[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 119 (Friday, July 21, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7430-H7446]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



[[Page H7430]]


                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be titled the ``know when to say 
when'' amendment. It puts a halt on corporate subsidies to the alcohol 
industry to boost its booze abroad. It simply carves away a very 
targeted portion of the Market Protection Programs, the multi-million-
dollar handout to the alcohol industry to lure drinkers in foreign 
countries. Over the course of the last 3 years, the taxpayers has 
reached deep into their pockets and handed over $24 million to the 
alcohol industry.
  Let's just tell it like it is. The American taxpayers give subsidies 
to some companies that are making money hand over fist so that they can 
entice more people to drink. What we are doing here is financing a 
worldwide scam. We know what this kind of advertising is like. It is 
the most glamorous advertising in the world and hooks young people on 
the number one drug on this planet.
  The wrongheadedness with which we subsidize alcohol exports and 
advertising by major alcohol corporations is compounded by the error of 
spending millions and millions of dollars to entice people to drink. It 
is a tragedy, and we should put an end to it.
  Jim Beam last year got over $2.5 million to push its whisky abroad. 
Other whisky giants like Hiram Walker and Brown-Forman profited under 
this program. Even companies like Miller, Coors, and Stroh Beer get 
money under this program.
  If that were not enough of a corporate scandal, we add insult to 
injury by asking the American taxpayer to foot the bill for some of the 
world's largest foreign alcohol giants. We actually pay these foreign 
alcohol companies to advertise our wine, our bourbon and our whiskey 
overseas. Seagrams, a Canadian company, received over $1 million from 
the United States taxpayers for wine promotion and nearly $150,000 to 
advertise Four Roses Whiskey in Europe and the Far East. Three English 
companies, including Guinness, have received almost $3 million to 
advertise United States-made bourbon and whiskey in Japan and 
Yugoslavia.
  The Wine Institute itself spent $40,000 of United States taxpayers' 
money to fly a group of Japanese wine stewards to California for a 
weeklong adventure that included trips to several wineries.
  The fact is that we are going to hear a lot of
   yakking from people that come from wine country that tell us that 
this is just a program to help out the small vintners of America. That 
is a bunch of hogwash. If you look at where the numbers go, 
notwithstanding the fact we heard the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio] talking about the fact that 89 of the vintners are small, that 
is, 89 of 100 vintners are the small vintners. They also get the small 
dollars.

  If we look at it, Ernest and Julio, the two brothers that stood up to 
Caesar Chavez, they get 57 percent of all the money that goes into this 
program. Fifty-seven percent to one company that only made $1.5 billion 
more. Fetzer Vineyards, owned by Brown-Forman, makers of Jack Daniels, 
Southern Comfort, and Canadian Mist, millions more. Vintner 
International, another one of the largest companies in this country in 
the wine business, millions more.
  Meanwhile, the small vintners, oh, yeah, there are a bunch of them, 
Geyser Park received $999, Pine Ridge received $162. Santa Cruz Winery, 
$223, Santino Wines, $4,167; and Saints Berry, $3,892.
  Ladies and gentlemen, let's break the back of those corporations that 
come in and try to jump on the back of the taxpayer in this hall and 
say to them that we are going to stand up to not only welfare mothers 
but we are going to stand up to this kind of corporate subsidy as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this amendment, while 
broadly worded, is frankly a loaded gun pointed at the American wine 
industry.
  Second, it would not save any money under the gentleman's amendment. 
We all are aware frankly that our domestic wineries are at a 
competitive disadvantage as they attempt to compete with European and 
South American wines due to the export subsidies and frankly the trade 
tariffs that are imposed on our wine exports abroad.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Fresno, CA 
[Mr. Radanovich], the first professional winemaker to serve in the U.S. 
House of Representatives.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in protest to this amendment 
that is being offered currently. I am a winemaker. I do not take MPP's. 
I never will take MPP's. But when my industry is singled out among 20 
to 25 commodities that are participants in the MPP program, I must rise 
in protest.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a member also of the Committee on the Budget and I 
do not believe that programs like this are going to survive 7 years of 
budget cuts that are necessary in order to get to zero. But I do agree 
that those decisions regarding the fate of MPP must be budget-driven 
and they must be decided within the Committee on Agriculture under the 
direction of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], our chairman, not 
from someone who comes from a State where there is very little 
agriculture and no participation in the program. I rise in strong 
protest to this amendment and urge ``no'' vote on the Kennedy 
amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me make two quick points. Even the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
the maker of the amendment, points out that 100 some odd wineries have 
been participating in the MPP. Of that group, 89 are small wineries. 
These are mostly small, family owned operations. Second, the five 
largest wine recipients of the MPP purchase 90 percent of their grapes 
from independent grape growers. The gentleman's amendment would hurt 
those small grape growers which again are for the most part small, 
family owned businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Condit].
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. What the Kennedy amendment 
does is single our independent grape growers across California. This 
penalizes farmers, farmers who grow grapes and sell them to the 
wineries in California and throughout this country. He is penalizing 
small, independent grape growers. If he has a beef with grape growers, 
do it a different way. This is not the way to do it.
  There is $607 million paid in excise tax. That is what the wine 
industry does. It is a $9 billion industry in California. It is an 
important industry in California. It is about jobs, it is about 
American wine, and we should not single out this industry and 
discriminate against them. If we have got a beef with the grape 
growers, do it another way.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Woolsey].
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, although I respect 
the gentleman from Massachusetts, I do not support his amendment 
because this amendment directly and unfairly targets my constituents in 
Sonoma and Martin counties. These are the people who produce the best 
wines in the world. If this amendment passes, their world-famous wine 
would no longer be able to compete in the world market.
  The amendment would devastate the small wine producers in my 
district, who rely upon Federal export assistance to enter the global 
marketplace.
  Unlike Europe and South America, United States wine producers receive 
no production subsidies what-so-ever! Furthermore, our competitors out-
spend the U.S. in export subsidies by more than 6 to 1!
  Mr. Chairman, small California wineries cannot compete in such a lop-
sided marketplace without some assistance.
  The Kennedy amendment takes this critical assistance away from small 
wine producers. And, in doing so, it takes away jobs; it takes away 
trade; and, it takes away fairness.
  We should help export California wine, not California's jobs!
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Louisville, KY, our mutual birthplace [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this amendment. This 
amendment singles out one industry for punishment. We all know we need 
to increase exports. We need to make our balance of trade come out 
better. I stand in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].

