[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 28, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1415-H1490]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 366 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2854.

                              {time}  1310


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
2854) to modify the operation of certain agricultural programs, with 
Mr. Young of Florida in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] each will be recognized for 1 
hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at long last the House of Representatives will now 
consider a farm bill, and in this regard I would like to make some 
commentary as to the reasons why we on the Republican side adopted the 
policy approach that we have.
  In that regard I think, unfortunately, during most of the debate in 
this regard to this year's farm bill, much of the rhetoric has ignored 
several basic facts. There are dramatic changes taking place that 
involve U.S. agriculture. Farmers are competing for increased demand in 
a growing global marketplace.
  The Congress is serious, finally, about a balanced budget. The 
political climate will not permit any rubber-stamped acceptance of 
status quo policies in agriculture or anywhere else. Farmers and 
ranchers know, boy do they know, the current farm program is outdated 
and in need of reform.
  So the question is, what kind of policy takes these givens into 
account and makes sense? After conducting 19 hearings, traveling over 
60,000 miles, and listening to over 10,000 farmers and ranchers, 
agribusiness men and women, and many others involved in agriculture, 
this is what farm country told us: One, they are sick and tired of 
regulatory overkill and demand regulatory reform; two, they strongly 
support a balanced budget. They know a balanced budget will save 
agriculture and farmers and ranchers $15 billion in lower production 
costs. They also requested a consistent and aggressive export program, 
and they want more flexibility and ability to respond to market signals 
and to make their own financial decisions.
  So taking all of these points into account, we have proposed an 
innovative approach to farm program policy. It has received the most 
debate of any farm program proposal in modern history. It was 
originally called freedom to farm, and is now before us as the 
Agricultural Market Transition Act.
  Let me explain the policy rationale. The original New Deal farm 
programs over 60 years ago were based on principles of supply 
management. If you control supply, you raise prices. Over the last 20 
years, the principal justification for the programs has been that 
farmers received Federal assistance in return for setting aside a 
portion of their wherewithal, that is, their acreage.

                              {time}  1315

  That assistance was largely in the form of something we called 
deficiency payments to compensate farmers for prices below a 
Government-set target price for their production. Today, unfortunately, 
that system has collapsed as an effective way to deliver assistance to 
farmers.
  Worldwide agricultural competition takes our markets when we reduce 
production. The more we set aside, the more our competitors overseas 
simply increase their production by more than we set aside. They steal 
our market share. In short, the supply management rationale not only 
fails under close scrutiny by the many critics of ag policy, it has 
enabled our competitors to increase their production and we lose the 
market share.
  As I have indicated, the Freedom to Farm Act, Agriculture Market 
Transition Act, was born of an effort to create a new farm policy from 
an entirely new perspective. Acknowledging that budget cuts were 
inevitable, that we must meet our budget responsibilities, freedom to 
farm set up new goals and new criteria for farm policy.
  No. 1, get the Government out of farmers' fields. No longer do you 
put the seed in the ground to protect your acreage base to receive a 
Government subsidy. Return to farmers the ability to produce for the 
markets, not the Government programs. And to provide a predictable and 
guaranteed phasing down of Federal financial assistance.
  By removing Government controls on land use, freedom to farm 
effectively eliminates the No. 1 complaint of farmers about the 
programs: bureaucratic redtape, paperwork, all of the regulations and 
the Government interference. Endless waits at the county ASCS office or 
the SCS office will end. Hassles over field sizes, whether the right 
crop 

[[Page H1416]]
was planted, or the correct amount of acres would be a thing of the 
past. Environmentalists should be pleased that the Government no longer 
forces the planting of surplus crops and what we call monoculture 
agriculture. And a producer who wants to introduce a rotation on their 
farm for various environmental or agronomic reasons would be free of 
the current restrictions.
  This bill builds on the conservation compliance requirements, the 
environmental requirements, if you will, of 1985 and 1990, of the 1985 
and 1990 farm bills, and positively impacts 300 million acres.
  This bill is the most environmentally responsible farm program in 60 
years. We will have more to say about that in the future debate. Under 
freedom to farm, farmers can plant or idle all their acres at their 
discretion. They are in control. The restrictions on what they can 
plant are greatly reduced. Response to the market would assume a larger 
role in our farmer planning. And divorcing payments from production 
and, by the way, we already started that when yields were frozen in 
1985 and we went to flex acres and we froze target prices and we cut 
target prices, that has already happened, that would end any pressure 
from the Government in choosing crops with which to pursue. So all 
production incentives would come from the marketplace and the 
individual farmer.
  In return for this, we proposed a guaranteed payment, the guarantee 
of a fixed, albeit it declining, payment for 7 years would provide the 
predictability and consistency that farmers have wanted and provide 
certainty to creditors as a basis for lending.
  Listen up, Mr. and Mrs. American farmer and your banker and your farm 
credit troop, any other lending institution, sit down with your banker, 
your lender, 7 years, you know what you are going to get. You can plan 
on it. It is a risk management account. You do not have to wait on the 
Congress.

  The current situation in wheat, corn, and cotton country, under which 
our prices are very high but we do not have any crops but large numbers 
of producers have lost their crops due to weather or pests, that would 
be corrected by this kind of a payment system. These producers this 
year cannot access the high prices. They do not have a crop. And 
instead of getting help when they need it the most, the old system 
really cuts off their deficiency payments and even demands they pay 
back the advance deficiency payments. What a time. We are blowing away 
in the Great Plains. We are bone dry. We have prairie fires. We do not 
have any crops.
  The current farm program says pay back advanced deficiency payments, 
and we get no payment, no disaster payments or no help. The freedom to 
farm ensures that whatever financial assistance is available will be 
delivered regardless of the circumstances, because the producer signs a 
contract with the Federal Government for the next 7 years. High prices, 
high payments, oh, we have heard a lot of criticism about that. First, 
the payments will not be high. You cannot cut annual spending in half 
compared to the last farm program bill over the last 5 years and have 
high payments. That does not work.
  No farmer, let me repeat this to all of the critics and you will hear 
it in this debate, no farmer is going to take his market transition 
payment and retire. Farmers will continue to farm.
  Second, under freedom to farm, the payments made to producers must be 
looked at from a new perspective. It is a transition to full farmer 
responsibility for his economic life, a risk management account.
  Just as farmers will need to look to the market for production and 
marketing signals, freedom to farm will require that farmers manage 
their finances to meet all the price swings. It is true that when 
prices are high, farmers will receive a full market transition payment. 
It is equally true that if prices decline, farmers will receive no more 
than the fixed market transition payment. That means the farmer must 
manage his income, both market and Government, to account for weather 
and price fluctuations.
  But under this plan, he makes the decision, not Washington, not 
Congress, not the ASCS office, not the SCS office. He makes that 
decision.
  In short, under freedom to farm, we authorize the market transition 
payments to farmers as opposed to the current program's deficiency 
payments, to serve as a form of compensation as we move U.S. 
Agriculture from an economy heavily influenced by the Federal 
Government to one in which our Government role is substantially reduced 
and the primary influence is the marketplace.
  The old program did provide market insulation for each bushel of 
production. But that system is collapsing under the weight of budget 
cuts. You have heard the former chairman of the House Committee on 
Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas, the Hon. Kika de la Garza, 
chairman emeritus of the committee. You have heard the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm], a leader in the farm community, a spokesman for 
agriculture. You have heard me, you have heard others talk about how 
farmers have already given at the office in regards to their budget 
responsibilities and that $65 billion in budget authority has already 
been cut from farm programs over the last 10 years. True. Nobody knows 
that in Washington, or very few know it in Washington. Not many people 
in the press understand that, that we have already cut ag spending 9 
percent a year for about the last 9 or 10 years.
  Well, what is to prevent the continued slow asphyxiation in regards 
to budget cuts and the amount of money that we should have in regard to 
a responsible farm program? Under freedom to farm, we enhance the 
farmers' total economic situation. In fact, under freedom to farm it 
results in the highest net farm income over the next 7 years of any of 
the proposals before Congress. You represent farmers. Under this plan 
you have more investment in production agriculture, more farm income 
than any other plan. We lock it up, and we still meet our budget 
responsibilities.
  Now, if you believe there will be no more budget cuts and no more 
budget reconciliations and no more budget battles, freedom to farm is 
not for you. If you believe that if farmers just hang on a little 
longer, their prospects for more Government support will improve in 
this climate, freedom to farm is not for you. If you believe that farm 
programs will not continue under the budget gun, that we will not have 
our fingers, our arms, our legs on the budget chopping block, freedom 
to farm is not for you.
  If, however, you believe that there will be more reconciliations, 
that the heat on farm programs--and you will hear amendments about that 
in the debate on down the road during the amendment process--if you 
think that this heat on farm programs will only increase and that 
Congress needs more than deep budget cuts to present to farmers and not 
so slow asphyxiation, then freedom to farm makes sense.
  Now, the severest, the severest critics of farm programs in the 
press, on television, major newspapers, have hailed the freedom to farm 
as the most significant reform in ag policy since the 1930's. We have 
received national acclaim from our critics of farm program policy that 
this is long-needed, long-awaited reform. Our congressional critics 
have also decided that our freedom to farm program represents the kind 
of reform that they can support, and they believe that it is the kind 
of reform that is needed.
  Nearly every agriculture economist who has commented on freedom to 
farm has supported its structure and its probable effect on farmers in 
the ag sector. We are at a crossroads now, folks. We can either sink 
deeper into Government controls and rapidly sagging Government support 
and a lack of investment in regards to our ability to feed this Nation 
and the troubled and hungry world, or we can strike out in a new 
direction that at least holds out the prospect of assisted transition 
to a private marketplace, a market-oriented agriculture.
  The Freedom to Farm Act is that new direction. We need to seize it. 
Now is the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2854 as 
currently presented to the House, and in 

[[Page H1417]]
support of three en bloc amendments which I will be offering. Let me 
preface this by saying that my opposition is in no way indicative of 
the actions of the chairman of the committee but, rather, Mr. Chairman, 
in past years we have had the opportunity to prepare comprehensive farm 
policy in a deliberate, all-inclusive manner. When we have been 
required to comply with budget reconciliation instructions, the House 
Committee on Agriculture has complied to the tune of $50 billion in 
savings from 1981 through 1993. However, in this particular farm bill, 
if you call it a farm bill, national farm policy for the next 7 years 
was developed by the Republican leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans are the best fed people in the world. They 
have a stable and abundant supply of nutritious food and pay a lower 
percentage of their disposable income for food than any other of the 
industrialized nations in the world.
  I would like to think that the House Committee on Agriculture, on a 
bipartisan basis and in spite of what editorial writers say, has played 
a constructive role in this success story. But that is no more, 
unfortunately. For example, last year Speaker Gingrich, the Republican 
leader, and the Republican whip wrote a letter to the gentleman from 
Kansas, Chairman Roberts. That letter dictated to the Committee on 
Agriculture, in no uncertain terms, the specific policy option that the 
committee was to choose in order to meet its reconciliation savings.
  No room was left for the committee to deliberate, for the committee 
to obtain views of farmers, of consumer groups, of the administration. 
That leadership-dictated policy was the foundation of what is now 
included in H.R. 2854.
  Mr. Chairman, the policy included by decree of the gentleman from 
Georgia, Speaker Gingrich, in the bill now before the House was first 
introduced as a bill in August. In a blatant rejection of our sacred 
principles of open government, our committee did not hold one single 
hearing on this proposal and still has not to this day. There were 
other hearings held to gather information, much before this time, but 
none on the proposal itself.
  Mr. Chairman, farmers in every region of this country have very grave 
concerns about the agriculture provisions before this House. They 
represent a sudden and dramatic abandonment by the Government of its 
role in sharing the farmer's risk. Farmers are particularly concerned 
that a sudden withdrawal of the Federal Government may make the 
difference in their fight to stay on the farm. Yes, they may know that 
each year they will get a cash payment, but if prices collapse next 
year, will that payment be enough? If wheat prices fall to $2.50, how 
many wheat farmers will be out of business in Kansas, in the Dakotas, 
in Washington States? If cotton prices fall back down to 45 cents, how 
many cotton growers spread out all over the South and areas of the 
Southwest will survive? If corn prices are under $2, where will the 
corn belt be? What if milk prices fall to $9. How many of New England's 
dairy farmers make it?

  Mr. Chairman, farmers will hope for the best. But if the best does 
not materialize and a substantial base of our food and fiber production 
capacity is lost, will we feel that it was worth the risk?
  All these questions, Mr. Chairman, and we have no answers; not even 
opinions. All we had in the Committee on Agriculture this year were a 
few votes. No discussion. No consideration of the views of farmers, the 
consumers, the businesses that thrive on the products of agriculture, 
those hearings on which we have always heavily relied. The policy 
before the House was not aired out in the Committee on Agriculture, it 
was dictated by the Republican leadership. When a bipartisan majority 
of our committee defeated this bill last fall, the Republican 
leadership nevertheless packaged it with tax cuts and health care 
program changes and forced it on the floor.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Chairman, it was inevitable that the President would veto that 
bill and he did, and I agree that it should have been vetoed. Rather 
than acting quickly to move farm policy forward, our committee sat 
until the end of January and did nothing. Only in the hours before a 3-
week congressional break did our committee finally act, and again I 
respectively state this is through no fault of the chairman of the 
committee. The actions were held in other areas by other people.
  Mr. Chairman, a further frustration to us is that farm policy 
continues to be driven by outdated decisions. The Republican leadership 
continues to insist on cutting over $13 billion from agriculture 
programs. We know that these cuts were not conceived in the context of 
any consideration to good farm policy. We were cutting acting with 
numbers in a vacuum only. We have to attach faces and places to 
legislation. This has not been done to this day. Rather, the decision 
to cut the very heart out of farm programs was integral to the radical 
Republican policy of cutting $270 billion out of the rate of increase 
in Medicare and providing for a $245 billion tax cut. This 
has fluctuated, it has changed up and down, and the administration has 
become involved in these overall considerations, all of it outside of 
the realm of the members of the Committee on Agriculture.

  Mr. Chairman, all parties have now conceded that any tax cut will be 
for less, as will reductions in health care program spending as we move 
forward to a balanced budget. No committee in this House has provided 
more for a balanced budget than the Committee on Agriculture. Had every 
committee done what we have done, we would not be worrying about a 
balanced budget at this point in time. If the enormous tax and Medicare 
cuts have been abandoned, is it not also time to recognize that the 
size of the cuts ordered for agriculture should be reexamined? Those 
policies were after all the driving force behind the Republican 
decision to cut $13 billion from agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in a difficult position. Time is not available 
to fully address the errors that have been committed in this flawed 
process. There will be some who would say, well, there will be a 
conference. Conference has limitations, limitations that restrict 
activity by members of the conference. Farmers who should have already 
made crucial farming decisions are kept waiting. The very fact that we 
have not acted yet has jeopardized agriculture. Action in farm policy 
for 1996 must be taken and taken quickly.
  In that light, our No. 1 priority is to make what changes we can in 
this flawed bill to strengthen our farm economy and its rural base.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill is titled the ``Agriculture Market Transaction 
Program,'' and we believe that few have escaped the meaning of the term 
``transition'': That the Federal Government will withdraw completely 
from its partnership with the producer in providing for the food 
security of our Nation. And I have just come back from my district and 
other parts of Texas, and they now say that ``this bill is not what we 
were talking about.'' We want to reduce regulation; we want to reduce 
needless spending. We did not want to say ``take the Government 
completely out as we act in unison, together, for the betterment of 
America.''
  So they did not say that we should withdraw completely from the 
partnership with the producer in providing for the food security of our 
Nation. However, if such a transition is to occur, we believe that now 
is an appropriate time for investments to be made with the 
posttransition period in mind.
  Regretfully, the rule does not provide for that. It is limited in 
scope, it is limited as to how many amendments, what type of 
amendments. Many of you heard the chairman of the Committee on Rules: 
We did this because we did not want this many more amendments from 
Wisconsin, and so on. Toward the end, Mr. Chairman, we proposed to 
increase the Department of Agriculture's authority to invest in the 
rural infrastructure, water deliveries, sewage disposal. We propose to 
increase this authority to make investments that conserve and protect 
our natural resources, and we propose to make crucial investments in 
agriculture research, education and extension.
  Yesterday I was in my district, for a meeting of rural housing 
representatives and all you need to do is go down there and you will 
see the immense need in rural housing, and as I told them and I repeat 
to you today, the creature of G-d has a certain level of 

[[Page H1418]]
dignity mandated by laws beyond, beyond our country and beyond this 
Chamber. The human dignity that needs to be addressed includes decent 
housing so that those of higher intellect have a decent place to live. 
Only within government can we form a partnership. Earning a minimum 
wage is not going to allow someone to buy housing for them and for 
their family, and we have hundreds of thousands of those people, but 
yet we are not addressing those areas.
  We propose to ensure that our highly productive oilseed industry, 
which will receive no benefit from the bill's contract payments, is 
able to continue to compete effectively in world markets. We would 
delete the set level for the oilseed market loan in the bill, which is 
set at an arbitrary fixed amount, dealing in a vacuum, and replace it 
with a formula based on actual market prices.
  Finally, we believe that our agriculture sector is so important to 
our Nation that we deserve a farm policy debate in 2002. To ensure that 
debate, we propose to retain permanent farm support authority.
  Therefore, on behalf of Democratic members of the Committee on 
Agriculture, I will offer three amendments en bloc, the first, authored 
by the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. The amendment 
would provide the Commodity Credit Corporation with the authority to 
dispense $3.5 billion of its funds for rural development conservation 
and research, education and extension.
  The second was written by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. 
Johnson], who has been a tremendous inspiration in this endeavor. It 
would set the loan rate for oilseed marketing assistance loans at 85 
percent of the 5-year average price for oilseeds, excluding the high 
and the low years.
  The third would strike the provision of the committee substitute 
which repeals the permanent farm law.
  Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed over this process. Our people deserve 
better from this Congress. We have been the partnership. The experts 
and the major periodicals in New York and San Francisco and Orange 
County; I keep reading editorials form Orange County about the farm, 
farm products, farm process, farm policy. We have in my family seven 
grandchildren who know more about farm policy that the editorial 
writers from Orange County, CA, Mr. Chairman.
  Also, I ask the committee and the Members to stay with us on the 
amendments that we will be opposing. Many of those amendments that were 
granted are aimed at satisfying the needs of major media. They have not 
spoken to agriculture. They have not spoken to rural America. They have 
not spoken to the people. They are looking at that headline in the 
major periodical. Would you trust a newspaper in New York City to set 
the policy for the farmers and ranchers of America? And, needless to 
say, Mr. Chairman, of all of the matters involving the budget, we have 
met our commitment.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, let me say that everything that we do as 
far as production in this country, manufacturing, industrial 
production, everything is in deficit as far as international trade is 
concerned. Everything is deficit. That is the free market. It is in 
deficit. Dollars are flowing out, dollars we do not have. The only 
thing that is bringing money back, green back, green dollars back, is 
agriculture. The only thing that is positive is agriculture. And yet 
they say subsidy, subsidy, subsidy. Look at this chart. You cannot see 
the line at the bottom. That is how much of an impact we make on the 
budget, seven-tenths of 1 percent is agricultures share of the 
trillions of dollars we spent on the budget.
  And then here is a major one. The green is agriculture. The red is 
everything else. The red is in deficit, has been. Except for selling a 
few high tech items and airplanes, agriculture is the only one bringing 
money back from abroad.
  So saying we need a new direction, we need another this, another 
that, what we need is, with the help of the good Lord, a little more 
rain here and less rain there, and a policy that manages, I do not care 
how you slice it. Every company, every industry manages, manages, and 
we cannot go and face the world because all other countries, most of 
them camouflage support of their agriculture and we would be the only 
one that does not support agriculture under the guise of satisfying our 
New York newspaper who says the free market.

  The free market has never existed. There has always been some 
manipulation. There will be more manipulation, and we are shooting 
ourselves in the foot when we yield to those pleas for liberators so 
that we can be eaten by those that camouflage their intentions and 
their agriculture.
  We need strong agriculture, we need to have a program where the 
government participates, and this program unfortunately phases out. 
Yes, you will get a little money. If somebody goes to Las Vegas and 
they win the first thing on the machine and second thing on the 
machine, they say we got it. Stay there long enough and you have lost 
it all. This is what this is going to do, show a little money, show a 
little candy up front. Eventually, 7 years, we are off and away and we 
will be as loose as that satellite that broke from the tether up in the 
skies the other day. It is loose out there and heaven knows where it is 
going to be. We do not want American agriculture to be in that 
condition.
  So I urge Members to support those amendments that might make this a 
little better, oppose those that try and destroy programs that have 
worked. We are the best fed people in the world, we spend less money 
than everyone else in the world, and, oh, the sugar, sugar, sugar. We 
are talking about jobs, jobs for Americans, and if you open up and the 
world unloads all the sugar, we are not going to have a sugar program 
and the people are not going to have lower prices in sugar. Even now 
when we did not have a sugar program the prices skyrocketed, 
skyrocketed to the consumer. When we have held it down to a level, when 
we have reduced, the product at the retail store did not come down, the 
product that they talk about the consumer as being gouged, that did not 
come down at all, the soft drinks, all of the cookies, all of the 
candies. They did not come down at all. We kept paying the same. But 
yet they blame it all on the program.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members that have listened will 
agree with us also that we need stability. Stability can only be done 
in a partnership. That partnership has worked and is working, and I 
hope that we continue it.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the observation to my dear friend 
and colleague from Texas that the New York Times editorial board did 
not sit in our offices when we constructed the Freedom To Farm Act, and 
we would not want them to sit there, but at least in terms of their 
opinion, it would be helpful if they would not perjure agriculture as 
he has indicated.
  Let me also say that the gentleman from Texas is affectionately 
called the chairman emeritus of the House Agriculture Committee for 
good reason. He has been a champion of agriculture, he has furnished us 
outstanding leadership, he is regarded all over the world as a 
Secretary of State of Agriculture.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Chairman, I checked with his seven grandchildren, who have 
mentioned they are going to have an appreciation night for Kika, pardon 
me, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], as of tomorrow in his 
home State of Texas. Of the seven grandchildren, four have endorsed the 
freedom-to-farm concept.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
farm bill, and am proud to say I was one of the nine original sponsors 
of the first freedom-to-farm bill.
  Last year, Mr. Clinton killed freedom to farm when he vetoed the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
  But make no mistake about it. Today's bill still lives up to that 
nickname.
  It still lets the folks who actually grow crops decide what to 
plant--and how much. They know their own soil better than all the 
Washington Bureaucrats combined. It cuts Government intrusive paperwork 
and provides the needed safety net for farmers.

[[Page H1419]]

  In less than 2 years of representing Kentucky's Second District, I've 
spoken with hundreds of farmers. From the Second District alone, more 
than 45 members of the Kentucky Farm Bureau are here today, waiting for 
us to pass this bill.
  If there's one thing nearly all of them agree on, it's that they'd 
rather spend time planting and harvesting crops than filling out 
Government paperwork. Or drawing lines on maps.
  I think they may be even more excited about our crop insurance 
reform. After the President signs this bill, farmers won't be forced to 
buy crop insurance just to participate in Government programs.
  I think many of them will continue to but it, but these businessmen 
and women didn't appreciate being told to do so.
  They're pretty independent folks, and they're looking forward to 
getting some of the burden of big government off their backs.
  They're also pretty conservative folks. They care about the future of 
their children, and grandchildren. And they've told me they're happy to 
help balance the budget if they can spend more time in the fields and 
less at the ASCS office.
  They're still looking for further regulatory reform, and tax cuts 
that will help them stay in business, or pass on the family farm. We 
need to continue to pursue these farmer- and family-friendly measures.
  Mr. Chairman, today we begin to overhaul our Nation's 60-year-old 
agricultural policy. I congratulate Chairman Roberts' courage and 
vision on this matter.
  This is truly the most sweeping change in farm policy since the New 
Deal.
  It's good for farmers, it helps us move toward a balanced budget and 
it doesn't pull the rug out from under the people who feed our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, let's continue to lead, let's pass the farm bill.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to what has 
been called by the author of this bill as freedom to farm. I call it 
freedom not to farm, because if anybody reads this bill, they will find 
that farmers are able to get payments, and they are not little 
payments, able to get payments and they do not even have to farm.
  That is right. I will repeat it. Farmers get payments and they do not 
even have to farm. It is not just 1 year, it is for 7 years. It is not 
for a few dollars, like a recipient of AFDC or food stamps gets. We are 
talking about $80,000 to some farmers. We are talking about some 
farmers over a period of 7 years getting well over a quarter of a 
million dollars, and they do not have to farm.
  Many of those farmers are not the little farmers. These are medium-
size farmers, but they have a lot of farmland. The amount of farmland 
they have gives them the number of acreage that they have been farming, 
at least 1 out of the last 5 years, the amount of payment. They can get 
$80,000, and then if they have cotton and a marketing loan program, 
they can get another $150,000. That is $230,000 in 1 year. They can 
also make a half a million on the farm operation and still get the 
$230,000.
  There is something wrong here, folks. This is not getting government 
off your backs. This is high-priced welfare. This is not cheap welfare. 
This is real high-priced welfare. This is not a little $300 a month 
AFDC or an $80 a month Food Stamp Program, these are thousands of 
dollars, and over a period of years, over $1 million to some farmers, 
over $1 million to a farmer.
  What is going on? I thought we had a budget crisis. I though we had 
problems with money. We are going to give $36 billion away in the next 
7 years, and farmers do not have to do a thing if they do not want to. 
If they want to, that is fine, but they do not have to.
  Instead of calling it freedom to farm, I would call it freedom not to 
farm. I do not know why they object. I had an amendment that I asked to 
be put in order, but the Committee on Rules did not permit it. It said 
at least you have to plant some crops in order to get a payment. I 
think that is reasonable. I think most people would think that is 
reasonable. But the Committee on Rules no, you cannot have that 
amendment; we are not going to permit that because we do not want 
farmers to have to plant crops in order to get these payments.
  I think it is terrible that this House would even consider making 
these kinds of payments to a very few number, about 28,000 people 
throughout the United States, out of 250 million in order to pass 
freedom not to farm.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, it is with personal pleasure that I yield 
3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas], a 
very viable member of the committee. The gentleman not only brings 
expertise to the Committee on Agriculture, but he is a real, live 
farmer and cattleman.
  (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2854, the 
Agriculture Market Transition Act of 1996. It is the agriculture policy 
that will shape rural America as we head into the 21st century.
  This new farm policy is based on four basic themes: The current 
program is flawed and must be reformed; the Government must get out of 
the farmer's fields; farmers must have the ability to produce for the 
markets, not Government programs; and finally, we must provide a 
predictable and guaranteed phasing down, but not out, of Federal 
financial assistance in farm country.
  Taking these basic themes into account, we on the Agriculture 
Committee formulated the Agriculture Market Transition Act.
  To those who will say that this bill does not contain true reform, I 
would encourage you to wake up and smell the coffee. This bill is the 
biggest change in farm policy that we have seen since 1949. This 
includes peanuts, sugar, and dairy.
  Many during this debate will cite high commodity prices as a reason 
for sinking this reform. This argument has no merit. High prices are a 
result of a short harvest last year and another dismal crop projection 
this year. Sure my producers would enjoy $5 wheat if they had a crop to 
sell. But the reality is that the High Plains from west Texas to the 
Canadian border are in financial turmoil.
  At the time of my producers greatest need, Uncle Sam's current 
assistance program is no help. For in a time of short crops and high 
prices, the current program asks for money back. It is truly senseless.
  Colleagues, in short, the current program doesn't work. Our job on 
the committee and in this Congress is to construct a program that will 
stop this bleeding. I believe the Agriculture Market Transition Act is 
the best way to do this.
  My friends, agriculture is truly at a crossroads. It is time we break 
the bonds of the old and ring in a market oriented program that will 
guide us into the next century. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
2854 without significant amendment. The future of rural America depends 
on its passage. We must have a farm bill.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dooley].
  (Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the freedom 
to farm proposal. I think all of us would agree that there is an 
appropriate role for Government in farm policy. That is to provide a 
safety net for farmers in those years of a price collapse. It is to 
provide for assistance in breaking down unfair trade barriers that 
prevent our U.S. farmers from being competitive in the international 
marketplace, and also to provide assistance in the research that can 
ensure that our farmers will have the technology to be the low-cost 
competitors in the world. But it is not an appropriate role of the 
Federal Government to ensure that taxpayers of this country are going 
to be making $36.5 billion in payments to farmers over the next 7 
years, regardless of what commodity prices may be.
  Today if Members would go into any of the commodity markets on the 

[[Page H1420]]
  major farm programs, they could forward contract in December 1996 on 
cotton, corn, wheat, barley, and oats, at a price that is higher than 
the target price today, on which our subsidies are based.
  On corn and cotton, you can forward contract into December 1997, 
covering 2 crop years, at a higher price than the target price. Under 
the current farm programs, the taxpayers of this country will be making 
minimal outlays to farmers. But under freedom to farm, what happens? We 
are asking the taxpayers of this country to lay out $5.6 billion in 
this next year, and $5.4 billion in the following year. This is just 
not good policy, and it lacks all common sense.
  In fact, we can be thankful that the same people that put together 
this agriculture reform were not the ones that devised our welfare 
reform, for if they were, we would be ensuring that anybody who 
received a welfare payment in 1 out of the last 5 years, that we would 
give them a welfare payment, guaranteed, for the next 7 years 
regardless of what happened to their income. They could win the lottery 
and the taxpayers of this country would still be obligated to write 
them a check for 7 years.
  This is bad policy. It does not ensure that farmers in the future 
will have that safety net; not a safety net that guarantees them a 
profit, but a safety net that ensures that when we have a price 
collapse, when income is low, that the Federal Government will be there 
to ensure that we do not have widespread bankruptcies throughout this 
land.
  Oftentimes people have contended that this freedom to farm is a 
transition to an era without subsidies. The gentleman, the Republican 
from Oklahoma, just recently responded that he hopes we look at this as 
a transition, not to transition out of programs, but to move into a new 
era. He is still hoping we have some financial obligations or money 
going into the agriculture sector post-freedom to farm.
  What we ought to be doing is devising a farm policy in this country 
that ensures that our farmers are going to have the tools to be 
competitive in the international marketplace. Freedom to farm does not 
provide that.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], a good friend and a good 
champion for the farmer.
  (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my strong support for H.R. 2845, 
the Agriculture Market Transition Act introduced by the gentleman from 
Kansas, [Mr. Roberts]. This legislation gives farmers what they want 
and what they need. It is a simple, consistent, and flexible farm bill 
to ensure successful family farming operations.
  I do not come to this floor totally out of touch with this issue. I 
was raised on a farm. My folks still farm. I spent 16 years as a farm 
editor before getting involved in politics some 12 years ago. I think 
this bill represents true reform for agricultural programs.
  Let us look at the reality of the situation. This body has become 
more urban as the years have gone by. We cannot get the votes out of 
this body to put together the kind of programs that have been put 
together in the past. It is just not there. Farmers are becoming almost 
like the eagle on my tie, an endangered species. There are not many of 
them left. Yet, if you ask the average person on the street what 
happens if we lose the farmers, their response is, ``It does not make 
any difference. I have Safeway.'' They just do not understand what is 
involved in the food chain. So this is the one piece of legislation 
that can rescue farmers.
  I guess it boils down to where do you put your faith? Do you trust 
farmers, or do you trust bureaucrats and political appointees? I am 
going to go with the farmers. The farmers want the liability to produce 
for the market instead of a Government program. They want the ability 
to manage their land in a resourceful type fashion, without burdensome 
controls and regulations. This legislation must be passed now.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)

                              {time}  1400

  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank by colleague, the ranking 
member of the Committee on Agriculture, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate today will include an amendment that is to 
be offered regarding the sugar program. I rise to take my precious 3 
minutes to address this amendment. Of all the Members who have sugar 
growers, as far as I can see in the statistics, it is grown to a much 
larger extent in my district than in any other Member's district. There 
are about 65 Members who have producers of sugar, both cane and beet, 
and we have a very, very large stake depending upon the outcome of this 
amendment.
  The Miller-Schumer amendment basically will eliminate U.S. domestic 
sugar production. All the market economists and specialists that I have 
spoken to indicate that if this amendment should pass today and should 
become law, it will virtually eliminate the U.S. sugar production. For 
myself and my district, it will mean about 6,000 jobs. So I ask the 
Members of this Chamber today in debating the farm bill to not talk 
about this abstract notion of commodities. We are talking about jobs.
  Listen to the Republican Presidential debates and you will see that 
the American people are concerned about jobs. When we talk about 
reforms, certainly, there must be reforms. We talk about cuts in the 
budget; of course, there must be cuts in the budget.
  But when you look at the sugar program, there is not one penny of tax 
subsidy going into this program, so why are we targeting this 
particular industry that is so essential? Are not farmers working 
Americans like any other workers anywhere else in our industries? What 
is the difference? These are hard-working people working under the 
standards that have been established by Congress, whether it is 
environmental, labor or health or whatever, and we want to shut them 
down in place of foreign sugar where there are no environmental 
concerns, no workers' standards, no environmental standards, no safety 
standards, and give a preference to foreign sugar so that a few of our 
mega corporations can make millions and millions of dollars at the 
expense of 420,000 jobs in America that are related to the sugar 
industry? It is mind-boggling.
  We are committed to the preservation of jobs in this country. We are 
not for shutting down businesses. Certainly, we are for balancing the 
budget, but no one can show me that there is one penny of taxpayers' 
money going into the sugar program. On the contrary, we are paying into 
the Treasury, and this bill that is coming up is going to add more 
money.
  I ask the Members of the House to think carefully about this 
amendment. Are we eliminating jobs and killing an entire industry?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], a valued member of the committee.
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to say to the chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture how much I appreciate his leadership through 
what has been a very difficult year with ag policy. We have stepped 
into a situation where we have had to meet budget constraints and 
agriculture has always been called on, even in years when we were not 
trying to balance the budget, to make cuts in our programs. The 
chairman of the committee has been a very valued asset to me 
personally, and I thank him for that leadership.
  Also to my subcommittee chairmen, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Ewing] and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], who have just 
done a super job in bringing us forward. And I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Emerson] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest] for 
their valued friendship and leadership. I cannot leave out the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. He has just worked so 
diligently, the particularly 

[[Page H1421]]
in the area of dairy. To my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la 
Garza], we on the other side of the aisle have had our disagreements 
certainly, but it has always been in a very professional and a very 
courteous manner, and I commend him for his leadership over there.
  Agriculture has always been the backbone of the economy of this 
country. I come from the largest agriculture county in the State of 
Georgia. Agriculture drives our State, and certainly agriculture drives 
my home county and the people there. Less than 2 percent of the people 
of this country feed 100 percent of the people of this country. We 
provide the safest, finest quality of food products on the shelves of 
our grocery stores of anybody in the world. We spend less than 10 cents 
out of every dollar on food products, whereas other industrialized 
countries like Japan spend over 20 cents out of every single dollar for 
food products. We are able to do that because of strong agriculture 
programs that we have in this country that provided those safe, high-
quality products and we have been able to stabilize the retail cost of 
agricultural products over the years. But times are changing. We are 
moving into the 21st century. The Agricultural Marketing Transition Act 
moves us in the direction. I commend the chairman, and I urge the 
support of that bill.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just heard some students out in the hallway saying, 
oh, they are just talking about agriculture and that is boring. The 
difficulty with this debate is, it is everything but boring because it 
is really the engine that drives the American economy and it is 
wonderful history and it is great culture and to understand what 
agriculture is, is really to listen to this debate.
  I happen to represent just one State that is very diverse in 
agriculture in California, and California farmers in my district, I 
think, are the most productive farmers in the world when they grow 
specialty crops. These are big crops in our area, but in agriculture 
language here in Washington, they are known as minor crops. Specialty 
crops produce 2.5 billion dollars' worth of fresh fruits, vegetables, 
and horticulture crops without any Federal price supports, without any 
other direct Federal support, including water. We grow lettuce and 
artichokes and strawberries and flowers and over 100 different crops. 
That is just in two, three counties in California.
  They have succeeded by embracing the full benefits of potential risks 
and of great market. They are models for American agriculture, and I 
believe that American agriculture must move in that direction to remain 
viable into the next century. But even market-driven agriculture needs 
a national farm policy. It needs conservation, it needs research, it 
needs rural development, it needs market promotion. These are all 
really crucial to our future success and sustainability. I think the 
issue about agriculture in America is to sustain it so that our 
grandchildren and great-grandchildren can still move into the same 
lands, hopefully not covered by shopping centers, and allow those 
great-grandchildren to be able to farm in this great country.
  The Federal Government has a deep responsibility to make sure that 
these programs help all of rural America. H.R. 2854 has some problems 
because it ignores some of the crucial goals of the American farm 
policy. While I do not like the transition program that is in the bill, 
I think it is too expensive and makes payments regardless of the 
farmer's production or market prices, it still moves agriculture toward 
the market, and I can support that. But I cannot support the bill if it 
also does not address the conservation issues, the research, and the 
rural development and I am particularly concerned that it does not 
address the loss of farmland to urban sprawl.
  I have coauthorized legislation with my good friend, the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], to help States address the troubling 
loss of farmland to urbanization, over a million acres last year at 
current rates. The States have taken the lead in helping farmers keep 
this land in agriculture and out of the grasp of urban sprawl, and the 
Federal Government should help these States with their efforts, and so 
far they are not. A version of our bill was added to the Senate farm 
bill by Senator Santorum. Unfortunately, neither this bill nor the 
conservation amendment allowed by the rule includes any farmland 
protection measures.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the bill without adequate funding for 
conservation, research, and rural development.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and commend him for the outstanding job that he 
has done as an excellent subcommittee chairman in addressing reform in 
many of our farm programs, particularly in regard to sugar and peanuts, 
the programs that probably come under the most criticism.
  (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, this is crunch time for this Congress. It is 
time for us to act on the farm bill. This will be the first important 
rewrite of the depression-era farm programs that have been on the books 
for decades.
  There is some very good news in the rewrite that is being proposed 
here today. The good news includes that American farmers should be 
better off and better able to decide what they are going to plant under 
this proposal that is before us today. It also is good news that it 
brings an end to Government control of farm markets and artificially 
inflated prices and limited food supplies. The environment is also 
helped by the legislation we will consider here today by removing 
current farm policy, which in some cases has been a disincentive to 
natural crop rotation, maybe to overuse of fertilizer.
  Taxpayers I think should also rejoice because there is savings in the 
billions in this bill for agriculture. Some critics carp that the 
reforms do not go far enough, and yet others say the reforms go too 
far. The Democratic leadership in the House says that the reforms go 
too far, while the administration says this bill is going to cost too 
much and it does not go far enough. But I think that means that this is 
a pretty good middle-ground reform measure.
  The legislation holds potential for far-reaching reforms in 
agricultural policies and will reverse several decades of farm policy. 
Congress should not miss the opportunity today to pass this bill 
because it includes less Government, less cost to the taxpayers, more 
production safety net for American agriculture, and market orientation. 
American farmers, American farm organizations know this is a good bill 
and there is opportunity in here for American farmers to prosper, 
certainly something this Congress should be for.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that the bill includes portions 
for peanuts, for sugar, for cotton, for dairy, for feed grains. The 
bill is a package. We cannot just pass part of this package. We must 
pass the package for American agriculture. Vote ``yes'' on this bill 
and vote ``no'' on those amendments that would gut this package.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Tejeda].
  Mr. TEJEDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise now to highlight a gaping hole in 
this farm bill. Missing is the Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance 
Program.
  For more than 50 years, this crucial program provided a vital safety 
net for livestock ranchers in times of severe drought. This farm bill 
eliminates that protection.
  When a severe drought hits, ranchers need assistance to maintain 
their livestock. The alternative for many ranchers is financial 
disaster.
  Ranchers must feed their livestock whether it rains or not--whether 
feed is plentiful or scarce. The Emergency Feed Assistance Program 
provides short-term help during such a crisis.
  Some of my colleagues who returned home to huge snow drifts may find 
this hard to believe. But right now, today, ranchers in south Texas 
face a sustained drought.
  Formerly productive pastures are turned into dust, with no end in 
sight. Rainfall since October is 9 inches below normal. With cattle 
prices low, the current drought may force many ranchers in my district 
to lose everything. 

[[Page H1422]]

  The Federal Government should provide a reliable program when 
ranchers need help preserving their livestock. Hard-working ranchers 
depend on us, American consumers depend on us, this program provides 
stability in difficult times.
  More than 1,000 ranchers in my district used this Emergency Feed 
Assistance Program last year alone. Without it, ranchers will have 
nowhere to turn in times of severe need.
  Ranchers look for all possible options during a drought, and turn to 
this program as a last resort. Under this farm bill, their last option 
will be gone.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Thornberry], a distinguished champion of agriculture.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the 
committee and all the members for the good job they have done in very 
difficult circumstances.
  Mr. Chairman, there are three things the agricultural economy in my 
district desperately needs. First is a good gain. No matter how 
important we think we are, I do not think we can do much about that. We 
need better cattle prices. I am not sure we can do anything about that 
today. Third, we need a farm bill. We are the only ones that can do 
something about that.
  It is too late now. We have got farmers, we have got bankers, 
fertilizer dealers, all sorts of people in the rural economies who are 
trying to make decisions, and we need a farm bill now so they can know 
what the rules of the game are going to be.
  I may not be thrilled with every nook and cranny of this bill, but it 
is something rural America can live with. It is something that will 
continue to provide an abundant, cheap source of food and fiber for 
this country that I think all too often we take for granted, and it is 
something that should not be broken up piece by piece, because I am 
concerned the whole thing would unravel at that point.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good bill. It ought to be passed. It 
should not be broken up, and farmers need to be able to get on about 
their business.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish that we could put the debate in context in that 
one would not go from one end and one would not go to the other.
  My distinguished colleague and friend from Texas just mentioned, 
``Got to act now.'' We had all of last year to act. But you were doing 
some contract business of some kind and forgot the contract with 
American farmers and agriculture. And also that we are forcing. No one 
has to join the program. Any farmer anywhere in the United States is 
free to do what he or she wants. They do not have to join the program. 
They can do the free market.
  I know agriculture, fruit and vegetables, they do the free market and 
do not rely to any extent on Government. But their costs keep 
escalating. The costs of seed goes up. The cost of fertilizer goes up, 
and you do not know what the market is going to be, up or down.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we must remember this as one Member comes on the 
floor, says his thing, the one that is not here comes and say another 
thing; I wish we could keep it all in context.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Latham], another real-life farmer and a very valued member of 
the Committee on Agriculture.
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman 
from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], for the opportunity to speak here today and 
thank him also for the tremendous amount of work and effort that he has 
put into this excellent bill, and the subcommittee chairs, the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Ewing], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], who have shown such great leadership all 
through this debate.
  This debate has gone on, I believe, too long. There has been a lot of 
obstruction set up. We could have had this bill done several weeks ago 
except for some Members in the minority stopped it through a procedural 
move, but it has been very, very difficult. We have had, I think, 19 
hearings. We have had thousands of people give us input. Farmers, real 
live farmers, themselves tell us that finally we need to break the 
central control that Washington has on agriculture, to finally let the 
farmers themselves make some of their own decisions and to really 
respond to the market that we have today.
  This debate has gone on and on, and through the committee process, 
and I am very pleased that we did come up with a bill that had 
bipartisan support from the committee to really free up agriculture 
once and finally after 60 years, to allow individuals to actually 
produce on their farms what they want rather than what some bureaucrat 
here in Washington tells them.
  If you look at what happened last year in Iowa, we had two disasters, 
especially in southern Iowa. One was a flood that went through, and the 
second was the farm program did not work, and the catastrophic 
insurance did not work for those farmers.
  What we are asking those people from last year to do right now, if we 
would continue the current central Washington control program, is to 
pay back deficiency payments because markets are high even though they 
did not have a crop, and it is going to break those people. We have got 
to reform this program. We have got to pass the bill today and pass it 
intact, and I appreciate the chance to speak.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in limited support of H.R. 2854--the 
Agricultural Market Transition Act. I say limited support because the 
inclusion of the sugar and dairy provisions of this bill are essential 
to key components of production agriculture in my district and in my 
State. Without them, I find little to support in this bill.
  Farm programs have already been cut by 50 percent in the last 10 
years. I continue to tell my colleagues that if other programs had only 
done half as much as agriculture, we probably would be spending time 
trying to deal with the budget surplus. But to continue to demand that 
farmers endure greater and greater cuts is a tremendous disservice to 
the most productive people in our economic arsenal. It is an insult to 
individuals who year after year generate the most positive returns on 
our balance of payments.
  Representations have been made that this sugar program is the same as 
it has been for the past several years. That is false. There are 
already significant changes proposed in the sugar program by this bill 
that I know many growers would prefer to avoid. The fact is that some 
changes have to be made to continue the program and some changes are 
being made.
  However, Mr. Chairman, there are some who dislike the sugar program 
because it makes sugar cost more. American consumers have been the 
beneficiaries of some of the most stable prices on sugar of any 
consumer in the world. Every other country in the world has a sugar 
price support program, so the constant reference to the alleged ``world 
price'' of sugar is a farce. That price represents the residual supply 
that is left over for trade when all of the other sugar supplied under 
profitguaranteeing contracts has been sold, and when domestic needs 
have been met.
  A smart businessman knows that if he makes a huge profit on 75 to 90 
percent of his production, he will still make a large overall profit if 
he sells the remainder even at a loss. That is exactly what is 
happening with sugar. How else can one explain that sugar is being sold 
for between 10 and 12 cents per pound--excluding delivery costs so 
don't even buy in to the price you hear quoted--when average production 
costs are over 15 cents per pound as demonstrated in study after study?
  In my 3 years in Congress, I have yet to receive a single letter from 
a constituent saying that the price of sugar is too high. So who are 
these supposed consumers who would save if the sugar program were 
gutted as some propose? Bakers, candy manufacturers, food processors, 
and soft drink manufacturers, that is who they are. The amount of sugar 
contained in a consumer package of their products is usually minor. 
When was the last time any of us saw a manufacturer drop the price of a 


[[Page H1423]]
candy bar, a box of cereal, a soft drink, a bottle of ketchup, or any 
other product by a penny or less? Certainly if those pennies are 
multiplied by the millions of units of production it turns into 
significant dollars.

  But the point is the consumer never has and never will see a price 
reduction due to minor changes in the price of an ingredient of a food 
product.
  Our support program guarantees imports of foreign sugar, and those 
imports are expanding. Our producers are forced to remain competitive 
and they have done so. The sugar program must stay in this bill to have 
my support.
  Our dairy farmers have also been singled out for mistreatment by some 
who believe that large corporate operations should be allowed to drive 
smaller producers. Dairy marketing orders have allowed reasonable 
competition without destruction of productive capacity. They should 
continue.
  Dairy farmers have been forced to pay assessments long enough. It is 
time to stop treating them differently than any other producer. This 
bill ends assessments.
  And the bill properly moves strongly toward greater exports of dairy 
products because we know that we need to have greater presence in 
export markets to take full advantage of the productive capacity of our 
dairy farmers. This bill does this as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I know some truly believe in the idea of transitional 
payments to end farm price supports, with the belief that now at a 
period of higher farm prices is the best time to do it. It is true that 
it is the best time from the standpoint of not putting producers in a 
precarious position this year.
  But I remain concerned about the future. If it is anything that a 
farmer knows it is that farm prices do not stay high. I am concerned 
about people who will change what they plant, because they do not have 
the production history to qualify for as large a payment as do other 
growers. I am concerned about young farmers who have not established 
any history, because the full brunt of this program falls on them. They 
will be producing for market price alone, and these are the farmers 
that we cannot afford to lose. If the young farmer disappears, so does 
our ability to have a stable food supply for the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I know all programs should be reviewed and many need 
modifications. Farm programs are not exempt. New paths are being forged 
here today that I hope will be in the farmer--and the consumer's--best 
interest for years to come. For that reason, I will support final 
passage assuming the bill in the end still contains the sugar and dairy 
provisions I have described.
  Our farmers are vital. They support their communities. They believe 
in and support their country. Most of the military academy appointees 
in my district come from rural areas. Our farmers deserve our support, 
and this is one Member that is going to give his to them.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood], a very valuable member of the 
committee.
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, it is a thrill for me to come down on this 
floor and speak on this bill because I think it is a very good bill. A 
lot of hard work has gone into it.
  Before I say anything further, I want to pay special compliments to 
the chairman of the committee. This will be his last farm bill in this 
House. I know that he will be working on many more farm bills in the 
other body when he goes over there, but you have done great work, 
Chairman Roberts, in cobbling together all of the different interests.
  I also want to pay my respects to the ranking member, who has added 
so much to farm policy in America over a long period of time, who is 
also retiring, not to the other body but back to Texas. And you have 
contributed mightily to farm policy in America, and I think I speak for 
Members on both sides who say we are in your debt to both of you for 
what you have done.
  We have a good bill. This bill was not put together on the spur of 
the moment. There were 19 hearings held around the country, one in 
central Illinois, where we had 500 people show up and talked to us 
about what they thought was important about farm policy; 60,000 miles 
were traveled. This committee has worked hard to put together a farm 
bill.

  The Agricultural Market Transition Act, formerly known as Freedom to 
Farm, is a very, very good bill. It will save the taxpayers of America, 
in round numbers, $13 billion over 7 years. It will cost somewhere in 
the neighborhood of $40-plus billion, but it will save an enormous 
amount, and it will make the reform that is necessary and is needed in 
farm country and also with relationship to food policy.
  This bill has the support of every major farm organization in 
America, and that is something that I think is also very, very 
important, because when you look at the diverse group of farm 
organizations in this country, they represent many different points of 
view. This bill has bipartisan support. Three Democrats on our 
committee voted for this bill, as well as all of the Republicans.
  In the Senate, a similar bill was passed with 20 Democrats. It is not 
identical, but it is similar to. It makes the reform that is needed.
  When we talk about reforming everything else in Government, we are 
also talking about reforming agriculture, decoupling agriculture from 
Government, getting the rules and regulations off the backs of farmers, 
giving them the flexibility to do what they know how to do best, which 
is plant and grow crops and provide the food and fiber for our country 
and for the world.
  It makes an awful lot of sense for every Member of this Chamber to 
support this bill, and for those who had heartburn about certain 
provisions, they have been allowed to offer their amendments and will 
offer amendments later on.

                              {time}  1430

  I think that the Committee on Rules has been very fair in allowing 
many different points of view to be offered in their amendments.
  So in the final analysis, I think it is incumbent upon all Members of 
this Chamber, both Republicans and Democrats, to support this bill. It 
is a good bill. It makes sense. For those who think we have taken all 
too long, at one time you were saying we have not taken enough time. 
Some say we have taken too much time. The time is now for foreign 
policy to be set so our farmers and ranchers across the country will 
know what the policy will be.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. The gentleman from Kansas, 
Chairman Roberts, deserves a lot of credit for the work he has done. I 
congratulate the gentleman, and encourage all Members in this body to 
support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2854, the Agricultural 
Market Transition Act. But, first, Mr. Chairman, I want to personally 
commend the distinguished chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, 
Pat Roberts. Pat, you have done a remarkable job. Your efforts are 
monumental and revolutionary. I wish you well in the future. Kansas 
will certainly benefit from your wisdom and tireless efforts for many 
years to come.
  Mr. Chairman, the Agriculture Market Transition Act is a culmination 
of voices from around the country. Chairman Roberts took the committee 
on the road to gather input from real farmers. The committee traveled 
over 10,000 miles and heard from 300 witnesses on what farmers and 
ranchers wanted in Federal farm policy. The central Illinois men and 
women, who testified, all first, second, and third generation family 
farmers, were unanimous in their call for less regulation from 
Washington and a more market-oriented program, which allows producers 
to grow according to market signals, and not edicts from Washington. 
The message was clear, Mr. Chairman: give the family farmer a break. 
``Let us decide what to plant, rather than bureaucrats in Washington''.
  The Agriculture Market Transition Act, with its 7-year guaranteed 
payments, does just that. It removes burdensome regulation and allows 
producers to get more of their income from the marketplace. It frees 
production agriculture to meet the food demands of emerging economies 
around the world, as more and more countries embrace democratic ideas 
and principles. This bill, Mr. Chairman, takes American agriculture 
into the 21st century to meet those demands.
  Mr. Chairman, the American public will not stand for the status quo. 
They want reform. This bill is reform. I urge my colleagues to support 
the bill.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 


[[Page H1424]]
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take issue with a couple of things the 
preceding speaker, a gentleman for whom I have great respect, just 
said. First of all, he indicated this bill is essentially like the 
Senate bill. In fact, I have major problems with the Senate bill, but 
it is a huge improvement over the bill before us. Such an improvement, 
in fact, that some of us sought to have it offered as an amendment 
today so we could vote for the Senate version instead of the House 
version.
  I am surprised that the rule just passed does not allow us to even 
vote on the Senate version, but I think it underscores the fact that 
this is not the Senate version of the farm bill before us.
  The gentleman observed the process has been terrific, wonderful, 
fair. I do not know what Committee on Agriculture he has been on, but 
it has not been the House Committee on Agriculture I have been serving 
on. In fact, there has not been one hearing, not one hearing, of the 
freedom to farm bill that is before us today. Can you imagine, the most 
significant overhaul of agriculture policy in decades, and on the 
actual bill the chairman does not schedule a hearing? That is what we 
have had to endure.
  Amendments, the gentleman said if they had problems with the bill 
they could just offer an amendment. Well, I should tell the gentleman, 
he is absolutely incorrect. I had a problem with this bill, a huge 
problem. I will explain it to you in a moment. but I tried to offer an 
amendment, and the Committee on Rules did not make it in order.
  Unlike prior farm bills that offered much less a radical overhaul of 
farm programs and were considered under open rules allowing free 
flowing debate and give and take, this is under a closed rule. The 
amendments offered make the bill worse. But if you have an amendment 
that made it better, they did not allow it.
  Here is where the bill falls apart. Its fatal flaw is that it fails 
to recognize the fundamental economics of family farming. Family 
farmers invest and expose hundreds of thousands of dollars every crop 
year.
  I do not care how good you are, there are two risks you cannot do 
much about: Production loss or market price collapse. Those are 
exposures that you just have to deal with. It has been the role of past 
farm programs to help family farmers deal with those risks. This bill 
does not help family farmers deal with those risks. This bill 
eliminates the protections formerly offered, protections which I and 
others call a safety net for family farmers.
  They have eliminated the safety net, but offered instead some up 
front payments, payments that look pretty good in 1996 and 1997, but 
ultimately eliminate the protections family farmers need to stay in 
business. That is where this bill is absolutely wrong and absolutely 
against the interests of every farmer, every community dependent upon 
farming, right across the country.
  I urge the Members of this body to reject this bill. It has been 
deeply flawed in process, but it is even more fatally flawed in 
substance.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin], a valuable member of the 
Republican Task Force on Agriculture.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I do have to take exception with the 
previous speaker. As it was pointed out earlier, there were 19 hearings 
held in order to put this bill together, so there was plenty of input, 
there was plenty of negotiation. This is a result of hours and hours of 
tough negotiations.
  As far as taking the safety net out from under American farmers, 
there are no better producers in the world than American farmers. What 
the role of the United States should be is to create a level playing 
field so that our producers can compete. Then they should see that the 
regulations for that level playing field are enforced. American farmers 
can compete every time.
  While this bill may not be perfect, it is a complete package. To 
attack or separate out one program is to threaten the cohesive hold of 
the negotiated package. This is a negotiated package. If the bill is 
ripped apart, there will be fewer benefits than if the complete package 
is adopted.
  I do not know of any person involved in agriculture that wants to 
remain under the thumb of the Federal Government. Again, what the 
Federal Government's role should be is to see that our agriculture 
producers are allowed to compete on a level playing field.
  Let me give an example. The sugar program is part of this bill. It 
has been greatly reformed, and yet it still remains under attack. The 
loss of the reformed sugar program will devastate the domestic 
industry. The domestic industry has taken part in these negotiations. 
They have given everything they can give and still try to keep this 
industry alive. There is nothing more that they can give.
  I commend the chairman and the committee for their work on this, and 
I urge that everyone vote in favor of the entire package and against 
the amendments.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to clarify what the gentlewoman just mentioned 
who just spoke and the colleague from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy, felt 
that his word had been challenged. I agree with the gentleman. One, the 
only thing that I agree with the gentlewoman is this is not a perfect 
bill, period.
  A negotiated package: I do not know who they negotiated with, because 
I was not a party. Any member of the minority was not a party. So I do 
not know who they negotiated with. I will state here and now that there 
was no hearing on the introduced bill which we are discussing now, no 
hearings.
  Now, they rambled all over the United States prior to the session, 
but basically all of that was lost because of this contract business 
that we wasted all of last year on.
  So the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] was correct, and I 
back him. There was no hearing at all on the introduced bill. It was a 
negotiated package? I do not know who they negotiated with, unless it 
was the majority with their leadership.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, it is a personal privilege and pleasure to 
yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], a close 
friend and colleague and esteemed subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
who knows more about nutrition and food stamps than perhaps anybody 
else in the Congress, a valued member of the committee.
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the distinguished 
chairman of the committee for the outstanding leadership that he has 
displayed in putting together a farm bill in very, very difficult 
circumstances as they relate particularly to the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2854, the Agricultural Market 
Transition Act. A definitive farm program plan is anxiously awaited by 
producers throughout the country as they begin planting the 1996 crop 
and prepare for a new crop marketing year. This bill provides the 
definitive farm program that farmers need while delivering the U.S. 
taxpayer a program that represents budgetary savings over the next 7 
years.
  For many years now, the American consumer has enjoyed the most 
abundant and affordable supply of food and fiber in the world. Our 
Nation's Federal agricultural policy is responsible, in part, for this 
success and it is on that foundation that we must work toward the 
future.
  The world around us has evolved over the past 5 years and now our 
agricultural livelihood must evolve in response to those changes. As we 
prepare for the next millennium of American agriculture, we will look 
to the future and see a global market that is more critical to the 
American producer than ever before. Moreover, in some reaches of the 
globe, the outlook has never looked so promising.
  The bill before us today is a step forward in the evolution of farm 
policy. H.R. 2854, the Agricultural Market Transition Act, mirrors the 
conference report of title I of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. It 
represents sweeping change in farm policy by presenting farm producers 
with greater flexibility 

[[Page H1425]]
to pursue profits from the marketplace, but retains elements of the 
policy that has served us so well over the years such as the 
nonrecourse marketing loans.
  This measure represents compromises made to help ensure that 
producers in all regions of the country will make a smooth transition 
to a more market oriented program. It also offers the regulatory reform 
and flexibility that farmers have been seeking to help them plant for 
the world market rather than the U.S. Government. Moreover, H.R. 2854 
moves future farming generations toward a more secure financial future 
by helping attain our responsible balanced Federal budget goals.
  I regret that, through the administration's veto of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1995, the White House chose to disregard the principles 
and fundamental goals of a balanced Federal budget. At the same time 
this lapse in farm policy has stymied the cropping and financing 
efforts of farmers across the Nation. However, today we have the 
opportunity to get fiscal policy and farm legislation back on the right 
track through the passage of this bill and I urge its adoption, without 
significant amendments.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I do so to commend the gentleman from Missouri, who 
just spoke. Unfortunately we do not have the nutrition part in this 
bill, but the gentleman has been a leader and has worked diligently in 
that area. Hopefully, we might soon get on to farm bill II so that we 
might cover those areas that our distinguished colleague from Missouri 
has worked so hard on. We thank the gentleman for his interests and for 
what the gentleman has done.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the distinguished 
chairman emeritus for his very kind remarks.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is not perfect, and the process probably 
could have been a lot better and a lot different than it was, but I 
think we lose sight that there are some good things in this bill. We 
are reforming the sugar program and extending it, something that a lot 
of people did not think we were going to get done, but we got 
accomplished in this bill.
  There have been, in certain areas, a lot of work done within the 
committee. I just want to talk about the dairy provisions. I wanted to 
commend the gentleman from Wisconsin, Chairman Steve Gunderson, and his 
committee for all the work that they have done in this area. The 
gentleman and I and others traveled to every part of this country to 
put together these dairy changes.
  People need to understand that this is the most significant reform in 
the dairy program that has been offered up in 50 years. Most of it is 
reform. We do some things to help the farmer. We get rid of the budget 
assessments. We do a lot of things that a couple of years ago would 
have been very controversial with farmers and people did not want to 
do. We discontinue the price supports on butter and powder immediately. 
We reduce price supports over time on cheese and make a number of 
reforms that frankly a lot of people thought we were never going to be 
able to accomplish.
  There are going to be alternatives put forward here that claim to be 
reform, but if one looks into them, one will find out that they are 
phasing this out over a long period of time. Historically, when we 
tried to get the order system changed and when the department even had 
testimony in their hearings that they ought to change the order system, 
it has not happened. In this bill we have order system reform mandated. 
There is a hammer. If it does not happen, the class 1 price 
differentials that are written into the statutes are going to be 
repealed.
  There is significant reform in the dairy area in this legislation. 
The committee, at least in that part of the process, did its work. We 
traveled all over the country. We worked on a bipartisan basis. We have 
come up with a bill here that I think we can all be proud of and 
support. I just hope that the people will not lose sight of the fact 
that there has been a lot of good work put into this bill just because 
there are a couple of areas that are controversial and we are divided 
on.
  So I voted for this bill in committee, and I encourage the support of 
my colleagues if we keep the dairy part of this bill in the bill.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho [Mr. Crapo], another valued member of the House Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to stand in support 
of this legislation today. There has been a lot of talk about whether 
we really are reforming and whether the right reforms have been made. 
The bottom line is that the big debate here is another playout of some 
of the big debates we have had over the last year. It is whether we 
want Government control of the agriculture industry or whether we want 
to start freeing up our agricultural producers so they can farm to 
market principles rather than for the Government.
  I think it is very critical to point out that we have heard a lot of 
talk in America for the last 4 or 5 weeks about the critical crisis we 
face in agriculture because Congress has not got a farm bill out. Our 
farm producers do not know what crops to plant.
  They do. Their lenders do not know whether they can lend to them and 
on what basis they can lend to them. It is a signal point that we have 
gotten to the point in this country when American agriculture producers 
have to wait for Congress to tell them what they can plant before they 
can make their planting decisions. That is what this reform battle is 
all about.
  There are a lot of people who will try to say, well, we should not 
have this kind of a freedom to farm approach because it does not 
connect with crop prices or we should not have this type of reform. But 
the real battle here, the battle we are fighting in this Congress on 
this issue as so many others is whether we should have the ability in 
the agricultural community, the agricultural industry in this country 
to make decisions about what to plant, when to plant, how much to 
plant, and all of the other decisions that have to be made based on 
market principles and market decisions rather than on a Government, a 
Federal statute.
  I held farm meetings in my district, 26 counties, and talked to those 
who produce the food supply for the people of our Nation. They told me 
that if we do anything in terms of reform, they want us to get the 
Federal Government out of the business of running agriculture. That is 
what this bill does. That is why we ought to support it.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, no farmer is forced to use the program. Letting farmers 
plant what they want, when they want it, how they want it, they can do 
that now. We were ratcheting down. We were reforming. We were changing. 
We are taking regulation down. We were doing that in a systematic 
manner, at the same time saving $50 billion. The previous gentleman, he 
would not listen when we mentioned and said the farmer wants Government 
out of his hair. Government can be out of his hair today and continues 
to be.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding time to me and also to rise and say, yes, farmers do indeed 
want a farm bill. They are complaining that they have no guidance from 
us. But I am not sure they are asking for this farm bill, and if we 
were sincere in wanting to respond to the urgency and to the emergency 
of the lack of a farm bill, we would have easily put on this floor the 
Senate farm bill as flawed as that is.
  So this is not really about responding to the urgency of it. This is 
indeed about changing how we respond to farmers in our communities. 
Traditionally, we have provided what we called a safety net, not 
necessarily any guaranteed payment. This proposal says over the next 7 
years we will guarantee payment that will be coupled from production 
and that will not ever guarantee 

[[Page H1426]]
people, even if they do not indeed plant their individual crops.
  We should have a safety net. A safety net recognizes that reasonable 
food, safe food is in the interest of America. We will not let our 
small farmers go down without having that safety net to retrieve when 
they need that. That is what this is about.
  Let us speak about what is not in this proposal. There are no funds 
in this proposal about rural development. What happened to all of our 
citizens, their opportunity for clean water, for sewerage, for housing, 
for the things that make it livable in our communities? We do not find 
that in this farm bill. And if we are talking about going to a market 
system, why are we not putting more moneys in development to enhance 
our farmers' new technology and new research so they can compete? There 
are no moneys in this particular farm bill for that.
  Again, we do not want to have food stamps, where we are feeding the 
poor. We want to take that out. Again, we want to decouple any 
relationship to the larger community to the farm bill. So this farm 
bill is not only deficient in what it has, but it also is deficient in 
what it does not have.
  This is a bad farm bill, either way you look at it. Perhaps more 
devastating, however, than what it contains and what it does not 
contain is how we derived this farm bill. This farm bill, we had no 
hearings on this floor or in our committee as an organization to really 
consider this. We went to some field hearings, yes, and I participated 
in some. But we would not take that collective information, bring it 
together so we could deliberate. That perhaps is the most detrimental 
part of this process. It is flawed in how we derived it. It is flawed 
as to what we are going to do to the poor farmers who are not going to 
have opportunities. Why would we be paying cotton farmers now high 
prices and cotton now is at a high price? It makes no sense, makes no 
sense.
  If we related the farm bill to the welfare reform, we really would be 
paying welfare mothers for the next 7 years at the rate they are 
getting for the last 5 years.
  If we made that comparison, we would see that what we are doing is 
guaranteeing paying our farmers in a welfare farm. Farmers do not want 
to be treated that way. They want to be treated with respect. They only 
want the Government money when they need it. Here we are guaranteeing 
it at a fixed rate, although we are sliding it down over the next 7 
years, and then we drop them altogether.
  I think that is unreasonable. It is unfair and this bill should be 
rejected on the face of it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Roberts] that he has 22 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. de la Garza] has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time and for 
his excellent work on behalf of reforming this agricultural program for 
America.
  Most programs in this bill that are being debated are subsidized 
American farm commodities. Sugar is not. Sugar is not subsidized 
currently under the farm programs. Sugar is the one commodity that is 
an import problem, not an export problem. Sugar is an import problem 
because across the oceans the sugar cartel exists that in many cases 
subsidizes the production of sugar in many countries and then has the 
capacity to dump undercost surplus sugar into our market unless we do 
something about it.
  The farm program has traditionally done something about it. It sets a 
limit on how much of this cheap subsidized foreign sugar can be dumped 
into the U.S. market. I can tell my colleagues what would happen if the 
proponents of the amendment to eliminate the sugar program succeed. 
They may or may not believe me. But I can tell my colleagues what 
really happened in the 1970's when the sugar program was not around for 
a 5-year period. What happened was for the first year, the dumped cheap 
sugar came in, American consumers were so happy. The price of sugar 
dropped about 8 cents a pound. Thirty-some-odd mills shut down in 
Louisiana. Sugar family farmers dropped out of business in Louisiana. I 
have got 20,000 families in the business in my district. They went out 
of business in the end.
  The bottom line is that after this awful destruction in the sugar 
farm economy, the price of sugar to the American consumer went up to 70 
cents a pound, a tenfold increase. That is what we are in for if we 
yield to those folks who want to end the sugar program and allow cheap, 
subsidized, foreign, dumped sugar to come in at unlimited rates.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat that amendment. The current program 
guarantees stability of prices for Americans at about half the price 
most other people are paying in most nations in the world. It 
guarantees the farmer a chance to make a living, a chance to survive, a 
chance to produce sugar for Americans made in America. Without the 
sugar program, that chance ends; 20,000 sugar families in my district 
are likely out of business, 420,000 Americans out of business, a $26 
billion loss of business for America. That does not make sense.
  We need to defeat this amendment aimed at killing the sugar program, 
because that is what it does.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], our distinguished colleague and a great 
leader in this effort.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I would say in the beginning that I agree 
with those that have characterized the bill before us as not a perfect 
bill. I would also agree with those that have characterized the process 
which brings us today as being deficient in many, many areas. But we 
are here.
  Now I would say, I think it is time to put in a good word for 
agriculture. There were some 74 amendments that were to be offered 
today, but under the moderately closed rule we only have 14. Many of 
those 14 are very harmful, extremely harmful to an already deficient 
bill. I would hope that my colleagues could rally and to keep some of 
these additional bills from passing or the amendments to the bill.
  Much has been said about market orientation. Let me point out to the 
House that since 1981, the 1981, 1985, and 1990 farm bills have moved 
us into the international marketplace. We have been quite successful 
because this year the expected exports of agriculture commodities are 
running at $60 billion. The trade surplus is running at $22 to $24 
billion. We are told that for every $1 billion there are 20,000 jobs 
that are created, so this bill today is a giant job creator.
  We will hear a lot about subsidies and expenditures and budgets 
today. Let us make sure we start the debate with a solid base, not the 
baseline but a solid base. The 1990 farm bill spent $56.9 billion. The 
bill before us proposes to spend $42.96 billion over 7 years. The 
previous was 5 years. The bill before us cuts not rate of increase but 
cuts expenditure on agriculture by 46 percent. Some of us feel that is 
too extreme for an industry as important as agriculture is. We fought 
that fight, but we have lost because we are a minority voice.
  There will be a lot said, as my previous speaker, my colleague from 
Louisiana did an excellent job of talking about the sugar industry. We 
can say the same about almost any industry. The only justification that 
any of us can stand on this floor and suggest that subsidies for 
agriculture or any other business are justified, is to provide a level 
playing field for our producers in the international marketplace. That 
is the only justification that we can have today.
  Let me point out that the European Union will spend $40 billion this 
year and $40 billion next year and $40 billion the year after, and yet 
we expect our producers to compete with that kind of subsidy. We 
are being outspent six to one. Yet it seems that the majority wants to 
see us phase those out and have our producers go cold turkey in this 
international marketplace. That is why some of us believe that is not 
the best policy.

