Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 26 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 26 (Thursday, February 29, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1509-H1575]
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 further consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2854).

{time} 0903

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 further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 2854) to modify the operation of certain agricultural
programs, with Mr. Hansen, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Wednesday, February 28, 1996, amendment No. 8 printed in House Report
104-463 offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] had been
designated.
Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and
a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning on behalf of America's farmers, on
behalf of America's hunters and fishermen, and on behalf of the
environment. What do the National Wildlife Federation, the American
Farm Bureau, and the National Rifle Association all have in common?
They are all strong supporters of the Boehlert conservation
amendment. Why have major agriculture and environmental organizations
in the United States endorsed my conservation amendment? Because the
conservation amendment before us is truly profarmer and proenvironment.
Chairman Roberts, Chairman Barrett, and Congressman Peterson have all
worked with me to craft a conservation title that provides American
farmers with the resources they need to protect the environment that we
all need. Every urban American and every rural American will benefit
from this amendment.

[[Page H1510]]

Today, 51 percent of all privately owned lands in the United States
are held by farmers and ranchers. If we are serious about improving the
quality of America's rivers and lakes, and we darn well better be, if
we are serious about preserving essential wildlife habitat, and we darn
well better be, if we are serious about protecting our Nation's
drinking water supplies, and, there is nothing more important than
that, we have got to work with the American farmer.
Agricultural programs represent the single best opportunity for this
Congress to make significant improvements in the quality of our
environment. Best of all, we will be achieving these dramatic
environmental improvements with voluntary incentive-based programs,
programs strongly supported by the agriculture community.
The Boehlert-Roberts-Barrett-Peterson amendment builds on the proven
success of the existing conservation reserve program and wetland
reserve program. This conservation title also provides new resources
and technical assistance for the management of nutrients and manure on
America's farms. While providing significant conservation resources to
America's farmers, this amendment achieves these conservation goals in
a fiscally responsible manner.
This conservation title costs less than half of the $4.5 billion in
the one passed by the Senate on February 7. The numbers tell the story.
My conservation amendment costs $2.1 billion, while the Senate
conservation title has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office
at $4.5 billion. The Boehlert amendment makes agricultural,
environmental, and fiscal sense.
The Senate and the administration have made it clear they will not
support a farm bill absent a comprehensive conservation title. If this
body can produce a comprehensive conservation title that has the
support of farmers and sportsmen and environmentalists, we should do
it.
In closing, I would like to read to you what the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, and Trout Unlimited
are saying about my amendment, and I quote: ``We are pleased to support
the amendment and urge all Members of the House to join in support.''
The American Farm Bureau, the National Grange, the National Milk
Producers Federation, the National Corn Growers, the National Wheat
Growers and the National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture are all strongly supporting the Boehlert conservation
amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this pro-
farmer, pro-environment amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Louisiana opposed to
the amendment?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am, and I seek time to express
my opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized
for 20 minutes.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Boehlert amendment actually doubles the impact of a
provision in the existing bill that is before the House. I had intended
to come to the floor in opposition to the existing provision. So let me
double my opposition to the Boehlert amendment. Because what we are
talking about here is a whole new entitlement. An entitlement which, if
the Boehlert amendment is adopted, amounts to $1.4 billion of mandatory
spending; $1.4 billion in taxpayers' dollars which will be spent at the
same time that we in this Congress for the last 14 months have been
working diligently to pare down the discretionary budget. At the same
time that we are telling America how important it is to get
entitlements under control and to get a leash on the entitlement
portion of the budget, which represents two-thirds of the $1.6 trillion
that this Federal Government spends every single year.
At the same time that we are saying we cannot get President Clinton
to the table to agree on how to pare down Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, welfare, and all of the other entitlements that are going
rapidly out of control, all of a sudden, quietly, here this morning, we
hear the gentleman from New York, my very good friend, come here and
say that the provision in this bill which creates a $700 million new
entitlement for cattle farmers is not enough and it should be raised to
a $1.4 billion entitlement.
To say that I am shocked is only an understatement, because actually
I am incredulous. I have worked diligently as chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations to get the spending on the discretionary side of the
equation under control. We have succeeded.
I would like to take a minute just to show how in Democrat control,
the U.S. Congress, in the House and Senate in fiscal year 1994,
discretionary spending was roughly $237 billion. This is nondefense
discretionary spending under Democrat control.
In fiscal year 1995, it rose to $246 billion. And under Republican
control, we shrank fiscal year 1995, because of our rescission bill
last year, to under $230 billion, roughly $229 billion.
Currently, in fiscal year 1996, we are at $222 billion. Our
projections for fiscal year 1997 are $219 billion. We have had
Republicans and Democrats, moderates and conservatives alike, come to
the floor and say, ``You can't cut this program, you can't cut that
program.'' We want to keep restoring money for education, health and
welfare, safety, and all of the wonderful programs in the discretionary
portion of the budget.

What we have here this morning, at a time when nobody is paying
attention, is Members of the Congress coming forward and saying, ``Wait
a minute. We want to create a new entitlement, a new mandatory program
to spend $1.4 billion.''
Mr. Chairman, let me stress, today is February 29, 1996. Once every 4
years we are privileged in this world of ours to add an additional day
to the calendar of the year. It is called Leap Day. This program
coincidentally enough falls on Leap Day. You know what the name of the
program is? It is the Livestock Environmental Assistance Program, or
the LEAP Program.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to all of my Members who are listening
somewhere in cyberspace, or here on the floor, I would suggest to them
that if they want to create a brand new entitlement after we are
cutting the discretionary budget as successfully as we are doing, then
they will have succeeded in making a great leap back on Leap Day of
Leap Year 1996.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture.

{time} 0915

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry for the delay. I was taking Mr.
Livingston's pulse. He seemed to be worked up about the budget. I can
get worked up about the budget. I can get worked up about entitlement
programs.
But this is not an entitlement program. This is the continuation of a
strong difference of opinion between our good friends in the Committee
on Appropriations, and let me say at the outset, that we have no better
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations that the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], who has done precisely what he said he has
done in regards to getting our discretionary, I emphasize the word
discretionary, spending down to reasonable levels. He deserves every
accolade in that respect.
But the difference in regard to the LEAP program and the EQUIP
program here is that we pay for it. We paid for it out of farm programs
payments, out of the CCC fund used by Agriculture that is in the
mandatory spending category. That comes under the jurisdiction of the
House Committee on Agriculture, and we are cutting those funds
dramatically, and in addition to cutting those funds and meeting our
budget responsibilities, we also cut them again to provide two vitally
needed environmental programs, actually three, EQUIP, LEAP, and the
conservation reserve program, and we pay for it.

[[Page H1511]]

How do we pay for it? Our farmers know that in facing all of the
regulatory overkill and their responsibilities as stewards of the soil,
they need programs by which the Federal Government is also in
partnership with them to reach our environmental responsibilities and
our goals. So we reduced those expenditures. This is paid for, and it
is capped. It is capped ever year.
Now, I understand that the gentleman from Louisiana and my good
friends on the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture,
who do a splendid job for us most of the time, would like to have
control over these funds. But, in effect, we have already paid for them
out of the farm program benefits that would have gone to farmers.
So we are meeting our budget responsibilities, and we are doing that.
And this is the most budget conscious, responsible farm bill that we
have ever had. And the program is capped. And we have paid for it, and
our farmers have paid for it. It is not a new entitlement. It is a
great leap forward, if you will, for the most, for the strongest and
the most proenvironmental farm bill that has ever been written.
I would like to at least say I had not expected this kind of a fiscal
tirade here this morning, and so if I could be granted some additional
time through my friend from New York, I would like to say something
positive about the legislation.
This has been a very difficult time, a difficult amendment, but it
has been worked out through the diligence of my committee colleague,
the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], and my good friend and
colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and many others,
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson], on that side of the aisle,
myself, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], and many members of
the Committee on Agriculture as a means of addressing several important
positive environmental programs. It is a capstone to a truly
environmental farm bill.
Under the freedom to farm concept, which is the foundation, we really
free farmers from the restrictions of 50 years of federally
mandated mono-agriculture. American agriculture will be more
environmentally friendly. Our farmers will be free to respond to market
signals. They will now be able to rotate their crops and instead of
planting the same crop time after time after time after time to protect
their acreage base in order to get the Government subsidy, they will
follow the market signals and what they should be doing in regard to
their environmental responsibilities. That means fewer pesticides. That
means less fertilizer. And it means more integrated farm management.

Now, past environmental programs have impacted only a few million
acres. Every one of the environmental programs that we have heard about
in this Congress before have been piecemeal. Under the freedom to farm
bill, we will encourage sound conservation and environmentally positive
activity on 300 million acres of U.S. farmlands. That is good for all
Americans, and it is also good for the farmer and rancher.
I could go down a long list of environmental and wildlife groups that
support this amendment and that also understand it is fiscally
responsible because we do pay for it. We have the Farm Bureau, Meat
Institute, Sheep Industry Association, Soybean Association, Equipment
Manufacturers' Institute. And I will make this part of the Record.
In this regard, these are the organizations that support the
conservation reserve program, and I certainly want to thank also the
gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Pete Geren] for his efforts in this regard.
But the conservation reserve program has been a monumental success.
It reduces soil erosion. It improves the surface and ground water
quality on environmentally sensitive lands. It sets aside huge blocks
of land in the Great Plains and cornbelt for wildlife habitat. We have
economic studies that generally have concluded that the CRP has
provided public benefits totaling $12.5 billion since 1985, when the
CRP was enacted. That is $8.6 billion for fish and wildlife, $3.1
billion in water quality improvements, $1.3 billion in soil
productivity, and a half a billion dollars in benefits generally caused
by wind erosion. So it is a plus. As well as paying for this, there is
a positive benefit.
So this amendment assures the continuation of these benefits and will
improve our Nation's water quality.
Now, under the terms of the compromise amendment offered today by the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett] and the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Boehlert], the CRP will be continued at its current level of 36.4
million acres. I think I have extolled the virtues of the CRP program
enough for Members.
I want to say finally, Mr. Chairman, the amendment does establish a
few environmental quality incentive program, or EQUIP, for livestock
men and other agriculture producers. This new program is similar to the
one adopted by the other body. We have cost share and incentive
payments made to producers for structural and land management
practices.
Let me just say this: This is the strongest proenvironment farm bill
ever passed in this Congress. Under freedom to farm, the farmer will
not longer be trapped into monoagricul- ture, putting the seed in the
ground to protect his acreage base in order to receive the deficiency
payment or the subsidy payments. He has the flexibility. It means less
pesticides, less fertilizer, a proenvironment farm bill. It also locks
in the ability of farmers to participate in their conservation
compliance plan for 7 years.
Otherwise, if you extend the current farm bill, they will probably
get out of the farm program, and there is no conservation compliance.
Then we have the three programs: the conservation reserve program,
EQUIP, and LEAP. They are all good programs, and they are paid for, and
they are capped, and it is out of the mandatory fund.
So I know, while the argument of the gentleman from Louisiana can be
very, very persuasive in his efforts to reduce our budget exposure, we
have already paid for this, Mr. Chairman, lock, stock, and barrel. It
is capped, and there will be no more money spent on a so-called
entitlement program that is permitted in this program.
As I have said, our farmers have already sacrificed their program
benefits to pay for these environmental programs.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, since I am overwhelmed with speakers on
my side of the issue, I will engage just a second again.
You know, for the last 14 months I have heard one speaker after
another from both sides of the aisle come up and talk about how
important it is to balance the budget. We are going to do it, oh, we
are going to balance the budget, but not with this program, because
this program is a good program, that program is a good program. You
know, you need a little more, a little touch-up over here, a little
more spending here. In fact, that is what we have been hearing in my 19
years in the U.S. Congress, ``We are going to do it one day.'' But, oh,
now that we are really getting serious, now that we are really starting
to get a handle on discretionary spending, let us come up with new
gimmicks, new tricks, and when you have got a good idea, let's just not
worry about the discretionary side of the equation. Let us switch it
over to the mandatory side of the equation. Let us just kind of move it
over in a bookkeeping entry, lock it into law, make it an entitlement,
walk away from it because we know this program is a good one; it will
be funded for eternity.
Once we get an entitlement, it will never be cut. You know, I could
list 10,000 programs that the U.S. Government engages in that every one
of which are good ideas. We might as well just take all 10,000 of them
and say they are mandatory and not worry. We could all do what Lamar
Alexander said, pack our bags, cut our salaries 100 percent and go
home, let Bill Clinton run the Government. Is that what we are supposed
to do? Is that really what we are elected to do? Are we elected to take
every program known to man that is a good idea? And this is a good
idea. There is no doubt about the substance of this program. In fact,
there never has been any doubt about the substance of the program.

[[Page H1512]]

Just this last year we appropriated $75 million for this program,
essentially the same thing. We are already doing it.
But my friends in the farm community say, well, we need to spend more
because we need to show the environmentalists that we are really
looking out after them. I mean after all, we are spending a lot more
money on farm programs in order to justify that and to pass a farm
bill. Let us put a little money in for the environmentalists; then we
get a lot of votes and pass the bill. That is the key here. That is
what we are talking about. ``Let's buy the votes.'' Let us not worry
about the fact the last 14 months we have been worrying about a
balanced budget and trying to pare down discretionary spending and save
money for the taxpayers so that eventually we can turn some back to
him. Let us come up with a new, neat environmental idea. Well, not so
new, because we have been doing it already on the discretionary side.
But let us make it an entitlement. Let us lock it into law so those
appropriators cannot ever get to it, so we can never decrease it and we
can say to the environmental community, ``Look what we have done for
you today.''
Is that not the same old story we have been telling for the last 50
years? We take the taxpayers' money. We are looking at them straight in
the eye and say, ``Look what I've done for you today. Vote for me in
the next election.''
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentleman would be happy to yield to me on his
time, I would be happy to. I want to say----
Mr. ROBERTS. I do not have any time. I would just like to respond to
the gentleman.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas, the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. ROBERTS. Bless your heart. Well, do not wander off.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I am here.
Mr. ROBERTS. OK. Again, let me say to the gentleman that we all stand
in admiration of the gentleman's efforts to cut spending. Nobody has
done more in the Congress. But what I would like to try to point out is
that we do have two separate pastures in regard to our financial
obligation in regard to agriculture. One is the mandatory pasture, and
one is the discretionary pasture.
The gentleman has done yeoman work in regards to the discretionary
part of the funding. We are in charge of the mandatory part.
Now, we started out at $56.6 billion.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has plenty of time
from the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ROBERTS. It will only take 30 seconds.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I understand the gentleman's point. I will summarize
it.
Essentially he is saying the appropriators appropriate and the
authorizers authorize, and therefore he is going to authorize and take
all the money from the taxpayer and make sure that it is locked in.
Look, the bottom line is, with all due respect to my friend, and
because my time is limited and I think I might have other speakers
before this day is over, the fact that this is a program that might be
wise today but someday in the future might be unwise. It might be
adjusted. And the point is we should make it discretionary, we should
control it.
If, in fact, the money is being wasted, somebody in Congress should
say it is being wasted, just like on most of these other programs we
have. We should never lock things into law simply because they are a
good idea. This is a mistake. It was a mistake to put it in the bill
and add $700 million. It is an even worse mistake to put it in as an
amendment at $1.4 billion, as the gentleman from New York would do.
I urge my friends to vote down this amendment and vote with me to
eliminate this whole bad leap year, leap day LEAP program provision
from this bill.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. de la Garza], the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Agriculture, and I ask unanimous consent that he be
allowed to control that time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Dakota [Mr. Johnson].
(Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Boehlert-Barrett conservation amendment. It contains the backbone of a
comprehensive conservation title that should be in the final version of
the farm bill whenever that might come about.
I am pleased that the authority for new enrollments in the
Conservation Reserve Program is included. The CRP is of great
importance in my State of South Dakota for several reasons, for its
impact on cutting soil erosion, increasing water quality and enhancing
habitat for wildlife. We have seen pheasant populations in South Dakota
head back toward historical, record levels. The same is true of duck
populations, which have increased by 30 percent, and songbird
populations. Many of the songbirds documented on CRP acreage were
previously headed toward decline and facing the possibility of being
threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
I am also pleased that the gentleman from Nebraska worked with
agricultural interests and wildlife groups to come up with a compromise
on the issue of early outs.
The other component of this amendment is the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program. I have been working with Chairman Allard on a
similar provision in the Agriculture Committee. This program will be
vital in ensuring the viability of livestock operations throughout the
country. The livestock sector is facing devastating swings in market
prices and the technical assistance and cost-share funds provided by
EQIP may help keep many family operations from going out of business.
I want to commend the livestock and commodity groups in their
initiative in working to meet the environmental concerns facing their
industry. They want to take an active role in ensuring their operations
do not degradate the land they live on or the water their families
drink.
As I indicated, this is a start toward a conservation title that can
balance the survival of family farms with protection of their land and
resources for generations to come. I look forward to working with
Chairmen Roberts and Allard to address the remaining important issues
such as commonsense reforms to the Swampbuster provision that they
included in H.R. 2973.

{time} 0930

Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand today to
offer this amendment with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]
and the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett]. On behalf of the
Sportsmen's Caucus, which has made the Conservation Reserve Program the
main focus of this Congress, we are very pleased with the language that
is in this amendment. This is a straight, clean, reauthorization of the
Conservation Reservation Program, which is what we have been working
for, for the last couple of years.
I think the earlyout provision that has been negotiated with the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett] and others is a good provision
which is actually, in my judgment, going to benefit wildlife, because
frankly, the first 5 years of these contracts are when they do the best
job in providing habitat for wildlife. It might be a good thing to
allow these to turn over after 5 years so we can take some of this
mature cover and turn it into new cover, which is the best for
wildlife.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think we have got a very good compromise put
together here. It is going to be good for wildlife, farmers,
conservationists, and environmentalists. I am glad to support this.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

[[Page H1513]]

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. It used to be in
this body, where we delegated responsibility, we appropriated the
credit and sifted the blame. Through the leadership of the gentleman
from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], we do not do that anymore. Let me
point out to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, we started
with $56.6 billion in the mandatory account, went down to $43 billion,
went down to $38 billion, went down to $36 billion. These are farm
program payments. The reason we went from 38 to 36 is to pay for this.
It is paid. It is capped. It is paid. This is not a new entitlement
payment program. We paid for it.
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am
pleased that the House actually has an opportunity to discuss a strong
amendment to the farm bill such as this amendment. I am particularly
excited about the Conservation Reserve Program, as has been pointed
out.
As a long time supporter of the Agricultural Marketing Transition
Act, I will admit I had a concern about moving a farm bill without a
conservation section, which should have been included in the
reauthorization of the program itself. Without the Boehlert-Barrett-
Peterson amendment, we would be ignoring about 15 million acres of CRP
land that will be coming out of the program this year. If you add the
CRP contracts to expire next year, we are talking about 24 million
acres of land.
So the Conservation Reserve Program, which was established in 1985,
helps to protect our soil and water. It is an extremely important
matter that we continue the program. It has a wide spectrum of
interests, and farmers and environmentalists and sportsmen and the
public sector, frankly, get large benefits from the program, and the
House should not dismiss our responsibility to reauthorize the
program. It is a good amendment, it is an amendment that should be
adopted. It will help complete the farm bill and give the House a
position on CRP as we go to conference with the Senate.

So, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would say please support the
amendment, vote yes on Boehlert-Barrett-Peterson.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise with a great deal of concern on this amendment.
This is an amendment that those of us in the environmental community
ought to be embracing. But it has some very serious reservations. In
fact, I have a letter here signed by the Sierra Club, the American
Farmland Trust, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Working Group
Humane Society of the United States, Friends of the Earth, the Isaak
Walton League of America, the Land Trust Alliance, the Union for
Concerned Scientists, Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, the Soil
and Water Conservation Society, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, U.S.
PIRG, and the Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, all
addressing Members of this body, asking them to vote against the bill
because of this provision that is from it.
I have some concerns as I have been working closely through the year,
only I think we have a lot of mutual interests. One of my biggest
concerns in America is the erosion of good, prime, agriculture land.
America seems to be doing urban sprawl better than it can do
agriculture policy. So what we want to do, rather than get government
highly involved in this, is to allow--we have in America these
agriculture land trusts created in countries and States throughout the
United States. Those are private, nonprofit entities that go out and
buy from willing sellers, willing sellers, development rights that are
on agriculture land, so that the agriculture land remains permanently
in agriculture. I have been trying to get that amendment into the bill
and had a very difficult time because it is always sort of delayed.
The Senate policy allowed that amendment in there, and this amendment
does not. So, therefore, I reluctantly have to oppose the Boehlert
amendment.
I do so because I believe that this amendment undermines efforts both
here in the House and in the Senate to protect farmland from urban
sprawl.
I have coauthored legislation with my good friend from Maryland, Mr.
Gilchrest, to help the States address the troubling loss of farmland to
urbanization--over 1,000,000 acres a 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 the States with their efforts.
States like New York, California, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Michigan, and many others.
A version of our bill was added to the Senate farm bill by Senator
Santorum.
Before Tuesday, the Boehlert amendment would have included most of
the Senate conservation title--including farmland protection.
But Tuesday night, the Boehlert amendment was cut down to a size more
acceptable to the environmentally leaning Republican leadership.
Farmland protection was dropped from the bill.
This amendment will hurt the Senate farmland protection provisions in
conference.
I believe that a vote for the de la Garza-Clayton fund for rural
America amendment is better for farmland protection, better for the,
environment, better for rural economies, and better for farmers.
I cannot support this bill if it lacks adequate funding for
conservation, research, and rural development.
And I cannot support this bill if it does not help State farmland
protection efforts, or undercuts the Senate farmland protection
amendment in the conference--as I believe the Boehlert conservation
amendment will.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would point out the letter the
gentleman just referred to, signed by all the environmental
organizations, is silent to this amendment. They are actually
supportive of my amendment, opposed though to the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr.
Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
In my 1 minute I would like to make several points.
One is, who is an environmentalist? I have yet to find anybody who
does not believe in clean drinking water. would not like to see clean
water in general. Everybody wants clean air. You talk about
environmentalists, but the trust of matter is about 100 percent of the
United States of America is in one way or another an environmentalist.
Second, who owns the land? About 50 percent of the land in America is
owned or controlled by our farmers and our ranchers. That is a very
important commodity in terms of how we are going to impact our
environment.
Next our agricultural interests, also our environmental interests, I
have not met many farmers, ranchers, or anybody who deals with that
area, who is not interested in the environment.
Finally, there is a very close tie-in between the environment and our
agricultural interests. I know in my State of Delaware, in our inland
bays where Rehoboth Beach is, which many people know about, we have a
lot of farm interests. We have studied those inland bays and realize
the impact of fertilizers and other products on them.
Mr. Chairman, I would encourage all of us to support the program.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, by national acclaim, I will take the
podium again. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, just so that everybody is absolutely clear, I have
already made the point that we are scoring big points in getting
discretionary spending under control. What the proponents of this
amendment and the later subsequent provision in the agriculture bill do
to create the LEAP Program on Leap Day of Leap Year of 1996 is to
create a $1.4 billion mandatory program.
Now, there has been some discussion that, well, it is not really a
mandatory entitlement. I would only point to the bill itself, in fact
to the provision, I think this is the Boehlert amendment, ``Title III,
Conservation, section 1241, mandatory expenses.'' The whole program is
listed under mandatory expenses.
It says the ``Environmental Quality Incentive Program for each of
fiscal years 1996 through 2002, $200 million of funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation shall be available.'' It does

[[Page H1514]]
not say ``may be available'' or ``may be appropriated'' or ``might be
spent.'' It says ``it shall be available,'' which means this indeed is
a mandatory program. It increases spending.
Now, I have to tell my Republican colleagues, I got this report from
the House Republican conference talking points on why you should
support the House bill and not support the Senate bill. Well, on the
second page, it says the Senate bill is ``chock full of new spending.''
That is the reason you should not vote for the Senate bill.
Well, what are we doing here? Creating a nondiscretionary, mandatory
new entitlement for $1.4 billion. Do not come to the Committee on
Appropriations and say ``We need to cut spending'' if you vote for
this. This is locked in spending. Nobody can cut it, nobody can adjust
it, you just have to spend the money. And when you go back to the
campaign trail and say ``We have got to do something about the
mandatory side of the equation, two-thirds of the Federal budget, two-
thirds of $1.6 billion that we spend every year, but we can't do it
because we can't get the votes, can't get the support,'' if you vote
for this, you will know why. You can look in the mirror and see the
person responsible.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me time, and I thank the gentleman from Kansas for allowing
the opportunity to discuss an issue such as conservation.
The previous speaker spoke about an important issue, and that is
balancing the budget. He spoke about an important issue in not
frivolously spending the taxpayers' dollars in a wasteful manner. We
must balance the Federal budget. But in so doing, I think we have to
remember that we have to reduce some of the problems that are causing
Federal spending to go spiralling out of sight.
If we are dealing with the area of agriculture, how do we save money?
We reduce soil erosion, we prevent ground water from becoming
contaminated, we reduce the necessity of spending Federal dollars on
flooding. How do you do all these things in one particular area in the
scheme of things? If we are dealing with agriculture, we need to spend
taxpayer money wisely, we need to spend Federal dollars wisely, to
reduce the overall mismanagement of things.
So if we can have conservation programs that protect things such as
wetlands, which, by the way, are now relatively easily identified and
farmers wanted to participate in that so they can encourage the fact
that soil will not be eroded anymore, ground water will be clean, we
will have areas that will not be flooded anymore, we have areas where
fish can spawn, and they want to participate in the best management
practices for farming, then we are going to work as a team. It is going
to work.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage an aye vote on this amendment.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. Latham].
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Boehlert] in a colloquy. I just want some clarification
on different parts of this.
Is there anything in this that requires a whole farm plan?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, there is
nothing in there to require a whole farm plan.
Mr. LATHAM. There is no intention that would be part of it?
Mr. BOEHLERT. No intention.
Mr. LATHAM. Under the CRP provision it is added as far as water
conditions on the criteria. I want to know, is there an actual effect
as far as moving acres out of the Midwest to the Northeast, or is there
an intent, or will it have an effect in that regard?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I will be glad to direct that response to the chairman
of the full committee. We have had extensive conversations on that.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, as the
gentleman knows, you are looking at possibly the strongest possible
defender of the CRP. To have those acres remain in the Great Plains,
where we truly need it in this criteria, there is an out-option. The
farmer may leave the Conservation Reserve Program, but not, of course,
in terms of the highly environmentally sensitive ground. When he does
that, on his own volition, the Secretary then has the same number of
acres and money and he can apply it to other sensitive acres. But there
is no criteria to move this program from one section of the country to
another.
Mr. LATHAM. I would just like to ask the gentleman from New York, as
far as the Wetlands Reserve Program, you have got a third permanent,
third 30 years, and the others are different time periods. Is there
anything as far as new delineations of wetlands?
Mr. BOEHLERT. No, there is not.
Mr. LATHAM. Does the gentleman expect any effect as far as with tying
up the one-third as far as being permanent, as to what the anticipated
effect will be as far as how many acres currently are permanent and
will now be able to go into the 30 and the temporary?
Mr. BOEHLERT. We were anticipating more people would participate in
the program.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleagues listening to my
extemporaneous tirades here. I just hope that people will reflect that
this is serious. This is not about the merits of the program. We have
heard a lot of good speakers talk about the merits of the program. I
have to agree with that. It is a good program. We would like to
appropriate as much money as possible to this program. By the way, I
have dairy farmers who probably would avail themselves of the benefits
of this program. It is important.
But this is not a debate about the program or the benefits of the
program or the merits of the program. This is a debate about whether or
not we meant what we said when we said we wanted a balanced budget by
the year 2002. Now, it is nice that we come to the floor and debate
this issue about the LEAP program on leap day of leap year, 1996. That
is interesting. That is coincidental. But the real fact is, are we just
pulling the wool over the American people's eyes when we talk about a
balanced budget?
I suggest to Members, that they look at the trend that we have
created with discretionary spending, and remember, discretionary
spending is only one-third of the equation, one-third of the budget of
the United States that we spend every year. But we are working on
nondefense discretionary, we are getting the sum down. We are serious
about trying to save the taxpayers money.
As we all know, however, that other two-thirds is growing. Without a
budget agreement, we will not get a handle on it. The last thing we
need to do is make the problem worse. The last thing we need to do is
create new entitlements. The last thing we need to do is make those
entitlements lock in good programs, well-intentioned programs, well-
meaning programs, so we cannot ever adjust them. We cannot touch them.
But if you vote for this amendment, if you vote against my provision,
in fact, you do not want to balance the budget by the year 2002.
Perhaps you mean 3002.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]
has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the principal opponent of this amendment has just made
a compelling argument to support the amendment. He said his argument is
not about the merits of the program. He said it is a good program, but
he is concerned about priorities. So are we. So are the American
people.
The election of November 8, 1994, sent a clear, unequivocal message
to the Congress of the United States. The American people want smaller,
less costly, less intrusive, yet more efficient government. They want
us to get our priorities in order. And guess what, they did not send us
here to dismantle a quarter of a century of progress in important,
sensitive, environmental legislation. Who are the principal stewards of
our land? Our farmers, agriculture.
This is our greatest opportunity to do something meaningful to
protect our environment. When we want to

[[Page H1515]]
talk about water quality, are Members not all concerned, as we all
should be, when in one of the premier cities of America, Milwaukee, in
December 1993, 104 people died because they drank the water from a
public water system? That is a cause for concern. If we can do
something in just a small way here in this House to prevent that from
happening in the future, that is a job well done.
The sportsmen of America, the environmentalists of America, the
farmers of America support this amendment because it makes sense for
America. I urge my colleagues to join with us in a bipartisan manner
and win one for the American people.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Boehlert has been a leader
respected on both sides of the aisle for lack of partisanship on
environmental issues.
His amendment emphasizes the importance of conservation programs in a
total farmland management plan.
It addresses many concerns of USDA Secretary Glickman who says ``this
bill fails to make changes necessary in conservation programs that
would lead to cleaner water and better soil protection.''
Jim Lightfoot and I have delivered a letter to Chairman Roberts in
support of the Conservation Reserve Program.
It is vital to reauthorize the program and permit new sign-ups to
keep the program viable and maintain the significant investment made
over the past 10 years.
Its absence from the Roberts bill is a glaring omission.
I commend the Boehlert amendment and recommend passage.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Boehlert amendment
which represents the only opportunity on this farm legislation to
address the Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] and the Wetlands Reserve
Program [WRP]. Under the rules of the House we should have had a more
open debate and an opportunity for the House to work its will on these
important provisions--but were denied that by the closed rule adopted
for the consideration of this measure, H.R. 2854.
I am frankly very concerned about the Livestock Environmental
Assistance Program embodied in the amendment, not because we do not
need to clean up the feedlot seepage and pollution, but because the
funding duty to do so will be transferred to the Federal Government in
the absence of compliance. Such clean up and pollution prevention
should be borne by those responsible for the contamination, the
producers in agribusiness.
Furthermore, the limitations on the acreage included in the CRP and
the WRP proposal will sharply limit their effectiveness. I am hopeful
that there is not an implication in the purchase of easements, a
concept, that the Federal Government must pay land owners so that they
will not pollute or damage the environment.
Hopefully when and if this overall measure moves to conference, we
will see these shortcomings corrected. But this amendment, which will
no doubt pass today, is a mixed message and not the best product for a
sound conservation policy path in 1996.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert
amendment to H.R. 2854 to add much needed conservation provisions to
the Agriculture Market Transition Act.
The Boehlert amendment achieves significant conservation measures
that benefit the environment by retiring highly erodible and
environmentally sensitive land and protecting wetlands, thereby
expanding wildlife habitat, enhancing water quality and restoring soil
quality. And, at the same time, this amendment provides necessary
reform to improve farm management and operation while preserving
profitability for farmers.
I understand the chairman's plans to address conservation efforts in
future legislation. But, given the President's much-abused use of the
veto pen, I don't think that we can afford to delay consideration of
this essential authorization.
The time is now to enact conservation authorization reforms.
Authority to enroll new CRP lands expired in 1995. The first CRP
contracts expired in October 1995 and contracts covering over half the
land in the current program will expire this year and next.
I grew up on a fifth generation family farm and my father taught me
the importance of preserving the land for future generations.
Conservation efforts benefit not only the community surrounding
contract land, but also across state boundaries. Preserving wildlife
habitat for future generations is important to my constituents and our
heritage. For example, CRP's wildlife benefits are enjoyed by millions
of sportsmen and have generated billions of dollars in economic
activity, and restoring and protecting ground water and stream flows
for fish, wildlife, and rural communities is essential.
I think it is also important to note that, according to the
Congressional Budget Office, Representative Boehlert's amendment costs
less than half of the Senate provisions, while doing a better job of
protecting our soil and water resources.
Mr. Speaker, the time to reauthorize conservation programs is now,
and I urge my colleagues to support the Boehlert amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was orderd.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 372,
noes 37, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No 37]

AYES--372

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Studds
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton

[[Page H1516]]

Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--37

Archer
Armey
Baker (LA)
Barton
Chenoweth
Collins (GA)
Crane
DeLay
Farr
Goodling
Hancock
Hansen
Hayes
Herger
Hostettler
Hunter
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Lewis (CA)
Livingston
McDade
Miller (FL)
Neumann
Packard
Pombo
Radanovich
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Royce
Scarborough
Souder
Stump
Tauzin
Vucanovich
Walker
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--22

Bryant (TX)
Burton
Callahan
Collins (IL)
Dingell
Dixon
Fattah
Furse
Gibbons
Graham
Greenwood
Kasich
Lazio
Maloney
McKinney
Moorhead
Rose
Sisisky
Stokes
Wilson
Young (AK)
Zeliff

{time} 1010

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Fazio of California for, with Mr. Kasich against.