[[Page H7431]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 30 seconds.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, in 1981 we had an interesting experience 
around here. We formed what was called the Presidential Commission on 
Drunk Driving under Ronald Reagan. We spent 1\1/2\ years working on 
that. We took a lot of time to do it. I was privileged to sit on that 
committee and we did an exhaustive study of what was going on in 
America.
  After we did all this and found out how many were dying as a result 
of drunk driving, paraplegics, quadriplegics and people with very 
serious back injuries, we found that the No. 1 reason was the 
enticement they had to get people to drink. This is a harmless little 
amendment. It makes a lot of sense. All we are asking to do is take 
away the advertisement in this area. We are not in any way changing 
some of these other areas.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I point out that recent studies have indicated that 
moderate alcohol beverage consumption could actually be beneficial to 
personal health.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time evenly between my 
colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] and the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dornan].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] will be 
recognized for 10 seconds, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dornan] will be recognized for 10 seconds.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of amendment that drives us 
all to drink. It is discrimination aimed at Wisconsin where we produce 
the finest beers in the world and we want all people around the world 
to share in it.
  Beer is a very noble product, and an honored part of American 
history. Many American fortunes have been made in the liquor industry. 
The liquor industry played an early role in the wealth of some of the 
most prominent American families, as the sponsor may recall.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, we are almost out of time.
  When we work the doors here, Joseph, because you are a fourth-
generation Irishman and I am a redheaded second-generation Irishman, 
and remembering that redheaded patriarch of your clan, and some friends 
in Scotland assure me they will not be toasting you in the champagne 
regions of France and the distilleries of beautiful Bonnie Scotland.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Just say no, big Bob. Just say no.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] 
which would prohibit the use of funds in the bill to promote the sale 
or export of alcohol or alcoholic beverages.
  This amendment is targeted at the Market Promotion Program [MPP].
  MPP is a good program which is conducting important value-added 
marketing overseas. It works effectively, and MPP has been a crucial 
element of improving the export situation of our domestic wine 
industry, centered in California.
  The California wine industry produces an award-winning, high-value 
product that can compete with the best of the world's wine industries--
but we need MPP to help get that message out.
  U.S. wine production represents approximately 6.5 percent of world 
production. However, despite aggressive export growth during the past 6 
years, the industry has only a 3.0 percent market share of wine 
exports.
  We need MPP to help us do better.
  We need to remember that the European Union spends more on export 
promotion for wine than the United States spends in promoting all of 
our agricultural products.
  The European Community wine industries are heavily subsidized--to the 
tune of $1.5 billion, which includes $90 million for export promotion.
  Other countries then do even more. For example, the Italian Trade 
Commission is funded for an additional $25 million.
  When it comes to the wine industry, MPP is a program that helps small 
business.
  In 1994, for example, 101 wineries participated in MPP and 89 were 
small wineries.
  MPP promotes independent business.
  The five largest wine recipients of MPP funds purchase over 90 
percent of their grapes from independent grape growers.
  In short, we will continue to battle for our fair share of foreign 
markets. But we need an export promotion program to allow us to achieve 
our competitive potential.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Kennedy amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. 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 Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] will be postponed.
                 amendment no. 5 offered by mr. deutsch