  We had this a few years ago, three to be exact, those that suggested 
that the elimination of farm programs should be the direction we have 
already succeeded in wool and mohair. And everybody rejoiced. The 
editorial boards, the 

[[Page H1427]]
TV commentators, everyone rejoiced that we killed the wool and mohair 
program. What has been the result for the United States? U.S. sheep 
breeding herds have dropped 21.6 percent. Sixteen thousand American 
families have quit the sheep industry. Lamb imports have increased by 
50 percent, wool imports by 11 percent. Four of the Nation's lamb 
packing plants have closed, including the only plants in Texas, the 
only plant in Minnesota, and the only producer-owned plant in 
California. The Nation's largest wool textile company has filed for 
bankruptcy.
  I chose to use my 5 minutes to talk about the state of agriculture as 
it is and the importance of taking a bill that many of us believe is 
extremely deficient in many, many areas. But for heaven's sake, let us 
not make it worse by pursuing the idea that somehow, some way our 
producers can compete in the international marketplace with our 
Government not standing shoulder to shoulder with them, and that is 
foolish.

                              {time}  1500

  That is the debate that we have heard, and I want to concur with the 
ranking member who said when we talk about hearings on freedom to farm, 
there have been no hearings on freedom to farm, and my colleagues know 
it. We have had hearings on the farm program and the direction it ought 
to go; that is true. But at no time did we ever have any discussions of 
the specifics of what this particular legislation will do for us, to 
us, or any other way.
  So as we go into this debate now, in many areas I hope that we can 
concentrate on the fact that agriculture is a rather important industry 
and needs to be supported to the best of our ability.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], another valued member of the House 
Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2854.
  As a freshman Member of Congress, I came here to reform this process, 
and in the ag bill we have done just that. It amazes me to look at the 
amendments that have been filed, people that have the best intentions 
but do not understand rural America. They do not understand supply 
management. They do not understand cost to the consumer; sugar, for 
one.
  Yes, I am here to talk about reforms because they are in the bill. 
Retail prices of sugar, lower than most anywhere else in the world, 
here in the United States; 40-plus thousand jobs here in the United 
States.
  As my colleagues know, this Congress has passed NAFTA, it has passed 
GATT, promised great things for the American consumer. Do we get a 
price break from any of those benefits? Absolutely not. And what we are 
talking about today is not a phaseout program as described by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Schumer]. It is death and elimination of a program; it is death 
and elimination of jobs. It will be an increase in price to the 
consumer.
  Sugar is blamed for a lot of things on this House floor. Coca Cola, 
Diet Coke, Regular Coke, priced the same. Cereal; 5 cents worth of 
sugar in a box of cereal costs 4 bucks. Is sugar the culprit? 
Absolutely not.
  My colleagues, we are ushering in a new era of ag policy in this 
Nation, but let us remember those that have jobs that are supporting 
their families. In my community I have families, white, black, 
Hispanics, feeding their children through their hard labor working for 
the sugar industry. They are not on welfare; they have proud jobs. Do 
not succumb to the temptation of those that indicate that their 
amendments are reform. Their amendments are destruction for the U.S. ag 
policy, for the abundant supply of food that we now have, and it is, in 
fact, for the elimination of thousands of jobs.
  I stand here today proudly backing the chairman's efforts to reform 
our farm programs.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith], who is yet another valued member of the House 
Committee on Agriculture.
  (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues well know, we 
are all valued members in that committee now.
  I think the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] made a point that 
should be recognized, and that is that major cuts in programs of this 
budget, there are two major cuts when we look at what has happened in 
the last 7 years and the next 7 years. One is an actual dollar cut in 
defense spending; one is an actual dollar cut in agricultural spending.
  As I talked to my colleagues, there is an impression that farmers are 
rich and therefore do not need any help. I think it would be good if I 
just covered how some of the farmers in my district live. Most of the 
farmers average 320 acres, a lot of dairy farmers. That means they get 
up at 5 o'clock in the morning since cows have to be milked roughly 12 
hours apart. They get up at 5 o'clock in the morning. Sometimes the 
water is frozen. It is tough to get out of that bed. They get home at 
night after doing chores in the evening at about 7:30.
  These farmers live on very meager incomes, often having to take their 
kids out of music lessons because their income from farming is not that 
good. We look at some farmers that have maybe thousands of acres of 
land and maybe end up being millionaires, but that is not the norm.
  What is keeping this industry the strongest in the world are the 
individual owners that are putting in those 14-hour days and producing 
the food and fiber that has allowed this country to grow. We now 
produce food and fiber for only 11 percent of our take home dollar. 
That compares to about 20 percent in Europe, and if we get into the 
Asian countries, 50 and 60 and 70 percent. We have the highest quality 
food and fiber at the lower price of any place in the world, and it is 
because farmers spend a tremendous amount of time working.
  As we make this transition to the marketplace, it is important that 
we do it gradually. I would hope that most of these amendments could be 
defeated.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt]. When the Republican Party wished to set up 
a Republican task force on agriculture, made up of a preponderance of 
our new freshmen Members, the choice for the chairman of the task force 
was obvious, and so I am delighted to yield him 2 minutes to speak in 
regards to this general debate.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to be chairing the 
Republican task force on agriculture, thanks to his input, and the 
gentleman is due an awful lot of congratulations on this bill, Mr. 
Chairman. The gentleman has made me and those of us who are not members 
of the Committee on Agriculture, but who care about agriculture, feel 
very much a part of the Committee on Agriculture, and at times, 
frankly, Mr. Chairman, it has been nice not to be a member of the 
committee, be a member of the Committee on Appropriations ag 
subcommittee, given the hard challenges my colleagues have had this 
year.
  But he is to be congratulated, and I am happy to rise in support this 
really revolutionary bill. It is the Agriculture Market Transition Act. 
It is a new look for American agriculture, one that is not overnight 
change for farmers in this country, but one that is a program that is 
phased in, that will be deliberately and sensibly imposed upon the 
farmers of America, giving them the ultimate opportunity to adjust to a 
market economy and farm for the market, not farm for the Government 
programs that exist. It is easing them into the very challenging 
efforts to compete in a world market, and it is something that is 
appropriate that we do for American agriculture.
  I want to remind my colleagues that this is not the only time we will 
look at changes in agriculture policy by this Federal Government. We 
will take a look back in the next year and two and three and four to 
make sure that this approach to agriculture reform is working. We will 
also be looking at a farm bill, too, a chance for this Congress to have 
an opportunity to revise and make regulatory reform and tax reform to 
assist the American farmer. That is what Government should and should 
seriously be doing as we move into the next century of agriculture.

[[Page H1428]]

  This is revolutionary change for agriculture. It is difficult for 
everybody to accept all at once. That is why we are phasing it in. It 
is good for the American farmer, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all of those that have participated in the 
debate. I may not have agreed with all that has been said. I have taken 
and would take exception to some of the areas that have been addressed, 
I think incorrectly, but nonetheless I would not challenge any Member's 
prerogative to say what she or he might want to.
  But I do want to again say that when there was mention that it was 
negotiated, it was not negotiated with the minority, certainly not with 
the ranking member of the minority. I now suspect that it was 
negotiated with this task force led by the gentleman from Washington 
and not with the minority, so it was a negotiation within the majority 
and their leadership, and that is a flawed process.
  This is a people's House; this is where people are supposed to, 
through their elected Representatives, have input into the legislative 
process. We had none. Those of us that happen to be in the minority had 
no opportunity to represent our people, to represent our 
constituencies. We were not given that opportunity, and this is the 
flawed process that I am objecting to.
  At the Committee on Rules, the same thing. We have been told, well, 
that is how the Democrats did it. It is here and now, and I am not here 
to argue how or when or what. All I know is that we are effectively 
told this is how it is going to be done, we are in charge and we are 
sorry if you do not like it, that is too bad.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop].
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
allowing me to be heard on this. This farm bill is something that is 
tremendously important to the people of the district that I represent.
  As many of my colleagues already know, I represent the largest peanut 
growing district anywhere in the United States. Peanuts are a very, 
very important industry in south Georgia. I represent those very 
proudly, and I am here to talk about this farm bill because my farmers 
are anxious.
  The people in middle and south Georgia are concerned that we are here 
almost at the end of February with no farm bill. They do not know how 
much to plant, when they can plant. They do not know how much rent to 
pay, they do not know how much rent to charge. They do not know whether 
or not they will be able to get loans in order to finance their crop 
for the 1996 year.
  Time is of the essence. We cannot stop the calendar. We cannot stop 
nature. This farm bill must go forward.
  There is a lot that I do not like about this farm bill. The direction 
that we are taking our farm policy is not necessarily a good direction. 
Yet we have worked very hard to reform the peanut provisions in this 
bill. I believe that the peanut program has been very thoroughly and 
soundly reformed and that it will represent market orientation and a 
low net cost to taxpayers. There are some things we do not particularly 
care for, but at this point we must get a farm bill and we must get it 
passed now.
  I urge this House and my colleague to think seriously about what this 
farm bill will mean to all the farmers who are now waiting anxiously to 
get their crops in the ground, to make their financial arrangements, 
and to get a crop for 1996.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me at this point thank the Democratic leadership in 
the House, for they have in no way, in any way negative, interfered 
with the process. They have allowed us to make the decisions; they have 
allowed us to work toward setting the policy. The unfortunate part is 
that we have not been allowed by the majority, but we have had a free 
hand from our leadership to do what we as a committee, members of the 
Committee on Agriculture, saw best for American agriculture. And it is 
not only American agriculture. It is out there, the infrastructure, 
roads, water, housing, electricity, all of those areas that encompass 
living in rural America. We have the same right as urban and as other 
areas to expect assistance in areas where there is need.
  The farm family has the same right to have a light out there in the 
countryside, to have telephones out there in the countryside, to have 
roads out there in the countryside, to have assistance for their 
children at the schools. We have not discussed this; this has not been 
a part. This has come down, down, down, and we find ourselves here 
frustrated to the end. After 32 years here, this is a first time that I 
have had to direct input through the committee process on the final 
version that we are discussing.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the chairman of the committee, he may 
share some of his frustration because he might have been on that side 
of it, but not because of the leadership of the Committee on 
Agriculture. Always, every ranking member that I had when I was 
chairman was consulted. Everything was done together. Our leadership 
did not interfere. If I made a deal with, God rest his soul, Mr. 
Madigan as ranking member, our leadership agreed and supported us in 
those agreements. Unfortunately, the willingness of this committee 
chairman personally has not in any way helped us in that respect 
because he has not had that freedom and that ability.
  I do not know if this will make problems for him or not, but this is 
a fact, that he has been most willing to cooperate at all times, but 
the guidance and the substance has come from other directions. The 
timing has come from another direction. We have not been part.
  The only experience I have had this session with a conference 
committee was when we were told by the senior Senator, chairman of the 
conference: ``We are not going to give you any time to speak. I am 
going to have my say. I am walking out of here. You can stay if you 
want to. We do not care. We are going to treat you like you treated 
us.'' We never treated them in the Committee on Agriculture in that 
respect.
  I say again, I thank the chairman for his interest in communicating 
with us, but I am in despair about the process that has been forced on 
us and has been forced on him. Unless there is an ability to change to 
make this bill better, I do not see how I can support it. However, I am 
here to try, and even though the process is limited, the time is 
limited, the amendments that we can discuss are limited, how some of 
the amendments got here, because we were still trying to get more funds 
for rural America. We were not able to. They have been allotted to 
someone else through another process, not with our participation.
  For now, I am hoping we can make this a better bill. If not, I will 
be reluctantly forced to vote against it.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett]. Through his 
leadership we have crafted an outstanding piece of legislation that 
deals with the conservation reserve program. He has been working very 
diligently in regard to trade and other matters, in regard to his 
subcommittee chairmanship.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I though that I might discuss for 3 or 4 minutes the 
merits of the market transition act. My mind goes back to a year ago, 
more than a year ago, when the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], and I began 
discussing the concept of freedom to farm. From those conversations and 
from those hearings, of course, developed that concept which we are 
discussing essentially today as the Agriculture Marketing Transition 
Act.
  I wanted to discuss the merits of the transition act, because there 
are many. But instead, as I listened to the conversation on the floor 
this afternoon about welfare and about the eventual outcome of the 
program and whether or not it would be eliminated, I thought about a 
letter which I received just this afternoon about 2 hours ago from the 
largest farm organization in my State, Nebraska; as a matter of fact, 
the largest farm organization in America: the Farm Bureau. I thought 

[[Page H1429]]
the gentleman who authored the letter made some very thoughtful, 
informative remarks about some questions and some concerns that many 
Members of this body have had.
  Let me share a couple of them, and I will not begin to quote the 
entire letter, but some of the concerns regarding the welfare payment 
issue I quote at this point:

       For quite some time, farm policy critics have labeled farm 
     programs as welfare, and will probably continue their attack 
     into the future.
       Those who claim that freedom to farm amounts to welfare 
     should also explain why price support programs based on 
     artificially set prices are not welfare. The Agriculture 
     Marketing Transition Act provides income stability and a 
     safety net for producers to assure a secure food system while 
     they move to a more market-oriented agriculture. It is a 
     fallacy to compare farm program recipients to welfare 
     recipients. The public policy involved with welfare payments 
     is to support individuals who are in need. The public policy 
     involved with farm program payments is to support the 
     agricultural economy--in the macro sense--to assure that this 
     country has a safe and abundant supply of food.
       In addition, opponents who state that it is wrong to give 
     farmers payments in years when the crop prices are good, such 
     as this year, may not have a realistic picture as it relates 
     to a producer's financial situation. Just because the prices 
     are good does not mean the farmers are making a profit. 
     Typically, the reason crop prices are good is that there is 
     only a small number of bushels for the farm to sell. A 
     producer's bottom line is often worse under those conditions 
     than in a year with lower prices and higher yields.
       In light of these points, it is obvious that debate could 
     continue for a long time on the public's perception of the 
     farm program as welfare. In particular, the question becomes, 
     how much would the freedom to farm approach affect that 
     perception? The bottom line is that the worries about public 
     reaction are far outweighed by the benefits received by the 
     historic leap that the freedom to farm approach takes in 
     moving a farm policy in the direction that will allow farmers 
     to plant for the marketplace--not for the government.

  With regard to a comment made earlier about the future of farm policy 
after 7 years, one additional point the gentleman makes, and here I 
quote: ``It is important to keep in mind that there are no provisions 
in the bill that require farm programs to be eliminated after 7 
years.'' I think that is most appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time, I will include this letter in 
the Record. I thank the chairman again for his leadership in bringing 
this to the floor, and I would urge the body to support H.R. 2854.
  The letter referred to is as follows:


                              Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation,

                                   Lincoln, NE, February 28, 1996.
     Hon. Bill Barrett,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Bill: As the farm bill is debated this week in the 
     House, the Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation urges your support 
     for immediate passage of a farm bill that is similar to the 
     ``freedom to farm'' approach.
       First of all, I would like to extend our appreciation to 
     you for all your work and support for pushing a true market-
     oriented farm bill as contained in the Agriculture Marketing 
     Transition Act. For your review and consideration, I would 
     like to share with you some of the factors we considered as 
     our policy position evolved in support of the ``freedom to 
     farm'' concept.
       The first and probably the most important factor for NFBF's 
     support was the urgency of passing a farm bill in time for 
     spring planting. Along with the urgency of the situation, 
     political realities forced us to examine the alternatives if 
     Congress does not adopt something similar to ``freedom to 
     farm.''
       If the USDA is forced to implement the permanent 
     agriculture law, the Act of 1949, costs to the federal 
     government would greatly increase and plantings of wheat, 
     corn, and feed grains could be reduced at a time of low 
     reserves and increased world demand. In addition, this would 
     send the message to our foreign competitors that U.S. 
     agriculture policy is in disarray. Secondly, a simple 
     extension to the 1990 Act or failure to finalize a farm bill 
     as quickly as possible could also significantly reduce the 
     funding available for commodity programs as the agricultural 
     baseline is projected to be revised downward by the 
     Congressional Budget Office.
       In my view, concerns about the ``freedom to farm'' approach 
     have centered on two points. First, opponents are concerned 
     that the contract payments will be viewed as welfare payments 
     to farmers. Secondly, some are concerned that there will not 
     be any farm program after the seventh year of the bill. These 
     issues were also to some members of Farm Bureau but the 
     following points were used as a part of our policy 
     determination.
       In regard to the welfare payment issue, Farm Bureau has 
     always been concerned about the public's perception of farm 
     programs. Those concerns will not be any different under a 
     ``freedom to farm'' proposal. For quite some time, farm 
     policy critics have labeled farm programs as welfare and will 
     probably continue their attack into the future.
       Those who claim that ``freedom to farm'' amounts to welfare 
     should also explain why price support programs based on 
     artificially set prices are not welfare. The Agriculture 
     Marketing Transition Act provides income stability and a 
     safety net for producers to assure a secure food system while 
     they move to a more market-oriented agriculture. It is a 
     fallacy to compare farm program recipients to welfare 
     recipients. The public policy involved with welfare payments 
     is to support individuals who are in need. The public policy 
     involved with farm program payments is to support the 
     agriculture economy--in the macro sense--to assure that this 
     country has a safe and abudant supply of food.
       In addition, opponents who state that it is wrong to give 
     farmers payments in years when the crop prices are good (such 
     as this year), may not have a realistic picture as it relates 
     to a producer's financial situation. Just because the prices 
     are good does not mean the farmers are making a profit. 
     Typically, the reason crop prices are good is that there is 
     only a small number of bushels for the farmer to sell. a 
     producer's bottomline is often worse under those conditions 
     than in a year with lower prices and higher yields.
       In light of these points, it is obvious that debate could 
     continue for a long time on the public's perception of farm 
     programs as welfare. In particular, the question becomes 
     ``how much would the ``freedom to farm'' approach affect that 
     perception?'' The bottomline is that the worries about public 
     reaction are far outweighed by the benefits received by the 
     historic leap the ``freedom to farm'' approach takes in 
     moving farm policy in the direction that will allow farmers 
     to plant for the marketplace--not for the government.
       In regard to future farm policy after seven years, it is 
     important to keep in mind that there are no provisions in the 
     bill that require farm programs to be eliminated after seven 
     years. In fact, it is our view that public policymakers 
     should actively debate what future farm policy should be 
     after the year 2002 while considering such issues as supply 
     and demand factors, international trade barriers, financial 
     condition of agriculture, monetary policy and trade policy 
     and other issues important to our farmers and ranchers.
       Future farm policy and the degree in which government is 
     involved should depend on the uncontrollable impact worldwide 
     policies and events may have on U.S. agriculture and it's 
     ability to develop markets and sell his/her products. 
     Producers and policymakers alike should continue to assess 
     the need and structure of future farm programs throughout the 
     entire duration of the seven year bill.
       Thank you for your consideration of Farm Bureau's viewpoint 
     on the farm bill and again thank you for all your support and 
     representation for Nebraska farmers.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Rob J. Robertson,
                            Vice President/Governmental Relations.

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], a member of the committee, and a most valued 
member.
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Agriculture Marketing 
Transition Act. I also rise to congratulate my chairman for the fight 
he has waged against the advocates of big government, and the 
Washington knows best mindset.
  One of the most unfortunate results of the veto of the Balanced 
Budget Act was its negative impact on farmers. That legislation 
included the most sweeping reform of farm programs in 60 years.
  After coming so far on agriculture reform last year, it would be a 
shame to retreat from much needed change that will save taxpayers 
billions of dollars and expand opportunities for our hardworking 
farmers.
  If this bill is not passed and signed into law, then the Department 
of Agriculture will be forced to implement outmoded depression era farm 
laws that do more harm than good.
  I was proud the Agriculture Market Transition Program, enjoyed quick, 
bipartisan support from the House Committee on Agriculture.
  Passing this bill means true reform. Farmers will finally be able to 
produce for the market instead of for the Government.
  This legislation is preferable to extending current law because folks 
are fed up with complicated farm programs. These programs require 
farmers to count, measure, certify, and document every acre and crop on 
the farm. The Agriculture Market Transition Program eliminates nearly 
all of this needless paperwork burden.

[[Page H1430]]

  More importantly, this program also strengthens our export potential 
and ability to compete with foreign farmers. It ends the annual acreage 
idling program that hurts competitiveness and has forever stigmatized 
federal farm programs by paying farmers not to plant.
  Farmers get the Government off their fields and out of their 
business. That's why the Farm Bureau and many other agricultural 
organizations support our approach.
  Without Government interference, farmers will be able to make more 
money by increasing production to meet world demand that is rapidly 
growing. Increased grain production could mean lower feed prices for 
the hard pressed livestock, poultry and dairy farmers in my district.
  Now is not the time to retreat on market reforms. We must support and 
strengthen America's position as the most reliable and important 
supplier of food in the world.
  By signing this farm reform bill, the President can prove that he 
meant it when he said that the ``era of big government'' is over.
  With spring on the way, farmers and their families cannot afford to 
wait. We have a solid bipartisan solution that brings real reform to 
our farm programs. It makes sure that our farmers have the opportunity 
to do what they do best--provide the safest and most abundant food 
supply at affordable prices.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this taxpayer-saving, farmer-
friendly bill.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin has worked harder and longer, with more 
criticism, and yet should have received more credit than any other 
member of the Committee on Agriculture. His service to the House as the 
designated expert, having more expertise in dairy, has been simply 
outstanding.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding time to me, and I thank him and commend him for his leadership 
under what I think him and commend him for his leadership under what I 
think have been the most difficult circumstances ever to try to deal 
with farm legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very different time. This is a very different 
circumstances. This is the first farm bill we have ever put together in 
the post-balanced budget era. This is the first farm bill we have ever 
put together in the post-GATT era. This is not going to be business as 
usual. This is totally changing the way agriculture has operated in 
this country. As a result of that, we bring you today, on behalf of the 
Committee on Agriculture, the most comprehensive reform in agricultural 
policy in the history of most of these programs.
  As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, 
I can tell the Members, we bring the most comprehensive reform in the 
45-year history of the dairy program; and it is time we do, because we 
are not only balancing the budget, we are not only preparing for that 
post-GATT world era economy, we are doing so in a decade in which we 
have seen 125,000 dairy farmers go out of business. So let us 
understand what we are trying to do here today.
  We are trying to reform this program. We are eliminating butter and 
powder price supports. We are telling USDA to come up with 
comprehensive reform of the pricing system. We are telling them to 
consolidate the orders. We are telling them to bring everybody under 
the same rules and regulations. We are telling them to prepare this 
industry to succeed and compete successfully in a world dairy economy. 
We are doing all of that and, Mr. Chairman, we are still saving the 
taxpayers over $700 million in the cost of the dairy program.
  Mr. Chairman, this has not been easy, the chairman of the committee 
is right. This has been compromise. Every region of the country, from 
California to the Northwest, from the Southeast to the Northeast to the 
Midwest, every region has given. We have reached a consensus, probably 
a bigger consensus among producers than we have ever had in the history 
of dairy debates in this country.
  If Members look at the attacks that are coming, there are some high-
funded lobby campaigns by the large manufacturers in this country, 
spending millions of dollars in disinformation and frankly, blatant 
propaganda, trying to suggest to you that somehow we are going to rape 
the American consumer.
  I invite you to listen to the debate as we move on, because we will 
show you, according to USDA standards, according to CBO standards, 
according to CRS standards, this is nothing but a blatant 
misinformation campaign by those who are trying to keep the dairy 
industry from competing in the market-oriented economy at home and 
abroad. They do not want us to trade. The reason they do not want us to 
trade dairy products is because if we trade dairy products, there might 
be some competition for the cheap milk they want to buy today. So they 
are doing everything in their power, despite their rhetoric about 
committing us to free markets, to make sure it does not happen.
  Support the bill, oppose the amendments, and pass it in the end.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I have been keeping notes of some of the 
comments made by my colleagues and friends across the aisle who have 
been making wild-eyed speeches. While I am sure this is not the best 
bill possible, I may vote for it, and some of those concerns I think 
certainly ring true in terms of just this gentleman's concern and 
frustration; but I would like the opportunity to, if not set the record 
straight, to at least play the record that I want to hear and let 
people make up their minds.
  No hearings, no hearings, no hearings, never had any hearings other 
than the 60,000 miles, the 19 hearings, and the 10,000 farmers and 
ranchers we visited with.
  Now it is true that the subject of those hearings was not a specific 
bill labeled ``Freedom to Farm,'' but those hearings certainly served 
as a backdrop and a blueprint for that. No hearings? Well, we had a 
budget task force. We have tried to work together to try to reach our 
budget responsibilities in the past, and it became obvious that that 
was going to be very, very difficult for several reasons, No. 1, the 
budget number was really tough on the Republican side, but we were 
going to reach a balanced budget.

                              {time}  1530

  That is the thing that really drove this debate, that is, to get to a 
balanced budget, save the farmer and rancher $15 billion. During the 
budget task force hearings, we asked the minority which way do you want 
to go? Do you want to keep the current system, current structure? I 
said no, I think we are going to die. I think we are going to have 
policy rubble. I think we are going to lose $8 billion in the baseline, 
fancy word for how much money is available in agriculture. Then another 
$6 billion, then budget cuts, then another appropriations process, then 
future budget cuts, and you add it all up, it is $20, $25 billion; you 
end up with rubble.
  I think we need a different approach. We settled on freedom to farm, 
which locks up more farm income, more money for production and 
agriculture than any other. Then we had two markups in committee that 
went on for hours. Started at 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, clear into 
the morning, one or two, same people on the floor doing the criticizing 
said they have not had any say in this with regards to this. Who were 
those people in the committee hearing, the markup that offered the 
amendments? Pros and cons debated?
  This chairman tried to be very fair in regards to offering ample time 
to each and every member. It was not a hearing, no, but it was a 
markup, and everybody certainly knew the pros and cons of the 
legislation, and every farm organization in America has had this and 
they have had it back to the county organizations, and guess what. Most 
of them are for it and they penciled it out. I mean the farmer. I mean 
the producer finally figured out that he was going to get a payment 
this year, next year, did not have to pay back the advanced deficiency 
payments.
  Yes, we have had hearings all throughout farm country. Every 
economist that has taken a look at this has said there is more farm 
income in this than any other program. Yes, all the Nation's press have 
weighed in. No, I 

[[Page H1431]]
really do not check with the New York Times and the San Francisco 
paper. I might check the Dodge City Globe. They are for it. But yes, 
they say yes, this is the best reform and the best program we can put 
together, and public opinion does count.
  Now, this has been the most discussed and, quite frankly, I 
understand the concern of my dear friends across the aisle, cussed farm 
program reform we have ever had. Let us not talk anymore in regards to 
the hearings.
  Not enough money? I usually do a glasses show. I take glasses and I 
pour out all the water in regards to losing the baseline in the next 
budget appropriations, factor when we get cut and cut and cut again, 
and then we say guess what, the glass that has the most water is 
freedom to farm. Too much money? First there is not enough money, then 
there is too much money.
  Can we please quit referring to farm programs as welfare programs? 
The payment that we are now providing is significantly less than the 
last 5 years when the then-majority did not do any complaining about 
farm programs. Too much money? They are complaining about when the 
farmer receives it. The real issue is that the farmer, in receiving 
this payment, will have a risk management account. He makes that 
decision, not when prices are high and the farmer has no crop.
  So consequently in regards to what we are trying to accomplish here, 
and we will continue the tap dance in regards to setting the record 
during the amendment process.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Agricultural 
Market Transition Act. I thank Mr. Roberts for his efforts to ensure 
the preservation of America's farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, briefly, I would like to pay tribute to Mr. de la Garza 
for his many years of exemplary, bipartisan leadership as chairman of 
the Agriculture Committee. Kika, you will be missed. I wish you the 
best.
  It is often said on this floor, in reference to a particular bill, 
``that bill is not a perfect bill''. This can certainly be said for 
this bill as well. I seriously question the process used, or lack 
thereof, to formulate vital farm policy for our Nation.
  Nevertheless, farmers in my north Alabama district and farmers all 
over this great country can not be made to suffer any longer as 
hostages of the budget debate. It is past due for farmers to make 
financial arrangements for spring and summer crops. The uncertainty 
surrounding the program is making it difficult for them to obtain 
production loans. We owe them this much-needed security by voting to 
pass this bill.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Shays-Lowey peanut amendment. The 
amendment would result in the loss of thousands of American jobs and 
put most peanut farmers completely out of business.
  The 16,194 peanut farms in this country are small, family-owned farms 
averaging only 98 acres of peanut production, according to the U.S. 
Census of Agriculture. Seventy-seven percent of the counties in the 
heart of America's peanut-producing region already have a 20 percent 
poverty rate or higher.
  In addition, eliminating the bill's peanut program could increase 
Government spending by eliminating the $83 million in budgetary 
reduction assessments. A $190 million forfeiture and crushing of all 
peanut inventories in area marketing pools could also result.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States has enjoyed a safe, stable supply of 
the best quality peanuts in the world for many decades. It is 
imperative we preserve our farmers' ability to compete while providing 
top quality peanuts.
  As it now stands, the Agricultural Marketing Transition Act does this 
while making significant reforms in the program: cutting the support 
price dramatically, shifting more production to family farmers, and 
ensuring the peanut program operates as a no-cost program to the 
Federal Government.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Shays-Lowey amendment which is 
both unnecessary and highly damaging to all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy 
amendment to eliminate cotton's marketing loan program.
  Elimination of the marketing loan program as proposed by 
Representatives Chabot and Kennedy would seriously threaten the 
stability of our cotton farmers and our textile industry. This 
amendment would give subsidized foreign countries a competitive 
advantage impossible to overcome, result in minimal budget savings and 
deny U.S. trade negotiators leverage to convince other countries to 
discontinue subsidies.
  U.S. cotton competes in a world market replete with subsidies. Prior 
to implementation of the marketing loan, our cotton industry 
experienced dramatic declines in exports as well as loan forfeitures to 
the Government.
  In addition, the strength of the U.S. textile industry is extremely 
important to my district in north Alabama. This industry must have 
access to market priced raw-materials if it is to remain a force in an 
incredibly competitive international textile trading environment.
  Mr. Chairman, the U.S. cotton marketing loan program is a market-
oriented, competitive agricultural program. It has achieved tremendous 
policy success. The program assures an adequate supply of cotton at a 
globally competitive price, advances domestic mill use and increases 
both raw cotton and cotton textile exports.
  Other commodities are provided marketing loans. To discriminate 
against cotton is both unsound and unjustifiable policy.
  I urge my colleagues to support America's competitiveness by opposing 
the Chabot-Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, the farm bill before the House today 
represents an abandonment of the economic security that has assisted 
farmers in Montana and the Nation in times of low prices for farm 
commodities.
  The bill undermines long-standing, traditional income-protection 
measures such as target prices and deficiency payments. It also 
torpedoes recent farm-policy reforms made in the 103d Congress, taking 
the easy way out and avoiding the difficult and necessary work such as 
the long-overdue revamping of the Federal Crop Insurance program now in 
its infancy.
  And it dismisses the need for improvements in the Federal 
Conservation Reserve Program, limiting CRP to existing contracts at a 
time when many Montanans realize that CRP needs to be more precisely 
targeted to the most highly erodible lands, with an eye toward 
enhancing wildlife habitat, water quality, and other environmental 
benefits.
  Frankly, in an effort to sell CRP in the first year or so of bidding, 
many highly productive, less erodible lands were accepted in an effort 
to get the program on its feet. Other lands that would benefit more, 
and are more suitable to permanent vegetation than to annual crops, 
have been excluded.
  If H.R. 2854 becomes the law of the land, farmers who have 
participated in farm programs in the past would be fools not to sign up 
in the new program, which guarantees them a Government check whether 
they farm or not. Landowners may even elect to evict tenants so that 
they need not share those Government checks with those actually farming 
the land.
  Freedom to farm in the 1996 Entitlement Program.
  At least in other entitlement programs, benefits are based upon need. 
When a recipient's income rises, benefits are reduced or canceled 
altogether.
  This farm bill does just the opposite, and it destroys individual 
initiative, incentive, and innovation.
  If a farmer chose to think independently, be an entrepreneur and 
operate outside the farm program, the Government has no check for that 
farmer if things go bad.
  A farmer or agribusiness with a habit of burrowing the snout deeply 
into the Government trough by growing program crops, maximizing crop 
bases, and otherwise farming the Government program is the very 
operator we now will reward. This is cynical repudiation of every 
argument we've used to gather support for farm programs in my 17 years 
in the House.
  It is disturbing that many freedom to farm advocates who advocate 
this windfall for the largest, most government-entangled mega-farms of 
this Nation are arguing for decreases in aid for America's most 
vulnerable--whose need for Federal assistance is based on their current 
economic condition, not their past successes in obtaining Government 
aid.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed at the rule under 
consideration for the farm bill debate. The rule has allowed 16 
amendments but none of them address the central flaw in this bill: the 
elimination of the safety-net for family farms.
  The choice we are left with is either accept freedom to farm and the 
phaseout of farm program as is, or eliminate individual components of 
the farm program. Amendments to phase out the program entirely and 
eliminate the sugar and peanut and dairy support programs individually 
were allowed, but we cannot offer amendments to the basic freedom-to-
farm concept. How can we adequately debate the merits of this bill when 
we are not allowed to amend the central policy problem?
  Farmers in North Dakota need a farm bill. Now that market prices are 
high enough to make a decent living, they want to know what the new 
rules will be so they can take maximum advantage of the favorable 
market conditions in making their planting decisions. This Congress has 
delayed action on the farm bill longer than any in history. The 
continual delays are irresponsible and incomprehensible to farmers 
across the country.
  North Dakota producers have also suffered through several years of 
disastrous crops and low prices. The generous checks that freedom 

[[Page H1432]]
to farm promises over the next few years will help farmers in the short 
term, but in the long run, the safety net for producers is eliminated. 
Marketing loans are capped at 1995 levels and permanent authority for 
farm programs is repealed. If prices were to collapse in the future as 
they have in the past, family farmers would be left with no support and 
will likely go out of business. The loss of those farmers would send a 
devastating ripple effect through the small towns and communities 
across North Dakota and the Nation.
  In the Rules Committee, I spoke on behalf of an amendment that would 
have guaranteed payments to farmers for 2 years to help them with the 
difficulties of the last few years. After those initial 2 years the 
contract payments are reduced to half and a 90-percent marketing loan 
is in place to protect family farms from price collapse. This amendment 
would have addressed the fundamental flaw of this bill while providing 
producers financial relief.
  Unfortunately this reasonable alternative to freedom to farm will not 
be allowed for consideration before the full House. It is an amendment 
that would have preserved the best aspects of the chairman's bill and 
still protected producers into the future. The people of this Nation, 
both urban and rural, deserve to have the best agricultural policy 
possible, and we cannot give it to them without a free and open debate.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my colleague from Connecticut, Chris Shays, which would phase out 
the peanut program over 7 years.
  I have long been an opponent of unnecessary agriculture subsidies 
such as the peanut, sugar, and honey programs. Pure and simple, these 
subsidy programs are agriculture welfare. The current system, which 
favors the children of farmers who farmed in the 1940's, keeps domestic 
peanut prices artificially high.
  Who really pays the unnecessarily high costs of the peanut subsidy 
program? It is the taxpayers, Mr. Chairman. According to the General 
Accounting Office [GAO], consumers pay as much as $513 million annually 
as a result of the peanut program. The peanut program cost taxpayers at 
least $119 million in fiscal year 1995 and is projected to cost another 
$91 million in fiscal year 1996. It is estimated that a jar of peanut 
butter costs at least an additional 40 cents due to the program.
  Some defenders of the peanut subsidy have asserted that the program 
costs taxpayers nothing. I would like to point out that surely it takes 
money to make the program run. Someone pays for Government bureaucrats 
and agents to administer the program. In addition, the Government pays 
higher prices when purchasing peanut butter for the military and bears 
higher food stamp costs--all due to peanuts subsidies.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support passage of the 
Shays amendment which will phase out this antiquated and antimarket 
Government subsidy program.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to H.R. 2854, the Agricultural Market Transition Act, 
formerly referred to as the freedom-to-farm legislation. My objections 
are both procedural and substantive.
  First, Mr. Chairman, it is outrageous that 5 months after it was due, 
we are still on this floor debating a farm bill. There simply is no 
good excuse for this delay. The Republican leadership in this House 
insisted on discharging the House Agriculture Committee from its duty 
to formulate a 1995 farm bill and rolled the freedom-to-farm provisions 
into the massive budget reconciliation bill. To few observers' 
surprise, the key farm legislation for this last half decade of the 
20th century languished while heated controversy over the future of 
Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and other issues bogged down the 
reconciliation effort. When the majority leadership finally agreed to 
extricate the farm bill from the rest of its political agenda, it 
recessed for a 3-week vacation rather than complete the long-overdue 
debate.
  Mr. Chairman, if this process had not been distorted enough, we now 
find that contrary to long tradition in this House, only a limited 
number of amendments approved by the Speaker will be permitted. This 
substantially closed rule is an afront to the democratic process and is 
especially wrong headed given the minimal committee hearings on the 
workings or the consequences of this legislation.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about the substance of this 
bill. An economist at South Dakota State University has already written 
that this bill is a recipe for lower grain prices in my State, and may 
lead to significant reductions in land values and local tax revenues. 
Only if you think that the solution to low farm income is low grain 
prices, should a legislator support this bill.
  It is not necessary to travel down the freedom-to-farm road in order 
to lighten the Federal regulatory load or to allow farmers far greater 
flexibility and simplicity in their planting decisions. It is not 
necessary to enact this type of radical legislation in order to promote 
a far more market oriented agriculture. This bill ends the farmer owned 
reserve [FOR] and it leaves a marketing loan mechanism in place that is 
wholly inadequate to serve as a useful marketing tool. This legislation 
pays farmers a payment unrelated to anything they plant or price they 
receive, but after 7 years, terminates all sense of a safety net in 
family agriculture. In the meantime, 2 percent of American farmers will 
receive 22 percent of the transition payments.
  This transition legislation is a transition to ruin for many family 
owned farming operations. While doing nothing to provide farmers with 
the long-term marketing tools they need, it expects our farmers to 
compete in a global economy that features heavily subsidized 
agriculture in many foreign lands. Our farmers are competitive and 
becoming more efficient every year--but it is unfair to ask any sector 
of our Nation's economy to compete against the national treasuries of 
foreign competitors.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States is currently the best fed and most 
cheaply fed nation on Earth. We spend has than 1 percent of the Federal 
budget on supporting farm incomes. While we can no doubt find still 
more savings in the USDA budget, and while we can certainly impose more 
simplicity and common sense on our agricultural programs, it is 
absolutely a disastrous mistake to pass this farm bill. Our farmers and 
our consumers deserve better than legislation which hands out checks 
unrelated to labor or risk for a few years, and then turns the Federal 
Government's back on family agriculture forever after.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for 
purposes of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2854

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Agricultural Market Transition Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

            TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION PROGRAM

Sec. 101. Purpose.
Sec. 102. Definitions.
Sec. 103. Production flexibility contracts.
Sec. 104. Nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency 
              payments.
Sec. 105. Payment limitations.
Sec. 106. Peanut program.
Sec. 107. Sugar program.
Sec. 108. Administration.
Sec. 109. Elimination of permanent price support authority.
Sec. 110. Effect of amendments.

                            TITLE II--DAIRY

          Subtitle A--Milk Price Support and Other Activities

Sec. 201. Milk price support program.
Sec. 202. Recourse loans for commercial processors of dairy products.
Sec. 203. Dairy export incentive program.
Sec. 204. Dairy promotion program.
Sec. 205. Fluid milk standards under milk marketing orders.
Sec. 206. Manufacturing allowance.
Sec. 207. Establishment of temporary Class I price and temporary Class 
              I equalization pools.
Sec. 208. Establishment of temporary Class IV price and temporary Class 
              IV equalization pool.
Sec. 209. Authority for establishment of standby pools.

          Subtitle B--Reform of Federal Milk Marketing Orders

Sec. 221. Issuance or amendment of Federal milk marketing orders to 
              implement certain reforms.
Sec. 222. Reform process.
Sec. 223. Effect of failure to comply with reform process requirements.

                        TITLE III--CONSERVATION

Sec. 301. Conservation.

          TITLE IV--AGRICULTURAL PROMOTION AND EXPORT PROGRAMS

Sec. 401. Market promotion program.
Sec. 402. Export enhancement program.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Crop insurance.
Sec. 502. Collection and use of agricultural quarantine and inspection 
              fees.
Sec. 503. Commodity Credit Corporation interest rate.
Sec. 504. Establishment of Office of Risk Management.
Sec. 505. Business Interruption Insurance Program.
Sec. 506. Continuation of options pilot program.

      TITLE VI--COMMISSION ON 21ST CENTURY PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE

Sec. 601. Establishment.
Sec. 602. Composition.
Sec. 603. Comprehensive review of past and future of production 
              agriculture.
Sec. 604. Reports.

[[Page H1433]]

Sec. 605. Powers.
Sec. 606. Commission procedures.
Sec. 607. Personnel matters.
Sec. 608. Termination of Commission.

              TITLE VII--EXTENSION OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES

Sec. 701. Extension of authority under Public Law 480.
Sec. 702. Extension of food for progress program.
            TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION PROGRAM

     SEC. 101. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this title--
       (1) to authorize the use of binding production flexibility 
     contracts between the United States and agricultural 
     producers to support farming certainty and flexibility while 
     ensuring continued compliance with farm conservation 
     compliance plans and wetland protection requirements;
       (2) to make nonrecourse marketing assistance loans and loan 
     deficiency available for certain crops;
       (3) to improve the operation of farm programs for peanuts 
     and sugar; and
       (4) to terminate price support authority under the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Considered planted.--The term ``considered planted'' 
     means acreage that is considered planted under title V of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.) (as in 
     effect prior to the amendment made by section 109(b)(2)).
       (2) Contract.--The term ``contract'' means a production 
     flexibility contract entered into under section 103.
       (3) Contract acreage.--The term ``contract acreage'' means 
     1 or more crop acreage bases established for contract 
     commodities under title V of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (as 
     in effect prior to the amendment made by section 109(b)(2)) 
     that would have been in effect for the 1996 crop (but for the 
     amendment made by section 109(b)(2)).
       (4) Contract commodity.--The term ``contract commodity'' 
     means wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland 
     cotton, and rice.
       (5) Contract payment.--The term ``contract payment'' means 
     a payment made under section 103 pursuant to a contract.
       (6) Corn.--The term ``corn'' means field corn.
       (7) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the United 
     States Department of Agriculture.
       (8) Farm program payment yield.--The term ``farm program 
     payment yield'' means the farm program payment yield 
     established for the 1995 crop of a contract commodity under 
     title V of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (as in effect prior 
     to the amendment made by section 109(b)(2)).
       (9) Loan commodity.--The term ``loan commodity'' means each 
     contract commodity, extra long staple cotton, and oilseeds.
       (10) Oilseed.--The term ``oilseed'' means a crop of 
     soybeans, sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, 
     flaxseed, mustard seed, or, if designated by the Secretary, 
     other oilseeds.
       (11) Person.--The term ``person'' means an individual, 
     partnership, firm, joint-stock company, corporation, 
     association, trust, estate, or State agency.
       (12) Producer.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``producer'' means a person who, 
     as owner, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper, shares in the 
     risk of producing a crop, and is entitled to share in the 
     crop available for marketing from the farm, or would have 
     shared had the crop been produced.
       (B) Hybrid seed.--The term ``producer'' includes a person 
     growing hybrid seed under contract. In determining the 
     interest of a grower of hybrid seed in a crop, the Secretary 
     shall not take into consideration the existence of a hybrid 
     seed contract.
       (13) Program.--The term ``program'' means the agricultural 
     market transition program established under this title.
       (14) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (15) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any other territory or 
     possession of the United States.
       (16) United states.--The term ``United States'', when used 
     in a geographical sense, means all of the States.

     SEC. 103. PRODUCTION FLEXIBILITY CONTRACTS.

       (a) Contracts Authorized.--
       (1) Offer and terms.--Beginning as soon as practicable 
     after the date of the enactment of this title, the Secretary 
     shall offer to enter into a contract with an eligible owner 
     or operator described in paragraph (2) on a farm containing 
     eligible farmland. Under the terms of a contract, the owner 
     or operator shall agree, in exchange for annual contract 
     payments, to comply with--
       (A) the conservation plan for the farm prepared in 
     accordance with section 1212 of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (16 U.S.C. 3812);
       (B) wetland protection requirements applicable to the farm 
     under subtitle C of title XII of the Act (16 U.S.C. 3821 et 
     seq.); and
       (C) the planting flexibility requirements of subsection 
     (j).
       (2) Eligible owners and operators described.--The following 
     persons shall be considered to be an owner or operator 
     eligible to enter into a contract:
       (A) An owner of eligible farmland who assumes all of the 
     risk of producing a crop.
       (B) An owner of eligible farmland who shares in the risk of 
     producing a crop.
       (C) An operator of eligible farmland with a share-rent 
     lease of the eligible farmland, regardless of the length of 
     the lease, if the owner enters into the same contract.
       (D) An operator of eligible farmland who cash rents the 
     eligible farmland under a lease expiring on or after 
     September 30, 2002, in which case the consent of the owner is 
     not required.
       (E) An operator of eligible farmland who cash rents the 
     eligible farmland under a lease expiring before September 30, 
     2002, if the owner consents to the contract.
       (F) An owner of eligible farmland who cash rents the 
     eligible farmland and the lease term expires before September 
     30, 2002, but only if the actual operator of the farm 
     declines to enter into a contract. In the case of an owner 
     covered by this subparagraph, contract payments shall not 
     begin under a contract until the fiscal year following the 
     fiscal year in which the lease held by the nonparticipating 
     operator expires.
       (G) An owner or operator described in any preceding 
     subparagraph of this paragraph regardless of whether the 
     owner or operator purchased catastrophic risk protection for 
     a fall-planted 1996 crop under section 508(b) of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b)).
       (3) Tenants and sharecroppers.--In carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary shall provide adequate safeguards to 
     protect the interests of operators who are tenants and 
     sharecroppers.
       (b) Elements.--
       (1) Time for contracting.--
       (A) Deadline.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
     Secretary may not enter into a contract after April 15, 1996.
       (B) Conservation reserve lands.--
       (i) In general.--At the beginning of each fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall allow an eligible owner or operator on a farm 
     covered by a conservation reserve contract entered into under 
     section 1231 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3831) that terminates after the date specified in 
     subparagraph (A) to enter into or expand a production 
     flexibility contract to cover the contract acreage of the 
     farm that was subject to the former conservation reserve 
     contract.
       (ii) Amount.--Contract payments made for contract acreage 
     under this subparagraph shall be made at the rate and amount 
     applicable to the annual contract payment level for the 
     applicable crop.
       (2) Duration of contract.--
       (A) Beginning date.--A contract shall begin with--
       (i) the 1996 crop of a contract commodity; or
       (ii) in the case of acreage that was subject to a 
     conservation reserve contract described in paragraph (1)(B), 
     the date the production flexibility contract was entered into 
     or expanded to cover the acreage.
       (B) Ending date.--A contract shall extend through the 2002 
     crop.
       (3) Estimation of contract payments.--At the time the 
     Secretary enters into a contract, the Secretary shall provide 
     an estimate of the minimum contract payments anticipated to 
     be made during at least the first fiscal year for which 
     contract payments will be made.
       (c) Eligible Farmland Described.--Land shall be considered 
     to be farmland eligible for coverage under a contract only if 
     the land has contract acreage attributable to the land and--
       (1) for at least 1 of the 1991 through 1995 crops, at least 
     a portion of the land was enrolled in the acreage reduction 
     program authorized for a crop of a contract commodity under 
     section 101B, 103B, 105B, or 107B of the Agricultural Act of 
     1949 (as in effect prior to the amendment made by section 
     109(b)(2)) or was considered planted;
       (2) was subject to a conservation reserve contract under 
     section 1231 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3831) whose term expired, or was voluntarily terminated, on 
     or after January 1, 1995; or
       (3) is released from coverage under a conservation reserve 
     contract by the Secretary during the period beginning on 
     January 1, 1995, and ending on the date specified in 
     subsection (b)(1)(A).
       (d) Time for Payment.--
       (1) In general.--An annual contract payment shall be made 
     not later than September 30 of each of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002.
       (2) Advance payments.--
       (A) Fiscal year 1996.--At the option of the owner or 
     operator, 50 percent of the contract payment for fiscal year 
     1996 shall be made not later than June 15, 1996.
       (B) Subsequent fiscal years.--At the option of the owner or 
     operator for fiscal year 1997 and each subsequent fiscal 
     year, 50 percent of the annual contract payment shall be made 
     on December 15.
       (e) Amounts Available for Contract Payments for Each Fiscal 
     Year.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, expend on a fiscal year basis the following 
     amounts to satisfy the obligations of the Secretary under all 
     contracts:
       (A) For fiscal year 1996, $5,570,000,000.
       (B) For fiscal year 1997, $5,385,000,000.
       (C) For fiscal year 1998, $5,800,000,000.
       (D) For fiscal year 1999, $5,603,000,000.
       (E) For fiscal year 2000, $5,130,000,000.
       (F) For fiscal year 2001, $4,130,000,000.
       (G) For fiscal year 2002, $4,008,000,000.
       (2) Allocation.--The amount made available for a fiscal 
     year under paragraph (1) shall be allocated as follows:
       (A) For wheat, 26.26 percent.
       (B) For corn, 46.22 percent.
       (C) For grain sorghum, 5.11 percent.
       (D) For barley, 2.16 percent.
       (E) For oats, 0.15 percent.
       (F) For upland cotton, 11.63 percent.
       (G) For rice, 8.47 percent.
       (3) Adjustment.--The Secretary shall adjust the amounts 
     allocated for each contract commodity under paragraph (2) for 
     a particular fiscal year by--
       (A) adding an amount equal to the sum of all repayments of 
     deficiency payments received under section 114(a)(2) of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (as in effect prior to the amendment 
     made by section 109(b)(2)) for the commodity;
     
[[Page H1434]]

       (B) to the maximum extent practicable, adding an amount 
     equal to the sum of all contract payments withheld by the 
     Secretary, at the request of an owner or operator subject to 
     a contract, as an offset against repayments of deficiency 
     payments otherwise required under section 114(a)(2) of the 
     Act (as so in effect) for the commodity;
       (C) adding an amount equal to the sum of all refunds of 
     contract payments received during the preceding fiscal year 
     under subsection (h) of this section for the commodity; and
       (D) subtracting an amount equal to the amount, if any, 
     necessary during that fiscal year to satisfy payment 
     requirements for the commodity under sections 103B, 105B, or 
     107B of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (as in effect prior to 
     the amendment made by section 109(b)(2)) for the 1994 and 
     1995 crop years.
       (4) Special adjustment to cover existing rice payment 
     requirements.--As soon as possible after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall determine the 
     amount, if any, necessary to satisfy remaining payment 
     requirements under section 101B of the Agricultural Act of 
     1949 (as in effect prior to the amendment made by section 
     109(b)(2)) for the 1994 and 1995 crops of rice. The total 
     amount determined under this paragraph shall be deducted, in 
     equal amounts each fiscal year, from the amount allocated for 
     rice under paragraph (2)(G) for fiscal years after the fiscal 
     year in which the final remaining payments are made for rice.
       (f) Determination of Contract Payments.--
       (1) Individual payment quantity of contract commodities.--
     For each contract, the payment quantity of a contract 
     commodity for each fiscal year shall be equal to the product 
     of--
       (A) 85 percent of the contract acreage; and
       (B) the farm program payment yield.
       (2) Annual payment quantity of contract commodities.--The 
     payment quantity of each contract commodity covered by all 
     contracts for each fiscal year shall equal the sum of the 
     amounts calculated under paragraph (1) for each individual 
     contract.
       (3) Annual payment rate.--The payment rate for a contract 
     commodity for each fiscal year shall be equal to--
       (A) the amount made available under subsection (e) for the 
     contract commodity for the fiscal year; divided by
       (B) the amount determined under paragraph (2) for the 
     fiscal year.
       (4) Annual payment amount.--The amount to be paid under a 
     contract in effect for each fiscal year with respect to a 
     contract commodity shall be equal to the product of--
       (A) the payment quantity determined under paragraph (1) 
     with respect to the contract; and
       (B) the payment rate in effect under paragraph (3).
       (5) Assignment of contract payments.--The provisions of 
     section 8(g) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(g)) (relating to assignment of payments) 
     shall apply to contract payments under this subsection. The 
     owner or operator making the assignment, or the assignee, 
     shall provide the Secretary with notice, in such manner as 
     the Secretary may require in the contract, of any assignment 
     made under this paragraph.
       (6) Sharing of contract payments.--The Secretary shall 
     provide for the sharing of contract payments among the owners 
     and operators subject to the contract on a fair and equitable 
     basis.
       (g) Payment Limitation.--The total amount of contract 
     payments made to a person under a contract during any fiscal 
     year may not exceed the payment limitations established under 
     sections 1001 through 1001C of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (7 U.S.C. 1308 through 1308-3).
       (h) Effect of Violation.--
       (1) Termination of contract.--Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), if an owner or operator subject to a contract 
     violates the conservation plan for the farm containing 
     eligible farmland under the contract, wetland protection 
     requirements applicable to the farm, or the planting 
     flexibility requirements of subsection (j), the Secretary 
     shall terminate the contract with respect to the owner or 
     operator on each farm in which the owner or operator has an 
     interest. On the termination, the owner or operator shall 
     forfeit all rights to receive future contract payments on 
     each farm in which the owner or operator has an interest and 
     shall refund to the Secretary all contract payments received 
     by the owner or operator during the period of the violation, 
     together with interest on the contract payments as determined 
     by the Secretary.
       (2) Refund or adjustment.--If the Secretary determines that 
     a violation does not warrant termination of the contract 
     under paragraph (1), the Secretary may require the owner or 
     operator subject to the contract--
       (A) to refund to the Secretary that part of the contract 
     payments received by the owner or operator during the period 
     of the violation, together with interest on the contract 
     payments as determined by the Secretary; or
       (B) to accept a reduction in the amount of future contract 
     payments that is proportionate to the severity of the 
     violation, as determined by the Secretary.
       (3) Foreclosure.--An owner or operator subject to a 
     contract may not be required to make repayments to the 
     Secretary of amounts received under the contract if the 
     contract acreage has been foreclosed on and the Secretary 
     determines that forgiving the repayments is appropriate in 
     order to provide fair and equitable treatment. This paragraph 
     shall not void the responsibilities of such an owner or 
     operator under the contract if the owner or operator 
     continues or resumes operation, or control, of the contract 
     acreage. On the resumption of operation or control over the 
     contract acreage by the owner or operator, the provisions of 
     the contract in effect on the date of the foreclosure shall 
     apply.
       (4) Review.--A determination of the Secretary under this 
     subsection shall be considered to be an adverse decision for 
     purposes of the availability of administrative review of the 
     determination.
       (i) Transfer of Interest in Lands Subject to Contract.--
       (1) Effect of transfer.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), the transfer by an owner or operator subject to a 
     contract of the right and interest of the owner or operator 
     in the contract acreage shall result in the termination of 
     the contract with respect to the acreage, effective on the 
     date of the transfer, unless the transferee of the acreage 
     agrees with the Secretary to assume all obligations of the 
     contract. At the request of the transferee, the Secretary may 
     modify the contract if the modifications are consistent with 
     the objectives of this section as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Exception.--If an owner or operator who is entitled to 
     a contract payment dies, becomes incompetent, or is otherwise 
     unable to receive the contract payment, the Secretary shall 
     make the payment, in accordance with regulations prescribed 
     by the Secretary.
       (j) Planting Flexibility.--
       (1) Permitted crops.--Subject to paragraph (2), any 
     commodity or crop may be planted on contract acreage on a 
     farm.
       (2) Limitations.--
       (A) Haying and grazing.--
       (i) Time limitations.--Haying and grazing on land exceeding 
     15 percent of the contract acreage on a farm as provided in 
     clause (iii) shall be permitted, except during any 
     consecutive 5-month period between April 1 and October 31 
     that is determined by the State committee established under 
     section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment 
     Act (6 U.S.C. 590h(b)) for a State. In the case of a natural 
     disaster, the Secretary may permit unlimited haying and 
     grazing on the contract acreage of a farm.
       (ii) Contract commodities.--Contract acreage planted to a 
     contract commodity for harvest may be hayed or grazed at any 
     time without limitation.
       (iii) Haying and grazing limitation on portion or contract 
     acreage.--Unlimited haying and grazing shall be permitted on 
     not more than 15 percent of the contract acreage on a farm.
       (B) Alfalfa.--Alfalfa may be grown on contract acreage in 
     excess of the acreage limitation in subparagraph (A)(iii) and 
     without regard to the time limitation in subparagraph (A)(i), 
     except that each contract acre on a farm that is planted for 
     harvest to alfalfa in excess of 15 percent of the total 
     contract acreage on the farm shall be ineligible for contract 
     payments.
       (C) Fruits and vegetables.--
       (i) In general.--The planting for harvest of fruits and 
     vegetables shall be prohibited on contract acreage, except in 
     any region in which there is a history of double-cropping, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (ii) Unrestricted vegetables.--Notwithstanding clause (i), 
     lentils, mung beans, and dry peas may be planted for harvest 
     without limitation on contract acreage.

