[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 28, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E226-E228]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              AGRICULTURE REGULATORY RELIEF AND TRADE ACT

                                 ______


                            HON. PAT ROBERTS

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 27, 1996

  Mr. ROBERTS.  Mr. Speaker, today we are introducing what some have 
called Farm Bill II. More accurately we are calling it the Agriculture 
Regulatory Relief and Trade Act of 1996. This is a small step toward 
providing American farmers with the regulatory relief that will enable 
them to compete in a very competitive global environment.
  Many of my colleagues have seen the Agriculture Policy Ledger. The 
Agriculture Committee has told farmers that there will be less money in 
the future but in return we have also promised less Government 
involvement in their lives. The Contract With America contained many of 
those promises. The Clean Water Act adopted by this House and awaiting 
action in the Senate would go a long way in addressing a wetlands 
regulatory nightmare.
  I am firmly committed that we should consider many of the policy 
issues impacting farmers in a calm and careful manner. This bill will 
lay the cornerstone for the Agriculture Committee's effort to provide 
some regulatory relief to producers in the agricultural policy area. 
This bill reflects our commitment to a two-track approach. The first 
track, the Agricultural Market Transition Act, contains the major 
spending items in the agriculture budget. The second track, the one 
that we are embarking on today, deals with many of the policy issues 
under the House Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction.
  I firmly believe rolling all of the budget and policy issues into one 
huge farm bill is a mistake. The Senate chose to pursue this approach 
and in that process ended up spending at least $800 million above the 
December CBO baseline. In fact, when you compare the Agriculture Market 
Transition Act to the Senate bill, we save over $5.4 billion more than 
they do.


              regulatory relief and reauthorizing the crp

  The conservation title of the Agriculture Regulatory Relief and Trade 
Act fulfills a promise we made to our producers during the 1994 
elections and the budget debate--in return for reduced Government 
support, we reduce the Government's involvement in their lives. The 
1985 farm bill established a partnership between the Federal Government 
and the farmers. That agreement in essence said we will provide income 
support payments in return for compliance with government regulations.
  However, since that time we have reduced payments by nearly two-
thirds. At the same time Government regulations have increased 
exponentially. This is the first step towards stopping increased 
Government regulation on producers and making the regulations that 
remain meet the common sense tests that all regulations should have to 
meet--technical and economic feasibility and a focus on results, not on 
process.
  The bill that I am introducing today with my subcommittee chairmen 
meets these tests. It protects the environment and allows producers to 
use their own innovation to meet environmental goals instead of forcing 
them to use the innovations of Government bureaucrats. This legislation 
will also halt several instances of regulatory overkill that have 
plagued producers since these laws were passed. This legislation goes a 
long way toward ending this overkill and putting producers back in 
charge of their land.
  Specifically, this legislation will expedite procedures that 
producers must go through when requesting variances from conservation 
compliance due to circumstances beyond their control. Conservation 
systems and plans are 

[[Page E227]]
clearly defined so that they are technically and economically 
achievable, are based on local resource conditions and can be met in a 
cost effective manner. Penalties will remain in place for producers who 
violate compliance, but will be tempered when producers unknowingly 
violate compliance. This legislation also encourages producers to 
request technical assistance from NRCS without fear of being found out 
of compliance and then penalized.
  We also move forward in reducing the paperwork burden on producers by 
consolidating cost-share programs that producers use to meet 
environmental goals. Through consolidation we allow producers to fill 
out one set of paperwork to access cost share programs, instead of the 
current system that requires producers to identify their needs then 
identify which government program they can access and then filling out 
duplicative government forms. This is common sense and should expedite 
the process. Finally, this legislation authorizes a new program for 
livestock produces to improve water quality. This is a mandatory 
program that is fully paid for and should help livestock operations 
improve the quality of rural areas.

  In addition, this bill provides for the reauthorization of the 
Conservation Reserve Program up to 36.4 million acres. This program has 
been a very valuable program that has been enormously popular with 
farmers, environmentalists, sportsmen and conservationists. Our 
provision is a simple reauthorization of the program, without 
modifications to the criteria for enrollment in the CRP.
  Mr. Speaker, this is common sense reform that both sides of the aisle 
should be able to support.