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

        Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Deutsch:
        Amendment No. 5: Page 71, after line 2, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 726. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide assistance to, or 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) that provides assistance to, the U.S. Mink 
     Export Development Council or any mink industry trade 
     association.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
20, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] will be recognized 
for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 10 minutes, and, 
in opposition, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman if he would yield back 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 5 minutes before we begin.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 5 minutes.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Chairman, this is corporate welfare at its absolute worst; at 
its absolute worst. This is a program that spends about $2 million a 
year on the U.S. Mink Export Development Council, a council that is 
managed by four people, an attorney and assistant and representatives 
of two companies. Those two companies get 98 percent of the funds of 
that $2 million.
  One of those companies happens to be a Canadian company. Actually, it 
is a subsidiary of a Canadian company whose gross revenues are 3.9 
billion American dollars. What do they spend this money on every year? 
They spend it on fashion shows overseas and many times even work that 
is done to bring it back to the United States.
  This is a copy of one of the fashion shows that does not even 
describe the minks or the mink stoles as America product.
   Mr. Chairman, this is not an amendment against mink farmers; it is 
an amendment against the U.S. Mink Export Development Council program.
   Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment, and I again say 
through the efforts of this committee we have forced the Department to 
redo the way that it manages the market Promotion Program and it now 
targets the small, nonbranded groups.
  We cannot pick apart this program and make it work. This program is 
good for America. Do not destroy this program. This program means jobs 
to the United States. To pass this amendment means jobs in other 
countries. Vote no and save American jobs.
   Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Petri].

[[Page H7432]]