     SEC. 104. NONRECOURSE MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS AND LOAN 
                   DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS.

       (a) Availability of Marketing Assistance Loans.--
       (1) Nonrecourse loans available.--For each of the 1996 
     through 2002 crops of each loan commodity, the Secretary 
     shall make available to producers on a farm nonrecourse 
     marketing assistance loans for loan commodities produced on 
     the farm. The loans shall be made under terms and conditions 
     that are prescribed by the Secretary and at the loan rate 
     established under subsection (b) for the loan commodity.
       (2) Eligible production.--The following production shall be 
     eligible for a marketing assistance loan under paragraph (1):
       (A) In the case of a marketing assistance loan for a 
     contract commodity, any production by a producer who has 
     entered into a production flexibility contract.
       (B) In the case of a marketing assistance loan for extra 
     long staple cotton and oilseeds, any production.
       (3) Recourse loans for high moisture feed grains.--
       (A) Recourse loans available.--For each of the 1996 through 
     2002 crops of corn and grain sorghum, the Secretary shall 
     make available recourse loans, as determined by the 
     Secretary, to producers on a farm who--
       (i) normally harvest all or a portion of their crop of corn 
     or grain sorghum in a high moisture state;
       (ii) present--

       (I) certified scale tickets from an inspected, certified 
     commercial scale, including licensed warehouses, feedlots, 
     feed mills, distilleries, or other similar entities approved 
     by the Secretary, pursuant to regulations issued by the 
     Secretary; or
       (II) present field or other physical measurements of the 
     standing or stored crop in regions of the country, as 
     determined by the Secretary, that do not have certified 
     commercial scales from which certified scale tickets may be 
     obtained within reasonable proximity of harvest operation;

       (iii) certify that they were the owners of the feed grain 
     at the time of delivery to, and that the quantity to be 
     placed under loan under this paragraph was in fact harvested 
     on the farm and delivered to, a feedlot, feed mill, or 
     commercial or on-farm high-moisture storage facility, or to 
     such facilities maintained by the users of corn and grain 
     sorghum in a high moisture state; and
       (iv) comply with deadlines established by the Secretary for 
     harvesting the corn or grain sorghum and submit applications 
     for loans under this paragraph within deadlines established 
     by the Secretary. 
     
[[Page H1435]]

       (B) Eligibility of acquired feed grains.--Loans under this 
     paragraph shall be made on a quantity of corn or grain 
     sorghum of the same crop acquired by the producer equivalent 
     to a quantity determined by multiplying--
       (i) the acreage of the corn or grain sorghum in a high 
     moisture state harvested on the producer's farm; by
       (ii) the lower of the farm program payment yield or the 
     actual yield on a field, as determined by the Secretary, that 
     is similar to the field from which the corn or grain sorghum 
     was obtained.
       (C) High moisture state defined.--In this paragraph, the 
     term ``high moisture state'' means corn or grain sorghum 
     having a moisture content in excess of Commodity Credit 
     Corporation standards for marketing assistance loans made by 
     the Secretary under paragraph (1).
       (b) Loan Rates.--
       (1) Wheat.--
       (A) Loan rate.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the loan rate 
     for a marketing assistance loan under subsection (a)(1) for 
     wheat shall be--
       (i) not less than 85 percent of the simple average price 
     received by producers of wheat, as determined by the 
     Secretary, during the marketing years for the immediately 
     preceding 5 crops of wheat, excluding the year in which the 
     average price was the highest and the year in which the 
     average price was the lowest in the period; but
       (ii) not more than $2.58 per bushel.
       (B) Stocks to use ratio adjustment.--If the Secretary 
     estimates for any marketing year that the ratio of ending 
     stocks of wheat to total use for the marketing year will be--
       (i) equal to or greater than 30 percent, the Secretary may 
     reduce the loan rate for wheat for the corresponding crop by 
     an amount not to exceed 10 percent in any year;
       (ii) less than 30 percent but not less than 15 percent, the 
     Secretary may reduce the loan rate for wheat for the 
     corresponding crop by an amount not to exceed 5 percent in 
     any year; or
       (iii) less than 15 percent, the Secretary may not reduce 
     the loan rate for wheat for the corresponding crop.
       (C) No effect on future years.--Any reduction in the loan 
     rate for wheat under subparagraph (B) shall not be considered 
     in determining the loan rate for wheat for subsequent years.
       (2) Feed grains.--
       (A) Loan rate for corn.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     loan rate for a marketing assistance loan under subsection 
     (a)(1) for corn shall be--
       (i) not less than 85 percent of the simple average price 
     received by producers of corn, as determined by the 
     Secretary, during the marketing years for the immediately 
     preceding 5 crops of corn, excluding the year in which the 
     average price was the highest and the year in which the 
     average price was the lowest in the period; but
       (ii) not more than $1.89 per bushel.
       (B) Stocks to use ratio adjustment.--If the Secretary 
     estimates for any marketing year that the ratio of ending 
     stocks of corn to total use for the marketing year will be--
       (i) equal to or greater than 25 percent, the Secretary may 
     reduce the loan rate for corn for the corresponding crop by 
     an amount not to exceed 10 percent in any year;
       (ii) less than 25 percent but not less than 12.5 percent, 
     the Secretary may reduce the loan rate for corn for the 
     corresponding crop by an amount not to exceed 5 percent in 
     any year; or
       (iii) less than 12.5 percent the Secretary may not reduce 
     the loan rate for corn for the corresponding crop.
       (C) No effect on future years.--Any reduction in the loan 
     rate for corn under subparagraph (B) shall not be considered 
     in determining the loan rate for corn for subsequent years.
       (D) Other feed grains.--The loan rate for a marketing 
     assistance loan under subsection (a)(1) for grain sorghum, 
     barley, and oats, respectively, shall be established at such 
     level as the Secretary determines is fair and reasonable in 
     relation to the rate that loans are made available for corn, 
     taking into consideration the feeding value of the commodity 
     in relation to corn.
       (3) Upland cotton.--
       (A) Loan rate.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the loan rate 
     for a marketing assistance loan under subsection (a)(1) for 
     upland cotton shall be established by the Secretary at such 
     loan rate, per pound, as will reflect for the base quality of 
     upland cotton, as determined by the Secretary, at average 
     locations in the United States a rate that is not less than 
     the smaller of--
       (i) 85 percent of the average price (weighted by market and 
     month) of the base quality of cotton as quoted in the 
     designated United States spot markets during 3 years of the 
     5-year period ending July 31 in the year in which the loan 
     rate is announced, excluding the year in which the average 
     price was the highest and the year in which the average price 
     was the lowest in the period; or
       (ii) 90 percent of the average, for the 15-week period 
     beginning July 1 of the year in which the loan rate is 
     announced, of the 5 lowest-priced growths of the growths 
     quoted for Middling 1\3/32\-inch cotton C.I.F. Northern 
     Europe (adjusted downward by the average difference during 
     the period April 15 through October 15 of the year in which 
     the loan is announced between the average Northern European 
     price quotation of such quality of cotton and the market 
     quotations in the designated United States spot markets for 
     the base quality of upland cotton), as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       (B) Limitations.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance 
     loan for upland cotton shall not be less than $0.50 per pound 
     or more than $0.5192 per pound.
       (4) Extra long staple cotton.--The loan rate for a 
     marketing assistance loan under subsection (a)(1) for extra 
     long staple cotton shall be--
       (A) not less than 85 percent of the simple average price 
     received by producers of extra long staple cotton, as 
     determined by the Secretary, during 3 years of the 5 previous 
     marketing years, excluding the year in which the average 
     price was the highest and the year in which the average price 
     was the lowest in the period; but
       (B) not more than $0.7965 per pound.
       (5) Rice.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance loan 
     under subsection (a)(1) for rice shall be $6.50 per 
     hundredweight.
       (6) Oilseeds.--
       (A) Soybeans.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance 
     loan under subsection (a)(1) for soybeans shall be $4.92 per 
     bushel.
       (B) Sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, mustard 
     seed, and flaxseed.--The loan rates for a marketing 
     assistance loan under subsection (a)(1) for sunflower seed, 
     canola, rapeseed, safflower, mustard seed, and flaxseed, 
     individually, shall be $0.087 per pound.
       (C) Other oilseeds.--The loan rates for a marketing 
     assistance loan under subsection (a)(1) for other oilseeds 
     shall be established at such level as the Secretary 
     determines is fair and reasonable in relation to the loan 
     rate available for soybeans, except in no event shall the 
     rate for the oilseeds (other than cottonseed) be less than 
     the rate established for soybeans on a per-pound basis for 
     the same crop.
       (c) Term of Loan.--In the case of each loan commodity 
     (other than upland cotton or extra long staple cotton), a 
     marketing assistance loan under subsection (a)(1) shall have 
     a term of 9 months beginning on the first day of the first 
     month after the month in which the loan is made. A marketing 
     assistance loan for upland cotton or extra long staple cotton 
     shall have a term of 10 months beginning on the first day of 
     the first month after the month in which the loan is made. 
     The Secretary may not extend the term of a marketing 
     assistance loan for any loan commodity.
       (d) Repayment.--
       (1) Repayment rates generally.--The Secretary shall permit 
     producers to repay a marketing assistance loan under 
     subsection (a)(1) for a loan commodity (other than extra long 
     staple cotton) at a level that is the lesser of--
       (A) the loan rate established for the commodity under 
     subsection (b); or
       (B) the prevailing world market price for the commodity 
     (adjusted to United States quality and location), as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (2) Additional repayment rates for wheat, feed grains, and 
     oilseeds.--In the case of a marketing assistance loan under 
     subsection (a)(1) for wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, 
     oats, or oilseeds, the Secretary shall also permit a producer 
     to repay the loan at such level as the Secretary determines 
     will--
       (A) minimize potential loan forfeitures;
       (B) minimize the accumulation of stocks of the commodity by 
     the Federal Government;
       (C) minimize the cost incurred by the Federal Government in 
     storing the commodity; and
       (D) allow the commodity produced in the United States to be 
     marketed freely and competitively, both domestically and 
     internationally.
       (3) Repayment rates for extra long staple cotton.--
     Repayment of a marketing assistance loan for extra long 
     staple cotton shall be at the loan rate established for the 
     commodity under subsection (b), plus interest (as determined 
     by the Secretary).
       (4) Prevailing world market price.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1) and subsection (f), the Secretary shall 
     prescribe by regulation--
       (A) a formula to determine the prevailing world market 
     price for each loan commodity, adjusted to United States 
     quality and location; and
       (B) a mechanism by which the Secretary shall announce 
     periodically the prevailing world market price for each loan 
     commodity.
       (5) Adjustment of prevailing world market price for upland 
     cotton.--
       (A) In general.--During the period ending July 31, 2003, 
     the prevailing world market price for upland cotton (adjusted 
     to United States quality and location) established under 
     paragraph (4) shall be further adjusted if--
       (i) the adjusted prevailing world market price is less than 
     115 percent of the loan rate for upland cotton established 
     under subsection (b), as determined by the Secretary; and
       (ii) the Friday through Thursday average price quotation 
     for the lowest-priced United States growth as quoted for 
     Middling (M) 1\3/32\-inch cotton delivered C.I.F. Northern 
     Europe is greater than the Friday through Thursday average 
     price of the 5 lowest-priced growths of upland cotton, as 
     quoted for Middling (M) 1\3/32\-inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. 
     Northern Europe (referred to in this subsection as the 
     ``Northern Europe price'').
       (B) Further adjustment.--Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (C), the adjusted prevailing world market price for upland 
     cotton shall be further adjusted on the basis of some or all 
     of the following data, as available:
       (i) The United States share of world exports.
       (ii) The current level of cotton export sales and cotton 
     export shipments.
       (iii) Other data determined by the Secretary to be relevant 
     in establishing an accurate prevailing world market price for 
     upland cotton (adjusted to United States quality and 
     location).
       (C) Limitation on further adjustment.--The adjustment under 
     subparagraph (B) may not exceed the difference between--
       (i) the Friday through Thursday average price for the 
     lowest-priced United States growth as quoted for Middling 
     1\3/32\-inch cotton delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe; and
       (ii) the Northern Europe price.
       (e) Loan Deficiency Payments.--
       (1) Availability.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), the 
     Secretary may make loan deficiency payments available to 
     producers who, although eligible to obtain a marketing 
     assistance loan under subsection (a)(1) with respect to a 
     loan commodity, agree to forgo obtaining the loan for the 
     commodity in return for payments under this subsection.
     
[[Page H1436]]

       (2) Computation.--A loan deficiency payment under this 
     subsection shall be computed by multiplying--
       (A) the loan payment rate determined under paragraph (3) 
     for the loan commodity; by
       (B) the quantity of the loan commodity that the producers 
     on a farm are eligible to place under loan but for which the 
     producers forgo obtaining the loan in return for payments 
     under this subsection.
       (3) Loan payment rate.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the loan payment rate shall be the amount by which--
       (A) the loan rate established under subsection (b) for the 
     loan commodity; exceeds
       (B) the rate at which a loan for the commodity may be 
     repaid under subsection (d).
       (4) Exception for extra long staple cotton.--This 
     subsection shall not apply with respect to extra long staple 
     cotton.
       (f) Special Marketing Loan Provisions for Upland Cotton.--
       (1) Cotton user marketing certificates.--
       (A) Issuance.--Subject to subparagraph (D), during the 
     period ending July 31, 2003, the Secretary shall issue 
     marketing certificates or cash payments to domestic users and 
     exporters for documented purchases by domestic users and 
     sales for export by exporters made in the week following a 
     consecutive 4-week period in which--
       (i) the Friday through Thursday average price quotation for 
     the lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for 
     Middling (M) 1\3/32\-inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern 
     Europe exceeds the Northern Europe price by more than 1.25 
     cents per pound; and
       (ii) the prevailing world market price for upland cotton 
     (adjusted to United States quality and location) does not 
     exceed 130 percent of the loan rate for upland cotton 
     established under subsection (b).
       (B) Value of certificates or payments.--The value of the 
     marketing certificates or cash payments shall be based on the 
     amount of the difference (reduced by 1.25 cents per pound) in 
     the prices during the 4th week of the consecutive 4-week 
     period multiplied by the quantity of upland cotton included 
     in the documented sales.
       (C) Redemption, marketing, or exchange.--The Secretary 
     shall establish procedures to assist persons receiving 
     marketing certificates under this paragraph in the redemption 
     of certificates for cash, or in the marketing or exchange of 
     certificates for agricultural commodities owned by the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation, in such manner and at such 
     price levels as the Secretary determines will best effectuate 
     the purposes of the marketing certificates. Any price 
     restrictions that may otherwise apply to the disposition of 
     agricultural commodities by the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     shall not apply to the redemption of certificates under this 
     paragraph.
       (D) Exception.--The Secretary shall not issue marketing 
     certificates or cash payments under subparagraph (A) if, for 
     the immediately preceding consecutive 10-week period, the 
     Friday through Thursday average price quotation for the 
     lowest priced United States growth, as quoted for Middling 
     (M) 1\3/32\-inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe, 
     adjusted for the value of any certificate issued under this 
     paragraph, exceeds the Northern Europe price by more than 
     1.25 cents per pound.
       (E) Limitation on expenditures.--Total expenditures under 
     this paragraph shall not exceed $701,000,000 during fiscal 
     years 1996 through 2002.
       (2) Special import quota.--
       (A) Establishment.--The President shall carry out an import 
     quota program that provides that, during the period ending 
     July 31, 2003, whenever the Secretary determines and 
     announces that for any consecutive 10-week period, the 
     Friday through Thursday average price quotation for the 
     lowest-priced United States growth, as quoted for Middling 
     (M) 1\3/32\-inch cotton, delivered C.I.F. Northern Europe, 
     adjusted for the value of any certificates issued under 
     paragraph (1), exceeds the Northern Europe price by more 
     than 1.25 cents per pound, there shall immediately be in 
     effect a special import quota.
       (B) Quantity.--The quota shall be equal to 1 week's 
     consumption of upland cotton by domestic mills at the 
     seasonally adjusted average rate of the most recent 3 months 
     for which data are available.
       (C) Application.--The quota shall apply to upland cotton 
     purchased not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     Secretary's announcement under subparagraph (A) and entered 
     into the United States not later than 180 days after the 
     date.
       (D) Overlap.--A special quota period may be established 
     that overlaps any existing quota period if required by 
     subparagraph (A), except that a special quota period may not 
     be established under this paragraph if a quota period has 
     been established under subsection (g).
       (E) Preferential tariff treatment.--The quantity under a 
     special import quota shall be considered to be an in-quota 
     quantity for purposes of--
       (i) section 213(d) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 
     Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(d));
       (ii) section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3203);
       (iii) section 503(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2463(d)); and
       (iv) General Note 3(a)(iv) to the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule.
       (F) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term ``special 
     import quota'' means a quantity of imports that is not 
     subject to the over-quota tariff rate of a tariff-rate quota.
       (g) Limited Global Import Quota for Upland Cotton.--
       (1) In general.--The President shall carry out an import 
     quota program that provides that whenever the Secretary 
     determines and announces that the average price of the base 
     quality of upland cotton, as determined by the Secretary, in 
     the designated spot markets for a month exceeded 130 percent 
     of the average price of such quality of cotton in the markets 
     for the preceding 36 months, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, there shall immediately be in effect a 
     limited global import quota subject to the following 
     conditions:
       (A) Quantity.--The quantity of the quota shall be equal to 
     21 days of domestic mill consumption of upland cotton at the 
     seasonally adjusted average rate of the most recent 3 months 
     for which data are available.
       (B) Quantity if prior quota.--If a quota has been 
     established under this subsection during the preceding 12 
     months, the quantity of the quota next established under this 
     subsection shall be the smaller of 21 days of domestic mill 
     consumption calculated under subparagraph (A) or the quantity 
     required to increase the supply to 130 percent of the demand.
       (C) Preferential tariff treatment.--The quantity under a 
     limited global import quota shall be considered to be an in-
     quota quantity for purposes of--
       (i) section 213(d) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 
     Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(d));
       (ii) section 204 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
     U.S.C. 3203);
       (iii) section 503(d) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
     2463(d)); and
       (iv) General Note 3(a)(iv) to the Harmonized Tariff 
     Schedule.
       (D) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       (i) Supply.--The term ``supply'' means, using the latest 
     official data of the Bureau of the Census, the Department of 
     Agriculture, and the Department of the Treasury--

       (I) the carry-over of upland cotton at the beginning of the 
     marketing year (adjusted to 480-pound bales) in which the 
     quota is established;
       (II) production of the current crop; and
       (III) imports to the latest date available during the 
     marketing year.

       (ii) Demand.--The term ``demand'' means--

       (I) the average seasonally adjusted annual rate of domestic 
     mill consumption in the most recent 3 months for which data 
     are available; and
       (II) the larger of--

       (aa) average exports of upland cotton during the preceding 
     6 marketing years; or
       (bb) cumulative exports of upland cotton plus outstanding 
     export sales for the marketing year in which the quota is 
     established.
       (iii) Limited global import quota.--The term ``limited 
     global import quota'' means a quantity of imports that is not 
     subject to the over-quota tariff rate of a tariff-rate quota.
       (E) Quota entry period.--When a quota is established under 
     this subsection, cotton may be entered under the quota during 
     the 90-day period beginning on the date the quota is 
     established by the Secretary.
       (2) No overlap.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a quota 
     period may not be established that overlaps an existing quota 
     period or a special quota period established under subsection 
     (f)(2).
       (h) Source of Loans.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide the loans 
     authorized by this section and the Agricultural Adjustment 
     Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.) through the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation and other means available to the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Processors.--Whenever any loan or surplus removal 
     operation for any agricultural commodity is carried out 
     through purchases from or loans or payments to processors, 
     the Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, obtain from 
     the processors such assurances as the Secretary considers 
     adequate that the producers of the commodity have received or 
     will receive maximum benefits from the loan or surplus 
     removal operation.
       (i) Adjustments of Loans.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may make appropriate 
     adjustments in the loan levels for any commodity for 
     differences in grade, type, quality, location, and other 
     factors.
       (2) Loan level.--The adjustments shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, be made in such manner that the average 
     loan level for the commodity will, on the basis of the 
     anticipated incidence of the factors, be equal to the level 
     of support determined as provided in this section or the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.).
       (j) Personal Liability of Producers for Deficiencies.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 
     producer shall be personally liable for any deficiency 
     arising from the sale of the collateral securing any 
     nonrecourse loan made under this section or the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.) unless the 
     loan was obtained through a fraudulent representation by the 
     producer.
       (2) Limitations.--Paragraph (1) shall not prevent the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation or the Secretary from requiring 
     a producer to assume liability for--
       (A) a deficiency in the grade, quality, or quantity of a 
     commodity stored on a farm or delivered by the producer;
       (B) a failure to properly care for and preserve a 
     commodity; or
       (C) a failure or refusal to deliver a commodity in 
     accordance with a program established under this section or 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.
       (3) Acquisition of collateral.--The Secretary may include 
     in a contract for a nonrecourse loan made under this section 
     or the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 a provision that 
     permits the Commodity Credit Corporation, on and after the 
     maturity of the loan, to acquire title to the unredeemed 
     collateral without obligation to pay for any market value 
     that the collateral may have in excess of the loan 
     indebtedness.
       (4) Sugarcane and sugar beets.--A security interest 
     obtained by the Commodity Credit Corporation as a result of 
     the execution of a security agreement by the processor of 
     sugarcane or 

[[Page H1437]]
     sugar beets shall be superior to all statutory and common law liens on 
     raw cane sugar and refined beet sugar in favor of the 
     producers of sugarcane and sugar beets and all prior recorded 
     and unrecorded liens on the crops of sugarcane and sugar 
     beets from which the sugar was derived.
       (k) Commodity Credit Corporation Sales Price 
     Restrictions.--
       (1) In general.--The Commodity Credit Corporation may sell 
     any commodity owned or controlled by the Corporation at any 
     price that the Secretary determines will maximize returns 
     to the Corporation.
       (2) Nonapplication of sales price restrictions.--Paragraph 
     (1) shall not apply to--
       (A) a sale for a new or byproduct use;
       (B) a sale of peanuts or oilseeds for the extraction of 
     oil;
       (C) a sale for seed or feed if the sale will not 
     substantially impair any loan program;
       (D) a sale of a commodity that has substantially 
     deteriorated in quality or as to which there is a danger of 
     loss or waste through deterioration or spoilage;
       (E) a sale for the purpose of establishing a claim arising 
     out of a contract or against a person who has committed 
     fraud, misrepresentation, or other wrongful act with respect 
     to the commodity;
       (F) a sale for export, as determined by the Corporation; 
     and
       (G) a sale for other than a primary use.
       (3) Presidential disaster areas.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), on such 
     terms and conditions as the Secretary may consider in the 
     public interest, the Corporation may make available any 
     commodity or product owned or controlled by the Corporation 
     for use in relieving distress--
       (i) in any area in the United States (including the Virgin 
     Islands) declared by the President to be an acute distress 
     area because of unemployment or other economic cause, if the 
     President finds that the use will not displace or interfere 
     with normal marketing of agricultural commodities; and
       (ii) in connection with any major disaster determined by 
     the President to warrant assistance by the Federal Government 
     under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
       (B) Costs.--Except on a reimbursable basis, the Corporation 
     shall not bear any costs in connection with making a 
     commodity available under subparagraph (A) beyond the cost of 
     the commodity to the Corporation incurred in--
       (i) the storage of the commodity; and
       (ii) the handling and transportation costs in making 
     delivery of the commodity to designated agencies at 1 or more 
     central locations in each State or other area.
       (4) Efficient operations.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to 
     the sale of a commodity the disposition of which is desirable 
     in the interest of the effective and efficient conduct of the 
     operations of the Corporation because of the small quantity 
     of the commodity involved, or because of the age, location, 
     or questionable continued storability of the commodity.

     SEC. 105. PAYMENT LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1001 of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) 
     through (4) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Limitation on payments under production flexibility 
     contracts.--The total amount of contract payments made under 
     section 103 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act to a 
     person under 1 or more production flexibility contracts 
     entered into under the section during any fiscal year may not 
     exceed $40,000.
       ``(2) Limitation on marketing loan gains and loan 
     deficiency payments.--For each of the 1996 through 2002 crops 
     of loan commodities, the total amount of payments specified 
     in paragraph (3) that a person shall be entitled to receive 
     under section 104 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act 
     for one or more loan commodities may not exceed $75,000.
       ``(3) Description of payments subject to limitation.--The 
     payments referred to in paragraph (2) are the following:
       ``(A) Any gain realized by a producer from repaying a 
     marketing assistance loan for a crop of any loan commodity at 
     a lower level than the original loan rate established for the 
     loan commodity under section 104(b) of the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act.
       ``(B) Any loan deficiency payment received for a loan 
     commodity under section 104(e) of the Act.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this title, the terms `contract 
     payment' and `loan commodity' have the meaning given those 
     terms in section 102 of the Agricultural Market Transition 
     Act.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1001A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 
     U.S.C. 1308-1) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``under the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.)''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``under the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949''.
       (2) Section 1001C(a) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1308-3(a)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``For each of the 1991 through 1997 crops, 
     any'' and inserting ``Any'';
       (B) by striking ``production adjustment payments, price 
     support program loans, payments, or benefits made available 
     under the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et seq.),'' 
     and inserting ``loans or payments made available under title 
     I of the Agricultural Market Transition Act,''; and
       (C) by striking ``during the 1989 through 1997 crop 
     years''.

     SEC. 106. PEANUT PROGRAM.

       (a) Quota Peanuts.--
       (1) Availability of loans.--The Secretary shall make 
     nonrecourse loans available to producers of quota peanuts.
       (2) Loan rate.--The national average quota loan rate for 
     quota peanuts shall be $610 per ton.
       (3) Inspection, handling, or storage.--The loan amount may 
     not be reduced by the Secretary by any deductions for 
     inspection, handling, or storage.
       (4) Location and other factors.--The Secretary may make 
     adjustments in the loan rate for quota peanuts for location 
     of peanuts and such other factors as are authorized by 
     section 411 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.
       (5) Offers from handlers.--In the case of any producer who 
     had an offer available from a handler to purchase quota 
     peanuts, for delivery within the same county or a contiguous 
     county, at a price equal to or greater than the applicable 
     quota support rate, the Secretary shall reduce the support 
     rate by 5 percent for the peanuts that were subject to the 
     offer.
       (b) Additional Peanuts.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall make nonrecourse loans 
     available to producers of additional peanuts at such rates as 
     the Secretary finds appropriate, taking into consideration 
     the demand for peanut oil and peanut meal, expected prices of 
     other vegetable oils and protein meals, and the demand for 
     peanuts in foreign markets.
       (2) Announcement.--The Secretary shall announce the loan 
     rate for additional peanuts of each crop not later than 
     February 15 preceding the marketing year for the crop for 
     which the loan rate is being determined.
       (c) Area Marketing Associations.--
       (1) Warehouse storage loans.--
       (A) In general.--In carrying out subsections (a) and (b), 
     the Secretary shall make warehouse storage loans available in 
     each of the producing areas (described in section 1446.95 of 
     title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (January 1, 1989)) 
     to a designated area marketing association of peanut 
     producers that is selected and approved by the Secretary and 
     that is operated primarily for the purpose of conducting the 
     loan activities. The Secretary may not make warehouse storage 
     loans available to any cooperative that is engaged in 
     operations or activities concerning peanuts other than those 
     operations and activities specified in this section and 
     section 358e of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 
     U.S.C. 1359a).
       (B) Administrative and supervisory activities.--An area 
     marketing association shall be used in administrative and 
     supervisory activities relating to loans and marketing 
     activities under this section and section 358e of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359a).
       (C) Association costs.--Loans made to the association under 
     this paragraph shall include such costs as the area marketing 
     association reasonably may incur in carrying out the 
     responsibilities, operations, and activities of the 
     association under this section and section 358e of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359a).
       (2) Pools for quota and additional peanuts.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall require that each area 
     marketing association establish pools and maintain complete 
     and accurate records by area and segregation for quota 
     peanuts handled under loan and for additional peanuts placed 
     under loan, except that separate pools shall be established 
     for Valencia peanuts produced in New Mexico. Bright hull and 
     dark hull Valencia peanuts shall be considered as separate 
     types for the purpose of establishing the pools.
       (B) Net gains.--Net gains on peanuts in each pool, unless 
     otherwise approved by the Secretary, shall be distributed 
     only to producers who placed peanuts in the pool and shall be 
     distributed in proportion to the value of the peanuts placed 
     in the pool by each producer. Net gains for peanuts in each 
     pool shall consist of the following:
       (i) Quota peanuts.--For quota peanuts, the net gains over 
     and above the loan indebtedness and other costs or losses 
     incurred on peanuts placed in the pool.
       (ii) Additional peanuts.--For additional peanuts, the net 
     gains over and above the loan indebtedness and other costs or 
     losses incurred on peanuts placed in the pool for additional 
     peanuts.
       (d) Losses.--Losses in quota area pools shall be covered 
     using the following sources in the following order of 
     priority:
       (1) Transfers from additional loan pools.--The proceeds due 
     any producer from any pool shall be reduced by the amount of 
     any loss that is incurred with respect to peanuts transferred 
     from an additional loan pool to a quota loan pool by the 
     producer under section 358-1(b)(8) of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1358-1(b)(8)).
       (2) Other producers in same pool.--Further losses in an 
     area quota pool shall be offset by reducing the gain of any 
     producer in the pool by the amount of pool gains attributed 
     to the same producer from the sale of additional peanuts for 
     domestic and export edible use.
       (3) Buy-back gains within area.--Further losses in an area 
     quota pool shall be offset by gains or profits attributable 
     to sales of additional peanuts in that area pursuant to the 
     provisions of section 358e(g)(1)(A) of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359a(g)(1)(A)).
       (4) Use of marketing assessments.--The Secretary shall use 
     funds collected under subsection (g) (except funds 
     attributable to handlers) to offset further losses in area 
     quota pools. The Secretary shall transfer to the Treasury 
     those funds collected under subsection (g) and available for 
     use under this subsection that the Secretary determines are 
     not required to cover losses in area quota pools.
     
[[Page H1438]]

       (5) Cross compliance.--Further losses in area quota pools, 
     other than losses incurred as a result of transfers from 
     additional loan pools to quota loan pools under section 358-
     1(b)(8) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 
     1358-1(b)(8)), shall be offset by any gains or profits from 
     quota pools in other production areas (other than separate 
     type pools established under subsection (c)(2)(A) for 
     Valencia peanuts produced in New Mexico) in such manner as 
     the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe. If losses in 
     area quota pools have not been entirely offset through use of 
     the preceding sentence, then further losses shall be offset 
     by gains or profits attributable to sales of additional 
     peanuts in other areas pursuant to section 358e(g)(1)(A) of 
     such Act (7 U.S.C. 1359a(g)(1)(A)).
       (6) Increased assessments.--If use of the authorities 
     provided in the preceding paragraphs is not sufficient to 
     cover losses in an area quota pool, the Secretary shall 
     increase the marketing assessment established under 
     subsection (g) by such an amount as the Secretary considers 
     necessary to cover the losses. The increased assessment shall 
     apply only to quota peanuts covered by that pool. Amounts 
     collected under subsection (g) as a result of the increased 
     assessment shall be retained by the Secretary to cover losses 
     in that pool.
       (e) Disapproval of Quotas.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, no loan for quota peanuts may be made 
     available by the Secretary for any crop of peanuts with 
     respect to which poundage quotas have been disapproved by 
     producers, as provided for in section 358-1(d) of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1358-1(d)).
       (f) Quality Improvement.--
       (1) In general.--With respect to peanuts under loan, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) promote the crushing of peanuts at a greater risk of 
     deterioration before peanuts of a lesser risk of 
     deterioration;
       (B) ensure that all Commodity Credit Corporation 
     inventories of peanuts sold for domestic edible use must be 
     shown to have been officially inspected by licensed 
     Department inspectors both as farmer stock and shelled or 
     cleaned in-shell peanuts;
       (C) continue to endeavor to operate the peanut program so 
     as to improve the quality of domestic peanuts and ensure the 
     coordination of activities under the Peanut Administrative 
     Committee established under Marketing Agreement No. 146, 
     regulating the quality of domestically produced peanuts 
     (under the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 601 et 
     seq.), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Agreement Act of 1937); and
       (D) ensure that any changes made in the peanut program as a 
     result of this subsection requiring additional production or 
     handling at the farm level shall be reflected as an upward 
     adjustment in the Department loan schedule.
       (2) Exports and other peanuts.--The Secretary shall require 
     that all peanuts in the domestic and export markets fully 
     comply with all quality standards under Marketing Agreement 
     No. 146.
       (g) Marketing Assessment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for a 
     nonrefundable marketing assessment. The assessment shall be 
     made on a per pound basis in an amount equal to 1.1 percent 
     for each of the 1994 and 1995 crops, 1.15 percent for the 
     1996 crop, and 1.2 percent for each of the 1997 through 2002 
     crops, of the national average quota or additional peanut 
     loan rate for the applicable crop.
       (2) First purchasers.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided under paragraphs (3) 
     and (4), the first purchaser of peanuts shall--
       (i) collect from the producer a marketing assessment equal 
     to the quantity of peanuts acquired multiplied by--

       (I) in the case of each of the 1994 and 1995 crops, .55 
     percent of the applicable national average loan rate;
       (II) in the case of the 1996 crop, .6 percent of the 
     applicable national average loan rate; and
       (III) in the case of each of the 1997 through 2002 crops, 
     .65 percent of the applicable national average loan rate;

       (ii) pay, in addition to the amount collected under clause 
     (i), a marketing assessment in an amount equal to the 
     quantity of peanuts acquired multiplied by .55 percent of the 
     applicable national average loan rate; and
       (iii) remit the amounts required under clauses (i) and (ii) 
     to the Commodity Credit Corporation in a manner specified by 
     the Secretary.
       (B) Definition of first purchaser.--In this subsection, the 
     term ``first purchaser'' means a person acquiring peanuts 
     from a producer except that in the case of peanuts forfeited 
     by a producer to the Commodity Credit Corporation, the term 
     means the person acquiring the peanuts from the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation.
       (3) Other private marketings.--In the case of a private 
     marketing by a producer directly to a consumer through a 
     retail or wholesale outlet or in the case of a marketing by 
     the producer outside of the continental United States, the 
     producer shall be responsible for the full amount of the 
     assessment and shall remit the assessment by such time as is 
     specified by the Secretary.
       (4) Loan peanuts.--In the case of peanuts that are pledged 
     as collateral for a loan made under this section, \1/2\ of 
     the assessment shall be deducted from the proceeds of the 
     loan. The remainder of the assessment shall be paid by the 
     first purchaser of the peanuts. For purposes of computing net 
     gains on peanuts under this section, the reduction in loan 
     proceeds shall be treated as having been paid to the 
     producer.
       (5) Penalties.--If any person fails to collect or remit the 
     reduction required by this subsection or fails to comply with 
     the requirements for recordkeeping or otherwise as are 
     required by the Secretary to carry out this subsection, the 
     person shall be liable to the Secretary for a civil penalty 
     up to an amount determined by multiplying--
       (A) the quantity of peanuts involved in the violation; by
       (B) the national average quota peanut rate for the 
     applicable crop year.
       (6) Enforcement.--The Secretary may enforce this subsection 
     in the courts of the United States.
       (h) Crops.--Subsections (a) through (f) shall be effective 
     only for the 1996 through 2002 crops of peanuts.
       (i) Marketing Quotas.--
       (1) In general.--Part VI of subtitle B of title III of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 is amended--
       (A) in section 358-1 (7 U.S.C. 1358-1)--
       (i) in the section heading, by striking ``1991 THROUGH 1997 
     CROPS OF'';
       (ii) in subsections (a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (b)(2)(A), 
     (b)(2)(C), and (b)(3)(A), by striking ``of the 1991 through 
     1997 marketing years'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``marketing year'';
       (iii) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``1990'' and 
     inserting ``1990, for the 1991 through 1995 marketing years, 
     and 1995, for the 1996 through 2002 marketing years'';
       (iv) in subsection (b)(1)(A)--

       (I) by striking ``each of the 1991 through 1997 marketing 
     years'' and inserting ``each marketing year''; and
       (II) in clause (i), by inserting before the semicolon the 
     following: ``, in the case of the 1991 through 1995 marketing 
     years, and the 1995 marketing year, in the case of the 1996 
     through 2002 marketing years''; and

       (v) in subsection (f), by striking ``1997'' and inserting 
     ``2002'';
       (B) in section 358b (7 U.S.C. 1358b)--
       (i) in the section heading, by striking ``1991 THROUGH 1995 
     CROPS OF''; and
       (ii) in subsection (c), by striking ``1995'' and inserting 
     ``2002'';
       (C) in section 358c(d) (7 U.S.C. 1358c(d)), by striking 
     ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''; and
       (D) in section 358e (7 U.S.C. 1359a)--
       (i) in the section heading, by striking ``FOR 1991 THROUGH 
     1997 CROPS OF PEANUTS''; and
       (ii) in subsection (i), by striking ``1997'' and inserting 
     ``2002''.
       (2) Eligibility for farm poundage quota.--
       (A) Certain farms ineligible.--Section 358-1(b)(1) of the 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1358-1(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(D) Certain farms ineligible to hold quota.--Effective 
     beginning with the 1997 marketing year, the Secretary shall 
     no longer establish farm poundage quotas under subparagraph 
     (A) for farms--
       ``(i) owned or controlled by municipalities, airport 
     authorities, schools, colleges, refuges, and other public 
     entities (not including universities for research purposes); 
     or
       ``(ii) owned or controlled by a person who is not a 
     producer and resides in another State.''.
       (B) Allocation of quota to other farms.--Section 358-
     1(b)(2) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1358-1(b)(2)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) Transfer of quota from ineligible farms.--Any farm 
     poundage quota held at the end of the 1996 marketing year by 
     a farm described in paragraph (1)(D) shall be allocated to 
     other farms in the same State on such basis as the Secretary 
     may by regulation prescribe.''.
       (3) Elimination of quota floor.--Section 358-1(a)(1) of the 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1358-1(a)(1)) is amended by striking the second 
     sentence.
       (4) Temporary quota allocation.--Section 358-1 of the Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1358-1) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``domestic edible, 
     seed,'' and inserting ``domestic edible use'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(2)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``subparagraph (B) and 
     subject to''; and
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Temporary quota allocation.--
       ``(i) Allocation related to seed peanuts.--Temporary 
     allocation of quota pounds for the marketing year only in 
     which the crop is planted shall be made to producers for each 
     of the 1996 through 2002 marketing years as provided in this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(ii) Quantity.--The temporary quota allocation shall be 
     equal to the pounds of seed peanuts planted on the farm, as 
     may be adjusted under regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(iii) Additional quota.--The temporary allocation of 
     quota pounds under this paragraph shall be in addition to the 
     farm poundage quota otherwise established under this 
     subsection and shall be credited, for the applicable 
     marketing year only, in total to the producer of the peanuts 
     on the farm in a manner prescribed by the Secretary.
       ``(iv) Effect of other requirements.--Nothing in this 
     section alters or changes the requirements regarding the use 
     of quota and additional peanuts established by section 
     358e(b).''; and
       (C) in subsection (e)(3), strike ``and seed and use on a 
     farm''.
       (5) Spring and fall transfers within a state.--Section 
     358b(a)(1) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1358b(a)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``, conditions, or limitations'' in the 
     matter preceding the subparagraphs and inserting ``and 
     conditions'';
       (B) by striking ``any such lease'' in the matter preceding 
     the subparagraphs and inserting ``any such sale or lease''; 
     and
       (C) by striking ``in the fall or after the normal planting 
     season--'' and subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the 
     following: ``in the spring (or before the normal planting 
     season) or in the fall (or after the normal planting season) 
     with the owner or operator of a farm located within any 
     county in the same State. In the case of a fall transfer or a 
     transfer after the normal 

[[Page H1439]]
     planting season, the transfer may be made only if not less than 90 
     percent of the basic quota (the farm quota exclusive of 
     temporary quota transfers), plus any poundage quota 
     transferred to the farm under this subsection, has been 
     planted or considered planted on the farm from which the 
     quota is to be leased.''.
       (6) Undermarketings.--Part VI of subtitle B of title III of 
     the Act is amended--
       (A) in section 358-1(b) (7 U.S.C. 1358-1(b))--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``including--'' and 
     clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting ``including any increases 
     resulting from the allocation of quotas voluntarily released 
     for 1 year under paragraph (7).'';
       (ii) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``include--'' and 
     clauses (i) and (ii) and inserting ``include any increase 
     resulting from the allocation of quotas voluntarily released 
     for 1 year under paragraph (7).''; and
       (iii) by striking paragraphs (8) and (9); and
       (B) in section 358b(a) (7 U.S.C. 1358b(a))--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(including any 
     applicable under marketings)'' both places it appears;
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(including any 
     applicable under marketings)''; and
       (iii) in paragraph (3), by striking ``(including any 
     applicable undermarketings)''.
       (7) Disaster transfers.--Section 358-1(b) of the Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1358-1(b)), as amended by paragraph (6)(A)(iii), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Disaster transfers.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     additional peanuts produced on a farm from which the quota 
     poundage was not harvested and marketed because of drought, 
     flood, or any other natural disaster, or any other condition 
     beyond the control of the producer, may be transferred to the 
     quota loan pool for pricing purposes on such basis as the 
     Secretary shall by regulation provide.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The poundage of peanuts transferred 
     under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed the difference 
     between--
       ``(i) the total quantity of peanuts meeting quality 
     requirements for domestic edible use, as determined by the 
     Secretary, marketed from the farm; and
       ``(ii) the total farm poundage quota, excluding quota 
     pounds transferred to the farm in the fall.
       ``(C) Support rate.--Peanuts transferred under this 
     paragraph shall be supported at 70 percent of the quota 
     support rate for the marketing years in which the transfers 
     occur. The transfers for a farm shall not exceed 25 percent 
     of the total farm quota pounds, excluding pounds transferred 
     in the fall.''.

     SEC. 107. SUGAR PROGRAM.

       (a) Sugarcane.--The Secretary shall make loans available to 
     processors of domestically grown sugarcane at a rate equal to 
     18 cents per pound for raw cane sugar.
       (b) Sugar Beets.--The Secretary shall make loans available 
     to processors of domestically grown sugar beets at a rate 
     equal to 22.9 cents per pound for refined beet sugar.
       (c) Reduction in Loan Rates.--
       (1) Reduction required.--The Secretary shall reduce the 
     loan rate specified in subsection (a) for domestically grown 
     sugarcane and subsection (b) for domestically grown sugar 
     beets if the Secretary determines that negotiated reductions 
     in export subsidies and domestic subsidies provided for sugar 
     of the European Union and other major sugar growing, 
     producing, and exporting countries in the aggregate exceed 
     the commitments made as part of the Agreement on Agriculture.
       (2) Extent of reduction.--The Secretary shall not reduce 
     the loan rate under subsection (a) or (b) below a rate that 
     provides an equal measure of support to that provided by the 
     European Union and other major sugar growing, producing, and 
     exporting countries, based on an examination of both domestic 
     and export subsidies subject to reduction in the Agreement 
     on Agriculture.
       (3) Announcement of reduction.--The Secretary shall 
     announce any loan rate reduction to be made under this 
     subsection as far in advance as is practicable.
       (4) Major sugar countries defined.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``major sugar growing, producing, and 
     exporting countries'' means--
       (A) the countries of the European Union; and
       (B) the ten foreign countries not covered by subparagraph 
     (A) that the Secretary determines produce the greatest amount 
     of sugar.
       (5) Agreement on agriculture defined.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term ``Agreement on Agriculture'' means the 
     Agreement on Agriculture referred to in section 101(d)(2) of 
     the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(2)).
       (d) Term of Loans.--
       (1) In general.--Loans under this section during any fiscal 
     year shall be made available not earlier than the beginning 
     of the fiscal year and shall mature at the earlier of--
       (A) the end of 9 months; or
       (B) the end of the fiscal year.
       (2) Supplemental loans.--In the case of loans made under 
     this section in the last 3 months of a fiscal year, the 
     processor may repledge the sugar as collateral for a second 
     loan in the subsequent fiscal year, except that the second 
     loan shall--
       (A) be made at the loan rate in effect at the time the 
     second loan is made; and
       (B) mature in 9 months less the quantity of time that the 
     first loan was in effect.
       (e) Loan Type; Processor Assurances.--
       (1) Recourse loans.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall carry out this section through the use of 
     recourse loans.
       (2) Nonrecourse loans.--During any fiscal year in which the 
     tariff rate quota for imports of sugar into the United States 
     is established at, or is increased to, a level in excess of 
     1,500,000 short tons raw value, the Secretary shall carry out 
     this section by making available nonrecourse loans. Any 
     recourse loan previously made available by the Secretary 
     under this section during the fiscal year shall be changed by 
     the Secretary into a nonrecourse loan.
       (3) Processor assurances.--If the Secretary is required 
     under paragraph (2) to make nonrecourse loans available 
     during a fiscal year or to change recourse loans into 
     nonrecourse loans, the Secretary shall obtain from each 
     processor that receives a loan under this section such 
     assurances as the Secretary considers adequate to ensure that 
     the processor will provide payments to producers that are 
     proportional to the value of the loan received by the 
     processor for sugar beets and sugarcane delivered by 
     producers served by the processor. The Secretary may 
     establish appropriate minimum payments for purposes of this 
     paragraph.
       (f) Marketing Assessment.--
       (1) Sugarcane.--Effective for marketings of raw cane sugar 
     during the 1996 through 2003 fiscal years, the first 
     processor of sugarcane shall remit to the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation a nonrefundable marketing assessment in an amount 
     equal to--
       (A) in the case of marketings during fiscal year 1996, 1.1 
     percent of the loan rate established under subsection (a) per 
     pound of raw cane sugar, processed by the processor from 
     domestically produced sugarcane or sugarcane molasses, that 
     has been marketed (including the transfer or delivery of the 
     sugar to a refinery for further processing or marketing); and
       (B) in the case of marketings during each of fiscal years 
     1997 through 2003, 1.375 percent of the loan rate established 
     under subsection (a) per pound of raw cane sugar, processed 
     by the processor from domestically produced sugarcane or 
     sugarcane molasses, that has been marketed (including the 
     transfer or delivery of the sugar to a refinery for further 
     processing or marketing).
       (2) Sugar beets.--Effective for marketings of beet sugar 
     during the 1996 through 2003 fiscal years, the first 
     processor of sugar beets shall remit to the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation a nonrefundable marketing assessment in an amount 
     equal to--
       (A) in the case of marketings during fiscal year 1996, 
     1.1794 percent of the loan rate established under subsection 
     (a) per pound of beet sugar, processed by the processor from 
     domestically produced sugar beets or sugar beet molasses, 
     that has been marketed; and
       (B) in the case of marketings during each of fiscal years 
     1997 through 2003, 1.47425 percent of the loan rate 
     established under subsection (a) per pound of beet sugar, 
     processed by the processor from domestically produced sugar 
     beets or sugar beet molasses, that has been marketed.
       (3) Collection.--
       (A) Timing.--A marketing assessment required under this 
     subsection shall be collected on a monthly basis and shall be 
     remitted to the Commodity Credit Corporation not later than 
     30 days after the end of each month. Any cane sugar or beet 
     sugar processed during a fiscal year that has not been 
     marketed by September 30 of the year shall be subject to 
     assessment on that date. The sugar shall not be subject to a 
     second assessment at the time that it is marketed.
       (B) Manner.--Subject to subparagraph (A), marketing 
     assessments shall be collected under this subsection in the 
     manner prescribed by the Secretary and shall be 
     nonrefundable.
       (4) Penalties.--If any person fails to remit the assessment 
     required by this subsection or fails to comply with such 
     requirements for recordkeeping or otherwise as are required 
     by the Secretary to carry out this subsection, the person 
     shall be liable to the Secretary for a civil penalty up to an 
     amount determined by multiplying--
       (A) the quantity of cane sugar or beet sugar involved in 
     the violation; by
       (B) the loan rate for the applicable crop of sugarcane or 
     sugar beets.
       (5) Enforcement.--The Secretary may enforce this subsection 
     in a court of the United States.
       (g) Forfeiture Penalty.--
       (1) In general.--A penalty shall be assessed on the 
     forfeiture of any sugar pledged as collateral for a 
     nonrecourse loan under this section.
       (2) Cane sugar.--The penalty for cane sugar shall be 1 cent 
     per pound.
       (3) Beet sugar.--The penalty for beet sugar shall bear the 
     same relation to the penalty for cane sugar as the marketing 
     assessment for sugar beets bears to the marketing assessment 
     for sugarcane.
       (4) Effect of forfeiture.--Any payments owed producers by a 
     processor that forfeits of any sugar pledged as collateral 
     for a nonrecourse loan shall be reduced in proportion to the 
     loan forfeiture penalty incurred by the processor.
       (h) Information Reporting.--
       (1) Duty of processors and refiners to report.--A sugarcane 
     processor, cane sugar refiner, and sugar beet processor shall 
     furnish the Secretary, on a monthly basis, such information 
     as the Secretary may require to administer sugar programs, 
     including the quantity of purchases of sugarcane, sugar 
     beets, and sugar, and production, importation, distribution, 
     and stock levels of sugar.
       (2) Penalty.--Any person willfully failing or refusing to 
     furnish the information, or furnishing willfully any false 
     information, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more 
     than $10,000 for each such violation.
       (3) Monthly reports.--Taking into consideration the 
     information received under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     publish on a monthly basis composite data on production, 
     imports, distribution, and stock levels of sugar.
       (i) Marketing Allotments.--Part VII of subtitle B of title 
     III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 
     1359aa et seq.) is repealed.
     
[[Page H1440]]

       (j) Crops.--This section (other than subsection (i)) shall 
     be effective only for the 1996 through 2002 crops of sugar 
     beets and sugarcane.

     SEC. 108. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) Commodity Credit Corporation.--
       (1) Use of corporation.--The Secretary shall carry out this 
     title through the Commodity Credit Corporation.
       (2) Prohibition on salaries and expenses.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, no funds of the Corporation shall 
     be used for any salary or expense of any officer or employee 
     of the Department of Agriculture.
       (b) Determinations by Secretary.--A determination made by 
     the Secretary under this title or the Agricultural Adjustment 
     Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1281 et seq.) shall be final and 
     conclusive.
       (c) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such regulations 
     as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out this 
     title.

     SEC. 109. ELIMINATION OF PERMANENT PRICE SUPPORT AUTHORITY.

       (a) Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.--The Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 is amended--
       (1) in title III--
       (A) in subtitle B--
       (i) by striking parts II through V (7 U.S.C. 1326-1351); 
     and
       (ii) in part VI--

       (I) by moving subsection (c) of section 358d (7 U.S.C. 
     1358d(c)) to appear after section 301(b)(17) (7 U.S.C. 
     1301(b)(17)), redesignating the subsection as paragraph (18), 
     and moving the margin of the paragraph 2 ems to the right; 
     and
       (II) by striking sections 358, 358a, and 358d (7 U.S.C. 
     1358, 1358a, and 1359); and

       (B) by striking subtitle D (7 U.S.C. 1379a-1379j); and
       (2) by striking title IV (7 U.S.C. 1401-1407).
       (b) Agricultural Act of 1949.--
       (1) Transfer of certain sections.--The Agricultural Act of 
     1949 is amended--
       (A) by transferring sections 106, 106A, and 106B (7 U.S.C. 
     1445, 1445-1, 1445-2) to appear after section 314A of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1314-1) and 
     redesignating the transferred sections as sections 315, 315A, 
     and 315B, respectively;
       (B) by transferring section 111 (7 U.S.C. 1445f) to appear 
     after section 304 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 
     (7 U.S.C. 1304) and redesignating the transferred section as 
     section 305; and
       (C) by transferring sections 404 and 416 (7 U.S.C. 1424 and 
     1431) to appear after section 390 of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1390) and redesignating the 
     transferred sections as sections 390A and 390B, respectively.
       (2) Repeal.--The Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1421 et 
     seq.) (as amended by paragraph (1)) is repealed.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 361 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 
     (7 U.S.C. 1361) is amended by striking ``, corn, wheat, 
     cotton, peanuts, and rice, established''.
       (2) Section 371 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 
     (7 U.S.C. 1371) is amended--
       (A) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking 
     ``cotton, rice, peanuts, or''; and
       (B) in the first sentence of subsection (b), by striking 
     ``cotton, rice, peanuts or''.

     SEC. 110. EFFECT OF AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Effect on Prior Crops.--Except as otherwise 
     specifically provided and notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, this title and the amendments made by this title 
     shall not affect the authority of the Secretary to carry out 
     a price support or production adjustment program for any of 
     the 1991 through 1995 crops of an agricultural commodity 
     established under a provision of law in effect immediately 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Liability.--A provision of this title or an amendment 
     made by this title shall not affect the liability of any 
     person under any provision of law as in effect before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                            TITLE II--DAIRY
          Subtitle A--Milk Price Support and Other Activities

     SEC. 201. MILK PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM.

       (a) Support Activities.--To replace the milk price support 
     program established under section 204 of the Agricultural Act 
     of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446e), which is repealed by section 
     109(b)(2)), the Secretary of Agriculture shall use the 
     authority provided in this section to support the price of 
     milk produced in the 48 contiguous States through the 
     purchase of cheddar cheese produced from such milk. Until the 
     first day of the first month beginning not less than 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     also may support the price of milk under this section through 
     the purchase of butter and nonfat dry milk produced from milk 
     produced in the 48 contiguous States.
       (b) Rate.--The price of milk shall be supported at the 
     following rates per hundredweight for milk containing 3.67 
     percent butterfat:
       (1) During calendar year 1996, not less than $10.35.
       (2) During calendar year 1997, not less than $10.25.
       (3) During calendar year 1998, not less than $10.15.
       (4) During calendar year 1999, not less than $10.05.
       (5) During calendar year 2000, not less than $9.95.
       (6) During calendar years 2001 and 2002, not less than 
     $9.85.
       (c) Bid Prices.--The Commodity Credit Corporation support 
     purchase prices under this section for cheddar cheese (and 
     for butter and nonfat dry milk subject to subsection (a)) 
     announced by the Corporation shall be the same for all of 
     that milk product sold by persons offering to sell the 
     product to the Corporation. The purchase prices shall be 
     sufficient to enable plants of average efficiency to pay 
     producers, on average, a price not less than the rate of 
     price support for milk in effect during a 12-month period 
     under this section.
       (d) Use of Commodity Credit Corporation.--The Secretary 
     shall use the funds, facilities, and authorities of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this section.
       (e) Residual Authority for Refund of Budget Deficit 
     Assessments.--
       (1) Application of subsection.--This subsection shall apply 
     with respect to the reductions made under subsection (h)(2) 
     of section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as in effect 
     on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, in 
     the price of milk received by producers during calendar years 
     1995 and 1996.
       (2) Refund required.--The Secretary shall provide a refund 
     of the entire reduction made under such subsection (h)(2) in 
     the price of milk received by a producer during a calendar 
     year referred to in paragraph (1) if the producer provides 
     evidence that the producer did not increase marketings in 
     that calendar year when compared to the preceding calendar 
     year.
       (3) Treatment of refunds.--A refund under this subsection 
     shall not be considered as any type of price support or 
     payment for purposes of sections 1211 and 1221 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811, 3821).
       (g) Transfer of Milk Products to Military and Veterans 
     Hospitals.--
       (1) Transfer authorized.--As a means of increasing the 
     utilization of milk and milk products, upon the certification 
     by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs or by the Secretary of 
     the Army, acting for the military departments under the 
     Single Service Purchase Assignment for Subsistence of the 
     Department of Defense, that the usual quantities of milk 
     products have been purchased in the normal channels of trade, 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available--
       (A) to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs at warehouses 
     where milk products are stored, such milk products acquired 
     under this section as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     certifies are required in order to provide milk products as a 
     part of the ration in hospitals under the jurisdiction of the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs; and
       (B) to the Secretary of the Army, at warehouses where milk 
     products are stored, such milk products acquired under this 
     section as the Secretary of the Army certifies can be 
     utilized in order to provide additional milk products as a 
     part of the ration--
       (i) of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard;
       (ii) in hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Department 
     of Defense; and
       (iii) of cadets and midshipmen at, and other personnel 
     assigned to, the United States Merchant Marine Academy.
       (2) Reports.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the 
     Secretary of the Army shall report every six months to the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of 
     Representatives and the Secretary of Agriculture the amount 
     of milk products used under this subsection.
       (3) Process.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the 
     Secretary of the Army shall reimburse the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation for all costs associated in making milk products 
     available under this subsection.
       (4) Limitation.--The obligation of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation to make milk products available pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be limited to milk products acquired by the 
     Corporation under this section and not disposed of under 
     provisions (1) and (2) of section 390B(a) of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act of 1938.
       (h) Period of Effectiveness.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, this section shall be effective only during 
     the period--
       (1) beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) ending on December 31, 2002.

     SEC. 202. RECOURSE LOANS FOR COMMERCIAL PROCESSORS OF DAIRY 
                   PRODUCTS.

       (a) Recourse Loans Available.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall make recourse loans available to commercial processors 
     of eligible dairy products to assist such processors to 
     manage inventories of eligible dairy products to assure a 
     greater degree of price stability for the dairy industry 
     during the year. Recourse loans may be made available under 
     such reasonable terms and conditions as the Secretary may 
     prescribe. The Secretary shall use the funds, facilities, and 
     authorities of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out 
     this section.
       (b) Amount of Loan.--The Secretary shall establish the 
     amount of a loan for eligible dairy products, which shall 
     reflect 90 percent of the reference price for that product. 
     The rate of interest charged participants in this program 
     shall not be less than the rate of interest charged the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation by the United States Treasury.
       (c) Period of Loans.--A recourse loan made under this 
     section may not extend beyond the end of the fiscal year 
     during which the loan is made, except that the Secretary may 
     extend the loan for an additional period not to exceed the 
     end of the next fiscal year.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``eligible dairy products'' means cheddar 
     cheese, butter, and nonfat dry milk.
       (2) The term ``reference price'' means--
       (A) for cheddar cheese, the average National (Green Bay) 
     Cheese Exchange price for 40 pound blocks of cheddar cheese 
     for the previous three months;
       (B) for butter, the average Chicago Mercantile Exchange 
     price for Grade AA butter for the previous three months; and
     
[[Page H1441]]

       (C) for nonfat dry milk, the average Western States Extra 
     Grade and Grade A price for nonfat dry milk for the previous 
     three months.