Messrs. McDADE, NEUMANN, and SCARBOROUGH changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. OXLEY and Mr. McINTOSH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. (Mrs. Waldholtz]. It is now in order to
consider amendment No. 10 printed in House Report 104-463.

amendment offered by mr. roth

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Roth:
Add at the end of title IV the following:
Subtitle B--Amendments to Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance
Act of 1954 and Related Statutes

SEC. 411. FOOD AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

(a) In General.--Section 3 of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691a) is
amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 3. FOOD AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

``(a) Policy.--In light of the Uruguay Round Agreement on
Agriculture and the Ministerial Decision on Measures
Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform
Program on Least-Developed and Net-Food Importing Developing
Countries, the United States reaffirms the commitment of the
United States to providing food aid to developing countries.
``(b) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress
that--
``(1) the President should initiate consultations with
other donor nations to consider appropriate levels of food
aid commitments to meet the legitimate needs of developing
countries;
``(2) the United States should increase its contribution of
bona fide food assistance to developing countries consistent
with the Agreement on Agriculture.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 411 of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3611) is amended by striking
subsection (e).

SEC. 412. TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE.

Section 101 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1701) is amended--
(1) by striking ``developing countries'' each place it
appears and inserting ``developing countries and private
entities''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``and entities'' before
the period at the end.

SEC. 413. AGREEMENTS REGARDING ELIGIBLE COUNTRIES AND PRIVATE
ENTITIES.

Section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1702) is amended to read as
follows:

``SEC. 102. AGREEMENTS REGARDING ELIGIBLE COUNTRIES AND
PRIVATE ENTITIES.

``(a) Priority.--In selecting agreements to be entered into
under this title, the Secretary shall give priority to
agreements providing for the export of agricultural
commodities to developing countries that--
``(1) have the demonstrated potential to become commercial
markets for competitively priced United States agricultural
commodities;
``(2) are undertaking measures for economic development
purposes to improve food security and agricultural
development, alleviate poverty, and promote broad-based
equitable and sustainable development; and
``(3) demonstrate the greatest need for food.
``(b) Private Entities.--An agreement entered into under
this title with a private entity shall require such security,
or such other provisions as the Secretary determines
necessary, to provide reasonable and adequate assurance of
repayment of the financing extended to the private entity.
``(c) Agricultural Market Development Plan.--
``(1) Definition of agricultural trade organization.--In
this subsection, the term `agricultural trade organization'
means a United States agricultural trade organization that
promotes the export and sale of a United States agricultural
commodity and that does not stand to profit directly from the
specific sale of the commodity.
``(2) an.--The Secretary shall consider a developing
country for which an agricultural market development plan has
been approved under this subsection to have the demonstrated
potential to become a commercial market for competitively
priced United States agricultural commodities for the purpose
of granting a priority under subsection (a).
``(3) Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--To be approved by the Secretary, an
agricultural market development plan shall--
``(i) be submitted by a developing country or private
entity, in conjunction with an agricultural trade
organization;
``(ii) describe a project or program for the development
and expansion of a United States agricultural commodity
market in a developing country, and the economic development
of the country, using funds derived from the sale of
agricultural commodities received under an agreement
described in section 101;
``(iii) provide for any matching funds that are required by
the Secretary for the project or program;
``(iv) provide for a results-oriented means of measuring
the success of the project or program; and
``(v) provide for graduation to the use of non-Federal
funds to carry out the project or program, consistent with
requirements established by the Secretary.
``(B) Agricultural trade organization.--The project or
program shall be designed and carried out by the agricultural
trade organization.
``(C) Additional requirements.--An agricultural market
development plan shall contain such additional requirements
as are determined necessary by the Secretary.
``(4) Administrative costs.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make funds made
available to carry out this title available for the
reimbursement of administrative expenses incurred by
agricultural trade organizations in developing, implementing,
and administering agricultural market development plans,
subject to such requirements and in such amounts as the
Secretary considers appropriate.
``(B) Duration.--The funds shall be made available to
agricultural trade organizations for the duration of the
applicable agricultural market development plan.
``(C) Termination.--The Secretary may terminate assistance
made available under this subsection if the agricultural
trade organization is not carrying out the approved
agricultural market development plan.''.

SEC. 414. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALES.

Section 103 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1703) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(A)--
(A) by striking ``a recipient country to make''; and
(B) by striking ``such country'' and inserting ``the
appropriate country'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``less than 10 nor'';
and
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``recipient country'' and inserting
``developing country or private entity''; and
(B) by striking ``7'' and inserting ``5''.

SEC. 415. USE OF LOCAL CURRENCY PAYMENT.

Section 104 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1704) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``recipient country''
and inserting ``developing country or private entity''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``recipient country'' each place it appears
and inserting ``appropriate developing country''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``recipient countries''
and inserting ``appropriate developing countries''.

SEC. 416. ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

[[Page H1517]]
Cooperatives'' and inserting ``Eligible Organizations'';
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``$13,500,000'' and inserting
``$28,000,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``private voluntary organizations and
cooperatives to assist such organizations and cooperatives''
and inserting ``eligible organizations described in
subsection (d), to assist the organizations'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``a private voluntary
organization or cooperative, the Administrator may provide
assistance to that organization or cooperative'' and
inserting ``an eligible organization, the Administrator may
provide assistance to the eligible organization''.

SEC. 417. GENERATION AND USE OF FOREIGN CURRENCIES.

Section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1723) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or in a country in
the same region,'' after ``in the recipient country'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``or in countries in the same region,''
after ``in recipient countries,''; and
(B) by striking ``10 percent'' and inserting ``15
percent'';
(3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or in a country in
the same region,'' after ``in the recipient country,''; and
(4) in subsection (d)(2), by inserting ``or within a
country in the same region'' after ``within the recipient
country''.

SEC. 418. GENERAL LEVELS OF ASSISTANCE UNDER PUBLIC LAW 480.

Section 204(a) of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1724(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``amount that'' and all
that follows through the period at the end and inserting
``amount that for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2002 is
not less than 2,025,000 metric tons.'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``amount that'' and all
that follows through the period at the end and inserting
``amount that for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2002 is
not less than 1,550,000 metric tons.''; and
(3) in paragraph (3), by adding at the end the following:
``No waiver shall be made before the beginning of the
applicable fiscal year.''.

SEC. 419. FOOD AID CONSULTATIVE GROUP.

Section 205 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1725) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``private voluntary
organizations, cooperatives and indigenous non-governmental
organizations'' and inserting ``eligible organizations
described in section 202(d)(1)'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``for International
Affairs and Commodity Programs'' and inserting ``of
Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services'';
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) representatives from agricultural producer groups in
the United States.'';
(3) in the second sentence of subsection (d), by inserting
``(but at least twice per year)'' after ``when appropriate'';
and
(4) in subsection (f), by striking ``1995'' and inserting
``2002''.

SEC. 420. SUPPORT OF NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 306(b) of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1727e(b)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Indigenous
Non-Governmental'' and inserting ``Nongovernmental''; and
(2) by striking ``utilization of indigenous'' and inserting
``utilization of''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 402 of the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1732)
is amended by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the
following:
``(6) Nongovernmental organization.--The term
`nongovernmental organization' means an organization that
works at the local level to solve development problems in a
foreign country in which the organization is located, except
that the term does not include an organization that is
primarily an agency or instrumentality of the government of
the foreign country.''.

SEC. 421. COMMODITY DETERMINATIONS.

Section 401 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1731) is amended--
(1) by striking subsections (a) through (d) and inserting
the following:
``(a) Availability of Commodities.--No agricultural
commodity shall be available for disposition under this Act
if the Secretary determines that the disposition would reduce
the domestic supply of the commodity below the supply needed
to meet domestic requirements and provide adequate carryover
(as determined by the Secretary), unless the Secretary
determines that some part of the supply should be used to
carry out urgent humanitarian purposes under this Act.'';
(2) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(b) and (c), respectively; and
(3) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), by striking
``(e)(1)'' and inserting ``(b)(1)''.

SEC. 422. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

Section 403 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1733) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking
``Consultations'' and inserting ``Impact on Local Farmers and
Economy''; and
(B) by striking ``consult with'' and all that follows
through ``other donor organizations to'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``from countries''; and
(B) by striking ``for use'' and inserting ``or use'';
(3) in subsection (f)--
(A) by inserting ``or private entities, as appropriate,''
after ``from countries''; and
(B) by inserting ``or private entities'' after ``such
countries''; and
(4) in subsection (i)(2), by striking subparagraph (C).

SEC. 423. AGREEMENTS.

Section 404 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1734) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``with foreign
countries'' after ``Before entering into agreements'';
(2) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) by inserting ``with foreign countries'' after ``with
respect to agreements entered into''; and
(B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``and broad-based economic growth''; and
(3) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--Agreements to provide assistance on a
multi-year basis to recipient countries or to eligible
organizations--
``(A) may be made available under titles I and III; and
``(B) shall be made available under title II.''.

SEC. 424. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

Section 407 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1736a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph(1), by inserting ``or private entity that
enters into an agreement under title I'' after ``importing
country''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
``Resulting contracts may contain such terms and conditions
as the Secretary determines are necessary and appropriate.'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by inserting ``importer or''
before ``importing country''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``importer or''
before ``importing country'';
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) Freight procurement.--Notwithstanding the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.
471 et seq.) or other similar provisions of law relating to
the making or performance of Federal Government contracts,
ocean transportation under titles II and III may be procured
on the basis of such full and open competitive procedures.
Resulting contracts may contain such terms and conditions, as
the Administrator determines are necessary and
appropriate.''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (4);
(4) in subsection (g)(2)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) an assessment of the progress towards achieving food
security in each country receiving food assistance from the
United States Government, with special emphasis on the
nutritional status of the poorest populations in each
country.''; and
(5) by striking subsection (h).

SEC. 425. EXPIRATION DATE.

Section 408 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1736b) is amended by
striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''.

SEC. 426. REGULATIONS.

Section 409 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1736c) is repealed.

SEC. 427. INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS.

Section 410 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1736d) is repealed.

SEC. 428. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 412 of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1736f) is
amended--
(1) by striking subsections (b) and (c) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Transfer of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the President may direct that--
``(1) up to 15 percent of the funds available for any
fiscal year for carrying out title I or III of this Act be
used to carry out any other title of this Act; and
``(2) up to 100 percent of funds available for title III be
used to carry out title II.''; and
(2) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively.
(b) Relation to Other Waiver.--Section 204(a)(3) of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7
U.S.C. 1724(a)(3)) is amended by inserting ``all authority to
transfer from title I under section 412 has been exercised
with respect to that fiscal year and'' after ``any fiscal
year if''.

[[Page H1518]]

SEC. 429. COORDINATION OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

Section 413 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1736g) is amended by
inserting ``title III of'' before ``this Act'' each place it
appears.

SEC. 430. USE OF CERTAIN LOCAL CURRENCY.

Title IV of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1731 et seq.) (as amended by
section 222) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 416. USE OF CERTAIN LOCAL CURRENCY.

``Local currency payments received by the United States
pursuant to agreements entered into under title I (as in
effect on November 27, 1990) may be utilized by the Secretary
in accordance with section 108 (as in effect on November 27,
1990).''.

SEC. 431. LEVEL OF ASSISTANCE TO FARMER TO FARMER PROGRAM.

Section 501(c) of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1737(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``0.2'' and inserting ``0.4'';
(2) by striking ``0.1'' and inserting ``0.2''; and
(3) by striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting ``1996
through 2002''.

SEC. 432. FOOD SECURITY COMMODITY RESERVE.

(a) Food Security Commodity Reserve Act of 1995.--The title
heading of title III of the Agricultural Act of 1980 (7
U.S.C. 1736f-1 note) is amended by striking ``FOOD SECURITY
WHEAT RESERVE ACT OF 1980'' and inserting ``FOOD SECURITY
COMMODITY RESERVE ACT OF 1995''.
(b) Short Title.--Section 301 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1
note) is amended by striking ``Food Security Wheat Reserve
Act of 1980'' and inserting ``Food Security Commodity Reserve
Act of 1995''.
(c) In General.--Section 302 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1736f-1)
is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``FOOD SECURITY
WHEAT RESERVE'' and inserting ``FOOD SECURITY COMMODITY
RESERVE'';
(2) so that subsection (a) reads as follows:
``(a) In General.--To provide for a reserve solely to meet
emergency humanitarian food needs in developing countries,
the Secretary shall establish a reserve stock of wheat, rice,
corn, or sorghum, or any combination of the commodities,
totaling not more than 4,000,000 metric tons for use as
described in subsection (c).'';
(3) so that subsection (b)(1) reads as follows:
``(b) Commodities in Reserve.--
``(1) In general.--The reserve established under this
section shall consist of--
``(A) wheat in the reserve established under the Food
Security Commodity Reserve Act of 1980 as of the date of
enactment of the Food For Peace Reauthorization Act of 1995;
``(B) wheat, rice, corn, and sorghum (referred to in this
section as `eligible commodities') acquired in accordance
with paragraph (2) to replenish eligible commodities released
from the reserve, including wheat to replenish wheat released
from the reserve established under the Food Security Wheat
Reserve Act of 1980 but not replenished as of the date of
enactment of the Food For Peace Reauthorization Act of 1995;
and
``(C) such rice, corn, and sorghum as the Secretary of
Agriculture (referred to in this section as the `Secretary')
may, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary
determines appropriate, acquire as a result of exchanging an
equivalent value of wheat in the reserve established under
this section.'';
(4) in subsection (b)(2)--
(A) by striking ``(2)(A) Subject to'' and inserting the
following:
``(2) Replenishment of reserve.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to'';
(B) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``(i) of this section stocks of wheat'' and
inserting ``(i) stocks of eligible commodities'';
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``stocks of wheat'' and
inserting ``stocks of eligible commodities''; and
(iii) in the second sentence, by striking ``wheat'' and
inserting ``eligible commodities''; and
(C) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``(B) Not later'' and inserting ``(B) Time
for replenishment of reserve.--Not later''; and
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``wheat'' and inserting
``eligible commodities'';
(5) so that subsections (c) through (f) read as follows:
``(c) Release of Eligible Commodities.--
``(1) Determination.--If the Secretary determines that the
amount of commodities allocated for minimum assistance under
section 204(a)(1) of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1724(a)(1)) less the amount
of commodities allocated for minimum non-emergency assistance
under section 204(a)(2) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1724(a)(2)) will
be insufficient to meet the need for commodities for
emergency assistance under section 202(a) of the Act (7
U.S.C. 1722(a)), the Secretary in any fiscal year may release
from the reserve--
``(A) up to 500,000 metric tons of wheat or the equivalent
value of eligible commodities other than wheat; and
``(B) any eligible commodities which under subparagraph (A)
could have been released but were not released in prior
fiscal years.
``(2) Availability of commodities.--Commodities released
under paragraph (1) shall be made available under title II of
the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954
(7 U.S.C. 1721 et seq.) for emergency assistance.
``(3) Exchange.--The Secretary may exchange an eligible
commodity for another United States commodity of equal value,
including powdered milk, pulses, and vegetable oil.
``(4) Use of normal commercial practices.--To the maximum
extend practicable consistent with the fulfillment of the
purposes of this section and the effective and efficient
administration of this section, the Secretary shall use the
usual and customary channels, facilities, arrangements, and
practices of the trade and commerce.
``(5) Waiver of minimum tonnage requirements.--Nothing in
this subsection shall require the exercise of the waiver
under section 204(a)(3) of the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1724(a)(3)) as a
prerequisite for the release of eligible commodities under
this subsection.
``(d) Transportation and Handling Costs.--
``(1) In general.--The cost of transportation and handling
of eligible commodities released from the reserve established
under this section shall be paid by the Commodity Credit
Corporation in accordance with section 406 of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7
U.S.C. 1736).
``(2) Reimbursement.--
``(A) In general.--The Commodity Credit Corporation shall
be reimbursed for the costs incurred under paragraph (1) from
the funds made available to carry out the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691 et
seq.).
``(B) Basis for reimbursement.--The reimbursement shall be
made on the basis of the lesser of the actual cost incurred
by the Commodity Credit Corporation less any savings achieved
as a result of decreased storage and handling costs for the
reserve.
``(C) Decreased storage and handling costs.--For purposes
of this subsection, `decreased storage and handling costs'
shall mean the total actual costs for storage and handling
incurred by the Commodity Credit Corporation for the reserve
established under title III of the Agricultural Act of 1980
in fiscal year 1995 less the total actual costs for storage
and handling incurred by the Corporation for the reserve
established under this Act in the fiscal year for which the
savings are calculated.
``(e) Management of Reserve.--The Secretary shall provide
for--
``(1) the management of eligible commodities in the reserve
as to location and quality of commodities needed to meet
emergency situations; and
``(2) the periodic rotation of eligible commodities in the
reserve to avoid spoilage and deterioration of such stocks.
``(f) Treatment of Reserve Under Other Law.--Eligible
commodities in the reserve established under this section
shall not be--
``(1) considered a part of the total domestic supply
(including carryover) for the purpose of administering the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7
U.S.C. 1691 et seq.); and
``(2) subject to any quantitative limitation on exports
that may be imposed under section 7 of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2406).'';
(6) in subsection (g)--
(A) by striking ``(g)(1) The'' and inserting the following:
``(g) Use of Commodity Credit Corporation.--The'';
(B) by striking ``wheat'' and inserting ``an eligible
commodity''; and
(C) by striking paragraph (2);
(7) in subsection (h)--
(A) by striking ``(h) Any'' and inserting:
``(h) Finality of Determination.--Any''; and
(B) by striking ``President or the Secretary of
Agriculture'' and inserting ``Secretary''; and
(8) in subsection (i)--
(A) by striking ``(i) The'' and inserting:
``(i) Termination of Authority.--The'';
(B) by striking ``wheat'' each place it appears and
inserting ``eligible commodities''; and
(C) by striking ``1995'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2002''.
(d) Effective Date.--Section 303 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1736-
1 note) is amended by striking ``October 1, 1980'' and all
that follows through the end of the section and inserting
``on the date of enactment of this Act.''.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 208(d)(2) of the
Agriculture Trade Suspension Adjustment Act of 1980 (7 U.S.C.
4001(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Applicability of certain provisions.--Subsections
(b)(2), (c), (e), and (f) of section 302 of the Food Security
Commodity Reserve Act of 1995 shall apply to commodities in
any reserve established under paragraph (1), except that the
references to `eligible commodities' in the subsections shall
be deemed to be references to `agricultural commodities'.''.

SEC. 423. FOOD FOR PROGRESS PROGRAM.

[[Page H1519]]

(B) by striking paragraph (2);
(2) in subsection (e)(4), by striking ``203'' and inserting
``406'';
(3) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``in the case of the
independent states of the former Soviet Union,'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2);
(C) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``in each of fiscal
years 1996 through 2002'' after ``may be used''; and
(D) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as
paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively;
(4) in subsection (g), by striking ``1995'' and inserting
``2002'';
(5) in subsection (j), by striking ``shall'' and inserting
``may'';
(6) in subsection (k), by striking ``1995'' and inserting
``2002'';
(7) in subsection (l)(1)--
(A) by striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting ``1996
through 2002''; and
(B) by inserting ``, and to provide technical assistance
for monetization programs,'' after ``monitoring of food
assistance programs''; and
(8) in subsection (m)--
(A) by striking ``with respect to the independent states of
the former Soviet Union'';
(B) by striking ``private voluntary organizations and
cooperatives'' each place it appears and inserting
``agricultural trade organizations, intergovernmental
organizations, private voluntary organizations, and
cooperatives''; and
(C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``in the independent
states''.
Subtitle C--Amendments to Agricultural Trade Act of 1978

SEC. 451. AGRICULTURAL EXPORT PROMOTION STRATEGY.

(a) In General.--Section 103 of the Agricultural Trade Act
of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5603) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 103. AGRICULTURAL EXPORT PROMOTION STRATEGY.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall develop a strategy
for implementing Federal agricultural export promotion
programs that takes into account the new market opportunities
for agricultural products, including opportunities that
result from--
``(1) the North American Free Trade Agreement and the
Uruguay Round Agreements;
``(2) any accession to membership in the World Trade
Organization;
``(3) the continued economic growth in the Pacific Rim; and
``(4) other developments.
``(b) Purpose of Strategy.--The strategy developed under
subsection (a) shall encourage the maintenance, development,
and expansion of export markets for United States
agricultural commodities and related products, including
high-value and value-added products.
``(c) Goals of Strategy.--The strategy developed under
subsection (a) shall have the following goals:
``(1) By September 30, 2002, increasing the value of annual
United States agricultural exports to $60,000,000,000.
``(2) By September 30, 2002, increasing the United States
share of world export trade in agricultural products
significantly above the average United States share from 1993
through 1995.
``(3) By September 30, 2002, increasing the United States
share of world trade in high-value agricultural products to
20 percent.
``(4) Ensuring that the value of United States exports of
agricultural products increases at a faster rate than the
rate of increase in the value of overall world export trade
in agricultural products.
``(5) Ensuring that the value of United States exports of
high-value agricultural products increases at a faster rate
than the rate of increase in overall world export trade in
high-value agricultural products.
``(6) Ensuring to the extent practicable that--
``(A) substantially all obligations undertaken in the
Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture that provide
significantly increased access for United States agricultural
commodities are implemented to the extent required by the
Uruguay Round Agreements; or
``(B) applicable United States trade laws are used to
secure United States rights under the Uruguay Round Agreement
on Agriculture.
``(d) Priority Markets.--
``(1) Identification of markets.--In developing the
strategy required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
identify as priority markets--
``(A) those markets in which imports of agricultural
products show the greatest potential for increase by
September 30, 2002; and
``(B) those markets in which, with the assistance of
Federal export promotion programs, exports of United States
agricultural products show the greatest potential for
increase by September 30, 2002.
``(2) Identification of supporting offices.--The President
shall identify annually in the budget of the United States
Government submitted under section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code, each overseas office of the Foreign Agricultural
Service that provides assistance to United States exporters
in each of the priority markets identified under paragraph
(1).
``(e) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the
Secretary shall prepare and submit a report to Congress
assessing progress in meeting the goals established by
subsection (c).
``(f) Failure To Meet Goals.--Notwithstanding any other
law, if the Secretary determines that more than 2 of the
goals established by subsection (c) are not met by September
30, 2002, the Secretary may not carry out agricultural trade
programs under the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5601 et seq.) as of that date.
``(g) No Private Right of Action.--This section shall not
create any private right of action.''.
(b) Continuation of Funding.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary of Agriculture makes a
determination under section 103(f) of the Agricultural Trade
Act of 1978 (as amended by subsection (a)), the Secretary
shall utilize funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
promote United States agricultural exports in a manner
consistent with the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act
(15 U.S.C. 714 et seq.) and obligations pursuant to the
Uruguay Round Agreements.
(2) Funding.--The amount of Commodity Credit Corporation
funds used to carry out paragraph (1) during a fiscal year
shall not exceed the total outlays for agricultural trade
programs under the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5601 et seq.) during fiscal year 2002.
(c) Elimination of Report.--
(1) In general.--Section 601 of the Agricultural Trade Act
of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5711) is repealed.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The last sentence of section 603
of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5713) is
amended by striking ``, in a consolidated report,'' and all
that follows through ``section 601'' and inserting ``or in a
consolidated report''.

SEC. 452. EXPORT CREDITS.

[[Page H1520]]
year to the extent that a reduction in the total amount of credit
guarantees issued for the fiscal year is not required to meet
the percentage requirement.''.
(b) Funding Levels.--Section 211(b) of the Agricultural
Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) as
paragraph (2) and indenting the margin of paragraph (2) (as
so redesignated) so as to align with the margin of paragraph
(1); and
(3) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Export credit guarantees.--The Commodity Credit
Corporation shall make available for each of fiscal years
1996 through 2002 not less than $5,500,000,000 in credit
guarantees under subsections (a) and (b) of section 202.''.
(c) Definitions.--Section 102(7) of the Agricultural Trade
Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602(7)) is amended by striking
subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the following:
``(A) an agricultural commodity or product entirely
produced in the United States; or
``(B) a product of an agricultural commodity--
``(i) 90 percent or more of the agricultural components of
which by weight, excluding packaging and added water, is
entirely produced in the United States; and
``(ii) that the Secretary determines to be a United States
high value agricultural product.''.
(d) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the
effective date of this title, the Secretary of Agriculture
shall issue regulations to carry out the amendments made by
this section.

SEC. 453. EXPORT PROGRAM AND FOOD ASSISTANCE TRANSFER
AUTHORITY.

The Secretary of Agriculture shall fully utilize and
aggressively implement the full range of agricultural export
programs authorized in this Act and any other Act, in any
combination, to help United States agriculture maintain and
expand export markets, promote United States agricultural
commodity and product exports, counter subsidized foreign
competition, and capitalize on potential new market
opportunities. Consistent with United States obligations
under GATT, if the Secretary determines that funds available
under 1 or more export subsidy programs cannot be fully or
effectively utilized for such programs, the Secretary may
utilize such funds for other authorized agricultural export
and food assistance programs to achieve the above objectives
and to further enhance the overall global competitiveness of
United States agriculture. Funds so utilized shall be in
addition to funds which may otherwise be authorized or
appropriated for such other agricultural export programs.

SEC. 454. ARRIVAL CERTIFICATION.

Section 401 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5662(a)) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting
the following:
``(a) Arrival Certification.--With respect to a commodity
provided, or for which financing or a credit guarantee or
other assistance is made available, under a program
authorized in section 201, 202, or 301, the Commodity Credit
Corporation shall require the exporter of the commodity to
maintain records of an official or customary commercial
nature or other documents as the Secretary may require, and
shall allow representatives of the Commodity Credit
Corporation access to the records or documents as needed, to
verify the arrival of the commodity in the country that was
the intended destination of the commodity.''.

SEC. 455. REGULATIONS.

Section 404 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5664) is repealed.

SEC. 456. FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE.

Section 503 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5693) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 503. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL
SERVICE.

``The Service shall assist the Secretary in carrying out
the agricultural trade policy and international cooperation
policy of the United States by--
``(1) acquiring information pertaining to agricultural
trade;
``(2) carrying out market promotion and development
activities;
``(3) providing agricultural technical assistance and
training; and
``(4) carrying out the programs authorized under this Act,
the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954
(7 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.), and other Acts.''.

SEC. 457. REPORTS.

The first sentence of section 603 of the Agricultural Trade
Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5713) is amended by striking ``The''
and inserting ``Subject to section 217 of the Department of
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6917),
the''.
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous

SEC. 471. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TOBACCO.

Section 214 of the Tobacco Adjustment Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C.
509) is repealed.

SEC. 472. TRIGGERED EXPORT ENHANCEMENT.

(a) Readjustment of Support Levels.--Section 1302 of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-
508; 7 U.S.C. 1421 note) is repealed.
(b) Triggered Marketing Loans and Export Enhancement.--
Section 4301 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of
1988 (Public Law 100-418; 7 U.S.C. 1446 note) is repealed.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective beginning with the 1996 crops of wheat,
feed grains, upland cotton, and rice.

SEC. 473. DISPOSITION OF COMMODITIES TO PREVENT WASTE.