  (Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Deutsch 
amendment, because what it boils down to is a short-sighted attempt to 
exclude one particular industry from participation in this promotion 
program simply because animal rights activists do not like that 
industry.
  The funding to promote U.S. mink exports to foreign markets is by law 
used only to promote the sale of U.S. produced mink and only U.S. mink 
ranchers can benefit from this program. The funding benefits only U.S. 
entities, just as every other MPP-funded program does. Ninty-five 
percent of U.S. produced mink are sold through two auction houses; one 
of them a rancher cooperative, that is rancher-owned, the other is 
substantially owned by hundreds of U.S. mink ranchers.
  It is ridiculous to say that the mink ranchers who produce all those 
pelts do not benefit by the marketing work done by these two companies. 
I cannot honestly understand how less than $2 million in marketing 
assistance to U.S. mink exporters can be truthfully characterized as 
``wasteful spending.''
  It is not a give away. It is a matching funds program which helps 
counter the massive subsidies that European countries give directly to 
their mink producers.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the questions we will answer when 
we vote on this amendment are these: Shall Congress discriminate 
against the MPP mink program just because it helps market U.S.-produced 
mink and not American seafood, paper products, grapes, walnuts, 
chocolate, cotton, raisins, feed grains, meats, wheat, rice, apples, 
wine or citrus from Florida and other States, even though the mink 
industry receives less marketing subsidy than any of these industries; 
and, shall Congress deny marketing assistance to the mink industry for 
the sole purpose of satisfying the extremists animal rights lobby?
  Mr. Chairman, I must say that I think the rational answer to those 
questions, and the only real answer to those questions, is a resounding 
``no.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in voting a resounding ``no'' 
on the amendment.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dornan].
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, this is another one of those squirrely 
little issues where you have friends on both sides of the issues. But 
of all the subjects in all of the trade issues on the planet, why 
either party should be helping mink manufacturers, I do not know.
  This would be a hard sell at any town hall meeting in America, and I 
would say if there was ever an industry that was on its own, it ought 
to be the mink industry.
  Before we end up discussing vicuna coats and plain-cloth Republican 
coats or Democratic coats, I know my party has had an image problem for 
about 50 years as the party of the big guy, and my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle get away with bloody murder, being the party of 
the little guy. I say let those little minks fight for themselves 
without Federal tax dollars.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  (Mr. CRAPO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, agriculture is a major Idaho industry. With 21,000 
farmers and ranchers, its annual production totals nearly $3 billion. 
This translates into billions of dollars in additional economic 
activity as well as an expanded tax base and tens of thousands of jobs.
  This amendment arbitrarily excludes a small, yet very important part 
of this economy from participation in the MPP Program. Groups who do 
not believe that animals should be used for food, clothing or medical 
research are trying to prevent any MPP money from being used to retain 
and develop overseas markets for U.S.-produced mink.
  MPP Program helps U.S. mink ranchers counter the efforts of massive 
production subsidies which go to foreign mink ranchers. In Idaho alone, 
the economic impact of the mink industry is $7.3 million a year. MPP 
funding to promote mink exports is an investment with a 5,000 percent 
return. For about $2 million, the MPP helps the U.S. mink industry 
achieve over $100 million in export sales each years.
  Additionally, the United States mink industry has successfully 
promoted the superior quality of United States mink to quality-
conscious furriers and importers in Italy, Japan, Hong Kong, and 
elsewhere. Over 95 percent of the U.S. mink industry's total sales will 
be exported this year.
  Contrary to the comments made that MPP funds go to big corporations, 
all of the branded mink participants in the MPP Program are classified 
as ``small entities'' by the SBA. The industry is made up of small, 
family owned mink ranches in 28 States. MPP marketing assistance has 
helped the mink producers survive 5 years of global over production 
caused by direct and indirect subsidization in China, Russia, and 
mostly in Scandinavian countries.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this anti-jobs amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly 
oppose the Deutsch amendment. My colleagues need to understand what is 
going on here. Ninety-five percent of our market of mink, the mink 
ranchers in my district, is overseas. They have no Government program. 
They have no other money that comes to them, except for this MPP 
program. It is only $1.9 million.
  If we destroy this industry, what we are going to do is what we did 
with the wool and mohair industry; we are just going to give that 
industry to the foreign countries, to the Danish, to the Norwegians, to 
the Finlanders.
  Mr. Chairman, I can personally tell my colleagues that these mink 
ranchers are having a tough time. They are on the verge of going out of 
business anyway. They do not need us to single them out with this 
amendment and make the situation harder.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not about MPP. What this is about are the 
animal rights folks, who do not like these people, trying to drive one 
more nail in their coffin.
  I ask my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment and maintain 
the mink industry in this country. These are good people, family 
farmers. We do not need to put them out of business.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens].
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. During 
the last few days, we have heard clearly what the plot to balance the 
budget is all about. The plot to balance the budget is merely to 
squeeze out money from Medicare and Medicaid and money for the cities.
  The plot to balance the budget is not sincere at all, because we are 
refusing to take away taxpayer subsidies for tobacco. We will not take 
away taxpayer subsidies for alcohol. We will not take away taxpayers 
subsidies for mink coats. How are we going to balance the budget?
  It would be only fair if you were to offer export promotion funds for 
everybody. I have a used clothing processing plant in Brooklyn, the 
largest in the world, and they export used clothing to all parts of the 
world. The underdeveloped world buys a lot of used clothes. They should 
have the export advertising subsidy also. They should get in on it 
also.
  All products, such as automobiles, have a hard time in Japan. They 
should have the export promotion program also. We should be fair and 
have socialized marketing across the board; never balance the budget, 
cut Medicare and Medicaid.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I tried to avoid participating in the debate 
today, because we are all tired and we all feel strongly about these 
issues. But I have a hard time recognizing we have annual deficits at 
over $200 billion a year, our national debt is close to $4.8 trillion, 
and I am going back to my district and telling them we are slowing the 
growth of Medicare, we are slowing the growth of Medicaid. We are 
cutting housing programs, we are cutting education programs, but we are 
going to subsidize tobacco, alcohol, and mink export?

[[Page H7433]]