     SEC. 203. DAIRY EXPORT INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Duration.--Subsection (a) of section 153 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14) is amended by 
     striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''.
       (b) Elements of Program.--Subsection (c) of such section is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3) the maximum volume of dairy product exports allowable 
     consistent with the obligations of the United States as a 
     member of the World Trade Organization are exported under the 
     program each year (minus the volume sold under section 1163 
     of this Act (7 U.S.C. 1731 note) during that year), except to 
     the extent that the export of such a volume under the program 
     would, in the judgment of the Secretary, exceed the 
     limitations on the value set forth in subsection (f); and
       ``(4) payments may be made under the program for exports to 
     any destination in the world for the purpose of market 
     development, except a destination in a country with respect 
     to which shipments from the United States are otherwise 
     restricted by law.''.
       (c) Sole Discretion.--Subsection (b) of such section is 
     amended by inserting ``sole'' before ``discretion''.
       (d) Market Development.--Subsection (e)(1) of such section 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' and inserting ``the''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period the following: ``, and 
     any additional amount that may be required to assist in the 
     development of world markets for United States dairy 
     products''.
       (e) Maximum Allowable Amounts.--Such section is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Required Funding.--The Commodity Credit Corporation 
     shall in each year use money and commodities for the program 
     under this section in the maximum amount consistent with the 
     obligations of the United States as a member of the World 
     Trade Organization, minus the amount expended under section 
     1163 of this Act (7 U.S.C. 1731 note) during that year. 
     However, the Commodity Credit Corporation may not exceed the 
     limitations specified in subsection (c)(3) on the volume of 
     allowable dairy product exports.''.

     SEC. 204. DAIRY PROMOTION PROGRAM.

       (a) Expansion To Cover Dairy Products Imported Into the 
     United States.--Section 110(b) of the Dairy Production 
     Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501(b)) is amended by 
     inserting after ``commercial use'' the following: ``and dairy 
     products imported into the United States''.
       (b) Definitions.--
       (1) Milk.--Subsection (d) of section 111 of such Act (7 
     U.S.C. 4502) is amended by inserting before the semicolon the 
     following: ``or cow's milk imported into the United States in 
     the form of dairy products intended for consumption in the 
     United States''.
       (2) Dairy products.--Subsection (e) of such section is 
     amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: 
     ``and casein (except casein imported under sections 
     3501.90.20 (casein glue) and 3501.90.50 (other) of the 
     Harmonized Tariff Schedule)''.
       (3) Research.--Subsection (j) of such section is amended by 
     inserting before the semicolon the following: ``or to reduce 
     the costs associated with processing or marketing those 
     products''.
       (4) United states.--Subsection (l) of such section is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(l) the term `United States' means the several States and 
     the District of Columbia;''.
       (5) Importers and exporters.--Such section is further 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (k), by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     such subsection; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(m) the term `importer' means the first person to take 
     title to dairy products imported into the United States for 
     domestic consumption; and
       ``(n) the term `exporter' means any person who exports 
     dairy products from the United States.''.
       (c) Membership of Board.--Section 113(b) of such Act (7 
     U.S.C. 4504(b)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``thirty-six 
     members'' and inserting ``38 members, including one 
     representative of importers and one representative of 
     exporters to be appointed by the Secretary'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``Members'' and 
     inserting ``The remaining members''; and
       (3) in the third sentence, by striking ``United States'' 
     and inserting ``United States, including Alaska and Hawaii''.
       (d) Assessment.--Section 113(g) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 
     4504(g)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(g)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The order shall provide that each importer of dairy 
     products intended for consumption in the United States shall 
     remit to the Board, in the manner prescribed by the order, an 
     assessment equal to 1.2 cents per pound of total milk solids 
     contained in the imported dairy products, or 15 cents per 
     hundredweight of milk contained in the imported dairy 
     products, whichever is less. If an importer can establish 
     that it is participating in active, ongoing qualified State 
     or regional dairy product promotion or nutrition programs 
     intended to increase the consumption of milk and dairy 
     products, the importer shall receive credit in determining 
     the assessment due from that importer for contributions to 
     such programs of up to .8 cents per pound of total milk 
     solids contained in the imported dairy products, or 10 cents 
     per hundredweight of milk contained in the imported dairy 
     products, whichever is less. The assessment collected under 
     this paragraph shall be used for the purpose specified in 
     paragraph (1).''.
       (e) Records.--Section 113(k) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 4504(k)) 
     is amended in the first sentence by inserting after 
     ``commercial use,'' the following: ``each importer of dairy 
     products,''.
       (f) Termination or Suspension of Order.--Section 116(b) of 
     such Act (7 U.S.C. 4507(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``and importers'' after ``producers'' each 
     place it appears;
       (2) by striking ``who, during a representative period (as 
     determined by the Secretary), have been engaged in the 
     production of milk for commercial use''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new sentences: ``A 
     producer shall be eligible to vote in the referendum if the 
     producer, during a representative period (as determined by 
     the Secretary), has been engaged in the production of milk 
     for commercial use. An importer shall be eligible to vote in 
     the referendum if the importer, during a representative 
     period (as determined by the Secretary), has been engaged in 
     the importation of dairy products into the United States 
     intended for consumption in the United States.''.
       (g) Promotion in International Markets.--Section 113(e) of 
     such Act (7 U.S.C. 4504(e)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentence: ``For each of the fiscal years 
     1996 through 2000, the Board's budget shall provide for the 
     expenditure of not less than 10 percent of the anticipated 
     revenues available to the Board to develop international 
     markets for, and to promote within such markets, the 
     consumption of dairy products produced in the United States 
     from milk produced in the United States.''.
       (h) Implementation of Amendments.--
       (1) Implementation process.--To implement the amendments 
     made by this section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     issue an amended dairy products promotion and research order 
     under section 112 of the Dairy Production Stabilization Act 
     of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4503) reflecting such amendments, and no 
     other changes, in the order in existence on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (2) Proposal of amended order.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall publish a proposed dairy products promotion and 
     research order reflecting the amendments made by this 
     section. The Secretary shall provide notice and an 
     opportunity for public comment on the proposed order.
       (3) Issuance of amended order.--After notice and 
     opportunity for public comment are provided in accordance 
     with paragraph (2), the Secretary shall issue a final dairy 
     products promotion and research order, taking into 
     consideration the comments received and including in the 
     order such provisions as are necessary to ensure that the 
     order is in conformity with the amendments made by this 
     section.
       (4) Effective date.--The final dairy products promotion and 
     research order shall be issued and become effective not later 
     than 120 days after publication of the proposed order.
       (i) Referendum on Amendments.--Not later than 36 months 
     after the issuance of the dairy products promotion and 
     research order reflecting the amendments made by this 
     section, the Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct a 
     referendum under section 115 of the Dairy Production 
     Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4506) for the sole 
     purpose of determining whether the requirements of such 
     amendments shall be continued. The Secretary shall conduct 
     the referendum among persons who have been producers or 
     importers (as defined in section 111 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 
     4502)) during a representative period as determined by the 
     Secretary. The requirements of such amendments shall be 
     continued only if the Secretary determines that such 
     requirements have been approved by not less than a majority 
     of the persons voting in the referendum. If continuation of 
     the amendments is not approved, the Secretary shall issue a 
     new order, within six months after the announcement of the 
     results of the referendum, that is identical to the order in 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. The new 
     order shall become effective upon issuance and shall not be 
     subject to referendum for approval.

     SEC. 205. FLUID MILK STANDARDS UNDER MILK MARKETING ORDERS.

       (a) Nature of Standards.--Each marketing order issued with 
     respect to milk and its products under section 8c of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with 
     amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 
     1937, shall contain terms and conditions to provide that all 
     dispositions of fluid milk products containing milk of the 
     highest use classification covered by such orders shall 
     comply with the following requirements:
       (1) In the case of milk marketed as whole milk, not less 
     than 12.05 percent total milk solids consisting of not less 
     than 8.8 percent milk solids not fat and not less than 3.25 
     percent milk fat.
       (2) In the case of milk marketed as 2 percent (or lowfat) 
     milk, not less than 12 percent total milk solids consisting 
     of not less than 10 percent milk solids not fat and not less 
     than 2 percent milk fat.
       (3) In the case of milk marketed as 1 percent (or light) 
     milk, not less than 12 percent total milk solids consisting 
     of not less than 11 percent milk solids not fat and not less 
     than 1 percent milk fat.
       (4) In the case of milk marketed as skim (or nonfat) milk, 
     not less than 9 percent total milk solids consisting of not 
     less than 9 percent milk solids not fat and not more than .25 
     percent milk fat.
     
[[Page H1442]]

       (b) Violations.--A violation of the requirements specified 
     in subsection (a) shall be subject to the penalties provided 
     in section 8c(14) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 
     U.S.C. 608c(14)), reenacted with amendments by the 
     Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937.
       (c) Effective Date.--The requirements imposed by this 
     section shall apply to fluid milk marketed on and after the 
     first day of the first month beginning not less than 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 206. MANUFACTURING ALLOWANCE.

       (a) Maximum Allowances Established.--No State shall provide 
     for a manufacturing allowance for the processing of milk in 
     excess of--
       (1) in the case of milk manufactured into butter, butter 
     oil, nonfat dry milk, or whole dry milk--
       (A) $1.65 per hundredweight of milk, for milk marketed 
     during the 2-year period beginning on the effective date of 
     this section; and
       (B) such allowance per hundredweight of milk as the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may establish under section 
     221(b)(3), for milk marketed after the end of such period; 
     and
       (2) in the case of milk manufactured into cheese and whey--
       (A) $1.80 per hundredweight of milk, for milk marketed 
     during the 2-year period beginning on the effective date of 
     this section; and
       (B) such allowance per hundredweight of milk as the 
     Secretary may establish under section 221(b)(3), for milk 
     marketed after the end of such period.
       (b) Yields.--In converting the weight of milk to dairy 
     products during the two-year period beginning on the 
     effective date of this section, the Secretary shall use the 
     following yields with respect to a hundred pounds of milk:
       (1) Butter: 4.2 pounds.
       (2) Nonfat dry milk: 8.613 pounds.
       (3) 40 pound block cheddar cheese: 10.169 pounds.
       (4) Whey cream butter: .27 pounds.
       (c) Sources of Product Price Values.--In determining the 
     manufacturing allowance applicable in a State during the 2-
     year period beginning on the effective date of this section, 
     the Secretary shall use the following sources for product 
     price values:
       (1) For butter, Chicago Mercantile Exchange Grade AA 
     butter.
       (2) For nonfat dry milk, California Manufacturing Plants 
     Extra Grade and Grade A nonfat dry milk.
       (3) For cheese, National (Green Bay) Cheese Exchange 40 
     pound block cheddar cheese.
       (4) For whey cream butter, Chicago Mercantile Exchange 
     Grade B butter.
       (d) Manufacturing Allowance Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``manufacturing allowance'' means--
       (1) the amount by which the product price value of butter 
     and nonfat dry milk manufactured from a hundred pounds of 
     milk containing 3.5 pounds of milk fat and 8.7 pounds of milk 
     solids not fat exceeds the class price for the milk used to 
     produce those products; or
       (2) an amount by which the product price value of cheese 
     and whey manufactured from a hundred pounds of milk 
     containing 3.6 pounds of milk fat and 8.7 pounds of milk 
     solids not fat exceeds the class price for the milk used to 
     produce those products.
       (e) Effect of Violation.--If the Secretary determines that 
     a State has in effect a manufacturing allowance that exceeds 
     the manufacturing allowance authorized in subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall suspend, until such time as the State 
     complies with such subsection--
       (1) purchases under section 201 of cheddar cheese produced 
     in that State; and
       (2) disbursements from the Class IV equalization pool under 
     section 208 to milk marketing orders operating in that State 
     with respect to milk produced in that State.
       (f) Conforming Suspension and Repeal.--
       (1) Suspension and repeal.--During the 2-year period 
     beginning on the effective date of this section, the 
     requirements of section 102 of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1446e-1) shall 
     not apply. Effective on the first day after the end of such 
     period, such section is repealed.
       (2) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in the event 
     that an injunction or other order of a court prohibits or 
     impairs the implementation of this section or the activities 
     of the Secretary under this section, the Secretary shall use 
     the authorities provided by section 102 of the Food, 
     Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 
     1446e-1) until such time as the injunction or other court 
     order is lifted.
       (g) Effective Date; Implementation.--This section shall 
     take effect on the first day of the first month beginning not 
     less than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act. After such effective date, the Secretary may exercise 
     the authority provided to the Secretary under this section 
     without regard to the issuance of regulations intended to 
     carry out this section.

     SEC. 207. ESTABLISHMENT OF TEMPORARY CLASS I PRICE AND 
                   TEMPORARY CLASS I EQUALIZATION POOLS.

       (a) Temporary Pricing for Milk of the Highest Use 
     Classification (Class I Milk).--
       (1) Establishment of minimum price.--During the 2-year 
     period beginning on the effective date of this section, the 
     minimum price for milk of the highest use classification 
     marketed under a marketing order issued under section 8c of 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted 
     with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 
     of 1937, shall not be less than the sum of--
       (A) $12.87 per hundredweight; and
       (B) the aggregate adjustment in effect under clauses (1) 
     and (2) of the second sentence of paragraph (5)(A) of such 
     section on December 31, 1995, for milk of the highest use 
     classification in that order.
       (2) Addition to minimum price.--If the basic formula price 
     for milk exceeds $12.87 per hundredweight in any month during 
     the 2-year period beginning on the effective date of this 
     section, the positive difference between the basic formula 
     price and $12.87 shall be added to the price for milk of the 
     highest use classification marketed under a marketing order 
     issued under such section 8c in the second month following 
     the month in which the difference occurred.
       (3) Effect on other use classifications.--This subsection 
     shall not affect the calculation of the basic formula price 
     used to determine the price for milk of use classifications 
     other than the highest use classification.
       (b) Class I Equalization Pools.--
       (1) Collections.--During the 2-year period beginning on the 
     effective date of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall collect, on a monthly basis, from each marketing order 
     issued with respect to milk and its products under section 8c 
     of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted 
     with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 
     of 1937, and from the comparable milk marketing order issued 
     by the State of California, an amount equal to the product 
     of--
       (A) $0.80 per hundredweight; and
       (B) the total hundredweights of all milk of the highest use 
     classification marketed under the order for the month.
       (2) Disbursements.--The Secretary shall pay, on a monthly 
     basis, to each marketing order referred to in paragraph (1) 
     an amount equal to the product of--
       (A) the total collection under paragraph (1) for the month; 
     and
       (B) the ratio of the total hundredweights of all milk 
     marketed for the month under that order to all milk marketed 
     for the month under all such orders.
       (3) Effect on blend prices.--Producer blend prices under a 
     milk marketing order shall be adjusted to account for 
     collections made under paragraph (1) and disbursements made 
     under paragraph (2).
       (c) Enforcement.--
       (1) In general.--Amounts for which a milk marketing order 
     are responsible under subsection (b) shall be determined on a 
     monthly basis and shall be collected and remitted to the 
     Secretary in the manner prescribed by the Secretary.
       (2) Penalties.--If any person fails to remit the amount 
     required in subsection (b) or fails to comply with such 
     requirements for recordkeeping or otherwise as are required 
     by the Secretary to carry out this section, the person shall 
     be liable to the Secretary for a civil penalty up to an 
     amount determined by multiplying--
       (A) the quantity of milk involved in the violation; by
       (B) the support rate for milk in effect at the time of the 
     violation under section 201.
       (3) Enforcement.--The Secretary may enforce this section in 
     the courts of the United States.
       (d) Conforming Repeal.--Section 8c(5)(A) of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(5)(A)), reenacted 
     with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 
     of 1937, is amended by striking out the sentence beginning 
     ``Throughout the 2-year period'' and all that follows through 
     the end of the subparagraph.
       (e) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (f), 
     this section shall take effect on the first day of the first 
     month beginning not less than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (f) Implementation.--Not later than the effective date of 
     this section, the Secretary shall amend Federal milk 
     marketing orders issued under section 8c of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with amendments by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, to 
     effectuate the requirements of this section. The amendments 
     shall not be--
       (1) subject to a referendum under subsection (17) or (19) 
     of such section among milk producers to determine whether 
     issuance of such order is approved or favored by milk 
     producers;
       (2) preconditioned on the existence of a marketing 
     agreement among handlers under subsection (8) of such section 
     and section 8b of such Act (7 U.S.C. 608b);
       (3) subject to rulemaking under title 5, United States 
     Code; or
       (4) subject to review or approval by other executive 
     agencies.

     SEC. 208. ESTABLISHMENT OF TEMPORARY CLASS IV PRICE AND 
                   TEMPORARY CLASS IV EQUALIZATION POOL.

       (a) Temporary Classification of Class IV Milk.--
       (1) Classification.--For purposes of classifying milk in 
     accordance with the form in which or the purpose for which it 
     is used, the Secretary of Agriculture shall designate all 
     milk marketed in the 48 contiguous States of the United 
     States and used to produce butter, butter oil, nonfat dry 
     milk, or dry whole milk as Class IV milk. The Secretary may 
     include other products of milk, except cheese, within the 
     Class IV classification if the Secretary determines that 
     inclusion of the product would be fair and equitable.
       (2) Use of classification.--Each marketing order issued 
     with respect to milk and its products under section 8c of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with 
     amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 
     1937, and each comparable State milk marketing order, shall 
     use the classification required by paragraph (1) in lieu of 
     any other classification, such as Class III-A milk, to 
     properly classify milk used to produce butter, butter oil, 
     nonfat dry milk, or dry whole milk.
       (b) Establishment of Class IV Pool.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a Class IV pool for the purpose of making 
     collections and disbursements related to milk classified as 
     Class IV milk under 

[[Page H1443]]
     subsection (a). The Class IV pool shall apply to milk covered by a milk 
     marketing order referred to in subsection (a) and unregulated 
     milk.
       (c) Establishment of Monthly Class IV Price.--For the 
     purpose of determining whether the Secretary will make 
     collections and disbursements under the Class IV equalization 
     pool, the Secretary shall establish, on a monthly basis, a 
     price for dairy products manufactured from Class IV milk on a 
     3.5 percent butterfat basis. In determining that price, the 
     Secretary shall calculate the amount equal to--
       (1) the sum of--
       (A) the product of the Western States Extra Grade and Grade 
     A price per pound for nonfat dry milk and 8.613; and
       (B) the product of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Grade AA 
     price per pound for butter and 4.2; less
       (2) a manufacturing allowance equal to $1.65 per 
     hundredweight of milk.
       (d) Operation of Class IV Equalization Pool.--
       (1) Application of subsection.--This subsection shall apply 
     in any month in which the support price for milk under 
     section 201, adjusted to 3.5 percent butterfat, exceeds the 
     Class IV price established under subsection (c).
       (2) Collection.--In any month in which the Class IV 
     equalization pool is in operation under paragraph (1), each 
     milk marketing order referred to in subsection (a) and each 
     handler of unregulated milk shall pay into the Class IV 
     equalization pool an amount equal to the product of--
       (A) the total hundredweights of Class IV milk used to 
     manufacture dairy products during that month under all such 
     orders and by all such handlers;
       (B) 50 percent of the amount by which the support price for 
     milk under section 201, adjusted to 3.5 percent butterfat, 
     exceeded the Class IV price determined under subsection (c) 
     for that month; and
       (C) the ratio of the total hundredweights of all milk 
     marketed during that month under that order or by that 
     handler to the total hundredweights of all milk marketed for 
     that month under all such orders and by all such handlers.
       (3) Disbursements.--In any month in which the Class IV 
     equalization pool is in operation under paragraph (1), each 
     milk marketing order referred to in subsection (a) in which 
     products were manufactured from Class IV milk during that 
     month and each handler of unregulated milk that manufactured 
     products from Class IV milk during that month shall receive 
     from the Class IV equalization pool an amount equal to the 
     product of--
       (A) the total collection under paragraph (2) for the month; 
     and
       (B) the ratio of the total hundredweights of Class IV milk 
     manufactured into dairy products during that month under that 
     order or by that handler to the total hundredweights of Class 
     IV milk manufactured into dairy products during that month 
     under all such orders and by all such handlers.
       (4) Effect on blend prices.--Producer blend prices under a 
     milk marketing order referred to in subsection (a) shall be 
     adjusted to account for collections under paragraph (2) and 
     disbursements under paragraph (3).
       (e) Enforcement.--
       (1) In general.--Amounts for which a milk marketing order 
     or handler are responsible under subsection (b) shall be 
     determined on a monthly basis and shall be collected and 
     remitted to the Secretary in the manner prescribed by the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Penalties.--If any person fails to remit the amount 
     required in subsection (c) or fails to comply with such 
     requirements for recordkeeping or otherwise as are required 
     by the Secretary to carry out this section, the person shall 
     be liable to the Secretary for a civil penalty up to an 
     amount determined by multiplying--
       (A) the quantity of milk involved in the violation; by
       (B) the support rate for milk in effect at the time of the 
     violation under section 201.
       (3) Enforcement.--The Secretary may enforce this section in 
     the courts of the United States.
       (f) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (g), 
     this section shall--
       (1) take effect on the first day of the first month 
     beginning not less than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (2) apply during the 2-year period beginning on such 
     effective date.
       (g) Implementation.--Not later than the start of the 
     effective date of this section, the Secretary shall amend 
     Federal milk marketing orders issued under section 8c of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with 
     amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 
     1937, to effectuate the requirements of this section. The 
     amendments shall not be--
       (1) subject to referendum under subsection (17) or (19) of 
     such section among milk producers to determine whether 
     issuance of such order is approved or favored by milk 
     producers;
       (2) preconditioned on the existence of a marketing 
     agreement among handlers under subsection (8) of such section 
     and section 8b of such Act (7 U.S.C. 608b);
       (3) subject to rulemaking under title 5, United States 
     Code; or
       (4) subject to review or approval by other executive 
     agencies.

     SEC. 209. AUTHORITY FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDBY POOLS.

       (a) Authority To Establish.--As soon as possible after the 
     effective date of this section, the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall publish in the Federal Register an invitation for 
     interested persons to submit proposals for the establishment 
     within Federal milk marketing orders issued under section 8c 
     of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted 
     with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 
     of 1937, of standby pools to facilitate the movement of milk 
     over long distances during periods of shortage through the 
     sharing of proceeds from sales of milk of the highest use 
     classification due to producers under the order with 
     producers shipping to plants regulated by another order to 
     provide a reserve supply of milk in the other market.
       (b) Approval or Termination of Participation in Standby 
     Pool.--Order provisions under this section shall not become 
     effective in any marketing order unless such provisions are 
     approved by producers in the manner provided for the approval 
     of marketing orders under section 8c of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with amendments by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, but 
     separately from other order provisions. Standby pool 
     provisions approved under this section in an order may be 
     disapproved separately by producers or terminated separately 
     by the Secretary under section 8c(16)(B) of such Act. Such 
     disapproval or termination shall not be considered to be a 
     disapproval or termination of the other terms of that order.
       (c) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the 
     first day of the first month beginning not less than 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
          Subtitle B--Reform of Federal Milk Marketing Orders

     SEC. 221. ISSUANCE OR AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL MILK MARKETING 
                   ORDERS TO IMPLEMENT CERTAIN REFORMS.

       (a) Issuance of Amended Orders.--Subject to the time limits 
     specified in section 222, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     issue new or amended marketing orders with respect to milk 
     and its products under section 8c of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with amendments by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, to 
     effectuate the requirements of subsection (b). The orders 
     shall take effect on the date the orders are issued and shall 
     supersede all other marketing orders and any other statutes, 
     rules, and regulations that are applicable to the pricing and 
     marketing of milk and its products in effect immediately 
     before that date, whether under the authority of section 8c 
     of such Act or a State or local law.
       (b) Reform Requirements.--The Secretary shall reform the 
     Federal milk marketing order system under subsection (a) to 
     accomplish the following purposes:
       (1) Consolidation of Federal milk marketing orders into not 
     less than 8 nor more than 13 orders, which shall also include 
     those areas of the 48 contiguous States not covered by a 
     Federal milk marketing order on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act. One of the new Federal milk marketing orders shall 
     only cover the State of California. A new or amended order 
     shall have the right to blend order receipts to address 
     unique issues to that order such as a preexisting State quota 
     system.
       (2) Implementation of uniform multiple component pricing 
     for milk used in manufactured dairy products.
       (3) Establishment of class prices for milk used to produce 
     cheese, nonfat dry milk, and butter based on national product 
     prices, less a manufacturing allowance. The resulting prices 
     shall not vary regionally, except to reflect variances in 
     transportation and reasonable operating costs, if any, of 
     efficient processing plants in different geographical areas.
       (c) Status of Producer Handlers.--In amending Federal milk 
     marketing orders under this section, the Secretary shall 
     ensure that the legal status of producer handlers of milk 
     under the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 
     reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing 
     Agreement Act of 1937, shall be the same after the amendments 
     made by this section take effect as it was before the 
     effective date of the amendments.

     SEC. 222. REFORM PROCESS.

       (a) Process.--In preparation for the issuance of the new or 
     amended Federal milk marketing orders required under section 
     221, the Secretary of Agriculture shall comply with the 
     following expedited procedural requirements:
       (1) Not later than 165 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary shall issue proposed amendments or 
     new milk marketing orders to effectuate the reform 
     requirements specified in such section.
       (2) The Secretary shall provide for a 75-day comment period 
     on the proposed amendments or orders issued under paragraph 
     (1).
       (3) Not later than 120 days after the end of the comment 
     period provided under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall 
     publish in the Federal Register a final administrative 
     decision regarding the issuance or amendment of Federal milk 
     marketing orders to effectuate the reform requirements 
     specified in such section.
       (b) Referendum and Marketing Agreement.--After the issuance 
     of the new or amended Federal milk marketing orders under 
     section 221, the Secretary may conduct a referendum in the 
     manner provided in section 8c(16)(B) of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(16)(B)), reenacted with 
     amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 
     1937, with respect to each order to determine whether milk 
     producers subject to the order favor the termination of the 
     order.
       (c) Application of Administrative Procedures Act.--The 
     issuance of the new or amended Federal milk marketing orders 
     required under section 221 shall not be subject to rulemaking 
     under title 5, United States Code.
       (d) Review and Approval.--The action of the Secretary under 
     section 221 shall not be subject to review or approval by any 
     other executive agency.
     
[[Page H1444]]


     SEC. 223. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REFORM PROCESS 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Failure To Timely Issue or Amend Orders.--If, before 
     the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture does not 
     issue new or amended Federal milk marketing orders under 
     section 8c of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 
     608c), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, to effectuate the 
     requirements of section 221(b), then the Secretary may not 
     assess or collect assessments from milk producers or handlers 
     under such section 8c for marketing order administration and 
     services provided under such section after the end of that 
     period. The Secretary may not reduce the level of services 
     provided under such section on account of the prohibition 
     against assessments, but shall rather cover the cost of 
     marketing order administration and services through funds 
     available for the Agricultural Marketing Service of the 
     Department of Agriculture.
       (b) Failure To Timely Implement Orders.--Unless the 
     Secretary certifies to Congress before the end of the 2-year 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     that all of the Federal marketing order reforms required by 
     section 221(b) have been fully implemented, then, effective 
     at the end of that period--
       (1) the Secretary shall immediately cease all price support 
     activities under section 201;
       (2) the Secretary shall immediately terminate all Federal 
     milk marketing orders under section 8c of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with amendments by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, and may not 
     issue any further order under such Act with respect to milk;
       (3) the Commodity Credit Corporation shall immediately 
     cease to operate the dairy export incentive program under 
     section 153 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-
     14);
       (4) the Secretary and the National Processor Advertising 
     and Promotion Board shall immediately cease all activities 
     under the Fluid Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6401 et 
     seq.); and
       (5) the Secretary and the National Dairy Promotion and 
     Research Board shall immediately cease all activities under 
     the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 4501 
     et seq.).
       (c) Effect of Court Order.--The actions authorized by this 
     section are intended to ensure the timely publication and 
     implementation of new and amended Federal milk marketing 
     orders under section 8c of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 
     U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. In the event that the 
     Secretary is enjoined or otherwise restrained by a court 
     order from publishing or implementing the reform requirements 
     specified by section 221, the length of time for which that 
     injunction or other restraining order is effective shall be 
     added to the time limitations specified in subsections (a) 
     and (b) thereby extending those time limitations by a period 
     of time equal to the period of time for which the injunction 
     or other restraining order is effective.
                        TITLE III--CONSERVATION

     SEC. 301. CONSERVATION.

       (a) Funding.--Subtitle E of title XII of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841 et seq.) is amended to read as 
     follows:
                         ``Subtitle E--Funding

     ``SEC. 1241. FUNDING.

       ``(a) Mandatory Expenses.--For each of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002, the Secretary shall use the funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out the programs 
     authorized by--
       ``(1) subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D (including 
     contracts extended by the Secretary pursuant to section 1437 
     of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 
     (Public Law 101-624; 16 U.S.C. 3831 note));
       ``(2) subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D; and
       ``(3) chapter 4 of subtitle D.
       ``(b) Livestock Environmental Assistance Program.--For each 
     of fiscal years 1996 through 2002, $100,000,000 of the funds 
     of the Commodity Credit Corporation shall be available for 
     providing technical assistance, cost-sharing payments, and 
     incentive payments for practices relating to livestock 
     production under the livestock environmental assistance 
     program under chapter 4 of subtitle D.''.
       (b) Livestock Environmental Assistance Program.--Subtitle D 
     of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830 
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

        ``CHAPTER 4--LIVESTOCK ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 1240. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Land management practice.--The term `land management 
     practice' means a site-specific nutrient or manure 
     management, irrigation management, tillage or residue 
     management, grazing management, or other land management 
     practice that the Secretary determines is needed to protect, 
     in the most cost effective manner, water, soil, or related 
     resources from degradation due to livestock production.
       ``(2) Large confined livestock operation.--The term `large 
     confined livestock operation' means an operation that--
       ``(A) is a confined animal feeding operation; and
       ``(B) has more than--
       ``(i) 55 mature dairy cattle;
       ``(ii) 10,000 beef cattle;
       ``(iii) 30,000 laying hens or broilers (if the facility has 
     continuous overflow watering);
       ``(iv) 100,000 laying hens or broilers (if the facility has 
     a liquid manure system);
       ``(v) 55,000 turkeys;
       ``(vi) 15,000 swine; or
       ``(vii) 10,000 sheep or lambs.
       ``(3) Livestock.--The term `livestock' means dairy cows, 
     beef cattle, laying hens, broilers, turkeys, swine, sheep, 
     lambs, and such other animals as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(4) Operator.--The term `operator' means a person who is 
     engaged in livestock production (as defined by the 
     Secretary).
       ``(5) Structural practice.--The term `structural practice' 
     means the establishment of an animal waste management 
     facility, terrace, grassed waterway, contour grass strip, 
     filterstrip, or other structural practice that the Secretary 
     determines is needed to protect, in the most cost effective 
     manner, water, soil, or related resources from degradation 
     due to livestock production.

     ``SEC. 1240A. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF LIVESTOCK 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the 1996 through 2002 fiscal 
     years, the Secretary shall provide technical assistance, 
     cost-sharing payments, and incentive payments to operators 
     who enter into contracts with the Secretary, through a 
     livestock environmental assistance program.
       ``(2) Eligible practices.--
       ``(A) Structural practices.--An operator who implements a 
     structural practice shall be eligible for technical 
     assistance or cost-sharing payments, or both.
       ``(B) Land management practices.--An operator who performs 
     a land management practice shall be eligible for technical 
     assistance or incentive payments, or both.
       ``(3) Eligible land.--Assistance under this chapter may be 
     provided with respect to land that is used for livestock 
     production and on which a serious threat to water, soil, or 
     related resources exists, as determined by the Secretary, by 
     reason of the soil types, terrain, climatic, soil, 
     topographic, flood, or saline characteristics, or other 
     factors or natural hazards.
       ``(4) Selection criteria.--In providing technical 
     assistance, cost-sharing payments, and incentive payments to 
     operators in a region, watershed, or conservation priority 
     area in which an agricultural operation is located, the 
     Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) the significance of the water, soil, and related 
     natural resource problems; and
       ``(B) the maximization of environmental benefits per dollar 
     expended.
       ``(b) Application and Term.--
       ``(1) In general.--A contract between an operator and the 
     Secretary under this chapter may--
       ``(A) apply to 1 or more structural practices or 1 or more 
     land management practices, or both; and
       ``(B) have a term of not less than 5, nor more than 10, 
     years, as determined appropriate by the Secretary, depending 
     on the practice or practices that are the basis of the 
     contract.
       ``(2) Duties of operators and secretary.--To receive cost-
     sharing or incentive payments, or technical assistance, 
     participating operators shall comply with all terms and 
     conditions of the contract and a plan, as established by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(c) Structural Practices.--
       ``(1) Competitive offer.--The Secretary shall administer a 
     competitive offer system for operators proposing to receive 
     cost-sharing payments in exchange for the implementation of 1 
     or more structural practices by the operator. The competitive 
     offer system shall consist of--
       ``(A) the submission of a competitive offer by the operator 
     in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe; and
       ``(B) evaluation of the offer in light of the selection 
     criteria established under subsection (a)(4) and the 
     projected cost of the proposal, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Concurrence of owner.--If the operator making an 
     offer to implement a structural practice is a tenant of the 
     land involved in agricultural production, for the offer to be 
     acceptable, the operator shall obtain the concurrence of the 
     owner of the land with respect to the offer.
       ``(d) Land Management Practices.--The Secretary shall 
     establish an application and evaluation process for awarding 
     technical assistance or incentive payments, or both, to an 
     operator in exchange for the performance of 1 or more land 
     management practices by the operator.
       ``(e) Cost-Sharing, Incentive Payments, and Technical 
     Assistance.--
       ``(1) Cost-sharing payments.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Federal share of cost-sharing 
     payments to an operator proposing to implement 1 or more 
     structural practices shall not be greater than 75 percent of 
     the projected cost of each practice, as determined by the 
     Secretary, taking into consideration any payment received by 
     the operator from a State or local government.
       ``(B) Limitation.--An operator of a large confined 
     livestock operation shall not be eligible for cost-sharing 
     payments to construct an animal waste management facility.
       ``(C) Other payments.--An operator shall not be eligible 
     for cost-sharing payments for structural practices on 
     eligible land under this chapter if the operator receives 
     cost-sharing payments or other benefits for the same land 
     under chapter 1, 2, or 3.
       ``(2) Incentive payments.--The Secretary shall make 
     incentive payments in an amount and at a rate determined by 
     the Secretary to be necessary to encourage an operator to 
     perform 1 or more land management practices.
       ``(3) Technical assistance.--
       ``(A) Funding.--The Secretary shall allocate funding under 
     this chapter for the provision of technical assistance 
     according to the purpose and projected cost for which the 
     technical assistance is provided for a fiscal year. The 
     allocated amount may vary according to the type of expertise 
     required, quantity of time involved, and other factors as 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary. Funding shall not 
     exceed the projected cost to the Secretary of the technical 
     assistance provided for a fiscal year.
     
[[Page H1445]]

       ``(B) Other authorities.--The receipt of technical 
     assistance under this chapter shall not affect the 
     eligibility of the operator to receive technical assistance 
     under other authorities of law available to the Secretary.
       ``(f) Limitation on Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--The total amount of cost-sharing and 
     incentive payments paid to a person under this chapter may 
     not exceed--
       ``(A) $10,000 for any fiscal year; or
       ``(B) $50,000 for any multiyear contract.
       ``(2) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     that are consistent with section 1001 for the purpose of--
       ``(A) defining the term `person' as used in paragraph (1); 
     and
       ``(B) prescribing such rules as the Secretary determines 
     necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable application of the 
     limitations established under this subsection.
       ``(g) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     effective date of this subsection, the Secretary shall issue 
     regulations to implement the livestock environmental 
     assistance program established under this chapter.''.
       (c) Conforming Program Changes.--
       (1) Wetlands reserve program.--
       (A) In general.--Section 1237 of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (b)(2)--

       (I) by striking ``not less'' and inserting ``not more''; 
     and
       (II) by striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2002''; and

       (ii) in subsection (c), by striking ``2000'' and inserting 
     ``2002''.
       (B) Length of easement.--Section 1237A(e) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837a(e)) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) shall be for 15 years, but in no case shall be a 
     permanent easement.''.
       (2) Conservation reserve program.--Section 1231(d) of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(d)) is amended by 
     striking ``total of'' and all that follows through the period 
     at the end of the subsection and inserting ``total of 
     36,400,000 acres.''. Section 725 of the Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-37; 109 
     Stat. 332), is amended by striking the proviso relating to 
     enrollment of new acres in 1997.
          TITLE IV--AGRICULTURAL PROMOTION AND EXPORT PROGRAMS

     SEC. 401. MARKET PROMOTION PROGRAM.

       Effective as of October 1, 1995, section 211(c)(1) of the 
     Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641(c)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' after ``1991 through 1993,''; and
       (2) by striking ``through 1997,'' and inserting ``through 
     1995, and not more than $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
     1996 through 2002,''.

     SEC. 402. EXPORT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.

       Effective as of October 1, 1995, section 301(e)(1) of the 
     Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5651(e)(1)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--The Commodity Credit Corporation shall 
     make available to carry out the program established under 
     this section not more than--
       ``(A) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(B) $350,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(C) $500,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(D) $550,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       ``(E) $579,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;
       ``(F) $478,000,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
       ``(G) $478,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.''.
                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 501. CROP INSURANCE.

       (a) Catastrophic Risk Protection.--Section 508(b) of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Delivery of coverage.--
       ``(i) In general.--In full consultation with approved 
     insurance providers, the Secretary may continue to offer 
     catastrophic risk protection in a State (or a portion of a 
     State) through local offices of the Department if the 
     Secretary determines that there is an insufficient number of 
     approved insurance providers operating in the State or 
     portion to adequately provide catastrophic risk protection 
     coverage to producers.
       ``(ii) Coverage by approved insurance providers.--To the 
     extent that catastrophic risk protection coverage by approved 
     insurance providers is sufficiently available in a State as 
     determined by the Secretary, only approved insurance 
     providers may provide the coverage in the State.
       ``(iii) Current policies.--Subject to clause (ii), all 
     catastrophic risk protection policies written by local 
     offices of the Department shall be transferred (including all 
     fees collected for the crop year in which the approved 
     insurance provider will assume the policies) to the approved 
     insurance provider for performance of all sales, service, and 
     loss adjustment functions.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--Effective for the spring-planted 1996 
     and subsequent crops, to be eligible for any payment or loan 
     under title I of the Agricultural Market Transition Act or 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1281 et 
     seq.), for the conservation reserve program, or for any 
     benefit described in section 371 of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2008f), a person shall--
       ``(i) obtain at least the catastrophic level of insurance 
     for each crop of economic significance in which the person 
     has an interest; or
       ``(ii) provide a written waiver to the Secretary that 
     waives any eligibility for emergency crop loss assistance in 
     connection with the crop.''.
       (b) Coverage of Seed Crops.--Section 519(a)(2)(B) of the 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1519(a)(2)(B)) is amended by inserting ``seed 
     crops,'' after ``turfgrass sod,''.

     SEC. 502. COLLECTION AND USE OF AGRICULTURAL QUARANTINE AND 
                   INSPECTION FEES.

       Subsection (a) of section 2509 of the Food, Agriculture, 
     Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (21 U.S.C. 136a) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Quarantine and Inspection Fees.--
       ``(1) Fees authorized.--The Secretary of Agriculture may 
     prescribe and collect fees sufficient--
       ``(A) to cover the cost of providing agricultural 
     quarantine and inspection services in connection with the 
     arrival at a port in the customs territory of the United 
     States, or the preclearance or preinspection at a site 
     outside the customs territory of the United States, of an 
     international passenger, commercial vessel, commercial 
     aircraft, commercial truck, or railroad car;
       ``(B) to cover the cost of administering this subsection; 
     and
       ``(C) through fiscal year 2002, to maintain a reasonable 
     balance in the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection User Fee 
     Account established under paragraph (5).
       ``(2) Limitation.--In setting the fees under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall ensure that the amount of the fees are 
     commensurate with the costs of agricultural quarantine and 
     inspection services with respect to the class of persons or 
     entities paying the fees. The costs of the services with 
     respect to passengers as a class includes the costs of 
     related inspections of the aircraft or other vehicle.
       ``(3) Status of fees.--Fees collected under this subsection 
     by any person on behalf of the Secretary are held in trust 
     for the United States and shall be remitted to the Secretary 
     in such manner and at such times as the Secretary may 
     prescribe.
       ``(4) Late payment penalties.--If a person subject to a fee 
     under this subsection fails to pay the fee when due, the 
     Secretary shall assess a late payment penalty, and the 
     overdue fees shall accrue interest, as required by section 
     3717 of title 31, United States Code.
       ``(5) Agricultural quarantine inspection user fee 
     account.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury 
     of the United States a no-year fund, to be known as the 
     `Agricultural Quarantine Inspection User Fee Account', which 
     shall contain all of the fees collected under this subsection 
     and late payment penalties and interest charges collected 
     under paragraph (4) through fiscal year 2002.
       ``(B) Use of account.--For each of the fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002, funds in the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection 
     User Fee Account shall be available, in such amounts as are 
     provided in advance in appropriations Acts, to cover the 
     costs associated with the provision of agricultural 
     quarantine and inspection services and the administration of 
     this subsection. Amounts made available under this 
     subparagraph shall be available until expended.
       ``(C) Excess fees.--Fees and other amounts collected under 
     this subsection in any of the fiscal years 1996 through 2002 
     in excess of $100,000,000 shall be available for the purposes 
     specified in subparagraph (B) until expended, without further 
     appropriation.
       ``(6) Use of amounts collected after fiscal year 2002.--
     After September 30, 2002, the unobligated balance in the 
     Agricultural Quarantine Inspection User Fee Account and fees 
     and other amounts collected under this subsection shall be 
     credited to the Department of Agriculture accounts that incur 
     the costs associated with the provision of agricultural 
     quarantine and inspection services and the administration of 
     this subsection. The fees and other amounts shall remain 
     available to the Secretary until expended without fiscal year 
     limitation.
       ``(7) Staff years.--The number of full-time equivalent 
     positions in the Department of Agriculture attributable to 
     the provision of agricultural quarantine and inspection 
     services and the administration of this subsection shall not 
     be counted toward the limitation on the total number of full-
     time equivalent positions in all agencies specified in 
     section 5(b) of the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 
     1994 (Public Law 103-226; 5 U.S.C. 3101 note) or other 
     limitation on the total number of full-time equivalent 
     positions.''.

     SEC. 503. COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION INTEREST RATE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the monthly 
     Commodity Credit Corporation interest rate applicable to 
     loans provided for agricultural commodities by the 
     Corporation shall be 100 basis points greater than the rate 
     determined under the applicable interest rate formula in 
     effect on October 1, 1995.

     SEC. 504. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT.

       (a) Establishment.--The Department of Agriculture 
     Reorganization Act of 1994 is amended by inserting after 
     section 226 (7 U.S.C. 6932) the following new section:

     ``SEC. 226A. OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT.

       ``(a) Establishment.--Subject to subsection (e), the 
     Secretary shall establish and maintain in the Department an 
     independent Office of Risk Management.
       ``(b) Functions of the Office of Risk Management.--The 
     Office of Risk Management shall have jurisdiction over the 
     following functions:
       ``(1) Supervision of the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Corporation.
       ``(2) Administration and oversight of all aspects, 
     including delivery through local offices of the Department, 
     of all programs authorized under the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
       ``(3) Any pilot or other programs involving revenue 
     insurance, risk management savings accounts, or the use of 
     the futures market to manage risk and support farm income 
     that may be 

[[Page H1446]]
     established under the Federal Crop Insurance Act or other law.
       ``(4) Such other functions as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(c) Administrator.--
       ``(1) The Office of Risk Management shall be headed by an 
     Administrator who shall be appointed by the Secretary.
       ``(2) The Administrator of the Office of Risk Management 
     shall also serve as Manager of the Federal Crop Insurance 
     Corporation.
       ``(d) Resources.--
       ``(1) Functional coordination.--Certain functions of the 
     Office of Risk Management, such as human resources, public 
     affairs, and legislative affairs, may be provided by a 
     consolidation of such functions under the Under Secretary of 
     Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.
       ``(2) Minimum provisions.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or 
     any other provision of law or order of the Secretary, the 
     Secretary shall provide the Office of Risk Management with 
     human and capital resources sufficient for the Office to 
     carry out its functions in a timely and efficient manner.''.
       (b) Fiscal Year 1996 Funding.--Not less than $88,500,000 of 
     the appropriation provided for the salaries and expenses of 
     the Consolidated Farm Services Agency in the Agricultural, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 shall be available for the 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of Risk Management 
     established under subsection (a).
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 226(b) of the Act (7 
     U.S.C. 6932(b)) is amended by striking paragraph (2).

     SEC. 505. BUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--Not later than December 31, 
     1996, the Secretary of Agriculture shall implement a program 
     (to be known as the ``Business Interruption Insurance 
     Program''), under which the producer of a contract commodity 
     could elect to obtain revenue insurance coverage to ensure 
     that the producer receives an indemnity payment if the 
     producer suffers a loss of revenue. The nature and extent of 
     the program and the manner of determining the amount of an 
     indemnity payment shall be established by the Secretary.
       (b) Report on Progress and Proposed Expansion.--Not later 
     than January 1, 1998, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture the data 
     and results of the program through October 1, 1997. In 
     addition, the Secretary shall submit information and 
     recommendations to the Commission with respect to the program 
     that will serve as the basis for the Secretary to offer 
     revenue insurance to agricultural producers, at one or more 
     levels of coverage, that--
       (1) is in addition to, or in lieu of, catastrophic and 
     higher levels of crop insurance;
       (2) is offered through reinsurance arrangements with 
     private insurance companies;
       (3) is actuarially sound; and
       (4) requires the payment of premiums and administrative 
     fees by participating producers.
       (c) Contract Commodity Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``contract commodity'' means a crop of wheat, corn, grain 
     sorghum, oats, barley, upland cotton, or rice.

     SEC. 506. CONTINUATION OF OPTIONS PILOT PROGRAM.

       During the 1996 through 2002 crop years, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may continue to conduct the options pilot program 
     authorized by the Options Pilot Program Act of 1990 (subtitle 
     E of title XI of Public Law 101-624; 104 Stat. 3518; 7 U.S.C. 
     1421 note). To the extent that the Secretary decides to 
     continue the options pilot program, the Secretary shall 
     modify the terms and conditions of the pilot program to 
     reflect the changes to law made by this Act.
      TITLE VI--COMMISSION ON 21ST CENTURY PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE

     SEC. 601. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There is hereby established a commission to be known as the 
     ``Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture'' (in 
     this title referred to as the ``Commission'').

     SEC. 602. COMPOSITION.

       (a) Membership and Appointment.--The Commission shall be 
     composed of 11 members, appointed as follows:
       (1) Three members shall be appointed by the President.
       (2) Four members shall be appointed by the Chairman of the 
     Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives in 
     consultation with the ranking minority member of the 
     Committee.
       (3) Four members shall be appointed by the Chairman of the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate in consultation with the ranking minority member of 
     the Committee.
       (b) Qualifications.--At least one of the members appointed 
     under each of the paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection 
     (a) shall be an individual who is primarily involved in 
     production agriculture. All other members of the Commission 
     shall be appointed from among individuals having knowledge 
     and experience in agricultural production, marketing, 
     finance, or trade.
       (c) Term of Members; Vacancies.--Members of the Commission 
     shall be appointed for the life of the Commission. A vacancy 
     on the Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be 
     filled in the same manner as the original appointment was 
     made.
       (d) Time for Appointment; First Meeting.--The members of 
     the Commission shall be appointed not later than October 1, 
     1997. The Commission shall convene its first meeting to carry 
     out its duties under this Act 30 days after six members of 
     the Commission have been appointed.
       (e) Chairman.--The chairman of the Commission shall be 
     designated jointly by the Chairman of the Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Chairman 
     of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate from among the members of the Commission.

     SEC. 603. COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF PAST AND FUTURE OF 
                   PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE.

       (a) Initial Review.--The Commission shall conduct a 
     comprehensive review of changes in the condition of 
     production agriculture in the United States since the date of 
     the enactment of this Act and the extent to which such 
     changes are the result of the amendments made by this Act. 
     The review shall include the following:
       (1) An assessment of the initial success of production 
     flexibility contracts under section 103 in supporting the 
     economic viability of farming in the United States.
       (2) An assessment of the food security situation in the 
     United States in the areas of trade, consumer prices, 
     international competitiveness of United States production 
     agriculture, food supplies, and humanitarian relief.
       (3) An assessment of the changes in farmland values and 
     agricultural producer incomes since the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (4) An assessment of the extent to which regulatory relief 
     for agricultural producers has been enacted and implemented, 
     including the application of cost/benefit principles in the 
     issuance of agricultural regulations.
       (5) An assessment of the extent to which tax relief for 
     agricultural producers has been enacted in the form of 
     capital gains tax reductions, estate tax exemptions, and 
     mechanisms to average tax loads over high and low income 
     years.
       (6) An assessment of the effect of any Government 
     interference in agricultural export markets, such as the 
     imposition of trade embargoes, and the degree of 
     implementation and success of international trade agreements.
       (7) An assessment of the likely affect of the sale, lease, 
     or transfer of farm poundage quota for peanuts across State 
     lines.
       (b) Subsequent Review.--The Commission shall conduct a 
     comprehensive review of the future of production agriculture 
     in the United States and the appropriate role of the Federal 
     Government in support of production agriculture. The review 
     shall include the following:
       (1) An assessment of changes in the condition of production 
     agriculture in the United States since the initial review 
     conducted under subsection (a).
       (2) Identification of the appropriate future relationship 
     of the Federal Government with production agriculture after 
     2002.
       (3) An assessment of the personnel and infrastructure 
     requirements of the Department of Agriculture necessary to 
     support the future relationship of the Federal Government 
     with production agriculture.
       (c) Recommendations.--In carrying out the subsequent review 
     under subsection (b), the Commission shall develop specific 
     recommendations for legislation to achieve the appropriate 
     future relationship of the Federal Government with production 
     agriculture identified under subsection (a)(2).

     SEC. 604. REPORTS.

       (a) Report on Initial Review.--Not later than June 1, 1998, 
     the Commission shall submit to the President, the Committee 
     on Agriculture of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     Senate a report containing the results of the initial review 
     conducted under section 603(a).
       (b) Report on Subsequent Review.--Not later than January 1, 
     2001, the Commission shall submit to the President and the 
     congressional committees specified in subsection (a) a report 
     containing the results of the subsequent review conducted 
     under section 603(b).

     SEC. 605. POWERS.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may, for the purpose of 
     carrying out this Act, conduct such hearings, sit and act at 
     such times, take such testimony, and receive such evidence, 
     as the Commission considers appropriate.
       (b) Assistance From Other Agencies.--The Commission may 
     secure directly from any department or agency of the Federal 
     Government such information as may be necessary for the 
     Commission to carry out its duties under this Act. Upon 
     request of the chairman of the Commission, the head of the 
     department or agency shall, to the extent permitted by law, 
     furnish such information to the Commission.
       (c) Mail.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as the 
     departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (d) Assistance From Secretary.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall provide to the Commission appropriate 
     office space and such reasonable administrative and support 
     services as the Commission may request.

     SEC. 606. COMMISSION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet on a regular basis 
     (as determined by the chairman) and at the call of the 
     chairman or a majority of its members.
       (b) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

     SEC. 607. PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission shall 
     serve without compensation, but shall be allowed travel 
     expenses including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as 
     authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, 
     when engaged in the performance of Commission duties.
       (b) Staff.--The Commission shall appoint a staff director, 
     who shall be paid at a rate not to exceed the maximum rate of 
     basic pay under section 5376 of title 5, United States Code, 
     and such 

[[Page H1447]]
     professional and clerical personnel as may be reasonable and necessary 
     to enable the Commission to carry out its duties under this 
     Act without regard to the provisions of title 5, United 
     States Code, governing appointments in the competitive 
     service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 
     and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title, or any other 
     provision of law, relating to the number, classification, and 
     General Schedule rates. No employee appointed under this 
     subsection (other than the staff director) may be compensated 
     at a rate to exceed the maximum rate applicable to level GS-
     15 of the General Schedule.
       (c) Detailed Personnel.--Upon request of the chairman of 
     the Commission, the head of any department or agency of the 
     Federal Government is authorized to detail, without 
     reimbursement, any personnel of such department or agency to 
     the Commission to assist the Commission in carrying out its 
     duties under this section. The detail of any such personnel 
     may not result in the interruption or loss of civil service 
     status or privilege of such personnel.

     SEC. 608. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate upon submission of the final 
     report required by section 604.
              TITLE VII--EXTENSION OF CERTAIN AUTHORITIES

     SEC. 701. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY UNDER PUBLIC LAW 480.

       Section 408 of the Agricultural Trade Development and 
     Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1736b) is amended by 
     striking ``1995'' and inserting ``1996''.

     SEC. 702. EXTENSION OF FOOD FOR PROGRESS PROGRAM.

       Section 1110 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 
     1736o), also known as the Food for Progress Act of 1985, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (k), by striking ``1995'' and inserting 
     ``1996''; and
       (2) in subsection (l), by striking ``1995'' and inserting 
     ``1996''.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute shall be in order except the amendments printed in 
House Report 104-463 and amendments en bloc described in section 2 of 
House Resolution 366. Each amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in 
the report, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] may offer amendment No. 4 immediately after 
amendment No. 7 by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Debate time on each amendment will be equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
  It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture or a designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of 
amendments specified in the report not earlier disposed of or germane 
modifications of any such amendment. Amendments en bloc shall be 
considered read, except that modifications shall be reported, shall be 
debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for a division of the question.
  The original proponent of an amendment included in amendments en bloc 
may insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately before 
disposition of the amendments en bloc.


        amendments en bloc, as modified, offered by mr. roberts

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc that 
incorporate amendment No. 9 made in order by House Resolution 366 with 
a germane modification deleting the language on pages 8 and 9 of the 
Roberts en bloc amendment No. 1 made in order by House Resolution 366 
and printed in the report accompanying House Resolution 366. This 
amended en bloc amendment is offered pursuant to section 2 of the rule 
and contains a Roberts germane amendment deleting the last amendment in 
my original en bloc amendment No. 1.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc and 
report any modifications.
  The text of the amendments en bloc, as modified, is as follows:

       Amendments en bloc, as modified, offered by Mr. Roberts: 
     Page 4, line 15, insert before the period the following: 
     ``and such other acreage as the Secretary considers fair and 
     equitable''.
       Page 5, strike line 7.
       Page 5, line 13, strike ``title V'' and insert ``section 
     505''.
       Page 5, line 15, add at the end the following: ``The 
     Secretary shall adjust the farm program payment yield for the 
     1995 crop of a contract commodity to account for any 
     additional yield payments made with respect to that crop 
     under subsection (b)(2) of the section.''
       Page 5, strike line 23 and all that follows through line 16 
     on page 6, and insert the following:
        (12) Producer.--The term ``producer'' means an owner, 
     landlord, tenant, or sharecropper who shares in the risk of 
     producing a crop and who is entitled to share in the crop 
     available for marketing from the farm, or would have shared 
     had the crop been produced. In determining whether a grower 
     of hybrid seed is a producer, the Secretary shall not take 
     into consideration the existence of a hybrid seed contract.
       Page 7, strike lines 9 through 18, and insert the 
     following:

     shall agree, in exchange for annual contract payments, to--
       (A) comply with the conservation plan for the farm prepared 
     in accordance with section 1212 of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3812);
       (B) comply with wetland protection requirements applicable 
     to the farm under subtitle C of title XII of the Act (16 
     U.S.C. 3821 et seq.); and
       (C) comply with the planting flexibility requirements of 
     subsection (j); and
       (D) to use the land subject to the contract for 
     agricultural or related activities, but not for 
     nonagricultural commercial or industrial uses.
       Page 7, beginning line 20, strike ``following persons shall 
     be considered to be an owner or operator'' and insert 
     ``producers and owners described in this paragraph shall 
     be''.
       Page 9, beginning line 5, strike ``operators who are''.
       Page 6, strike lines 12 through 16 and insert the 
     following:
       (g) Payment Limitation.--Sections 1001 through 1001C of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1308 through 1308-3), as 
     amended by section 105, establish payment limitations on the 
     total amount of contract payments that may be made under 
     contracts during any fiscal year.
       Page 16, beginning line 20, strike ``the conservation 
     plan'' and all that follows through ``subsection (j)'' and 
     insert the following: ``a requirement of the contract 
     specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of subsection 
     (a)(1)''.
       Page 19, line 5, insert at the end the following: ``The 
     Secretary shall carry out this paragraph in such a manner as 
     to ensure that the reconstitution of a farm as part of the 
     transfer of contract acreage results in no additional outlays 
     under this section.''.
       Page 20, beginning line 19, strike ``on a farm that is 
     planted for harvest to alfalfa'' and insert ``of alfalfa on a 
     farm that is harvested''.
       Page 51, beginning line 12, strike ``section 411 of 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938'' and insert ``section 
     104(i)(1)''.
       Page 60, line 22, strike ``\1/2\'' and insert ``the grower 
     portion''.
       Page 61, line 18, strike ``Marketing'' and insert 
     ``Poundage''.
       Page 64, line 10, strike ``at the end of the 1996 marketing 
     year'' and insert ``on or after January 1, 1997,''.
       Page 64, line 21, insert ``(except seed)'' after ``use''.
       Page 67, line 1, strike ``basic''.
       Page 76, line 11, strike ``of''.
       Page 77, line 23, strike ``or employee'' and insert ``, 
     employee, or agency''.
       Page 98, line 18, insert ``minus five cents'' after 
     ``butter''.
       Page 102, line 11, insert ``is authorized to and'' after 
     ``Agriculture''.
       Page 102, line 17, insert ``which amount the marketing 
     order issued by California is hereby directed to make,'' 
     after ``California,''.
       Page 113, line 5, insert ``the first day of the first month 
     beginning after'' after ``take effect on''.
       Page 113, strike lines 14 through 23, and insert the 
     following new paragraph:
       (1) Consolidation of Federal milk marketing orders into not 
     less than 8 nor more than 13 orders, which shall also include 
     those areas of the 48 contiguous States not covered by a 
     Federal milk marketing order on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act. The consolidation shall comply with the following:
       (A) One of the new Federal milk marketing orders shall 
     cover only the State of California.
       (B) A new or amended order shall have the right to blend 
     order receipts to address unique issues in that order, such 
     as a State quota system in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (C) When milk of the highest use classification subject to 
     a State quota system in operation on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act is marketed under a new or amended 
     Federal milk marketing order that also includes milk not 
     subject to that State quota system, the Secretary shall 
     provide a segregated account within the pool operated by the 
     Federal milk marketing order for the collection and 
     disbursement of receipts from the marketing of any milk 
     subject to that State quota system.
       (D) In accomplishing the consolidation of areas not covered 
     by a Federal milk marketing order on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary may utilize a milk 
     pooling system or other regulatory system in operation in any 
     State on such date in lieu of Federal authorities to blend 
     pool proceeds or manage any quota plan in operation in a 
     State on such date.
       Page 114, after line 18, insert the following new 
     subsection:
     
[[Page H1448]]

       (d) Continuation of State Orders.--Nothing in this section 
     shall preclude a State from maintaining a separate State 
     marketing order for milk and the products of milk so long as 
     the provisions of that State order are consistent with and 
     complement any Federal order or orders applicable to milk 
     marketed in that State.
       Page 120, beginning line 13, strike paragraph (2) relating 
     to the definition of large confined livestock operation.
       Page 125, strike lines 7 through 10.
       Page 130, strike lines 14 through 22 and insert the 
     following new clause:
       ``(iii) Current policies.--Subject to clause (ii), all 
     catastrophic risk protection policies written by local 
     offices of the Department shall be transferred to the 
     approved insurance provider for performance of all sales, 
     service, and loss adjustment functions. Any fees in 
     connection with such policies that are not yet collected at 
     the time of the transfer shall be payable to the approved 
     insurance providers assuming the policies.''; and
       Page 137, strike lines 17 through 23 and insert the 
     following new subsection:
       (b) Fiscal Year 1996 Funding.--From funds appropriated for 
     the salaries and expenses of the Consolidated Farm Service 
     Agency in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
     Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 
     (Public Law 104-37), the Secretary of Agriculture may use 
     such sums as necessary for the salaries and expenses of the 
     Office of Risk Management established under subsection (a).
       Amend section 402--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) Generally.--'' before ``Effective''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       (b) Priority Funding for Wheat Flour.--Section 301 of the 
     Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5651) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Priority Funding for Wheat Flour.--Consistent, as 
     determined by the Secretary, with the obligations and 
     reduction commitments undertaken by the United States set 
     forth in the Uruguay Round Agreements, the Secretary shall 
     announce awards under this section on an annual basis for the 
     sale of wheat flour in sufficient amount to maintain the 
     percentage of market share of world commercial flour markets 
     achieved by the United States wheat flour industry during the 
     Uruguay Round base period years of 1986 through 1990.''