Section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after the first sentence
the following: ``The Secretary may use funds of the Commodity
Credit Corporation to cover administrative expenses of the
programs.'';
(B) in paragraph (7)(D)(iv), by striking ``one year of
acquisition'' and all that follows and inserting the
following: ``a reasonable length of time, as determined by
the Secretary, except that the Secretary may permit the use
of proceeds in a country other than the country of origin--
``(I) as necessary to expedite the transportation of
commodities and products furnished under this subsection; or
``(II) if the proceeds are generated in a currency
generally accepted in the other country.'';
(C) in paragraph (8), by striking subparagraph (C); and
(D) by striking paragraphs (10), (11), and (12); and
(2) by striking subsection (c).

SEC. 474. DEBT-FOR-HEALTH-AND-PROTECTION SWAP.

(a) In General.--Section 1517 of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 1706) is
repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subsection (e)(3) of the Food
for Progress Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o(e)(3)) is amended by
striking ``section 106'' and inserting ``section 103''.

SEC. 475. POLICY ON EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL MARKETS.

Section 1207 of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (7
U.S.C. 1736m) is repealed.

SEC. 476. POLICY ON MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF EXPORT
MARKETS.

Section 1121 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1736p) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a); and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``(b)''; and
(B) by striking paragraphs (1) through (4) and inserting
the following:
``(1) be the premier supplier of agricultural and food
products to world markets and expand exports of high value
products;
``(2) support the principle of free trade and the promotion
of fair trade in agricultural commodities and products;
``(3) cooperate fully in all efforts to negotiate with
foreign countries further reductions in tariff and nontariff
barriers to trade, including sanitary and phytosanitary
measures and trade-distorting subsidies;

``(4) aggressively counter unfair foreign trade practices
as a means of encouraging fairer trade;''.

SEC. 477. POLICY ON TRADE LIBERALIZATION.

Section 1122 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1736q) is repealed.

SEC. 478. AGRICULTURAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.

Section 1123 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1736r) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1123. TRADE NEGOTIATIONS POLICY.

``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
``(1) on a level playing field, United States producers are
the most competitive suppliers of agricultural products in
the world;
``(2) exports of United States agricultural products will
account for $54,000,000,000 in 1995, contributing a net
$24,000,000,000 to the merchandise trade balance of the
United States and supporting approximately 1,000,000 jobs;
``(3) increased agricultural exports are critical to the
future of the farm, rural, and overall United States economy,
but the opportunities for increased agricultural exports are
limited by the unfair subsidies of the competitors of the
United States, and a variety of tariff and nontariff barriers
to highly competitive United States agricultural products;
``(4) international negotiations can play a key role in
breaking down barriers to United States agricultural exports;
``(5) the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture made
significant progress in the attainment of increased market
access opportunities for United States exports of
agricultural products, for the first time--
``(A) restraining foreign trade-distorting domestic support
and export subsidy programs; and
``(B) developing common rules for the application of
sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions;
that should result in increased exports of United States
agricultural products, jobs, and income growth in the United
States;
``(6) the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture did not
succeed in completely eliminating trade distorting domestic
support and export subsidies by--
``(A) allowing the European Union to continue unreasonable
levels of spending on export subsidies; and
``(B) failing to discipline monopolistic state trading
entities, such as the Canadian Wheat Board, that use
nontransparent and discriminatory pricing as a hidden de
facto export subsidy;
``(7) during the period 1996 through 2002, there will be
several opportunities for the United States to negotiate
fairer trade in agricultural products, including further
negotiations under the World Trade Organization,

[[Page H1521]]
and steps toward possible free trade agreements of the Americas and
Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC); and
``(8) the United States should aggressively use these
opportunities to achieve more open and fair opportunities for
trade in agricultural products.
``(b) Goals of the United States in Agricultural Trade
Negotiations.--The objectives of the United States with
respect to future negotiations on agricultural trade
include--
``(1) increasing opportunities for United States exports of
agricultural products by eliminating tariff and nontariff
barriers to trade;
``(2) leveling the playing field for United States
producers of agricultural products by limiting per unit
domestic production supports to levels that are no greater
than those available in the United States;
``(3) ending the practice of export dumping by eliminating
all trade distorting export subsidies and disciplining state
trading entities so that they do not (except in cases of bona
fide food aid) sell in foreign markets at below domestic
market prices nor their full costs of acquiring and
delivering agricultural products to the foreign markets; and
``(4) encouraging government policies that avoid price-
depressing surpluses.''.

SEC. 479. POLICY ON UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES.

Section 1164 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-198; 99 Stat. 1499) is repealed.

SEC. 480. AGRICULTURAL AID AND TRADE MISSIONS.

(a) In General.--The Agricultural Aid and Trade Missions
Act (7 U.S.C. 1736bb et seq.) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7 of Public Law 100-277
(7 U.S.C. 1736bb note) is repealed.

SEC. 481. ANNUAL REPORTS BY AGRICULTURAL ATTACHES.

Section 108(b)(1)(B) of the Agricultural Act of 1954 (7
U.S.C. 1748(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``including
fruits, vegetables, legumes, popcorn, and ducks''.

SEC. 482. WORLD LIVESTOCK MARKET PRICE INFORMATION.

Section 1545 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624; 7 U.S.C. 1761 note) is
repealed.

SEC. 483. ORDERLY LIQUIDATION OF STOCKS.

Sections 201 and 207 of the Agricultural Act of 1956 (7
U.S.C. 1851 and 1857) are repealed.

SEC. 484. SALES OF EXTRA LONG STAPLE COTTON.

Section 202 of the Agricultural Act of 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1852)
is repealed.

SEC. 485. REGULATIONS.

Section 707 of the Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian
Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992 (Public Law
102-511; 7 U.S.C. 5621 note) is amended by striking
subsection (d).

SEC. 486. EMERGING MARKETS.

(a) Promotion of Agricultural Exports to Emerging
Markets.--
(1) Emerging markets.--Section 1542 of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law
101-624; 7 U.S.C. 5622 note) is amended--
(A) in the section heading, by striking ``EMERGING
DEMOCRACIES'' and inserting ``EMERGING MARKETS'';
(B) by striking ``emerging democracies'' each place it
appears in subsections (b), (d), and (e) and inserting
``emerging markets'';
(C) by striking ``emerging democracy'' each place it
appears in subsection (c) and inserting ``emerging market'';
and
(D) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
``(f) Emerging Market.--In this section and section 1543,
the term `emerging market' means any country that the
Secretary determines--
``(1) is taking steps toward a market-oriented economy
through the food, agriculture, or rural business sectors of
the economy of the country; and
``(2) has the potential to provide a viable and significant
market for United States agricultural commodities or products
of United States agricultural commodities.''.
(2) Funding.--Section 1542 of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 is amended by striking
subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Funding.--The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make
available for fiscal years 1996 through 2002 not less than
$1,000,000,000 of direct credits or export credit guarantees
for exports to emerging markets under section 201 or 202 of
the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5621 and 5622),
in addition to the amounts acquired or authorized under
section 211 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 5641) for the program.''.
(3) Agricultural fellowship program.--Section 1542 of the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 is
amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by striking the last sentence and
inserting the following: ``The Commodity Credit Corporation
shall give priority under this subsection to--
``(A) projects that encourage the privatization of the
agricultural sector or that benefit private farms or
cooperatives in emerging markets; and
``(B) projects for which nongovernmental persons agree to
assume a relatively larger share of the costs.''; and
(B) in subsection (d)--
(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``the Soviet Union'' and inserting ``emerging markets'';
(ii) in paragraph (1)--

(I) in subparagraph (A)(i)--

(aa) by striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''; and
(bb) by striking ``those systems, and identify'' and
inserting ``the systems, including potential reductions in
trade barriers, and identify and carry out'';

(II) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``shall'' and
inserting ``may'';
(III) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``(including the
establishment of extension services)'' after ``technical
assistance'';
(IV) by striking subparagraph (F);
(V) by redesignating subparagraphs (G), (H), and (I) as
subparagraphs (F), (G), and (H), respectively; and
(VI) in subparagraph (H) (as redesignated by subclause
(V)), by striking ``$10,000,000'' and inserting
``$20,000,000'';

(iii) in paragraph (2)--

(I) by striking ``the Soviet Union'' each place it appears
and inserting ``emerging markets'';
(II) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``a free market food
production and distribution system'' and inserting ``free
market food production and distribution systems'';
(III) in subparagraph (B)--

(aa) in clause (i), by striking ``Government'' and
inserting ``governments'';
(bb) in clause (iii)(II), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(cc) in clause (iii)(III), by striking the period at the
end and inserting ``; and''; and
(dd) by adding at the end of clause (iii) the following:

``(IV) to provide for the exchange of administrators and
faculty members from agricultural and other institutions to
strengthen and revise educational programs in agricultural
economics, agribusiness, and agrarian law, to support change
towards a free market economy in emerging markets.'';
(IV) by striking subparagraph (D); and
by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (D); and

(iv) by striking paragraph (3).
(4) United states agricultural commodity.--Subsections (b)
and (c) of section 1542 of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 are amended by striking
``section 101(6)'' each place it appears and inserting
``section 102(7)''.
(5) Report.--The first sentence of section 1542(e)(2) of
the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 is
amended by striking ``Not'' and inserting ``Subject to
section 217 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6917), not''.
(b) Agricultural Fellowship Program for Middle Income
Countries, Emerging Democracies, and Emerging Markets.--
Section 1543 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 3293) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``MIDDLE INCOME
COUNTRIES AND EMERGING DEMOCRACIES'' and inserting ``MIDDLE
INCOME COUNTRIES, EMERGING DEMOCRACIES, AND EMERGING
MARKETS'';
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Emerging market.--Any emerging market, as defined in
section 1542(f).''; and
(3) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``food needs'' and
inserting ``food and fiber needs''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 501 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1737) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``emerging democracies''
and inserting ``emerging markets''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(1) Emerging market.--The term `emerging market' means
any country that the Secretary determines--
``(A) is taking steps toward a market-oriented economy
through the food, agriculture, or rural business sectors of
the economy of the country; and
``(B) has the potential to provide a viable and significant
market for United States agricultural commodities or products
of United States agricultural commodities.''.
(2) Section 201(d)(1)(C)(ii) of the Agricultural Trade Act
of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5621(d)(1)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking
``emerging democracies'' and inserting ``emerging markets''.
(3) Section 202(d)(3)(B) of the Agricultural Trade Act of
1978 (7 U.S.C. 5622(d)(3)(B)) is amended by striking
``emerging democracies'' and inserting ``emerging markets''.

SEC. 487. IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER URUGUAY ROUND
AGREEMENTS.

Part III of subtitle A of title IV of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465; 108 Stat. 4964) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 427. IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER URUGUAY ROUND
AGREEMENTS.

[[Page H1522]]
whether the President should take action under any provision of law;
and
``(2) transmit a copy of the recommendation to the
Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on International
Relations, and the Committee on Ways and Means, of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, and the Committee on Finance, of the
Senate.''.

SEC. 488. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING MULTILATERAL
DISCIPLINES ON CREDIT GUARANTEES.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) in negotiations to establish multilateral disciplines
on agricultural export credits and credit guarantees, the
United States should not agree to any arrangement that is
incompatible with the provisions of United States law that
authorize agricultural export credits and credit guarantees;
(2) in the negotiations (which are held under the auspices
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development), the United States should not reach any
agreement that fails to impose disciplines on the practices
of foreign government trading entities such as the Australian
Wheat Board and Canadian Wheat Board; and
(3) the disciplines should include greater openness in the
operations of the entities as long as the entities are
subsidized by the foreign government or have monopolies for
exports of a commodity that are sanctioned by the foreign
government.

SEC. 489. FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT COOPERATOR PROGRAM.

The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE VII--FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT COOPERATOR PROGRAM

``SEC. 701. DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE TRADE ORGANIZATION.

``In this title, the term `eligible trade organization'
means a United States trade organization that--
``(1) promotes the export of 1 or more United States
agricultural commodities or products; and
``(2) does not have a business interest in or receive
remuneration from specific sales of agricultural commodities
or products.

``SEC. 702. FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT COOPERATOR PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish and, in
cooperation with eligible trade organizations, carry out a
foreign market development cooperator program to maintain and
develop foreign markets for United States agricultural
commodities and products.
``(b) Administration.--Funds made available to carry out
this title shall be used only to provide--
``(1) cost-share assistance to an eligible trade
organization under a contract or agreement with the
organization; and
``(2) assistance for other costs that are necessary or
appropriate to carry out the foreign market development
cooperator program, including contingent liabilities that are
not otherwise funded.

``SEC. 703. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years
1996 through 2002.''.

Subtitle E--Dairy Exports

SEC. 491. DAIRY EXPORT INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 153(c) of the Food Security Act of
1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14(c)) 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
(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 the Food Security Act of 1985 (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.''.
(b) Sole Discretion.--Section 153(b) of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14(b)) is amended by inserting
``sole'' before ``discretion''.
(c) Market Development.--Section 153(e)(1) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14(e)(1)) 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''.
(d) Maximum Allowable Amounts.--Section 153 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14) is 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 the Food Security Act of 1985 (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.''.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 153(a) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14(a)) is amended by
striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''.

SEC. 492. AUTHORITY TO ASSIST IN ESTABLISHMENT AND
MAINTENANCE OF EXPORT TRADING COMPANY.

The Secretary of Agriculture shall, consistent with the
obligations of the United States as a member of the World
Trade Organization, provide such advice and assistance to the
United States dairy industry as may be necessary to enable
that industry to establish and maintain an export trading
company under the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15
U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) for the purpose of facilitating the
international market development for and exportation of dairy
products produced in the United States.

SEC. 493. STANDBY AUTHORITY TO INDICATE ENTITY BEST SUITED TO
PROVIDE INTERNATIONAL MARKET DEVELOPMENT AND
EXPORT SERVICES.

(a) Indication of Entity Best Suited to Assist
International Market Development for and Export of United
States Dairy Products.--If--
(1) the United States dairy products has not established an
export trading company under the Export Trading Company Act
of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) for the purpose of
facilitating the international market development for and
exportation of dairy products produced in the United States
on or before June 30, 1996; or
(2) the quantity of exports of United States dairy products
during the 12-month period preceding July 1, 1997 does not
exceed the quantity of exports of United States dairy
products during the 12-month period preceding July 1, 1996 by
1.5 billion pounds (milk equivalent, total solids basis);

the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to indicate which
entity autonomous of the Government of the United States is
best suited to facilitate the international market
development for and exportation of United States dairy
products.
(b) Funding of Export Activities.--The Secretary shall
assist the entity in identifying sources of funding for the
activities specified in subsection (a) from within the dairy
industry and elsewhere.
(c) Application of Section.--This section shall apply
only during the period beginning on July 1, 1997 and
ending on September 30, 2000.

SEC. 494. STUDY AND REPORT REGARDING POTENTIAL IMPACT OF
URUGUAY ROUND ON PRICES, INCOME AND GOVERNMENT
PURCHASES.

(a) Study.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct a
study, on a variety by variety of cheese basis, to determine
the potential impact on milk prices in the United States,
dairy producer income, and Federal dairy program costs, of
the allocation of additional cheese granted access to the
United States as a result of the obligations of the United
States as a member of the World Trade Organization.
(b) Report.--Not later than June 30, 1997, the Secretary
shall report to the Committees on Agriculture of the Senate
and the House of Representatives the results of the study
conducted under this section.
(c) Rule of Construction.--Any limitation imposed by Act of
Congress on the conduct or completion of studies or reports
to Congress shall not apply to the study and report required
under this section unless such limitation explicitly
references this section in doing so.

SEC. 495. PROMOTION OF UNITED STATES DAIRY PRODUCTS IN
INTERNATIONAL MARKETS THROUGH DAIRY PROMOTION
PROGRAM.

Section 113(e) of the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of
1983 (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.''.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] and a Member opposed will each be recognized for
15 minutes.
Is the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] opposed to the amendment?
Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, Madam Chairman, I am.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]
will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, we all heard the arguments, here on the floor, that
under this bill Congress is basically phasing out Federal Government
support for agriculture.
People on our farms work 7 days a week--52 weeks a year--to put food
on

[[Page H1523]]
our tables. We can not abandon these people. What the farmers need are
markets.
If we make it possible for our farmers to export that will be more
beneficial than any Government program. Today, many overseas doors are
slammed shut to our farmers.
As chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, I can tell you that, without a
doubt, our foreign competitors are rubbing their hands with glee. They
are anticipating the opportunity to grab our market share.
We are not going to let foreign agriculture decimate our domestic
agricultural industry and rob us of our overseas markets.
The Senate bill has addressed this issue. The Senate understands that
we need to continue helping our farmers with opening markets.
This amendment reauthorizes our farm export credit programs. These
initiatives are essential if American agriculture is to be competitive
in international markets.
This amendment continues, for example, our Public Law 480 Food
Program.
As has been referred to here on the floor, the Agriculture Committee
has held hearings on this bill all over America and the message from
America's farmers is that they want a chance to compete in markets here
at home and in markets overseas. This amendment makes that possible.
This amendment also makes the remaining programs more efficient by
eliminating outdated rules.
Due to the welter of change taking place in agriculture, we must
reduce the level of bureaucracy and give more elbow room to the
Secretary of Agriculture.
We have seen in the Presidential primaries that unfair trade
practices are receiving, as they should, the attention of the American
people. This amendment combats unfair trade practices.
All of our competitors are subsidizing their farmers and exporters.
Without this amendment, American farmers have no defenses against
unfair trade practices.
Therefore, our farmers are asking for this amendment, so they will
not be totally disadvantaged in competition for overseas markets.
The 1995 trade figures are in, and the merchandise deficit was $174
billion. Agriculture was the one bright light.
We increased our farm exports by $10 billion. Why? Because these
programs made that success possible. They are trade lifelines to
American farmers.
This amendment is essential to continuing our exports of farm
products.
Without this amendment, our trade deficit will get worse and worse.
That is why every major farm group is supporting this amendment.
This amendment provides the leadership that our farmers are crying
out for.
I ask a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], a valued member of the committee.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for
yielding time to me, and I thank the chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture for all of his hard work. This has been a difficult road
and the expertise that we have seen and his leadership has been
remarkable.
I rise in opposition to the Roth amendment because, the Roth
amendment preempts a careful, reasoned formulation of agriculture trade
policy and strategy for the next 7 years. The Roth amendment sets forth
a 7-year plan for U.S. food assistance and a 7-year plan for an
agriculture trade strategy and agriculture export programs. This is
accomplished without the benefit of any discussion or consultation with
members of the committee of jurisdiction, the Agriculture Committee.
Not only does the Roth amendment reject the ideas of members of the
Agriculture Committee, it rejects and precludes the ideas of the other
members of the Committee on International Relations.
The Roth amendment takes the Senate-passed provisions on agriculture
export programs and trade strategy and adopts them. No House Members
are given the opportunity to have their views on agriculture export
programs and trade incorporated. The House of Representatives should
not rubber-stamp the actions of the Senate.
Members of the Agriculture Committee have introduced a comprehensive
bill to provide American farmers with regulatory relief that will
enable them to compete in a very competitive global environment. It is
the intention of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to consider
this bill and have the final product reflect the views of members of
the Agriculture Committee. The Roth amendment precludes this step for
agriculture trade programs.
The authors of this amendment assume they have the final word on
agriculture export policy. By taking the Senate language they have cut
off debate. The Roth amendment effectively ends discussions and reforms
of important agriculture export programs such as the market Promotion
Program and the Export Enhancement program. It cuts off debate on this
very important subject--one that is essential to the prosperity of U.S.
farmers. This is wrong, especially in a time that our competitors are
rearming and setting up programs to gain control of global markets in
the Pacific Rim and Latin America.
The Roth amendment is short-sighted in its agriculture trade
strategy. By setting a goal of increasing agriculture exports to $60
billion by 2002, it effectively holds our current trade levels in
place. According to USDA, agriculture exports will reach the $60
billion level this year. The Roth amendment wants to maintain the
status quo for agriculture trade. This would be a disaster for U.S.
farmers and ranchers--the most efficient and productive in the word--
who depend on export markets.
The Roth amendment terminates all agriculture export programs if the
unilateral goals of the amendment's trade strategy are not met. A trade
strategy in which not one member of the Agriculture Committee and only
a few in the International Relations committee participated should not
dictate the future of American agriculture.
Members of the Agriculture Committee want to participate in
formulation of an agriculture and trade policy essential to the well-
being of U.S. farmers. All Members will be precluded from participating
in this debate under the Roth amendment. Amendments Members want to
include in a farm bill trade title include:
Protection from trade embargoes that have a detrimental effect on
agriculture producers. Embargoes cede world market share to our
competitors. The Roth amendment offers no protection for U.S. farmers
against devastating trade embargoes.
Requiring the Secretary to monitor compliance of the World Trade
Organization member countries with the GATT provisions on sanitary and
phytosanitary measures. U.S. farmers can be wiped out by nontariff
trade barriers erected by foreign countries. Our farmers have
experienced this in the past and we want to take steps to prevent this
from happening again.
Reform of the credit-worthiness standards for the credit guarantee
program so that financing requirements can better match the credit
guarantee. We need to update our credit programs to take advantage of
all export opportunities available.
Significant reform of the Market Promotion Program and the Export
Enhancement Program. These are two of the essential programs needed to
counteract the trade practices of our competitors. We want to ensure
they are responsible, flexible, and respond to current trade
situations.

{time} 1015

Mr. ROTH. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International
Relations, the committee of jurisdiction in this area.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Madam Chairman, I support Chairman Roberts' bill and hope that it is
expeditiously passed by the House and signed by the President. I want
to work with him and the leadership to make certain that our demonestic
agriculture programs are put on a firm footing following the expiration
of the 1990 farm bill. I want to commend on distinguished Agriculture
Committee chairman Mr. Roberts, for an excellent bill and for his
diligent, hard work on behalf of America's farmers.
I sponsored the amendment now before us in the hope of bringing
agricultural trade and aid programs into the bill before us.

[[Page H1524]]

As members of the Agriculture Committee are aware, the International
Relations Committee shares jurisdiction with the Agriculture Committee
over agricultural trade issues and international food aid programs. Our
committee marked up our portions of both the 1985 and 1990 farm bills
and had a major impact on their final product. Many members of my
committee, most notably Messrs. Bereuter, Roth, and Hamilton, strongly
support our international trade and aid programs that directly benefit
U.S. agriculture. We held hearings this summer on both trade and aid
issues.
It is my understanding that the Senate companion to the bill before
us included both the trade and aid reauthorizations in the final bill
that passed the Senate floor. It is my understanding that the Senate
would like to see trade and aid programs authorized in the legislation
now to come before the House. It is also my understanding that the
administration, specifically the U.S. Agency for International
Development, supports this amendment as presented here today, along
with CARE, Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children, World Vision,
and many other international humanitarian organizations ending hunger
around the world.
In short, the amendment would reauthorize trade and aid programs for
the term of the farm bill. We were not insisting on specifics--that is
for the upcoming conference. We merely want to improve the chances of
language authorizing these programs to survive the upcoming conference
on the farm bill.
I want to thank Messrs. Roth, Hall, and Hamilton for their support on
this amendment. I also want to especially thank Mr. Bereuter and his
staff for the work they have contributed to it. I look forward to
working with them, Chairman Roberts and the leadership to resolve these
issues to ensure America's agricultural trade and aid programs remain a
strong part of our economic and foreign policy. I strongly urge Members
to support the Gilman-Hamilton-Roth-Bereuter-Hall amendment.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
Mr. HOKE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I thank the chairman for the work he has done on this bill.
It has been a long hard road for the chairman, I know, and we all
appreciate the work he has done.
Madam Chairman, I am speaking in opposition to this amendment and in
support of the chairman's position here. I think it is a terrible
mistake to try to ram through another 7 years of these programs without
the debate that they deserve.
Madam Chairman, I want to speak specifically to one of these
programs, Public Law 480, because if I had the opportunity to
participate in the debate about Public Law 480, this is what I would
say: The program, Public Law 480 and particularly title I in Public Law
480, is often euphemistically called food for peace or humanitarian
aid. But the fact is that we cover humanitarian aid under title III of
Public Law 480. In fact what title I is all about is corporate welfare
for agriconglomerates and we are not even talking about American
agriconglomerates. Look at the figures. The No. 3 recipient of these
subsidies from 1990 through 1995 was Bunge Corp. of Germany, $258
million; Louis Dreyfus Corp. of France, No. 4, $236 million. Then we
have Toshoku Inc., Japanese company, $64 million; Mitsubishi, Japanese
company, $50 million; Marubeni America Corp., a Japanese company, $37
million; Gersony-Strauss and Zen-Noh Grain, another Japanese company.
These are not American companies. Yet that is where our U.S. taxpayer
dollars are going in this Public Law 480 title I program. That is not
right. It is not right to use American taxpayer dollars that way. Not
only that, not only that, but by giving away these farm products to
less developed countries, what we are doing is we are making it
impossible for self-sustained independent agricultural economies to
develop in these countries. We lower the price at which Third World
farmers can sell their crops, we depress the local food supplies and we
make it harder for those poor countries to feed themselves in the long
run.
This is not humanitarian aid. It is covered under title III. There is
plenty of humanitarian aid. But what we are doing instead of teaching
people how to fish, we give them the fish and then we entrap them in
this program that comes under the guise of food for peace or
humanitarian aid, when we know doggone well that what it really is
about is, it is really about corporate U.S. taxpayer welfare for
agricon-glomerates, many of whom, with hundreds of millions of dollars
in receipts, are actually foreign-owned companies.
Madam Chairman, I include the following data for the Record:

PUBLIC LAW 480, TITLE I SUPPLIER SUBSIDIES FOR FISCAL YEARS 1990-95
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Amount Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Continental Grain Co. Inc. (US) ^{a........ $523,245,770.00 21.24
2. Cargill Inc. (US) ^{b...................... 456,611,376.90 18.54
3. Bunge Corp. (Germany) ^{c.................. 258,191,751.00 10.48
4. Louis Dreyfus Corp. (France) ^{d........... 236,665,060.90 9.61
5. Archer Daniels Midland Co. Inc. (US) ^{e... 135,223,076.30 5.49
6. ConAgra Inc. (US) ^{f...................... 92,573,510.73 3.76
7. Goldman Sachs Group, LP (US) ^{g........... 66,725,631.11 2.71
8. Toshoku America Inc. (Japan)............. 64,639,493.90 2.62
9. Farmland Industries Inc. (US)............ 59,864,466.84 2.43
10. Harvest States Cooperatives Inc. (US) ^{h.. 52,513,100.43 2.13
11. Mitsubishi Int'l Corp. (Japan) ^{i......... 49,943,857.86 2.03
12. Marubeni America Corp. (Japan) ^{j......... 37,165,648.19 1.51
13. Gersony-Strauss Co. Inc. (US) ^{k.......... 33,127,828.76 1.34
14. Zen-Noh Grain Corp. (Japan) ^{l............ 29,019,459.21 1.18
15. Central States Enterprises (US) ^{m........ 25,700,677.71 1.04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
^{a--1996 Forbes 500 largest private company rating: #4.
^{b--1996 Forbes 500 largest private company rating: #1.
^{c--1994 US subsidiary sales of $1.3 billion.
^{d--1994 US subsidiary sales of $1.1 billion.
^{e--1994 Forbes 500 largest public company rating: #76 (1995 sales of
$12.8 billion with $643.6 million in net profits).
^{f--1994 Forbes 500 largest public company rating: #21 (1995 sales of
$24.3 billion with $477 million in net profits).
^{g--1996 Forbes 500 largest private company rating: #6.
^{h--1994 sales of $3.8 billion.
^{i--1995 transactions of $200.8 billion.
^{j--1994 transactions of $14.5 billion.
^{k--1994 sales of $770,000.
^{l--1994 sales of $2 billion.
^{m--1994 sales of $109 million.

Public Law 480, Title I Supplier Subsidies for Fiscal Years 1990-95

[Total: $2,463,436,086.67 (49 companies); US: $1,706,910,866.37
(69.29%) (33 companies); Foreign: $756,525,220.30 (30.71%) (16
companies); Top Five: (65.36%) Top Ten: (79.01%) Top Fifteen: (86.11%)]

United States:
Adolph Hanslik Cotton Company Inc.........................$429,750.00
Aljoma Lumber Inc..........................................438,237.21
Archer Daniels Midland Company Inc.....................135,223,076.30
ADM Export Co.
ADM Milling
Bartlett and Company Inc................................18,706,602.81
Bartlett Milling Co.
Calcott Ltd Inc..........................................9,011,281.36
Cargill Inc............................................456,611,376.90
Cargill Rice Inc.
Hohenberg Brothers Company Inc.
Caribbean Lumber Company Inc................................94,248.13
Central National-Gottesman Inc.............................128,269.86
Lindenmyer Munroe Division
Central States Enterprises Inc..........................25,700,677.71
Cereal Food Processors Inc...............................7,390,529.39
Conagra Inc.............................................92,573,510.73
Alliance Grain Company Inc.
Armour Processed Meat Company
Peavey Company
Connell Rice and Sugar Company...........................2,276,033.44
Continental Grain Company Inc..........................523,245,770.00
Farmland Industries Inc.................................59,864,466.84
Tradigrain Inc.
Georgia-Pacific Corporation..............................1,110,458.64
Gersony-Strauss Company Inc.............................33,127,828.76
Golden Peanut Company....................................7,355,216.45
Goldman Sachs Group, LP.................................66,725,631.11
J. Aron and Company
Gulf South Forest Products Inc..............................45,101.85
Harvest States Cooperatives Inc.........................52,513,100.43
GTA Feeds
Jacob Stern and Sons Inc................................16,420,098.35
Acme-Hardesty Company
Lombard and Company Inc..................................3,013,657.50
Norfoods Incorporated....................................4,099,151.08
Garnac Grain Company Inc.
Pasternak, Baum and Company Inc.........................14,247,324.27
Phillips Grain Company Inc...............................6,254,169.20
P S International Inc....................................2,316,600.00
P S International Ltd.
Riceland Foods Inc.......................................3,991,879.05
Sunbelt Cotton Co..........................................313,750.00
Supreme Rice Mill Inc....................................8,625,064.67
Temple-Inland Inc..........................................107,434.65
Weil Brothers-Cotton Incorporated........................5,062,725.17
France:
Louis Dreyfus Holding Company Inc......................236,665,060.90
Louis Dreyfus Corporation
Allenberg Cotton Company
Allenberg Cotton Division
Germany:
Bunge Corporation......................................258,191,751.00

[[Page H1525]]

Bunge Commodities Group
Japan:
Global Rice Corporation Ltd.............................11,521,300.94
Granplex Inc............................................14,214,434.11
Itochu International Inc.................................1,425,094.02
C. ITOH and Company (America) Inc.
Marubeni America Corporation............................37,165,648.19
Columbia Grain International Inc.
Mitsubishi International Corp...........................49,943,857.86
Mitsui and Company USA Inc...............................6,392,139.44
Mitsui Grain Corporation
United Grain Corporation of Oregon Inc.
United Grain Corporation
Sumitomo Corporation of America..........................4,940,586.82
Toshoku America Inc.....................................64,639,493.90
Zen-Noh Grain Corp......................................29,019,459.21
Foreign (Origin Uncertain):
Artfer Inc...............................................1,533,542.85
CAM USA Inc..........................................................
Grand Metropolitan Inc...................................9,821,111.13
The Pillsbury Company Inc.
Incotrade Inc...........................................10,057,545.57
Intrade Toepfer US Holdings Inc.........................20,994,194.80
Alfred C. Toepfer International Inc.
A.C. Toepfer International
Mr. ROTH. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] who has spent years and years on this topic.
(Mr. HAMILTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAMILTON. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me
the time. I want to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Roth], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Hall] and others who have worked on this amendment which
I strongly support.
Madam Chairman, so far as I know, the substance of this amendment
really is relatively noncontroversial. It is supported by every major
farm group. I do want to say to the chairman of the Ag Committee that I
have appreciated his leadership on this bill. I support this bill. I
think he has done a good job on it. So far as I know, the difference
here lies largely in tactics. My view is that we have the opportunity
now to strengthen these export and trade provisions. It may be the only
opportunity we will have to vote on it in the House this year, and we
should do so.
The conference committee is already going to include these issues on
trade and food aid. It is in the Senate bill, it is in this bill.
Although the provisions of the Roth amendment strengthen our ability
to export and our ability to use food aid as a tool of American foreign
policy, the weakness in this bill today it seems to me is it kind of
tries to divide into two discrete sectors, one domestic, the other
international, the American farm economy, and you just cannot do that.
We want a whole bill here that strengthens both the domestic and the
international aspects of American farm policy.
I think we must worry much less, Madam Chairman, about the
jurisdiction of the various committees here and worry much more about
the status of the American farmer. The American farmer needs the export
tools that are available in the Roth amendment and he needs the market
created by the food aid provisions in this amendment as well.
U.S. farm export and food aid programs have served the American
national interest for years, they have promoted billions of dollars in
export sales and they have forced very sharp reductions in foreign
subsidies.