                        Government Credit Reform

  Farmers and ranchers learned the hard way in the late 1970's and 
1980's that they could not borrow their way to prosperity. All of us 
here in Washington concerned with Federal farm policy know that 
American taxpayers are increasingly unwilling to pay for a continuation 
of status quo farm policy. USDA farm credit programs that have resulted 
in billions and billions of dollars going uncollected are high on that 
list of benefits we can no longer afford.
  The bill introduced today seeks to realign Federal lending policies 
that have been patched together during the last two decades in response 
to the farm problems in the 1970's and 1980's. Statutory prescriptions 
that read like regulations are eliminated or streamlined by this bill. 
USDA farm loans should be used for income generating purposes to 
enhance our farmers survivability, not support environmental policies 
that are contained in regulatory activities under other laws. In that 
regard, the local Farm Service Agency credit office should not be a 
procurement agency for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The bill 
strikes this law.
  We all have heard the stories about the farm and home borrower who 
got his debt written down one day and bought a new pickup the next. Or, 
farmers, who are always the last to plant in the spring and leave their 
crops in the fields all winter, are first in line at the county office 
when it comes time to get their debt forgiven. Of course, a lot of this 
is coffee shop talk but, on the other hand, the General Accounting 
Office [GAO] has spent a number of years examining USDA lending 
practices and has found USDA to be lax or deliberately permissive in 
response to congressional wishes. There have been nearly a dozen of 
these GAO reports over the years.
  As a 1992 report says, ``Lenient loan-making policies, some 
congressionally directed, have further increased the government's 
exposure to direct loan losses.'' The GAO says the old FmHA provided 
$38 million in new loans to some 700 borrowers who had already 
defaulted on loans resulting in losses of $108 million. Half of these 
borrowers became deliquent on their second round of loans. This is 
nothing but throwing good money after bad, and I might add it has done 
nothing for the farmers but delay the inevitable. This kind of policy 
cannot continue.
  GAO looks at one borrower who ``* * * received a $132,000 direct farm 
operating loan from the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) even though, 
just 2 months earlier, he had received about $428,000 in debt relief. 
By March 1991, he was $28,000 past due on payments.'' This may be a 
single instance but is not likely to be unrepresentative when you 
consider the aggregate losses of billions.
  Unfortunately, the disposition of inventory property, including 
provisions that make otherwise viable farming units into easements for 
environmental purposes--all at taxpayers' expense--has been just as 
irresponsible. This legislation is designed to change those policies as 
well.


                                 Trade

  Farmers know that there will be less money to spend on production 
agriculture in the future. The money we do spend must be spent wisely. 
Farmers must be prepared to respond to agriculture trade in a post 
NAFTA and GATT world. GATT and NAFTA opened up the world markets. We 
still must be competitive and fight for market share. That is the goal 
of this trade title, to give farmers and ranchers the tools necessary 
to respond to the exploding world demand we see in the Pacific Rim 
countries, China, and Latin America.
  In the 70's exports were largely bulk grains. Today we are seeing 
more grain than ever move overseas, but it is in the form of processed 
products, beef, pork, and poultry. Red meat exports are three times the 
1986 level. Poultry exports are six times the 1986 level.
  The bill we are introducing today continues and fully funds the 
Market Promotion Program. While the MPP program has come under attack, 
I remind my colleagues that farmers and ranchers produce a commodity. 
By the very definition a commodity is just that--nondifferentiated. One 
bushel of wheat pretty much looks like another bushel of wheat.

  Any economist will tell you that the way to move more of a commodity 
is turn it into a value added product. Differentiate the product and 
you will add value. Convince the overseas consumer that U.S. poultry or 
beef is better and you have sewn up market share. That is the goal of 
the MPP program and we need to retain the MPP program. Exports are 
moving toward value added products and MPP will facilitate that 
movement.
  Specifically, the trade title allows credit guarantees for high value 
and value-added products with at least 90 percent U.S. content by 
weight.
  Next, it provides protection to producers of any agriculture 
commodity who suffers a loss due to an embargo imposed for reasons of 
national security, foreign policy, or limited domestic supply.
  The Secretary is given the flexibility to use the funds of the 
various export programs in ways that better accomplish the programs' 
objectives and to ultimately increase U.S. agriculture exports.
  The Secretary is given the responsibility to monitor compliance with 
the agriculture provisions and sanitary and phytosanitary measures of 
the Uruguay Round Agreement. The Secretary will report any country 
failing to meet its commitments under the Uruguay Round Agreement to 
the U.S. Trade Representative for appropriate action.