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments en bloc consisting of amendment No. 1 (modified 
     by striking the final instruction) and amendment No. 9 
     (unmodified).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Roberts] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. de la Garza] will be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would inform Members that in putting together the 
current bill, the Agriculture Market Transition Act, provisions of H.R. 
2854, in doing this, our committee has worked with the Consolidated 
Farm Service Agency at the Department of Agriculture to work out many 
operational and administrative details that will allow the CFSA to 
implement this very important legislation as quickly as possible, which 
is very important to farm country, more especially where spring 
planting will soon be starting. The changes made in the en bloc will 
aid the Department of Agriculture and more especially the CFSA in being 
able to move quickly with the implementation of the Agriculture Market 
Transition Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking minority member for 
yielding me this time.
  I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Kansas so that I make 
clear to the House what we have in this technical amendment. I have 
been informed, and I see here for the original amendment that was 
reported had language in it to grant rights-of-way basically for people 
who are obtaining water and water rights on national forest lands. Is 
that correct?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has described----
  Mr. VOLKMER. The old Brown amendment from the Senate?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I think the commonsense Brown amendment from the Senate 
would be the more appropriate title. That has been taken out, sir.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Now, that is no longer in this new amendment, is that 
correct?
  Mr. ROBERTS. If the gentleman would continue to yield, that is the 
case.
  Mr. VOLKMER. And the new amendment basically has to do with farm 
program payment limitations or yields and based on yields, or what all 
do we have in this amendment?
  Mr. ROBERTS. The amendment deals with two Livingston amendments. I 
would say to the gentleman it incorporates two of the amendments by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], with regard to the transfer 
of catastrophic insurance fees collected by the Department of 
Agriculture to private insurance companies and a change in the funding 
for the establishment of the Office of Risk Management.
  Finally, the en bloc incorporates the amendment No. 9 offered by my 
colleague, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], to the Ag Trade Act 
of 1978 that directs the Secretary in a manner consistent with our 
obligations under GATT to maintain our historic share of exports with 
regards to the sale of wheat flour.

  I know of no opposition to this amendment, and in regards to the 
Livingston amendments and the described intent of the amendments that I 
have described to the House previously to the gentleman's question, it 
was to certainly enable the Department of Agriculture to implement what 
we pass here in a quick and timely manner.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the second provision, 
matter that I would like to ask the gentleman about, we have 
consolidation language in here about Federal milk marketing orders.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
am informed by staff that some of that was intended to clarify what was 
in the original bill and the second provision of the Agriculture Market 
Transition Act.
  Mr. VOLKMER. All right. Now, junder the language that we have in this 
amendment, as the bill will be amended, is the gentleman telling me 
then that Federal crop insurance, catastrophic, will still be able to 
be sold or not be able to be sold in our FSA offices?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, that is correct, sir.
  Mr. VOLKMER. I asked whether or not it will be able to be sold.
  Mr. ROBERTS. It will be.
  Mr. VOLKMER. It will be. Fine.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I beg your pardon, it will not do that.
  Mr. VOLKMER. It will not be able to be sold.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, the Chair, this chairman, this gentleman 
was in error that the bill does that. This amendment does not do that.
  Mr. VOLKMER. But does the amendment do anything to the provision in 
the bill? That is all I am asking.
  Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.
  Mr. VOLKMER. No change on that.
  Mr. ROBERTS. No, sir.
  Mr. VOLKMER. All right. That is what I am asking about. I thank the 
gentleman very much.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership in 
the ag industry and for America.
  I want to say I rise, Mr. Chairman, today to help farmers, union 
workers, and American jobs and the U.S. economy. We must attempt to 
level the playing field with the European Union by using the export 
enhancement program funds to move value-added products into the export 
markets.
  The European Union has been twisting their agricultural and trade 
policies in GATT to unfairly crush the value-added exports like wheat 
flour. The European Union is lowering domestic input prices to give 
themselves a tremendous cost advantage over U.S. exports. Incredibly, 
the United States has had at its disposal millions of dollars to 
support U.S. agricultural export industries. These funds have been 
authorized and funded by the people through their elected 
Representatives 

[[Page H1449]]
under the export enhancement program to the tune of $350 million for 
this fiscal year alone. However, less than 2 percent has been spent by 
the administration, leaving our farmers and union workers and American 
jobs hanging out there vulnerable to the world markets.
  In talks between the administration, the wheat flour industry, the 
USDA has admitted the European actions are unfair and it is measurable. 
Since the beginning of the 1995 crop year, more than 2 million metric 
tons of European flour export licenses have been awarded, compared to 
less than 15,000 metric tons of EEP awards.
  Mr. Chairman, this country has been taking it on the chin under GATT 
and NAFTA. We have lost the last three decisions on these arguments. 
Now it is time for us to use GATT to our advantage. Now is the time for 
us to use this onerous agreement to help American farmers, to help 
American workers and help the American economy.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment moves toward fixing these problems. It 
simply tells the President and the Department of Agriculture to 
announce awards under the export enhancement program on an annual 
basis, to maintain the percentage of market share the world commercial 
flour market has achieved by U.S. wheat flour industries during the 
base year 1986 through 1990.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will have no budget impact. It is within 
the scope of GATT, and it will keep hundreds if not thousands of jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, the U.S. has had its nose bloodied time and time again 
by NAFTA, by GATT, and by the World Trade Organization, and it is time 
we use the tools inside these agreements to protect our jobs, to 
protect our farmers, to get those value-added products out on the open 
market.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe that it is time for the 
administration to start protecting American farmers and union workers 
and American jobs by regaining our market share through the export 
enhancement program for the benefit of all Americans.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of a colloquy, I am most 
delighted to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Laughlin].
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, you and I have discussed the issue of the tenant farmer 
who leases farmland for receiving a fair and equitable payment under 
this bill many times in the last several months, and I thank the 
gentleman for his interest in assuring me that there is no problem for 
the tenant farmer.

                              {time}  1545

  In my own district in Texas, the majority of the farmers do not own 
the land they farm. This differs from many parts of our Nation, and in 
the past 4 weeks, while I was traveling in my district, the primary 
concern was whether this legislation provides a strong enough safeguard 
for the tenant farmer in receiving his or her share of the payment. 
Repeatedly I was asked what prevents the nonfarming landowner from not 
leasing the land for farming purposes and having the landowner receive 
the payments under this bill even though no farming takes place on the 
land. And, second, what assures the farmer that he will obtain his 
share of the payment?
  Mr. Chairman, in representing a district that is one of the highest 
agriculture producing districts in the State of Texas and one that 
produces over 70 percent of the rice in the State, I must ensure that 
the statutory intent of the chairman will not jeopardize tenant-
landlord relationships, an operator with a share-rent lease, an 
operator who cash rents, an operator and tenant who is a sharecropper, 
from being kicked off the land and from receiving a fair and equitable 
payment.
  Could the gentleman clarify his legislative intent in these four 
areas?
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I am more than happy to respond to the gentleman. We 
have discussed this at length. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
question.
  One of our technical amendments, I think, certainly clarifies this 
situation. Under our bill, anyone who has been eligible for payments 
under current law will be eligible for transition contract payments. 
The traditional protection afforded both the landlord and the tenant 
based on the amount of risk taken between the landowner and the tenant 
in distributing the payments will remain in the same manner in H.R. 
2854, or freedom to farm, as current law.
  I can assure the gentleman we have heard his constituents. We have 
heard you, and we addressed it. I thank the gentleman for his concerns.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. I thank the chairman for his assurance.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas brought up an 
interesting point, and I listened to the gentleman from Kansas for an 
answer. I did not exactly hear that exact answer; that is, if an owner 
of farmland who in the past has leased it out or sharecropped it or 
cash rented, can he terminate those contracts and receive the money? I 
believe that was one of the questions.
  Now, as I read it, if there is no existing contract on that land, if 
it has not been renewed, now, most of them in my area have already been 
renewed, those that are going to be, they are done, so they are stuck 
with it. If it has not and the owner wants to go in and go for the 
payments themselves, then I understand he has a right to do that and to 
get the payment, and he does not have to cash rent it or rent it out.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would inform the gentleman from Missouri that the 
situation is just the way it is in the law today. Nothing has changed.
  Mr. VOLKMER. That is true. He does not have to rent it if is not 
rented.
  Mr. ROBERTS. That is true.
  Mr. VOLKMER. That is true. He can get the payment. He does not have 
to crop the land at all even if he has rented it in the past. He does 
not have to rent it this year if he has not already done so.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I would inform the gentleman, he could barely pay the 
taxes in regard to the payments coming down the pike. We also have 
conservation compliance. I know where the gentleman is headed in 
regards to his repeated criticism of the bill. I think we have been 
through that. What is in H.R. 2854 is the same situation as it is today 
in the current farm program.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Except in the current farm program, you have to crop the 
land in order to participate in the program.
  Mr. ROBERTS. There is zero 1992, there is zero 1985. We do not have 
any set-aside for wheat. We have not had set-asides for major crops. 
The same situation continues, but I think we have had that debate, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, if the distinguished chairman has only 
to close, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc, as modified, 
offered by the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  The amendments en bloc, as modified, were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 104-463.


            amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts: 
     Strike sections 101 through 105 and insert the following:

     SEC. 101. CONTINUATION OF PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAMS UNDER 
                   AGRICULTURAL ACT OF 1949 FOR WHEAT, FEED 
                   GRAINS, COTTON, RICE, AND OILSEEDS.

       Subject to the program modifications required by this 
     title, for the 1996 through 2000 crops of each loan 
     commodity, the Secretary of Agriculture shall offer producers 
     the option to participate in price support, production 
     adjustment, and payment programs based on the terms and 
     conditions provided 

[[Page H1450]]
     in sections 101B, 103(h), 103B, 105B, 107B, 114, and 205 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (as in effect on the day before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act), and such other provisions 
     of such Act (as so in effect) as determined by the Secretary 
     to be necessary.

     SEC. 102. REDUCTION IN TARGET PRICES AND TERMINATION OF 
                   DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS AND MARKETING LOANS FOR 
                   WHEAT, FEED GRAINS, RICE, AND COTTON.

       (a) Wheat.--
       (1) Reduction in target prices.--In the case of any price 
     support program for wheat administered by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, the established price for wheat for a crop year 
     shall not exceed--
       (A) for the 1996 crop of wheat, $3.84 per bushel; and
       (B) for the 1997 through 2002 crops of wheat, an amount 
     that is four percent less than the established price for 
     wheat for the preceding crop year.
       (2) Termination of deficiency payment and marketing 
     loans.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the 
     2003 and subsequent crops of wheat, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not make deficiency payments available to 
     producers of wheat or permit producers to repay a price 
     support loan at a rate below the original loan rate.
       (b) Corn.--
       (1) Reduction in target prices.--In the case of any price 
     support program for corn administered by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, the established price for corn for a crop year 
     shall not exceed--
       (A) for the 1996 crop of corn, $2.64 per bushel; and
       (B) for the 1997 through 2002 crops of corn, an amount that 
     is four percent less than the established price for corn for 
     the preceding crop year.
       (2) Termination of deficiency payment and marketing 
     loans.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the 
     2003 and subsequent crops of corn, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not make deficiency payments available to 
     producers of corn or permit producers to repay a price 
     support loan at a rate below the original loan rate.
       (c) Oats.--
       (1) Reduction in target prices.--In the case of any price 
     support program for oats administered by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, the established price for oats for a crop year 
     shall not exceed--
       (A) for the 1996 crop of oats, $1.39 per bushel; and
       (B) for the 1997 through 2002 crops of oats, an amount that 
     is four percent less than the established price for oats for 
     the preceding crop year.
       (2) Termination of deficiency payment and marketing 
     loans.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the 
     2003 and subsequent crops of oats, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not make deficiency payments available to 
     producers of oats or permit producers to repay a price 
     support loan at a rate below the original loan rate.
       (d) Grain Sorghums.--
       (1) Reduction in target prices.--In the case of any price 
     support program for grain sorghums administered by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, the established price for grain 
     sorghums for a crop year shall not exceed--
       (A) for the 1996 crop of grain sorghums, $2.51 per bushel; 
     and
       (B) for the 1997 through 2002 crops of grain sorghums, an 
     amount that is four percent less than the established price 
     for grain sorghums for the preceding crop year.
       (2) Termination of deficiency payment and marketing 
     loans.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the 
     2003 and subsequent crops of grain sorghums, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not make deficiency payments available to 
     producers of grain sorghums or permit producers to repay a 
     price support loan at a rate below the original loan rate.
       (e) Barley.--
       (1) Reduction in target prices.--In the case of any price 
     support program for barley administered by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, the established price for barley for a crop year 
     shall not exceed--
       (A) for the 1996 crop of barley, $2.27 per bushel; and
       (B) for the 1997 through 2002 crops of barley, an amount 
     that is four percent less than the established price for 
     barley for the preceding crop year.
       (2) Termination of deficiency payment and marketing 
     loans.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the 
     2003 and subsequent crops of barley, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not make deficiency payments available to 
     producers of barley or permit producers to repay a price 
     support loan at a rate below the original loan rate.
       (f) Rice.--
       (1) Reduction in target prices.--In the case of any price 
     support program for rice administered by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, the established price for rice for a crop year 
     shall not exceed--
       (A) for the 1996 crop of rice, $10.28 per hundredweight; 
     and
       (B) for the 1997 through 2002 crops of rice, an amount that 
     is four percent less than the established price for rice for 
     the preceding crop year.
       (2) Termination of deficiency payment and marketing 
     loans.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the 
     2003 and subsequent crops of rice, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not make deficiency payments available to 
     producers of rice or permit producers to repay a price 
     support loan at a rate below the original loan rate.
       (g) Upland Cotton.--
       (1) Reduction in target prices.--In the case of any price 
     support program for upland cotton administered by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, the established price for upland 
     cotton for a crop year shall not exceed--
       (A) for the 1996 crop of upland cotton, $0.70 per 
     hundredweight; and
       (B) for the 1997 through 2002 crops of upland cotton, an 
     amount that is four percent less than the established price 
     for upland cotton for the preceding crop year.
       (2) Termination of deficiency payment and marketing 
     loans.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the 
     2003 and subsequent crops of upland cotton, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall not make deficiency payments available to 
     producers of upland cotton or permit producers to repay a 
     price support loan at a rate below the original loan rate.
       (h) Extra Long Staple Cotton.--
       (1) Reduction in target prices.--In the case of any price 
     support program for extra long staple cotton administered by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, the established price for extra 
     long staple cotton for a crop year shall not exceed--
       (A) for the 1996 crop of extra long staple cotton, $0.918 
     per hundredweight; and
       (B) for the 1997 through 2002 crops of extra long staple 
     cotton, an amount that is four percent less than the 
     established price for extra long staple cotton for the 
     preceding crop year.
       (2) Termination of Deficiency payment and marketing 
     loans.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the 
     2003 and subsequent crops of extra long staple cotton, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall not make deficiency payments 
     available to producers of extra long staple cotton or permit 
     producers to repay a price support loan at a rate below 
     the original rate.
       (i) Future Repeal of Current Provisions Regarding Price 
     Support.--Effective October 1, 2000, the following provisions 
     of the Agricultural Act of 1949, if still in effect on such 
     date, are repealed:
       (1) Section 101 (7 U.S.C. 1441) regarding price support 
     levels generally.
       (2) Section 101B (7 U.S.C. 1441-2) regarding loans 
     deficiency payments, and acreage reduction programs for rice.
       (3) Section 103(h) (7 U.S.C. 1444(h)) regarding loans, 
     deficiency payments, and acreage reduction programs for extra 
     long staple cotton.
       (4) Section 103B (7 U.S.C. 1444-2) regarding loans, 
     deficiency payments, and acreage reduction programs for 
     upland cotton.
       (5) Section 105B (7 U.S.C. 144f) regarding loans, 
     deficiency payments, and acreage reduction programs for feed 
     grains.
       (6) Section 107B (7 U.S.C. 1445-3a) regarding loans, 
     deficiency payments, and acreage reduction programs for 
     wheat.
       (7) Any similar provisions of law, enacted after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, relating to loans, deficiency 
     payments, and acreage reduction programs for the crops 
     referred to in the preceding paragraphs.

     SEC. 104 BUDGETARY LIMITATIONS ON OUTLAYS FOR DEFICIENCY 
                   PAYMENTS FOR WHEAT, FEED, GRAINS, RICE AND 
                   COTTON.

       (a) Limitation.--The total Commodity Credit Corporation 
     outlays for deficiency payments for wheat, feed, grains, rice 
     and cotton for the crop year 1996 through 2002 may not 
     exceed--
       (1) for fiscal year 1996, 88 percent of the projected 
     Congressional Budget Office baseline of $6,556,000,000.
       (2) for fiscal year 1997, 70 percent of the projected 
     Congressional Budget Office baseline of $6,525,000;
       (3) for fiscal year 1998, 53 percent of the projected 
     Congressional Budget Office baseline of $6,556,000,000;
       (4) for fiscal year 1999, 40 percent of the projected 
     Congressional Budget Office baseline of $6,921,000,000;
       (5) for fiscal year 2000, 23 percent of the projected 
     Congressional Budget Office baseline of $6,671,000,000;
       (b) Probation of Payments.--In any crop year, if the total 
     Commodity Credit Corporation obligations for deficiency 
     payments are projected to exceed the applicable spending 
     limit specified in subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall prorate deficiency payments to recipients 
     to meet such spending limit.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank] and a Member opposed each will be recognized for 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to share the time allocated to me with respect to managing 
the debate on the amendment with the ranking minority member, the 
chairman emeritus of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. de la Garza], and that each of us be responsible for 
controlling our respective time limitations.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kansas?
  There was no objection.


    modification of amendment offered by mr. frank of massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, 

[[Page H1451]]
  because of a typographical error, that the page 9 that I have submitted 
and shown to the chairman be submitted in lieu of the page 9 of the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Frank of 
     Massachusetts: Strike proposed section 104 and insert new 
     section 104, as follows:

     SEC. 104 BUDGETARY LIMITATIONS ON OUTLAYS FOR DEFICIENCY 
                   PAYMENTS FOR WHEAT, FEED, GRAINS, RICE AND 
                   COTTON

       (a) Limitation.--The total Commodity Credit Corporation 
     outlays for deficiency payments for wheat, feed, grains, rice 
     and cotton for the crop year 1996 through 2000 may not 
     exceed--
       (1) for fiscal year 1996, 88 percent of the projected 
     Congressional Budget Office baseline of $6,556,000,000;
       (2) for fiscal year 1997, 70 percent of the projected 
     Congressional Budget Office baseline of $6,525,000,000;
       (3) for fiscal year 1998, 53 percent of the projected 
     Congressional Budget Office baseline of $6,936,000,000;
       (4) for fiscal year 1999, 40 percent of the projected 
     Congressional Budget Office baseline of $6,921,000,000;
       (5) for fiscal year 2000, 23 percent of the projected 
     Congressional Budget Office baseline of $6,671,000,000;
       (b) Probation of Payments.--In any crop year, if the total 
     Commodity Credit Corporation obligations for deficiency 
     payments are projected to exceed the applicable spending 
     limit specified in subsection (a), the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall prorate deficiency payments to recipients 
     to meet such spending limit.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the modification be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this simply adds three 
zeros to the figure for fiscal 1997, putting billions where millions 
now exist.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is modified.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would not want to embarrass the House by talking 
about millions in an agricultural bill. Obviously, billions are the 
appropriate figure.
  What my amendment would do is to replace what seems to me to be one 
of the most misnamed provisions I have seen here since I have come 
here, the freedom to farm provision. As I understand it, it ought to be 
called freedom from farming. What it does is to say that if you are now 
a farmer and receiving money under various Federal subsidy programs, 
you will get a declining but still quite significant amount of money 
over the next 7 years no matter what you do. You do not have to be, as 
the gentleman from Missouri has pointed out, a farmer anymore. So this 
is a freedom to farm, which includes within it the freedom not to farm 
and receive significant funds from the Federal Government.
  It seems to me to bring home one of the most fundamental 
inconsistencies in American public policy. It has been an 
inconsistency, and it is getting worse. We have in this Congress 
cracked down on AFDC recipients. We have cut back on the Medicare 
Program. Not all of these things have become law, but these are the 
legislative vehicles that have passed the House. We have decided that 
lower-income people are getting too much money. We have decided that 
free enterprise and standing on your own two feet should be the order 
of the day, but not for the agricultural segment.
  It is striking to me how Members can come here, espouse free-
enterprise doctrines, many of which I agree with, but then where 
agriculture is concerned suddenly in their own mind call up the 
invisible footnote, the footnote written in invisible ink in all of 
these conservation texts, and exempt agriculture from those rules.
  Now, there will be specific amendments that will deal with some of 
the exemptions, apparently the free market works very well for 
automobiles, and it works very well for the construction industry, and 
it works very well for the production of sophisticated medical devices 
or computers. But the free-market system is not quite up to peanuts. 
Peanuts somehow is too complicated for the free market and sugar and 
dairy.
  We can make the most sophisticated biotechnological devices. We can 
make software. We can make almost anything in America under 
the principles of the free market, but you cannot grow peanuts that 
way. You cannot grow tobacco that way. You cannot grow dairy that way. 
It is the most fundamental intellectual inconsistency in the United 
States today when people who are the most dedicated advocates of the 
free-enterprise system and talk about its virtues everywhere else, 
suddenly decide you cannot do that when talking about peanuts.

  We compound this because what we have also talked about is the 
problem of entitlements, and we have heard about the problem of 
entitlements that are not means tested. That is, people have said, you 
know, it is one thing when you have an entitlement for the poor. What 
about entitlements that go to people regardless of income?
  Agriculture carries that one step further. In agriculture, we have, 
and had had, anti-means-tested entitlements. In agriculture, that is an 
entitlement. Whatever you do, you automatically get the money. There is 
no appropriation that has discretion involved. But the bigger your 
enterprise, the more money you are making on your own, the more you 
get. Now they have decided, well, we cannot keep this up so they are 
going to get rid of it.
  How are they getting rid of it? By a 7-year transition. Having gotten 
a lot of Federal money in the past means we have to make sure you do 
not get cut off too quickly. So, over 7 years, recipients of these 
billions of dollars of Federal funds will continue to get, according to 
the numbers I have, a total over the 7 years of $35 billion, over $5 
billion a year, and it will go to people whose ability to get this 
money will be based on the fact that they once got Federal money. This 
is a very nice program. It says if you once got money, we owe you. 
Apparently the theory is, we have obligated ourselves to people by 
paying them and, therefore, as the years go forward, we will give them 
money and they will get money solely because they used to get money. 
There will be no obligations on this money. This is not the freedom to 
farm, but instead the freedom from farming.
  Those recipients of this money over the next 7 years will get the 
money, as I understand it, no matter what they do. They do not have to 
farm. They do not have to live in their area. They do not have to live 
in this country. All they have to do is to live, and I guess if they do 
not live, they can pass it on. I did not check the testamentary part. I 
assume this is something you could pass on; you could inherit, I 
assume, under this bill the right to get these. You could be somebody 
who lived in Chicago, and the only grass you saw you had to hide when 
the cops came. But under this bill, if you were the heir of someone who 
farmed, I assume you could inherit that.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is more right than wrong. The 
payments go with the land, and as a result, when the son or daughter 
inherits the land, they will continue to receive the payments no matter 
where they live.
  But the other thing that is necessary to point out under this bill, 
you know, a lot of this land is investor-owned. They do not live 
anywhere near the land. They live thousands of miles away from it, and 
as a result, those people are going to get these big payments, and 
whether or not that farm is farmed.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. As I understand it, if you happened to be 
the heir of someone who owns a farm and has been getting Federal funds 
and that person dies, you then inherit the land. You do not have to go 
to that land. You do not have to grow anything. You do not have to 
touch a farm implement. You simply get the money.
  This is the greatest deal going, and this from the believers in free 
enterprise, stand on you own two feet, get your nose to the grindstone, 
your 

[[Page H1452]]
shoulder to the wheel, get the government's hand out of your pockets. 
Well, the government's hands will not be in your pockets, because there 
will be too much money in those hands to fit in your pockets.
  We are talking about $35 billion a year over 7 years that go to 
citizens of this country, or the owners, wherever they are. I do not 
know why I said citizens. That go to owners of this land no matter 
what. I am sure many of these people, most of them, may continue to 
farm, but that is not here.
  By the way, it is 7 years. My amendment would say that you continue 
the current agricultural program, phase them down. I want to get rid of 
them. I do not like the current programs either, but I would rather get 
something for the money we are giving these people, and I also decided 
we should phase it out in 5 years rather then 7, for this reason.

                              {time}  1600

  I think if we are going to say that 5 years is the outer limit for 
you to receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children, that that 
probably ought to serve for the farmers as well. At least in the case 
of people who get Aid for Families with Dependent Children, as I 
understand it, there will be a work requirement. There is no work 
requirement for the farmers.
  Understand this provision: No work requirement whatsoever. Here is 
$35 billion the Federal Government will set aside as an entitlement to 
people, whose requirement will simply be that they have been the owners 
of the land at a certain period and in the program.
  I think this makes a mockery of all of what we have heard about 
sacrifice, of all of what we have heard about free enterprise, of all 
we have heard about who is going to do what. Many of the recipients of 
this, and, as I said, this, anti-means tested, many, many very wealthy 
people will be getting part of this $35 billion.
  I understand we have gotten ourselves into a hole and we cannot 
easily get out of it. At the very least, it is right to face this down. 
But also we should make this clear: We are now passing a law which will 
guarantee people the $35 billion for the next 7 years. If in fact 3 or 
4 years from now we change our minds, they will have gotten the money 
and we can go back into it. There is no guarantee. One legislature 
cannot bind future one.
  So we have got here the welfare program of all welfare programs. It 
says to some people, many of whom are wealthy, for the next 7 years, 
your government has a demand to make of you: You must let us give you 
collectively $35 billion, and in return we will impose upon you the 
burden of cashing the checks, and that is all. By the way, those of you 
who are in the wealthiest sector will get more than those who are not.
  This is the new revolution; and if this is the new revolution, then I 
would hate to see what reaction would look like.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just made another statement 
that I think bears drawing out a little bit. He said the very wealthy 
are going to get this. It may interest the gentleman to know a study 
has been made of the gentleman from Kansas' bill, and that the upper 2 
percent of big farmowners, OK, 2 percent will get 22 percent of the 
money. It sounds a lot like their tax bill, where 2 percent got 50 
percent of the money. This one, 2 percent get 22 percent of the money.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is 
the anti-means tested entitlement. It is an entitlement, and the more 
money you make, the more you get. I thank the gentleman from Missouri 
for pointing out I understated things. The gentleman from Missouri may 
be one of the few Members of the House who finds me guilty of 
understatement.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas].
  (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, simply put, the amendment offered by my 
colleague from Massachusetts represents the worst possible option for 
our Nation's agricultural policy that we will discuss today. It had 
been my understanding that this bill's goal was to reform the Nation's 
agricultural programs.
  The author of this amendment must have a different idea. This 
amendment contains no reform. It only breathes life into the failed 
policies that have shackled the Nation's producers to the heavy hand of 
Uncle Sam. Continuing these policies will be the death knell to many 
producers throughout the Nation.
  Most Members of Congress, most producers, most national agricultural 
groups, and yes, most agricultural economists agree that farm policy 
must be changed. The amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank], ignores this fact. It does nothing to ensure a viable 
agricultural sector in our Nation. It does nothing to aid producers in 
a post-NAFTA and GATT world trade environment. It does nothing to move 
toward a more market driven agricultural sector.
  My friends, agriculture is truly at a crossroads. It is time we break 
the bonds of the old and ring in a market-oriented program that will 
guide us into the next century.
  I cannot say it any clearer: The current program does not work. With 
its draconian reductions in target price and lack of any true reform, 
the Frank amendment only makes a bleak outlook in farm country worse.
  I urge my colleagues, join me as I vote to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] in order to give us some history on this 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, as one who has been here for 19 years and 
been through different farm bills, I can remember when we had another 
President by the name of Reagan and a Secretary of Agriculture by the 
name of John Block. I wanted to let the gentleman from Oklahoma know, 
he may have been in grade school or high school at the time, but the 
gentleman from Kansas would remember, because he was here.
  What you have is a Reagan proposal for agriculture from back in the 
eighties. You take the target price and, over 5 years, you phase it 
down with existing programs, to where at the end of the 5 years you 
only had the loan rate. That is what you have.
  I just heard the gentleman from Oklahoma tell me how crazy it was. I 
am glad to hear that. I said so at the time and we did not do it. Now I 
am caught between. I cannot agree with the gentleman from Oklahoma, but 
I sure as heck cannot agree with the gentleman from Kansas with what he 
has. His is strictly welfare.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge this is what 
Ronald Reagan did. I would point out by the standards of the current 
group, Ronald Reagan was a model of lucidity, reasonableness and logic. 
That is why I prefer the Reagan program. I look nostalgically back on 
Ronald Reagan as I contemplate the current policies.
  Mr. VOLKMER. So much for the history lesson.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, well, there he goes again. I think every farmer and 
rancher in America would prefer and agree with the goal of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. It is just that the road he is taking 
will certainly put the farmer and rancher in the ditch, as well as a 
majority in the House and Senate. It is time to change our farm program 
policy. I know that. Everyone knows that.
  We have to move away from what we call the command and control 
policies. We have to meet our budget responsibilities. It is time to 
give farmers the ability to respond to market signals. That is what we 
are trying to do to environmental signals--let me get back to the 
environment in just a minute--and the diversification to get us out of 

[[Page H1453]]
mono-agriculture to free up the farmer to get him into diversified 
agriculture without having first to get permission from Washington.
  But the gentleman's amendment retains the current target price 
deficiency payment. It is a restricted system. Anybody that has closely 
inspected the current farm program knows in wheat country, for 
instance, we have not had a setaside requirement for 5 years. So the 
supply management rationale that has served us well in the past 
certainly does not apply here.
  The gentleman reduces target prices 4 percent per year through the 
year 2002. I do not know about President Reagan. I remember when 
President Reagan was President and Mrs. Stockman's very brilliant son, 
David, was the OMB Director. I remember a joint effort on the part of 
both Democrats and Republicans to try to not only meet our budget 
responsibilities but to do so in a bipartisan and salutary manner. I do 
not think it can all be applied in regard to President Reagan.
  The gentleman's amendment terminates the target price and the 
marketing loan mechanism for all commodities in 2003. It does not 
provide any incentive in terms of flexibility, which is the other side 
of the coin. If you reduce the farm program payments or the market 
transition payments, you give the farmer the freedom to plant.
  I want to quarrel with the gentleman's description that there is no 
work requirement. In the first place, these payments are roughly half 
what has been provided in the past 5 years. In the second place, there 
is a conservation compliance requirement. When the farmer and his 
banker, his lender, sit down and say in the next 7 years I know 
precisely what I am going to get in regard to assistance from the 
Federal Government to enable us to make this market transition, there 
is a requirement there. There is a responsibility. You have to have the 
responsibility of really putting forth or participating in your 
conservation compliance plan. That is costly. It costs money. It costs 
a lot of money. But we are the stewards of the soil. We know that in 
terms of our responsibilities in reference to the farm program.

  No farmer is going to comply with conservation compliance and go 
through all those costs in the strongest environmental bill we have had 
in the history of farm programs and then walk away from it. No farmer 
going through the terrible difficulty we are going through in the high 
plains with wind blowing and prairie fires and high prices and no crops 
is going to put the seed in the ground simply because of this payment. 
He is going to farm. Farmers farm.
  Talk to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] in regard to the 
weather stress and the infestation and what we are going through in 
terms of farm country. And in terms of when the payment is made, for 
goodness sake, 15 bushel of wheat at $5, and we are in a world of 
trouble in Kansas, 45 bushel of wheat at $3; and then we pay them a 
deficiency payment? We are better off under the old system.
  We want to talk about saying oh, people do not live there on their 
farms? It is true that some of our more senior farmers somewhere moved 
to the county seat, and it is true they have rented out their ground. 
It is true that perhaps their son and daughter are farming. Big woop. I 
mean, that landlord has to share part of the risk of farming. If you 
take that away in terms of these payments, look at what will happen 
with the capitalized land values, look at what will happen in terms of 
investment in farm ground. We would be in a recession immediately.
  So I guess in summing up, I would simply say to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, who I have admired for many years for his eloquency, his 
sense of humor and pertinence, and maybe impertinence on some issues, 
and his friendship, that what he has basically done is just taken the 
current farm program and reduced it with no flexibility, and we have 
not reformed anything.
  I do quarrel with his description in terms of the work requirement 
and in terms of the landlord-tenant relationship which would be 
completely discombobulated under his plan. I recognize his intention, 
and I share his view in regard to the entitlement programs in reference 
to AFDC, welfare reform, food stamps, et cetera, et cetera. We need to 
do better and we should.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say I will confess that I know very little about 
farming, that I was born and raised in the city, and as I listen to 
this debate I am reminded of P.J. O'Rourke's book about the farm 
program. I almost wanted to bring P.J. O'Rourke's book down here and 
read it, because he was saying this is probably one of the most 
difficult things for Americans to track as you listen to all these 
different programs being thrown around.
  But I must say, as a consumer, I used to knock the farm programs. But 
I must say I have really appreciated them because as we went through 
those terrible floods in the Midwest a couple of years ago and we have 
eaten up an awful lot of our surpluses and all sorts of things, I never 
felt terrific price increases in the grocery store. In almost every 
other country, if you had the kind of floods we had in the Midwest, 
that literally knocked out everything, or you had some of the disasters 
we had--remember, or you had some of the disasters we had--remember, 
there were about 2 years where you thought there was a fast breeder 
disaster reactor. And yet our farm programs kept prices level for 
people like me who go to buy milk and bread and everything.
  As I listened to this debate going on on the floor, the thing that 
troubles me so much is what I understand from this freedom to farm 
thing is you also have the choice of the freedom not to farm; to farm 
or not to farm, that is the question. It does not make any difference, 
you get paid either way.
  That, as a consumer, really troubles me. As a taxpayer, if I am going 
to be asked to sustain this program, OK, now I understand why it 
applies to me. It kept food prices even in great disasters, and I think 
that has been the genius of many of my colleagues who sit on the 
Committee on Agriculture, even though I do not understand it. They have 
figured out a way to do all of this, to keep things fairly level when 
we go through all of the things we cannot control, such as the weather 
and everything else.
  So I get that. But why would we have a program come up that would say 
to people you can all be like Sam Donaldson and his sheep. You know, 
Sam Donaldson, you cannot see him as the little shepherd out there, but 
he gets paid. Now, why are we taking the Sam Donaldson sheep program 
and applying it to all of these other programs so you, too, will get 
paid whether or not you put your crop in? That really bothers me about 
this. I think we are going to have a lot of trouble, if we were to 
pass, this explaining that to the American consumer.
  Yes, an insurance policy. But this begins to look more and more like 
welfare, except it is welfare that is not even means tested. I mean, my 
other understanding, if the gentleman from Massachusetts is correct, I 
believe I heard the gentleman from Missouri saying that there was no 
means test on this. Is that correct?

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will 
allow me, not only is there no means test, there is an antimeans test. 
The more money you are making under the program generally, the more you 
will get. So it is the reverse. The wealthier you are, the more 
prosperous, the bigger your crop certainly, the more money you get. It 
is an antimeans test.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that.
  What I am really trying to say is, while the farm programs may need 
some adjustment and they may need to be changed, everything always kind 
of needs to be changed and tinkered with to fit the modern day.
  I think if we go this entirely opposite way so we suddenly start 
paying people not to farm and not having the means test instead of 
doing the absolute reverse of it, when consumers figure this 

[[Page H1454]]
our, they are going to think we are absolutely nuts. So certainly if we 
are going to have a farm program, let us have one that encourages 
farming, that rewards hard work, that fits with the American concept of 
what we are supposed to be doing, rather than one that looks more like 
a welfare program for the biggest landowners such as the Sam 
Donaldsons, who can decide what they want to do.
  It makes no difference. They get paid anyway. That makes no sense to 
me and I do not think it is going to make sense to anybody else who is 
out doing their grocery shopping and paying their taxes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has 5 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] has 9 
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] has 3 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding 
time to me.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment before us. The amendment 
squarely attacks a safety net for family farming agriculture.
  Why is there a compelling need to have a safety net for family 
farming agriculture? It gets down to the fundamental economics of 
agriculture production. At the beginning of a crop year, a family 
farmer will have literally hundreds of thousands of dollars exposed, 
seed, feed, fertilizer, equipment, land costs. There are two risks 
threatening this massive investment, which for many family farmers is 
literally everything they own: the risk of lost production or the risk 
of market price collapse.
  The only farmers that can sustain the risk of market price collapse 
over the long haul are farmers with huge capital reserves. Those are 
not family farmers like family farmers where I come from. Those are 
huge corporate farms dramatically changing the face of agriculture 
production in this country and ultimately eliminating family farming as 
we have known it.
  May we say family farming, it is an idea whose time has come and 
gone. We have got to move forward. Wait a minute. Food production in 
this country has given our consumers the highest quality, the greatest 
abundance and the lowest price of any country in the western world. Our 
approach at farm policy works and it has worked very, very well.

  I oppose the approach of the amendment, which would eliminate the 
safety net and eliminate family farms. I have the very same 
reservations about the bill, which ultimately eliminates the safety net 
and will eliminate family farms, but just because I have serious 
reservations about the bill does not mean the amendment is any better. 
In fact, the amendment is even worse. I urge its opposition today.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I do not intend to take long so we can move to a vote on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  I would just point out, in response to the gentlewoman from Colorado, 
who might want to visit with the assistant secretary of trade for 
agriculture, Secretary Schroeder, that we are spending 50 percent less 
under this bill than the previous bills, that we do provide 
conservation compliance for 7 years. The farmer is not going to leave 
the farm when he has to maintain the conservation compliance. I think 
we will have more crop land in production. As a result, our consumers 
will probably spend less than a dime of their disposable income dollar 
for the very valuable market basket of food. And we have reduced the 
payment that is being made available to farmers from 50,000 down to 
40,000. That is a 20-percent drop. We currently have something called 
zero 85 and zero 92 in current farm program law. I know that is very 
difficult to understand from the nonagriculture sector, but it allows 
the farmer to let the ground lay fallow for environmental purposes. Out 
in my country, we do not get much rain so there are some years that the 
farmer would like to have the ground lay fallow. It is called summer 
fallow.
  That is why we have the program that if you say, OK, if you let the 
ground lay fallow and you improve your conservation practice, you get 
85 percent or 92 percent in regards to your payment. Some program, it 
is an environmental program. Farmers are not simply going to walk off 
the farm and not farm in regards to these payments.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons already delineated, I 
oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a couple of 
minutes to point out something, I think, for Members who have not 
served on the Committee on Agriculture and do not know that much about 
farm legislation. The old adage has been said here that this bill is 
basically a freedom to farm. Under the present law, under the law that 
we have had ever since I have been here for 19 years, every farmer has 
had a right to farm or not to farm. Every farmer has a right to not 
follow the provisions that we have put in this bill. He just does not 
get the payments.
  I have a lot of farmers that do not participate in the program. They 
do not have to participate. No farmer has ever had to participate. 
There is no requirement that any farmer participate in the current 
program. If he does participate, the Government just says you have to 
do certain things. And if you do those things, then you may be entitled 
to a payment, depending on what the prices are in the marketplace. That 
is all it has been. That is all it ever was. So every farmer has had 
that right to freedom to farm.
  The only thing, the difference between that program and this program 
basically is what the gentleman from Kansas wants to do is basically 
you do not have to farm and you still get your payment. That is what 
bothers me. It is not a little payment. We are not talking about $500 a 
month. We are not talking about $3,000. We are talking about up to 
$80,000. If you have a marketing loan for cotton, you are talking about 
$230,000 in 1 year. You are talking about farmers out here in certain 
parts of this country that are going to get up to $1 million over 7 
years, and they do not even have to farm. That does not make sense to 
me, folks. It really does not, especially when we are cutting back on 
school lunch programs. We are cutting back on AFDC. We are cutting back 
on food stamps for needy kids to eat, and we are going to tell wealthy 
farmers, wealthy investors, some of which are in New York, that you do 
not have to farm and we will give you $80,000, $90,000, $100,000 a year 
for the next 7 years. I just do not think that is the way you do 
agriculture policy.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  My friend from Kansas said this is not freedom from work. Of course, 
farmers are among the hardest working people in this society. And the 
majority of people in this program will continue to work hard. But it 
is uncontestable that this bill will not require them to.
  If there are people who have decided they have had enough, if there 
are people who have decided they want to do something differently, they 
can, and they do not have to do any farming. The owner of the land will 
get these payments no matter what happens on the land. That is 
uncontestable.
  As a matter of fact, let me give you the analogy. Members have said, 
you have to have a transition. We need to change the existing status 
quo. It would mean instead of doing term limits, you would do a program 
called freedom to legislate. And under freedom to legislate, any 
sitting Member of Congress right now would be entitled to the 
congressional salary on a slightly declining base for the next 7 years 
whether you ran or not. You could run for Congress and get your salary, 
or you could not run for Congress and get your salary. Most Members of 
Congress would probably want to run, as most farmers would like to 
farm. But those Members of Congress who would like to use their freedom 
to legislate to not legislate, sit home and collect the money would be 
able to do so. The freedom to legislate bill would make exactly as much 
sense as the freedom to farm bill. It would be a way to transition 
down, move some Members out and pay them to do absolutely nothing.

[[Page H1455]]


  For those who might be so unkind as to suggest that we are now paying 
some existing Members to do absolutely nothing, I have nothing to say. 
But in fact for most Members who work very hard, the prospect of 
freedom to legislate might be very comfortable. So, yes, many farmers 
under this bill would be, if they got the money, able to continue, 
would continue farming.
  On the other hand, the rationale for the agriculture programs, and 
this is the heart of this, is pay the farmers to do whatever they would 
otherwise do. This bill takes $35 billion in Federal money and says to 
farmers, some of whom are quite wealthy, some of whom are not, Here, do 
whatever you were going to do anyway. Grow whatever you want to grow; 
quit, if you want to quit. Whatever it is you with to do, you can do 
and you get the Federal money in addition. That makes it a welfare 
program.
  The original notion in the farm programs, and they became, I think, 
distorted and should have been done away with, but they were, the 
Federal Government will pay you in return, in part for your doing 
certain things. It would supply management. I do not think it worked 
very well, but at least it was an effort to make it a quid pro quo.
  What this says it, yes, we made a mistake, the Federal Government. We 
should not have been telling you what to do. Therefore, we will pay you 
anyway. This is a mistake. I hope the amendment is passed and, if not, 
the bill is defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], as modified.
  The amendment, as modified was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 104-463.


                    amendment offered by mr. chabot

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Chabot: Page 48, after line 17, 
     insert the following new subsection:
       (l) Early Termination for Cotton.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (a)(1), marketing assistance loans and loan 
     deficiency payments under this section for upland cotton and 
     extra long staple cotton shall be available only for the 
     1996, 1997, and 1998 crops of upland cotton and extra long 
     staple cotton.
       (m) Effect on Contract Payments of Marketing Loan Gains and 
     Loan Deficiency Payments for Upland Cotton.--If a producer 
     obtains a loan deficiency payment under subsection (e) with 
     respect to upland cotton or receives a marketing loan gain 
     under subsection (d) by reason of repaying a marketing 
     assistance loan for upland cotton at a rate that is less than 
     the loan rate established for upland cotton under subsection 
     (b) and the producer is entitled to payments under a 
     production flexibility contract, then the Secretary shall 
     deduct the total amount of the loan deficiency payment or 
     marketing loan gain from subsequent contract payments to be 
     made to the producer. The Secretary shall make the deduction 
     in equal installments over the remaining term of the 
     contract.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Chabot] and a Member opposed each will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to share the time allocated to me with respect to managing 
the debate on the amendment with the ranking minority member, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], and that the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Combest] be designated as the majority Member responsible 
for controlling our respective time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Chabot].
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which I am pleased to offer along with 
my friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, will significantly reform 
taxpayer subsidies to cotton growers. As you know, the Cotton Program 
is the epitome of corporate welfare. Everyone involved with the Cotton 
Program gets a subsidy--except the taxpayers who foot the bill. The 
Cotton Program is an affront to hard-working American citizens who are 
forced to finance these corporate hand outs.
  Since 1986, taxpayers have forked over an average of $1.5 billion 
each year to inflate the profits of producers. For every dollar that 
the cotton conglomerates made by selling their cotton, the taxpayers 
were forced to spend another 33 cents to support the Cotton Program.
  Now, many believe that farm programs such as the Cotton Program 
benefit small farmers. That's simply not true: The Cotton Program 
benefits a few powerful special interests. The top 20 percent of cotton 
producers reap some 80 percent of the Cotton Program's benefits. And in 
1993 alone, four of the largest cotton growers received more than $1 
million in Government payments, while one cotton magnate received a 
staggering $4.4 million.
  In fact, as the Environmental Working Groups points out, and I quote, 
``the top 2 percent of cotton program recipients--just 2,776 very large 
farming operations--will each be eligible to earn nearly $419,999 over 
the next 7 years under the House bill. That amounts to an average of 
more than $59,800 per recipient per year for 7 years.'' So much for the 
argument that the Cotton Program helps ``small farmers.''
  Moreover, many of those lucky few who get this Government hand out 
don't even live on a farm: Between 1985 and 1994, cotton producers who 
happened to live in Los Angeles reaped some $1.9 million in cotton 
payments, while cotton producers who lived in that small rural 
community on the Potomac--Washington, DC--took in some $138,169.
  Now, if the Cotton Program isn't a glaring example of corporate 
welfare, then I don't know what is.
  Here's how the Cotton Program works: Huge cotton agribusinesses are 
able to take taxpayer-financed loans which are set at a Government-
established rate. If cotton prices are lower than this rate, then 
cotton growers pay back the loan at the lower market value, and not at 
the Government-established rate. In other words, cotton producers 
pocket the difference between the market value and the Government-
established rate. In agribusiness circles, this is know as a marketing 
loan gain.
  While this so-called gain is a boon to cotton producers, it is a 
significant loss to the taxpayer: Since 1992, these gains have cost 
taxpayers over $1.1 billion alone.
  The Chabot-Kennedy amendment would eliminate this loss to the 
taxpayer, just as Chairman Roberts' original Freedom to Farm Act would 
have done.
  Our amendment would do two things: First, we would stop allowing huge 
agribusinesses from taking these loans after 1998. Second, if these 
agribusinesses were to realize a gain in the remaining 3 years that 
they are eligible for these loans, the amount of the gain would be 
deducted from the cotton producers transition contract.
  Efforts to reform the Cotton Program are supported by a broad 
coalition of groups including the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens 
Against Government Waste, Taxpayers for Common Sense, The Heritage 
Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Public Voice for Food and Health 
Policy, the Environmental Working Group, and the Competitive Enterprise 
Institute.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support for the Chabot-Kennedy 
amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the subject is always usually 
discussed in terms of the boondoggle to huge corporate farms. The 
Marketing Loan Program has been one of the truly successful programs of 
the Cotton Program. It is ironic that it is available to every cotton 
producer. It is ironic that at a time that the previous amendment was 
defeated, which would have killed all farm programs, this amendment 
attempts to single out and effectively kill the farm program. It is 
also ironic that this amendment is being proposed to eliminate the 
market loan for cotton while the legislation that is before 

[[Page H1456]]
us authorizes the same Marketing Loan Program for all other 
commodities, leaving, if this amendment were successful, only the 
Cotton Program that did not have it.
  It was where the program began, and it has worked extremely well. 
Marketing loan moves cotton in the marketplace. It has been primarily 
responsible for the fact that today cotton for the last 2 years has set 
all-time highs, therefore having no Government payments at all, and the 
option to that would be having the Government buy and store that 
cotton. This is not a phaseout, it is an immediate kill, but it would 
leave all of the other programs still subject to marketing loan, and 
marketing loans, I might add, are still subject to payment limitations 
as they have been.
  It has been a very successful program, Mr. Chairman. It is 
unfortunate that a number of people who have absolutely no concept of 
how the program works want to be the ones that want to try to kill it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman for his great 
work in this area. I know that he wants to get rid of some of these 
corporate boondoggles.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me 
thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], who is I think 
doing a tremendous job at trying to identify ways that we can cut back 
on some of the excess Government spending. As we both support a 
balanced budget, it is important that we go through all of the programs 
that we are spending billions of dollars on and try to find where there 
is potential waste and abuse, and I appreciate the efforts that he has 
made in making certain that this particular issue of the additional 
largess which we are providing to cotton farmers, that goes well beyond 
any of the other farming communities in this country, is brought to 
light and given a vote, and I appreciate the gentleman's efforts.
  Cotton may be the fabric of our lives in all those TV commercials, 
but this program is turning the lining of the pockets of pleated pants-
wearing plantation magnates into gold. Whereas we once had over a 
million cotton producing farmers, we now have roughly 147,000. That 
small family farmer that grows cotton by and large does not even 
participate in the Federal Government farm program that we are 
targeting. Instead, the Cotton Program has become a Government 
guaranteed entitlement program for large and wealthy cotton farmers.
  I know that reforms in the Marketing Loan Program were attempted 
originally by the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and he is quite sincere in his 
interests to reduce Government involvement in the Agriculture 
Department and to move to a freer market. But regardless of one's 
position on the bill, we almost recognize the hard and sincere efforts 
that the gentleman from Kansas, Chairman Roberts, is making in trying 
to make our farms come through to the 21st century.
  Nonetheless, this bill has a special goodie planted in the small 
lines in the wording of the legislation, which has grown into a rather 
large ``we.'' The Cotton Program with this goodie represents the 
fleecing of the American taxpayer. The Marketing Loan Program for 
cotton extends taxpayer-financed marketing loans to cotton farmers and 
creates a situation where the U.S. taxpayer may be left exposed to 
unlimited liability and likely to total into the billions of dollars.
  Why should we create a program where right now the Cotton Program 
does not even cost the taxpayer money this year, but what we are going 
to do is provide $700 million next year, another $700 million the year 
after that? But that is not good enough. That is what all the programs 
are going to get under the buyout that Chairman Roberts has provided. 
One thing we are going to do is we are going to reach back in and 
provide a special Marketing Loan Program like no other in the country.
  Now, it could be argued, and I am sure it will, that the Marketing 
Loan Program is an important aspect assisting cotton farmers in this 
country. And maybe what we ought to do is do what the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Doolittle] says, which is go strictly to a Marketing 
Loan Program. But to try to get both the Marketing Loan Program and the 
650 or 700 million dollars at the same time is tantamount to just 
reaching into the back pocket of the taxpayers of this country without 
having any regard for the reasonableness with which $700 million is 
currently being appropriated.
  I think that it is time that we stand up and say that we are 
interested in helping small farmers. But if we look at where the money 
goes in this program, it does not go to small farmers. The vast 
majority of the funds in this program go to the wealthiest farmers in 
this country, and we ought to wean ourselves off of dependence of the 
wealthiest farmers.
  Corporate America can take care of itself, but let us not go after 
poor welfare mothers and then not go after corporate welfare, and that 
is what this bill does not if we do not reform the cotton program.
  I appreciate the gentleman's efforts, and I look forward to 
continuing to work him on this and other issues.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, sometimes it is difficult to sit here on 
the floor and to truly understand what it is that who is amending and 
for what purpose.
  This is not a newly created program. In 1985, we had seen the cotton 
industry in the United States deteriorate to an alarmingly low level, 
and it was recognized that unless we found a way to be competitive in 
the international marketplace, that it was going to continue to 
deteriorate, and therefore the market loan was put into place. And it 
has been very, very successful, so successful that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts was correct a moment ago when he said it was going to 
cost zero this year.
  That has been one of the things that has puzzled me about why we are 
changing such a successful cotton program to the degree that we are.
  But the bottom line here is if we have something in place that is 
working, why would we want to change it?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, is it not true that right 
now the program, as was said, is not costing the taxpayer any money? Is 
it not true that under the compromise that the gentleman from Kansas, 
[Mr. Roberts] worked out that there will be a payment of about $650 to 
$700 million made to cotton farmers this year?
  Mr. STENHOLM. No, sir; if I can reclaim my time, only if the market 
drops and it is required to maintain a competitive position in the 
international marketplace, which no one foresees for this year and, in 
fact, into next year.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
further yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Did that, in fact, occur in years 1992, 
1993, and 1994?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to respond to the gentleman. The gentleman 
from Ohio made some of the most outlandish statements regarding the 
costs and the aspects of this that I could possibly hear. If we are 
concerned about fiscal responsibility of the cotton program, let us 
look at the record from the 1990 farm bill. From 1991 to 1995, we have 
expended a total of $5.9 billion, an average of $1.2 billion per year. 
Under the proposal that we are now looking at for the next 7 years, it 
is proposed to cap that spending. It was not capped in 1992 to 1995, 
but we will cap that spending at $4.1 billion, or an average of $600 
million per year.
  Now, that is a 50-percent cut.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, 
and 

[[Page H1457]]
I do not pretend to be an expert on farming, but it does seem to me 
that we are now talking about a program that used to work on some kind 
of market-related issue that was mandated by Federal law that is now 
being converted to a guaranteed payment of $650 to $700 million a year.
  Mr. STENHOLM. If I could reclaim my time, the gentleman admitted a 
moment ago he did not know much about agriculture and farming, and I 
respect that because I do not pretend to know a lot about other areas 
of programs that come before this body. But I do know something about 
the cotton industry, and the purpose of this program was to see that 
our cotton industry can compete in the international marketplace. If I 
were to stand here today and say I have a bill before the House that 
will enable a $122 billion industry in the United States to set records 
for production, consumption, export, price, investment, and job 
creation over the next 5 years, we both would be supporting it. I do 
not understand why you are opposing it.

  We have the most successful program for cotton in the history of the 
cotton program because it allowed us to do the one thing that we need 
to do, and that is, compete with subsidies from other countries.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The gentleman is getting it both ways. 
The fact of the matter is, we are going to get the guaranteed payment 
like no other crop except rice in this bill, going to get the 
guaranteed payment of $650 and $700 million out of the Government, then 
we are going to come back through the back door and we are going to get 
another marketing loan program grant. What is the problem?
  Mr. STENHOLM. If I can reclaim my time, the only way there will be an 
expenditure for any other amount of money is if the world market price 
collapses and we need again to maintain the industry in a competitive 
position in the world marketplace.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], and I ask him to yield to me as 
well.
  Mr. STENHOLM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the gentleman concur 
in this comment. One of the concerns we have heard throughout a lot of 
the discussion is the fact that there are payments being made for doing 
nothing. There are no marketing loan payments being made for doing 
nothing. A farmer has to produce. The cotton has to be produced, the 
cotton has got to move into the marketplace, and as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts said in his statement, there has been no cost for the 
program. The program is working.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. As I understand it, we are going to 
take 12 percent of the freedom to farm funding as, you just mentioned, 
$5 billion. That roughly equates to about $650 million. That $650 
million goes to these farmers whether they grow or not, first.
  Second, the truth of the matter is that that is not good enough. That 
is what everybody else gets. Where the gentleman is going to go is, he 
is going to reach in and get the marketing loan program as well, going 
to double it.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I would tell Members that most of the amendments we are going to be 
looking at over the next hour or so are really ill-advised. It is 
ironic that at a time we have a bill on the floor in which we are 
finally phasing out Agriculture subsidies, that people want to jump in, 
and for whatever reason they are offering these amendments, to score 
points somewhere for somebody.
  The only factual statement I have heard since I have been on the 
floor was the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] admitting that 
he did not understand farming. That I will agree with. Everything else 
I have heard is absolutely ridiculous. This is a program tied to the 
world price of cotton. It is a 5-year loan structure. Drop the high 
year, drop the low year, and average the rest. It was revolutionary 
when it was presented. What it does is guarantee that we can compete in 
the world marketplace.
  We had no bale carryover last year because we were successful against 
the other subsidized countries in a product that is fought over in the 
world. This program is going to be phased out. Just sit back and watch 
it, something that the Members on the other side of the aisle never 
ever delivered when they were in the majority.
  Mr. Chairman, what this is, is an attempt to go after one particular 
commodity when all the other commodities have loans as well in a phase-
down period, and what we ought to do is let the gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Roberts] the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture's program 
work.
  This is an ill-advised amendment. It is an opportunity to utilize a 
lot of loaded words to characterize a program which, frankly, has been 
very beneficial to the United States in the world market.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the cotton program, as well as many of the other 
commodity programs, were originally devised during the Depression. 
These things were supposed to be temporary, as many of the things which 
came into law during the Depression years were supposed to be 
temporary.
  We have a program which is supposed to benefit relatively small 
cotton farmers. The fact of the matter is, as I stated before, 80 
percent of the benefits go to the top 20 high-income agribusinesses, 
cotton farmers in this country. The money is corporate welfare. That is 
where it is going. I want to be very up front here. What I would have 
preferred to do and what I also offered with the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Owens] is to eliminate all farm subsidies, all price 
supports, altogether, 1 year after that bill passed.
  We are not going to get there right away. This is one step. This is 
an improvement in this particular farm bill, and I hope this amendment 
passes.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, we are not going to have enough time to 
correct all of the misstatements. This cotton program was not started 
in the Depression. It began in 1985 and has been one of the most 
successful programs we have.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in the strongest possible opposition to 
the Kennedy-Chabot amendment, which eliminates one of the greatest 
success stories in American agriculture. As a matter of fact, it is 
hard to understand why two so well-motivated legislators as the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Chabot] would offer such a thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Kennedy-Chabot 
amendment which eliminates one of the greatest success stories in 
American agriculture. The cotton marketing loan is the single most 
market-orientated, competitive agricultural program to ever be written 
in any measure.
  I need only share a few examples to highlight the frivolous nature of 
this amendment. Since implementation of this program, domestic mill 
consumption has increased, world market share has increased, world 
exports have increased, and related U.S. economic activity has 
increased.
  This all adds up to Jobs. The Cotton Marketing Loan Program has 
proven successful even in the face of the unprecedented disruption in 
the global cotton market caused by the break-up of the former Soviet 
Union. How can one argue with this success and the jobs this program 
has created?
  Domestic cotton production does not drive the world cotton market, 
but the cotton marketing loan has allowed our Nation's family cotton 
farmers to compete toe-to-toe against heavily subsidized competition in 
the global marketing arena. The jobs created by this program are a 
great example of the link between domestic farm production and our 
domestic manufacturing production base.
  In these tepid economic times, this body must be doing everything 
reasonable to create 

[[Page H1458]]
jobs--not leave farmers, textile mill workers, and various 
agribusinesses to name only a select few--out in the cold.
  Matter of fact, this program has done so well in creating jobs and 
making a domestic industry competitive against foreign competition that 
other farm industries are seeking to copy it. How can one argue with 
this success?
  I urge my colleagues to stand behind American jobs, stand with 
American workers, and farmers and reject this amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the cotton program was started back in the Depression. 
This particular marketing loan program was started back in 1985. This 
is just one among many programs that started back in the Depression 
that we are still living under, we are still getting ripped off.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] just made a 
statement on the floor of the House suggesting that this program was 
like every other program. I admit that I am not an expert on farm 
programs, but I wonder why we cannot enter into a legitimate debate 
about the fact that no other commodity has this particular benefit of 
the marketing loan program, except rice. Every other commodity has to 
flow to the free market price, and if the market goes down, the farmer 
makes up the difference and gets some help from the government.
  But in the marketing loan program, unlike all the other programs, 
there is an additional benefit. That benefit has not cost the taxpayer 
money this year because the price of cotton has skyrocketed, but the 
truth of the matter is over the course of the last several years, the 
price of cotton has been so far below what it is today that it has cost 
the American taxpayer over $1.5 billion.
  What we are trying to do here is prevent that kind of fleecing of 
America, that kind of situation where people get an additional benefit 
that is in the fine print. OK, maybe everybody in America is not such 
an expert on this, but maybe it requires somebody who is not such an 
expert to go through this bill and to make certain that somebody is not 
getting something for nothing, which is what the marketing loan program 
is about.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I go back to the discussion of this loan versus the other loans. When 
it was created in the 1980's, not in the 1930's, it was tied to the 
actual price of the product. All of the other loan programs were tied 
to artificial cost-of-production models, which do not have any relation 
to the real world. It is ironic that the gentleman chose the loan 
program that is tied to the real-world price of the commodity, and all 
the other loan programs are tied to fictitious numbers.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I 
talked to a cotton farmer in this institution, the gentleman from 
California [Cal Dooley] and he said maybe we should go to the marketing 
loan program, but then you get rid of your other $650 million. What you 
want is both. You want the $650 million and you want the marketing loan 
program, and that is a ripoff, I would say to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas]. That is a ripoff.
  Why do we not do it? If you want to go back to marketing loans and do 
it truly based on the real price of the world market, I am happy to do 
it, but do not come in here pretending like you are an expert and 
suggesting that because you are an expert, you get to fleece the 
American taxpayer, which what is going on here.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dooley].
  (Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, because 
I think in fact we should be moving toward the marketing loan. The 
marketing loan is a market-based mechanism that provides a safety net 
to farmers. It has worked in the past when commodity prices have 
dropped. It has provided a level of income protection to farmers that 
have ensured that we have not have widespread bankruptcies in the 
cotton sector.
  What I think the gentlemen who are offering this amendment should be 
opposed to, which really is a fleecing of America, is the $700 million 
in freedom to farm payments that are going to be made to cotton farmers 
next year, when we have the opportunity today to lock in a cotton price 
in the December futures that is ahead of the target price. That is what 
is the fleecing of America, a program that is being offered under the 
freedom to farm that is going to ensure taxpayers are going to be on 
the hood for $700 million in direct payments.
  The marketing loan is where we should be, because the marketing loan 
does provide that level of safety net, the level of protection that is 
market-based. That is the direction we ought to be going in.
  Just last year, for an example, the cotton program only cost the 
taxpayers of this country $29 billion. Next year when we are going to 
have almost identical cotton prices in this country under the freedom 
to farm, we are going to be making payments from taxpayers of $700 
million to cotton farmers. That is wrong. But the marketing assistance 
loan is an important tool that ought to be maintained.
  The fact, in the freedom to farm proposal, there is a marketing loan 
that is provided for all commodities. Under this amendment, what you 
would be doing is that you would be eliminating cotton as being the 
only commodity that did not have a marketing loan. That would be a bad 
policy.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would very much like to 
suggest that the program which the gentleman from California [Cal 
Dooley] just suggested is in fact probably the direction that we ought 
to be going with in regard to cotton policy in this Congress. That 
policy is not going to come to be.
  What is going to come to be is a $700 million giveaway to cotton 
farmers next year for producing the exact same amount of cotton they 
produced this year without a subsidy, and they are going to get a 
marketing loan program to boot. What we ought to be doing is we ought 
to be looking at transitioning to a free-market economy. That is what 
the suggestion of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley] would do.
  Because we cannot get that accomplished, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Chabot] and I have an amendment that would knock out some of the 
guaranteed payments that are going to be paid to the cotton farmers, 80 
percent of which are going to the richest cotton farmers in the 
century, send a message to the cotton farmers, send a message to the 
so-called experts who are fleecing this country that it has to come to 
an end; that $700 million this year for cotton that was produced last 
year without a penny worth of subsidy is enough. We do not need a 
marketing loan program on top of the $700 million.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas].
  (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment to rip the heart out of the 
current cotton program represents probably the greatest step backwards 
in American industrial policy that any Member of Congress has proposed 
in many years. This amendment would pull out the cornerstone of the 
most successful Federal agricultural program any Congress has ever 
designed. In a sea of failed agriculture policy, the current cotton 
program is a program that truly works. Both the American taxpayer and 
the cotton industry can point to its success.
  Following the lean years in the 1980's cotton's marketing loan has 
revitalized our country's most important industries. We have gone from 
an ``also ran'' in the world cotton market to a market leader. As world 
demand increases, 

[[Page H1459]]
the cotton industry's positive influence on the U.S. economy will only 
grow. We should not take any congressional action that will inhibit 
this growth. This amendment most assuredly would. I would urge its 
defeat.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of cotton 
farmers throughout the country and urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Chabot-Kennedy amendment. I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy] that we ought to be moving towards market-oriented farm 
programs, and that is what we absolutely have with the current 
marketing loan program in the cotton industry.
  Quite simply, farmers took the risk during the 1980's to set up the 
marketing loan program, despite comments from critics that it would not 
work. But it has worked, and every other commodity is now seeking to 
emulate the marketing loan program of the cotton industry, because when 
prices are high, there is no marketing loan program. There is no need 
for it. But in times when cotton industry prices are low, there is a 
need for this loan program, and that is when it is activated.
  I really do not understand why we are picking on cotton today. Cotton 
has created some 350,000 clean, good jobs in the United States. The 
retail value of the end products exceed $122 billion annually. It is 
the cornerstone of one of the great industries in this country, the 
textile industry. We contribute generously to the export of this 
country. I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de 
la Garza] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Chabot] has one-half minute remaining; and the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Combest] has 1 minute remaining, and has the right to close.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this program continues at really great expense to the 
consumers and the taxpayers. Our amendment is pro-taxpayer, it is pro-
free market, and I want to emphasize again, the groups that support 
this are Friends of the Earth, the Public voice for Food and Health 
Policy, the Environmental Working Group, the National Taxpayers Union, 
the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the 
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, and the Taxpayers for 
Common Sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very good amendment. It would be a 
good addition to the farm bill. I would urge its passage.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, again, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dooley] made the most relevant argument. This amendment goes at exactly 
the wrong target. The market loan has worked very, very well. It is not 
a guaranteed payment. To hear that this is a guaranteed payment, there 
are no projected costs for the market loan program this year, because 
the price of world cotton is way above the loan. Therefore, there are 
no projected costs.