  This, to me, is an obscenity. I join my colleague and thank the 
gentleman for offering this amendment.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such times as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I stated, this is truly corporate welfare at its 
worst. I ask my colleagues to take a look at the specifics of this 
particular program, what it really does. It is almost beyond belief 
what this program does. It is almost a parody of government gone crazy 
in terms of corporate welfare.
  We have about $2 million a year, we give it to the U.S. Mink Export 
Development Council managed by 4 people, 2 of whom are representatives 
of companies. One is an attorney for the council and one an assistant.
  Those people then all of a sudden, lo and behold, give 98 percent of 
the money that they get to the 2 companies represented on the board, at 
which point they then spend the money for fashion shows all over the 
world; Mainland China, Japan, Korea, Italy, and it is unclear what is 
going on.
  One of the companies is a $3.9 billion gross sales a year Canadian 
company. It is foreign corporate welfare. We are doing so well today in 
America that we can afford foreign corporate welfare.
  It is not about mink farmers; it is about this particular program. If 
we cannot get rid of this, we are not going to get rid of anything.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Deutsch-Shays 
amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New Mexico, Mr. 
Skeen, for yielding, and thank my colleagues in the House for their 
endurance during this entire consideration of the agriculture 
appropriation bill.
  The amendment that we have before us has been explained very clearly 
by my colleagues that have proceeded me. There are two exchanges that 
handle U.S. furs for mink producers in America. It is the Seattle Fur 
Exchange, a co-op of ranchers out West. Here in the East, it is the New 
York market and 36 percent of it is owned by small mink farmers around 
the country.
  But this program is about helping small farmers around our country. 
It is not about helping corporations. It is about helping our farmers 
compete in a world market where they have to compete with subsidized 
furs from all around the world. This program has helped open markets 
for U.S. producers. They have been through 5 years of almost all of 
them going out of business. They are actually starting to make some 
money, and pulling the plug on this program at this time, frankly, is 
not fair to them.
  In the budget, agriculture is taking its hit. We are going to be 
putting up somewhere between $17 and $20 billion over the next 7 years 
to balance the budget. We are going to do our share. But this is not 
the way to do it.
  But let me say to my colleagues that this amendment is more than 
about cutting money. Some who are interested in this amendment are 
interested in it only for one reason, because they want us to kneel 
down at the altar of political correctness of those radical animal 
rights people who do not want you to wear mink, they do not want to 
wear mink. They are bringing this to the floor of the House and it is 
unfair. Vote against this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch .
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DEUTSCH. 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 Wednesday, July 
19, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
          sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, July 
19, 1995, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which 
further proceedings were postponed in the following order: The 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


        amendment no. 64 offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] 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.
  A recorded vote was refused.
  So the amendment was rejected.


                    amendment offered by mr. deutsch

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] 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 requested. Those in support of 
the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted.
  Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is 
not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. A quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the time for an electronic vote 
ordered on the pending question following this quorum call.
                              {time}  1645


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago I had 
an amendment and enough people rose to ask for a recorded vote. You 
assured me that we had, and were going to have a recorded vote on my 
amendment. Are we having a recorded vote on my amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. As the Chair announced at that point, the Chair began 
to count for a recorded vote. The Chair then remembered the planned 
order to postpone any request for a recorded vote until later on. It 
was a mistake on the part of the Chair not to immediately postpone the 
request for a recorded vote, without counting for a sufficient number 
to support a recorded vote. When proceedings later resumed, the request 
was not supported by a sufficient number.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Wait a second, could I have unanimous 
consent to have another attempt to have that vote, please?
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
                             recorded vote

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote 
on the Kennedy amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Chair will vacate all 
proceedings since the resumption of unfinished business, to include 
those on the point of no quorum raised by the gentleman from Florida,
  There was no objection.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. RIGGS. Just to establish the sequence of the votes now, will we 
be voting first on the Kennedy amendment followed by the Deutsch 
amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will begin again, and it will be clear in 
just a minute.


          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 

[[Page H7434]]
those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the 
following order:
  The amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in the series.
           amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] 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.
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair tells Members this will be a firm 17-minute 
vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 130, 
noes 268, not voting 36, as follows:
  


                             [Roll No. 552]

  


                               AYES--130

  

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Blute
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crapo
     Davis
     DeLay
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ensign
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hayworth
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     King
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Markey
     Martini
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Mfume
     Minge
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Porter
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Stockman
     Tate
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wolf
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer
  


                               NOES--268

  

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cramer
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Scott
     Shadegg
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
  


                             NOT VOTING--36

  

     Abercrombie
     Baker (LA)
     Bateman
     Brown (CA)
     Burton
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Crane
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Foglietta
     Gallegly
     Geren
     Goodling
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Ortiz
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Seastrand
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Torricelli
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (FL)
  


                              {time}  1707

  

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Dreier against.

  Mr. WILLIAMS and Mr. BARR changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CANADY of Florida, SMITH of Michigan, BARTLETT of Maryland, 
and GRAHAM changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Deutsch

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] for a recorded vote 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.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] has demanded a 
recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232, 
noes 160, not voting 42, as follows:
  


                             [Roll No. 553]

  


                               AYES--232

  

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     King
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood

[[Page H7435]]

     Olver
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Studds
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer
  


                               NOES--160

  

     Allard
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cramer
     Crapo
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Frost
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rose
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Scott
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tucker
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watt (NC)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wise
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--42

     Abercrombie
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Brown (CA)
     Burton
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Crane
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Foglietta
     Gallegly
     Geren
     Goodling
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Johnston
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Torricelli
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (FL)
  


                              {time}  1716

  

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Barton against.
       Mr. Stokes for, with Mr. Ehlers against.
       Mr. Dreier for, with Mr. Hastings against.
       Mr. Quinn for, with Mr. Dermott against.
       Mr. Shadegg for, with Mr. Watts against.