{time} 1030

They have saved tens of millions of people around the world.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Roth-Bereuter-Hamilton-Hall
amendment to H.R. 2854.

The International Dimension of American Agriculture

Madam Chairman, America's farm economy can no longer be neatly
divided into two discrete sectors--one domestic, and one international.
The health of America's farm economy depends increasingly upon our
capacity to export. In fact, exports already provide the margin of
profit in the U.S. farm economy, accounting for more than one-fourth of
all sales.
But American farmers face a tough world agricultural market. Low-cost
foreign producers, massive foreign subsidies, and import restrictions
all pose competitive challenges.
American farm policy needs better tools to deal with these
competitive challenges--to develop new markets and eliminate unfair
trade practices.
Madam Chairman, H.R. 2854 neglects the critical international
dimension of U.S. farm policy. Roth-Bereuter-Hamilton-Hall amendment
corrects that deficiency.
This amendment will improve the capacity of U.S. export programs to
increase foreign sales. But it will also promote U.S. foreign policy
interests by making our generous food aid programs more effective.

importance of u.s. food aid and export program

U.S. farm export and food aid programs have served American national
interests for several decades.
These programs have: Promoted billions of dollars in export sales
annually; forced sharp reductions in foreign subsidies that hurt U.S.
farm exports.
U.S. food aid programs have: Saved tens of millions of people around
the world from starvation; created large markets for U.S. exports.
Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, Turkey--all huge current customers for
U.S. farm products--were once food aid recipients; bolstered the
economic development and political stability of dozens of friendly
countries.

what the amendment does

The Roth-Bereuter-Hamilton-Hall amendment will strengthen these
successful programs. It will:
Direct the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a strategy to achieve
specific targets for future export sales and world market share.
Reauthorize U.S. food aid programs through 2002.
Authorize Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] export guarantees
through 2002, and empower the CCC to guarantee more exports to emerging
markets and countries in transition to free-market systems.
Authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to reprogram unused export
subsidy funds among a variety of export and food aid programs.
Require stricter monitoring of foreign compliance with the
agricultural provisions of the Uruguay Round.
Improve our emergency-preparedness by increasing--at no extra
budgetary cost--the amount and variety of food that may be drawn each
year from emergency reserves.

don't postpone action on international agriculture

Madam Chairman, I know the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture
Committee, Mr. Roberts, recently introduced a new bill, which includes
a number of international farm provisions. But I believe we need to
move forward on this amendment at this time:
U.S. foreign agricultural policy should not be treated as a second
tier issue, left for a second bill.
The American farm community is solidly behind this amendment.
The amendment has been endorsed by two leading farm groups, the
American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives.
CARE, Save the Children, and the other major private humanitarian
organizations also endorse it.
This amendment stands a good chance of becoming law. The text is very
similar to the international titles of the Senate-passed farm bill--
which were adopted unanimously.
Finally, despite Mr. Roberts' best intentions--which are not in
doubt--there are strong indications the Senate will not take up another
farm bill, nor conference a second House bill, this year. This could be
the House's only opportunity to vote on substantial reforms of U.S.
farm export and aid programs.
Madam Chairman, I urge Members to support the Roth-Bereuter-Hamilton-
Hall amendment. It will bolster program that have promoted U.S.
economic and foreign policy interests for several decades.
America's foreign agricultural policy needs our support, and there is
no reason not to provide that support today.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], a very valued member of the
committee.
(Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EMERSON. Madam Chairman, I rise in particular support of the
provisions that address the Public Law 480 Food for Peace Program. As
many are aware, Public Law 480 is a unique program that has enjoyed
broad, bipartisan support for over 40 years. These food assistance
programs are widely championed because they build a two way highway on
which we help others while also helping U.S. farmers. The food for
peace funds are first spent right here as farmers grow, process,

[[Page H1526]]
fortify, bag, can, rail, and ship the commodities to developing
countries.
This amendment's reforms to the Food for Peace Program are very
similar to the reforms that were encompassed in the bill my
subcommittee passed last October. The improvements build on the
successful aspects of the program by making modifications to refine and
update the existing structure. Recommendations of the administration as
well as the concerns voiced by many of the groups whose members deliver
relief in the field were largely considered. The result is a bill that
more strongly emphasizes the long-term market development aspects of
the program, stresses private sector involvement, and recognizes the
limits imposed by budgetary constraints.
I hope Members will join with me and support these modifications to
the Food for Peace Program.
Mr. ROTH. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], who has done so much work on this and helped
with the amendment and has not only had hearings on this but knows
these issues and all the nuances.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Chairman, this amendment and recommendation
should be noncontroversial, and, in fact, they are consistent with the
House Committee on Agriculture's general food and trade goals.
This amendment is in compliance with overall budget guidelines. It is
not our intent, for example, to amend the House Committee on
Agriculture recommendations on the support enhancement program or the
market promotion program. Although we have indicated earlier we support
full EEP funding to the full Uruguay round agreement allowed levels, we
recognize the budget considerations require self-imposed caps. So we
have accepted the advice of the Committee on Agriculture.
Nevertheless, we give authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to
spend agriculture export promotion funds more wisely.
If the Secretary does not need all the money we provide for EEP, the
Secretary can designate that it be used for the highly successful
Foreign Market Development Program or even U.S. food assistance. To
make sure that the U.S. Department of Agriculture remains focused
focused on increasing U.S. agricultural exports, we establish realistic
goals and require concrete trade strategies to meet those goals.
To guarantee that the United States remains an innovative leader in
the delivery of food assistance, we maintain our commitments of food
assistance to the world's most deserving. However, we do not just stop
with minimum tonnages of food assistance. We reform outdated burdensome
regulatory requirements which have prohibited private voluntary
organizations from implementing food assistance programs in countries
where the Agency for International Development does not have a mission.
In developing countries where U.S. market development food assistance
is available, we permit private entities, with real know-how and
ingenuity, to implement programs where only Government bureaucrats have
been before.
Today one-third of everything grown on the American farm is exported.
Our hard-working farmers and ranchers will send over 50 billion
dollars' worth of agricultural commodities to China, Japan, Southeast
Asia, Canada, Mexico, Europe, and the rest of the world.
That is why we must continue to reauthorize and, in fact, reform
legislation.
Americans recognize the importance of these agricultural exports to
the well-being of the agricultural industry and to the prosperity of
rural America. In fact, an overwhelming majority--or nearly 75 percent
of Americans--believe that the U.S. Government should help farmers and
ranchers by providing necessary assistance to promote agriculture
exports, counter subsidized foreign competition, and protect American
jobs.
But, Mr. Chairman, in contrast to this horn of plenty here in the
United States, millions of children and people in the world's poorest
countries do not have the necessary resources to purchase our
agriculture commodities. According to the Food and Agriculture
Organization, 800 million people do not have access to sufficient food
to meet their needs for a healthy and productive life. Last year,
UNICEF estimates that between 10 and 12 million preschool children died
from hunger and disease related to malnutrition.
Just as Americans recognize the importance of supporting agricultural
exports, they also embrace U.S. food assistance programs. In fact, many
Americans are greatly surprised when they discover that only 1 percent
of the entire U.S. Federal budget is foreign aid. Many of them indicate
that they would be willing to devote more if it was used wisely for
things like U.S. food assistance.
Today, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], and this Member offer an amendment that
specifically targets foreign agricultural trade competition and world
hunger. More importantly, our amendment shapes the fundamental policies
of the Federal Government which are designed to combat them. The trade
and foreign aid recommendations in this amendment reflect the fact that
Americans support reasonable and effective agricultural export
promotion programs and targeted food assistance. To attest to that, we
have over 25 agricultural commodity groups and food assistance
providers supporting our legislation. Organizations like the American
Farm Bureau Federation and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
have embraced our trade policy recommendations. Private voluntary
organizations like CARE and Catholic Relief Services, which perform the
in-country relief work for the world's most needy, have also publicly
supported our efforts.
I would say in response to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] if he
had a chance to visit in my State he would find that in a 100-mile
radius around Crete Mills--which provides much of the enriched grain
products for the Food for Peace Program--he would know that they are
paying those farmers in a 100-mile radius approximately 10 cents more a
bushel just because of the AID Food for Peace Program. The benefits do
not all go to large corporations, they go to farmers and other food
recipients and their governments.
In closing, it is an extraordinary set of circumstances which forces
us to offer the amendment today. In a typical farm bill year, our
committee receives a sequential referral of the House Committee on
Agriculture trade and food aid title of the farm bill. Then we act
accordingly to prepare the farm bill conference. The arrangement has
served both committees very well in the previous farm bills.
However, in this instance, while we understand the House Committee on
Agriculture's original intent not to address trade and food aid
provisions in the upcoming conference, we strongly believe that, for
reasons beyond our control, such provisions certainly will be discussed
in the conference because the Senate has those provisions therein.
Adoption of this amendment gives the House a voice in the upcoming
conference on these two important issues. We have incorporated many of
the recommendations for reform coming from members of the House
Committee on Agriculture. This is a time to reform and improve our
international programs for food assistance and exports. Nearly all of
the major farm organizations and probably every one of the child
survival and international food assistance nongovernmental
organizations support this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Roth-Bereuter-Hamilton-Hall
amendment.
Mr. ROTH. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hall].
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Madam Chairman, it is a pleasure to join with the
gentleman on this amendment, with the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr.
Bereuter] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] and myself.
This is an important amendment.
I am one of the few Congressmen who has had the chance to see our
Public Law 480 food being distributed to many countries of the world,
whether it be in Africa or South America or in Asia. And many times I
have seen a lot of people, as you have seen, you know, people have
asked me is our food really getting through, and I can tell you I have
seen it on a number of cases make the difference between life and death
in countries like Mozambique, Ethiopia. I have seen it as far back as
the late 1960's, when I was in the U.S. Peace Corps. So this is a
tremendous program.
I support the amendment. We need to be very consistent and committed
to a number of areas rather than one, and this is not only good for
American farmers but it is good for the responsibility, the moral
responsibility for

[[Page H1527]]
our country, and what we have shown, the direction, the leadership that
we have given for years.
The way the United States goes relative to feeding other nations,
what we do on our appropriations, because we are a leader, a lot of
countries kind of look to us as to what we do. If we are then only
committed for 1 year and not for a number of years, I think a lot of
other countries will follow suit, hold back, cut. This is a very
flexible amendment. It is a minimum amount amendment for the next 7
years. It is very, very important for us to take the leadership on
this.
I firmly support it. I hope all the Members of the Congress will
support it.
Mr. ROTH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I especially want to thank our previous speaker, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] because not only does he know about
these problems vicariously, he has been all over the world dedicating
his life to this issue. I very much appreciate his remarks.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Manzullo].
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Chairman, agricultural exports are the unsung
heroes of American trade. Yesterday the Census Bureau released the
annual U.S. trade figures, revealing that $111 billion deficit for
1995. Many people are legitimately frustrated with the high trade
deficit.
But most people are surprised to learn that the United States
actually has a trade surplus, yes; surplus, in agricultural exports.
America exports more corn than coal, more meat than cosmetics, and more
fruits and vegetables than steel, iron, and aluminum combined. In fact,
our trade surplus of foods, feeds, and beverages actually increased by
over $6 billion from 1994 to 1995, reaching a record $50.5 billion in
total exports.
The future of ag exports is in the area of high value products. These
are products that have value added to them through processing and those
which require special handling or shipping.
The 16th District of Illinois is fortunate to have many of these
companies, including thousands of pounds of pork tenderloins that are
shipped each week from Rochelle Foods in Rochelle, IL.
The programs authorized under the Roth amendment all contribute to
the continued success of our ag exports. Our Food for Peace Programs
help the poorest of the poor countries in dealing with fighting
malnutrition. This is a program which provides surplus U.S. commodities
directly to the people in need around the world.
The export credit guarantees contained in the Commodity Credit
Corporation are also a win for all sides, the farmer, the exporter, and
the taxpayer. The CCC is a loan program that helps boost ag exports,
especially to those emerging markets where there has not been a large
U.S. presence before.
Finally, all of these authorized programs fall within the budget
resolution caps. This amendment does not create new spending.
If we want to maintain a positive surplus on our trade account ledger
for ag exports and if we want to help fight starvation and malnutrition
around the world, I urge support for the Roth amendment.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Hastings].
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to support the Roth-Bereuter-
Hamilton-Hall amendment. Different than the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Hall], I have not seen as many areas of the world where programs have
been in effect that have helped people to maintain their existence.
However, in the Sudan, in refugee camps in Nigeria, in Somalia, and
in Ethiopia, I have seen the work of CARE, the Catholic Relief
Services, AfriCare, and Save the Children. U.S. food aid and export
programs do serve the U.S. national interest. U.S. food programs have
saved tens of millions of people from starvation and improved the
health and living standards of many more.
These programs have reinforced the political stability in dozens of
friendly countries and created large markets for U.S. exports. I find
it rather appalling that many of my colleagues do not want to help
farmers, yet in their rhetorical flourishes in their districts they
talk all the time about wanting to help farmers.
Let me tell you a few countries that used to be on food aid: Japan,
Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Turkey. And all of these now are not only
big emerging markets but some are competitive with this great country.
They are all huge customers of U.S. farm products, and they were once
food aid recipients.
Food aid has also supported tens of thousands of jobs in the United
States and continues to do that.
I urge the membership of this body to consider this legislation and
to recognize that while it is stalled and while we await authority,
Food for Peace and Food for Progress has expired. Needed changes in
these programs have not been made.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
I do want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Hamilton], all strong defenders of export programs, the Public Law 480
program.
The issue here is not so much about substance. The Roth amendment
does contain some very good provisions in trade policy. There is no
question about it. And the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has
worked very hard. The chairman of the full committee has worked very
hard, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
But the Roth amendment also preempts what I consider to be a careful
and reasoned formulation of agriculture trade policy and strategy for
the next 7 years. Seven years, that is a long time. We are passing a 7-
year farm bill for the first time in the history of the Congress.
We want the consistency and the predictability because this is a very
important matter.
Now, what the Roth amendment does, it sets forth a 7-year plan for
U.S. food assistance and a 7-year plan for an agriculture trade
strategy and our export programs. This is being accomplished without
the benefit of any discussion or consultation or consultation, talk,
two-way street, with members of the committee of shared jurisdiction,
not sole jurisdiction, shared jurisdiction. We are talking about the
Committee on Agriculture.
In terms of practical effect, the Roth amendment rejects the ideas of
members of the Committee on Agriculture. We do not have a chance. We
have 30 members of the House Committee on Agriculture who have pending
amendments that would like to offer either improving amendments or to
work out some kind of compromise in regards to the entire trade and
export picture.
Now, members of the Committee on Agriculture have introduced a
comprehensive bill, called farm bill II. Actually it is called the
Agriculture Trade and Regulatory Relief Act. It is to provide farmers
with regulatory relief that will certainly enable them to compete in a
very competitive global environment.
It is the intention of the chairman to consider this bill, have the
final product reflect the views of the members of the Ag Committee. The
Roth amendment does actually preclude this step for agriculture trade
and other programs.
So the amendment effectively ends the discussions and reforms of
important agriculture exports programs. I am talking about the market
promotion program, something of intense and personal interest by many
Members, the export enhancement program. It cuts off debate on this
very important subject. This is wrong, especially in a time that our
competitors are re-arming and setting up programs to gain control of
the global market share.
I am concerned that the Roth amendment, by setting a goal of
increasing ag exports up to $60 billion by 2002, it effectively holds
our current trade levels in place. That is not the intent. But I am
concerned about it if you do not

[[Page H1528]]
have any discussion about it now. According to the Department of
Agriculture, agriculture exports will reach the $60 billion level this
year. This year. The Roth amendment could maintain the status quo for
agriculture trade. That would be a disaster.

{time} 1045

The Roth amendment also terminates, listen to this one, it terminates
all agriculture export programs if the unilateral goals of the
amendments trade strategy are not met.
Hello? A trade strategy in which not one member of the Committee on
Agriculture and only a few in the Committee on International Relations
actually participated should not dictate the future of American
agriculture.
Members of the Committee on Agriculture want to participate in the
formulation of an agriculture and trade policy. We want to work with
you. We will dance with you. We will dance with you until closing time.
But closing time is already here. We did not even get to dance.
All Members will be precluded from participating in this debate under
the Roth amendment. Amendments Members want to include in the farm bill
title included, and these are amendments we already had pending that we
were going to consider in farm bill II on both sides of the aisle,
protection from trade embargoes that have a detrimental effect on
agriculture producers.

We have five embargo protection bills pending in the Committee on
Agriculture. What is going to happen if you go to the Senate and you
want embargo protection, and the Senators sit there and stare you in
the face and say ``Outside the scope. Can't do that.''
Everybody knows the shattered glass effect of embargoes. We need that
protection. We have a tight stocks situation right now, rumors of
embargoes. We needed this amendment in this bill.
We should require the secretary to monitor the compliance of the
World Trade Organization. My goodness, we have heard about that and all
the trade problems in the recent presidential debate.
The chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Lugar, and
myself, sent a letter to the President, we have to maintain strong
oversight in regards to our NAFTA and GATT trade treaties. We have not
done that. We need to give the Secretary strong authority to monitor
those and take the appropriate action. Not in this bill.
The reform of the credit worthiness standards for the Credit
Guarantee Program, so that financing requirements can better match the
credit guarantee, we need to update these credit programs. We have
pending amendments on that in the Committee on Agriculture.
Finally, significant reform of the Market Promotion Program. We have
many amendments that want to improve and reform the Market Promotion
Program. A very critical program, very controversial. We need to fix
it. It is not contained in this amendment.
The Export Enhancement Program, we are already hearing commentary
that with the tight stocks situation, we do not need the Export
Enhancement Program anymore.
That is not right. We need to better tailor that program. These are
essential programs needed to counteract the trade practices of our
competitors. We want to ensure they are responsible and flexible and
respond to the current trade situation.
Now, I do not mean to get obstreperous or very parochial in regards
to my dear friends who have worked so hard on the Committee on
International Relations in behalf of a very fine trade amendment.
Members of the Senate have done the same thing.
But, folks, you just ran an end run around the committee of
jurisdiction, shared jurisdiction, and we have no opportunity to offer
amendments on the very key items that we are having here today.
What a way to run a railroad. Now we have already heard complaints in
this body, and I share the frustration of those who say they are being
denied the process.
I really think had we been able to consider this in farm bill II, and
we had a commitment by the leadership to bring that bill to the floor
as soon as possible, we would have had hearings in the next several
weeks and we would have done this, that would have been the appropriate
way.
That is why I oppose this amendment. We have an opening on the
Committee on Agriculture, on the other side, but maybe we could work
that out. If the gentleman from Wisconsin wants to run the committee,
we might consider that. I oppose the bill. I am considering the vote. I
am unhappy. And the process has been very untoward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the Committee on
Agriculture has worked very hard on this bill, and I tip my hat to
them, and the chairman has done a great job. But the truth of the
matter is there are some glaring deficiencies in the bill.
This is a wonderful amendment that we have before us. If it would not
be, we would not have all the farm groups in America for it, all the
humanitarian groups for it, and the people, millions of people from all
over our country, in favor of this amendment, because they realize that
in order to have a good international climate for agriculture, we need
this amendment.
Now, someone had mentioned, the problem is it is 5 years. Well, our
agriculture bills here are 7 years, but agriculture bills are 5 years.
When it comes down to it, I listened carefully, attentively to all
the debate. No one talked against the merits of the amendment, they
talked about jurisdiction. ``The Committee on Agriculture does not have
jurisdiction; another committee has too much jurisdiction.''
We had countless hearings on this, but not one asked us particularly
about jurisdiction. I would like to forget all about the jurisdiction
issue and just look at the merits of the bill and amendment. If it is a
good amendment, let us pass it. I am always willing to work with the
Committee on Agriculture on any particular issue.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, the export programs are terminated, yes,
but it is in 2002. This is a train that is leaving the House. The House
Members ought to have an opportunity to vote on it, not the conferees
that are going to be facing the Senate version.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, for the good of the American people and the good of
our American farmers, vote for this amendment.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in favor of the Roth
amendment that would reauthorize the Public Law 480 Food for Peace
Program and set an agenda for the Secretary of Agriculture to increase
our agricultural exports over the next 7 years.
One of the most important aspects of this amendment to North Dakota
producers in the reauthorization of the Public Law 480 program. The
committee bill would only reauthorize the program for 1 year while the
amendment would extend the program until 2002 is essential that this
program continue.
The Food for Peace Program delivers humanitarian aid to nations in
need and at the same time develops future markets for United States
agricultural products. North Dakota bean growers rely heavily on Public
Law 480 to encourage the export of their commodity. Last year U.S.
producers exported more than $75 million of dry edible beans through
the Public Law 480 program.
The amendment also will set export goals of $60 billion for
agricultural commodities. To achieve that goal, the Secretary is
required to implement our GATT-legal export programs to the maximum
extent allowable. We must take advantage of every opportunity the GATT
agreement allows us in the global marketplace.
In addition, the Secretary is required to increase high-value and
value-added agricultural exports over the next 7 years. North Dakota
producers have begun to reap the benefits of value-added agricultural
products through the development of cooperative enterprises such as the
Pasta Growers and Bison Cooperatives. We must do everything we can to
encourage these innovative farmers and assists them in their efforts to
develop agricultural products for the global market.
Agriculture already represents one of the few trade sectors in which
our exports exceed our imports. We are now, however, entering a new era
for agriculture, one in which the world market is every bit as
important as the domestic market. The GATT trade agreement was

[[Page H1529]]
designed to reduce global trade barriers and increase our total
agricultural exports. Under this agreement our exports have increased
to more than $50 billion per year. GATT legal export programs such as
Public Law 480, the Foreign Market Development Program, EEP and others
are critical to the future of American agriculture. We must take every
advantage of our international agreements to continue that trend. This
amendment requires the Secretary of Agriculture to do just that and I
encourage its adoption.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed
in House Report 104-463.

amendment offered by mr. livingston

Mr. LIVINGSTON. 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. Livingston: On page 119, strike
lines 2 through 21, and insert the following:

``SEC. 1241. FUNDING.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] and a Member opposed will each control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I may have misheard in the rush to
change. Did we call up amendment No. 11?
The CHAIRMAN. Amendment No. 11.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
amendment No. 11 and go on to amendment No. 12.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. livingston

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 12.
The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Livingston: On page 131, strike
line 21 and all that follows through line 11 on page 135
and insert the following new section:

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 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 (6).
``(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 such 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) Collection of fees.--Fees collected under this
subsection shall be collected only to amounts as provided in
advance in appropriations Acts.
``(6) 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).
``(B) Use of account.--For each of the fiscal years 1996
and thereafter, 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.
``(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; U.S.C. 3101 note) or other
limitation on the total number of full-time equivalent
positions.''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston], and a Member opposed each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman and ask for the
indulgence of my colleagues. I would like to explain my amendment and
then discuss the future of the amendment at the end of my statement.
Mr. Chairman, the agriculture quarantine inspection user fee
amendment that is included in my amendment No. 12 is a clarifying
amendment. Passengers in commercial vehicles coming into the country
pay an agriculture quarantine inspection fee.
The funds collected go into an account and are used to cover the cost
of providing inspections of cargo and international air and sea
passengers at ports of entry within the United States, inspections of
cargo and people at the Mexican and Canadian borders, and the
preclearance and preinspection services at sites overseas. These
inspections are absolutely essential to protect American agriculture
from the introduction of pests and diseases of foreign origin and to
facilitate the entry of our agriculture products into international
markets.
For example, if the Medfly were to establish itself in this country,
the loss to the fruit and vegetable industry in California alone would
be in the billions of dollars. If foot and mouth disease, which has
been eradicated in the United States, were to be re-introduced into
this country, losses to the cattle industry would be estimated at more
than $20 billion.
The AQI user fee program was first authorized in the 1990 farm bill.
But what the Committee on Agriculture did was authorize the collections
and make the spending subject to appropriations. What this means is
that the Committee on Agriculture gets credit for the collection of the
AQI user fees which are paid into the Treasury, but the Committee on
Appropriations is charged with spending the fees.
Over the years, because the spending of the fees has had to compete
with other discretionary funds, much like we were talking about earlier
this morning, this approach has prevented the program from using all
the money that was collected. That means that the Committee on
Appropriations is charged with the responsibility of spending roughly
$100 million on this program, and they get no credit from the money
that was collected, because that goes to the authorizating committee,
the Committee on Agriculture.
So without credit, it means that this program, which is a superb and
essential program, competes with every other program that falls within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, which is
tantamount to all discretionary spending programs.

[[Page H1530]]

Everyone is in agreement that this approach must be fixed. The bill
of the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] does not fix it. It only
guarantees that the amount collected in excess of $100 million will go
to the program; $100 million is still scored against discretionary
spending. Because the collection of this $100 million is separate from
the appropriation, the user fees in effect are totally separate and
unrelated to the appropriation for this program, there is no, and I
repeat, there is no reason to assume that it will be appropriated.
As we squeeze all of the other discretionary programs under our
jurisdiction, so too might this program be squeezed.
Proponents of this program, and we are all proponents of the program,
but many proponents of this program would say ``well, this simply
guarantees that at least $100 million, and perhaps another $20 million,
will be spent.'' That is not true, because if the Committee on
Appropriations is not collecting any credit from the user fees, and if
we in fact say cut 5 or 10 percent across the board in all
discretionary programs, then this program will be cut like every other
program within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations.

What my amendment does is simply make both the collection and the
spending of the fees subject to appropriations. Some would say that is
another turf war between appropriations and authorization committees. I
would say that this guarantees, this is more of a guarantee that the
program will get the full amount of money it needs to operate. I would
suggest it is a win-win situation for everyone.
I can assure the chairman and all our colleagues that under this
scenario, the scoring of the AQI program, the Agriculture Quarantine
Inspection Program, that the scoring is neutral. Since the importance
of this program is so critical, we in effect would provide every dollar
back for the Department to use that is given to us in credits from the
user fee collected.
In fact, there would be no reason not to appropriate every dollar of
credit, because we would be getting reimbursed for every dollar we
spend.
So we have offered this amendment, but I acknowledge that it is
opposed by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
I think the gentleman believes that his amendment fixes the problem. I
think that the proponents of the gentleman's provision believe that his
amendment fixes the problem. But I am here to suggest that it does not.
If anyting, it will almost guarantee that as other discretionary
programs are cut with across-the-board cuts in the appropriations
process, so, too, will this program.
If we really want to fix it, my amendment should be adopted. But I do
not think it will be, based on the earlier vote.
I have no illusions about the outcome. I do not want to put our
colleagues in a quandary about whether they are voting for the right
thing or whether it is properly perceived by their agriculture
constituents around America. So I would only suggest that we could fix
this problem once and for all with my amendment. We could stop the
delays and we could get all the funds paid into the account out to the
proper recipients so that the passengers and cargo could be inspected
quickly and so that the program could be performed. But because it is
obvious to me that my amendment is not going to pass over the
objections of the committee chairman, I respectfully ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object and I shall
certainly not object, under my reservation I want to thank the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and again
thank him for the splendid work he is doing.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Louisiana?
There was no objection.

{time} 1100

Mr. CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed
in House Report 104-463.

amendment offered by mr. dooley

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Dooley:
At the end of title V (page 139, after line 17), add the
following new section:

SEC. 507. COMPETITIVE RESEARCH GRANTS TO PROMOTE AGRICULTURAL
COMPETITIVENESS INITIATIVES.