                              {time}  1700

  But it is the purpose of having the program in place, like a few 
years ago with the collapse of the former Soviet Union; when that 
collapsed, there was a tremendous increased volume of cotton on the 
market. At that point in time, had it not been for the market loan, we 
would have seen depression prices in the cotton market in the United 
States. But because the market loan was there, yes, it cost some money. 
It cost some money, but it worked for the purposes of an industry that 
is providing tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs in the United 
States.
  This amendment is targeted, the rhetoric at least that I have heard 
today, is targeted at the wrong area. If you are concerned about the 
National Taxpayer Union and spending, this bill that we are talking 
about today cuts 50 percent from what was spent over the last 5 years. 
That is a pretty good record for any program I know.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, when I came here, we had a 16 million bale carryover. 
The world was in complete disarray. Mexico was afraid we were going to 
dump. We had tremendous problems. Then we came up with this type of 
program.
  I was in Korea about that time when they told me with very much 
pride, ``Look, this is Texas cotton, Texas cotton.'' We started losing 
that market, then this program came along. It has doing what it was 
intended to do.
  Unfortunately, many of our colleagues only aim at areas outside their 
area for market cuts. But this has been a good program. It has helped, 
and I can attest to that fact.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry], who represents the largest per-
acre cotton produced in this country in any congressional district.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, when we look at all the different 
approaches that have been tried in agriculture since the 1930's, I 
think the marketing loan has got to be one of the most successful and 
it seems to me silly to throw out one of the things that has worked the 
best. If we looked at the estimates, better than 90 percent of the 
cotton that trades on the world market has some sort of price support 
or subsidy of one kind or another.
  When we look at the amount of agriculture that we produce in this 
country, about one-third is generally exports, but about half the 
cotton is exported.
  Our key competitors in cotton are the centrally planned economies, 
like the Soviet Union, former Soviet Union, and China. In that 
environment, our cotton exports have gone up from about 2 million bales 
to about 7 million bales under the marketing loan program when we are 
competing against countries like that.
  The marketing loan has allowed us to compete with these other 
countries without big government costs, without costing the taxpayers a 
lot of money. If we have a program like that that moves the commodity, 
does not incur storage costs and yet allows us to compete in the world 
market, why would we not want to do more of it? As a matter of fact, 
that is exactly what his underlying bill does. It expands it to other 
commodities.
  The amendment should be rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 253, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 33]

                               AYES--167

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Buyer
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Gejdenson
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     King
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lazio
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Ney
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     
[[Page H1460]]

     Stockman
     Studds
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--253

     Abercrombie
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bryant (TX)
     Burton
     Collins (IL)
     Furse
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Livingston
     Markey
     McKinney
     Myers
     Neal
     Stokes

                              {time}  1724

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Myers of Indiana 
     against.
       Ms. Furse for, with Ms. McKinney against.

  Mr. LATHAM and Ms. RIVERS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CONYERS, ALLARD, WHITE, HOBSON, MINGE, YOUNG of Florida, 
PAXON, SCARBOROUGH, CREMEANS, LUTHER, and QUINN, and Mrs. WALDHOLTZ, 
Mrs. SMITH of Washington, and Mrs. SEASTRAND changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote Nos. 31, 
32, and 33 on H.R. 2854, I was unavoidably detained at a funeral in the 
District. Had I been present, I would have voted on rollcall vote No. 
31, ``no''; rollcall vote No. 32, ``no''; and rollcall vote No. 33, 
``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in House Report 104-463.


                     amendment offered by mr. shays

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Shays: Page 51, strike lines 4 and 
     5, relating to the loan rate for quota peanuts, and insert 
     the following:
       (2) Loan rate.--The national average quota loan rate for 
     quota peanuts shall be as follows:
       (A) $610 per ton for the 1996 crop.
       (B) $550 per ton for the 1997 crop.
       (C) $490 per ton for the 1998 crop.
       (D) $430 per ton for the 1999 crop.
       (E) $370 per ton for the 2000 crop.
       (F) $310 per ton for the 2001 crop.
       Page 59, line 2, add at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Notwithstanding the loan rate actually in effect under 
     subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1), for purposes of this subsection, 
     the Secretary shall use a national average quota loan rate of 
     $610 per ton and the loan rate for additional peanuts that 
     corresponds to such national average quota loan rate.''.
       Page 61, strike lines 16 and 17, relating to the effective 
     period of the peanut program, and insert the following:
       (h) Crops.--Subsections (a) through (f) shall be effective 
     only for the 1996 through 2001 crops of peanuts. For the 2002 
     and subsequent crops of peanuts, the Secretary may not make 
     price support available, whether in the form of loans, 
     purchases, or other operations, to peanut producers by using 
     funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation or under the 
     authority of any law.
       Page 61, beginning line 18 through line 10 on page 63, 
     strike ``2002'' all six places it appears and insert 
     ``2001''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to share the time allocated to me with respect to managing 
the debate on this amendment with the ranking minority Member, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], and that the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Ewing], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk 
Management and Specialty Crops, be responsible for controlling our 
respective time limitations.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey], and 
that she be allowed to manage that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Connecticut?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would first like to thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture for honoring his word and allowing these amendments to this 
very important agricultural bill, particularly allowing this amendment.
  I do not know what its fate will be. I may have an idea. I do not 
know, but the gentleman has kept his word. He has been a gentleman 
throughout the process, as have all the members of the Committee on 
Agriculture. I thank them for that. I also thank the Committee on Rules 
for making this amendment in order.
  Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates a Depression 
era program started in the 1930's, the quota program for peanuts, a 
program that basically establishes a price in the United States that is 
double the world price, a program that basically says that if you own a 
quota, you are allowed to farm peanuts and only if you own the quota.
  Approximately two-thirds of those who own quotas do not farm peanuts 
anymore. It is farmed by people who pay rent to have these quotas. We 
are looking to eliminate this program. I cannot think of a program that 
needs to be eliminated more than this. I cannot think of a program more 
compatible with elimination to a Republican frame of mind than that 
which eliminates a quota program for farmers.
   Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we are offering the Shay-Lowey-Castle-Jacobs-Neumann-
Torres amendment to phase out a program that epitomizes wasteful 
inefficient government spending. The peanut program supports peanut 
quota holders at the expense of 250 million American consumers and 
taxpayers. This outdated program is based on a system reminiscent of 
feudal society.

[[Page H1461]]

  Quotas to sell peanuts are handed down from generation to generation, 
and two-thirds of the quota owners do not even grow peanuts themselves. 
In fact, it is amazing to me that in the United States of America, 
because of this antiquated system, farmers are actually told and it is 
made clear to them that they cannot grow and sell their peanuts 
domestically. They can grow the peanuts if they do not have a quota, 
but then they have to sell them abroad.
  The GAO has estimated that this program passes on $500 million per 
year in higher peanut prices to consumers, and the program costs the 
Federal Government $120 million every year in administrative costs. 
What does that mean to the average American family?
  As a mother who made peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for her three 
children for many, many years, I find it unacceptable that it forces 
American families to pay an average of 33 cents more for this jar of 
peanut butter. In other words, when you go into a store and you are 
making a lot of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, you are paying 33 
cents more. And that is not peanuts.
  Eliminating this program will lower the price of peanuts and put 
dollars and cents back in the pockets of American families. A Public 
Voice study which tracked the price of peanuts set by the Government 
and the retail price of peanuts showed that, as the Government price 
goes up, so does the retail price. And as the Government price goes 
down, the retail price follows suit. Lowering the price of peanuts is 
also good for American jobs. I want to made it clear to my colleagues 
that lowering the price of peanuts is good for American jobs because 
the price of peanuts in the United States is so high, peanut butter and 
candy bar manufacturers are leaving the United States to open up plants 
in Canada and Mexico. The peanuts can be purchased there at the world 
market price, half the U.S. price, and the finished product could then 
be brought into the United States and sold here.
  We must, in my judgment, lower the artificially high price of 
domestic peanuts to save these manufacturing jobs. If you have ever had 
a Snicker, look at the back of that Snicker. It says made in Canada.
  That is why the list of groups supporting elimination of the program 
is long and diverse: from the Heritage Foundation to Public Voice, from 
the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens for a Sound Economy to the 
Consumer Federation of America.
  My colleagues who support the status quo in the peanut program will 
say that the bill we are debating today already contains real reform of 
the peanut program. In my judgment, that is just simply not true. The 
cosmetic reforms that were included in this bill do not address our 
concerns with this program and could very well result in even higher 
consumer prices by forcing the Secretary of Agriculture to further 
restrict domestic production of peanuts.
  Our amendment addresses the real problems with the peanut program. 
Clearly, when the Congress is cutting mass transit subsidies, the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, school lunches, Medicare, we 
cannot ignore programs that really do not work.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for American consumers, support this 
amendment. It is good policy and it is true reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina, [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I think we just need to say no to the 
Shays-Lowey amendment, not because we do not need reform or not that we 
do not need change to make our program far more competitive in the 
global economy, but this amendment does not do that.
  Let me tell my colleagues, small farmers and minority farmers in my 
State are going out of business. Why? Because of the high cost of 
production, for the technology that is required, the large amendment of 
land that is required. In the peanut factory, production of peanuts, 
growing, you can have small amounts of land. You do not need a large 
investment.
  If we wanted to ratchet down and make sure that we have just a few 
peanut producers, then support the Shays-Lowey amendment. If we want to 
protect small farmers, protect minority farmers, then we want to give 
an opportunity of a safety net. Only when they need it will we provide 
that opportunity.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Shays-Lowey amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say first that the subcommittee dealing with specialty crops, 
we went out into the country and we held hearings on our efforts to 
reform peanuts and sugar and other specialty crops. We visited with 
producers, people like all of us visualize on the farms of America, 
good people, hard-working people, honest people who depend on the 
peanut production of this Nation to make a living. What we do here 
today with the peanut program does not affect big business, corporate 
America. It affects real people in America who farm and grow peanuts 
for all of us to consume.
  What did we come up with? Well, what we came up with is a program 
that eliminates a lot of Government. The old program had gotten out of 
whack. There was an escalator that went up that never came down. That 
is gone. We eliminated restrictions on quota, sale, and lease and 
transfer. And we eliminated undermarketings. We went ahead and we said, 
we have to address costs. We eliminated the quota minimums. We 
increased marketing assessment so that this program will be no cost to 
the taxpayer.
  So when we talk about other social programs, I do not know how that 
affects peanuts, because we are not going to cost this Government 
anything. What we are going to try and do is keep the small farmer, the 
farmers of America across the South in the peanut business, whether it 
is from Texas to Georgia, wherever it is. We are trying to make our 
peanut program more market oriented and yet preserve, as the 
gentlewoman said, a safety net, protect the American peanut program 
from programs that are subsidized around the world and would like to 
have access to our markets to destroy our peanut program.
  We are going to live with the GATT, and we are going to let more 
peanuts into America's market. It will be good for the Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  First off, the minorities only hold 13 percent of all the quotas but 
only 3 percent of the production. And two-thirds of the people who own 
the quotas do not even farm the land. They live in New York, London. 
They just get a payment called a quota.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlemen from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I regret the fact that the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and I and other folks that are from the North 
are supporting this amendment. Global warming is really going to have 
to take off before we see too much peanuts in Delaware or Connecticut 
or New Hampshire or New York. But I also find it difficult, as a 
newcomer here, to believe that in this day and age we have quotas in 
effect in this country that are so strict that we set the price at more 
than double in the United States than it is anywhere else in the world.
  I would say that, although this 1930's system was intended to help 
American farmers, the peanut program in fact is having the opposite 
effect on small peanut farmers. As my colleagues may know, the current 
quota system forces, as the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays said, 
68 percent of these farmers to expend a tremendous amount of their 
operating capital to rent these quotas. In addition, the cost of the 
seeds which are also set, bought artificially, that inflates the quota 
price as well.
  These farmers tend to be small operators who are unable to purchase 
the land as a result of the economic constraints on the system. 
Essentially, the Federal Government has mandated a sharecropping system 
that insulates the quota owners from any market fluctuations. This is 
not what the 104th Congress is all about. This is a bill that--or an 
amendment that everybody should support if they believe in anything 
anywhere close to the free-market system. 

[[Page H1462]]

  In closing, I hope that Members will support this amendment which 
will end the quota system benefiting the small farmer. His costs will 
be reduced and, most of all, American consumers will benefit from 
reduced cost of product.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Thurman], a most eloquent speaker for rural programs in 
agriculture.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Shays amendment does not save 
consumers any money. Who then benefits from this amendment? Not 
consumers. Do not expect the cost of that jar of peanut butter or that 
candy bar to decrease any time soon. Retail peanut butter prices have 
increased three times faster than the farm price of peanuts over the 
past 15 years. Yet U.S. retail prices of peanut products are lower or 
competitive with other developed countries. One can see that from this 
chart.
  Let us take a simple question, and I ask this question: If the price 
paid to farmers is reduced, would the savings be passed on to the 
consumers? I never got an answer to that question. They certainly did 
not tell me that they would be.
  Take a look at these charts. Does anybody really expect that the 
price of a candy bar will go down if we end this program? Peanuts 
comprise a small portion of the cost of this candy bar. Eliminating the 
program will not affect the price paid by consumers; only the 
manufacturers will benefit.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague, I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to respond to my colleague from Florida. In addition to 
candy bars, we are talking about peanut butter, we are talking about 
salted peanuts, we are talking about the kind of peanuts that are 
distributed on airplanes. And, in fact, there was a study. The Public 
Voice for Food and Health Policy study of peanut processors between 
1989 and 1993 showed clearly that as the Government set the price, 
peanuts went up, the retail price went up. As the Government set it, 
the price went down, the retail price went down.
  So I think it is important to note that if the peanut industry is 
very competitive and, in fact, if their costs go down, it does affect, 
according to these studies, the price of the actual jar of peanut 
butter and the Snicker bar.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Jacobs].
  Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, we heard a moment ago one of our colleagues 
say that the purpose of the bill is to keep small farmers in the peanut 
business. Let us be more accurate. It is to keep some small farmers in 
the peanut business.
  If Fidel Castro issued an edict that certain Cubans could not grow 
peanuts for human consumption, then that would be that much more grist 
on the mill of my good friend and colleague from Indiana [Mr. Burton] 
for his legislation. He would call that a dictatorship. But that is 
exactly what the U.S. Government does. I can grow the best peanuts on 
earth, I can invent an entirely new approach to peanuts. That would not 
make any difference. I could not sell them on the market unless I had 
permission from my large sibling in Washington.
  That is what this really comes down to. When it comes to peanuts in 
this country, it is a government of the peanut cartel, by the peanut 
cartel and against the people, and it ought not be tolerated in a free 
society.
  I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Everett].
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, much has been said about this program by 
its opponents and the national media. Very little, almost nothing, I 
might add, has been based on facts. Program opponents motivated 
primarily by big candy manufacturers and peanut butter manufacturers 
would lead us to believe that a candy bar or a jar of peanut butter 
would cost less if the peanut program was eliminated.
  What they do not tell us is that American consumers pay less for 
peanut products than they do in Canada, 14-percent less for peanuts, 
10-percent less for peanut butter and 16-percent less for peanut candy.
  In fact, not one of these liberal consumer groups, but the GAO, the 
Government Accounting Office, testified before Congress that consumers 
were unlikely to benefit from any reduction made to the peanut program. 
And, in fact, the gentlewoman's claim that the program adds 33 cents of 
cost to the consumer is factually inaccurate; it is untrue. Reforms, 
the reforms and modifications made in the peanut program, should 
satisfy even the peanut manufacturers except for their need to add to 
their bottom line. This is corporate greed, pure and simple.
  The program has been reformed. Some of those reforms: Loan rates have 
been reduced by 10 percent from 678 to 610 a ton. We have program 
reforms such as operating at no cost to the Government. The price 
escalator has been eliminated. The quota floor has been eliminated. 
Undermarketings has been eliminated. And if any colleague, the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and these others had read the 
bill, quota eligibility standards have been tightened to include only 
true producers, not the folks living in other countries and so forth. 
Only true producers would be eligible for quotas. It also has $434 
million in deficit reduction over 7 years.
  I urge a no vote on this mean-spirited amendment.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Bishop], another friend of the Peanut Program.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this phaseout amendment 
and support the reformed Peanut Program contained in the bill, which is 
known as cost- and market-oriented, for the rest of the world grows an 
inedible, poor-quality peanut that is primarily crushed for oil.
  The American farmer, who only grows 10 percent of the world's supply 
of peanuts, is the leading exporter of edible peanuts in the world. The 
United States grows a premium edible peanut known for its flavor, 
safety, and its quality. To reduce the peanut loan rate to a world 
market price is to ask United States farmers to match heavily 
subsidized Chinese peanut prices that have no relationship to the 
actual cost of production of peanuts in China.
  Consumers should also be warned that 50 percent of all imported 
Argentine peanuts examined by FDA fail United States health standards 
and 100 percent of recent Chinese peanuts examined by FDA have failed 
United States health standards.
  It is clear this amendment is not going to help anyone. It is going 
to hurt the peanut farmer in America, and it is going to hurt the 
American consumer.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the hard work of Chairman 
Pat Roberts and my colleagues in this area. We all agree on the need to 
reform Federal farming programs, and this bill does make significant 
improvements in many farm programs. Unfortunately, while some changes 
are made in the Peanut Program, it will continue to cost the consumer 
by pricing that commodity at artificially high levels.
  I strongly support this amendment because the Peanut Program is a 
1930's program that benefits a small group of growers while penalizing 
the American consumer of the 1990's.
  At a time when we are moving toward market solutions, as this farm 
bill rightly attempts to do, why on earth are we continuing the 
antiquated status quo for growing peanuts?
  Mr. Chairman, you'd have to believe in Peter Pan to believe that this 
program works well and helps consumers and small farmers.
  As a result of this peanut subsidy, the hard-working American 
consumer pays up to $500 million more per year in higher food prices 
for peanuts and peanut butter.
  And the Peanut Program is not just unfair to the American consumer. 
It is unfair to many farmers. Believe it or not, two-thirds of those 
who own peanut growing licenses are not even farmers. If any farmer 
wants to grow peanuts for domestic sale--he can not because there are a 
limited number of 

[[Page H1463]]
quotas that are owned in many cases by wealthy nonfarmers. We need to 
ask ourselves why we are allowing a Government program to protect this 
special group from fair competition? The peanut subsidy is a bonanza to 
a select few, who certainly are not America's hardworking family 
farmer.
  Mr. Chairman, the facts are clear: This subsidy is completely 
outdated and has outlived its purpose. If you want to help working 
families, American consumers, and small farmers, vote for the Shays-
Lowey-Castle-Jacobs-Neumann-Torres amendment.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Stenholm].
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, again this is a no-net-cost program. The 
arguments that are being made on behalf of the consumer cannot be 
justified by any arithmetic that anybody can put forward. This one 
pound of peanut butter, the farmers' price is 48 cents, the 
manufacturer price is $1.87. I do not see how anyone can get 33 
additional cents in this little bottle of peanut butter at the farmers' 
expense.
  The bottom line is this, and the survey done in my district--and I 
happen to represent both quota and nonquota growers; I have got both 
sides. All of them agree that the program as reformed under the 
committee bill is definitely a step in the right direction that we need 
to go. They object to the 610 price support cut, cutting 10 percent of 
the gross income. Ask anyone watching or listening or in this audience 
right now if his pay was cut 10 percent, how would he feel?
  That is the argument before us today, an additional 10 percent on top 
of another 10 percent will be very disruptive to a very important 
industry to this country.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Jones].
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my fellow Members to 
support the House Committee on Agriculture peanut program.
  The reforms within this bill are extensive. The peanut program will 
become a no net cost to the taxpayer, a $434 million saving. 
Specifically, the support price has been cut 10 percent, reducing the 
farmers' income by 20 percent, or $200 million annually. Even after 
these and other reforms, urban lawmakers want to further reduce the 
price or completely do away with the program.
  My fellow Members, further reductions to the price support level or 
elimination of the program altogether will cause the economic ruin of 
America's 15,000 peanut farm families and the thousands of rural 
communities they support. Furthermore, American consumers will not 
benefit from lower prices if the program is eliminated. In fact, 
American consumers already enjoy the lowest peanut prices in the world.
  Vote for reform. Vote ``no'' on the Shays-Lowey amendment.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the reform programs 
in the bill.
  The peanut program contained in this bill reforms the program as we 
now know it so that it keeps generating thousands of jobs in America 
and providing a quality, steady supply of peanuts at no cost to the 
American taxpayer.
  I am all for rooting programs out of Government that are ineffective 
and costly.
  However, the peanut program proposed in this bill will not cost the 
American taxpayer $1 and will continue to put 15,000 Americans to work. 
That does not sound like an inefficient or expensive program to me.
  Let me tell you about the peanut farmers I represent in New Mexico. 
They work hard everyday to produce a high-quality, nutritious crop. 
Their hard work produces one-third of the total revenue in their 
county.
  Last year, these peanut farmers were asked to make some changes in 
the program because we are all concerned about deficit reduction. The 
peanut growers made those changes because they are concerned about the 
future of this country too.
  As an advocate of free trade let me tell you what this amendment 
means. This amendment means we are putting our own farmers at a 
disadvantage.
  By voting for this amendment you are saying that peanut farmers in 
Argentina and China are more important to you than our American 
farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would kill a program that is cost-
neutral to our country's economy. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.


        Amendment To peanut program will cost thousands of jobs

  An amendment proposing even deeper cuts in the peanut program than 
already contained in the Freedom to Farm bill (H.R. 2854) could cost 
tens of thousands of Americans their jobs and put most peanut farmers 
out of business.


     price cut and production reforms already will cost 5,656 jobs

  The 10-percent price cut and elimination of a legislated minimum 
production floor in the Freedom to Farm bill already may cause 5,656 
working Americans to lose their jobs, according to an Auburn University 
study. Most of these will be non-farm jobs. Total economic impact of 
just these two provisions alone will be $492 million.


                 amendment proposes further price cuts

  An amendment will cut the American farmer's domestic price even 
more--by 54 percent! This proposed price reduction will not reduce 
Government spending since the peanut program already is guaranteed to 
be a no-cost program under the Freedom to Farm bill.


       further cuts would put most peanut farmers out of business

  Farm credit studies show that 66 percent of American peanut farmers 
will be denied financing if the support price is even cut 20 percent.


                peanut farmers are small, family farmers

  The 16,194 American farms which grow peanuts are small, family farms 
averaging only 98 acres of peanut production, according to the U.S. 
Census of Agriculture.


  most peanut producing areas already have a 20-percent poverty level

  Seventy-seven percent of the counties in the heart of the peanut-
producing region of America already have a 20-percent poverty rate or 
higher.


     eliminating peanut program could increase government spending

  Eliminating the peanut program could actually increase Government 
spending by eliminating the $83 million in budgetary reduction 
assessments contained in the Freedom to Farm bill. Eliminating the 
program also could cause a $190 million forfeiture and crushing of all 
peanut inventories in area marketing pools.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Tejeda].
  Mr. TEJEDA. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, this amendment would gut the 
peanut program in 7 years, sacrificing along with it the livelihoods of 
the hardworking farmers in my district and the businesses that serve 
them. Whole communities and an American way of life are at stake.
  Across this country, more than 15,000 farmers participate in this 
program. Who are they? These farms are family-run, covering an average 
98 acres.
  Some attack this program for having absentee landlords, but more 
peanut farms are owner-operated than wheat, soybeans, or cotton.
  Critics also attack the peanut program for being closed. As this 
chart shows, however, the number of new farms in the program is 
increasing.
  In any event, the bill itself takes steps to expand program 
participation, so this is no reason to destroy a successful farm 
program.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment for the sake of 
the family farmer and for sustained quality production.

                              {time}  1800

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, America is a country of extremely good 
people whose compassion leads them to do good and effective things. 
They know something is wrong in America right now. The Government is 
doing what no American family can do, spending more money than it has 
in its checkbook every month. Today we are considering the farm bill, 
and I congratulate the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and the 
committee, on getting the farm bill to the floor today.
  This amendment to end peanut subsidies gives us the opportunity to 
put one more piece in making America great again into place. The peanut 
subsidies are little more than corporate 

[[Page H1464]]
welfare. They cost taxpayers $120 million a year, and then they cost 
the consumer $500 million a year in higher prices at the store. In this 
amendment, we have the opportunity today to end one more form of 
corporate welfare. I urge support of this amendment. Together, we will 
make America great again.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder].
  (Mr. BROWDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, a century ago Sherman marched through and 
destroyed the South. I express my opposition to the Shays-Sherman 
amendment, and urge defeat of this.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia, whom we call ``Peanut'' Sisisky.
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Shays amendment. I 
represent a rural district in southern Virginia that depends very 
heavily on the peanut business. This amendment is a big loser for 
districts like mine, so it is no surprise that I am against it. But how 
about the rest of you? It is hard to see what good this amendment would 
actually do for anybody. It simply does not live up to its billing. 
After all, what is the point of this? Is it to reduce the deficit? No. 
The committee reforms already make it a no-cost program.
  Is it to lower consumer prices? No. The money saved from paying 
farmers less for their peanuts will not be passed on to the consumers, 
according to economists at many universities. I could give you that 
criteria.
  Critics of the peanut program have proposed some changes over the 
years, and many of them are included in the committee bill. The bill 
already cuts the support price by 10 percent, with no increases allowed 
to keep up with costs.
  The quota system is reformed and the entire program is simplified.
  This is not exactly the peanut farmers' wish list. But eliminating 
the program altogether would be so much worse. Farmers would lose their 
credit. Most small peanut farmers would be put out of business. 
Thousands more Americans would lose their jobs.
  There's no reason why any of this has to happen. I really don't see 
what this amendment would accomplish, other than running a lot of small 
family farmers out of business. I think the small farmers in my 
district--and across this country--deserve better than that.
  I urge Members to reject the Shays amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let us do what is right. I do not know about these 
corporate fellows, but I have small farmers that come to see me. Those 
are the ones we need to protect.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Jon Fox.
  (Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Shays-Lowey amendment. Under this amendment consumers would pay $500 
per year in higher food prices because of the peanut program, according 
to GAO. We can change all that with the Shays amendment. Peanut growers 
are now being hurt because higher prices for peanuts are a leading 
cause in the recent turndown in demand for peanut products.
  The environment, as well, is being hurt because the land on which 
peanuts are being grown is overworked.
  There is broad support for repealing the quota and price support for 
peanuts. Small farmers, consumer groups, free trade organizations, 
labor unions, and businesses all support ending this kind of program, 
which has been termed corporate welfare. I support the Citizens Against 
Government Waste, who have come out against this program.
  I believe the Shays-Lowey amendment is a step in the right direction 
for the country, for consumers, and for business.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Frank Lucas.
  (Mr. LUCAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is the pending business 
before the House should be entitled, ``the how many rural economies can 
we wreck amendment of 1996.'' Simply put, the Shays, Lowey amendment 
will devastate rural economies throughout the South.
  The opponents of the peanut program wanted a no-cost program. The 
peanut provisions of H.R. 2854 create a no-cost program that represents 
a $434 million savings to the Government.
  The opponents of the program wanted a significant cut in the support 
price. This bill has a significant cut in the support price and will 
reduce farmer income by more than 20 percent or roughly $200 million.
  The opponents wanted reform of the quota system. This bill reforms 
the quota system.
  Further reductions in the price support level or elimination of the 
program altogether will cause the economic ruin of thousands of farm 
families, rural banking systems, and the country towns they support.
  We have truly reformed the program. But for some people, I guess 
that's not good enough. It seems the sponsors of this amendment want to 
exact as much pain out of rural America as possible. I would urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting against the amendment.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] a supporter of the peanut program.
  (Mr. SCOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
because the program in the bill is revenue neutral, and the amendment 
will hurt farmers and not benefit consumers.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida, Mr. Pete Peterson.
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this 
amendment. This morning I brought this little bag of peanuts in the 
carryout here in the Congress. It cost 50 cents. My farmers will 
receive 4 cents, four pennies, out of that 50 cents. That farmer took 
all the risk. That farmer took every bit of the risk: from pesticides, 
whether or not he had the rainfall, whether or not the land was up and 
running; the whole risk. The manufacturer got all of the money.
  That is what we are doing here. We are not taking care of the 
farmers, Mr. Chairman. The small farmers of America are suffering 
because of the actions we are taking on this farm bill. The peanut 
program is not hurting American consumers. In fact, if Members will 
look through here, they will see quality peanuts. If we pass this, we 
will see Chinese and Argentine peanuts, which are not going to be 
nearly the quality of what we are talking about.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this very, very bad 
amendment.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard a number of times on the floor this 
afternoon that the peanut program is conducted at no net cost to the 
taxpayer. That is true only if you use the term ``tax'' in its 
narrowest sense. This is not a tax that we pay on April 15 with our 
form 1040, but it is a tax, nonetheless. It is a tax of hundreds of 
millions of dollars a year on American consumers, and they pay it every 
time they buy a jar of peanut butter. It is a tax of 40 cents on each 
jar of peanut butter. It is a regressive tax, because the people who 
are poor, who are scraping by to make ends meet, need a nutritious food 
like peanut butter, and they pay a disproportionate share of their 
income.
  Mr. Chairman, who benefits from this tax? A very small number of 
farmers. Less than 22 percent of the peanut farmers get more than 80 
percent of the benefits of this tax. It is costing us jobs in this 
country, because it is forcing the producers of peanut products out of 
this country. It is a bad deal for America and it is a bad tax for 
America. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield \1/4\ minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Bill Emerson.
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman by yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Shays-Lowey amendment 
and in support of the peanut program as reported from the Agriculture 
Committee. The plan passed by Agriculture 

[[Page H1465]]
Committee represents reform while maintaining the marketing structure 
that has been one of the most effective and cost-efficient components 
of American agriculture.
  Contrary to what some would like us to believe about this program, 
peanuts are not closed to new production and do not hinder free trade. 
In many peanut producing areas, this program is what separates farmers 
now putting groceries on the table from financial ruin. I urge my 
colleagues not to abandon the rural towns and communities whose 
livelihood is dependent upon peanut production and vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I have been in this body for 24 years. I have 
heard a lot of stories, but the story today that if you do away with 
the peanut program you are going to save the American consumer some 
money is just about as big a pile of bunk as I have ever heard. I want 
to ask my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], if he 
will engage me in a colloquy. I would appreciate it.
  We held the GAO hearings on the GAO report that the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer] asked for, sugar and peanuts. The General 
Accounting Office corrected some of the things they said in that 
document that the gentleman is thumbing through right now. They said 
that the consumer that they spoke of in that report was the first 
purchaser of the peanut, not the people who eat them. I said, did you 
ask the big peanut manufacturers, ``Are you going to pass these savings 
on to the housewife if you get a cut in support price?'' They said yes, 
we asked them; and they said no, we would not do that.
  I have made offer after offer to the peanut manufacturers: ``If you 
will pass on to the housewife the savings, we will cut the price 
support.'' They have never agreed to it. What are you all smoking, 
telling your colleagues in this House that these savings are going to 
be passed on to the housewife? It is not going to happen.
  Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, in response to 
his question, I am not smoking anything. But to respond to your 
question, the GAO report makes it very clear that the farmers are being 
paid double the world price. They are being paid over $600 per ton, 
whereas the world price is closer to $350.
  Mr. ROSE. I thank the gentleman for his answer. Reclaiming my time, 
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, who is chairman of the subcommittee, is 
correct. We have reformed this program. Great strides have been made. 
Why would the gentleman continue an assessment on the peanut grower at 
$610 a ton, while you phase the price support down to $310 a ton, 
except for a punitive streak in your legislation? Why would you do 
that?
  Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman will yield, we do it for a number of 
reasons. First off, the peanut farmers make a killing in this program 
at the expense of the consumer. If they do not want to be part of the 
program and make that payment, there is nothing that requires them to 
do it.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his answer. This is 
candy day, boys and girls. This is about nothing but Hershey's. The 
reports from the stock market say that if these amendments pass, get 
out there and buy yourself some Hershey's stock. Sugar and peanuts 
spell candy. This amendment is for the candy manufacturers of America. 
It guts the little peanut farmer.
  The program is not broke, it does not need fixing, it does not cost 
anything. Stick with the subcommittee. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.


                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind the gallery that they are here 
as guests of the House, and any manifestation of approval or 
disapproval of the proceedings is in violation of the rules of the 
House.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland, Mrs. Connie Morella.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Shays-Lowey 
amendment to phase out the Peanut Program in 7 years.
  Peanuts cannot be sold for fresh use in this country unless they are 
grown on land that has a quota for peanut production. The system 
prevents new farmers from growing peanuts. Only so many U.S. producers 
are permitted to produce peanuts for the U.S. market. Their production 
is limited to estimated domestic demand, or just below, to guarantee 
them a congressionally set support price.
  Like most Americans, I knew little about the Peanut Program before I 
came to Congress. In 1990, two of my constituents came to me asking for 
changes in the Peanut Program. Ed and Ann Zinke operate a small 
business in my district called Ann's House of Nuts. When Ed decided 
that he wanted to grow peanuts, he was told that he could not. When Ed 
looked into the Peanut Program, he could not believe that the United 
States operated such an antiquated system and that he could be arrested 
for attempting to grow peanuts in Maryland.
  The vast majority of production occurs in the southeastern United 
States. When weather conditions are adverse in this region, a shortfall 
occurs in peanut production--1991 was a bad crop year for peanuts. 
There was a drought in the Southeast, and prices for shelled peanuts 
more than doubled on the wholesale level. Peanut butter, a staple of 
the American school lunch menu, all but disappeared when peanut prices 
rose.
  Mr. Chairman, the existing quota and price support program for 
peanuts is anticonsumer, anticompetitive, and inefficient. It needs to 
be changed. I urge my colleagues to support the Shays-Lowey amendment.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Shays-
Lowey amendment. For over a year now, we have been working very hard 
and very closely with the different segments of the peanut industry. We 
have crafted reforms that transfer the peanut industry into the 21st 
century and prepare our farmers to compete in a global market, save 
American jobs, and do not destroy an industry.
  That is the simple message that I bring to the well today. Do we want 
to reform the peanut industry in America or do we want to destroy it? 
That is where we are with this amendment. The reforms we made over the 
last year, the byproduct of tough negotiations and real compromise, in 
good faith we have tried to satisfy the critics.
  I want to take a minute to satisfy some of those critics today. They 
have gotten up here and have complained about out-of-state quota 
holders owning peanuts. We have done away with that in our reform bill. 
You have complained about the cost of the Peanut Program to the 
taxpayer. We have done away with that in our program.
  My colleagues have talked about artificial costs to the housewife. As 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] has just said, we had 
testimony under oath by Ben Smith, who is a vice president, a man that 
I respect, of Tom's Peanut Industry in Columbus, GA. In Albany, GA, on 
April 25, Mr. Smith under direct examination said, if you lower the 
cost of the peanuts to the farmer, it will not lower the cost of the 
product to the housewife.
  That Snickers bar that the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] 
held up a while ago has less than 2 cents [Mrs. Lowey] held up a while 
ago has less than 2 cents' worth of peanuts in it, albeit Chinese 
peanuts, I might add. If you gave them the peanuts, would they lower 
the cost of that Snickers bar? Absolutely not. That jar of peanut 
butter that we have has less than 48 cents' worth of peanuts in it to 
the farmer. If we gave them the peanuts, would they lower the cost of 
that? I tell my colleagues, Mr. Smith says no, they would not.
  Now, that is not GAO. That is not GEE. That is the guy that sells the 
peanut butter, the guy that sells the crackers in the store. If my 
colleagues want a reform program, this is it. If they want to destroy 
an industry, vote ``yes.'' I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

[[Page H1466]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] has 3\1/4\ 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 1\3/
4\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] has \3/4\ 
minute remaining, and the right to close.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
  (Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time, and I rise against the amendment.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Shays amendment. This amendment 
wreaks havoc on rural communities across America that already will 
suffer substantial income and jobs losses because of the painful 
reforms in H.R. 2854, the Agricultural Market Transition Act.
  The reforms already required by the Republican farm bill will result 
in 5,600 jobs being lost in peanut production regions and total 
economic losses of almost $500 million. With the reforms already 
required in the Republican farm bill almost half of all U.S. peanut 
farmers will face credit eligibility problems in their communities. Mr. 
Chairman, the reforms are already too painful to peanut farming 
communities.
  The Shays amendment will double the pain and suffering that will 
already be reeling from the cuts in H.R. 2854. This is an 
unconscionable amendment when one considers that more than 75 percent 
of peanut farming communities have poverty rates that exceed 20 
percent.
  The meanness of the Shays amendment is further exacerbated by the 
fact that this farm bill fails to provide rural development funds to 
help rural communities, like these peanut farming communities, meet the 
painful transition being forced by the Agricultural Market Transition 
Act.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to reiterate a few points on why I support this 
amendment. Not just because it is a feudal system that has been in 
place for years, not to help the small farmers but to help the wealthy 
farmers. It is documented today that two-thirds of the quota holders do 
not even farm. If we are really interested in protecting the small 
farmer, this is not it. Two-thirds of the quota holders do not even 
live on a farm.
  This is a competitive industry. Mr. Chairman, this is a competitive 
industry, and in my judgment, if we are talking about saving jobs and 
keeping people on the farm, let us remember these Snickers bars that 
are produced in Canada. The world price is $350 a ton, and we have 
artificially kept this up to above $600 a ton. The industry is moving, 
moving to Canada and moving to Mexico.
  So it seems to me, and I have confidence in our farmers, confidence 
in our country. If we really want to keep the farmers here, then we 
should allow them to be competitors. The non-quota holders should be 
given the opportunity to be competitive as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which 
gradually reduces the subsidy so we can continue to be competitive in 
the world economy.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues that this is not a complicated 
issue. It is pretty basic stuff. We have a quota system that is really 
a relic of the Depression era. It is a system in which if you want to 
grow peanuts and you do not have a quota, you cannot do it and sell it 
in the Connecticut market. It is a system that, if you actually had 
your own store and you wanted to grow peanuts and sell it in your own 
store, just like some illegal drug, you would not be allowed to do 
that. You would be arrested, you would be breaking the law.
  This is a system that I believe most Republicans would find repugnant 
if it did not have the name farmer attached to it. This is a system 
where two-thirds of the people who have the quota do not even farm. 
This is a system that is costing the consumers of this country up to 
$500 million a year. This is a system that we should no longer have.
  Japan would love to emulate a system like this. I think they kind of 
do it for rice and we think it is an outrage. We have a system where if 
you have a quota you can sell, if you do not have a quota, in this 
country, an American farmer cannot produce and sell. This system needs 
to be repealed, and we do it over 7 years.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] has three-
quarters of a minute remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Ewing] has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining and the right to close.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  We have heard a lot of rhetoric today. We have heard some things that 
are confusing and some things that are not true, like the gentlewoman 
from Maryland who said they could not grow peanuts. But we change that 
in this bill. They can now get quota, they can now have the right to 
grow peanuts.
  Mr. Chairman, this is real reform of the peanut program. But we did 
not decimate it, we did not rip it apart. We saved it for the peanut 
farmers of America, not for the big candy manufacturers who are not 
going to pass that on.
  This program works, and the reforms in this program are real: Less 
government, no cost to the taxpayer, yet a safety net for the producers 
of America and, yes, much more market-oriented.
  Mr. Chairman, we have tried to devise a program that will preserve an 
industry, will preserve jobs for American farmers and manufacturers, 
yes, but without destroying something that is good in our society. Vote 
no on this bad amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209, 
noes 212, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 34]

                               AYES--209

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baldacci
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clement
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Ney
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Packard
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stockman
     Studds
     Talent
     Tate
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wolf
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--212

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     
[[Page H1467]]

     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rose
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (IL)
     Furse
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Neal
     Solomon
     Stokes
     Wilson
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1843

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Furse for, with Ms. McKinney against.

  Mr. ORTON, Mr. HYDE, Ms. RIVERS, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. DAVIS, and 
Mr. MINGE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 34 on H.R. 2854 
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yes.''

                              {time}  1845

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 6 printed 
in House Report 104-463.


               amendment offered by mr. miller of florida

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Miller of Florida:
       Strike section 107 (page 69, line 18, through page 77, line 
     14), and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 107. RECOURSE LOANS FOR PROCESSORS OF SUGARCANE AND 
                   SUGAR BEETS.

       (a) Sugarcane Processor Loans.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall make recourse loans 
     available to processors of sugarcane on raw cane sugar 
     processed from the 1996 through 1999 crops of domestically 
     grown sugarcane.
       (2) Loan rates.--Recourse loans under this subsection shall 
     be made at the following rates:
       (A) In the case of raw cane sugar processed from 1996 
     crops, $0.165.
       (B) In the case of raw cane sugar processed from the 1997 
     crop, $0.15.
       (C) In the case of raw cane sugar processed from the 1998 
     crop, $0.135.
       (D) In the case of raw cane sugar processed from the 1999 
     crop, $0.12.
       (b) Sugar Beet Processor Loans.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall make recourse loans 
     available to processors of sugar beets on refined sugar 
     processed from the 1996 through 1999 crops of domestically 
     grown sugar beets.
       (2) Loan rates.--Recourse loans under this subsection for 
     sugar refined from a crop of sugar beets shall be made at a 
     rate, per pound of refined sugar, that reflects--
       (A) an amount that bears the same relation to the loan rate 
     I effect under subsection (a)(2) as the weighted average of 
     producer returns for sugar beets bears to the weighted 
     average of producer returns for sugarcane, expressed on a 
     cents per pound basis for refined beet sugar and raw cane 
     sugar, for the most recent five-year period for which data 
     are available; plus
       (B) an amount that covers sugar beet processor fixed 
     marketing expenses.
       (c) Conversion to Private Sector Financing.--No processor 
     of sugarcane or sugar beets of the 2000 and subsequent crops 
     shall be eligible for recourse loans under this section, and 
     the Secretary of Agriculture may not make price support 
     available, whether in the form of loans, payments, purchases, 
     or other operations, for the 2000 and subsequent crops of 
     sugar beets and sugarcane by using the funds of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation or under the authority of any law.
       (d) Administrative Rules.--
       (1) National loan rates.--Recourse loans under this section 
     shall be made available at all locations nationally at the 
     rates specified in this section, without adjustment to 
     provide regional differentials.
       (2) Length of loans.--Each recourse loan made under this 
     section shall be for a term of three months, and may be 
     extended for additional 3-month terms, except that--
       (A) no loan may have a cumulative term in excess of nine 
     months or a term that extends beyond September 30 of the 
     fiscal year in which the loan is made; and
       (B) a processor may terminate a loan and redeem the 
     collateral for the loan at any time by payment in full of 
     principal, interest, and fees then owing.
       (e) Use of Commodity Credit Corporation.--The Secretary 
     shall use the funds, facilities, and authorities of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this section.
       (f) Marketing Assessment.--
       (1) Sugarcane.--Effective for marketings of raw cane sugar 
     during the 1996 through 2003 fiscal years, the first 
     processor of sugarcane shall remit to the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation a nonrefundable marketing assessment in an amount 
     equal to--
       (A) in the case of marketings during fiscal year 1996, 1.1 
     percent of the loan rate established under subsection (a) per 
     pound of raw cane sugar, processed by the processor from 
     domestically produced sugarcane or sugarcane molasses, that 
     has been marketed (including the transfer or delivery of the 
     sugar to a refinery for further processing or marketing); and
       (B) in the case of marketings during each of fiscal years 
     1997 through 2003, 1.375 percent of the loan rate established 
     under subsection (a) per pound of raw cane sugar, processed 
     by the processor from domestically produced sugarcane or 
     sugarcane molasses, that has been marketed (including the 
     transfer or delivery of the sugar to a refinery for further 
     processing or marketing).
       (2) Sugar beets.--Effective for marketings of beet sugar 
     during the 1996 through 2003 fiscal years, the first 
     processor of sugar beets shall remit to the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation a nonrefundable marketing assessment in an amount 
     equal to--
       (A) in the case of marketings during fiscal year 1996, 
     1.1794 percent of the loan rate established under subsection 
     (a) per pound of beet sugar, processed by the processor from 
     domestically produced sugar beets or sugar beet molasses, 
     that has been marketed; and
       (B) in the case of marketings during each of fiscal years 
     1997 through 2003, 1.47425 percent of the loan rate 
     established under subsection (a) per pound of beet sugar, 
     processed by the processor from domestically produced sugar 
     beets or sugar beet molasses, that has been marketed.
       (3) Collection.--
       (A) Timing.--A marketing assessment required under this 
     subsection shall be collected on a monthly basis and shall be 
     remitted to the Commodity Credit Corporation not later than 
     30 days after the end of each month. Any cane sugar or beet 
     sugar processed during a fiscal year that has not been 
     marketed by September 30 of the year shall be subject to 
     assessment on that date. The sugar shall not be subject to a 
     second assessment at the time that it is marketed.
       (B) Manner.--Subject to subparagraph (A), marketing 
     assessments shall be collected under this subsection in the 
     manner prescribed by the Secretary and shall be 
     nonrefundable.
       (4) Penalities.--If any person fails to remit the 
     assessment required by this subsection or fails to comply 
     with such requirements for recordkeeping or otherwise as are 
     required by the Secretary to carry out this subsection, the 
     person shall be liable to the Secretary for a civil penalty 
     up to an amount determined by multiplying--
       (A) the quantity of cane sugar or beet sugar involved in 
     the violation; by
       (B) the loan rate for the applicable crop of sugarcane or 
     sugar beets.
       (5) Enforcement.--The Secretary may enforce this subsection 
     in a court of the United States.
       (6) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, 
     given the prohibition on the provision of price support for 
     sugarcane and sugar beets for the 2000 and subsequent crops, 
     the need for the application of assessments under this 
     subsection with regard to such crops should be reexamined at 
     that time.
       (g) Effect on Existing Loans for Sugar.--Section 206 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446g), as in effect on 
     the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, 

[[Page H1468]]
     shall continue to apply with respect to nonrecourse loans made under 
     such section before such date.
       (h) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Power of commodity credit corporation.--Section 5(a) of 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 
     714c(a)) is amended by inserting ``(except for sugarcane and 
     sugar beets of the 2000 and subsequent crops)'' after 
     ``agricultural commodities''.
       (2) Section 32 activities.--The second sentence of the 
     first paragraph of section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 
     (7 U.S.C. 612c), is amended by inserting ``(other than 
     sugarcane and sugar beets)'' after ``commodity'' the last 
     place it appears.
       (i) CCC Sales Price Restrictions.--The Commodity Credit 
     Corporation may sell for unrestricted use sugar surrendered 
     to the Corporation under loan programs provided for in 
     section 206 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 or this section 
     at such price as the Corporation determines appropriate to 
     maintain and expand export and domestic markets for sugar and 
     to avoid undue disruption of commercial sales of sugar.
       (j) Assurance of Adequate Supplies of Sugar.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 902 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public 
     Law 99-198; 7 U.S.C. 1446g note) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Beginning with the quota year for sugar imports which 
     begins after the 1995/1996 quota year, the President and the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall use all authorities available 
     to the President and the Secretary, as the case may be, to 
     ensure that adequate supplies of raw cane sugar are made 
     available to the United States market at prices no greater 
     than the higher of--
       ``(1) the word sugar price (adjusted to a delivered basis); 
     or
       ``(2) the raw cane sugar loan rate in effect under section 
     107(a) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (plus 
     interest).''.
       (k) Termination of Marketing Quotas and Allotments.--
       (1) Termination.--Effective October 1, 1996, part VII of 
     subtitle B of title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 
     1938 (7 U.S.C. 1359aa-1359jj) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 344(f)(2) of such Act (7 
     U.S.C. 1344(f)(2)) is amended by striking ``sugar cane for 
     sugar; sugar beets for sugar;''.
       (3) Application of amendment.--The amendment made by 
     paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to sugar marketed on 
     or after such date.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Miller] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to share the time allocated to me with respect to managing 
the debate on the amendment with the ranking minority member, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], and that the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Ewing], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk 
Management and Specialty Crops, be responsible for controlling our 
respective time limitations.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be allowed to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer], and 10 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], 
and that they have the right to allocate that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Miller-Schumer-Kingston amendment is a 5-year 
phaseout of the sugar program. This is a consensus amendment. It is a 
compromise from the original Miller-Schumer amendment. We have a broad 
coalition of support for this amendment.
  We propose this amendment because what is provided in the farm bill 
is not real reform of the sugar program, and we are proposing to phase 
out the program in 5 years. This was widespread support, with 
Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives. Some of the most 
liberal Members and some of the most conservative Members, are 
supporting this amendment. The environmental community is very solidly 
supporting this amendment, and there are going to be some rated 
environmental votes on this amendment.
  For the free enterprise people, the Heritage Foundation, the CATO 
people, they support the concept of phasing out the sugar program, and 
there are going to be some rated votes along this line from the 
Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Citizens Against Government Waste, 
and others. So this is very important. If you are a believer in the 
free enterprise system and want a smaller Federal Government, this is a 
program you should vote for.
  This is very solidly supported by the consumer, because the consumer 
is paying $1.4 billion a year more for sugar in this country because of 
this program. That is a General Accounting Office report. It is a jobs 
issue, because refineries are closing. The sugar refineries around this 
country are closing because there is not enough sugar, and the 
manufacturers using sugar are having to move their jobs overseas. So 
this is a job issue too.
  There is a wide range of support from Members in this House and 
interest groups outside that support this bill.
  As a conservative Member of this institution, I campaigned to reduce 
the size and scope of the Federal Government. This is a type of program 
that we need to reduce the size and scope. This is a big-government 
program, and it no longer needs to exist. So I hope my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle will join with me to reduce the size and scope 
of the Federal Government and get rid of this big-government program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to rise to answer the proponent of this 
amendment, because truly we have indeed reformed the sugar program. We 
had a very highly structured sugar program. Under our proposal, which 
preserves the sugar industry of America from unfair competition by 
subsidized sugar producers around the world, we have freed up 
production. We have eliminated internal controls. What we have left is 
a 20-percent increase over what GATT required us to bring into this 
country, and we have freed up this industry to grow and develop.
  This is real reform, that preserves the jobs for thousands of 
Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], our distinguished whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong, strong opposition to this 
amendment. It would literally devastate the economic security for sugar 
beet growers in my State of Michigan. In Michigan alone, the sugar beet 
industry provides the economic lifeline to about 3,000 farmers and 
their families.
  The sugar section in the bill before us today represents a vary 
fragile compromise that was put together between processors and 
growers, and it reaches the lives of these farmers and their families 
in the balance.
  Any amendment which takes away the economic safety net of our sugar 
beet growers will disrupt this very delicate compromise that we have in 
this bill this evening. I think there is general agreement around here 
that we need to cut wasteful government spending, and I applaud those 
efforts. But the sugar program is not, and I repeat, it is not a 
handout. In fact, the committee bill will generate about $50 million 
over 7 years, which would go toward budget deficit reduction; $50 
million.
  Since 1985, the sugar program has been mandated by law to operate at 
no cost to the Government, and the sugar producers have already paid 
$137 million in special marketing assessments to help reduce the 
Federal deficit.
  This is a program that is self-sufficient, contributes to deficit 
reduction, provides economic security to our sugar farmers. It seems to 
me that this amendment is an answer in search of a problem. The program 
works, the committee bill represents a compromise, a delicate 
compromise that we can live with. Above all, it gives our sugar growers 
some economic security so they can plan for their futures and their 
families' futures as well.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker spoke of a delicate compromise? 
There is no such thing. There has not been a compromise on this bill. 
The only changes in the program, and it would be misleading for me to 
use the word 

[[Page H1469]]
reform, because it is not reform; it is changes. And the only changes 
that have occurred on this bill have been devised by the sugar beet 
lobbyists. All they have done is basically pushed the peas around on 
the plate to make mama think they are eating their vegetables.
  They call fool Members of the Congress, perhaps. They can fool 
members of their own industry. But they are not fooling the American 
consumers who will continue to pay $1.4 billion more in the price of 
sugar than they should have to pay.
  Sugar is run like a cartel. The producers, the cane and beet 
producers in this case, have a cozy deal with Congress to keep on 
overcharging the American consumers. The changes in this bill will not 
do anything to stop that.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say this: I have been on the Committee on 
Agriculture. I serve on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the 
Committee on Appropriations. I am proud to be an aggie.
  I have worked with many Representatives who have commodity programs 
in their areas, and I have seen many delicate compromises come out that 
are attached to this farm bill. But, Mr. Chairman, this is not one of 
them. This was a unilateral power play by the beet and cane producers. 
It is not reform. Let us not call it reform. At a later time I will go 
into those changes and why they are not reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] in favor of the Miller-Schumer-
Kingston amendment.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, it is critically important 
that the House vote in favor of the Dan Miller-Charles Schumer 
amendment to phase out the sugar program.
  The sugar program as it is administered today rewards the growers of 
sugar at the expense of the environment, at the expense of those who 
process the sugar, and at the expense of the consumer.
  Most importantly, the real price being paid for the sugar program is 
by the workers at American refineries that are facing serious layoffs.
  This amendment is reasonable, giving sugar growers a chance to adapt 
to the new reality that is dawning in Washington and the Nation about 
the proper role of the Federal Government.
  The sugar program keeps the price of sugar artificially high and this 
artificially high price has had a severe impact on my constituents and 
American consumers.
  As a direct result of the sugar program, the C & H Sugar Co. in 
Crockett, CA--the only west coast sugar refinery and one of the largest 
refiners in the country--has reduced its hourly employees by 42 percent 
and salaried employees by 38 percent.
  Total employment at the refinery has been reduced by 44 percent 
between 1989 and 1996--from over 1,000 employees to less than 600 
today. On the first of this year, in fact, C & H laid off 200 
employees--25 percent of its work force.
  The jobs at C & H are good jobs, paying between $13.50 and $24 per 
hour plus benefits. These are mostly union jobs. These are scarce jobs.
  The local labor unions at C & H, the ILWU Local 6 and the Sugar 
Workers Union, support the Miller/Schumer amendment. The management, 
including C & H's president who is here with us today, supports this 
amendment.
  This amendment is about the future of the jobs of these workers and 
their families and we should not abandon the opportunity to help them.
  I have heard from the beet growers and the cane sugar growers, all 
hardworking people to be sure. They complain that without the sugar 
program they will go out of business. We hear that a lot around here 
when legislation is going to the floor. But the fact is, refineries 
have already gone out of business--11 refineries have closed their 
gates over the past decade. I don't want to see C & H Sugar and its 
employees added to the list.
  The vote on the Miller-Schumer amendment will also be one of the key 
environmental votes of the year. The artificially high price of sugar 
has enabled sugar companies to keep lands in production that otherwise 
would not be profitable. In Florida, this has meant that sugar is 
competing for scarce water that is needed to save and rehabilitate the 
Everglades--a national park and a national treasure.
  On behalf of the environment and on behalf of my constituents who 
hope to retain their jobs, I urge the House to support this bipartisan 
and extremely important amendment.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Miller for 
his efforts on this issue. I must say--this is deja vu all over again. 
I remember leading this fight 10 years ago, and I hope that today we 
may finally win.
  Mr. Chairman, the era of big Government is alive and well and will be 
reinforced today if we fail to pass this important, pro-jobs, pro-
consumer amendment.
  Today we can finally begin to dismantle the monstrous machine that 
costs the American consumer more than $1.4 billion per year. While Big 
Sugar continues to preach its ``no-net-cost'' mantra, consumers go to 
the supermarket and pay more for soft drinks, for cereal and everything 
else that uses sugar.
  Supporters of the sugar program would have us believe that this farm 
bill radically reforms U.S. sugar policy. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. The bill keeps in place the Government-sponsored loan rates, 
and continues to create an artificial shortage through rigid import 
quotas.
  Mr. Chairman, let's get something straight right now. This is 
corporate welfare of the most direct kind and it is high time that this 
Republican Congress voted to stop it.
  We Republicans have always prided ourselves on fiscal conservatism 
and free market enterprise. We waited 40 years for the opportunity to 
change the way things are done in this town. If we do not pass this 
amendment, we will be supporting a program that runs counter to the 
ideas that form the bedrock of our party.
  Supporters of this corporate welfare would have us believe that 
termination will kill the small sugar farmer. Do not be deceived. This 
is about agribusinesses and their corporate welfare.
  And the numbers tell this story. A recent GAO study found that 33 
farms each received more than $1 million per year. In fact, 42 percent 
of the price subsidy went to only 1 percent of all sugar plantations.
  This bill is titled the ``Agriculture Market Transition Act.'' Are we 
operating in the free market when we artificially support the price of 
sugar? How about when we tell farmers how much they can grow and 
subsequently, how much they can earn?
  If we preserve the sugar program in this country, which, despite the 
rhetoric, the underlying bill does, thousands of men and women who work 
in sugar refineries will lose their jobs. Refiners are leaving in 
droves to countries where the price of sugar is half of what they pay 
here in their own country.
  We are making progress in other areas of this bill. We are making the 
transition to the free market in many areas. However, those traditional 
peanut and sugar programs are preserved. Why? If it is such a good idea 
for wheat and corn, why not sugar?
  It is time for us to move in a new direction, and adopt a truly free 
market for agriculture.
  Adopt the Miller-Schumer-Kingston amendment and eliminate this 
example of corporate welfare in this country.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, may I point out that the figure 
that has been touted around today and weeks before today that this 
sugar program is costing the consumers this outrageous sum of $1.4 
billion is absolutely untrue. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has 
refuted this and said it 