  Messrs. JOHNSON of South Dakota, GORDON, HOKE, VOLKMER, GREENWOOD, 
SMITH of Texas, and MANZULLO changed their votes from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, at this point in the Record I insert a table 
that shows a comparison of accounts in the bill.

[[Page H7436]]
TH21JY95.004



[[Page H7437]]
TH21JY95.005



[[Page H7438]]
TH21JY95.006



[[Page H7439]]
TH21JY95.007



[[Page H7440]]
TH21JY95.008



[[Page H7441]]
TH21JY95.009



[[Page H7442]]
TH21JY95.010



[[Page H7443]]
TH21JY95.011



[[Page H7444]]



                          personal explanation

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. speaker, on Thursday, July 20, I missed four 
rollcall votes and on Friday, July 21, I missed three rollcall votes 
during consideration of H.R. 1976, Agriculture appropriations for 
fiscal year 1996.
  On rollcall vote Nos. 542, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, I would have 
voted ``nay.''
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1976, the Agriculture appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 1996, represents a serious effort to cut Federal 
spending on agriculture programs. I am pleased that this bill cuts 
funding from current levels by nine percent. But we can go even 
farther. This bill preserves a number of agricultural subsidies that I 
believe should be reviewed in light of our desire to move toward 
reducing our deficit. Although this bill preserves Federal subsidies 
for several agricultural programs which I believe should be cut or 
eliminated, I am encouraged by the assurances from Chairman Roberts of 
the Agriculture Committee that he will ensure votes on these subsidy 
programs during consideration of the farm bill later this year.
  This bill recognizes the importance of child nutrition programs 
funded through the Department of Agriculture. I am pleased that the 
Republican leadership recognized the shortsightedness of their initial 
proposal to reduce funding for school lunch and breakfast programs. 
H.R. 1976 provides $8 billion in funding for school lunch and breakfast 
programs, an increase of $501 million over fiscal year 1995, and $32 
million more than the President's request.
  This bill was also improved when an amendment offered by 
Representative Hall was accepted to remove the cap on the number of 
participants in the nutrition program for Women, Infants, and Children 
[WIC]. WIC is a cost-effective program which has significantly reduced 
rates of infant mortality, low birthweight, and anemia. If food cost 
inflation is lower than previous years, or if a State manages the 
program efficiently, the cap would have prohibited the state from 
enrolling additional eligible women, infants and children.
  I do, however, remain concerned about the removal of the competitive 
bidding requirement included in this bill. If history serves as a 
guide, this will translate into higher costs for infant formula and 
fewer infants being served under the program.
  Prior to enactment of the competitive bidding requirement in 1989, 
only half of State WIC programs used competitive bidding. The other 
half used industry-favored cost containment systems that saved 35 
percent less than competitive bidding. For this reason, Congress passed 
the competitive bidding requirement in 1989 with bipartisan support and 
with support from the Bush White House.
  Competitive bidding works. Competitive bidding saved the WIC program 
$1.1 billion last year. Nearly 25 percent of women, infants and 
children served by WIC last year were served with savings from 
competitive bidding. In my home State of Rhode Island, the competitive 
bidding requirement has enabled the program to serve an additional 
5,000 infants.
  If we are searching for deep cuts across programs, surely it makes 
sense to support an incentive for states to utilize competitive 
bidding, given the documented costs savings that result. The Bush 
administration supported the competitive bidding requirement in 1989 
because it utilizes the free market to secure the lowest prices for 
infant formula, thereby making the most efficient use of the taxpayers' 
dollars and stretching WIC funds to serve more participants.
  In States that do not use competitive bidding the losers will be 
vulnerable infants, pregnant women, and children. We should not sell 
out to large infant formula companies at the expense of infants, and I 
will urge my colleagues in the Senate to retain competitive bidding.
  Finally, this legislation does not contain funding for the Coastal 
Institute at the University of Rhode Island. I am hopeful that through 
my continued effort and through the effort of the Senate, funding for 
this worthwhile project will be included in the conference report. The 
State of Rhode Island is enthusiastic about this project and voters 
have already approved a bond referendum for $7 million. Bonding 
authority and other approved matching sources are at the $12.56 level 
in support of this project. The Institute will focus on the major 
sources of estuarine pollution, including urban development, 
agriculture, and deep water activities. The Institute's mission has 