(A) Purposes.--The competitive research grant program
established by this section has the following purposes:
(1) Enhancement of the competitiveness of the United States
agriculture industry in an increasingly competitive world
environment.
(2) Increasing the long-term productivity of the United
States agriculture and food industry while protecting the
natural resource base on which rural America and the United
States agricultural economy depend.
(3) Development of new uses and new products for
agricultural commodities, such as alternative fuels, and
development of new crops.
(4) Supporting agricultural research and extension to
promote economic opportunity in rural communities and to meet
the increasing demand for information and technology transfer
throughout the United States agriculture industry.
(5) Improvement of risk management in the United States
agriculture industry.
(6) Improvement in the safe production and processing of,
and adding of value to, United States food and fiber
resources using methods that are environmentally sound.
(7) Supporting higher education in agriculture to give the
next generation of Americans the knowledge, technology, and
applications necessary to enhance the competitiveness of
United States agriculture.
(8) Maintaining an adequate, nutritious, and safe supply of
food to meet human nutritional needs and requirements.
(b) Agriculutural Competitiveness Grants.--The Secretary of
Agriculture shall award grants to eligible grantees to
promote one or more of the purposes of the program.
(c) Eligible Grantee.--The Secretary may make a grant under
subsection (b) to--
(1) a college or university;
(2) a State agricultural experiment station;
(3) a State Cooperative Extension Service;
(4) a research institution or organization;
(5) a private organization or person; or
(6) a Federal agency.
(d) Use of Grant.--A grant made under subsection (b) may be
used by a grantee for one or more of the following uses:
(1) Research ranging from discovery to principles for
application.
(2) Extension and related private-sector activities.
(3) Education.
(e) Priority.--
(1) In general.--In administering this program, the
Secretary shall--
(A) establish priorities for allocating grants, based on
needs and opportunities of the food and agriculture system in
the United States;
(B) seek and accept proposals for grants;
(C) determine the relevance and merit of proposals through
a system of peer review; and
(D) award grants on the basis of merit and quality.
(2) Participation by scientific community.--In carrying out
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall seek wide participation by qualified scientists and
extension and education specialists from colleges and
universities, State agricultural experiment stations and
State Cooperative Extension Services, the private sector,
and the Federal Government.
(f) Administration.--
(1) Competitive grant.--A grant under subsection (b) shall
be awarded on a competitive basis.
(2) Term.--A grant under subsection (b) shall have a term
that does not exceed 5 years.
(3) Advisory committees.--The Secretary may use an advisory
committee established independently of this program to assist
the Secretary in determining funding priorities under this
program.
(4) Matching funds.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall encourage the funding
of a grant under subsection (b) with equal matching funds
from a non-Federal source.
(B) Mandatory.--The Secretary shall require the funding of
a grant under subsection (b) with equal matching funds from a
non-Federal source if the grant is--
(i) for applied research that is commodity-specific; and
(ii) not of national scope.
(5) Administrative costs.--The Secretary may use not more
than 4 percent of the funds made available under subsection
(h) for administrative costs incurred by the Secretary in
carrying out this program.
(6) Construction costs.--None of the funds made available
under subsection (h) may be used for the construction of a
new building or the acquisition, expansion, remodeling, or
alteration of an existing building (including site grading
and improvement and architect fees).
(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue such
regulations as are necessary to carry out this program.
(h) Availability of Funds for Grants.--
(1) Source of funds.--Of the amount made available under
section 102 of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as added by
section 1102 of

[[Page H1531]]
this Act, for payments under market transition contracts for the fiscal
year 1996 through 2002, $1,920,000,000 shall be used by the
Secretary to make grants under this section. The amounts
specified in subsection (e) of such section 102 shall be
reduced by the Secretary by the amount made available in this
subsection.
(20 Fiscal year amounts.--Of the total amount specified in
subsection (a) for grants under this section, the Secretary
shall use $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, $220,000,000 for
fiscal year 1997, $250,000,000 for fiscal year 1998,
$250,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, $300,000,000 for fiscal
year 2000, $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and
$400,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
(3) Limitations.--The Secretary may use less than the
amount provided under subsection (b) for a fiscal year if the
Secretary determines that the full funding level is not
necessary to fund all qualifying applications for
agricultural competitiveness grants that satisfy the priority
criteria established under subsection (e).

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Dooley] and a Member opposed, each will be recognized for 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment I offer today is an amendment that I think is in the
best interest of the taxpayers of this country and also is in the best
interest of farmers. We are embarking upon enacting a new farm policy,
a farm policy that has been identified as being freedom to farm.
The premise behind this policy is that over the next 7 years we will
obligate the taxpayers of this country to spend $36.5 billion to
farmers regardless of what the prices of the commodities will be. I
think it has become very clear that we are currently in a situation
where you can forward contract on almost all the commodities that are
under the program for December of this year as well as December 1997,
enabling farmers today in the private sector to lock in a profit.
Under the current program that we have, our current farm program,
there would be minimal government outlays, but under freedom to farm we
are going to be requiring the taxpayers of this country to make $36
billion in payments to farmers, $36 billion which I believe cannot be
characterized as much more than welfare payments.
What my amendment does is, it makes a minimal change. It says that we
would be far better served, the taxpayers would be far better served,
farmers would be far better served if we could just take $2 billion of
that $36 billion over the next 7 years and invest it in agricultural
research.
It has been demonstrated that agriculture research will pay great
dividends not only to farmers but also to our society as a whole. A
recent study by the Economic Research Service has determined that there
has been a return of 35 percent of all moneys that have been invested
in agriculture research. That is the central issue that we are talking
about today. That is what my amendment is all about.
Are we going to get a greater return on the taxpayers' investment in
farm programs by the $36 billion going in direct payments, or will the
taxpayers of this country get a greater return on the investment of $2
billion in research? I think clearly it is very clear that everyone
will be far better served. Our society will be far better served if we
make this modest contribution in allocating these funds to ensure that
we will have a more viable, a more productive agriculture research
program in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am one of the strongest supporters of agriculture
research in the Congress. Since early last year, I, along with the
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Allard, the
distinguished chairman emeritus of the Committee on Agriculture, the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. de la Garza, and Mr. Johnson have been
conducting a comprehensive review of research programs which aim to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the more than $1.7 billion
that we now spend on research.
During a time when we are trying to balance the Federal budget and
ensure what money we do have is spent wisely, basically what the
gentleman from California is proposing is that we spend an additional
$2 billion on a new entitlement program without the benefit of a single
hearing to discuss how well we are using the $1.7 billion we were
already spending.
We are going to continue this review of ag research with our very
strong support. After all, our farmers and ranchers must be provided
the competitive advantage through research to compete in the global
marketplace. We will have a series of hearings, which we have scheduled
to begin in 2 weeks. Immediately after these hearings, the committee
will proceed with marking up comprehensive reform legislation. We are
going to focus on priority setting, revitalizing our research programs
and underscoring the strong support, bipartisan support in regards to
research.
Now, let me get to the gentleman's comments in regards to freedom to
farm. As we have said before, this bill establishes hopefully a market
transition from the command and control style of government support to
the free market through a series of fixed and declining payments. We
have come from $56 billion in regards to the agriculture baseline for
farm program payments to $43 billion, to $38 billion, to $36 billion.
That is a tremendous decline. We are meeting our budget
responsibilities, 50 percent less in terms of market transition
payments as compared to the last 5 years. But the gentleman wants to
take another $2 billion from farm income, direct farm income to
producers, to agriculture research prior to the comprehensive review of
the research programs that we have on the books.
The passage of the Dooley amendment, quite frankly, is a killer
amendment to freedom to farm. It upsets the process. These payments are
declining most rapidly. The income outlook is most uncertain. The
gentleman calls it a welfare payment. Again, I think anybody that
describes any farm program as a welfare payment does a disservice to
agriculture and his constituency. These are not welfare payments. These
are declining market transition payments. The farmer has to observe a
conservation compliance plan that is most costly, and the gentleman is
just dead wrong in his description of what has happened.

So this is a killer amendment. I urge opposition to it. And I would
say to the gentleman that I have tried my very best to be of help to
the gentleman when he has wanted more investment in the market
promotion program. I have tried to be of the greatest amount of help
possible in regards to the research capability of the wine industry in
California. I was just out there. And we have tried to be of help to
the gentleman in regards to the cotton program, and we had very
damaging amendments. On the whole total subject of research we have
tried to be of help. We worked with the gentleman in regards to USDA
reorganization.
I must say to the gentleman, without any consultation, without any
conversation in regards to the Committee on Agriculture chair, this
amendment sprung out of nowhere, was made in order and is a killer
amendment to the total package of the farm program.
I would appreciate it in the future if the gentleman has an amendment
of this nature, he would visit with the chair and, as he can indicate,
I have a little personal interest in this particular situation, I will
continue to help the gentleman on these other matters.
I urge opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond to the chairman.
If we would have had one hearing on freedom to farm, we might have
been able to have a discussion on these proposed amendments, but we did
not have a hearing on freedom to farm.
The bottom line is, the issue here, this is not new money going out.
This is not additional money. The bottom line is, if we want to fund
agriculture research, there is only one pot of money out there. It is
the $36 billion that is going to direct payments to farmers, however,
Members should want to characterize those payments.
The bottom line is, if we want to fund research, if we want to make
an investment for the future, the investment for the future of farmers
and the

[[Page H1532]]
investment for the future well-being of our society and improving
nutrition, we need to support additional investment into research.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 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 support of the amendment
of the gentleman from California to provide the additional money for
research that we are going to need during the transition period so that
when the year 2002 comes that our farmers are going to be able to
compete without any subsidy whatsoever.
That is what the gentleman from Kansas wants, yet he is not willing
to make sure that our farmers are prepared to meet that world
competition. What he wants to do is give them a lot of money this year
and next year, when they really do not need it because they are going
to get it from the marketplace. If he wants to fund this research, he
can do it in the next 2 years because there is not going to be any need
to send farmers money. We are going to see farmers with the prices that
we have, am I not correct, with the prices we have in all commodities,
the major commodities covered by the freedom to farm, that there is not
a farmer out there who has a good crop who is not going to make money.
Yet under the freedom to farm we are going to send them a whole bunch
of money.
Would it not be better to take that money and do the research when we
need it so that our farmers, when the time comes, when they are not
going to get any Government payment at all, they are able to meet that
competition, world competition out there?
So I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.
What the gentleman from Kansas wants to do is send money out to
people when they do not need it and what the gentleman from California
wants to do is take that money and make sure that when the time comes
that they do not get any money that they are going to be able to
compete.
I do not understand this. It does not kill this bill. He still has
his freedom not to farm. He still has his bill that says, you do not
have to turn one blade, plant one seed or turn any soil. You do not
drill, no nothing. You are still going to get a payment. He has still
got his bill. What this does is say, we want our farmers to be
prepared.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, in all the talk about freedom
to farm, little attention has been given to agriculture programs to
assist States like California which depend less heavily on program
crops.
A truly broad-based agriculture program needs market promotion,
conservation, nutrition, and rural development.
The Dooley amendment focuses on the other leg of a true agriculture
program--research.
Support for research often done at our land-grant colleges put the
United States in the forefront of agricultural productivity long before
commodity programs.
Budget cuts to agriculture over the last few years have exacted a
toll on vital research and our land-grant colleges.
The Dooley amendment makes an important statement: in a market-
oriented economy, we need a renewed commitment to competitive research.
Research breakthroughs are the key to agricultural productivity--to
higher yields--to fewer pesticides--to better water quality--to better
farm practices.
Research has been at the heart of American agricultural success and
it must continue to be a mainstay of our agriculture in the future.
Not an approach some of my Appropriations Committee brethren might
take.
This approach--using competition not simply formula grants to all
institutions demonstrates we are smart enough to focus on all the
components that will comprise the agriculture program of tomorrow.
Vote for the future--vote for research--vote for the best approach--
the Dooley amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dooley].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163,
noes 260, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 38]

AYES--163

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McIntosh
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Visclosky
Volkmer
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates

NOES--260

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Upton
Vento
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker

[[Page H1533]]

Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--8

Collins (IL)
Cox
de la Garza
Furse
Gutierrez
McKinney
Moorhead
Stokes

{time} 1130

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Ms. Furse for, with Mr. Cox of California against.

Messrs. ALLARD, POMBO, and SHADEGG changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. WAMP, Mr. SAWYER, and Mr. RAHALL changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, in order
to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] as
it relates to the amendment just voted on.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my distinguished colleague and my friend,
the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman of the committee
yielding to me for this colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the
future of agriculture research. Agriculture research extension and
education programs have played a critical role in achieving the current
productivity and competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. Taxpayers receive
a rate of return on research and extension of 30 to 50 percent per
year.
While a research title is not included in the bill before the House
today, I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Committee
on Agriculture and conferees to promote changes to the research
component of the fund for rural America in the Senate version of the
farm bill. Changes need to be made which will bring better into balance
the total research and extension portfolio, addressing those areas in
which current funding relative to user-driven national priorities is
inadequate.
I have been working with Chairman Roberts for several months to
promote a strong research extension and education program that reaches
out to traditional and nontraditional researchers with an interest in
basic and applied research. I would say to the chairman of the
committee, I want to continue to work with him, Mr. Chairman, on this
issue to address the challenges facing agriculture.
We need an infusion of resources that will provide problem- and
opportunity-oriented research, extension, and education. This will
assist the entire system, including plant and animal sciences,
processing, marketing, and natural resources, while also developing the
next generation of knowledge and technology needed to maintain
international competitiveness over the long term.
For several months I have been advocating increased funding for
agriculture research through a program which would provide a basic
excessive grant program, balancing investments in basic and applied
research, extension, and education. This program should incorporate a
priority-setting mechanism that takes into account the views of
producers and processors early in the process, as well as allowing for
smaller research institutions to compete for grants. It is designed as
an aggressive, coordinated program to be administered by the
cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service, with
the agriculture industry playing a lead role in priority-setting. It is
a worthwhile program.

Again, I appreciate the chairman's willingness to review and consider
this proposal and look forward to working with him on this critical
issue.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Idaho for his
remarks and his leadership. Let me simply respond by saying last
summer, as I indicated during the debate on the last amendment, along
with the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Allard, the gentlemen from Texas,
Mr. de la Garza, and Mr. Johnson, we sent out a comprehensive
questionnaire in regards to research. We asked the researchers and the
users what can be done better, how we can spend the $1.7 billion annual
commitment to agriculture research and extension to make sure that our
producers and consumers will have a competitive and safe food supply in
the 21st century?
Now, in addition to the survey, I would tell the gentleman, the House
Committee on Agriculture has had the GAO, the General Accounting
Office, conduct the first accounting of our Federal agriculture
research investment since 1981. The GAO will deliver this report to the
committee by the end of next month.
Finally, we have scheduled a series of hearings this March, and plan
on producing a comprehensive rewrite of our Federal research program.
Unfortunately, I must say the other body has chosen simply to clean
around the edges, leaving in place some of our research policies that
fail to meet the needs of the agriculture sector as we transition into
a free market. That is unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Committee on
Agriculture in our efforts to modernize the current research program.
So, pending our comprehensive legislation on agriculture research when
we get to the conference on this bill, I am going to look forward to
working with the gentleman in addressing how we can secure the
additional funds that we need.
The Senate has something called the Fund for Rural America. The
gentleman has talked to me about his suggestions, for suggesting that
within the Fund for Rural America, to make sure that some of that money
does go to research and the needs of farmers. I look forward to the
gentleman's suggestions for change and to working with him to make sure
the Fund for Rural America serves farmers and consumer research needs.
I thank the gentleman for his commentary and his leadership.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed
in House Report 104-463.

amendment offered by mr. foley

Mr. FOLEY. 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. Foley: At the end of title V (page
139, after line 17), add the following new section:

SEC. 507. EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA.

(a) In General.--On July 1, 1996, out of any funds in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall provide $210,000,000 to the Secretary of the
Interior to carry out this section.
(b) Entitlement.--The Secretary of the Interior--
(1) shall accept the funds made available under subsection
(a);
(2) shall be entitled to receive the funds; and
(3) shall use the funds to conduct restoration activities
in the Everglades ecosystem, which may include acquiring
private acreage in the Everglades Agricultural Area including
approximately 52,000 acres that is commonly known as the
``Talisman tract''.
(c) Transferring Funds.--The Secretary of the Interior may
transfer funds to the Army Corps of Engineers, the State of
Florida, or the South Florida Water Management District to
carry out subsection (b)(3).
(d) Deadline.--Not later than December 31, 1999, the
Secretary of the Interior shall utilize the funds for
restoration activities referred to in subsection (b)(3).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Foley] and a Member opposed will each control 10 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the Chair whether
there is any Member on the committee who is opposed to the amendment,
because if not, in its present form, I am, and I would like to claim
the time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is opposed to
the amendment and will control the time in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of a logical solution to aid in
the environmental restoration of one of our true national treasures,
the Florida Everglades. I would like to first point out there was
similar language passed in the Senate earlier this month in the farm
bill, and this language enjoys wide bipartisan support from both
Senators of our State, the Governor, and the entire south Florida
Congressional delegation.
When I was chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, the Florida
State Legislature passed the Everglades Forever Act. The Secretary of

[[Page H1534]]
the Interior, environmental groups, and the sugar industry worked
towards a comprehensive plan to help restore the Everglades. Under this
agreement, the sugar growers will pay up to $320 million over 7 years
as part of a State agricultural privilege tax toward Everglades
restoration.
Let me just review. In 1850 Congress gave the Everglades to Florida
with one proviso, that it be drained. We have certainly come a long way
since then. Back in those days, in the 1930's and 1940's, people
running for office used to campaign that they would drain the
Everglades. By the 1930's, 400 miles of drainage canals had been built.
In south Florida this meant the infusion of agriculture in the region,
as well as expanded development opportunities in south Florida.

After disastrous hurricanes in 1926 and 1928, thousands of people
were killed, and a levee was built around Lake Okeechobee. That levee
took out of the Everglades ecosystem large blocks of land. Today's
population has grown from 26,000 in 1900 to over 5 million today. This
development and the resulting pollution has also put an incredible
strain on the environment. Thus, all of these factors combined have
disrupted the natural flow of water in south Florida. Now we are
searching for solutions on how best to save our national treasure, the
Everglades, from environmental and biological collapse.
The bottom line is there is no single scapegoat in this issue.
Instead of pointing fingers, we need to point to solutions. Through the
combined leadership of the State's Senators, the Governor, and the
Florida delegation, we have reached an agreement under which 52,000
acres, known as Talisman, would be purchased for water storage. This
land is currently for sale voluntarily. The acquisition will give us
long-term solutions for the Everglades water quality and quantity
issues. Because of its strategic location in the Everglades ecosystem,
a large water storage area can be constructed on the land.
I ask my colleagues to support the environment and support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Let me simply say, Mr. Chairman, I am really of mixed feelings here
today. I think what the gentleman is trying to do is absolutely,
perfectly legitimate. I think the Everglades are a great national
treasure, and I have consistently in the past supported every effort
that has been before us to try to help preserve the Everglades.
But I think this amendment is, frankly, walking around under false
pretenses today. It is advertised, for instance, in the CQ House Action
Report as being an amendment to authorize $200 million to acquire land
in the Florida Everglades. In fact, what it does is appropriate $200
million for that purpose.
I do not mind the passage of this amendment as long as it would be
subject to appropriation. But I do not see why we ought to have a
special arrangement under which the Everglades, as precious as they
are, will wind up receiving favorable treatment over any other natural
resource in any other part of the country because they happen to wind
up getting in this bill as an entitlement, as a direct appropriation, I
should say, whereas other areas of the country that have environmental
problems have to get in line in the regular appropriation process and
compete for funds. There is absolutely no reason on the merits to do
that, and I regret the fact that this amendment has not been made
subject to appropriation.
If it had been, I would support it, because I certainly think what
the gentleman is trying to do is correct, but the way he is trying to
do it puts this project ahead of virtually every other environmental
preservation project in the country. That is not a legitimate way to do
business, in my judgment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, the Everglades is a national treasure. In
fact, it is an international treasure. This funding is really a small
down payment on the Federal Government's share of Everglades
restoration. It will help purchase critical land in the Everglades
agricultural area. However, it is insufficient for the total
restoration, and does not relieve Florida or the industry in Florida of
its responsibility. The President has announced the fair share balanced
plan to save the Everglades.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the President's proposal for
Everglades restoration.
The material referred to is as follows:

The Clinton/Gore Administration's Everglades Restoration Plan
Principles and Elements--February 19, 1996

summary

The Clinton/Gore Administration will pursue a comprehensive
plan to restore the Everglades and South Florida ecosystem.
This plan will build on the substantial progress already
achieved by the Administration working in concert with the
Chiles/MacKay Administration, Senator Bob Graham and other
parties. The Administration's Everglades restoration plan
integrates literally dozens of individual activities,
resulting in an ambitious and comprehensive restoration
effort. The plan provides for:
Strategic land acquisitions sufficient to ensure successful
restoration, including at least 100,000 acres in the
Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA);
Acceleration of restoration projects and research
activities already underway;
Broad restoration and protection efforts complements and
support the health of Florida's economy and its citizens, now
and in the future.
The Administration's plan recognizes that the costs of
restoration should be borne by a balanced cost-share between
the federal and state governments and those who have
substantially benefited from federal programs and alterations
to the ecosystem and who will potentially benefit from its
restoration, including sugar-producing companies. The plan
has three major funding components:
The creation of an ``Everglades Restoration Fund'' for land
acquisition funded through appropriations of $100 million per
year for 4 years, for a total of $400 million.
A 1 cent per pound increase in the marketing assessment on
Florida sugar produced in the EAA, which will generate
approximately $35 million per year. This will total $245
million over 7 years, and will constitute an ongoing source
of revenues into the Everglades Restoration Fund.
A 25 percent increase in funding for federal agency
programs, including, science, land management, water
management projects, and other programs, from $104 million in
1996 to $131 million for 1997.
Overall, this approach will double the total federal
funding for Everglades restoration to about $1.5 billion over
the next 7 years. The Administration will use existing
authorities and resources where available, and where
necessary will seek new authorities from Congress.

guiding principles

A Shared Vision of Restoration: The restoration of the
Everglades, a unique national treasure, requires a shared
vision of the desired condition of the entire South Florida
ecosystem--from the Kissimmee River to the Florida Keys--that
will restore and maintain the biological diversity and
sustainability of the ecosystem and support actions that
incorporate economic, sociocultural, and community goals.
Expanded Partnerships: The federal government will continue
to support and work with ongoing partnerships in South
Florida with State, Tribal, and local governments, the
private sector and individual citizens to accomplish
ecosystem restoration and protection objectives, recognizing
that the responsibility for issues of water and land use in
the ecosystem are largely the responsibility of the State of
Florida.
Non-Regulatory Programs: Non-regulatory programs, such as
advance planning, research, and public-private cooperative
efforts will be encouraged.
Shared Restoration Expenditures: The restoration
expenditures should meet clearly defined objectives for the
overall long-term effort to restore the ecosystem and should
be borne jointly through a balanced cost-share between the
federal and state governments and those who have
substantially benefited from federal programs and alterations
to the ecosystem and who will potentially benefit from its
restoration, including sugar-producing companies.
Reliance on Sound Science: Restoration efforts must be
scientifically sound, ecologically credible, and legally
responsible. Research must be coordinated and focus on
critical ecosystem needs, and together with careful
monitoring, should support adaptive management.

administration commitments

Beginning with the FY97 budget request to Congress, the
Administration will call for a total of about $1.5 billion in
funding over seven years for Everglades restoration
activities--double the current level. The funding will
consist of $100 million in each of the next four years for
land acquisition, plus $35 million in revenues each year from
the assessment on Florida sugar, both to the Everglades
Restoration Fund, as well as $130 million annually for
research and ecosystem management.
The Administration will request authority to establish an
``Everglades Restoration

[[Page H1535]]
Fund'' to receive discretionary funds and sugar marketing assessment
receipts. The Fund's resources will be available without
fiscal year limitation. The federal resources will be managed
jointly by a cabinet-level group.
The proposed funding, combined with existing and new
legislative authorities, will lay the foundation to implement
these commitments:
Commitment 1.--The Clinton Administration will increase its
already substantial support for restoration and protection of
the Everglades ecosystem. Specifically, we will:
Acquire in partnership with the State enough land to make
restoration work, concentrating on the following areas: At
least 100,000 acres of land in Everglades Agricultural Area
for water storage, including acquisition of the Talisman
Tract; water preserve/aquifer recharge areas in the eastern
edge buffer area for water quality and storage along with
drinking water protection, the size of which will be
determined after further study and analysis; eastern Edge
Buffer-Southern Transition Lands, for improved water
delivery; and expansion of Everglades National Park and other
parks and refuges.
Accelerate and ensure completion of water supply and
control projects, including: Complete the Modified Water
Deliveries Project; complete modifications to the C-111
Project, and revise the state/federal cost-share; complete
the C-51 Project, including acquisitions of STA 1E; and
complete the Kissimmee River Restoration Project.
Undertake necessary ecosystem management and planning,
including: Accelerate completion of the Corps of Engineers
Central & South Florida Project Restudy; develop a
coordinated water quality improvement and protection plan for
the south Florida ecosystem; strengthen water quality
standards to protect the Everglades and Florida Bay;
undertake with State and local officials a cooperation urban
interface planning process; expand exotic species control
programs; expand the Coral Reef Initiative; and accelerate
the Florida Keys Water Quality Protection Program.
Commitment 2.--The Clinton Administration will work to
ensure that Florida's sugarcane industry contributes its fair
share of the costs of the restoration effort, in view of the
industry's impact upon the environment and the benefits to
industry from federal water projects and programs. Our policy
will support collection of funding, seek to retire acreage
where appropriate, improve management practices on those
lands that remain in use, and engage the agricultural sector,
both owners and workers, in the restoration effort. The
President's budget request and other legislation will provide
for: An assessment of 1 cent per pound of sugar produced in
the Everglades Agricultural Area; cooperative programs
with the agricultural community to employ workers in
ecosystem restoration activities; and programs for
transitional management of depleted and acquired lands,
including using transferable development rights, sale
lease-back arrangements or other tools.
Commitment 3.--The Clinton Administration will maintain and
expand its partnership with the people of Florida in
virtually every aspect of the Everglades restoration effort.
The Administration's plan would rely upon and enhance the
role of key intergovernmental and stakeholder forums. The
President's budget and associated legislation will provide
for: Continued operation of the South Florida Ecosystem Task
Force; acceptance of the Governor's Commission on Sustainable
South Florida as a permanent advisory committee to the Task
Force; and continued close coordination with the South
Florida Water Management District.
Commitment 4.--The Administration will extend its
Reinventing Government policy to the Everglades restoration
effort, applying innovative and flexible approaches to
restoration. In the next year, the Administration will
complete development and begin implementation of: A
coordinated wetlands protection and permitting plan; and a
multi-species recovery plan.
Commitment 5.--The Clinton Administration will reaffirm its
support for changed sharing of the public costs of
infrastructure projects, including associated land
acquisition, related to restoration projects underway. It
will explore the cost-sharing of future projects, following
the completion of the Corps of Engineers' Restudy. The
President's budget and associated legislation will provide
for: Revised cost-sharing between the state and federal
governments for public costs associated with the C-111 and C-
51 restoration infrastructure projects.
Commitment 6.--The Clinton Administration will work to
ensure that restoration efforts are guided by the best
science available. The President's budget will provide funds
to support: Increasing research activities related to
monitoring water quality, mercury, Florida Bay and the Keys,
and improved agricultural practices; continuation of the
scientific review panel; and completion of the ecosystem
scientific baseline.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the efforts of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle. I believe this is a real testament to the bipartisan
nature and the national nature of Everglades restoration.

{time} 1145

It is a crisis, however. It is a crisis in terms of Florida Bay and
the Everglades that are degrading at every second that we wait, and
this money to purchase land in the upstream area of the Everglades is a
necessary condition based on the best science. It does not end the
requirements of others to continue to pay, but it is a down payment
that is definitely an essential ingredient.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this is the final decision. The
Senate has already put in this kind of language. The Senate, in their
ag bill, sort of wanted to satisfy everybody to get the bill out of the
Senate quickly, so the Senate has 500 pages and $5 billion more than
what we came out with from the House. It is up to $6 billion now in the
analysis.
Here is my problem with this amendment. If we say that all of the
other taxpayers of the United States should contribute to help solve
this problem, then it seems reasonable that all of the needs that are
going to be considered for environmental cleanup be considered with the
available money and it be decided how much goes to each one of those
needed projects.
For this body now to bypass the Committee on Appropriations, to
bypass the analysis of how do we best spend our environmental money is
not consistent with the way Congress should operate. It should go
through the scrutiny of appropriations. It should go through the
scrutiny of the hearings process. It should not be passed as an
amendment on this floor to obligate the taxpayers across the whole
country to pay for this particular cleanup of the Everglades in
Florida.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss].
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the full time. I appreciate my
colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], taking the
initiative on this. The fact of the matter is that we have long tried
in Florida. I have been standing on this floor for 7 years trying to
get attention and others before me, and certainly a great grouping of
our colleagues here today, bringing attention to this. It is a national
problem. There is a Federal interest. There is farming going on. This
is an appropriate connection, and we are doing the right thing.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out for those who have said, particularly
my distinguished colleague who has spoken on this subject, are we
paying our fair share in Florida, indeed we are. We are paying almost
all the share in Florida. This is a national problem. We are trying to
bring in now a small Federal participation in what is going to be a
gigantic reward for all the citizens of America and the visitors who
come here, and I urge strong support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this
time. Mr. Chairman, I have stood here many times to argue that the
Everglades is a national treasure that needs and deserves our help and
we have taken steps in the past to address the degradation of the
Everglades and Florida Bay, for which I am grateful but the time has
come to make a full-fledged commitment. The alternative is to simply
walk away and allow these two unique, priceless areas to die. That's
unacceptable. We can do better, and the Foley amendment--and the
similar provisions in the Senate bill--does better.
There is a legitimate Federal responsibility here--it was the Corps
of Engineers--in conjunction with the State of Florida--that began
altering and diverting the flow of fresh water to the Everglades and
Florida Bay. The State of Florida, and the residents of its southwest
coast have now made a major commitment to Everglades restoration, and
it is time for the Federal Government to do the same
There is also a logical tie-in to the legislation before us, because
the Everglades land that was drained south of Lake Okeechobee was
turned into farmland, and farmers have benefited from the network of
canals and drainable channels for years.
Two hundred and ten million dollars is a sizable commitment, and if
this amendment passes I will continue to work with my colleagues to
find ways to pay for this necessary expense. Right now, the key is for
this House to take a bold step toward good environmental stewardship;
to take up the challenge of restoring our ``River of Grass,'' and
commit the Federal Government to its share of this worthy

[[Page H1536]]
endeavor. I urge my colleagues to support the Foley amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, let me repeat, I think that the need for what the
Florida delegation is talking about is clear. I think it is
environmentally criminal to see what has been allowed to happen to the
Everglades over the past three decades or more. But the fact is, if you
take a look around the country, you have to get in line for regular
appropriations.
We have national parks which are being impacted by pollution all
around, and we have great need. All you have to do is talk to the Park
Service and they will tell you we have a very serious need to expand
some of those national parks to preserve their core environmental
values, and yet they have to get in line for regular appropriations.
But there is no such getting in line with respect to this problem, and
that is what is wrong with this approach. I would assure the entire
Florida delegation, I will be the first to support this provision if it
is subject to appropriations. But I cannot in good conscience support
it, even though I agree with the goal, when it is being set aside,
being put ahead of virtually every other urgent environmental problem
in the country. That is just not the way to do business in a country
with as many problems as we have.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Canady].
Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in
support of the Foley amendment to give priority funding for responsible
restoration activities in the Florida Everglades. The Florida
Everglades are truly an environmental treasure. The healthy Everglades
and a prosperous Florida economy are not only compatible but also
mutually dependent.
We have established an historic partnership between the Federal
Government and the State of Florida and the agricultural industry to
fund these cleanup efforts. I am very pleased that this Congress is
standing with the people of Florida is support of this responsible
effort. I am pleased to support the amendment of my colleague from
Florida, and I want to commend my colleague from Florida [Mr. Foley]
for his leadership on this outstanding issue.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the distinguished chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking
member on the Appropriations Committee and my good friend, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I did not expect to be back here making this argument
again, certainly not before noon today, but it appears that I have to.
I think that this is a matter that ought to come before the Members for
another vote. Because quite possibly notwithstanding my tirades of the
first half of business today, Members did not really understand that
despite all of the good intentions that they have today, helping the
environmental community clean up our wetlands and so forth, what this
amendment does and what we did with the Boelhert amendment, and the
provision which was the LEAP Program, which was incorporated and
doubled by the Boelhert amendment earlier, is to create entitlements
out of what have been discretionary programs.
Now, we might say they are for good intentions, and agree. We might
say the substance is fine and good and decent. It purifies the air and
the land and the fish and the wildlife, and I say fine. But I say this
is not an environmental issue. This is a budgetary issue.
For the last 14 months, the American Congress, on both sides of this
Capitol, has told the American people it is mandatory, it is absolutely
essential that we balance the budget of the United States. And, as we
know, mandatory spending is two-thirds of the equation, two-thirds of
the $1.6 trillion that this Government spends every single year.
Discretionary, spending which we have had great success in deterring
and slowing down and cutting in recent months, has been going down, but
we cannot balance the budget with discretionary spending alone.
We have got to get a handle on entitlements, and that means reducing
the number of entitlements, not increasing them. We have already
created a $2.1 billion entitlement earlier this morning out of what was
a $75 million discretionary spending program, and this will create
another entitlement. I urge my budgetary-conscious Members to vote
against the amendment. Do not create any more entitlements and let us
stop this foolishness or admit to the American people that we are not
interested in balancing the budget.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, as the distinguished and very impressive
chairman of the Appropriations Committee has pointed out, the road to
bankruptcy is paved with good intentions. And as the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has pointed out in opposition to the bill, there
are other environmental programs that certainly are very meritorious.
I think in my discussions with the gentleman from Florida, he has
indicated that Federal land exchange is a better way to address this
issue or certainly would be helpful, no cost to the taxpayer, wise use
of surplus government lands. It would protect the Everglades and
protect the other environmental programs that the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] wants to fund. It would also address the budget
issues that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has.