[[Page H1470]]
was not based upon any sound analysis whatsoever.
  Second, there has been a suggestion that the sugar program is 
environmentally harmful. Let me say that in my area, which is almost 
the total production of sugar in my State, we follow every single 
environmental rule that has been established by this Congress. Yet you 
want to eliminate the sugar program, turn it over to the foreign 
countries who heavily subsidize this industry, just because our big 
megacorporations want to buy cheap sugar.
  This vote today to eliminate the sugar program is going to eliminate 
420,000 jobs, 6,000 of which are in my district. I thought we all stood 
for jobs, American jobs; this is what this amendment is all about.
  Vote against it.
  Mr. Chairman, Friends of the Earth and 18 other organizations 
released the Green Scissors Report on February 15 recommending cuts in 
``wasteful and environmentally harmful spending and subsidies.'' I rise 
today to condemn this report's suggestion that the Sugar Program be 
eliminated.
  The report targets the Sugar Program for elimination because of so-
called ``economic and environmental grounds.'' However, the report was 
unable to list any savings, admitting that it found ``no reliable 
savings estimate.'' They couldn't find any because there is none. It 
does not cost the American taxpayer one dime.
  The Green Scissors report adds, ``the sugar program is a subsidy from 
consumers, not taxpayers.'' This allegation that the Sugar Program is a 
consumer subsidy is totally irrelevant. The Sugar Program allows 
American consumers to pay 28 percent less for their sugar in the 
grocery store than consumers in all other developed countries--28 
percent less!
  Regarding environmental concerns, accusations that the American sugar 
industry contributes significantly to global pollution are highly 
irresponsible. Our sugar industry is proud to serve as a global 
example, maintaining the highest environmental standards compared to 
our world competitors. Anyone in favor of protecting our environment 
cannot be in favor of substituting foreign-produced sugar that does not 
hold to any environmental and health standards required to American 
business, and also relies heavily on child labor.
  I maintain that the makers of the Green Scissors Report have been 
blinded, along with other Sugar Program opposition, by the big-name, 
large-corporation candy, cookie, cake, soft drink, and cereal producers 
such as Coca-Cola and Hershey. These mega-conglomerates stand to profit 
billions of dollars with the demise of the Sugar Program--savings that 
they most assuredly will not pass on to consumers through lower-priced 
candy bars or soda or cookies.
  The Green Scissors Report calls for the elimination of the Sugar 
Program without any regard for the truth.
  We need an American sugar industry. Don't vote to eliminate 420,000 
jobs.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. My State 
ranks fourth in the Nation in sugar beet acreage so you might think 
that I rise to support my State's 2,900 sugar farmers that run small 
family farms averaging 115 acres or in support of the 23,000 jobs in 
Michigan that rely on sugar. I do, but I also rise to support consumers 
in Michigan and America.
  Every day millions of Americans take advantage of sugar so cheap, 
restaurants give it away for free. In Tokyo, consumers pay over $1 a 
pound for sugar. By contrast, we pay only 39 cents a pound. American 
consumers pay the second lowest price in the world for sugar as a 
percentage of disposable income.
  The sugar reforms in this bill provide stable prices for consumers 
and freer markets. We lower the price support safety net and allow 
greater sugar imports than allowed by GATT. This means lower prices. We 
continue to operate the program at no cost to the taxpayer, and it 
contributes $288 million to deficit reduction.
  Vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, there is no one in this Chamber who 
likes to have to maintain Government programs that restrict supply or 
prices. That is not how we would like the world to be. But it is time 
to recognize that the United States is not writing all the rules. We 
can do away with this program and we can also do away with the 
thousands of jobs that are maintained because of it. And we can open up 
the floodgates and instead of those jobs by Americans producing this 
sugar, it will come from around the world.
  We have the most efficient sugar industry in the world, but we cannot 
legislate in this Chamber French subsidies or Dominican subsidies or 
Philippine subsidies. We simply have the right for unilateral surrender 
of our own industry.
  Finally, my colleagues, while I represent no sugar industry, I do 
come to this House with the voice of American foreign policy and I tell 
my colleagues this: End this program and start the Unite States being 
the world's largest importer of sugar. We will drive up the world 
price, and it will got to a lot of other countries. We will lose the 
jobs and the money and Fidel Castro's Cuba will reap the benefits by 
rising in price.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons], ranking member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means, in favor of the Miller-Schumer-Kingston amendment.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, it is way past time we got rid of the 
sugar program. I am not going to make villains out of them. They are 
fine people. They are wonderful farmers, and they are very efficient 
farmers. But their complaints that they will be overridden by 
subsidized sugar flies in the face of the fact that we have very good 
laws against subsidies that they can invoke and can put countervailing 
duties on any subsidized sugar that comes into this market.
  This distorted program has caused the distortion of the real estate 
market. It has displaced other farmers who perhaps could grow their 
crops on the same land. It has done all kinds of things to the farming 
industry. We ought to get rid of it. There is no excuses for it 
anymore. It is high time.
  I support the amendment to get rid of it.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Pombo].
  (Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding one-half 
minute to me.
  I would just like to say to a few of the previous speakers that I 
have lost sugar producers in my district. I have lost processing plants 
in my district. The threat from foreign imports is very real in my 
district. But we have not talked enough about the reforms that the 
committee has made.
  We talk about less government. It is less government. We have 
completely reformed the sugar program. It is a no-cost program to the 
American taxpayer. But it does maintain somewhat of a producer safety 
net and is more market oriented.
  Please oppose this terrible amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Miller] has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Schumer] has 7 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Kingston] has 8 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la 
Garza] has 11 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Ewing] has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the Miller-
Schumer-Kingston amendment, which is a fair compromise between those 
who want to end the sugar program within 1 year and those who advocate 
a more gradual phaseout of this program. However, one thing is clear; 
the sugar program has outlived its usefulness, and now is the time to 
bring it to an end. I ask why is the Government in the business of 
micromanaging the sugar industry?
  With the sugar program, the majority of the benefits go to the larger 
farmers. It penalizes consumers with an increased cost of $1.4 billion 
each and every year for sweetened products; and it damages the 
environment because when the Government fixes a 

[[Page H1471]]
price, this works as an incentive for farmers to cultivate more and 
more environmentally sensitive lands in Florida.
  In fact, during the 14 years that the sugar program has been in 
place, Florida's cane production has increased by 80 percent. This 
increased cane production is literally killing the Everglades.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, which is pro-
consumer, pro-environment, and pro-free market.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, the fate of hundreds of sugar beet farmers 
that I represent and hundreds of millions of workers that I represent 
turn on this debate. But it is not their interests I want to talk to 
Members about. I want to talk to Members about our balance of trade 
problem as the United States of America.
  We import more than we export to the tune of $32 billion in 1992, $73 
billion in 1993, $110 billion in 1994, and $114 billion last year. 
Sugar is one ag commodity where domestic consumption is greater than 
our production. Why in the world would we want to blow up a domestic 
program, which this amendment would do, which would destroy domestic 
production and make us import more sugar than is presently the case?
  The only thing favorable in our balance of trade is essentially 
agriculture and airplanes. Foreign countries must look at us like we 
are crazy. We look at something that contributes so positively to our 
balance of trade and we want to threaten it in the way this amendment 
does tonight.
  I urge Members to vote no.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Gillmor].
  (Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Miller-
Schumer amendment.
  The sugar compromise contained in the Agriculture Committee bill was 
meticulously crafted and gives our sugar farmers the opportunity to 
continue to compete. This is no mean feat in an international 
marketplace saturated with highly subsidized products from other 
countries. Let's face it, if this were about protecting autoworkers or 
other factory jobs, I am sure we would have a whole contingent of 
Members that would rush to support that measure. Or, it people realized 
that this program was constructed in such a way that the taxpayer 
incurred no cost and actually had their budget deficit reduced by the 
money raised under this program, another whole segment of Members would 
be supporting this program.
  However, I oppose this amendment which says to sugar beet farmers in 
Ohio and elsewhere, that its result will be to subject you to unfair, 
subsidized foreign competition. Its result will be to drive American 
producers out of business by flooding the country with subsidized 
foreign sugar at below the cost of production.
  Let me draw an analogy with another industry--automobiles. If we had 
a situation where Germany and Japan subsidized, with tax dollars, the 
manufacture of cars to the tune of thousands of dollars per car; and 
then sold those cars in America at a cheaper price than they permitted 
them to be sold in their own country; and if they could sell cars in 
America below the cost of production to drive Ford, General Motors 
[GM], and Chrysler out of business--we would say that that is grossly 
unfair and ought to be stopped.
  Yet, that is the same thing that this amendment would potentially do 
to the average American sugar beet farmer. This amendment favors 
Government subsidized foreign sugar at the expense of American jobs. I 
urge all my colleagues to oppose this ill-fated, anti-competitive 
amendment and support the committee bill.
   Mr. Chairman, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that the sugar 
program's future is being sacrificed on the altar of those folks who 
want to play scorecard bingo. Should this program go down to defeat, we 
can thank corporate giants who, unlike our sugar cane and beet growers, 
don't till the land, take out loans from nominal resources, and pray 
that some unforeseen disaster does not destroy the livelihood your farm 
had given you.
  I have seen the ads that the sugar opponents have been running. I 
believe they are as you would say, Mr. Chairman, ``factually 
challenged.'' Those advertisements amount to a solicitation for 
membership in the long dead Know Nothing Party. This amendment is not 
about opening new markets, it is about getting a handout and I regret 
that the battleground for this bill has become hardworking men and 
women, many in my own district, who pay real taxes and provide for real 
families.
  If we are to, with sincerity, make good public policy, then it is 
mandatory that emotional pleas and uninformed charges not become the 
cornerstone of legislative language. No matter how you dress it up, the 
truth is the truth. First, the sugar program operates at no cost to the 
taxpayer. Second, if you oppose the sugar program, then you are 
supposing a price of 14 cents per pound on the world sugar market, as 
opposed to the 1994 price of 39 cents per pound. However, most sugar is 
consumed as part of other products, and there is no guarantee the 
savings will be passed along to the end user. History shows us that in 
1974, when sugar prices skyrocketed without a sugar program, some 
processors raised their prices fourfold on the consumer. Yet, when 
sugar prices came down, these same processors did not institute a 
corresponding prices reduction. Fourteen cents is the price left for 
sugar that has not been purchased by contract, does not fit a 
particular need, and must be dumped. Third, the fact of the matter is 
that other countries heavily subsidize their sugar production. By 
eliminating this meager domestic support, we are asking our producers 
to fight a well-armed opponent with one hand tied behind their back. 
Our agricultural producers can compete and succeed, but they should not 
be forced to face financial suicide in a lopsided market. Fourth, we 
are killing U.S. jobs. A 1994 study has estimated that the sweetener 
industry creates 420,000 jobs, in 42 States, spawning $26.2 billion to 
the U.S. economy each year. This is not the drop in the bucket that 
some would have you believe, or ignore.
   Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to read this bill, get the facts, 
and understand on what you are voting. This should not be a novel 
concept, but in doing so, I believe you will see, as I do, that 
eliminating the sugar program, in light of the reforms this bill 
already makes to it, is born of thoughtlessness, nurtured by greed, and 
dressed in hypocrisy. I urge all my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] in favor of the Miller-Schumer-
Kingston amendment.
  (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, the 104th Congress has made getting the 
Government off people's back and out of business' way a high priority. 
Given that goal, support for the Miller-Schumer amendment is the only 
possible decision for the House this evening.
  I represent one of the largest remaining cane sugar refineries in the 
United States. The Domino refinery, a landmark in Baltimore's Inner 
Harbor, directly employs 650 workers at an average wage of $40,000. 
These are exactly the kinds of jobs we all want to preserve in this 
Nation.
  Yet, since the current Government sugar program was put in place in 
1981, 11 of 22 cane sugar refineries in this Nation have closed. And 
problems for the remaining refineries continue.
  Domino's Baltimore plant has had to shut down nine times over the 
past year because of a shortage of raw sugar supply. Each of the other 
remaining U.S. refineries has suffered similar, costly shortages. These 
problems have been caused directly by the ongoing Federal interference 
in the sugar industry.
  Over the past 15 years the sugar program has greatly aided the few 
wealthy corporations that raise sugar on huge farms and with foreign 
labor in this Nation. It has hurt the many Americans who work, or used 
to work, in domestic refineries, and it has indirectly hurt all 
American consumers.
  There are many reasons to end the sugar price support program 
tonight; 

[[Page H1472]]
saving the remaining U.S. refineries is only one. I urge my colleagues 
to support Miller-Schumer.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Baker].
  Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Illinois for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate is really unbelievable. We are standing 
here tonight saying let us cut them loose, let us cut the money off, 
let us save taxpayers some good hard-earned tax dollars. We are going 
to save them 2 cents on that candy bar. Yes, we believe that. When the 
price of sugar drops, we know the price of those candy bars and cold 
drinks are going to come plummeting.
  In the meantime we cannot figure out why Americans cannot compete. 
OSHA, IRS, EPA, name it, we have got them crawling across the farm. 
They tell you where you can plant, they tell you when you can plant, 
they tell you what you can plant. They tell you after you plant it and 
you grow it and you are successful in the hurricane or an insect does 
not eat it because you cannot get your insecticides approved by some 
EPA regulator, they tell you what you can sell it for, and then if that 
is not enough we tell you who you can sell it to.
  OK, fellow, if you want to cut us loose, set us free. Let us farm. 
Let us grow our crop. Let us be like any other business in America, 
sell where we want to for what we can get. We will not have a problem. 
Get the Government off the farm and we will make a profit. Otherwise 
leave us alone.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman].
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of the amendment 
tonight. I also want though to take a moment to correct some of the 
misstatements that were made earlier during this debate about the 
unfunded mandates bill and its application to the farm bill.
  The unfunded mandates bill is working. In this farm bill there are no 
public sector mandates. If there were, there could be a point of order 
on the floor, we can have a vote on it, and I would be the first to 
raise that point of order.
  There are private sector mandates in this bill. Private sector 
mandates under the unfunded mandate bill have to be costed out by CBO; 
the committees have to put it in the report. The Committee on 
Agriculture did that. The Committee on Agriculture therefore complied 
with the legislation. The unfunded mandates bill worked in the Telco 
bill to take out a mandate, and it is working here in the ag bill.
  I do rise today to support this amendment. I think it is time for 
Congress to phase out the sugar program, past time. I think this is a 
fair 5-year phaseout. The current program just has not worked. It has 
reduced competition, it restricted imports, and it has inflated the 
U.S. sugar prices to more than double the world price. It is time to 
make a change.
  To put it bluntly, I think the sugar program as it stands has cost 
jobs. Since 1981, when the Federal price support program for sugar was 
first enacted, half of our Nation's sugar cane refineries have been 
closed and others are shut down temporarily due to a lack of raw sugar 
supply.
  Finally, deficit hawks beware. The Federal Government is paying a lot 
more for sugar, about $90 million more a year for various Government-
assisted programs. Government interference in the sugar program in my 
view has done more harm than good. It is time to move the sugar 
industry toward the open market in an orderly manner. That is what this 
amendment does. I support it this evening.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this radical 
amendment because it will represent the death knell to 12,000 family 
farmers, including 350 in the State of Ohio, if passed, and what is 
really interesting is why would we want to be doing this when our sugar 
prices are lower than all of the other developed nations in the world 
that we do business with?
  What this is really about is, it is a fight between the farmers of 
this country who produce good quality sugar and the multinational 
corporations who want to set the price. That is what it is really 
about; it is about pitting our beef farmers in Ohio against the low-
wage, undemocratic labor down in Cuba, in China, in Brazil, every place 
else that wants to ship into this country.
  This industry is going to go the way of TV's, apparel, VCR's. It is 
all written out there. I saw the offeror of the amendment eating a 
Snickers bar, or one of those candy bars. I thought that was a bit 
ironic here as we go into this debate, because that is really what it 
is about, multinational corporations setting the price of sugar because 
they are the largest users.
  If we look at the last time that the Government got out of the 
business of regulating this industry, prices shot up, and I say to 
every homemaker in America, remember when sugar cost $3 for a 5-pound 
bag? That was the last time this kind of amendment was approved.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to rebut what my friend from Ohio has just said.
  Mr. Chairman, it is ridiculous. The GAO report has said that 42 
percent of the benefits of this program go to 1 percent of the 
producers. One guy in Florida made $65 million from this program. Then 
one of the offers that we tried to offer as a compromise was 
globalization, which would have let American refiners buy sugar on the 
open market in the world market from whoever they want to, and the beef 
farmers did not want to have anything to do with it.
  This is not a competition on an international basis. I just find all 
that actually the most slightly misinformed argument I have heard 
against the program.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would just 
point out that if the gentleman gets $65 million, it is not Government 
money.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time, and I 
only want to say to my friend from Illinois, if he is speaking, it is 
on his time.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise in strong opposition to the 
Miller-Schumer amendment. If adopted, this amendment would damage the 
sugar industry more than if the sugar program were eliminated 
altogether. It would eliminate all sugar price supports, mandate a drop 
in domestic producer prices, and increase taxes on cane and beet sugar, 
which would force American sugarcane and sugarbeet producers out of 
business and leave countless numbers of American sugar workers jobless.
  I urge my colleagues today to not be sweet talked into dismantling a 
program that has helped sugar producers compete in an international 
market for several years now. The present support level has also 
provided the opportunity for American corn growers to compete for a 
share in the sweetener industry, further benefiting the American 
consumer looking for an ample supply of sugar at a reasonable price.
  Moreover, those who say the American consumer will benefit from a 
price support reduction are giving us the sweetest talk of all. Will 
sweetener users really cut the price of their retail goods if the 
support price for sugar were to drop? I think we all know that answer. 
I urge my colleagues to maintain the current reforms as amended in this 
bill and not cripple our Nation's corn and sugar growers ability to 
compete.
  I take great pride in my voting record on small business issues. My 
rating is usually in the high-nineties, if not 100 percent. I am sad to 
see some elements of small business styling this issue a consumer 
issue. The record will show that the only time the price of sugar went 
through the roof in recent memory--that would be to the memory of 
anyone now sitting here--was twice in 1974 and 1980--when the sugar 
program lapsed. In 16 years in office I can recall no complaints about 
the price of sugar. If you want to see the price of sugar become a 
consumer issue, then destroy the sugar program, let all of those jobs 
go overseas, and see what the price of sugar will be when we are held 
hostage to overseas governments, say Cuba, and no longer have a 
domestic industry to keep the price of sugar in balance.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin].

[[Page H1473]]

  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I have to go back to the remarks of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio when she said this is an argument between 
multinational corporations and small farmers, and she is exactly 
correct. This is like David versus Goliath. The only people that are 
worried about doing away with this program are those people who make 
the biggest profit off of sugar. The producers make the least profit of 
anyone along the line when it comes to sugar.
  There is something that also has to be made very clear. We as Members 
of Congress have asked everyone in this country to do their part in 
balancing the Federal deficit, and these sugar beet farmers have given 
and given and given until it hurts. They are willing to do their part, 
but we cannot put them out of business by doing away with this program.
  The sugar program operates at no net cost to the Federal Government. 
It is not a subsidy. It provides money to the Government Treasury 
actually, and under the reform program it provides even more money to 
the Federal program.
  I urge you to vote against the amendment and for the bill.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. McCarthy], who has worked very hard on 
this amendment.
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Miller-
Schumer-Kingston amendment to phase-out the Federal sugar program in 5 
years.
  The sugar price support program is a wasteful giveaway that benefits 
only select sugar producers and results in higher prices for consumers. 
The artificially high prices drive up costs for domestic food 
manufacturers and make U.S. food producers less competitive.
  The sugar program has a direct cost to all Americans. Every time we 
go to the supermarket and buy sugar, and every time we buy products 
that are made with sugar, we pay for the sugar program. The General 
Accounting Office has estimated that the sugar program costs U.S. 
consumers at least $1.4 billion a year in increased food products.
  This amendment brings a reasonable end to the sugar price support 
program. It phases-out supports over a 5-year period, and gives 
producers who currently benefit from the program time to adjust to a 
more competitive marketplace.
  At a time when we are rethinking farm policy, it would be a mistake 
to maintain the status quo for sugar. I urge all my colleagues to 
support the Miller-Schumer-Kingston amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], a member of the committee.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  We have heard that the sugar program is corporate welfare. In fact, 
it costs taxpayers nothing. We have heard it, it is the law, it is the 
law, it does not cost the taxpayers anything. There are no subsidies 
for sugar, none.
  The program merely allows producers to be eligible for loans, and 
those loans must be repaid with interest. In fact, the sugar program 
brings in approximately $30 million a year.
  Corporate welfare, all producers can qualify. They can participate. 
In my district over 550 farmers are involved in sugar beet production. 
In fact, it is probably the largest value-added crop in the State.
  We have heard that the program costs U.S. consumers $1.4 billion in 
higher food prices each year. Food prices are not taxes. If the program 
is repealed, U.S. producers would be exposed to a highly subsidized 
world sugar market, costing the United States in the end. Our sugar 
program allows U.S. producers to compete against unfair trade practices 
and subsidies from other countries. It costs about 39 cents a pound. In 
subsidized countries it is 54 cents a pound. It truly costs consumers 
$1.4 billion, and that is about $5, $6 a year per person.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, these days it is advisable for any candidate for 
Federal office to know the price of eggs and bread and other staples at 
the supermarket. I would advise those Members who stop by their local 
supermarket to check up on those prices also to take a look at the 
ingredients in most of the products that they buy, or that any working 
family would buy. Look at catsup, cereal, bread, most processed foods. 
They all contain sugar. You are paying more for all those products 
because of this misbegotten sugar program. That is why we should phase 
it out.
  We have heard over and over again that this program is at no net cost 
to American taxpayers. American consumers, who are in fact American 
taxpayers, are paying $1.4 billion a year more at the supermarket 
because of this program, and the Federal Government is paying at least 
$90 million more per year for the sugar that it must buy. This is not a 
good bargain for us as American taxpayers or as American consumers 
because the bulk of these benefits go to a small minority of well-
placed, well-connected farmers.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller-Schumer 
amendment. While this amendment is an effort to end the sugar price 
support program and claims to take 5 years to do it, the negative 
impact on my growers in our domestic industry will be immediate. We are 
reducing the other farm price support programs because of cost. Yet, as 
many have spoken on this floor tonight, there is no cost to the sugar 
program. Let me repeat that. There is no cost to the U.S. taxpayers of 
this sugar program. In fact, year after year, it has generated money 
for our Treasury.
  By now we should all know the basics about the reasons for our 
domestic sugar program: It provides us with a stable supply at a 
reasonable price. No matter what you may hear about the so-called world 
market, our consumers pay less than most consumers throughout the world 
for sugar. Every other producing country has a sugar program. If they 
were all to be eliminated, study after study has shown that the price 
to the United States would be exactly where it is now. This amendment 
will force many of our constituents and many Americans across the 
country out of business. I strongly urge defeat of the Miller-Schumer 
amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon, Mr. Wes Cooley, a member of the committee.
  Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller-Schumer 
amendment, a bitter pill for American sugar producers to swallow. The 
European Union has announced it will continue price supports, without 
reduction, for their sugar producers.
  If the United States were to unilaterally disarm, abandon its sugar 
program, over 400,000 people would be out of work. The individuals who 
make up the sugar work force will be put at serious risk.
  Currently the European price supports are 40 percent higher than the 
United States support levels. They say they will not review this policy 
until the year 2001. Why should they? I ask my colleagues to stand up 
for free and fair trade by defeating the Miller-Schumer amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller-Schumer amendment--a 
bitter pill for American sugar producers to swallow.
  The European Union has announced it will continue price supports--
without reduction--for their sugar producers.
  If the United States were to unilaterally disarm by abandoning its 
sugar program, over 400,000 individuals which make up the U.S. sugar 
work force would be put at serious risk.
  Currently, the European price supports are 40 percent higher than the 
United States support level--and they say they will not review this 
policy until the year 2001. Why should they?
  They have already settled upon their sugar policy for the next 6 
years--a policy that creates an over-production of sugar which is then 
dumped onto the world market at prices well below the cost of 
production.
  Opponents of the sugar program will tell you that the price of sugar 
in the United States is far above the world price. However, the so-
called world price is an illusion.

[[Page H1474]]

  It is a figure which is distorted by the bloated payments foreign 
governments put in the pockets of their producers. It does not 
represent a free market.
  I believe in free trade--but it does not exist in the world sugar 
market.
  The sugar reform in the farm bill answers the critics by raising 
assessments on producers, and lowering the effective loan rate on 
sugar.
  However, the Miller-Schumer amendment will slash the loan rate to 
nearly one-third the European support price, and leave American 
producers drowning in cheap foreign sugar.
  I ask my colleagues to stand up for free and fair trade by defeating 
the Miller-Schumer amendment.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to our colleague, 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, Fidel Castro's dictatorship has just shot 
down American planes and killed American pilots. Sugar that is not 
grown under this program is going to be grown in Georgia and is going 
to find its way into the world market and into this country. How dare 
this House bring pleasure to Fidel Castro and sell Cuban sugar in the 
world market, if Americans tonight in this body kill our sugar program? 
Do not please Castro. Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] for this amendment which allows no Cuban 
sugar into America. That is sophistry and not true.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Schumer amendment. 
I think it is clear that sugar subsidies are bad for most Americans. 
Think about it. When the Government indirectly raises sugar prices to 
help sugar farmers make a living, all other Americans must pay more for 
sugar products. Most families in my district have had to deal with a 
decline in real income over the last 10 to 15 years. At the same time, 
the Government is still in the business of artificially raising prices 
on basic foods.
  The bottom line is that sugar subsidies help sugar growers, and they 
hurt everyone else that have to pay inflated prices for food. To top it 
all off, the sugar program costs money. This is a Congress that is 
going to do all kinds of things to balance the budget, and we have been 
cutting all kinds of things in this Congress. It is time to put an end 
to these subsidies. A vote for the Schumer amendment can put an end to 
one more special interest: agricultural subsidy.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho [Mr. Crapo], a member of the committee.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. Let me state one more time, because speaker after speaker 
continues to say that this is a subsidy program for sugar, the sugar 
program operates at no cost to the American taxpayer. In fact, it 
generates somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million a year in 
revenue to the Treasury.
  The fact is that this program did have marketing allotments, but the 
bill we are debating tonight removes those marketing allotments. What 
the bill did is it retained the import quotas that the sugar program 
has in effect, and that is the issue we are debating tonight. The issue 
is not subsidies, the issue is trade. The issue is whether we are going 
to let subsidized foreign sugar into the United States and stop 
protecting our producers against anticompetitive conduct by foreign 
nations. That is the issue.
  There are those who would like to bring subsidized sugar into our 
country because, in the short-term, it would benefit them and their 
particular operation. But the fact if that we all know how that works. 
If those foreign countries are allowed to subsidize their markets 
against our producers, push our producers out of business, then who can 
say that they are going to continue to keep the prices low?
  The last time we removed the sugar program, and these kinds of trade 
protections, we saw what happened. Prices shot up. Study after study 
has shown that if we let the market operate, which this bill will do, 
the price of sugar will be low. One speaker said to look in all the 
products in the stores, and there is sugar in every product. Of course, 
sugar is a very inexpensive product. In restaurants it is given away 
for free. The fact is the price of sugar is not out of line, and we 
ought to maintain our protection for American producers.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the previous speaker that the import 
quota now is 2 million metric tons. This bill lowers it to 1.5 million. 
He just proved the point why we need Miller-Schumer-Kingston.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Sanford].
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this vote is a gut check. Like few votes 
that I have seen recently, it asks us who are we and what do we really 
believe in. As Republicans, we talk about free enterprise, we talk 
about open markets. Yet, the sugar program has a guaranteed floor price 
of 23 cents. When I go to the produce store, I do not see a guaranteed 
floor price for tomatoes. When I go to the car shop, I do not see a 
guaranteed floor price for repairing the car. When I go to the hardware 
store, I do not see a guaranteed price for hammers. Yet, we are going 
to make an exception here?
  I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, many folks 
say we are for the working folks, we are for the little folks. If that 
is so, how could we possibly ask folks to pay double the price for 
sugar? A lot of folks say, ``Forget it, Mark. We are talking about 
sweet tea and we are talking pecan pies.'' That is not a lot of money. 
That is just a little bit of money.
  Yet, if you were to talk about sweet tea, especially down South, we 
are talking about a lot of sweet tea. In fact, what we are really 
talking about is principle. How can we allow big benefits to accrue to 
just a few small folks; in other words, special interests? In fact, you 
add up those sweet teas and pecan pies, you are looking at $1.4 billion 
of benefit. I think probably nothing better illustrates this problem 
than the way that this subsidy in essence flows down to one family in 
Palm Beach, $65 million a year of benefit. They are, I am sure, fine 
folks, and they are certainly good capitalists, but that is not fair. 
It does not pass the commonsense test, nor does this sugar program. I 
ask that we pass this amendment.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
opposition to the Miller-Schumer amendment. Let me immediately say that 
I take a back seat to absolutely no one in this House in the protection 
of the environment in this Nation, and especially in Florida. Neither 
does the sweetener industry in my district. They have already agreed to 
spend nearly one-half billion dollars to clean up the environment in 
the locale in which they do business.
  One other thing I want to say to my colleague, the gentleman from 
South Carolina, Mark Sanford. If there is some law against making $65 
million, then many a corporate executive ought to be put in jail, 
because a whole lot of them make a whole lot of money, and therefore, I 
do not see any prohibition.
  Large farmers mean large numbers of jobs, where I live. Forty 
thousand jobs in Florida are connected to this industry. If those jobs 
were to be lost in this era of downsizing, right-sizing, reengineering, 
temporarying, and outsourcing, somebody come tell me where they are 
going to work, because I do not know where they are going to work. That 
is a genuine concern that we all ought to have in this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask defeat of this measure, and support of jobs in 
the State of Florida.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to the Miller-
Schumer-Kingston amendment.
  The current sugar program has worked since its inception to ensure a 
steady supply of sugar at a stable price.
  The program does not cost the taxpayers anything. In fact, the USDA 
has estimated that with the interest on support loans and fees and 
duties on imported sugar, the program has actually increased Federal 
revenues.
  But aside from my belief that the current sugar program helps the 
American consumer, 

[[Page H1475]]
I oppose this amendment because there are 40,000 people in and around 
my district who depend on the sugar industry for their jobs. I will not 
watch these 40,000 jobs disappear from Florida without a fight. The 
current program has worked well--it provides a stable, inexpensive 
supply of sugar while utilizing our agricultural labor force. I do not 
want to see these jobs go overseas. Oppose the Miller-Schumer 
amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Idaho, Helen Chenoweth.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of fine speeches today about the 
free market system, but I felt it was very interesting, the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] mentioned that we cannot stand on this 
floor and dictate what kind of subsidies shall be charged out of the 
European countries. But let me tell the Members exactly how the 
European Community subsidizes this industry. America subsidizes it to 
the tune of zero dollars, Mr. Chairman. The European Community 
subsidizes it to the tune of $1.5 billion. I do not call that free 
enterprise. I call that a very uneven and tilted playing field.
  We have also heard about the fact, how sugar runs up the cost of 
retail goods. Let us just talk about where the rubber meets the road. 
The fact is, over the last 4 years, the price of sugar has dropped 6.8 
percent. Have Members heard housewives complaining about the price of 
sugar? No. I can tell you who is complaining about the price of sugar. 
It is those very same people that can afford to hire Michael Jackson as 
their poster boy.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, while retail sugar dropped 6.84 percent, the 
price of ice cream went up 7.3 percent. While sugar dropped 6.8 
percent, the price of cakes and cookies and candy went up 17 percent. 
While the price of retail sugar dropped 6.8 percent, the price of 
cereal went up 22.3 percent.
  It is not because of the sugar, Mr. Chairman, that those retail 
prices have been going up. It is because of other costs. Many of them 
have been very good, but they have been built-in mechanisms. That is 
what has caused our people to be thrown out of work.
  If you lived in Japan today, do you know what you would pay for a 
pound of sugar? You would pay $1.04 per pound. If you lived in Europe, 
you would pay 54 cents. If you lived in China, it would be 39 cents. It 
is 39 cents in America. It is not a bad deal, Mr. Chairman. Please 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our colleague, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  (Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  We hear a lot of talk tonight about this program being a subsidy 
program. Let us just talk about what this is about. This is about 
trade. We in this body, in the dead of the night, in a lame duck 
session, passed a GATT Agreement that we should not have passed. I 
opposed it all the way. But why in the world did we go over and 
negotiate that agreement, and I had an opportunity to represent this 
Congress over there, along with the ranking member, where we gave up a 
lot to come to an agreement on how much sugar we are going to let in 
this country, and then we come with a bill that will completely undo 
what we have done in that agreement?
  These European competitors are subsidizing their producers at twice 
the level that we are doing in this country. It is not a subsidy, it is 
just a floor we are putting underneath the products. That is what this 
is all about. What this amendment is going to do, if we continue this--
and this was done, by the way, last night--it is not thought out. It is 
not workable. This was just drawn up at the last minute. What this is 
going to do is force the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce the loan 
rate, which is going to force us to take these 1.23 metric tons and 
force sugar into this country, and it is going to destroy this 
industry. I urge you to oppose this amendment.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, could we get a report on how 
much time each of us has?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] has 4 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] has 4\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] has 
4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. 
Every time an American consumer purchases a bottle of Pepsi or a Coke 
or a candy bar, the big sugar producers in Florida crack a smile. And 
why should they not? The Federal sugar program inflates sugar prices to 
nearly twice the world average and cost American families $1.4 billion 
every year. This money lines the already deep pockets of huge sugar 
conglomerates at the expense of hard-working Americans.
  Many of us, when we ran for Congress, promised to work to change the 
way Washington works. I cannot think of a better example of one of 
those Federal programs that needs to be reformed and reformed 
immediately than the sugar program. The sugar subsidy encourages the 
type of overproduction that is bringing great harm to our environment. 
This amendment represents real reform by phasing out the program over 
five years, and not a moment too soon. Sugar subsidies may be a sweet 
deal for sugar growers, but they are a raw deal for consumers and for 
taxpayers.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds only to say 
to the gentleman that just preceded me that the soft-drink industry 
uses corn syrup and not only uses sugar; also to our colleague from 
South Carolina who stood here and said, your side of the aisle, your 
side of the aisle, this is not the 1-minute Democrat bashing time. This 
is very serious business for jobs in the United States of America.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. If I have time, I yield to the gentleman from South 
Carolina.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  We keep hearing the issue of no net cost. The American consumer is 
the American taxpayer. The General Accounting Office, the independent 
agency of Government, says it is $1.4 billion. The American consumer 
pays that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  First of all, I drink my coffee black, so I am a perfect neutral 
party for this particular discussion. We have heard a great deal of 
debate on the House floor about whether this helps or hurts the 
American consumer, helps or hurts the American farmer, and also where 
trade fits in here, and if my colleagues will just pay attention to the 
issue of trade for one item, the Miller amendment ensures through 
existing laws that foreign subsidized sugar will not hurt American 
producers. We have existing laws to protect those tariffs.
  No. 2, the government-subsidized loans, which is what we are talking 
about here, have been bad for consumers, bad for those jobs in the 
refining industry, and bad for family farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, the Miller-Schumer-Kingston amendment offers the only 
real reform in this good bill called the Freedom to Farm Act so that we 
can let market forces in this country decide what is best for the 
consumers. I urge a vote for the Miller-Schumer-Kingston bill.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. I think to a lot of people it is a very confusing time. It 
sounds like the Government subsidizes sugar. There is no taxpayer 
subsidy here. This is essentially a battle of economic interests. It is 
a battle that Americans ought to know about because it is either going 

[[Page H1476]]
to say we are going to err on the side of making candy and soft drinks 
cheap, and I wonder what is the national congressional policy on why we 
ought to have cheap candy in this country. The other side is you are 
going to err on the side of what we have done historically, and that is 
to support farmers.
  Now, there are different kinds of farmers in this country. It is not 
all sugar cane. We have beet growers all over this country who support 
our local economy. These people need this program. So if you are going 
to take a vote tonight, you are going to either err on the side of 
farmers and support America and support what we have been doing over 
the years, or you are going to err on the side of business that wants 
to make candy cheap. I think that you ought to err always on the side 
of the farmers. Oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller-Schumer-
Kingston amendment. This amendment will protect thousands of jobs by 
eliminating the U.S. sugar program. Continuation of the program which 
artificially doubles the price of sugar and restricts its import could 
also close the Domino Sugar refinery in my district, and I have a 
letter from the company right here stating just that. It is an 
important business. It employs 450 people in Williamsburg-Green Point, 
Brooklyn, and 150 in Manhattan, and these jobs are at risk right now.
  Domino Sugar has already had to close three plants, and a refinery 
closed four times in 1995 alone. Continuation of the sugar program 
could shut Domino Sugar Co. down permanently, putting more than 1,000 
Domino employees out of work and destroying many small neighborhood 
businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve better. They deserve 
cheaper sugar. They deserve to keep their jobs. I have here three 
editorials, national newspapers, that came out in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to our colleague, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of discussion 
about competition this evening. I think one factor that needs to be 
emphasized over and over is the fact that this new farm program bill 
opens up competition in sugar production. The allotment process has 
ended. Anyone in the United States that thinks that he or she can 
produce sugar more cheaply than his neighbor or the company in the next 
State can do so. We are not talking about a program that says this 
farmer can do certain types of sugar production, this farmer cannot. 
Anyone can get into the business. The market is open. It is free. It is 
for all.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just want a report of the time 
and see how many speakers.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] has 3 minutes 
and 15 seconds remaining, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] has 
3 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] has 2 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] has 4\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois has the right to 
close.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to our 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a discussion tonight 
about jobs, and I would say from my observation of the Republican 
primaries that I expect that Mr. Buchanan and others that are concerned 
about jobs in this country are going to be watching the result of this 
debate, because when you talk about cheap sugar you are talking about 
slave labor. You are talking about exporting jobs of Americans 
overseas. Make no mistake about it, a yes vote on this is going to be 
interpreted as being against the American worker, because when you go 
overseas to get that cheap sugar you are where there are no labor 
standards. There are no health standards. There are no environmental 
standards. There are no safety standards.
  We fought a war in this country to end slavery, and yet we are 
telling ourselves that in order to have cheaper sugar we are going to 
import slave labor sugar from people around the world who are being 
devoured by oligarchs, sugar oligarchs who have made it their business 
to destroy their people. They will destroy this country.
  Do the Members think that refineries are going to exist in this 
country when cheap sugar that is harvested by slave labor can go into a 
refinery in that country? That is what is going to happen. This is 
about jobs in this country. Urban Members of both sides of the aisle 
say that they are going to find cheaper sugar products in this country. 
Not only is that not true, but it is undercutting the people who are 
the best producers of sugar in the world. This is a jobs program. Vote 
for American workers. Vote down this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say first and foremost, if I had my way we would 
leave the no-cost sugar program alone. However, people asked for 
reform. The end product we have in the H.R. 2854, the Agricultural 
Market Transition Act, is reform. Domestic marketing allotments are 
eliminated. The loan rate will effectively be reduced. The marketing 
assessment paid by growers for deficit reduction purposes is increased 
25 percent. The foreign sugar import level is raised by 20 percent. 
Yet, the no-cost provision which has been in effect since 1985 is still 
maintained. So if reform is what you want, reform is what you got.
  Mr. Chairman, for over 150 years, sugar has been grown in the State 
of Hawaii. Sugar has played a major role in the historical, cultural, 
and economic development of Hawaii. However, the survival of sugar is 
now in question. Over the past decade, sugar production in Hawaii has 
dropped drastically. In 1986, over 1 million tons of sugar was 
produced. In 1995, the amount will be approximately 492,000 tons.
  If Hawaii sugar producers were inefficient or unproductive I could 
not support the sugar program. Yet, the data proves that the Hawaii 
yields of sugar are among the highest in the world, about 10.5 tons an 
acre in 1993. In addition, Hawaii's sugar field workers have the 
highest standard of living of any agricultural workers in the world. 
The only way the world sugar market competes with our domestic sugar 
industry is to artificially subsidize their sugar industry and to 
utilize slave labor. Foreign competitors do not have to comply with 
Federal and State standards for worker safety, wage and healthcare 
benefits, and for environmental protection. The concept of free trade 
is splendid, but for sugar it is a fantasy. One on one on a level 
playing field Hawaii sugar producers can beat anyone.
  In fact, according to a 1994 Landell Mills Commodities Studies the 
evidence reveals the United States to be the second lowest cost among 
the world's 31 major beet-producing countries, and 29th among 62 cane 
producing countries. Among the world's 13 producers of corn sweetener, 
the United States ranks as the absolute lowest cost.
  This Nation's highly efficient sugar farmers are ready, willing, and 
able to compete against foreign farmers. Until a level playing field 
exists, however, it would be a mistake to dismantle a successful sugar 
policy while other nations continue their market-distorting habits at 
America's expense.
  Mr. Chairman, during the debate someone may bring up the Sweetener 
Users' Association, which represents the big, multinational food, candy 
and soda corporations, poster child--Bob's Candy of Albany, GA. As they 
go on to say, if sugar weren't so costly in the United States, they 
could stay competitive and not be forced to move jobs overseas. It is 
the sugar, says Bob's Candy. It costs too much here in America. Bob's 
Candy is forced to move operations to Jamaica because sugar is cheaper 
there.
  Well, my colleagues, let me tell you the rest of the story.
  Could it be there are other factors that brought Bob's Candy to 
Jamaica? Like, maybe the fact that Bob doesn't have to pay his Jamaican 
employees anything near what he's paying his Georgia employees? Or 
perhaps, because there's no NLRB, no OSHA, no EPA, no Medicare payroll 
taxes to contend with in Jamaica? Could any of these factors have 
played a role in Bob's decision to locate in Jamaica--or was it just 
the price of sugar, as big sweetener users say.
  Incidentally, according to Dunn & Bradstreet, Bob's Candy is in the 
top 25 percent in terms of profitability of all American candy makers.
  Bob's Candy is simply a case of a profitable candy maker trying to 
use the sugar program as a convenient scapegoat for its decision to 

[[Page H1477]]
move good-paying American jobs overseas. And, in turn, the big 
corporate sugar users are trying to hide behind little ol' Bob's Candy 
as a vivid example why Congress should scrap the sugar program.
  Well, I don't buy it--and neither should the American public.
  Mr. Chairman and my House colleagues, support good policy, support 
American jobs, support the American economy. Vote against the Miller-
Schumer amendment: immediate disaster, disguised as transition.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  You know what is interesting about all these folks who are supporting 
all the big lobbyists interests is that they keep saying there is over 
400,000 jobs related to sugar, yet the USDA says it is only 46,000. So 
all this talk about jobs is losing me, Mr. Chairman.
  But what is wrong with working without a refinery? Mr. Chairman, 10 
years ago we had 22 refiners in America. Today we have 11. What is it 
about these people that one job is better than the other? There is room 
for compromise on this, Mr. Chairman. We need the Miller-Schumer-
Kingston amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Foley], a member of the committee.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I will show the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Kingston] this brochure. These are people that live in my district, 
white, black, Hispanic families that work and live in my district in 
the sugar industry, not poster children, not models, not phony baloney, 
real people.
  Let me tell the gentleman I oppose his amendment. After a year of 
mass mailings, after a year of editorial writing, we are here on a day 
of reform. If this Miller-Schumer-Kingston is reform, then Dr. 
Kevorkian is the attending physician. This will kill the domestic sugar 
industry.
  We talk about world price, folks. World price is based on 105,000 
pounds of sugar. My mother does not go to Winn Dixie and buy 105,000 
pounds of sugar. If it was true that you could buy it at that price, 
then we would all be buying our gas in the barrel, $17 a barrel for 
oil, would be much cheaper to fill our cars with oil by the barrel, but 
we do not do that.
  Domestic sugar is now on the world market 13 cents, 3 cents up over 
the last month and a half. Prices to refiners are up.
  Ladies and gentlemen, where was the testimony on this bill? We were 
first talking and guaranteeing the other side a vote on elimination 
February 26, dated on the Miller bill. Were there hearings? Did we go 
around the communities, as we did on the Committee on Agriculture? Did 
any Members come to Belle Glade, Clewiston, Pahokee, where I live? Did 
any Members come along with the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] 
and I to talk to the people that are going to be affected by this bill?

                              {time}  2000

  Does this Congress care about jobs in America? Do they care about the 
families in our communities, or would they rather have every other 
foreign government giving us all our good advantages and when they are 
tired of giving us their wonderful sugar at a reasonable price, this 
wonderfully low-priced sugar being debated today, when they are tired 
of doing that, they are going to say, hey, we have got a captive 
audience like we do on oil. Remember when there were lines for oil? 
Remember when there were fights in gas stations over oil?
  When the sugar cartels from the other nations you want to invite into 
this country say to you sugar is going to be a dollar a pound, $2 a 
pound, you are going to be stuck paying for it.
  You, ladies and gentlemen, then face the consumer. You, ladies and 
gentlemen, face the housewives that have to bake with these goods.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining one-half 
minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not looking for headlines. I am not looking for a 
picture on the front page of the New York Times. I am speaking about 
people, real people in my district who will be out of work, people I 
know, people I have felt the flesh, and it is no secret that, yes, I 
have sugar cane in my district.
  But we are talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, U.S.A., American jobs. 
Otherwise, without this legislation, we partition it out throughout the 
world at lower prices, mind you, lower prices, but the world will 
benefit and American jobs will suffer. U.S.A., American jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, the U.S. sugar program operates at no cost to the 
Federal Government. In fact, through the fee assessments on the 
domestic industry, sugar has contributed more than $130 million to the 
Federal Treasury since the last farm bill--and has contributed almost 
$500 million over the last 10 years through import duties, the fees, 
and interest on loans.
  The U.S. sweetener industry has a positive impact on the economy--
more than $26 billion--generating 420,000 American jobs.
  My own district in the Rio Grande Valley of south Texas is a good 
example of the contributions of the sugar industry.
  The value of the sugar cane harvest from the farms of the Lower Rio 
Grande Valley annually averages $40 million.
  In addition, the sugar cane industry generates $16 million annually 
for the valley economy in the form of payroll, local taxes paid, and 
purchases from local merchants and services. A sugar mill and a nearby 
refinery process cane and raw sugar from hundreds of farmers and 
generate hundreds of job locally.
  The average sugar cane farm in the Rio Grande Valley is just 311 
acres. These are not large corporate farms. These are small farmers who 
in 1973 formed a cooperative and built a sugar mill in Harlingen to 
process their sugar cane.
  U.S. consumers get a good deal on sugar at the supermarket. Our 
consumers currently buy refined sugar for about 39 cents a pound. By 
comparison, consumers in Tokyo pay almost 90 cents a pound while those 
in Europe pay from 50 to 70 cents. The average retail sugar price in 
developed countries last year was 54 cents--38 percent more than the 
U.S. price.
  On these purchases alone, U.S. consumers save $1.4 billion compared 
with consumers in other developed countries. Clearly, U.S. consumers 
pay a fair price for sugar.
  Sugar is an essential link in our food chain, and we need to maintain 
a viable domestic sugar producing industry, providing our consumers 
with access to a stable supply at a reasonable price.
  The sugar provisions continue the no cost program, and actually 
increase by 25 percent the level of the fees, which will generate about 
$288 million for the Treasury through 2002.
  In addition, the bill removes limits on production, removes a 
guaranteed minimum price, effectively reduces the loan rate by 1 cent, 
and ensures an increase in foreign imports.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], in a very impassioned way, 
said did we come to his district? No; we did not come to his district. 
We were not invited.
  This bill has not been given the courtesies of the beet lobbyists' 
bill, and, furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask rhetorically, did he 
come to Savannah, GA, to talk to the refiner, the people who work in 
the refinery that I represent or to the district of the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Maloney] to talk to the folks in New York, the 450 
jobs there that will be eliminated with this status quo, special-
interest bill?
  Let us look at these amendments, Mr. Chairman. One by one, we have a 
loan rate. The USDA will have a no-net-cost program. They are going to 
choke domestic supply so that there are no loan defaults. It is going 
to keep the price of sugar up. That is the situation that we are in 
under the current bill.
  This bill does not change the current law at all. We keep hearing 
about 400,000 jobs. The USDA only sends us 46,000 jobs in this beet 
industry. We keep hearing that this will eliminate jobs.
  Well, refiners have gone from 22 plants to 11 plants in the last 10 
years. It is not hypothetical about refiners losing jobs. They have 
already lost jobs.
  We keep hearing about this is not subsidized. Maybe you could say it 
is not subsidized. You certainly cannot say it is not a cartel.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a situation where these poor beet farmers, the 
wealthiest lobbyists on Capitol Hill, are in the beet, cane sugar 
industry. Every time I turn around, we see them walking the halls. We 
can hardly get by in the hall, they are walking in here with pockets 
full of money.
  Mr. Chairman, the poor beet farmers that are back home are not going 
to be put out of business by this bill. Let me 

[[Page H1478]]
tell you why and be very clear to the Members here about this: This 
bill only gets us to the conference committee so that we can work out a 
compromise. This is the only train leaving town.
  If we want to reform sugar, if we want to have a compromise, we must 
vote on Miller-Schumer-Kingston in order to get it before the 
conference committee for a compromise.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to say I think this has been an 
informed and thoughtful debate laying out two sides of the issue. My 
view is, under any reasonable and rational measure, the sugar program 
must be repealed. We all know it. The only question is whether we have 
the will to do it, the will to change. If this Congress is about 
change, then certainly this program is up for change, because it is 
truly government controls run amok.
  If the issue is jobs, we must repeal. If the issue is the 
environment, then we must repeal. If the issue is consumer, then we 
must repeal. The Miller-Schumer-Kingston amendment phases out the sugar 
program over 5 years. Our amendment does not, does not expose American 
sugar growers to unfettered competition. It does not allow any more 
imports in under GATT than are allowed today. It does not remove the 
protective import quota but only gives the Secretary flexibility in 
increasing the quota to get adequate supplies, and it does not allow a 
single bag full of sugar in from Cuba.
  Well, in 1981, if the issue was jobs, just look at this chart. Every 
refinery with a red line through it is gone. Thousands of jobs and 
good-paying jobs, $25,000, $30,000, $35,000, $40,000 a year employing 
people in our cities and our suburbs. They will all be gone if we do 
not change this bill.
  How about the environment? I heard talk from the other side that 
their proposal is proenvironmental. Then why is our bill supported by 
the Everglades Trust, the National Audubon Society, the Wilderness 
Society, and the World Wildlife Fund? Why does the Audubon Society want 
to make this one of the key environmental votes of this session?
  And finally, about the consumer, about the consumer, the sugar 
program is the poster child of corporate welfare. It is not like 
peanuts, where there are small family farmers. Most of the sugar grown 
is grown on huge plantations; 1 percent of the cane growers get 42 
percent of the subsidies. That is trickle-down if I have ever heard it. 
One Florida family, $65 million a year, paid for by the nickels and 
dimes out of the pockets of your people and mine. That is wrong.
  Ask yourself the question: Why should a family earning $30,000 a year 
subsidize a handful of sugar barons to the tune of $1.4 billion a year? 
That is wrong. We know it. We know the program should be repealed.
  Let us finally do it. Support Miller-Schumer-Kingston.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, let us make clear what exactly the sugar program is. It 
is a Government-run cartel that sets the price of sugar at 
approximately twice the world price. It does it by controlling the 
amount of supply imported into this country and how much is allowed to 
be grown in this country.
  The price of sugar is almost half the price of what it is here in the 
United States. Australia, the largest exporter of sugar in the world, 
does not subsidize sugar, and they sell it at a world price of about 12 
to 13 cents a pound. But we here in the United States, we pay 23 cents 
a pound.
  Now we talk about this as a no-net-cost program. Once again, the 
General Accounting Office, an independent agency of the Government, 
came up with a report that it cost $1.4 billion for the American 
consumer, and the American consumer is the American taxpayer. So it is 
a phony argument to say it is not a net cost to us.
  The issue of trade, now, I hear, first of all, I hear all this 
argument about Fidel Castro. I do not know what he has to do with this 
issue. People must be really concerned if they have to talk about Dr. 
Kevorkian or talking about slave labor. I mean, this is kind of a sad 
type of debate when you have to bring up those type of issues.
  Let us talk about trade. Trade is a Ways and Means issue. Trade is a 
Ways and Means issue. The trade laws are not impacted by this 
amendment. The Secretary of Agriculture has the same controls if this 
bill goes into effect as he does today.
  Now, we talk about all of this imported sugar. First of all, 
subsidized sugar is not allowed in the country, to start with. Those 
laws are there under the countervailing duty law. They are going to be 
kept out like it is today. That is a phony argument because that law is 
not being impacted by this.
  We have a crazy thing, Australia sells sugar to anybody in the world 
at 13 cents a pound. No, to the United States, we are going to pay 23 
cents. That is a subsidy to foreign sugar companies. Why are we doing 
that? GAO says it is $200 million a year of a subsidy to foreign 
countries. Why are we subsidizing their sugar?
  They are selling to everyone else in the world at half-price. That is 
how crazy this program is. Subsidized sugar is not going to be pouring 
into this country, and the Secretary of Agriculture has sent a letter 
to that effect.

  This amendment is a consensus amendment. It is a consensus of a wide 
range of groups, and a compromise. It includes the refiners, the 
environmentalists, the free market people, the anti-big government 
people, and we have conservatives and liberals on this bill. It makes 
sense. We all agree on this. It is a compromise bill. It is a 5-year 
phase-out.
  This is good for jobs. We keep hearing about jobs being lost in 
farming. That is not going to happen. We are losing jobs right now at 
sugar refineries, whether they are in New York City or Baltimore or 
Savannah, GA. Those are real jobs being lost. We are having jobs 
shipped out of this country.
  Bob's Candy, in Albany, GA, for example, the largest manufacturer of 
candy canes, has been in existence for over 70 years. When he buys 
sugar in Albany, he pays the price in the United States, 23 cents. He 
has had to ship some of his business to Jamaica, and he gets sugar 
there for 13 cents from the same place in Savannah. That is a crazy 
program. Why are we allowing that? He is having to ship his jobs in 
order to compete for the candy cane business. That is not the way the 
American system should operate.
  I urge every Member to support this amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I wish I had about a half an hour to try and dispel so much 
misinformation that has been brought forth on this floor here today.
  Let me tell you that when we tried in the speciality crop 
subcommittee to devise a reform method for the sugar program, we looked 
at it very closely, and, yes, we had a program that was rootbound like 
a plant, and we did make changes in that program.
  What we devised was a protection from foreign subsidized sugar at our 
borders. But we went beyond what GATT required us to do, and we said we 
are going to make them bring in 20 percent more than the GATT minimum, 
and we are not going to say to the beet people you can only grow so 
much, or to the sugarcane people, you can only grow so much. We opened 
the production of the American sugar industry, and I will bet you a 
dollar to a donut you are going to see the price of sugar come down 
because the American sugar industry will produce more.
  When you talk about corporate welfare, I mean, if there is any 
corporate welfare in the sugar industry, it is a piker to the rest of 
the economy, and certainly we hear opponents get up one after another 
talking about refiners. I guess that is not corporate welfare.
  We talk about supply and import restrictions. We went 20 percent over 
the GATT minimum.
  We hear about prices, and we have put the information out there. How 
many times? Even Australia, when one speaker says it is down to 12 
cents, they have a 36-cent price in Australia.
  There are a lot of different prices for sugar around the world. But 
American sugar is stable in price. The supply is stable.

                              {time}  2015

  The quality is excellent. What we have done is reformed the internal 
part of our sugar program and protected ourselves within the GATT 
treaty, within the new World Treaty Organization, from unfair 
competition.
  Vote no on this amendment. Save jobs for thousands of beet and sugar 
farmers around this country.

[[Page H1479]]

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to speak 
against the Miller-Schumer amendment to eliminate the sugar program. 
This amendment will ensure the death of the sugar industry in the 
United States for no apparent gain. Consumers will not benefit, hard-
working people will lose their jobs, and family farmers will go out of 
business.
  In North Dakota and virtually all of the sugar industry is made up of 
hard-working family farmers. In my State these farmers have banded 
together to grow, process, refine, and market a product that can 
compete with any in the world. They cannot, however, compete with the 
governments of the European Union which spend over $2 billion annually 
subsidizing their sugar industry.
  The sugar program has provided stability to domestic consumers. In 
fact, American consumers have seen sugar prices drop 7 percent in the 
last 5 years. American consumers currently pay 28 percent less on 
average than consumers in other developed countries. By comparison the 
United States retail price for sugar is 39 cents a pound compared to 68 
cents in France.
  The American sugar industry is also a huge employer. Over 420,000 
people per year work in the sugar industry, resulting in $26.2 billion 
in economic activity. The fact of the matter is that the sugar program 
is good for consumers and good for jobs.
  The sugar program contained in the House bill is the simplest, most 
market-oriented program in history. The new reforms contained in the 
bill open the United States market to 20 percent more foreign sugar 
than currently allowed. Marketing allotments are abolished, releasing 
the U.S. sugar market from Government control. Finally, the marketing 
assessments in this bill will actually generate revenues of at least 
$40 million per year for deficit reduction. This is responsible reform 
that still protects both the American consumer and the American farmer.
  The sponsors of this amendment want to ignore the reforms that have 
already been made and instead seek to cripple the domestic sugar 
industry, throw hard-working, innovative farmers out of business and 
flood the U.S. market with foreign sugar, increasing our trade deficit. 
They suggest that consumers will benefit from this action. The fact is 
that the consumer will not benefit unless the price of candy, pop, and 
cereal decreases as a result of the elimination of this program. This 
is pure pie in the sky given the small cost of the sugar contained in 
those products. More likely, sugar users will continue to exploit 
instability in the sugar markets to raise prices on sweetened goods 
even higher.
  If you care about American jobs. If you care about American sugar 
producers, processors, users, and consumers vote no on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208, 
noes 217, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 35]

                               AYES--208

     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clement
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Olver
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Studds
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--217

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     King
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McKeon
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Minge
     Mink
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rose
     Roth
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Sisisky
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Collins (IL)
     Furse
     McKinney
     Mollohan
     Stokes

                              {time}  2033

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Ms. Furse against.

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed 
in House Report 104-463.


                    amendment offered by mr. solomon

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
       Strike title II (page 81, line 5, through page 118, line 
     17) and insert the following:

                            TITLE II--DAIRY

     SEC. 201. MILK PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAM.

       (a) Support Activities.--During the period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act and ending December 31, 
     2000, the Secretary of Agriculture shall support the price of 
     milk produced in the 48 contiguous States through the 
     purchase of cheese, butter, and nonfat dry milk produced from 
     the milk.
     
[[Page H1480]]

       (b) Rate.--The price of milk shall be supported at the 
     following rates per hundredweight for milk containing 3.67 
     percent butterfat:
       (1) During calendar year 1996, $10.15.
       (2) During calendar year 1997, $10.05.
       (3) During calendar year 1998, $9.95.
       (4) During calendar year 1999, $9.85.
       (5) During calendar year 2000, $9.75.
       (c) Bid Prices.--The support purchase prices under this 
     section for each of the products of milk (butter, cheese, and 
     nonfat dry milk) announced by the Secretary shall be the same 
     for all of that product sold by persons offering to sell the 
     product to the Secretary. The purchase prices shall be 
     sufficient to enable plants of average efficiency to pay 
     producers, on average, a price that is not less than the rate 
     of price support for milk in effect under subsection (b).
       (d) Special Rule for Butter and Nonfat Dry Milk.--
       (1) Allocation of purchase prices.--The Secretary may 
     allocate the rate of price support between the purchase 
     prices for nonfat dry milk and butter in a manner that will 
     result in the lowest level of expenditures by the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation or achieve such other objectives as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate. The Secretary shall notify 
     the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate of the allocation.
       (2) Timing of purchase price adjustments.--The Secretary 
     may make any such adjustments in the purchase prices for 
     nonfat dry milk and butter the Secretary considers to be 
     necessary not more than twice in each calendar year.
       (e) Refunds of 1995 and 1996 Assessments.--
       (1) Refund required.--The Secretary shall provide for a 
     refund of the entire reduction required under section 
     204(h)(2) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 
     1446e(h)(2)), as in effect on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, in the price of milk received by a 
     producer during calendar year 1995 or 1996, if the producer 
     provides evidence that the producer did not increase 
     marketings in calendar year 1995 or 1996 when compared to 
     calendar year 1994 or 1995, respectively.
       (2) Exception.--This subsection shall not apply with 
     respect to a producer for a particular calendar year if the 
     producer has already received a refund under section 204(h) 
     of the Agricultural Act of 1949 for the same fiscal year 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Treatment of refund.--A refund under this subsection 
     shall not be considered as any type of price support or 
     payment for purposes of sections 1211 and 1221 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811 and 3821).
       (f) Commodity Credit Corporation.--The Secretary shall 
     carry out the program authorized by this section through the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation.
       (g) Period of Effectiveness.--This section shall be 
     effective only during the period beginning on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2000. The 
     program authorized by this section shall terminate on 
     December 31, 2000, and shall be considered to have expired 
     notwithstanding section 257 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 907).

     SEC. 202. CONSOLIDATION AND REFORM OF FEDERAL MILK MARKETING 
                   ORDERS.

       (a) Amendment of Orders.--As soon as practicable after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall amend 
     Federal milk marketing orders issued under section 8c of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with 
     amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 
     1937, to--
       (1) limit the number of Federal milk marketing orders to 
     between 10 and 14 orders; and
       (2) provide for multiple basing points for the pricing of 
     milk.
       (b) Expedited Process.--Using the rule making procedures 
     provided in section 553 of title 5, United States Code, the 
     Secretary shall--
       (1) announce the amendments required under subsection (a) 
     not later than December 31, 1998; and
       (2) implement the amendments not later than December 31, 
     2000.
       (c) Funding.--Effective beginning January 1, 2001, the 
     Secretary shall not use any funds to administer more than 14 
     Federal milk marketing orders.
       (d) Study Regarding Further Reforms.--Not later than 
     January 1, 1998, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to 
     Congress a report--
       (1) reviewing the Federal milk marketing order system 
     established pursuant to section 8c of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with amendments by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, in light of 
     the reforms required by subsection (a); and
       (2) containing such recommendations as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate for further improvements and reforms to 
     the Federal milk marketing order system.

