[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 161 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1975-E1976]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1976, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD 
 AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

                                 ______


                               speech of

                             HON. VIC FAZIO

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 12, 1995

  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
conference report for H.R. 1976, the Agriculture Appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1996.
  H.R. 1976 is not a perfect bill. Next year's bill continues an 
alarming trend in cutting important programs for agriculture research, 
animal and plant inspection, food safety and inspection, conservation 
programs, and rural housing and development.
  Certainly some savings have accrued from the reorganization of the 
Department of Agriculture and closing of numerous field offices 
nationwide.
  But we must guard against debilitating cuts that prevent these 
agencies from fulfilling their important missions.
  Cuts to research, cuts to inspection, cuts to food safety, cuts to 
conservation programs--we are short-sighted in cutting back on these 
investments in this, the most productive sector of our economy.
  But, despite my reservations about these cuts, we must judge the 
conference product against the House version of this bill, and we must 
judge it against what is possible this year and in this political 
climate--and based on these comparisons, the conference report is an 
improved product.
  The conference report improves upon the House funding level for 
research and extension. It improves upon the House funding level for 
food safety and inspection. It improves upon the House funding level 
for rural housing and economic development.
  I have particular praise for three items of importance to California 
agriculture and to my district.
  First, funds have been included for buildings and facilities 
construction within the Cooperative State Research Service, including 
funds for an important integrated pest management research facility at 
the University of California at Davis and at Riverside.
  Although some Members disagree with funding for these facilities, and 
the House bill contained no funds for this construction program, the 
conference agreement is the right decision.
  It makes sure that our important agriculture research institutions 
who have worked in good faith over the years are not left high and dry. 
But it also directs the institutions to provide a specific and 
verifiable cost-share, and it tells them this is not an unlimited 
source of funds--it brings fair closure to this account over the next 2 
years.
  Second, the conferees fought successfully and in defense of the House 
position for the Market Promotion Program.
  There is probably no more important tool for export promotion than 
MPP.
  Agriculture exports, projected to exceed $50 billion this year--up 
from $43.5 billion for fiscal year 1994--are vital to the United 
States.
  Agriculture exports strengthen farm income.
  Agriculture exports provide jobs for nearly a million Americans.
  Agriculture exports generate nearly $100 billion in related economic 
activity.
  Agriculture exports produce a positive trade balance of nearly $20 
billion.
  If U.S. agriculture is to remain competitive under GATT, we must have 
policies and programs that remain competitive with those of our 
competitors abroad.
  GATT did not eliminate export subsidies, it only reduced them.
  The European Union spent, over the last 5 years, an average of $10.6 
billion in annual export subsidies--the United States spent less than 
$2 billion.
  The E.U. spends more on wine exports--$89 million--than the United 
States currently spends for all commodities under the market promotion 
program.
  MPP is critical to U.S. agriculture's ability to develop, maintain 
and expand export markets in the new post-GATT environment, and MPP is 
a proven success.
  In California, MPP has been tremendously successful in helping 
promote exports of California citrus, raisins, walnuts, almonds, 
peaches and other specialty crops.
  We have to remember that an increase in agriculture exports means 
jobs: a 10 percent increase in agricultural exports creates over 13,000 
new jobs in agriculture and related industries like manufacturing, 
processing, marketing and distribution.
  For every $1 we invest in MPP, we reap a $16 return in additional 
agriculture exports. In short, the Market Promotion Program is a 
program that performs for American taxpayers.
  The conferees have wisely held on to this important program in the 
face of ill-informed and short-sighted action by the Senate.
  Third, the conference committee has continued to provide important 
funding for special 

[[Page E 1976]]
research grants in the Cooperative State Research Service while 
continuing a significant commitment to competitive grants.
  The committee, sometimes in the face of significant opposition, has 
always believed there is a place for both competitive grants and 
special grants.
  Special grants ensure that particular attention is paid to regional 
needs, temporary needs, and agricultural research where a special 
project is required. The grants are fully cost-shared and generally 
leverage efforts that are already underway in many of our land-grant 
universities and other research institutions. The research projects are 
of limited duration.
  The conference committee has decided correctly to fund special 
research grants. The Russian wheat aphid and the viticulture consortium 
are not burning issues for most Americans. But in California, these 
represent important research efforts for agricultural commodities that 
are making significant contributions to our economy.
  I know the other special grants enumerated by the conference report 
are of equal value to other States and regions in addressing special 
problems, and I commend the conference committee for their support of 
these initiatives.
  In summary, this is not a perfect bill, but the conference report is 
a fair balancing of the many needs and many issues within the 
committee's jurisdiction. I commend Chairman Joe Skeen and Ranking 
Member Dick Durbin for their efforts in support of American agriculture 
during the conference committee deliberations, and I urge my colleagues 
to support the conference report.

                          ____________________