Modification of Amendment Offered by Mr. Roberts to the Amendment
offered by Mr. Foley

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I notice on line 11 of the amendment, it
says, ``Shall use the funds to conduct restoration activities in the
Everglades ecosystem, which may include acquiring private acreage in
the Everglades.''
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified
to change ``may'' to ``shall.'' We can answer the problems with the
budget in part and the problems by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] in terms of other very fine environmental programs.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would agree to the inclusion of ``shall''
in line 11.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kansas?
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Hastings].
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman, and I
would like to refer some of my remarks to the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Livingston], chairman, and to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey], ranking member, both of whom I have immense respect for, and I
genuinely mean that.
The fact of the matter is that the Florida Everglades are the second
largest national park in the United States of America, and while I
agree that everybody ought get in line, this is a pay me now or pay me
later situation. What is going to happen, if we do not do this soon,
and I mean sooner than later, is we are going to find ourselves in the
position of having to pay a great deal more.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for the Foley amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the Florida Everglades is the largest subtropical wetland
in the United States and this country's second largest national park.
Spanning south Florida from the coral reefs off the Keys to the
headwaters of the Kissimmee River near Orlando, the size of the
Everglades is only surpassed by the number of diverse ecosystems and
habitats it supports. Nurturing the existence of humans and literally
hundreds of wildlife species, the Everglades houses the most complex
ecosystem in the United States. It is in urgent need of restoration and
this amendment is another step in the long process of restoring the
Glades to its proper majesty.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment enjoys bipartisan and bicameral support.
Vote for the Foley amendment and help keep the Everglades part of
America the Beautiful.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Mica].
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
The Everglades are not just a Florida treasure but they are a
national treasure. While agriculture practices have

[[Page H1537]]
contributed to the degradation of the Everglades, overdevelopment and
also Federal projects and paving and growth have contributed just as
much to the pollution of the Everglades. Now we all have an obligation
to roll up our sleeves and begin the Everglades cleanup and
restoration. Only through a combined effort of State, Federal, and
local and private efforts can we make that happen, and we can make it
happen here today.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, am I correct to assume I will have the right
to close on this amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida will have the right to
close.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida even though we are on different sides of this
issue.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] is recognized
for 1 minute.
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)

{time} 1200

Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of the
Foley amendment, and I understand our appropriations chairman, the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], who has so capably tried to
do the mandate that he had. I also respect the ranking member, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
But there is something that we must take into consideration because
of the very strength of what we are trying to do. This provides $200
million to help restore one of America's truly unique and natural
resources, the Florida Everglades. It is so important to us because
every drop of drinking water in south Florida comes from the ground.
If you keep that in consideration and in mind, we are, the Everglades
is the sole source, because all of the aquifers are there, and they are
the sole-source aquifer State. Without water, water quality and
quantity, we will lose some of our very best resources, you know, in
the Florida bay. I do not think I need to update the Congress on the
importance of the Florida Everglades. But the amendment offered by my
colleague from Florida is very good, and I want the Congress to pass
it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Foley amendment, which
provides $200 million to help restore one of America's truly unique
natural resources, the Florida Everglades. My district in south Florida
is adjacent to the Everglades, and I know from experience that the
welfare of all of south Florida depends on the Everglades.
You see, Mr. Chairman, every drop of drinking water in south Florida
comes from the ground. We are a sole-source aquifer State, and we need
to maintain our water quality and quantity in these aquifers--there is
no choice.
Mr. Chairman, only a healthy Everglades can protect the water supply
of millions of people. Commercial and sports fishing and tourism are
key industries in my State. Our coastal waters must be kept clean for
wildlife and fish, for our own health and enjoyment, and for commercial
use and tourism. The Everglades empty into Florida Bay, an important
marine nursery. A healthy Everglades is indeed the linchpin of our
south Florida economy, and a key to fisheries in the entire Gulf of
Mexico.
The funds in this amendment will buy land to protect the Everglades
ecosystem, including land to protect the Everglades ecosystem,
including land that otherwise would be developed. Mr. Chairman, this
will help all of us. What we need in south Florida is redevelopment of
our urban areas, focusing our growth in areas where it makes
environmental and economic sense. I believe that this $200 million for
the restoration of the Everglades is an important down payment on a
more ecologically sound future, and I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Shaw].
(Mr. SHAW asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I think the points have been made here today,
but there is one thing that I want the Members to leave here really
impressed upon their mind, and that is, why are we in Florida waiting
in line.
Several reasons. One, there is a national park at stake, the life of
a national park. There is the water supply for south Florida. There is
the health of the Florida Bay, which is the nursery for all of the
fisheries around the coast of Florida.
This is irreparable damage occurring in south Florida. It is not a
question, We do not have the luxury of being able to wait 2 or 3 years.
The damage would be complete, and it would be final.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for Representative
Foley's amendment which provides for a $210 million appropriation that
will be used to conduct restoration activities in the Everglades
National Park and to purchase lands within the Everglades Agricultural
Area. The Everglades' unique, fragile ecosystem has been strained, and
it is now estimated that 130,000 acres of land need to be taken out of
production in the Everglades Agricultural Area [EAA] to regain a
reasonable flow of clean water through the Everglades and into Florida
Bay.
Immediate action is needed to halt the rapid deterioration of the
Everglades, which are dying at the incredible rate of 3 acres everyday.
If we fail to act, Florida residential and recreational areas and
businesses will suffer increasing water supply problems, and the south
Florida fishing, diving, and tourism industries will be endangered.
I believe that the farmers who grow their crops in the Everglades
Agricultural Area need to be financially responsible for the damage
that their farming does to the Everglades. However, this bill is the
first step in the preservation and restoration of Florida Bay and the
Everglades, both of which are of tremendous value to our Florida
economy in addition to being two of the most beautiful and priceless
areas on earth.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this pro-environment vote and take
the first step in saving the Everglades.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I greatly respect the gentleman who just spoke.
But let me point something out. This Congress has voted to reduce EPA
enforcement by one-third. They have voted to gut an entire string of
environmental protection programs. And then, having done that, on the
appropriations bill, now they come in and say, ``Oh, by the way, I have
got a special, urgent problem in my State, and so forget all of the
need to cut the budgets.''
For every last one of you who voted to cut the EPA's budget, who
voted to cut the Interior appropriation bill the two budgets for
strengthening our environmental protection, every last one of you who
voted for it will be putting yourselves in an absolutely hypocritical
position if you now vote for this amendment today because you will say
that in spite of everything that you did to all other regions of the
country, you are going to give this problem a special deal. The
American public is tried of special deals.
I want to see the Everglades protected. I want to see the Everglades
protected. But I want to see the Great Lakes protected, I want to see
our ocean shores protected, I want to see the Mississippi River cleaned
up, I want to see all of our national parks protected.
When you are willing to do that, come and see me. But do not ask for
a special deal for one State for one group. That is not fair. It is not
right. You ought to vote this down.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
Florida, for yielding me this time.
Let me say that on procedural grounds, the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on Appropriations make a good case. But they
also know that this legislative process often has unique provisions and
often has things which are handled in ways that do not necessarily
directly involve the Committee on Appropriations. There are other
committees. There is a broader body, called the House, and the other
side. There are other committees in the Senate, and there is a broader
body, called the Senate.
The question here is very straightforward. We have an opportunity in
this bill today to vote to continue a process which was begun at the
State level and which is, in fact, moving in the right direction; that
is, to save the Everglades, but, equally important, to save the water
supply of south Florida.

[[Page H1538]]

I think this amendment can be improved, and I hope in conference it
is going to be improved. I hope in conference it is going to be
improved in a way which both the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]
will appreciate.

The truth is we have a limit of money. The truth is we are never
going to have enough money to do everything we would like to do around
the country.
One of the things that I actively, working with a number of Members,
including Chairman Pombo of the Natural Resources Subcommittee that
deals with this, am working on is the Sterling Forest Preserve, which
is also a water supply problem. The Sterling Forest provides water for
New York City and for one-third of New Jersey, and there we have talked
about finding a land swap.
Let me suggest, when we get to conference we are going to do all we
can to replace the cash requirements with an ability of the Federal
Government to take quantities of land all over this country, HUD-owned
land in Washington and New York and in Atlanta and Miami and Orlando,
land owned by various Federal bureaus in the West, land that is not
environmentally necessary, and to the degree we can package land swaps
and enable this to occur without drawing upon appropriated funds, I
think that is a better way to go.
I am very sympathetic to the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, who has done heroic work in moving us toward a balanced
budget. But on this occasion, in getting this amendment to conference,
in setting the stage for negotiating with the Senate and for
developing, frankly, a proposal which will both save the Everglades,
provide water supply for south Florida and, I think, establish a
precedent for this country of using the Federal lands in an intelligent
way to take care of the environmentally needy areas, to take care of
the urban areas and to do so in a rational way, I think this is a
positive step.
I commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] for bringing it to
the floor. I think it is very important. I commend the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Shaw] for the leadership he has shown on the Committee on
Ways and Means for dealing with the same issue.
I think we have to take steps on behalf of the Everglades. We have to
take steps on behalf of fresh water in south Florida. I think this is
the right amendment to do it with. This starts us down that process.
I do assure my colleagues we will be working in conference to
maximize the opportunity to use land swaps instead of appropriated
funds. I know you are very sympathetic with the concerns that the
appropriators have raised today.
I simply urge a ``yes'' vote for a very good amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 299,
noes 124, note voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 39]

AYES--299

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TX)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Cramer
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Dornan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Rush
Salmon
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Studds
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Upton
Vento
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zimmer

NOES--124

Baker (LA)
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Brewster
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Callahan
Calvert
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Danner
DeLay
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Fawell
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hilleary
Hostettler
Hunter
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lincoln
Livingston
Lucas
Luther
McCarthy
McCrery
McKeon
Minge
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Nethercutt
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Poshard
Radanovich
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Sanford
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Young (AK)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--9

Becerra
Clyburn
Collins (IL)
de la Garza
Furse
McKinney
Moakley
Regula
Stokes

{time} 1225

Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. DANNER, and Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. OWENS, MATSUI, BRYANT of Texas, and SALMON changed their vote
form ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I was detained in a meeting during the
rollcall vote numbered 39 on the Everglades amendment had I been
present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent at this point to
enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Chambliss]
as it relates to the production flexibility contract that is contained
in this bill.

[[Page H1539]]

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kansas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Chambliss].
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, this bill authorizes the use of binding
production flexibility contracts between the United States and owners
and operators of farmland to ensure farming certainty and flexibility
while ensuring continued compliance with farm conservation compliance
plans and wetland protection requirements. Is this guarantee of
payment?
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for asking that
important question. Let me first say that it is clearly the intent of
Congress that the market transition payment provided by the 7-year
production flexibility contract is an express and unmistakable contract
between the United States and the owner and operator of farmland.
Because the market transition payment is based on the 7-year contract
it is the intent of the legislation that the payment is guaranteed.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday,
February 28, 1996, it is now in order to consider the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] in lieu of amendment No. 15
printed in House Report 104-463.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

Mr. TRAFICANT. 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. Traficant: At the end of title V
(page 139, after line 17), add the following:

SEC. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PURCHASE OF AMERICAN-MADE
EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS; REQUIREMENTS REGARDING
NOTICE

(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In
the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized
to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this
Act or amendments made by this Act, it is the sense of the
Congress that persons receiving such assistance should, in
expending the assistance, purchase only American-made
equipment and products.
(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing
financial assistance under this Act or amendments made by
this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall provide to each
recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement
made in subsection (a) by the Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Traficant] and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

{time} 1230

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a standard buy American amendment that I have
offered to many bills. As Members know, I substituted this amendment
last night under unanimous consent for the weatherization amendment I
was to offer.
I would just like to state this: I seem to have an acceptance by both
parties on this. In 1990, the Congress of the United States legislated
there would be 10 regions that would implement a national agricultural
weather service, specifically geared to farmers and their needs. The
Agriculture Department threw it in the can like many of these executive
branch agencies have. So the Traficant amendment would have, in fact,
brought that into being and, in fact, extended it to all 50 States.
Before I close out my time, let me say this to the Congress: I think
in agriculture, we should have a program with our technology where a
farmer in your State and in your county can call an 800 number and find
out if it is going to rain in the next couple days, a little basic
common sense.
So I have withdrawn that amendment. I am working with the committee.
I want help for it. And if I do not get the help, I will not withdraw
it next time. But this buy American amendment makes a lot of sense. It
does not tie anybody's hands.
I would like to compliment the Committee on Agriculture here. One of
our good, positive balance of payments is in agriculture. My amendment
here, the buy American amendment, certainly would be a benefit in that
regard.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, we will try very hard to address the
gentleman's concerns in regards to the previous amendment that he
described that he has withdrawn. It is my understanding that the
gentleman has or is going to offer his traditional buy American
amendment. We have no opposition to that, and we wish to thank the
gentleman.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself with the remarks
of the chairman. And we have no objections also, and we also assure him
that we will work with the gentleman regarding the previous amendment
that he dropped.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an affirmative vote, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed
in House Report 104-463.

Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. de la Garza]?
Mr. STENHOLM. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Stenholm:
Amendment No. 3: Page 30, strike lines 1 through 9 and
insert the following new subparagraphs:
(A) Soybeans.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance
loan for soybeans shall be not less than 85 percent of the
simple average price received by producers of soybeans, as
determined by the Secretary, during 3 years of the 5 previous
marketing years, excluding the years in which the average
price was the highest and the year in which the average price
was the lowest in the period.
(B) Sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, mustard
seed, and flaxseed.--The loan rates for a marketing
assistance loan for sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed,
safflower, mustard seed, or flaxseed shall be not less than
85 percent of the simple average price received by producers
of such oilseed, as determined by the Secretary, during 3
years of the 5 previous marketing years, excluding the years
in which the average price was the highest and the year in
which the average price was the lowest in the period.

H.R. 2854

Offered By: Mr. de la Garza

Amendment No. 4: Strike section 109 (page 78, line 8,
through page 80, line 15), relating to elimination of
permanent price support authority, and insert the following
new section:

SEC. 109. SUSPENSION AND REPEAL OF PERMANENT AUTHORITIES.

[[Page H1540]]

(1) Suspensions.--The following provisions of the
Agricultural Act of 1949 shall not be applicable to the 1996
through 2002 crops of any commodity:
(A) Section 101 (7 U.S.C. 1441).
(B) Section 103(a) (7 U.S.C. 1444(a)).
(C) Section 105 (7 U.S.C. 1444b).
(D) Section 107 (7 U.S.C. 1445a).
(E) Section 110 (7 U.S.C. 1445e).
(F) Section 112 (7 U.S.C. 1445g).
(G) Section 115 (7 U.S.C. 1445k).
(H) Title III (7 U.S.C. 1447-1449).
(I) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1421-1433d), other than sections
404, 406, 412, 416, and 427 (7 U.S.C. 1424, 1426, 1429, 1431,
and 1433f).
(J) Title V (7 U.S.C. 1461-1469).
(K) Title VI (7 U.S.C. 1471-1471j).
(2) Repeals.--The following provisions of the Agricultural
Act of 1949 are repealed:
(A) Section 103B (7 U.S.C. 1444-2).
(B) Section 108B (7 U.S.C. 1445c-3).
(C) Section 113 (7 U.S.C. 1445h).
(D) Section 114(b) (7 U.S.C. 1445j(b)).
(E) Sections 202, 204, 205, 206, and 207 (7 U.S.C. 1446a,
1446e, 1446f, 1446g, and 1446h).
(F) Section 406 (7 U.S.C. 1426).
(C) Suspension of Certain Quota Provisions.--The joint
resolution entitled ``A joint resolution relating to corn and
wheat marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act
of 1938, as amended'', approved May 26, 1941 (7 U.S.C. 1330
and 1340), shall not be applicable to the crops of what
planted for harvest in the calendar years 1996 through 2002.
(d) Suspension of Parity Price Program for Milk.--Section
201(c) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446(c)) is
amended by striking ``section 204'' and inserting ``section
201 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act''.

H.R. 2854

Offered By: Mr. de la Garza

Amendment No. 5: At the end of title V (page 139, after
line 17), add the following new section:

SEC. 507. INVESTMENT FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AMERICA.

Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act
(15 U.S.C. 714c) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
``(g) Make available $3,500,000,000 for the following
purposes:
``(1) Conducting rural development activities pursuant to
existing rural development authorities.
``(2) Conducting conservation activities pursuant to
existing conservation authorities.
``(3) Conducting research, education, and extension
activities pursuant to existing research, education, and
extension authorities.''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Stenholm] and a Member opposed each will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, a brief explanation of the amendment before us today.
We propose in this amendment to fund the fund for rural America to the
degree of $3.5 billion, to meet the rural development conservation
research and extension priorities and needs of rural America that we
believe are not and have not and will not be met in the funding as
before us in H.R. 2854.
I would hasten to point out, for budget reasons, the $3.5 billion
additional spending conforms to the coalition budget that was offered
last year that balances our budget in 7 years, Congressional Budget
Office scoring. We believe and have consistently said that the current
farm bill and the cuts as proposed in agriculture are too severe,
particularly in the area of rural development. And we have suggested
that additional funding must be made available, and that is what this
amendment does.
It also includes a provision for the oilseeds. In the transition
market program that is in the base bill, the oilseeds are shortchanged.
For too long, the oilseeds have been shortchanged and, as we had a
discussion yesterday regarding the market loan for cotton, we believe
that a similar oilseed marketing loan is also very applicable and very
much needed.
The CBO score on the oilseed cost is $103 million over 7 years, but I
hasten to point out that soybeans represent the third largest United
States crop with the second largest value. I think some additional
investment to see that that industry remains a strong and viable
industry is warranted, and that is why we offer that as a second part
of our amendment.
The third part to the amendment deals with continuation of permanent
law. On this side we have been very, very nervous about the ending of
farm programs under any shape, form or fashion. We understand that
there is a commission that will be studying what we replace, if we
replace, agricultural legislation. We think, though, that we should
delete the base bill provision which repeals permanent law to give us a
little extra added incentive just in case the commission or the
Congress should be as hopelessly deadlocked in 2002, as we were in
1995. And, therefore, the three parts of our amendment: the fund for
rural America, the oilseed marketing loan and the continuation of
permanent law.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], is recognized
for 30 minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana, [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the House Committee on
Appropriations, who, in the words of our Speaker, has made heroic
efforts in order to bring our spending under control.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Agriculture for yielding time to me. I hope I can say
that this time we are on the same side.
Mr. Chairman, this will be the third time I have come before the
House today with this argument. This time we are talking about a $3.5
billion program. It would be meritorious, all good intent, maybe the
money should be spent, but you are taking it out of the discretionary
arena for Congress to raise or lower at the discretion and writing it
into law, into mandatory law, as I understand it.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman. If I am wrong, I would
like to know it. But as I understand this program, it becomes a
mandatory, locked-into-law program that spends $3.5 billion for purpose
which may well be meritorious. I am not quarreling with the gentleman
on substance, but if, in fact, I am correct on that, I would only make
this point: We have already taken two programs that were discretionary
and made them mandatory. Today we have done that.
One was a $2.1 billion program and the other will be at least $2
billion. I have 13 appropriation bills here. These represent one-third
of the Federal budget, $1.6 trillion that we spend every year. The two-
thirds of the money we spend every year is locked into law. We cannot
do anything. Congress does not do anything. We do not have to do
anything. It is just going to be spent. Gradually what we have done
today is take some of the two programs and move them over from the
discretionary side to the mandatory side.
Why do we not just take all 13 bills, just throw them out. Just start
with the agricultural bill, put all the appropriations bills right
here. Make one amendment and take them from discretionary to mandatory.
We can all go home. We can do what Lamar Alexander says, we can go home
to our districts. We can cut our pay by 90 percent or maybe 100 percent
because we are not going to be doing a darned thing. Bill Clinton will
be President and the executive branch will run the Government and the
U.S. Congress will cease to function. That is what the gentleman is
seeking, if I understand it. I may be wrong. I know the gentleman has
his own time.
But if he is seeking to make a mandatory program, $3.5 billion out of
what was formerly discretionary, we might as well take all 13
appropriations bills, abolish the discretionary side of the equation
and make it all mandatory and forget about legislating. We will be
abdicating our responsibility to the American people so we might as
well all quit at the same time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I wish that the chairman would listen for just a moment, because it
is not the intention of this amendment to do any of what the gentleman
was describing.
The intention of this amendment is to recognize the tremendous
pressures and the frustration that has occurred this year between the
appropriators and the authorizers regarding the adequacy of funding for
many of the programs in the agricultural function.
I am perfectly willing to let the appropriators make that decision,
if that were possible, but the gentleman and I both would agree that if
we put this

[[Page H1541]]
money into the discretionary pot, then it would be up to the
appropriators as to whether the $3.5 billion would end up in the
agriculture function or would end up somewhere else, meeting more
appropriate needs. I do not argue with that process which we have to go
through, the appropriators, and I am very sympathetic to that.
But what we are trying to do in the same spirit of the transition
market program, in which we are capping entitlements, this is one
entitlement that is being capped. I believe the gentleman would agree
with that. That is the strength of the Freedom To Farm Act. It is
capping the expenditures at a fixed limit. It is reducing it by 46
percent as compared to the last 5 years.
The gentleman and I would both agree that if every other entitlement
was making that kind of a reduction, our budget would be balanced. But
in doing that, in the debate, in the tremendous pressure that the
Committee on Appropriations is undergoing, agriculture and rural
America is getting squeezed, squeezed and squeezed, through no fault of
the chairman. So all we can think of how we might help work the
gentleman's problem and our problem in a cooperative way is to suggest
that we increase the CCC funding and make it available specifically for
the purpose of agriculture. If the gentleman could show me another way
to do it, we would be glad to amend our budget to do it.
As I said in my opening remarks, balancing the budget, there is no
one that is more interested and more dedicated to doing that. We do it
under our budget, not under the gentleman's budget. My difficulty with
the majority in this is I believe that they are asking too much from
agriculture and rural America, so we suggest putting some back and we
try to control it. I am perfectly willing to let the gentleman have the
partnership that we all would share in how we spend it.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I have indicated, I rise in opposition to the amendment, basically
for three reasons. One is in reference to the oilseed or the proposed
oilseed loan program.
The Senate version of this added $132 million to the cost of their
farm bill proposal. I do not know what the CBO estimate is of the
gentleman's amendment. But I will move on to two other considerations.
This amendment strikes provisions that repeal a multitude of what I
think are outdated statutes, as they refer to agriculture. We are
talking about something here called permanent law or permanent
agriculture law of either the 1938 or the 1949 farm bills. They have
not been used for all practical purposes for decades. With a few
exceptions, which our bill does recognize, these statutes really
represent farm policy that is woefully outdated.

{time} 1245

It simply does not apply to the modern-day world of agriculture.
I think we need to clean up the agriculture statute and get rid of
these policies and provisions out of date, out of sync with today's
markets and farm management systems. So for that reason we oppose the
amendment.
I want to make it clear since Secretary Glickman, a good friend and a
colleague, a former member of the House Committee on Agriculture, has
pointed out that we in no way, we have to pass a farm bill, we in no
way could go back to the 1949 act, and we all know that, and so I asked
the Secretary, and I have asked the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]
and I have asked the chairman emeritus of the House Committee on
Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] if they could
propose a different kind of permanent farm law.
It is the 1949 act that I strongly object to, and it is just
completely outdated. Those proposals have not been forthcoming. We have
talked about it, and the gentleman from Texas has at least mentioned
the possibility of the 1990 act in terms of permanent law. But since
their substitute does contain the very awkward and very expensive
permanent law for 1949, I think that is a very poor choice.
Then again this amendment also creates something called the
Investment for Agriculture and Rural America Fund, similar to the Fund
for Rural America that has passed in the other body, and this amendment
would make $3.5 billion in CCC moneys, as the chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations has pointed out, available for rural development and
conservation extension and research, purposes.
I support these initiatives. They are very fine initiatives. And the
gentleman from Texas is right. We have been sorely pressed in
agriculture, and these, as my colleagues know, these kinds of
initiatives and these programs would be of tremendous help to our small
communities all throughout the country.
But I do think, with all due respect and some reluctance in opposing
this bill, that this amendment goes too far by giving these programs
access to mandatory spending out of the CCC authority; the chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations has certainly mentioned that. The CCC
has traditionally been reserved for use on farm and commodity and other
related activities as opposed to this kind of spending.
We oppose this amendment, and I want all of my colleagues to
understand this, we oppose this amendment because of its high cost. It
virtually wipes out any budget savings achieved by the current bill,
and its lack of details relative to how the Secretary would be allowed
to spend these funds is very unclear and because it funds again wide
discretionary programs out of mandatory spending accounts.
Now, I would like to say that in trying to work with the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Stenholm] and also the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton],
who has been an eloquent champion in behalf of rural development on the
committee, that we considered a very similar bill in committee. I
indicated at that time that I would do my very best to try to work for
additional funding for rural development, and I have tried, and when we
go to conference I will try again, and in the other body there is $300
billion made available to the Fund for Rural America, but $3.5 billion,
as I indicated in the committee, is simply too much. We really abrogate
what we do in terms of our budget savings, and the structure of this
really troubles me. We do not want to get into an even-numbered year
debate where we are saying that the money is being used for a secretary
slush fund or something like that, and so consequently we are in
opposition to the amendment for those reasons.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], the leading advocate and worker in favor
of the Rural Development Fund as it pertains to our rural communities,
dealing particularly with the water, sewer, and housing needs.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time.
We are considering a farm bill; a farm bill is considered every 5
years. It gives us an opportunity not only to look at our production
policies in our rural area, but also our developmental policies in our
rural areas, and I would remind our colleagues, those of us who live in
rural areas, there are activities that are beyond the farm gate, and we
live in a community, we live where we either have water or no water, we
live where we have poor houses or good houses, we live in a community
that has very low economic opportunity.
I further would remind my colleagues that one-fourth of this Nation's
population live in rural areas, but yet we have more than 80 percent of
the land mass. So there is a lot of land going between individual
homes. So the sparsity of our population causes even greater need for
our development funds.
My colleagues also know because they are aware that a higher degree
of poverty and disadvantaged opportunities are there, but more than
that the trend in agriculture means there are less farmers, there are
less farmers doing well, and economic development dependent only on our
farmers is not going to happen in our rural areas.
So as we consider the farm bill, this is an opportunity to say to
rural America we understand that development goes beyond the farm gate:
Housing; safe housing; clean water; having infrastructure for sewage.
All of these are intimately part of our development in our area.