     SEC. 203. DAIRY EXPORT INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Duration.--Section 153(a) of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14) is amended by striking ``2001'' and 
     inserting ``2002''.
       (b) Sole Discretion.--Section 153(b) of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 is amended by inserting ``sole'' before 
     ``discretion''.
       (c) Elements of Program.--Section 153(c) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) the maximum volume of dairy product exports allowable 
     consistent with the obligations of the United States as a 
     member of the World Trade Organization is exported under the 
     program each year (minus the volume sold under section 1163 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-198; 7 U.S.C. 
     1731 note) during that year), except to the extent that the 
     export of such a volume under the program would, in the 
     judgment of the Secretary, exceed the limitations on the 
     value set forth in subsection (f); and
       ``(4) payments may be made under the program for exports to 
     any destination in the world for the purpose of market 
     development, except a destination in a country with respect 
     to which shipments from the United States are otherwise 
     restricted by law.''.
       (d) Market Development.--Section 153(e)(1) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' and inserting ``the''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period the following: ``, and 
     any additional amount that may be required to assist in the 
     development of world markets for United States dairy 
     products''.
       (e) Maximum Allowable Amounts.--Section 153 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Required Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation shall in each year use money and 
     commodities for the program under this section in the maximum 
     amount consistent with the obligations of the United States 
     as a member of the World Trade Organization, minus the amount 
     expended under section 1163 of the Food Security Act of 1985 
     (Public Law 99-198; 7 U.S.C. 1731 note) during that year.
       ``(2) Volume limitations.--The Commodity Credit Corporation 
     may not exceed the limitations specified in subsection (c)(3) 
     on the volume of allowable dairy product exports.''.

     SEC. 204. EFFECT ON FLUID MILK STANDARDS IN THE STATE OF 
                   CALIFORNIA.

       Nothing in this Act or any other provision of law shall be 
     construed to preempt, prohibit or otherwise limit the 
     authority of the State of California, directly or indirectly, 
     to establish or continue in effect any law, regulation or 
     requirement regarding--
       (1) the percentage of milk solids or solids not fat in 
     fluid milk products sold at retail or marketed in the State 
     of California; or
       (2) the labeling of such fluid milk products with regard to 
     milk solids or solids not fat.

     SEC. 205. REPEAL OF MILK MANUFACTURING MARKETING ADJUSTMENT.

       Section 102 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1446e-1) is repealed.

     SEC. 206. PROMOTION.

       (a) Congressional Purpose.--Section 1999B(a) of the Fluid 
     Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6401(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6), (7) and (8) as 
     paragraphs (7), (8) and (9), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) the congressional purpose underlying this subtitle is 
     to maintain and expand markets for fluid milk products, not 
     to maintain or expand any processor's share of those markets 
     and that the subtitle does not prohibit or restrict 
     individual advertising or promotion of fluid milk products 
     since the programs created and funded by this subtitle are 
     not intended to replace individual advertising and promotion 
     efforts;''.
       (b) Congressional Policy.--Section 1999B(b) of the Fluid 
     Milk Promotion Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6401(b)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Policy.--It is declared to be the policy of Congress 
     that it is in the public interest to authorize the 
     establishment, through the exercise of powers provided in 
     this subtitle, of an orderly procedure for developing, 
     financing, through adequate assessments on fluid milk 
     products produced in the United States and carrying out an 
     effective, continuous, and coordinated program of promotion, 
     research, and consumer information designed to strengthen the 
     position of the dairy industry in the marketplace and 
     maintain and expand domestic and foreign markets and uses for 
     fluid milk products, the purpose of which is not to compete 
     with or replace individual advertising or promotion efforts 
     designed to promote individual brand name or trade name fluid 
     milk products, but rather to maintain and expand the markets 
     for all fluid milk products, with the goal and purpose of 
     this subtitle being a national governmental goal that 
     authorizes and funds programs that result in government 
     speech promoting government objectives.''.
       (c) Research.--Section 1999C(6) of the Fluid Milk Promotion 
     Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6402(6)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(6) Research.--The term `research' means market research 
     to support advertising and promotion efforts, including 
     educational activities, research directed to product 
     characteristics, product development, including new products 
     or improved technology in production, manufacturing or 
     processing of milk and the products of milk.''.
     
[[Page H1481]]

       (d) Voting.--(1) Section 1999N(b)(2) of the Fluid Milk 
     Promotion Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6413(b)(2)) is amended by 
     striking ``all processors'' and inserting ``fluid milk 
     processors voting in the referendum''.
       (2) Section 1999O(c) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 6414(c)) is 
     amended by striking ``all processors'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``fluid milk processors voting in the 
     referendum''.
       (e) Duration.--Section 1999O(a) of the Fluid Milk Promotion 
     Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6414(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``1996'' and inserting ``2002''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] and a Member opposed, each will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the time 
for managing the debate in opposition to the Solomon amendment and the 
responsibility for allocation of that time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kansas?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are called upon to consider real reform of the 
Federal dairy program. We all need to know we have a farm bill, 
especially one that can pass and get to the President to get his 
signature. Solomon-Dooley represents the Lugar-Leahy compromise which 
is acceptable to the Senate and acceptable to the President of the 
United States.
  Let us clear up one misconception right up front, the Gunderson plan 
in the dairy bill as it stands now is not deregulation, it is more 
regulation.
  The Solomon-Dooley-Lugar-Leahy amendment will get the Federal 
Government out of the dairy price support business in 5 years. No more 
government subsidies of the dairy industry. Solomon-Dooley accomplishes 
this reform while preserving the Federal milk marketing order system 
which is so badly needed to give price stability to dairy farmers and 
consumers at no cost to the taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, in our bill, in our substitute, we require the 
consolidation of milk marketing orders to no more than 14 orders over 
the next 5 years. But that gives the farmers of this Nation time to do 
what is so vitally necessary today.

  Solomon-Dooley also does not add extra solids into milk. Think about 
that. You do not want extra solids in your milk. You do not want that 
mandated down your throat, unlike the Gunderson bill. We do allow 
California to keep its existing standards if they see fit to do so.
  In my hand I have a letter from Senator Lugar, the chief Senate 
conferee on agriculture, who says he and his Senate colleagues will not 
accept the flooring of milk prices or the higher milk solid standards 
in this bill. We need a bill the President will sign. If Senator Lugar 
pulls the price floor or the California milk standards out of this bill 
as he intends to do, not only do our small dairy farmers not gain as 
much but they will also suffer terrible losses inflicted by other 
income redistribution schemes in this bill.
  The only other alternative in conference would be to do nothing, 
which means there would be no bill language on dairy. And we all would 
have to revisit this dairy issue sometime later on. We do not want 
that. We need a bill now.
  The Solomon-Dooley plan saves more taxpayer and consumer dollars than 
the Gunderson plan does. Even though the Congressional Budget Office 
scores the Gunderson language as saving $770 million versus the Solomon 
plan, CBO and the Department of Agriculture have analyzed, and you all 
should listen to this, especially on the other side of the aisle, the 
secondary effects of the Gunderson plan compared to Solomon-Dooley.
  They compare the real spending impacts of both plans on Federal 
spending programs. According to the Department of Agriculture, the 
Gunderson plan would add $1 billion to the cost of nutrition programs, 
$1 billion. CBO estimates that the added cost to the food stamp program 
alone would add half a billion dollars in Federal spending paid for by 
the taxpayers. We have not got that money. The impact would also 
adversely affect the school lunch program and WIC, knocking off, listen 
to this, according to Secretary of Agriculture Glickman, knocking off 
as many as 200,000 families out of the WIC Program.

                              {time}  2045

  In other words, when we look at the whole picture, and that is the 
honest way to this tonight, the Solomon-Dooley substitute ends up still 
saving $350 million, and that is not including the increased costs 
passed on to the consumers through higher milk prices, estimated to be 
as high as 20 to 40 cents a gallon in the grocery store. We better 
think about that when we vote on this amendment.
  Solomon-Dooley has the support of a broad coalition of dairy farmers, 
consumers, all the taxpayer groups. Most of them are using this as a 
key vote.
  Support dairy farmers, consumers, and taxpayers. Vote for the 
Solomon-Dooley amendment, and do it for the American small dairy farmer 
in this Nation and the consumer.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 
minutes of my time for purposes of control to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, Members, tonight we bring forth a comprehensive, the 
most comprehensive, reform of the dairy program in 45 years. We bring 
it forth on a bipartisan basis, and we bring it forth as a national 
compromise.
  I find it rather fascinating. The gentleman from New York was 
complaining about some of the elements of the compromise that were the 
exact elements of the compromise that he asked for earlier in these 
negotiations, but I guess accuracy does not have a lot to do with what 
we are dealing with tonight here anyway.
  Let us look at facts, if we can, for just a second. We want to talk 
about who saves the taxpayers more. CBO says we save the taxpayers 
more, we save $770 million versus only $350 million to CCC under their 
program. That is over $400 million more that we save than they do.
  Second, which one does more for dairy farmer income? Let us take a 
look. Again CBO, USDA numbers. What are they? We increased dairy 
farmers' income over 7 years by $3.4 billion. The Solomon amendment 
cuts those same New York dairy farmers he is trying to save, it cuts 
their income by $4 billion over that same 7-year period; not our 
numbers, USDA numbers.
  We really want to know why we are here tonight. The gentleman from 
New York, [Mr. Solomon] has the interests of the dairy farmer at heart. 
There is no debate about that. The reason we are here tonight, my 
colleagues, is this chart. Take a look at what the retail price of milk 
is, and then take a look at what percentage of that the farmer gets.
  Do we want to know why there is a multimillion-dollar campaign being 
run by the large corporate dairy lobbyists in this country trying to 
change exactly what we are dealing with here tonight? It is because 
they want the profits, and they want the profits for themselves.
  Many of us have seen this little old graph, you have seen this 
advertisement in every newspaper across the country wherever they could 
find enough money to print it. Well, I want my colleagues to take a 
good look at this chart, take a real good look, because I want to tell 
how accurate it is. It is a bunch of lies, they know it is a bunch of 
lies that has been corrected by CBO, it has been corrected by USDA, it 
has been corrected by CRS. Does anyone want to know why?
  Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to know about this rotten bunch of 
junk that is being circulated against us tonight. The fact is that 
instead of a 20 percent increase in milk, we are only looking at a 3.7 
percent increase. Instead of a 12 percent increase in ice cream, we are 
looking at a 1 percent. 

[[Page H1482]]
They say that butter is going to go up 21 percent. USDA says it is 
going to go nowhere, it is going to stay where it is, and cheese is 
actually going to go down.
  So if we want real comprehensive pricing reform, if we want to 
prepare the dairy industry for the international export market, if we 
really want to make a consolidation of orders, if you want to protect 
the taxpayer and protect the consumer and protect the farmer at the 
same time, we will do what the American farm bureau asks us to do; that 
is, vote against the Solomon amendment and stick with the committee 
bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dooley], the other half of this bipartisan 
cosponsorship of our amendment.
  (Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think that all of the Members of this 
delegation, of this body, realize that the idea behind freedom to farm 
is to move to a more market-oriented system.
  The proposal that Mr. Solomon and I are introducing today is a 
proposal that does, in fact, move the dairy industry to a more market-
oriented system. If we look at it in contrast to the Gunderson 
proposal, we are setting up even more regulation under the Gunderson 
proposal. We set up a class 1 pool, we set up a class 4 pool, we set up 
a minimum price on fluid milk, we have set up national standards on 
solids. That is nothing that has anything to do with market 
orientation.
  What Mr. Solomon and I are proposing is a transition away from the 
current government programs that has a methodical transition in 
reducing the support price on butter, powder, and cheese over the next 
5 years. Under the Gunderson proposal, they take an approach which is 
going to cause distortions in the marketplace, because what do they do? 
They immediately eliminate the support price on butter and powder, but 
they maintain it on cheese. The private sector is going to respond, 
dairy producers are going to respond, processors are going to respond 
because they are going to move the product that is currently going into 
butter and powder into cheese. This creates a distortion in the 
marketplace that is going to be predicated on unsound principles that 
are part of the Gunderson proposal.
  What the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and I are offering is 
a measure that will do more also for consumers. I do not think anyone 
here can argue that some of the figures that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] was just bringing up that is going to 
increase dairy farm income is coming out of the pockets of consumers 
and taxpayers. If we are moving to a more market-oriented system, 
producers should be deriving their income not from the government, but 
from what the marketplace will offer them, and that is precisely what 
we are trying to provide.
  This amendment also is one which has been identified by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to increase because it lowers a part, would 
increase the ability of U.S. dairy products to compete in world 
markets.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Chairman Gunderson, said, we do have a bipartisan bill here 
that we have worked out on a long-time basis. Steve Gunderson and I and 
others in the committee traveled this country for the last 2 years 
trying to put this thing together. We have huge regional fights within 
this industry, and we have an opportunity finally with this compromise 
to end those fights and put this industry on a more level playing 
field, to move us to a more market-oriented policy, and if there was 
any other easy solution, we would have come up with that solution 
during that 2-year period of time. We have been on every side of this 
issue, we have had the whole industry against us as we tried to do 
this, and this is a true compromise that will get us in the direction 
we need to go.
  And the reason that we need this is that we have a lot of dairy 
producers in this country that are in big trouble. In our State we are 
losing three dairy farmers a day, and that is not because they are 
getting too much money for their milk. The fact of the matter is they 
are getting too little money for their milk, and this bill does 
increase their income, and it should increase their income, but it does 
it in a reasonable way that will be able to be dealt with in the 
marketplace.
  We need to be clear about some of the people that are up arguing in 
favor of a more market-oriented plan. One of the gentlemen here from 
the State of California, they have a quota system. They have a system 
that is way away from the market, and then they stand up and have the 
gall to argue that we should move to a more market-oriented plan.
  In our plan we tried to take the special concerns of California into 
account. I think we did that. I think we came up with a system where we 
can bring them in and put all of us on a level playing field. And now 
they come in around the back door.
  Mr. Chairman, this compromise gets rid of a lot of these regional 
inequities that we have been dealing with over the last number of 
years. We are seeing the industry shift out of the Midwest into places 
like California because we had a system that is not fair, that has been 
the government skewing this and moving the industry because of an 
unlevel playing field, because of a system that was set up in 1985 as 
some people in this Congress and a back-room deal that got us into this 
mess, and this is the way out of it.
  So please reject the Solomon amendment and support the committee 
compromise.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations and one of the most outstanding Members of 
this body.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the approximately 450 
farms in my district, with the approximate rate of 70 cows per farm, 
who are not worried about getting rich, they are just interested in 
staying alive, I rise in strong support of the Solomon-Dooley dairy 
substitute.
  The initial savings that the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed to may 
have been the story as of maybe some time ago, but the rest of the 
story is that there are hidden costs.
  By letter of February 27, 1996, just yesterday, CBO says that the 
dairy provisions of the committee bill increased food stamp outlays by 
$430 million. USDA, another letter of the same date, yesterday, says 
the dairy provisions of the committee bill increased the cost of food 
assistance programs like WIC by an estimated $1 billion for fiscal 
years 1997 through the year 2002. These costs were not subtracted when 
CBO initially scored the committee dairy proposal as achieving the $770 
million in savings, and it means that once the hidden costs are 
appropriated that we will actually either have to cut appropriations 
for those programs or others, or else cut services, or possibly even 
appropriate $100 million more just to maintain current services for WIC 
in fiscal year 1997.
  Now, to my southerners, I have to say the small dairy farmers are 
supporting the Solomon-Dooley amendment. They know the committee's 
proposal for a floor price for milk is just a narcotic. The small 
farmers know the floor price on milk is totally unacceptable to the 
Senate. Consumer groups, food dealer and manufacture organization, to 
taxpayers, and to conservative organizations like Heritage. State farm 
bureaus, the Small Dairy Farmers for the Southeast knew this when it 
was first proposed last December, they know it today. I have a long 
list of groups that support the Solomon-Dooley proposal, and I would 
incorporate that for the record and ask my friend from New York to 
circulate it around because there are lots and lots of organizations 
that know that unless this amendment passes the small dairy farmer is 
gone.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert the following ``Dear Colleague'' 
correspondence:

       Dear Colleague: 
       Dairy producers, free market groups, consumer groups all 
     agree, Solomon/Dooley is the only choice.
       Solomon/Dooley: Does not raise consumer prices; phases out 
     the price support in five 

[[Page H1483]]
     years; Eliminates the assessment dairy farmers pay; maintains the 
     viability of our nation's dairy farmers; and promotes dairy 
     farmer exports
       Dairy producer/farm groups support Solomon/Dooley: Alabama 
     Farmers Association; New York State Department of Agriculture 
     and Markets; Louisiana Farm Bureau; New York State Farm 
     Bureau; Tampa Independent Dairy Farmers Association; 
     Carolina/Virginia Milk Producers Association; Florida Dairy 
     Farmers Association; Georgia Milk Producers; California Milk 
     Producers; The Alliance of Western Milk Producers; Dairyman's 
     Cooperative Creamery; Danish Creamery; San Joaquin Dairymen; 
     Niagara Milk Cooperative; and Upstate Milk Cooperative.
       Free Market Groups Support Solomon/Dooley: Americans for 
     Tax Reform; Small Business Survival Committee; John 
     Frydenlund, Heritage Foundation; and Association of Concerned 
     Taxpayers.
       Consumer Groups Support Solomon/Dooley: Public Voice; 
     Community Nutrition Institute; Consumers Union; Center for 
     Science in the Public Interest; and Consumer Alert.
       Gunderson equals more Government, higher consumer prices; 
     Solomon equals pro-market reform that's pro-dairy farmer.
       There is only one choice: Support the Solomon/Dooley 
     amendment.

  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].
  (Mr. POMBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2854 and 
especially the dairy title. I am the first person to say that this 
dairy provision is not perfect; however, the Committee on Agriculture 
language is better than any other proposal we have seen in recent years 
and is certainly better than anything we will be voting on here 
tonight.
  It is unfortunate that there has been such a high level of confusion 
and misinformation over this subject. The bottom line, however, is 
easy. The Committee on Agriculture language saves the taxpayer $770 
million, which is about $420 million more than it does the Solomon-
Dooley amendment. At the same time the committee language, according to 
USDA, puts an additional $90 million in the pockets of California's 
dairy producers during the transition period, while the Solomon-Dooley 
amendment would cost the dairymen of my State $42.5 million. The 
Solomon-Dooley amendment would be a disaster for the American dairy 
farmer raising the average price for dairy farmers by 30 cents a 
hundredweight. While the dairy title would see a rise in 23 cents a 
hundredweight, the dairy title establishes a 2-year transition period 
during which the Department of Agriculture will develop and implement a 
reform dairy program. Should the dairymen of any order, including 
California, decide that they choose not to become a part of the Federal 
program as designed by USDA, then they have the right to vote 
themselves out. California could, if it chose, opt out of the Federal 
system and simply maintain the current system as they have now.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], another valuable member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. SKEEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Solomon 
amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from western New York, Mr. Bill Paxon, another hardworking 
member of this committee.
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Solomon-
Dooley amendment. Over the past year I have worked closely with 
Chairman Solomon on the dairy issue, and I want to thank him for his 
efforts on behalf of both consumers and dairy farmers, and for his 
leadership in crafting what is today a true compromise. The Solomon 
approach is a balanced plan that does not hurt dairy farmers and does 
not hurt consumers. That is why diary farmers, free-market groups, and 
consumer groups have all come together in support of the Solomon-Dooley 
approach, this amendment.
  This amendment has the support of the following farm and dairy farm 
organizations; the Alabama Farmers Association, the Louisiana Farm 
Bureau, the New York State Farm Bureau, the Florida Dairy Farmers 
Association, the Carolina-Virginia Milk Producers, the Alliance of 
Western Milk Producers, and the California Milk Producers. These farm 
groups and others realize that the Gunderson proposal is in fact a 
house of cards that will ultimately hurt both dairy farmers and 
consumers despite its lofty promises.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, the Gunderson proposal in the farm bill is not 
the deregulation proposal he made last November. This bill proposes to 
mandate the addition of solids in fluid milk nationwide and increase 
the class I support level. What does that mean? Consumer prices go up. 
This is more regulation and Government intervention, not less. 
Manufacturing groups, small business groups, free-market groups, 
consumer groups, all oppose these dairy provisions.
  Again, this Gunderson proposal is not the deregulation proposal 
offered in November. It is the Solomon-Dooley amendment that has the 
support of free-market and consumer groups from all across the 
political spectrum. It has, for example, the support of Americans for 
Tax Reform, the Association of Concerned Taxpayers, Public Voice, 
Consumers Union, and Consumer Alert. Solomon-Dooley is a bipartisan, 
profarmer, promarket, proconsumer amendment. I urge Members to support 
the Solomon-Dooley amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this farm bill is the worst agriculture bill 
in the last 30 years, and the Solomon amendment makes it worse, for two 
reasons. First of all, if you vote for the Solomon amendment, you are 
going to add $7 billion in financial burdens to farmers, and you are 
going to add a $400,000,000 cost to the taxpayers. The amendment is a 
wondrous gift to the biggest processors in this country at the expense 
of dirt farmers.
  Second, since 1934, under the ridiculous milk-marketing order system 
this country now has, if you are a farmer living in Florida, you get $3 
more for every 100 pounds of milk you produce than if you live in the 
upper Midwest. That whole milk-marketing order system ought to be 
scrapped. The committee bill tries to do that in 2 years. It does not 
get there, but it at least tries.
  The Solomon amendment continues this ridiculous system for an 
additional 2 years. That alone is reason enough to vote against it. If 
you believe in the dignity of work, I dare you to look a Midwestern 
farmer in the eye and tell him that the dignity of his work is worth 30 
percent less than the dignity of the work of another farmer simply 
because of where he lives. There is no reason in terms of fairness to 
vote for the Solomon amendment. Vote against the amendment, and then 
vote against the bill itself. They are both turkeys.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Towns]. We just heard from a Democrat from 
Wisconsin. Let us hear from a Democrat from New York.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon-Dooley 
substitute. This substitute will not, and I repeat, will not increase 
consumer costs or add unnecessary regulations on the dairy industry. 
During a time when entitlements such as food stamps and other child 
nutrition programs are being cut back and streamlined, it appears only 
logical that the Solomon-Dooley substitute would be adopted.
  Unlike the committee's dairy provisions, the substitute will not 
increase dairy product costs. In fact, it will save $350 million, and 
will not require milk solids to be added to fresh milk. Parents and 
children who depend on WIC and school lunches should not have to be 
concerned about the freshness of milk or its increased cost. I urge my 
colleagues to support this sensible amendment. Do not listen to the 
numbers that they are just grabbing out of the air. This is a cost-
saving amendment and is the right thing to do.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. One thing we cannot 
forget in the debate over dairy is that American dairy farmers are 
ready and willing to fight for a bigger share of 

[[Page H1484]]
international markets. This bill gives them the immediate tools to do 
that. This compromise immediately removes butter and nonfat dry milk 
from price supports. Removing these supports will free dairy farmers to 
take advantage of growing overseas markets. Currently, butter and 
nonfat dry milk markets are strong and growing, and our dairy farmers 
are ready to compete. I have heard from farmers in Michigan and they 
are ready to go. However, retaining domestic price supports, as the 
Solomon amendment does, would allow foreign competitors to undercut 
American dairy farmers in international markets. The 5-year phaseout of 
these price supports in the Solomon amendment would only hold them 
back. I urge opposition to the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I would say, to the contrary, the Solomon 
amendment fully funds the incentive program for export in this bill, 
according to the Secretary of Agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Charlie Norwood.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, we continue to hear how Wisconsin dairy farmers got a 
raw deal back in the 1985 farm bill, and how dairy farmers in other 
parts of the country are doing better at their expense.
  Well, we need to take a look at the facts. The Department of 
Agriculture statistics on dairy farmers take-home pay show that 
Wisconsin farmers are doing better than the majority of farmers in the 
rest of the country.
  Now we are being asked to take the income of those other dairy 
farmers across America and transfer it to dairy farmers in Wisconsin 
through pooling profits in fluid milk.
  That's not only wrong, but it would be disaster for many small family 
farms. The amount of income-transfer called for in the House dairy 
title is larger than the total profit margins of many of those small 
farmers, and would flat put them out of business.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue points out far too well what happens when 
the Federal Government starts tampering with the economy. We end up 
with Americans pitted against each other in the fight over who benefits 
most from the largesse and special advantages granted by Washington. We 
cannot change these systems overnite, but it is high time we got 
started.
  We need to stop playing Big Brother by taking money out of one 
farmer's pocket and putting it in another's. Karl Marx would have been 
mighty proud of that concept.
  There is a reasonable alternative to this problem of fluid milk 
profits, that has the support of Members on both sides of the aisle.
  The Solomon-Dooley dairy substitute amendment addresses the fluid 
milk issues in the dairy title in a way that is fair to the whole 
country.
  I urge you to support fair play for dairy farmers in all 50 States by 
voting for the Solomon-Dooley amendment.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take just a minute to 
announce that this will be the last amendment we will be voting on this 
evening. I will not be offering the amendment that I did not ask for 
from the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, over the last 20 minutes, Minnesota's 
dairy farms have seen half of their numbers cease operations. In my 
district half of the dairy farms closed their doors. That is 1,500 
dairy farms. They were dairy farms. They used to be families.
  If the Solomon amendment becomes law, more Midwest dairy families 
will be driven off the land because the Solomon amendment will increase 
the price of Northeast milk, widen the disparity in regional milk 
prices, disadvantage Midwest dairy farmers, without real marketing 
reform.
  In our upper Midwest milk shed area, the average price dairy farmers 
were paid in 1994 was less than they were paid in 1980. The principle 
driving force behind that gaping price disparity and the loss of dairy 
farms in east-central Minnesota, in my district and elsewhere in my 
region, is the unfair, unbalanced, protectionist milk marketing order 
system. If you believe in a free market, get rid of the milk marketing 
orders. All you do is benefit some parts of the country and 
disadvantage others.
  The Gunderson plan in this bill is far from my ideal of real reform, 
but it is realistic, it is a workable step. We are moving in the right 
direction toward milk market order reform and consolidation. It moves 
the dairy sector toward a uniform national pricing system. The Solomon 
amendment is not reform, it is regional protectionism. We ought to vote 
it down.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the committee achieves the 
reforms needed in dairy policy, just as H.R. 2854 does for all other 
commodities it affects. Again, dairy farmers are meeting their 
responsibility in helping to balance the Federal budget, but they need 
the committee reforms to the dairy program to meet that responsibility 
and to make a profit milking cows.
  The committee bill saves $76 million in over 7 years. That is $400 
million more than the Solomon-Dooley amendment. The dairy industry 
wants to become more market-oriented, and the committee bill allows 
them to accomplish that during a 2-year transition period, the shortest 
transition period included in the farm bill. The committee bill 
consolidates orders, reforms pricing, phases down support price over 5 
years, and provides a safety net for the thousands of dairy farm 
families across this Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I met with two groups of dairy farmers from my district 
last week concerning the committee bill. These hardworking family 
farmers, who only want an opportunity to make a living for their family 
and be successful in dairy farming, they believe the committee bill is 
the way to go. I ask that my colleagues defeat this amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Baker], another very valuable Member of this body.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, here it is. Here is the 
phaseout of the farm programs. Follow it along, folks. This is what the 
kinder and gentler new Congress is going to do to get your hand out of 
the taxpayers. They have succeeded partly. They got their hand out of 
the taxpayers, and they put them into the consumer big-time. The 
Gunderson provision makes a bad policy worse.
  The Heritage Foundation says fluid milk prices to consumers are 
likely to increase by roughly 50 cents per gallon. The USDA estimates 
the increase to consumers at between 17 cents and 24 cents per gallon. 
Americans for Tax Reform supports the Solomon amendment, designates it 
a key vote for this year. Unlike Gunderson, the Solomon amendment will 
not increase dairy prices. It immediately reduces the current support 
price by 20 cents, and then 10 cents a year, a kinder and gentler 
freedom to farm.
  Unlike Gunderson, the Solomon amendment will not create new 
bureaucratic pooling mechanisms. Unlike Gunderson, the Solomon 
amendment will not mandate expensive milk fortification. The CBO 
estimates private sector mandates at $800 million to $1.1 billion.
  The following California groups support the Solomon amendment: The 
Alliance of Western Milk Producers, Dairy Institute of California 
Berkeley Farms, Brown Car Farm, Antioch, California, San Joaquin Valley 
Dairymen, Jersey Maid Milk Products, Chase Brothers Dairy, and 30 more.
  The following groups oppose the Gunderson amendment: Americans for 
Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, Consumers Union, 
National Taxpayers Union, Consumer Alert, and representatives from Cato 
Institute and the Heritage Foundation.

                              {time}  2115

  Please, I urge my colleagues, join me in voting for the Solomon 
amendment, the only dairy reform provision available.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I just want to point out that we turn over the pricing system to the 
USDA over the next 2 years. I do not know how he has got a chart, 
because it has not been done yet.

[[Page H1485]]

  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith], our distinguished colleague on the committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I will try to explain what is 
happening.
  I am for a free market. If you are for a free market for dairy 
farmers and dairy products, then you vote against the Solomon 
amendment. The producers organizations across the country from coast to 
coast have now endorsed the committee version of this bill. They do it 
because they go to a free market.
  Why some are nervous about the increase in price is because 
immediately under the committee bill we take away government purchases 
of powder and butter. That means that under the GATT negotiations, 
farmers can take advantage of export markets.
  There is some fear that if farmers take advantage of export prices, 
the price of milk might go up.
  If we are after a free market, what we do is vote down the Solomon 
amendment and get government out of the hair of the dairy farmers of 
this country. They are having a very difficult time surviving. If we do 
not get this bill passed, I say that many of the dairy farmers in my 
district are going to give up the ghost and go out of business.
  Let us just review the organizations that support this: Nationally, 
the NFO, NFU, National Farm Bureau, again essentially every producer 
organization; a few in California do not support the bill. The 
California program is unique.
  I urge you to look at a free enterprise system that is going to 
maintain a dairy industry in the United States that is going to satisfy 
our needs and not evolve into a situation where we have to depend on 
imports for milk.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, these are two provisions, two 
amendments that, in my judgment, support the dairy industry. This 
Solomon amendment is better. It appeals to a broad spectrum of the 
industry, consumer groups, free market groups, because this provision 
saves real money. It gets the Federal Government out of price support 
on a date certain. And most importantly, it does not pit one region 
against the other.
  What we are doing here is a compromise, and like all good 
compromises, all sides will be able to live with it. This is a good 
provision. It is fairer than the other one. It is one that the industry 
can support, and, more importantly, it does not put the West against 
the Midwest, and it is a provision that deserves this House's support.
  I support the Solomon-Dooley amendment because it will give United 
States dairymen the opportunity to compete in international markets.
  Just like we should do what is best by maintaining the peanut program 
we should maintain the reforms in our current dairy system by 
supporting the Solomon-Dooley amendment.
  Our American dairymen can produce milk more efficiently than any 
other country in the world. In recent years we have made other 
countries open their markets through trade agreements like NAFTA and 
GATT. Now we must give our dairymen the tools to compete for that 
international business.
  I think the Solomon-Dooley amendment also protects our domestic milk 
market to make sure other countries do not take over our dairy market.
  This is a critical time for US dairies. They will either choose to 
limit the milk we consume in the United States or produce more milk 
products to be sold to other countries which produces jobs in the 
United States.
  The policies that have transitioned the dairy industry toward a 
greater market-orientation over the past ten years should continue. The 
Solomon-Dooley amendment continues creating opportunities for the 
American dairy industry.
  Vote ``yes'' on Solomon-Dooley.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say I have to smile every time I hear the 
consumer argument made, because in this country, everyone knows that we 
are blessed with the most abundant food supply, the best quality of 
food, the safest food supply at the lowest cost to our consumer of any 
other country in the world. No one comes close to us.
  Today, our dairymen need a raise. In 1984, dairy farmers received 
$13.61 a hundred, and a half gallon of milk cost $1.13. In 1994, the 
farmers received $13.02 a hundred, and a half gallon of milk cost 
$1.44.
  The Solomon amendment will reduce dairy farm income over the next 7 
years by $4 billion. The committee bill that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. 
Peterson] and others have worked hard in numerous hearings will add 
$3.4 billion. It is not an unreasonable raise.
  I hear a lot about how much it is going to cost. The true figure is 6 
cents per week. We hear a lot about the additives that are going to be 
added to our milk. Solids, not fat, are primarily protein and calcium. 
Read the health concerns of so many men and women today. Current 
Federal standards for class 1 milk requires less protein and calcium 
than the average cow produces.
  California has had it right for all of these years. What we are 
suggesting now is let the cow do her work. Let the people consume the 
milk that the cow produces, or at least a little closer than what we 
have been used to.
  We hear all of this about the Federal regulations. That was 
laughable. As the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] pointed out, 
we have not done it yet. But what he is doing in this amendment, we are 
taking 33 Federal orders and reducing it down to 13. That is 20 less 
regulatory bodies. If that is not deregulation, if that is not dealing 
with the cost.
  Now, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] pointed out 
rightfully there are some problems with some of the feeding programs. 
But this bill saves $770 million. Dairy farmers have always been 
willing to share with those less fortunate.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Thurman], one of the distinguished Members of this 
body from my former home State.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I cannot support the dairy title of this bill, for one major reason: 
It is going to drain income unnecessarily from my region. That is why I 
am supporting the Solomon-Dooley amendment.
  Dairy farmers in Florida are hurt by the Class 1 pool. The result, 
income will be shifted from Florida dairy farmers to other regions.
  In addition, Florida consumers are hurt in two ways. The general 
consumer is hurt by the requirement for added solids. This requirement 
will increase the cost of fluid milk in those regions that will have to 
import the solids to add to local milk. That added cost will be passed 
on to consumers. Whether it is 40 cents a gallon or 40 cents a week is 
not important. What is important is that these price increases are not 
necessary.
  I now want to address my urban colleagues on my side of the aisle. 
Last year, we fought together against an unfair welfare reform plan 
that hurt the needy. The dairy title increases the cost of WIC and 
reduces the benefits of food stamps and other nutrition programs that 
utilize milk by $1 billion. This amounts to a program reduction, in 
addition to whatever other changes may be included in the next welfare 
reform plan.
  The only alternative before us today is the Solomon-Dooley amendment. 
It hurts neither the dairy farmer nor the milk consumer. Join me in 
supporting this sensible alternative.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert].
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, there are about 350,000 milk cows in my 
area of California. I probably have more milk cows in my district than 
my good friend, the gentleman from the State of New York.
  I was in favor of deregulating the entire dairy program, as many 
people here would like to do. But my friend was opposed to that. That 
is where we are at today.
  The Gunderson compromise is the best compromise that we have, so I 
hope my colleagues will join me and 

[[Page H1486]]
the California Farm Bureau, National Farm Bureau, and my local 
producers, and it is the largest producing area in the United States, 
in opposing Solomon-Dooley.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], the former chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture, a member who has stood on this floor many times in the 
name of helping farmers all over the United States, who has traveled 
extensively throughout the United States in behalf of farmers and now 
would like to make another speech in behalf of dairy farmers.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time to me.
  My colleagues, this will be the last time that I participate in any 
debate on the farm bill and on the dairy program.
  I have suffered with the dairy program all of my years on the 
Committee on Agriculture as chairman of the committee, but somehow in 
the final event, we come out with what is possible. Legislation is the 
art of the possible, not the extreme one side, not the extreme the 
other side. I have seen it all as it rolled by the years that I have 
been here.
  In this case, I will support the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson], because I think it falls more closely to what has been the 
model through the years. We look for the consumer, we look for the 
farmers, and it partly a sad occasion that I say this will be the last 
time that I participate in a debate of this kind on dairy, but I think 
that my final decision to support Mr. Gunderson follows the experience 
which I have had through the years.
  But I have said what I needed to say, that with all due respect to my 
dear friend from New York, with all respect to my dear friend from 
California, as I go back through the years, I assess all of the models, 
all of the areas, all of the novel and innovative, you have got to come 
with what is possible, and I think this is the art of the possible, 
what is possible this day, this hour, this very minute, and I would 
hope that my colleagues would support the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown], who has a strong interest in dairy.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not pretend to speak with 
the expertise that the chairman just spoke with. But I want to speak in 
support of the provisions authored by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Gunderson].
  My experience has been with the very large dairy industry in southern 
California. I know that this is the provision which best meets their 
needs, and I am here to indicate to you that I think that this would be 
best for all of the American dairy industry, although it is not a 
perfect bill or a perfect provision, as we all know, and I hope that we 
can keep those provisions in the bill and not support the Solomon 
amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say to the gentleman from Texas, Kika de la Garza, there is 
only one, and we sure are going to miss you. I am sorry you are not 
going to be able to be here tomorrow.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert] a distinguished Member of this body.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon-Dooley 
amendment. It is a win-win situation. It is good for farmers. It 
eliminates the assessment they pay into the price support program. That 
is a well-deserved break.
  It is good for farmers because it maintains the milk marketing 
orders, incidentally, milk marketing orders they pay for, not the 
taxpayers.
  It is good for farmers because it will keep them competitive. It is 
good for farmers because it fully funds the dairy export incentive 
program, which is extremely important for trade in our dairy farmers' 
future expansion. That is good for our balance of payments.
  This proposal is good for the taxpayers because it gets the 
Government out of the price support business, and it is good for 
consumers because it accomplishes all of this without raising consumer 
costs or increasing Government regulations.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would first like to say that I support the work of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. 
Gunderson, on the dairy title. I strongly oppose the provision of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  I would like to recommend and make a suggestion: As one who is also 
past chairman of this subcommittee and has worked on this same problem 
for years and did not get to the successful conclusion as the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, that the savings that are made by the dairy title in 
the bill, approximately $700 million, can easily then be used to offset 
the cost to the WIC Program and to the Food Stamp Program.
  Is there any reason that cannot be done in conference? I see none. 
That should allay the fears of those feel that the Gunderson provision 
would increase the cost and stop people from benefiting from those 
programs. It will not, because those savings can be used to offset 
those costs. Therefore, I strongly support the Gunderson proposal.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let us go from New York all the way out to 
California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I imagine people trying to follow this who do not 
understand the dairy programs or agriculture programs are somewhat 
thoroughly confused right now. I will try to simplify it. This is about 
whose ox gets gored, or, more appropriately, whose milk cow dries up.
  Let me ask a question: If you have ever seen the University of 
Wisconsin basketball team, and they pan the student body, are those 
students wearing powdered milk hats, butter hats, or cheese hats? Guess 
what happens in this program supported by the Committee on Agriculture? 
Powdered milk phases out immediately; butter phases out immediately; 
cheese does not.
  Now, I am not standing up here saying that I do not have a cow in the 
corral. Since 1961, California decided on its own, without trying to 
affect the rest of the country, we wanted to fortify our milk. Up until 
recently, we did what we wanted to do and left the rest of the country 
alone.
  What has occurred over the last several years is that California 
cannot do what it wants to do anymore. Here is a Federal court order 
telling California that they cannot enforce their own milk solid 
standards.

  There is no guarantee in the committee bill that we can do what we 
want to do. There is a guarantee in the Solomon bill. We do not want to 
impose it on the rest of the country; we just want to do what we want 
to do. Fundamentally, you have heard it over and over again. Senator 
Lugar has said it is crazy. This program in the Committee on 
Agriculture goes toward more control, when the whole thrust of the 
agriculture bill in all the other areas is towards less control. The 
Secretary of Agriculture has said $1 billion more. We have already 
heard the negotiations on the floor. ``Can we move some of the money 
that is going to the producers under this to help the WIC Program or to 
help the Food Stamp Program?'' Already the negotiations are beginning.
  You do not need to go into that kind of horse trading if you support 
the Solomon-Dooley amendment. It is an excellent, excellent revision to 
an otherwise good bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the first think I wanted to do is commend 
the gentleman from Wisconsin, Steve Gunderson. He certainly has done 
yeoman work in his authority as the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry, and, Steve, we all appreciate your work 
over the years.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would implore Members to vote for 
the 

[[Page H1487]]
Solomon-Dooley amendment. This amendment does not cost the farmers 
anything, it does not cost the consumers anything. It once and for all 
does away with all Government subsidies of the dairy industry. Let us 
do that throughout all of the Committee on Agriculture and let us let 
the farm system work. Above that, it does not cost the consumer a 
nickel.
  This is a fair amendment. It preserves milk marketing orders 
throughout this country on a regional basis so that farmers, small and 
large, can stay in business. In my area they are going out of business 
by the droves. They are the backbone of America.
  The way to help them is to vote for the Solomon amendment. It is the 
one that will be accepted by the Senate and the President, and will 
become law.
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, to close this debate, I yield the 
balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Roberts], the Chairman of the full Committee on Agriculture.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], semper fi.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know of any Member who has worked harder and 
persevered more and put up with more and received more brickbats for 
his efforts than Steve Gunderson. I would hope the Chair would not take 
that very well deserved applause out of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, many Members look at this issue with very parochial 
interests, and that is the nicest way that I can put it. Steve 
Gunderson loses more cows in his district every year than they have. He 
has worked harder and longer to achieve true dairy policy reform than 
anyone else; 10,000 traveled miles to conduct the field hearings.
  Now, it is a fact of life, nobody is ever going to be happy or 
satisfied with any dairy provision. My suggestion is when we go to the 
conference on dairy, we hold it in Sarajevo.
  But the committee language, and I am a little tired of trying to push 
this rope to try to get all of the dairy regions to work together, but 
the committee language represents the greatest amount of dairy program 
reform in its history.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] said it right: In terms of 
farm income, we increase dairy farmer income by $4 billion. The 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dooley] cut dairy income by $3.7, a difference of $7.7 billion.
  We save more money. We eliminate two-thirds of the Federal milk 
marketing orders. With the committee bill, we are able to allow the 
dairy industry to compete in the international marketplace. It removes 
butter and powder from price supports immediately. The other folks keep 
that over a period of time.
  The Committee on Agriculture's dairy plan, with its subcommittee 
chairman, who has worked harder than any other individual on this farm 
bill that I know, is the clear choice for dairy farmers all throughout 
the Nation. Please support the committee. Support Mr. Gunderson and the 
committee's plan.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Solomon amendment 
because the majority of dairy farmers in my district support the dairy 
reform plan already in the farm bill.
  I believe the farm bill is the best plan for reforming dairy programs 
for several reasons.
  First, the Congressional Budget Office has scored the farm bill's 
dairy program as saving $767 million over 7 years. That is considerably 
more than the Solomon amendment's $337 million in savings.
  The farm bill does this by eliminating price supports for butter and 
powdered milk immediately. We save millions of dollars by this 
provision alone.
  The Solomon amendment slightly reduces price supports for all milk 
products and then eliminates them completely after 5 years. By keeping 
all the price supports in place for several years, this proposal spends 
more money than the farm bill.
  Second, the farm bill requires the USDA to develop a new dairy 
program that will bring the dairy industry into a competitive market 
system over the next 3 years. To make sure this happens, our bill has a 
tremendous incentive for the dairy industry to work with the USDA and 
develop a market based program. If this program is not agreed upon in 2 
years, then the existing dairy program expires. Now that's a powerful 
incentive to reform the program.
  Third, the farm bill protects dairy farmers in my district while the 
program is being changed to a market-based system. During the 2-year 
transition period, the farm bill provides a floor price for fluid milk.
  Furthermore, the bill provides an important safety net for dairy 
farmers by keeping a price support program for cheese. Farmers in my 
district are willing to give up price supports for butter and powder 
milk tomorrow, but they need some level of protection. Under the bill, 
the cheese price supports would continue, but at a lower level each 
year.
  Finally, the farm bill adopts California's standards for fluid milk 
throughout the country. For over 25 years Californians have enjoyed the 
nutritional benefits of California milk. This is a critical point for 
my constituents, and I support the farm bill because it keeps 
California's higher milk standards.
  In short, I believe the dairy provisions of the farm bill is the best 
approach to reforming dairy programs and moving the industry to a 
market-based system. Ultimately, that is in the best interests of the 
taxpayer, consumers, and the dairy farmers.
  I urge my colleagues to support the dairy provisions of the farm bill 
and to oppose the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Solomon amendment. 
This amendment will keep dairy products affordable for the American 
consumer and at the same time provide a smooth transition for dairy 
farmers to a largely free market system, all at little or no cost to 
the American taxpayer.
  Under the bill before us today, the price for a gallon of milk would 
increase 40 to 50 cents; the price of cheese and other dairy products 
would increase as well. Under the Solomon amendment, the price of milk 
and other dairy products would be largely unchanged.
  In addition, the bill before us would increase the cost of the Child 
Nutrition and Food Stamp Programs by $1 billion over the next 6 years, 
according to the Agriculture Department's chief economist. The Women, 
Infant, and Children Feeding Program, or WIC, would have to reduce the 
average number of monthly recipients by 80,000 in 1997 and an 
additional 30,000 in later years to recoup the increased cost of dairy 
products. The Solomon amendment would keep dairy prices down, allowing 
the WIC, School Lunch, and Food Stamp Programs to function at at least 
minimal levels in an era of budgetary cuts and block grants.
  I urge my colleagues to support the women, infants, children, 
consumers and farmers of this country. Keep dairy prices affordable and 
vote ``yes'' on the Solomon amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 258, 
noes 164, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 36]

                               AYES--258

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Borski
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     King
     Kingston
     
[[Page H1488]]

     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Norwood
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--164

     Abercrombie
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bentsen
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burton
     Calvert
     Camp
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     McCarthy
     McDade
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Orton
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Riggs
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Collins (IL)
     Furse
     Markey
     McKinney
     Rose
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds

                              {time}  2157

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Ms. Furse against.

  Mr. FATTAH, Mr. LAZIO of New York, and Ms. BROWN of Florida changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan, Mr. HAYWORTH, and Mr. SAWYER changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 104-463.
  The Chair understands the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] is 
not desiring to offer amendment No. 4.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House 
Report 104-463.


                   amendment offered by mr. boehlert

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       Strike title III (page 118, line 18, through page 128, line 
     12) and insert the following:
                        TITLE III--CONSERVATION

     SEC. 301. CONSERVATION.

       (a) Funding.--Subtitle E of title XII of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3841 et seq.) is amended to read as 
     follows:
                         ``Subtitle E--Funding

     ``SEC. 1241. FUNDING.

       ``(a) Mandatory Expenses.--For each of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2002, the Secretary shall use the funds of the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out the programs 
     authorized by--
       ``(1) subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D (including 
     contracts extended by the Secretary pursuant to section 1437 
     of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 
     (Public Law 101-624; 16 U.S.C. 3831 note));
       ``(2) subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D; and
       ``(3) chapter 4 of subtitle D.
       ``(b) Environmental Quality Incentive Program.--For each of 
     fiscal years 1996 through 2002, $200,000,000 of the funds of 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation shall be available for 
     providing technical assistance, cost-sharing payments, and 
     incentive payments for practices authorized under the 
     environmental quality incentive program under chapter 4 of 
     subtitle D. At least 50 percent of the funds made available 
     under this subsection for a fiscal year shall be used to 
     provide technical assistance, cost-sharing payments, and 
     incentive payments under such chapter relating to livestock 
     production.''.
       (b) Environmental Quality Incentive Program.--Subtitle D of 
     title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

          ``CHAPTER 4--ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVE PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 1240. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this chapter and section 1241:
       ``(1) Land management practice.--The term `land management 
     practice' means a site-specific nutrient or manure 
     management, integrated pest management, irrigation 
     management, tillage or residue management, grazing 
     management, or other land management practice that the 
     Secretary determines is needed to protect, in the most cost 
     effective manner, water, soil, or related resources from 
     degradation.
       ``(2) Livestock.--The term `livestock' means mature 
     livestock, dairy cows, beef cattle, laying hens, turkeys, 
     swine, sheep, and such other animals as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Producer.--The term `producer' means a person who is 
     engaged in livestock or agricultural production (as defined 
     by the Secretary).
       ``(4) Structural practice.--The term `structural practice' 
     means--
       ``(A) the establishment of an animal waste management 
     facility, terrace, grassed waterway, contour grass strip, 
     filterstrip, tailwater pit, or other structural practice that 
     the Secretary determines is needed to protect, in the most 
     cost effective manner, water, soil, or related resources from 
     degradation; and
       ``(B) the capping of abandoned wells.

     ``SEC. 1240A. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--During the 1996 through 2002 fiscal 
     years, the Secretary shall provide technical assistance, 
     cost-sharing payments, and incentive payments to producers 
     who enter into contracts with the Secretary, through an 
     environmental quality incentive program.
       ``(2) Eligible practices.--
       ``(A) Structural practices.--A producer who implements a 
     structural practice shall be eligible for technical 
     assistance or cost-sharing payments, or both.
       ``(B) Land management practices.--A producer who performs a 
     land management practice shall be eligible for technical 
     assistance or incentive payments, or both.
       ``(3) Eligible land.--Assistance under this chapter may be 
     provided with respect to land that is used for livestock or 
     agricultural production and on which a serious threat to 
     water, soil, or related resources exists, as determined by 
     the Secretary, by reason of the soil types, terrain, 
     climatic, soil, topographic, flood, or saline 
     characteristics, or other factors or natural hazards.
       ``(4) Selection criteria.--In providing technical 
     assistance, cost-sharing payments, and incentive payments to 
     producers in a region or watershed, the Secretary shall 
     consider--
       ``(A) the significance of the water, soil, and related 
     natural resource problems; and
       ``(B) the maximization of environmental benefits per dollar 
     expended.
       ``(b) Application and Term.
       ``(1) In general.--A contract between a producer and the 
     Secretary under this chapter may--
       ``(A) apply to 1 or more structural practices or 1 or more 
     land management practices, or both; and
       ``(B) have a term of not less than 5, nor more than 10, 
     years, as determined appropriate by the Secretary, depending 
     on the practice or practices that are the basis of the 
     contract.
       ``(2) Duties of producers and secretary.--To receive cost-
     sharing or incentive payments, or technical assistance, 
     participating producers shall comply with all 

[[Page H1489]]
     terms and conditions of the contract and a plan, as established by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(c) Structural Practices.--
       ``(1) Competitive offer.--The Secretary shall administer a 
     competitive offer system for producers proposing to receive 
     cost-sharing payments in exchange for the implementation of 1 
     or more structural practices by the producer. The competitive 
     offer system shall consist of--
       ``(A) the submission of a competitive offer by the producer 
     in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe; and
       ``(B) evaluation of the offer in light of the selection 
     criteria established under subsection (a)(4) and the 
     projected cost of the proposal, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(2) Concurrence of owner.--If the producer making an 
     offer to implement a structural practice is a tenant of the 
     land involved in agricultural production, for the offer to be 
     acceptable, the producer shall obtain the concurrence of the 
     owner of the land with respect to the offer.
       ``(d) Land Management Practices.--The Secretary shall 
     establish an application and evaluation process for awarding 
     technical assistance or incentive payments, or both, to a 
     producer in exchange for the performance of 1 or more land 
     management practices by the producer.
       ``(e) Cost-Sharing, Incentive Payments, and Technical 
     Assistance.--
       ``(1) Cost-sharing payments.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Federal share of cost-sharing 
     payments to a producer proposing to implement 1 or more 
     structural practices shall not be greater than 75 percent of 
     the projected cost of each practice, as determined by the 
     Secretary, taking into consideration any payment received by 
     the producer from a State or local government.
       ``(B) Other payments.--A producer shall not be eligible for 
     cost-sharing payments for structural practices on eligible 
     land under this chapter if the producer receives cost-sharing 
     payments or other benefits for the same land under chapter 1, 
     2, or 3.
       ``(2) Incentive payments.--The Secretary shall make 
     incentive payments in an amount and at a rate determined by 
     the Secretary to be necessary to encourage a producer to 
     perform 1 or more land management practices.
       ``(3) Technical assistance.--
       ``(A) Funding.--The Secretary shall allocate funding under 
     this chapter for the provision of technical assistance with 
     respect to non-Federal lands according to the purpose and 
     projected cost for which the technical assistance is provided 
     for a fiscal year. The allocated amount may vary according to 
     the type of expertise required, quantity of time involved, 
     and other factors as determined appropriate by the Secretary. 
     Funding shall not exceed the projected cost to the Secretary 
     of the technical assistance provided for a fiscal year.
       ``(B) Other authorities.--The receipt of technical 
     assistance under this chapter shall not affect the 
     eligibility of the producer to receive technical assistance 
     under other authorities of law available to the Secretary.
       ``(C) Private sources.--The Secretary shall ensure that the 
     process of writing and developing proposals and plans for 
     contracts under this chapter, and of assisting in the 
     implementation of structural practices and land management 
     practices covered by the contracts, are open to individuals 
     in agribusiness, including agricultural producers, 
     representatives from agricultural cooperatives, agricultural 
     input retail dealers, and certified crop advisers. The 
     requirements of this subparagraph shall also apply to any 
     other Department program using incentive payments, technical 
     assistance, or cost-share payments and to pilot project 
     programs of the Department that require plans.
       ``(f) Limitation on Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--The total amount of cost-sharing and 
     incentive payments paid to a person under this chapter may 
     not exceed--
       ``(A) $10,000 for any fiscal year; or
       ``(B) $50,000 for any multiyear contract.
       ``(2) Exception to annual limit.--The Secretary may exceed 
     the limitation on the annual amount of a payment under 
     paragraph (1)(A) on a case-by-case basis if the Secretary 
     determines that a larger payment is essential to accomplish 
     the land management practice or structural practice for which 
     the payment is made.
       ``(3) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     that are consistent with section 1001 for the purpose of--
       ``(A) defining the term `person' as used in paragraph (1); 
     and
       ``(B) prescribing such rules as the Secretary determines 
     necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable application of the 
     limitations established under this subsection.
       ``(g) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     effective date of this subsection, the Secretary shall issue 
     regulations to implement the environmental quality incentive 
     program established under this chapter.''.

     SEC. 302. WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Enrollment.--Section 1237 of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837) is amended by striking subsection (b) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Enrollment Conditions.--
       ``(1) Maximum enrollment.--The total number of acres 
     enrolled in the wetlands reserve program shall not exceed 
     975,000 acres.
       ``(2) Methods of enrollment.--The Secretary shall ensure, 
     to the maximum extent practicable, that of the total number 
     of acres enrolled in the wetlands reserve program--
       ``(A) one-third of the acres are enrolled through the use 
     of permanent easements;
       ``(B) one-third of the acres are enrolled through the use 
     of 30-year easements (or easements of a shorter period if 
     required under applicable State laws); and
       ``(C) one-third of the acres are enrolled through the use 
     of restoration cost-share agreements authorized under section 
     1237A(h).''.
       ``(3) Temporary emphasis on certain enrollment methods.--To 
     achieve the enrollment ratios specified in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary shall endeavor, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     to rely on the enrollment methods described in subparagraphs 
     (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) to enroll lands in the wetlands 
     reserve program until such time as enrollments under each 
     such subparagraph accounts for approximately one-third of all 
     lands enrolled in the wetlands reserve.''
       (b) Eligibility.--Section 1237(c) of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(c)) is amended by striking ``2000'' 
     and inserting ``2002''.
       (c) Easements and Restoration Cost-Share Agreements.--
     Section 1237A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3837a) is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by inserting before the period 
     at the end the following: ``and restoration cost-share 
     agreements'';
       (2) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Restoration Plans.--The development of a restoration 
     plan, including any compatible use, under this section shall 
     be made through the local Natural Resources Conservation 
     Service representative.'';
       (3) in subsection (f), by striking the third sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``Compensation may be provided in 
     not less than 5, nor more than 30, annual payments of equal 
     or unequal size, as agreed to by the owner and the 
     Secretary.''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Restoration Cost Share Agreements.--The Secretary may 
     enroll land in the wetland reserve program through agreements 
     that require the landowner to restore wetlands on the land, 
     if the agreement does not provide the Secretary with an 
     easement. Other than cost share and technical assistance 
     provided under section 1237C(b), the Secretary may not 
     provide compensation for an agreement under this 
     subsection.''.
       (d) Cost Share and Technical Assistance.--Section 1237C of 
     the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837c) is amended by 
     striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Cost Share and Technical Assistance.--
       ``(1) Easements.--In the case of an easement entered into 
     during the 1996 through 2002 calendar years, in making cost 
     share payments under subsection (a)(1), the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) in the case of a permanent easement, pay the owner an 
     amount that is not less than 75 percent, but not more than 
     100 percent, of the eligible costs; and
       ``(B) in the case of a 30-year easement, pay the owner an 
     amount that is not less than 50 percent, but not more than 75 
     percent, of the eligible costs.
         ``(2) Restoration cost-share agreements.--In making cost 
     share payments in connection with a restoration cost-share 
     agreement entered into under section 1237(A)(h), the 
     Secretary shall pay the owner an amount that is not less than 
     50 percent, but not more than 75 percent, of the eligible 
     costs.
         ``(3) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide 
     owners with technical assistance to assist owners in 
     complying with the terms of easements and restoration cost-
     share agreements.''.
       (e) Effect on Existing Easements.--The amendments made by 
     this section shall not affect the validity or terms of any 
     easements acquired by the Secretary of Agriculture under 
     subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837 et seq.) before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act or any payments required to 
     be made in connection with such easements.

     SEC. 303. ELIMINATION OF CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS WITH 
                   SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

         Section 1242 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3842) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a)'' before ``In carrying out''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (b).

     SEC. 304. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ACREAGE RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Extensions.--Section 1230(a) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3830(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''.
       (b) Conservation and Improvement of Wildlife Habitat.--Such 
     section is further amended by inserting ``and wildlife 
     habitat'' after ``soil and water resources''.

     SEC. 305. CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM.

       (a) Program Extensions.--
       (1) Conservation reserve program.--Section 1231 of the Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 3831) is amended in subsections (a) and (b)(3), by 
     striking ``1995'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``2002''.
       (3) Duties of owners and operators.--Section 1232(c) of the 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 3832(c)) is amended by striking ``1995'' and 
     inserting ``2002''.
       (b) Maximum Enrollment.--Section 1231(d) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831(d)) is amended striking 
     ``total of'' and all that follows through the period at the 

[[Page H1490]]
     end of the subsection and inserting ``total of 36,400,000 acres during 
     the 1986 through 2002 calendar years (including contracts 
     extended by the Secretary pursuant to section 1437(c) of the 
     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 
     (Public Law 101-624; 16 U.S.C. 3831 note).''.
       (c) Optional Contract Termination by Producers.--Section 
     1235 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3835) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Termination by Owner or Operator.--
       ``(1) Early termination authorized.--The Secretary shall 
     allow an owner or operator of land that, on the date of the 
     enactment of the Agricultural Market Transition Act, is 
     covered by a contract that was entered into under this 
     subchapter at least five years before that date to terminate 
     the contract with respect to all or a portion of the covered 
     land. The owner or operator shall provide the Secretary with 
     reasonable notice of the termination request.
       ``(2) Certain lands excepted.--Notwithstanding paragraph 
     (1), the following lands shall not be subject to an early 
     termination of a contract under this subsection:
       ``(A) Filterstrips, waterways, strips adjacent to riparian 
     areas, windbreaks, and shelterbelts.
       ``(B) Land with an erodibility index of more than 15.
       ``(C) Other lands of high environmental value, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Effective date.--The contract termination shall take 
     effect 60 days after the date on which the owner or operator 
     submits the notice under paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Prorated rental payment.--If a contract entered into 
     under this subchapter is terminated under this subsection 
     before the end of the fiscal year for which a rental payment 
     is due, the Secretary shall provide a prorated rental payment 
     covering the portion of the fiscal year during which the 
     contract was in effect.
       ``(5) Renewed enrollment.--The termination of a contract 
     entered into under this subchapter shall not affect the 
     ability of the owner or operator who requested the 
     termination to submit a subsequent bid to enroll the land 
     that was subject to the contract into the conservation 
     reserve.
       ``(6) Conservation requirements.--If land that was subject 
     to a contract is returned to production of an agricultural 
     commodity, the conservation requirements under subtitles B 
     and C shall apply to the use of the land to the extent that 
     the requirements are similar to those requirements imposed on 
     other similar lands in the area, except that the requirements 
     may not be more onerous that the requirements imposed on 
     other lands.''.
       (d) Use of Unexpended Funds.--Section 1231 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(h) Use of Unexpended Funds from Contract Terminations.--
     If a contract entered into under this section is terminated, 
     voluntarily or otherwise, before the expiration date 
     specified in the contract, the Secretary may use funds, 
     already available to the Secretary to cover payments under 
     the contract, but unexpended as a result of the contract 
     termination, to enroll other eligible lands in the 
     conservation reserve established under this subchapter.''.
       (e) Fair Market Value Rental Rates.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1234(c) of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3834(c)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) In the case of a contract covering land which has not 
     been previously enrolled in the conservation reserve, annual 
     rental payments under the contract may not exceed the average 
     fair market rental rate for comparable lands in the county in 
     which the lands are located. This paragraph shall not apply 
     to the extension of an existing contract.''.
       (2) Application of amendment.--The amendment made by 
     paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to contracts for the 
     enrollment of lands in the conservation reserve program under 
     section 1231 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 
     3831)) entered into after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (f) Enrollments in 1997.--Section 725 of the Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104-37; 109 
     Stat. 332), is amended by striking the proviso relating to 
     enrollment of new acres in 1997.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I want to inform Members that the House 
will go into session tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock in order to expedite 
consideration of the farm bill, and to accommodate Members there will 
be no 1-minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Young of Florida, 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. 2854) to 
modify the operation of certain agricultural programs, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________