important implications for both these activities and for the world's 
fisheries. In addition, the Coastal Institute will contribute to the 
economic well-being of the region through the training and research 
that will be conducted.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 1976, the Agriculture 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. I commend Mr. Skeen, my 
colleague from New Mexico, for putting together a good bill which makes 
a firm contribution toward achieving our goal of a balanced budget by 
2002. This bill funds important programs necessary to provide 
agricultural research, nutrition, conservation, health and safety, and 
farm sector stability.
  I appreciate the hard work that Mr. Skeen, and the other Committee 
members have put into allocating scarce resources among the many 
worthwhile projects covered by this bill. I look forward to working 
with the chairman in the future on programs important to the 
agricultural sector of our economy.
  I offered an amendment to this bill that would have cut $12 million 
from the Department's administrative accounts. This would have been 
less than 4 percent of the administrative funds. I was encouraged by 
the fact that 196 members of the House share my view that the 
Department's headquarter's bureaucracy should be further downsized at a 
time when farm programs are being cut dramatically. However, I accept 
the majority view that the Department's administrative downsizing is 
progressing at a sufficient pace.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bunning 
amendment to eliminate funding for the Food and Drug Administration 
[FDA].
  FDA plays an important role in the lives of every American. It is the 
last stage in translating life saving medical innovation to consumers. 
It examines the medications and feeds for farm livestock and household 
pets. It insures the safety of the foods we eat, and it regulates one-
fourth of every dollar Americans spend. Yet, the FDA budget is only 
one-tenth of 1 percent of the industries it regulates. Its employees 
work in facilities that are out of date and in decrepit condition.
  Currently the agency is located in over 48 leased and owned buildings 
at 20 different sites across Maryland and the District of Columbia. 
Many FDA facilities are in appalling condition. It has become 
increasingly difficult to attract the caliber of employees the FDA 
needs to perform its mission, especially with respect to drug and 
medical device product review.
  Who will ensure that the food in American grocery stores is safe? 
Will the manufacturers and the distributors do a better job? Will the 
pharmaceutical companies protect the public against dangerous drugs and 
medical devices? Must we have another Thalidimide scare before we 
appreciate the good work of this agency?
  Vote against the Bunning amendment and protect the health and safety 
of the American public.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
serious concern about the Committee Report accompanying H.R. 1976, the 
fiscal year 1996 Agriculture appropriations bill, which contains a 
provision that will seriously affect the availability of food on Indian 
reservations nationwide, and will dramatically increase hunger and 
hardship for some of America's most underserved population, our low-
income Native Americans.
  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 will be transferred to 
the Food Stamp Program.
  This small non-controversial program has not been a target for cuts 
under any previous administration. The administration requested $78.6 
million for reservation commodities in fiscal year 1996. The 
Committee's bill provides for $65 million for commodities, a difference 
of $13.6 million (17 percent). Should this severe underfunding and 
eventual phaseout proceed, more than 110,000 Native Americans on 
reservations in 24 States will be virtually cut off from monthly food 
supplements. This misguided shuffling of programs would result in 
increased costs to the Federal Government and add to our ever-
increasing deficit.
  When Congress and the Nixon administration instituted the Food Stamp 
Program nationwide in 1974, one exception was made. Then, as now, the 
supply of commodity food items directly to Indian tribes for 
distribution among low-income tribal members made better economic sense 
than the State-administered Food Stamp Program. Indian reservations are 
some of the most remote and sparsely developed areas in this country. 
Currently, Indians can participate in either the commodities or food 
stamps programs but not both. The Food Stamp Program requires 
individuals to trade food coupons for food at grocery stores. In many 
reservation areas, there are not many stores. Travel to stores may take 
hours by car. In addition, the prices for foods at on-reservation 
stores are generally higher than in urban or suburban areas. Thus, food 
stamps buy less food at reservation stores than off-reservation stores.
  In addition, while tribes operate the distribution of commodities, 
States operate the Food Stamp Program. Conversion to the Food Stamp 
Program will require Native Americans 