[[Page H1542]]

So I would urge us to consider this is an opportunity, and I would
just remind my colleagues twice now on this floor this day we have
indeed gone beyond what the appropriation had advocated for us, so this
is our opportunity to do the right thing. It is within budget, and the
gentleman from Texas has assured us that this is within the coalition
budget, so it is not a matter of breaking the budget. This is a matter
of priorities, not a matter of breaking the budget.
Do we want to give this amount of money for water, for sewage, for
housing? Do we want to make this opportunity to one-fourth of the
Nation to have economic development? It goes beyond housing and water.
It also goes to our Extension Service to teach our farmers as they move
into a more global economy, a competitive world.
So if we want to enable them to be more competitive, we should be
providing education, technology, and those things that would enhance
our rural development.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] a valued member of the committee.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment for
several reasons.
First, as has already been well stated by the chairman of our
Committee on Appropriations, this amendment moves in a very difficult
direction by taking spending that has been in discretionary accounts
into mandatory accounts. There is not a lot of disagreement, as we have
already heard, about the objectives of this amendment, but to make that
step from discretionary spending into mandatory spending is to continue
a spending practice that has seen far too much in this Congress and has
left us now to the point where many of our budget problems are driven
by the fact that there are mandatory spending accounts in place that
Congress does not have the ability to address each year in the
appropriations process, and I do not think we understand we have been
moving in that direction.
There are some further reasons, though, that I think we need to
address these issues in a different forum. This bill would seek to
spend nearly $3.5 billion, which again is much more than our budget
allocations allow, but it would take that out of the CCC authority. The
CCC has traditionally been used for farm commodity and related
activities that are very helpful in the U.S. agricultural commodity
sector.
One of the problems that we face is that I do not see enough
specificity in legislation in this proposed bill to let us know whether
we are going to be spending the money in a better and a more effective
way. Let me give one example.
Earlier today I had a colloquy with the chairman of the Committee on
Agriculture about research. It is very critical that we have effective
and well funded research in the ag sector. It repays itself time and
time again to the American taxpayer. We have a follow-on bill, farm
bill II, where we are going to do very specific, and well evaluated
work on the research sector of our ag programs, and we are going to
have a good research provision in that bill. That is the forum in which
we should be addressing these issues.
Again, it is not that we do not agree on the direction that this
amendment seeks to move us, it is the method and the timing and whether
we should be working with the second ag bill that is following along
here or whether we should be doing it in this way that does not give
the specificity needed.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, in the farm bill
debate there is a character to this debate different than other farm
bill debates. In the past, rural Representatives, Republicans and
Democrats, stood together fighting for rural America. That has not been
the case. I am astounded to come to the well following a colleague on
the Committee on Agriculture, a gentleman for whom I respect, and he is
talking about farm spending creating a budget problem for this country.
My colleagues, farm spending has been reduced more than any other
function of Government, bar none. If further functions of Government
had the cuts agriculture had had, we would not even have a budget
deficit today. And they tout a farm bill that over the next 7 years
spends 46 percent less on rural America than was spent over the last 5,
and they say what they are doing for rural America.
I will tell my colleagues what they are doing for rural America. They
are sticking it right in the neck with a very ill-advised bill that we
are trying to make a little better with this amendment.
Take, for example, oilseeds. There is nothing in the so-called
freedom to farm bill that addresses oilseeds. They are not going to get
the payments that are the most widely touted feature of this bill. They
have not been getting deficiency payments in the past; they will not
get payments in the future. Yet we know that under the GATT agreement
support for the export of U.S. oilseeds has been reduced 79 percent,
more than any other agriculture commodity. So you have got a feature
where the world export situation looks dramatically worse, and right on
the heels of a farm bill that does nothing for oilseeds.
Why is this important? It is important because we have got oilseed
production at 63 million acres right now in this country, and if we
cannot grow oilseeds and make a dollar anymore, people will not grow
oilseeds. They will grow wheat, they will grow corn. As we kill oilseed
commodities, we will be shifting production into other commodities,
resulting in overproduction and price collapse.
Now that is an event we all ought to avoid especially in light of the
fact, especially in light of the fact, that this bill eliminates the
safety net providing farmers assistance when market prices collapse.
Two other features of this amendment deserve note; the rural
development feature: Rural development funding is down $1.5 billion
over the last 2 years. Rural housing loans are at their lowest level in
20 years. Water, wastewater, and economic development funding, down 25
to 50 percent below earlier levels.
Now, the ag economists tell us that the net farm income under this
farm bill, if it would be enacted, would drop 50 percent in North
Dakota, 50 percent. We have got to use whatever we can to try and grow
economic alternatives for our farmers, value-added opportunities. We
cannot do that if we are reducing the funding for rural development. So
part and parcel of a reforming of our farm program ought to be making a
commitment to rural development.
The final point involves permanent law. We need a permanent law. We
need permanent status to the farm program. The bill eliminates it. The
amendment puts it back in, and it is another reason for its enactment.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Allard], a distinguished subcommittee chairman of the
sometimes powerful House Committee on Agriculture.

{time} 1300

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my chairman for yielding
time to me. I would like to congratulate him on his hard work and
success in trying to create a better future for our farmers.
I came into this Congress with the demand that is being made on
agriculture, and that is that the American people wanted to drop off
subsidies. American farmers were sick and tired of rules and
regulations that kept them from being able to produce the crops that
they wanted, and they were getting bogged down in paperwork. They
wanted to have some tax relief.
This farm bill, we need to keep in mind, had the goal of beginning to
reduce subsidies, giving farmers regulatory relief and tax relief. This
is the most market-oriented, the most pro-environment, and most
fiscally responsible farm bill in recent history that has been reported
out of the House of Representatives. I believe it will pass today off
the floor of the House of Representatives, because there has been so
much hard work. We all realize we have to get legislation passed so
farmers can move ahead, get their own lives in order, and get their
farms prepared to get ready for production. We cannot continue to hold
this up.
Mr. Chairman, on rural economic development, right now we are
spending $5.1 billion for rural economic development. We are calling
for another $3.5

[[Page H1543]]
billion. There are a lot of things that need to be done to improve
rural economic development. For example, we are spending a lot of
dollars on recreation facilities. We need to be focusing those dollars
on what is going to help rural America be more productive.
There is a lack of specification, specifics, in this particular
amendment. Obviously, we have some real needs on rural economic
development, but they are not laid out for us on this particular
amendment; so I am urging a no vote on this amendment because of the
lack of specifics.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members of the House to join me in
defeating this amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the de la Garza amendment. It is
really, in this bill, our first chance to include rural economic and
community development in this farm bill. The things which are public
safety facilities, that provide grants and loans for public safety
facilities, that provide grants and loans for safe drinking water and
wastewater disposal, and grants and loans for small business
development, all of those programs are in the thousands of rural
communities with under 10,000 people that exist in so many of our
congressional districts, and in Massachusetts particularly, in my
congressional district; all of it money that is critical to low-income
rural areas which have sagging infrastructure and little capital for
new business.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is also one of the last opportunities
that we have to address the desperate need for housing in rural areas.
Last year low-interest loans through the self-help housing program
allowed 89 families in my district in rural Massachusetts, who
otherwise could not have afforded it, to buy or build their own home.
These families earn an average of about $22,000 a year. That is only
half of the average family income in Massachusetts, where the property
values are very high and owning your own home is very difficult because
of those high property values.
Infrastructure and housing are critical investments in the future of
rural America, and should not be ignored in this farm bill. I urge my
colleagues to support the de la Garza amendment.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Risk Management and Specialty Crops of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture, for a great job in shepherding this bill
through some pretty rough waters over the last 2 days. It is my
pleasure to rise to talk about the de la Garza amendment.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I feel that I have to rise in opposition
to this amendment. When the gentleman says that he is going to put $3.5
billion at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture, I think we
certainly should put a lot more thought and have a lot more ideas
exactly how that money is going to be spent; because the bottom line is
what we take out of the farm program with an amendment such as this is
money that is not going to be there for the transition payments for
farmers; it is not going to be there for crop insurance, which is the
bottom of the safety net, the base of the safety net for American
agriculture; it is not going to be there for legitimate agricultural
research, which is always needed.
We cannot tell at this time what our demands are going to be.
Certainly, to come along with that kind of a fund, without the controls
and the oversight of this Congress, would be a very, very serious
mistake, and very crippling to the ability to make this bill, the
transition act, the agricultural transition act, be as important as it
is to American agriculture.
With great reluctance, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my
colleague's amendment, and would hope that the Members of the House
will vote no on this amendment.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Bishop].
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, let me come down to support the de la Garza amendment,
especially because of the need we have for more rural development. Many
of us who represent farm communities, communities that are filled with
production agriculture, find that in order for our family farms to
survive and for our communities to be strong economically, that there
have to be some other value-added facilities there, some other
employers and some other infrastructure to broaden that tax base.
We have found that it has worked very well. We have had in the past
some very good rural development projects to support some new industry
that helps us to diversify. We have had poultry facilities that have
come into our area, but they were helped by rural development grants to
help the infrastructure, the water, the sewers, the electrification,
road widenings, traffic signals. These kinds of things are very, very
important in rural areas. To create, to have an industry come in that
creates 1,500 jobs at one time is a real boost to a rural community and
to its economy.
Certainly, we are very, very concerned about the water provisions.
Having clean water is important to our district. My district has some
of the poorest counties anywhere in the country, and because of that it
means a great deal for a county like Whitman County, GA, that had no
running water, to be able to get a grant to help them serve their
citizens with running water. These are the kinds of basic necessities
that allow for an improved quality of life in rural Georgia and in
rural America.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is imperative that
if we are going to strengthen America, if we are going to strengthen
America's rural communities, that we have to do it through rural
community development. I think this amendment does it. I would urge my
colleagues in the House to please support this amendment. It enhances
the bill in a very, very positive way. I hope that it will become law
and improve the quality of life for all Americans, especially in our
rural areas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like for my friends on the other side to pay
particular attention, because there have been a couple of speakers that
have, I know, spoken not intentionally erroneously, but have made some
erroneous claims about this amendment.
First off, there is no intention, and you will not find anywhere in
this amendment that we are designing this to have a slush fund for the
Secretary of Agriculture. I fully expect that we will be dealing with
these issues in the Committee on Agriculture under farm bill No. 2. If
we can come to a resolution thereon, and we can expect then to decide
and direct how these moneys shall be spent, we shall do so in the
proper legislative process. Only if we fail to bring a bill out will it
come to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture, and I cannot
imagine us failing to do our job.
As I said to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations a moment
ago, it would be my firm hope that we could work in cooperation with
the appropriators in resolving these issues. The question before us
today is whether we are going to provide the resources for rural
America.
Let me remind ourselves that last year in the agriculture
appropriation bill we had the Castle amendment and the Olver
amendments. The Olver amendment, and we heard from the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], a moment ago, got 169 votes. The reason we
could not do more last year, there was not enough money in the
discretionary spending. There will be less money this year in
discretionary spending. Therefore, if we are going to provide the
resources for this, now, today, and on this amendment is the only way
we are going to get it done.
Interesting, Mr. Chairman, is the opposition to the oil seeds
amendment. I have in my hand a Dear Colleague from one of our
colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. Latham], saying, ``Please join me in sending this letter
expressing support for the market loan provisions for soybean and other
oil seeds included in the Senate version of the farm bill.'' This is
it. We are not doing

[[Page H1544]]
anything more than what the Senate has already done and what our
soybean growers all over the United States are asking us to do.
I do not understand why all this year, every single amendment that
comes from this side of the aisle has been zeroed; no support, no
bipartisan support if it comes from this side of the aisle. This is the
first time in history, at least as long as I have been here, in which
we have had that kind of attitude towards amendments, even amendments
that are supported by the other side. I do not understand this, how
anyone can say, ``Sign this Dear Colleague in support of,'' and then
turn around and vote against this amendment.
We hear and listen, and everybody reluctantly opposes this. Why do we
reluctantly oppose it if we are for it? Everyone in agriculture in
rural America understands that rural America needs water and sewer, and
we had an amendment earlier on research. We know we are shortchanging.
This is an opportunity to do it, and do it within the full respect of
balancing our budget fairly, and having agriculture share fairly in
those reductions.
Mr. Chairman, I will summarize again, so everyone understands the de
la Garza amendment. Mr. Chairman, it provides $3.5 billion for rural
development. It provides the money that all of us, by our votes, and I
have those recorded votes in which we said last year we need to provide
some additional resources for rural America.
In industries like the wool and mohair industry, for example, that
are now going it on their own, market-oriented, and others as we move
in this market-oriented direction, every one of us in our agricultural
speeches say we have to have some additional resources and seed money
if we are going to make it out there. This provides the opportunity for
the Committee on Agriculture, in our full deliberations, in a
bipartisan way, to act and to make the decisions as to how this money
shall be expended, not the Secretary of Agriculture, but to have this
committee, and then hopefully, in full consultation with the Committee
on Appropriations, because I have become very alarmed when I see, day
after day, bill after bill, a constant confrontation between
appropriators and authorizers.
I submit to my chairman, whom I deeply love and respect, this is not
the best atmosphere for anyone to continue. I wish the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], as chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, would also have fully understood and appreciated what I
was trying to say. We need to build cooperation. We need in our budget
deliberations to make sure, as best we can, that we treat all
categories of the budget in a fair and equitable manner.
It goes without saying, the facts speak for themselves; if every
function of the budget had been cut as much as agriculture since 1986,
our budget today would be balanced, and we could be honestly talking
about a tax cut, capital gains, inheritance tax relief, all of the
things that we are all for.

{time} 1315

But we know it has not happened in other areas. And then immediately
my critics will say, ``Well, Charlie, you are just using 1986 because
that is a convenient number. That was the highest level of spending in
history.''
So I say, fine, let us forget 1986, let us go back to 1955. Let us
take a comparison of spending category by category since 1955.
Interestingly, the only function of the budget that has been cut since
1955 is agriculture, 27.9 percent.
Agriculture in rural America has done more than its share. The next
dearest to us is defense, 11.9 percent increase. Two areas of near and
dear importance to all of us.
So the Fund for Rural America provides the funding, again not as much
as we would like to see but we have got budget restraints. The oilseed
marketing loan, everybody is for it. It makes good sense. This is an
opportunity for us to do it. And it is fair and equitable because the
oilseeds, the soybean industry in particular, but all of the oilseeds
have traditionally gone it alone.
Here we are in this bill saying continue to go it alone, instead of
offering a little bit of help through the marketing loan that they have
asked for that we have a Dear Colleague from a member of the Committee
on Agriculture saying, please, join me in a Dear Colleague. Join me in
a vote. If we want to do it, let us vote.
Continuation of permanent law, I agree with the chairman, this, you
know, 1949 act, it is not very workable today, but it works, and that
is all we are looking for here. We are just trying to put something in
that forces us to act and in a timely fashion.
So that is a summation of the de la Garza amendment, and I ask for
the support in a bipartisan way from all of our colleagues who in their
heart know this is the right vote for America.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Hostettler].
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, there is truly historic reform in this
bill. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Roberts, has succeeded in
forming a system that will let the American farmer make his planting
decisions based on the market and not on some convoluted formula
hatched in a USDA basement office. This bill also recognizes the danger
of making this transition too drastically and thus is patterned to let
the producer make the switch in a responsible manner. So as a reformer,
I support the bill and oppose this amendment.
This amendment is about the status quo--and the status quo has done
nothing but handcuff the American farmer in terms of the world market
and in terms of running a sound business. I urge a no vote on the
amendment and a yes vote on the Agricultural Market Transition Act.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, we have a bill here today that is very
awkward to explain to farmers because we have promised far more in
rhetoric than we are delivering in legislation. At the same time, we
have a tragic situation that farmers in the southern part of the United
States have already begun planting. In the Midwest they are making
plans, and they do not know what the program will be.
Tragically, we have not worked together in developing a farm bill. We
have not advanced the agenda on a timetable that makes sense for the
planting season.
I support the substitute, and I oppose the basic underlying
legislation. My deepest wish is that we would have a program that we
could return to our areas and proudly explain as providing the tools
that farmers need to manage their risks.
When we do not have that, the best we can do is to say that we hope
there is a better day for American agriculture, and I sincerely hope
that that day will come in time for the 1997 planting season.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I will conclude in whatever time I have remaining, and
I shall be very brief in just saying again, the last speaker that spoke
on the majority side was speaking not to the amendment before us. We
are not quarreling with the change, the historic change. That is not
part of our amendment. The debate on the transition market program is
over. It is done. Those that oppose it, oppose it. Those that support
it, support it.
Nothing in our amendment did anything to that. We did not intend to.
What we are suggesting is the same spirit of transition and help go to
the oil seeds that are going to the other crops. That is all we are
suggesting.
Then the Fund for Rural America, that is additional spending for the
rural community needs, not for farmers, and we do not take any money
away from farmers. We recognize the spirit of a capped entitlement,
something I have worked for for years. I want to see it in every
entitlement. But in capping the entitlement, we think a 46 percent cut
when we are talking about rates of increase of 6 and 7 percent in every
other entitlement, we think that is too severe.
I think that any Member from a rural community that does not see that
has been looking with some blinders. That is my opinion.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of the de la Garza amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H1545]]

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would simply point out to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge],
who is a very valued member of the House Committee on Agriculture, that
had the President not really vetoed the balanced budget, we would have
a farm bill months ago.
I understand that there are some concerns about structure of the farm
bill. But in terms of the timeliness, and we all know it is time-
sensitive, that that has been a problem.
To my good friend from Texas, I understand the concern in regard to
oil seeds. That is one of the few diversified crops that we have on the
Great Plains. It is a burgeoning crop. It is one we want to move
toward. In the Senate bill there is $132 million dedicated to that
purpose, but there is a cap on that loan to prevent any further budget
hemorrhaging. Perhaps when this bill goes to the Senate, we can
accommodate that in some respect
Let me say again that I think everybody on the committee, if not
everybody in the Congress, is supportive of the very valuable rural
development programs that have been described, and the chairman, the
former chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la
Garza], has been a champion in this respect, as has the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs.
Clayton], who has just done an outstanding job in that regard in the
past.
But this is $3.5 billion, again. If this substitute passes, why, we
are, you know, we are looking at a bill that will be over the December
baseline for agriculture. I do not know how you bring a bill to the
floor of the House and if it is over budget and over the baseline. I do
not know how you pass it.
These are many fine programs. I would say that in the Senate, again,
the Senate has committed $300 million for a fund for rural America for
3 years. You know that that is going to be extended for the next 4. So
that is $700 million.
I think it would be appropriate when we get to conference to take a
look at that.
So, from the standpoint of cost in terms of the $3.5 billion, and
once again using CCC moneys that historically go to farm programs as
opposed to rural development programs, we must oppose the bill.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
I do not believe the chairman intended to misspeak about our
amendment. It is not outside the baseline. It is within the baseline.
It is outside your suggested baseline on spending.
But I would point out you have already broken your baseline today
with the Boehlert amendment, with the Everglades. You have already
busted your own. So our argument is we are within the baseline, as I
have described it. I do not believe you intended to misspeak upon that.
Mr. ROBERTS. Well, we can probably discuss the baseline, which, to
all listening and watching this debate, is not what Cal Ripken runs
around, and we can run around our own baselines in regards to the
budget, if we so choose.
But let me simply say that when the gentleman brings that up, I am
always interested in the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] and
others on that side who have indicated that we are really cutting all
of these funds for agriculture and we are making a significant
contribution to the deficit. Of course, you are also complaining that
we are spending too much and also at the wrong time and with the wrong
folks. So you are trying to have it, I guess, both ways.
But we are losing $8 billion, already did, in the first baseline, and
we would lose another 6, and that is the money available to agriculture
in March if we do not move and pass a bill.
Somewhere we are going to save about $5.6 billion in this ag budget,
which is our contribution to a balanced budget. That adds up, if we do
not move and pass the Freedom to Farm Act to guarantee these market
transition payments, to about $20 billion.
Now, you know, my colleagues across the aisle have given many, many
speeches, as I have, on how much we have given in agriculture. But then
when we find out that we end up with policy rubble on our hands with
the continuation of the current policies, they are strangely silent.
This bill locks up more farm-income farmers and still meets our
budget responsibilities than any other bill.
We are simply redebating the issue. We do not need to do that. I know
Members want us to bring this to a conclusion.
So I rise in opposition to the bill. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, one out of five rural Americans live in
poverty.
Three-fourths of the cities in my district have a population under
10,000. They do not have the tax base of urban and suburban areas, yet
they still have to provide clean water and adequate sewer systems.
It is almost the 21st century and millions of Americans do not have
clean drinking water.
There is currently a backlog of 50,000 applicants for lower-income
rural housing and a shortage of funding to provide them with safe,
affordable housing.
The needs of rural America are dire.
This amendment gives those small towns in rural America the tools
through research, conservation, education and extension activities to
provide their citizens with safe water and sewer systems and the basic
infrastructure to survive.
When we talk about reforming agriculture policies we must also talk
about the needs of rural communities whose economies rely heavily on
agriculture production.
Money for economic development can put these communities on sound
financial footing and diversify their economies so they can have some
stability and survive as the whole agriculture economy changes.
This amendment empowers local communities and their leaders to
diversify their economies.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is critical to bring economic prosperity
to every part of the country.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I said at the opening of debate
on this bill that I would vote against it if it was not changed to
address California agriculture's needs for conservation, research, and
rural development. Nothing that has happened in the past 2 days has
changed my mind. The bill is still broken.
The California farmers in my district are the most productive
specialty crop growers in the world. They produce over $2.5 billion
worth of fresh fruits, vegetables, and horticultural crops without any
Federal price supports or other direct Federal support--lettuce,
artichokes, strawberries, flowers, and over 100 other crops.
They have succeeded by embracing the full benefits, and potential
risks, of the market. They are the models for American agriculture. And
I believe American agriculture must move in their direction to remain
viable into the next century. But even market-driven agriculture needs
a national farm policy with a vision toward the future. Conservation,
research, rural development, and market promotion are all crucial to
future success and sustainability of market driven agriculture.
H.R. 2854 is a broken bill because it ignores these crucial goals of
American farm policy. While I do not like this bill's transition
program--its too expensive and makes payments regardless of a farmer's
production or the market prices, it still moves agriculture toward the
market. And I can support that. But I can not support this bill if it
does not also address the conservation, research and rural development.
I am particularly concerned that it does not address the loss of
farmland to urban sprawl. I have coauthored legislation to help the
States address the troubling loss of farmland to urbanization--over
1,000,000 acres a year at current rates.
Unfortunately, there is nothing in this bill or this morning's
conservation amendment for farmland protection--not to mention research
or rural development. The de la Garza-Stenholm-Clayton amendment is the
best option that we can vote on to fix this broken bill and give the
conference some tools to add the kind of vision that the 1996 farm bill
needs. Vote ``yes'' on the amendment.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163,
noes 258, not voting 10, as follows:

[[Page H1546]]

[Roll No. 40]

AYES--163

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Evans
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McNulty
Meek
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waxman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--258

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wolf
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--10

Collins (IL)
de la Garza
Farr
Fox
Furse
Hastings (FL)
Kennelly
McKinney
Rangel
Stokes

{time} 1347

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Ms. Furse for, with Mr. Rangel against.

Messrs. PALLONE, SCHUMER, MEEHAN, MORAN, LUTHER, FRANK of
Massachusetts, DORNAN, and WATT of North Carolina changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. WHITFIELD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendments en bloc were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 40 I was
inadvertently detained in a legislative meeting. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

personal explanation

Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be here during
rollcall vote No. 40. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Agriculture
Market Transition Act, because this bill provides our farmers with
greater flexibility and insurance that they will be able to provide our
Nation's families with quality and affordable agricultural commodities.
As farmers begin to make decisions about spring planting, it is
critical to support this important reform legislation which gives
farmers the opportunity to better meet the needs of our growing
domestic and international food markets. I see the Agriculture Market
Transition Act as a partnership between the Federal Government and
farmers that promotes stable and fair farm prices, trade, and
environmental responsibility.
I am pleased we were able to amend the legislation to include
reauthorization of the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands
Reserve Program, two programs that have successfully worked in
providing farmers incentives to be even better stewards of our lands.
The bill also establishes important programs that assist in protecting
our soil, water supply, and other natural resources from degradation
associated with agriculture production.
In addition, the bill provides for increased funding for rural
development programs which are critical to the growth and development
of infrastructure in rural communities like those in my own
congressional district.
For these reasons I support this bill, and I encourage my colleagues
in conference to ensure this legislation continues to move in a
direction that will benefit our Nation's farmers, consumers, and rural
communities.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment from
the gentleman from New York to reauthorize conservation programs. I
believe it is a first good step toward having a comprehensive and
incentive-oriented agricultural conservation policy. And as we work
with the other body in conference, it is my hope to strengthen this
section even more, as the conservation title amendment approved by the
other body has strong bipartisan support among farmers, rural
communities, sportsmen, and conservationists across the country, and a
wide array of organizations such as the Farm Bureau, Sierra Club, and
National Rifle Association. The amendment before us today has similar
support.
In particular, reauthorizing the Wetlands Reserve Program and the
Conservation Reserve Program is important to assure that voluntary,
incentive-based options are available to farmers. These programs have
been highly effective in controlling erosion, improving water quality,
and enhancing wildlife habitat. More farmers apply to these programs
than can be now accommodated.
This amendment begins to address this demand of farmers for voluntary
options. For example, under the amendment, the Conservation Reserve
Program would preserve new acres on land that should not be in
internsive crop production because of poor soil conditions, proximity
to water bodies, or importance as priority wildlife habitat.
The Wetlands Reserve Program is a win for farmers and a win for fish
and wildlife resources. Currently, landowners may voluntarily agree to
sell conservation easements permanently or for 30 years. When a farmer
decides to no longer crop a previously farmed wetland, WRP helps the
farmer restore the wetland. These restored wetlands have proved
critical for migration, wintering, and nesting habitat for waterfowl in
the Midwest and West. In Maryland, WRP contributes to our efforts to
clean up and restore the Chesapeake Bay. Maryland farmers have
enthusiastically embraced the WRP and want the program expanded beyond
the 975,000 acres allowed in this amendment.
Under the amendment, the Wetlands Reserve Program [WRP] is reformed
to give

[[Page H1547]]
farmers more options. The amendment improves the Wetlands Reserve
Program by allowing farmers to obtains cost share payments to restore
wetlands, as well as enter a voluntary 30 years contracts with the
Government to preserve wetlands, or obtain permanent easements on their
land. These options are a clear improvement over the original bill, and
I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from New York
and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to further improve this
section to assure that those farmers who now have contracts in place
can continue to participate and to apply for cost share funds.
Furthermore, the amendment includes a consolidation of current
conservation programs into an environmental quality incentive program
[EQUIP], which would provide flexibility and new options to poultry,
livestock, and dairy farmers. Under EQUIP, small and medium-sized
producers would obtain cost-share payments to put in animal waste
management structures, grass waterways, and other practices. EQUIP
would prevent manure and contaminants from entering water bodies.
I also look forward to working with the gentleman from New York and
the chairman of the Agriculture Committee--and the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr] and the gentlelady from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]--
to reform and strengthen the farms for the future program. Maryland is
the Nation's leader in preserving agricultural land through a voluntary
easement program, with more than 100,000 acres preserved. Many farmers
nationwide with the best soil for agricultural production face intense
pressure from urbanization. The other body's conservation title
includes this needed reform, recognizing that many States and
localities actually pay farmers who voluntarily wish to remain in
farming. The farms for the future provision updates Federal
conservation policy, and I hope it will be included when the conference
report comes before the House.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the conservation title is profarmer and
proenvironment and will benefit taxpayers, farmers, and rural
communities. It includes meaningful solutions to the problem of
agricultural runoff pollution, and will aid farmers in addressing water
quality problems. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
bill before the House today. I am reluctant because I have spent my
career in this Congress defending the American farmer. I have stood
beside Chairman Roberts and fought the battles to educate our
colleagues about the benefits of American agriculture. I have great
respect for the Chairman and I do not believe that he has harmful
intentions in proposing this bill. But while I am reluctant to oppose
him personally, it is with firm conviction that I oppose the policy he
brings before the House today.
My district is one of the most productive in the Nation: We are the
No. 1 producer of rice in the United States, No. 3 in soybeans, No. 6
in cotton, and No. 17 in wheat. I myself come from a seventh generation
farm family and I know the situation facing our farmers and know their
values.
I have spent the last 3\1/2\ years trying to educate my urban
colleagues about farm programs. I remind my friends that first, farm
commodity programs are less than 1 percent of the budget; second, they
are tied to the market and only pay farmers when prices are low and do
not pay a dime when prices are high; third, no one gets a free ride and
anyone participating in the programs must be ``actively engaged in
farming''; fourth, they have dramatically increased our exports to
other nations and created hundreds of thousands of jobs in the United
States; and fifth, for the small investment that we made in agriculture
we are blessed with the most affordable, safest, and most abundant food
supply in the world.
I haven't always been successful--this Congress and the last one has
continued to cut agriculture spending far above what I believe was
necessary but at least I knew that the agriculture policy of the United
States was a sound one. Was it perfect? Far from it. I have supported
changes in the program that would give farmers much needed flexibility
to respond to market conditions and remove the bureaucratic hassles
that are inherent in Government programs. I am not averse to change but
I believe in this basic premise: the farmer must have assurance that
the Government will be there when prices are too low and the taxpayer
must have assurance that they receive the benefits for the programs
they pay for. That's it--I'm not picky about how we get there, but
that's the bottom line.
Unfortunately, this bill doesn't meet that criteria. This bill
promises farmers something for nothing--the worst kind of welfare. I've
been working on welfare reform for the last 3 years also. Telling our
welfare recipients that the days of something for nothing were gone,
that they had to work if they expected the Government to help. How can
I turn around and tell my farmers that standard doesn't apply to them?
I think it's insulting to put our farmers in this situation. This
Congress has known from day one that we had to pass a farm bill before
December 31, 1995. We have never failed to deliver by that deadline.
Yet the leadership of this House decided to put a farm bill in a budget
that they knew the President would veto. A farm bill, I might add, that
did not have the benefit of one public hearing.
Unfortunately, the larger political strategies of the Republican
leadership of this House has ignored the agrarian calendar. While the
farm bill has been tossed around like a political football, some
farmers are now well into planting season and still do not know what
role the Government will play in the 1996 crop year.
This House has in effect put a gun to the head of the farmers and
demanded that they accept this untested theory or else. And with a gun
to their head, some farmers are willing to say they'll accept this ill-
advised plan. That's no way to govern and I won't be a part of it
because other farmers have told me that this is not the bill to take
American agriculture into the 21st century and I agree.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Agriculture Marketing Transition Act. Agriculture is a vital industry
in our Nation and in my southern Illinois district. This legislation is
sensitive to the budgetary goal of balancing the Federal budget in 7
years. The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] estimates that the bill
would result in reductions of direct spending of $5.4 billion between
fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 2002.
I am pleased that today's bill reauthorizes such important programs
as the Conservation Reserve Program, the Export Enhancement Program,
and Market Promotion Program. These programs help preserve our lands
and assure that there are markets abroad for American crops. Expanding
our opportunities internationally is of vital importance to me. In
fact, I supported an amendment which states directly that if USDA does
not meet the goal of $60 billion in exports and increased world-market
share by 2002, the authorization for USDA export programs would
automatically expire.
Despite my support for the package, I have some concern over the
production flexibility contracts section of the bill. These payments,
set at specified decreasing amounts each year for the next 7 years,
will replace our current system of deficiency payments, which pay
farmers based on market conditions.
Producers who have been enrolled in the Federal farm program in at
least one of the past 5 years are automatically eligible to sign up for
a 7-year contract. I am concerned that this criteria may allow those
not actively farming over the 7-year period to receive Government funds
for which they would be ineligible.
Also, the bill states that those wishing to sign up for the 7-year
program must do so before April 15 of this year. This precludes
participation by younger farmers. Current USDA data shows that younger
people, even in rural areas, are not choosing agriculture as a primary
occupation. By making it more difficult for them to enroll in a Federal
support program, even more younger people will become disinterested in
this industry.
Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleagues for their efforts to put
together such an omnibus piece of legislation. Despite my opposition to
the production flexibility contracts, I feel the bill is in line with
our Federal budgetary goals and will work to increase agriculture's
role in the world market.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, today, we move forward to approve new farm
bill legislation which, for the first time ever, will begin to remove
the inside-the-beltway, Washington bureaucrat from the backs of the
American farmer. We have had to wait until 1996 to come to the
realization that farmers, out in the fields, actually know more about
farming than the bureaucrats in Washington do. However, I am pleased
that we have finally found enlightenment in this body.
Thank you, Chairman Roberts.
The Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, the Iowa Corn Growers Association,
the Iowa Soybean Association, the Iowa Pork Producers, the Iowa
Cattlemen Association, and the Iowa Agri-business Association are also
pleased that we have developed a bill that allows farmers to farm.
This is a good bill. It saves taxpayers nearly $5 billion over the
next 7 years. It provides farmers the freedom and flexibility to tailor
their farm plans to their individual needs.
Not only does this make good free market sense, it is also
proenvironment. Farmers will no longer be tied to antiquated farm plans
that lock the same crops year after year on the same plot of land.
Environmentally friendly crop rotation in combination with advanced
farming techniques like no-till will mean less pesticides, less
fertilizer, and greater harvests.
This legislation also finally stops paying farmers to set aside good
quality land not to plant.
Those in opposition to this legislation will say that it either ends
the safety net for our

