Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 25 (Wednesday, February 28, 1996)

[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ranchers know, boy do they know, the current farm program is outdated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.

[[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.

____________________