[[Page H7445]]

to travel vast distances to the nearest State food stamp office. Other 
problems with the Food Stamp 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 Stamp Program because stores are less likely to stock 
them. Without a continued commodities program, food shortages will 
result and people will go hungry.
  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.
  There are nine federally recognized tribes in South Dakota, whose 
members collectively make up one of the largest Native American 
populations in any State. At the same time, South Dakota has 3 of the 
10 poorest counties in the Nation, all of which are within reservation 
boundaries. In fiscal year 1994, 11,600 low-income individuals living 
on or near reservations in my State were served through this program. 
This poorly thought out reshuffling of existing successful programs 
will severely impact the health and well-being of Native Americans in 
my State and across the country.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman. I want to inform the body that I am a farm 
owner and am involved in the Federal Farm Program, as I had been for 
many years before coming to Congress. I believe my involvement in and 
resulting knowledge of farm programs make me a more informed member of 
the Agriculture Committee. While I will vote present on this amendment 
to avoid any hint of conflict of interest, I am in opposition to the 
amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill submitted by 
Representative Lowey barring those with off-farm incomes of $100,000 or 
greater from participating in Federal farm programs.
  First of all, farm programs are a part of this country's food 
security policy, not our welfare programs. Means testing ag payments 
make as much sense as means testing those who invest in Government 
bonds. The Clinton administration has repeatedly stated the need for 
outside investment in rural America. Landowners who own but do not 
operate farms represent outside capital that agriculture needs to 
finance farming, conserve soil and water resources, and support the 
economy of rural America. Forty-three percent of all U.S. farmland is 
owned by someone who does not actually farm the land. In my Illinois 
district some 70 percent is owned by absentee landowners. This provides 
most family farmers with the opportunity to operate on a scale that is 
economically viable. Land prices prohibit farmers from purchasing all 
the land necessary to provide for a viable operation.
  If landowners with off-farm incomes of $100,000 or more are 
prohibited from participation in farm programs, land leases will move 
from share-rent leases to cash-rent. A share-rent lease simply means 
that both the tenant and landowner split costs and production, both 
assuming risks inherent to farming. Cash-rent leases represent a total 
shift of risk to the farmer. The tenant pays the landowner for the 
privilege of farming the land, then pays for all expenses and keeps all 
production.
  I commend Representative Lowey for trying to reduce Federal spending. 
The problem is, this amendment will not save money. Shifts in rental 
agreements will prevent this from happening. Ms. Lowey's amendment will 
not reduce spending, but it will hurt family farmers.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman. I strongly support the Agriculture 
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1996. Not only does this bill 
provide much needed funding for farm programs, it provides vital 
funding for research in the field of nutritional health.
  The Children's Nutritional Research Center [CNRC] at Baylor College 
of Medicine is located in the heart of the Texas Medical Center in 
Houston. This center is currently our Nation's only Federal facility 
dedicated to investigating the food needs of pregnant and nursing women 
and of children through their adolescence.
  Since its inception in November 1978, the Children's Nutritional 
Research Center has focused on critical questions relating to women and 
nutrition. These include determining how the diet of a pregnant woman 
affects her health and the health of her child and how a mother's 
nutrition affects by lactation and the nutrient contents of her milk. 
The center also has researched the relationship between nutrition and 
the physical and mental development of children.
  In addition, CNRC has conducted amazing research which has identified 
the genes contributing to nutrient intake and determined the factors 
that regulate these genes. This research will lead to valuable 
discoveries in the field of genetics.
  This year, CNRC will fully activate the two remaining units of its 
research program, the Metabolic Research Unit and the Greenhouse. The 
Metabolic Research Unit will serve as the central laboratory for 
detailed nutrition studies in the center. The 12 apartments, 2 
nurseries, metabolic kitchen, and four recreational areas in the unit 
will allow family participation in CNRC's research activities. Studies 
will examine the nutrients associated with growth and development and 
the role of diet in birth weight.
  The Greenhouse will prepare plant foods to study the digestion of 
carbon, nitrogen, iron, and calcium in foods eaten by pregnant and 
nursing women and their children. Recently, CNRC scientists uncovered a 
major research breakthrough by using labeled foods to accurately 
determine essential and nonessential nutrients. The Greenhouse will 
further study this phenomenon and is unique among the Department of 
Agriculture's nutrition research centers.
  I am pleased that the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has 
agreed to maintain funding for the Children's Nutrition Research 
Center. Under the Guidance of Baylor College of Medicine, one of the 
premier academic health science centers in the Nation, I am certain 
CNRC will continue to lead the way in the field of nutritional 
research.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution No. 188 and the order of 
the House of July 20, 1995, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose, and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Crapo) having assumed the chair, Mr. Klug, Chairman of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 188 he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 313, 
nays 78, not voting 43, as follows:
  


                             [Roll No. 554]

  

  


                               YEAS--313

  

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     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
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski

[[Page H7446]]

     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Sabo
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--78

     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blute
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gutierrez
     Hancock
     Harman
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lofgren
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stearns
     Studds
     Stump
     Taylor (MS)
     Torkildsen
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Waxman
     Williams
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--43

     Abercrombie
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Brown (CA)
     Burton
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Cox
     Crane
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Foglietta
     Fox
     Gallegly
     Geren
     Goodling
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Johnston
     Lantos
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Moorhead
     Ortiz
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Seastrand
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Taylor (NC)
     Torricelli
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1734

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Watts of Oklahoma for, with Mr. McDermott against.
       Mr. Dreir for, with Mr. Moakley against.
       Mr. Ballenger for, with Mr. Stokes against.

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

                          ____________________