GOP cutting food stamps, but they are intent on cutting the social 
safety net of education, training, child care, shelter, and medical 
care in numerous proposals and measure being advanced in this Congress.
  The WIC program is among the most successful and cost-effective of 
our Federal nutrition programs and promotes the health and well-being 
of our country's children. Currently, the WIC program can not even 
provide benefits for all eligible women and children due to lack of 
funds. I have supported full funding of this program, which should be a 
high priority if we value our future enough to care for our children. 
However, Republicans want to further limit the number of children who 
may benefit from the program by capping the number of participants at 
current levels. This will decrease the effectiveness of this program by 
ruling out any opportunity for a response from the Government when 
there is an increase in the number of children and families in need of 
services.
  Nutrition programs provide an extremely valuable way to promote good 
health and prevent disease for some of our most vulnerable citizens. 
When we fund nutrition programs, we invest in children and families and 
create economic and social benefits for all. When the Republicans cut 
back on nutrition programs, we will see a rise in malnutrition and a 
resulting rise in health care costs. The Republican approach to 
nutrition programs is to cut off benefits with the notion that you can 
forcefeed change and reduce poverty through such harsh action. I do not 
support this approach and I believe that the Federal Government has a 
role in helping people. I oppose this bill because of the shortfall in 
funding and the policy changes that are being superimposed through this 
ill considered appropriation process.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last night my colleagues from 
New York, Ms. Lowey withdrew her amendment to the Agriculture 
appropriations bill which pertains to the peanut program. I commend the 
gentlelady for withdrawing her amendment and would state that I 
appreciate the fact that the gentlelady now agrees that the farm bill 
needs to be written in the Agriculture Committee as opposed to the 
appropriations process.
  We members of the Agriculture Committee have been working very 
diligently to reform all agriculture programs. I have been particularly 
involved in working on a reform of the peanut program that will be a 
more market oriented program and will still provide a safety net for 
peanut growers.
  That bill will address the concerns of the gentlelady and I think 
will satisfy the vast majority of those that have objections to 
agriculture programs.
  Again, I thank the gentlelady for allowing the authorizing committee 
to do its job.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, as a former member of the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I recognize the difficulties faced by the 
chairman and ranking member and I commend them for their efforts on 
this bill. H.R. 1976 provides $15.9 billion in agricultural programs 
but still saves $5.2 billion, compared to spending last year. However, 
with tough challenges come tough decisions, and I am faced with one 
today. I am concerned about an amendment to be offered later during 
this debate and the effect this will have on low-income housing for 
people in my State of Nevada and throughout the Nation. Specifically, 
502 direct housing loans help those low- and very-low-income families 
who are unable to obtain financing elsewhere. Without these funds, it 
will be difficult or impossible for people to achieve the American 
Dream of owning their own home. In addition, I am concerned about other 
reductions to rural programs including rural waste disposal projects 
and rural development.
  Although reluctant, I will support this amendment because it does 
have some good provisions in it regarding the Conservation Reserve 
Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program. However, I urge the chairman 
to continue to fight to restore funding for the 502 housing program and 
some of the other rural programs in conference.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I cannot begin to express how pleased I 
am that a compromise was reached yesterday between Agriculture 
Secretary Glickman and Representative Walsh regarding the 
implementation of meat and poultry safety rules.
  Representative Walsh's withdrawal of his amendment to the fiscal year 
1996 Agriculture appropriations bill is a clear sign of his commitment 
to enact change into the current food handling process. The new 
agreement will allow for additional public hearings to be held to 
consider the views of all interested parties throughout the rule-making 
process. I am relieved that there will not be a delay of the USDA's 
implementation of safeguards and standards to improve meat inspection.
  Unfortunately, the issue of safe food and the devastating effect of 
foodborne illness are not new to me. I have closely followed this issue 
since the 1993 E.coli outbreak on the West Coast. I have had the 
pleasure of working with members of STOP [Safe Tables Our Priority], an 
organization founded by victims' families who are dedicated to the 
prevention of foodborne illness.
  Until the tragedies were highlighted a few years ago, I do not 
believe that people were aware of the inherent dangers associated with 
the consumption of raw meat products. It is unfortunate that a number 
of deaths occurred before significant changes were made to the current 
food handling processes.
  I think that we would all agree that our Nation's meat inspection 
policy must be improved. Obviously, a system that was created in 1906, 
and has changed very little since that time, is in need of repair. A 
new inspection system based on HACCP or hazard analysis and critical 
control points, is needed to prevent problems from occurring throughout 
the production process.

  Once again, I commend my colleague, Representative Walsh, for his 
willingness to compromise with the administration regarding the 
procedural problems in an effort to improve the current system. I also 
want to applaud the efforts of the ranking minority member of the 
Agriculture Subcommittee, Representative Durbin, in bringing this 
matter to the House's attention. I believe that the risks are too high 
to wait any longer to implement change into the current food handling 
process. We cannot rest until everything is being done to protect the 
safety of our food, and provide for the well-being of our loved ones.
  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. Shays, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
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.

                          ____________________