                           rural development

  The committee considered three important objectives when developing 
the rural development title: flexibility, local planning and 
decisionmaking, and sustainability. The rural development reforms 
included in this package meet all three.
  In regards to flexibility, GAO issued a number of reports concerning 
the cumbersome and counterproductive regulations associated with 
present rural development programs. The programs are small and narrowly 
focused and each is equipped with its own rules and regulations. Many 
communities do not bother applying for funding due to the time and 
money involved in completing an application. And, since every rural 
development dollar is designated for a particular use, applicants often 
apply for available, instead of needed, funding. The Senate bill makes 
some improvements in terms of how rural development money can be spent. 
However, all the regulations, limitations, and restrictions would still 
apply. Our bill provides maximum flexibility by consolidating all rural 
development funding and including precious few regulations. The 
regulations are essentially two-fold. First, the money must be used for 
rural development activities currently eligible for funding. And, 
second, the money must be used to the benefit of small towns, 
particularly those with 10,000 people or less. That's it. This kind of 
flexibility cuts costs and confusion, saves time and energy, and allows 
rural America to get down to the business of rural development rather 
than bogged down in the business of bureaucracy.
  A theme that dominated one GAO report is the need for local 
leadership and long-range planning in rural development. According to 
the report, ``each area has unique qualities that require customized, 
rather than off-the-shelf, solutions to its economic problems.''
  The report continues, ``While the effectiveness of Federal programs 
may be uncertain, their inefficiency in delivering benefits is self-
evident.'' Finally, the report concludes by recommending ``* * * 
exploring alternatives to the current set of Federal rural development 
programs, not merely better ways to coordinate them.'' While the Senate 
bill does throw a bone or two at State and local government, it 
jealously holds control of rural development programs in Washington--
settling for off-the-shelf solutions to local problems. Our reform bill 
promotes local solutions to local problems by distributing consolidated 
rural development funds to the States. In turn, each State may 
administer its own rural development programs in close consultation 
with local government and the private sector. It is worth noting that 
State and regional governments already administer 4 out of the 5 major 
sources of Federal funding for water and waste projects. The States 
will gain one more if Senators Chafee and Kempthorne's safe drinking 
water amendments become law. It just makes sense to turn these rural 
development programs--which include water and waste--over 

[[Page E228]]
the States to maximize coordination and get the job done.
  Finally, in regard to sustainability, we all know that Federal 
funding for rural development is shrinking, In a single year--from 
fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1996--funding for rural development 
will be cut anywhere from 25 to 43 percent, depending on how USDA 
arranges its portfolio--ratio of grants to loans and loan guarantees. 
With the possibility of even deeper cuts coming in order to balance the 
budget and to provide increased funding for some programs that usually 
see annual increases, rural development programs may be sacrificed. 
What will rural towns, hospitals, and water districts do when the money 
runs out?

  The Senate bill would wait and see. Our reform bill preempts the 
problem. It transfers administration of rural development to the States 
and requires each State to establish a revolving fund to be used for 
rural development. By capitalizing State revolving loan funds, which 
grown in size and operate in perpetuity, States can continue to provide 
rural development financing long after Federal funding comes to an end. 
In addition to sustainability, there's also efficiency in the State 
revolving fund. Even EPA Administrator Browner agrees that States--
through State revolving funds--can actually provide more money at lower 
interest rates than traditional Federal programs--and do it all faster.
  One final point in regard to rural development. I asked the 
administration and many Democrats on the committee who had concerns 
about this title to work with me to achieve flexibility, State, and 
local planning and decisionmaking, and sustainability. But, all I ever 
heard was the status quo. In light of GAO's criticism of current 
programs, I think we owe rural America better than that.


                                Research

  The bill provides for a simple 2-year reauthorization of the 
research, education, and extension functions of USDA. Research should 
be the cornerstone of our farmers ability to compete in world market 
places. A simple extension of authorities will allow the committee to 
finish the work we have begun on an extensive review of the Federal 
research programs.
  The Agriculture Committee has embarked on an extensive review of the 
Federal research effort. Last summer, I along with Representatives 
Allard, de la Garza, and Johnson sent out a comprehensive 
questionnaire. We asked researchers and research users what can be done 
better and how can we spend the $1.7 billion annual commitment to 
agricultural research and extension to make sure producers and 
consumers will have a competitive and safe food supply in the 21st 
century.
  In addition to the survey which I just discussed, the House 
Agriculture Committee has had the General Accounting Office conduct the 
first accounting of our Federal agricultural research investment since 
1981. This report will be delivered to the committee by the end of next 
month.
  Finally, we have scheduled a series of hearings this March and plan 
on producing a comprehensive rewrite of our Federal Research Program. 
Unfortunately, the other body has chosen to simply clean around the 
edges leaving in place research policies that fail to meet the needs of 
the agricultural sector as we transition into the free market. That is 
unacceptable and I urge my colleagues to support the Agriculture 
Committee in our effort to modernize USDA's research program.
  This is a board overview of the Agriculture Regulatory Relief and 
Trade Act. Taken together, it's a strong package that will relieve the 
regulatory burden in rural America, reduce redtape and provide a 
consistent and dependable export policy.

                          ____________________