[[Page H1548]]
farmers or it is a free handout just like welfare. This is simply not
true. This bill is a transition to freer agricultural markets.
Ladies and gentlemen, low harvests trigger higher commodity prices.
Under current law, support payments do not kick in when we have low
harvests. There is no safety net! If anyone has any doubts about this
fact they can ask any of the corn and soybean farmers in my district
who suffered record low harvests in 1995--a high price year.
In years when crops are plentiful prices move lower. The Government
then forgives deficiency payments and provides increased support
payments. Farmers end up receiving help when they do not really need it
and no help when they do. Does this make sense?
This is simple economics. Under the freedom-to-farm approach in this
bill, we develop a true safety net for our farmers and lower Federal
outlays.
Opponents of this bill have a vested interest in maintaining the
status quo. They want to continue to force the agricultural community
to come to Washington, hat in hand. They want to continue the
micromanagement of the farm. They want to continue to hamper
development of robust export markets with top down we know best
policies.
A vote for this bill is a rejection of the those failed policies of
the past. A vote for this bill is a vote for reform. A vote for this
bill shows the farmers of this country that this Congress truly cares
about bringing agriculture policy into the 21st century. I commend
Chairman Roberts for his efforts and I strongly urge my colleagues in
supporting this bill.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, seizing a historic opportunity, the
Agriculture Market Transition Act seeks reforms to the Federal
agriculture programs that begin to wean farmers off Government
subsidies and move them toward more market oriented principles. This
legislation moves agri-business from the Depression era policies of the
past toward strong incremental steps that move the farmer into the next
century. The Agriculture Market Transition Act allows Hoosier farmers
to finally be able to plant for the market.
In passing this legislation, the Congress is keeping its word to
allow the American farmer the freedom to farm while making substantial
reductions in Federal expenditures. Moreover, this legislation helps
America move toward our goal of a balanced budget.
Mr. Chairman, retaining present policy is not an option if Indiana
farmers are to successfully move into the next century and compete in
the world marketplace. This legislation will aid in the transition into
the market-oriented farm policy of the future. It does so while
providing farmers with fixed, declining payments over 7 years that will
help in the economic distortions as a result of these changes. It seeks
reform of commodity programs such as sugar, peanut, cotton, and the
dairy program. These reforms are a win-win situation as it provides
flexibility to farmers and the American consumer benefits as well.
Finally, this legislation reduces the regulatory burden on the
agriculture community. Farmers in the Fifth District of Indiana tell me
time after time that they spend more time fulfilling bureaucratic
requirements than farming their land. Allowing farmers the freedom to
farm gives them the resources to get the most out of their land,
reduces the regulatory burden, and provides farmers the opportunity to
plant what will produce the highest profit on their land.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Agriculture Market Transition Act,
because it is good for farmers, good for consumers, and good for agri-
business.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Young of Florida,
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that the Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 2854) to modify the operation of certain agricultural programs,
pursuant to House Resolution 366, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the Committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

motion to recommit offered by mr. stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. STENHOLM. I am, in its current form, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Motion To Recommit With Instructions

Mr. Stenholm moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2854 to the
Committee on Agriculture with instructions to report the same
back to the House forthwith with the following amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Agricultural Reform and Improvement Act of 1996''.
(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. Short title.
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. Suspension and repeal of permanent authorities.
Sec. 110. Effect of amendments.
Sec. 111. Dairy.

TITLE II--AGRICULTURAL TRADE

Subtitle A--Market Promotion Program and Export Enhancement Program

Sec. 201. Market promotion program.
Sec. 202. Export enhancement program.

Subtitle B--Amendments to Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance
Act of 1954 and Related Statutes

Sec. 211. Food aid to developing countries.
Sec. 212. Trade and development assistance.
Sec. 213. Agreements regarding eligible countries and private entities.
Sec. 214. Terms and conditions of sales.
Sec. 215. Use of local currency payment.
Sec. 216. Eligible organizations.
Sec. 217. Generation and use of foreign currencies.
Sec. 218. General levels of assistance under Public Law 480.
Sec. 219. Food aid consultative group.
Sec. 220. Support of nongovernmental organizations.
Sec. 221. Commodity determinations.
Sec. 222. General provisions.
Sec. 223. Agreements.
Sec. 224. Administrative provisions.
Sec. 225. Expiration date.
Sec. 226. Regulations.
Sec. 227. Independent evaluation of programs.
Sec. 228. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 229. Coordination of foreign assistance programs.
Sec. 230. Use of certain local currency.
Sec. 231. Level of assistance to farmer to farmer program.
Sec. 232. Food security commodity reserve.
Sec. 233. Food for progress program.

Subtitle C--Amendments to Agricultural Trade Act of 1978

Sec. 251. Agricultural export promotion strategy.
Sec. 252. Export credits.
Sec. 253. Export program and food assistance transfer authority.
Sec. 254. Arrival certification.
Sec. 255. Regulations.
Sec. 256. Foreign agricultural service.
Sec. 257. Reports.

Subtitle D--Miscellaneous

Sec. 271. Reporting requirements relating to tobacco.
Sec. 272. Triggered export enhancement.
Sec. 273. Disposition of commodities to prevent waste.
Sec. 274. Debt-for-health-and-protection swap.
Sec. 275. Policy on expansion of international markets.
Sec. 276. Policy on maintenance and development of export markets.
Sec. 277. Policy on trade liberalization.
Sec. 278. Agricultural trade negotiations.
Sec. 279. Policy on unfair trade practices.
Sec. 280. Agricultural aid and trade missions.
Sec. 281. Annual reports by agricultural attaches.
Sec. 282. World livestock market price information.
Sec. 283. Orderly liquidation of stocks.
Sec. 284. Sales of extra long staple cotton.
Sec. 285. Regulations.
Sec. 286. Emerging markets.
Sec. 287. Implementation of commitments under Uruguay Round agreements.

[[Page H1549]]

Sec. 288. Sense of Congress concerning multilateral disciplines on
credit guarantees.
Sec. 289. Foreign market development cooperator program.

Subtitle E--Dairy Exports

Sec. 291. Dairy export incentive program.
Sec. 292. Authority to assist in establishment and maintenance of
export trading company.
Sec. 293. Standby authority to indicate entity best suited to provide
international market development and export services.
Sec. 294. Study and report regarding potential impact of Uruguay Round
on prices, income and government purchases.
Sec. 295. Promotion of American dairy products in international markets
through dairy promotion program.

TITLE III--CONSERVATION

Subtitle A--Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve Program

Sec. 311. Environmental conservation acreage reserve program.
Sec. 312. Conservation reserve program.
Sec. 313. Wetlands reserve program.
Sec. 314. Environmental quality incentives program.

Subtitle B--Conservation Funding

Sec. 321. Conservation funding.

Subtitle C--Miscellaneous

Sec. 351. Forestry.
Sec. 352. State technical committees.
Sec. 353. Conservation of private grazing land.
Sec. 354. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 355. Water bank program.
Sec. 356. Flood water retention pilot projects.
Sec. 357. Wetland conservation exemption.
Sec. 358. Resource conservation and development program
reauthorization.
Sec. 359. Conservation reserve new acreage.
Sec. 360. Repeal of report requirement.
Sec. 361. Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act Amendments.

TITLE IV--NUTRITION ASSISTANCE

Sec. 401. Food stamp program.
Sec. 402. Commodity distribution program; commodity supplemental food
program.
Sec. 403. Emergency food assistance program.
Sec. 404. Soup kitchens program.
Sec. 405. National commodity processing.

TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 501. Investment for agriculture and rural America.
Sec. 502. Collection and use of agricultural quarantine and inspection
fees.
Sec. 503. Everglades agricultural area.
TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL MARKET TRANSITION PROGRAM

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Agricultural Market
Transition Act''.

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 suspension under section 110(b)(1)(J)).
(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 suspension under section 110(b)(1)(J))
that would have been in effect for the 1996 crop (but for the
suspension under section 110(b)(1)(J)).
(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 suspension under section 110(b)(1)(J)).
(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 (4) 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 highly erodible land conservation requirements
under subtitle B of title XII of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3812 et. seq) applicable to each farm on
which the owner or operator has an interest;
(B) wetland protection requirements under subtitle C of
title XII of the Act 16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) applicable to
each farm on which the owner or operator has an interest;
(C) the planting flexibility requirements of subsection
(j); and
(D) regulations issued by the Secretary with respect to
contract acreage intended to assure that--
(i) contract acreage devoted to conservation uses is
protected from weeds and wind and water erosion; and
(ii) contract acreage is not devoted to nonagricultural
uses.
(2) Highly erodible land conservation.--For contracts
subject to the terms of paragraph (1)(A), violations of the
contract will be subject to the terms of subtitle B of title
XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3812 et
seq.).;
(3) Wetlands conservation.--For contracts subject to the
terms of paragraph (1)(B), violations of the contract will be
subject to the terms of subtitle C of title XII of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.).
(4) 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 a preceding
subparagraph 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)).
(5) 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

[[Page H1550]]
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
110(b)(2)) or was considered planted, including land on a
farm that is owned or leased by a beginning farmer (as
determined by the Secretary) that the Secretary determines is
necessary to establish a fair and equitable crop acreage
base;
(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) subtracting an amount equal to the amount, if any,
necessary to satisfy payment requirements under sections
103B, 105B, and 107B of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (as in
effect prior to the amendment made by section 110(b)(2)) for
the 1994 and 1995 crops of the commodity;
(B) 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 for the commodity;
(C) 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; and
(D) adding an amount equal to the sum of all refunds of
contract payments received during the preceding fiscal year
under subsection (h) for the commodity.
(4) Additional rice allocation.--In addition to the
allocations provided under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), the
amounts made available for rice contract payments shall be
increased by $17,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1997
through 2002.
(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 a term of the contract required under subsection
(a)(1), 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 (16 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

[[Page H1551]]
during the crop year may be hayed or grazed without limitation.
(iii) Haying and grazing limitation on portion of 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 planted for harvest without
limitation on the contract acreage on a farm, except that
each contract acre that is planted for harvest to alfalfa in
excess of 15 percent of the total contract acreage on a 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, unless
there is a history of double cropping of a contract commodity
and fruits and vegetables.
(ii) Unrestricted vegetables.--Lentils, mung beans, and dry
peas may be planted without limitation on contract acreage.
(k) Conservation Farm Option.--
(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a
voluntary conservation farm option to encourage producers to
implement and maintain resource stewardship practices and
systems.
(2) Terms.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
the case of a producer who enters into an agreement under
paragraph (3), the Secretary shall--
(A) not reduce any marketing assistance loans, contract
payments, or other farm program benefits of the producer as a
result of the planting of a resource-conserving crop, the
establishment of a special conservation practice, the
requirements of any integrated crop management practice, or
the haying or grazing of contract acres enrolled in the
voluntary conservation farm option that is consistent with an
approved haying and grazing management plan; and
(B) provide payments to the producer equal to the sum of--
(i) the contract payments for which the producer is
eligible;
(ii) any environmental quality incentives program payments
for which the producer is eligible; and
(iii) any conservation reserve program payments for which
the producer is eligible.
(3) Agreements.--To be eligible to participate in the
voluntary conservation farm option, a producer must prepare
and submit to the Secretary for approval a farm plan. Upon
the approval of the farm plan, the Secretary shall enter into
an agreement with the producer that specifies the contract
acres being enrolled in the voluntary conservation farm
option. The agreement shall be for a period of not less than
three years, nor more than ten years, as determined by the
producer. The agreement may be renewed upon the mutual
agreement of the Secretary and the producer.
(4) Producer responsibilities under agreement.--Under the
terms of an agreement entered into under paragraph (3), a
producer shall agree--
(A) to actively comply with the terms and conditions of the
applicable farm plan, as approved by the Secretary; and
(B) to keep such records as the Secretary may reasonably
require for purposes of evaluation of the voluntary
conservation farm option.
(5) Requirements of farm plan.--To be approved by the
Secretary, a farm plan submitted by a producer must--
(A) specify the contract acres the producer wishes to
enroll in the voluntary conservation farm option;
(B) briefly describe the resource-conserving crop rotation,
special conservation practices, biomass production, or
integrated crop management practices to be implemented and
maintained on such acreage during the agreement period which
fulfill the purposes for which the voluntary conservation
farm option is established;
(C) contain a schedule for the implementation, improvement
and maintenance of the resource-conserving crop rotation,
special conservation, biomass production, or integrated crop
management operations and practices described in the farm
plan; and
(D) contain such other terms as the Secretary may require.
(6) Administration.--
(A) Technical assistance.--In administering the voluntary
conservation farm option, the Secretary, in consultation with
the State Technical Committee and local conservation
districts, shall provide technical assistance to a producer
in developing and implementing a farm plan, evaluating the
effectiveness of a farm plan, and assessing the costs and
benefits of farming operation and practices. If requested by
a producer, the Secretary shall provide technical assistance
to help the producer comply with Federal, State, and local
conservation or environmental requirements.
(B) State plan.--In consultation with the State Technical
Committee established under section 1261 of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801), the Secretary may establish
conservation farm option plan guidance for a State that is
designed to address particular priority needs and
opportunities related to soil and water conservation and
quality, wildlife habitat, or other natural resource issues.
(C) Flexibility.--In administering the voluntary
conservation farm option, the Secretary shall provide
sufficient flexibility for a producer to revise the
producer's farm plan to respond to changes in market
conditions, weather, or technology or to adjust and modify
the farming operation, except that such revisions must be
consistent with the purposes for which the voluntary
conservation farm option is established and by approved by
the Secretary.
(D) Termination.--The Secretary may terminate an agreement
entered into with a producer under this section if the
producer agrees to such termination or the producer violates
the terms and conditions of such agreement.
(7) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) The term ``farm plan'' means a site-specific farm
management plan prepared by the producer and approved by the
Secretary, incorporating, where applicable, a conservation
plan prepared in accordance with subtitle B of title XII of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3812 et seq.) or a
haying and grazing management plan that protects the land
from erosion and minimizes sediment and nutrient run-off.
(B) The term ``resource-conserving crop rotation'' means a
crop rotation which includes at least one resource-conserving
crop and that reduces erosion, maintains or improves soil
fertility, tilt and structure, interrupts pest cycles, or
conserves water.
(C) The term ``special conservation practices'' means field
borders, contour buffer strips, grass waterways, filter
strips, grass windbreaks, buffer areas, wildlife habitat
plantings, farm ponds, habitat plantings for beneficial
organisms that aid in the control of pests, adding soil
building crops to rotations, grass plantings on highly
erodible land managed to provide erosion control and wildlife
cover, and such other practices as the Secretary may
designate.
(D) The term ``integrated crop management practices'' means
crop, water, nutrient, and pest management measures designed
to reduce and minimize the use of pesticides and nutrients
and irrigation water on the farm, including the use of
reduced yield goals in areas particularly vulnerable to
groundwater leaching, run-off to surface water, compaction
from excess water withdrawals, or salinization of soils.
(E) The term ``resource-conserving crop'' means legumes,
grasses, brassica cover crops and forages, alternative crops,
any interseeded or rely-planted combination of such crops,
any interseeded or relay-planted combination of such crops
and small grains, and such other crops as the Secretary may
designate.
(F) The term ``legumes'' means any legume, including
alfalfa, clover, lentils, lupine, medic, peas, soybeans, and
vetch, grown for use as a forage, green manure, or biomass
feedstock, but not including any pulse crop from which the
seeds are harvested and sold for purposes other than use as
seed for planting.
(G) The term ``alternative crops'' means experimental,
industrial, and oilseed crops which conserve soil and water.
(H) The term ``small grains'' means any small grain,
including barley, buckwheat, oats, rye, spelt, triticale, and
wheat.
(8) Conforming repeal.--Section 1451 of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C.
5822) is repealed.
(l) Conforming Amendments to Food Security Act of 1985.--
(1) Highly erodible land conservation.--Section 1211(3) of
the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3811(3)) is
amended--
(A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) a payment under a production flexibility contract
under section 103 of the Agricultural Market Transition
Act.''.
(2) Wetland conservation.--Section 1221(a)(3) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821(a)(3)) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) a payment under a production flexibility contract
under section 103 of the Agricultural Market Transition
Act.''.

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

(a) Availability of Nonrecourse Loans.--
(1) Availability.--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 this section:
(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.
(b) Loan Rates.--
(1) Wheat.--
(A) Loan rate.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the loan rate
for a marketing assistance loan 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

[[Page H1552]]
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 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 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 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 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
for rice shall be $6.50 per hundredweight.
(6) Oilseeds.--
(A) Soybeans.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance
loan for soybeans shall be--
(i) not less than 85 percent of the simple average price
received by producers of soybeans, as determined by the
Secretary, during the marketing years for the immediately
preceding 5 crops of soybeans, 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 less than $4.92 or more than $5.26 per bushel.
(B) Sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, mustard
seed, and flaxseed.--The loan rate for a marketing assistance
loan for sunflower seed, canola, rapeseed, safflower, mustard
seed, and flaxseed, individually, shall be--
(i) not less than 85 percent of the simple average price
received by producers of sunflower seed, individually, as
determined by the Secretary, during the marketing years for
the immediately preceding 5 crops of sunflower seed,
individually, 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 less than $0.087 or more than $0.093 per pound.
(C) Other oilseeds.--The loan rates for a marketing
assistance loan 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) 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 for wheat and feed grains.--The
Secretary shall permit a producer to repay a marketing
assistance loan under subsection (a) for wheat, corn, grain
sorghum, barley, and oats at a level that the Secretary
determines will--
(A) minimize potential loan forfeitures;
(B) minimize the accumulation of stocks of the commodities
by the Federal Government;
(C) minimize the cost incurred by the Federal Government in
storing the commodities; and
(D) allow the commodities produced in the United States to
be marketed freely and competitively, both domestically and
internationally.
(2) Repayment rates for upland cotton, oilseeds, and
rice.--The Secretary shall permit producers to repay a
marketing assistance loan under subsection (a) for upland
cotton, oilseeds, and rice at a level that is the lesser of--
(A) the loan rate established for upland cotton, oilseeds,
and rice, respectively, under subsection (b); or
(B) the prevailing world market price for upland cotton,
oilseeds, and rice, respectively (adjusted to United States
quality and location), as determined by the Secretary.
(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 (2)(B) 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

[[Page H1553]]
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) with respect to a loan
commodity, agree to forgo obtaining the loan for the
commodity in return for payments under this subsection.
(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) Administration of marketing certificates.--
(i) Redemption, marketing, or exchange.--The Secretary
shall establish procedures for redeeming marketing
certificates for cash or marketing or exchange of the
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 cotton user marketing
certificates. Any price restrictions that would otherwise
apply to the disposition of agricultural commodities by the
Commodity Credit Corporation shall not apply to the
redemption of certificates under this paragraph.
(ii) Designation of commodities and products.--To the
extent practicable, the Secretary shall permit owners of
certificates to designate the commodities and products,
including storage sites, the owners would prefer to receive
in exchange for certificates. If any certificate is not
presented for redemption, marketing, or exchange within a
reasonable number of days after the issuance of the
certificate (as determined by the Secretary), reasonable
costs of storage and other carrying charges, as determined by
the Secretary, shall be deducted from the value of the
certificate for the period beginning after the reasonable
number of days and ending with the date of the presentation
of the certificate to the Commodity Credit Corporation.
(iii) Transfers.--Marketing certificates issued to domestic
users and exporters of upland cotton may be transferred to
other persons in accordance with regulations issued by the
Secretary.
(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 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.--

[[Page H1554]]

(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.
(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 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.
(3) Acquisition of collateral.--The Secretary may include
in a contract for a nonrecourse loan made under this section
a provision that permits the Commodity Credit Corporation, on
and after the maturity of the loan or any extension 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 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
during any fiscal year may not exceed $40,000.
``(2) Limitation on marketing loan gains and loan
deficiency payments.--
``(A) Limitation.--The total amount of payments specified
in subparagraph (B) that a person shall be entitled to
receive under section 104 of the Agricultural Market
Transition Act for contract commodities and oilseeds during
any crop year may not exceed $75,000.
``(B) Description of payments.--The payments referred to in
subparagraph (A) are the following:
``(i) 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
commodity under section 104(b) of the Act.
``(ii) Any loan deficiency payment received for a loan
commodity under section 104(e) of the Act.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1001 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1308) (as amended by subsection (a)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as
paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively; and
(B) in the second sentence of paragraph (3)(A) (as so
redesignated), by striking ``paragraphs (6) and (7)'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (4) and (5)''.
(2) Section 1305(d) of the Agricultural Reconciliation Act
of 1987 (Public Law 100-203; 7 U.S.C. 1308 note) is amended
by striking ``paragraphs (5) through (7) of section 1001, as
amended by this subtitle,'' and inserting ``paragraphs (3)
through (5) of section 1001,''.
(3) Section 1001A of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7
U.S.C. 1308-1(a)(1)) is amended--
(A) in the first sentence of subsection (a)(1)--
(i) by striking ``section 1001(5)(B)(i)'' and inserting
``section 1001(3)(B)(i)'';
(ii) by striking ``under the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7
U.S.C. 1421 et seq.)''; and
(iii) by striking ``section 1001(5)(B)(i)(II)'' and
inserting ``section 1001(3)(B)(i)(II)''; and
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1)--

(I) by striking ``under the Agricultural Act of 1949''; and

(II) by striking ``section 1001(5)(B)(i)'' and inserting
``section 1001(3)(B)(i)''; and

(ii) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``section
1001(5)(B)(i)(II)'' and inserting ``section
1001(3)(B)(i)(II)''.
(4) Section 1001C(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (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 ``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 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 104(i)(1).
(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).

[[Page H1555]]

(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.
(B) Eligibility to participate.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), in the
case of the 1996 and subsequent crops, Valencia peanuts not
physically produced in the State of New Mexico shall not be
eligible to participate in the pools of the State.
(ii) Exception.--A resident of the State of New Mexico may
enter Valencia peanuts that are produced outside of the State
into the pools of the State in a quantity that is not greater
than the 1995 crop of the resident that was produced outside
the State.
(C) Types of peanuts.--Bright hull and dark hull Valencia
peanuts shall be considered as separate types for the purpose
of establishing the pools.
(D) 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) Offset within area.--Further losses in an area quota
pool shall be offset by any gains or profits from additional
peanuts (other than separate type pools established under
subsection (c)(2)(A) for Valencia peanuts produced in New
Mexico) owned or controlled by the Commodity Credit
Corporation in that area and sold for domestic edible use, in
accordance with regulations issued by the Secretary.
(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.
(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.
(6) Offset generally.--If losses in an area quota pool have
not been entirely offset under paragraph (3), further losses
shall be offset by any gains or profits from additional
peanuts (other than separate type pools established under
subsection (c)(2)(A) for Valencia peanuts produced in New
Mexico) owned or controlled by the Commodity Credit
Corporation and sold for domestic edible use, in accordance
with regulations issued by the Secretary.
(7) 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 in the production area covered by
the 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

[[Page H1556]]
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'';

(v) in subsection (b)(1), by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) Certain farms ineligible for quota.--Effective
beginning with the 1997 marketing year, the Secretary shall
not establish a farm poundage quota under subparagraph (A)
for a farm owned or controlled by--
``(i) a municipality, airport authority, school, college,
refuge, or other public entity (other than a university used
for research purposes); or
``(ii) a person who is not a producer and resides in
another State.'';
(vi) in subsection (b)(2), 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.''; and
(vii) 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) 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.
(3) 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''.
(4) 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 (1)(A), by striking ``of undermarketings
and'';
(iii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``(including any
applicable under marketings)''; and
(iv) in paragraph (3), by striking ``(including any
applicable undermarketings)''.
(5) Disaster transfers.--Section 358-1(b) of the Act (7
U.S.C. 1358-1(b)), as amended by paragraph (4)(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 not more than 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) 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.
(d) 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.
(e) 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

[[Page H1557]]
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.
(f) 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.
(g) 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.
(h) Crops.--This section 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) Salaries and expenses.--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. SUSPENSION AND REPEAL OF PERMANENT AUTHORITIES.

(a) Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.--
(1) In general.--The following provisions of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 shall not be applicable
to the 1996 through 2002 crops:
(A) Parts II through V of subtitle B of title III (7 U.S.C.
1326-1351).
(B) Subsections (a) through (j) of section 358 (7 U.S.C.
1358).
(C) Subsections (a) through (h) of section 358a (7 U.S.C.
1358a).
(D) Subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e) of section 358d (7
U.S.C. 1359).
(E) Part VII of subtitle B of title III (7 U.S.C. 1359aa-
1359jj).
(F) In the case of peanuts, part I of subtitle C of title
III (7 U.S.C. 1361-1368).
(G) In the case of upland cotton, section 377 (7 U.S.C.
1377).
(H) Subtitle D of title III (7 U.S.C. 1379a-1379j).
(I) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1401-1407).
(2) Reports and records.--Effective only for the 1996
through 2002 crops of peanuts, the first sentence of section
373(a) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C.
1373(a)) is amended by inserting before ``all brokers and
dealers in peanuts'' the following: ``all producers engaged
in the production of peanuts,''.
(b) Agricultural Act of 1949.--
(1) Suspensions.--The following provisions of the
Agricultural Act of 1949 shall not be applicable to the 1996
through 2002 crops:
(A) Section 101 (7 U.S.C. 1441).
(B) Section 103(a) (7 U.S.C. 1444(a)).
(C) Section 105 (7 U.S.C. 1444b).
(D) Section 107 (7 U.S.C. 1445a).
(E) Section 110 (7 U.S.C. 1445e).
(F) Section 112 (7 U.S.C. 1445g).
(G) Section 115 (7 U.S.C. 1445k).
(H) Title III (7 U.S.C. 1447-1449).
(I) Title IV (7 U.S.C. 1421-1433d), other than sections
404, 406, 412, 416, and 427 (7 U.S.C. 1424, 1426, 1429, 1431,
and 1433f).
(J) Title V (7 U.S.C. 1461-1469).
(K) Title VI (7 U.S.C. 1471-1471j).
(2) Repeals.--The following provisions of the Agricultural
Act of 1949 are repealed:
(A) Section 103B (7 U.S.C. 1444-2).
(B) Section 108B (7 U.S.C. 1445c-3).
(C) Section 113 (7 U.S.C. 1445h).
(D) Section 114(b) (7 U.S.C. 1445j(b)).
(E) Sections 205, 206, and 207 (7 U.S.C. 1446f, 1446g, and
1446h).
(F) Section 406 (7 U.S.C. 1426).
(c) Suspension of Certain Quota Provisions.--The joint
resolution entitled ``A joint resolution relating to corn and
wheat marketing quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act
of 1938, as amended'', approved May 26, 1941 (7 U.S.C. 1330
and 1340), shall not be applicable to the crops of wheat
planted for harvest in the calendar years 1996 through 2002.

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.

SEC. 111. DAIRY.

Subsection (h) of section 204 of the Agricultural Act of
1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446e) is amended to read as follows:
``(h) Residual Authority for Refund of Budget Deficit
Assessments.--
``(1) Application of subsection.--This subsection shall
apply with respect to the reductions made under this
subsection, as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of the Agricultural Market Transition Act, in the
price of milk received by producers during the period
beginning on January 1, 1996, and ending on the date of the
enactment of such Act.
``(2) Refund required.--The Secretary shall provide a
refund of the entire reduction made under this subsection, as
in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the
Agricultural Market Transition Act, in the price of milk
received by a producer during the period referred to in
paragraph (1) if the producer provides evidence that the
producer did not increase marketings in calendar year 1996
when compared to calendar year 1995.
``(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).''.
TITLE II--AGRICULTURAL TRADE
Subtitle A--Market Promotion Program and Export Enhancement Program

SEC. 201. 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. 202. 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.''.
Subtitle B--Amendments to Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance
Act of 1954 and Related Statutes

SEC. 211. FOOD AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

(a) In General.--Section 3 of the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691a) is
amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 3. FOOD AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.

SEC. 212. TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE.

Section 101 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1701) is amended--

[[Page H1558]]

(1) by striking ``developing countries'' each place it
appears and inserting ``developing countries and private
entities''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``and entities'' before
the period at the end.

SEC. 213. AGREEMENTS REGARDING ELIGIBLE COUNTRIES AND PRIVATE
ENTITIES.

Section 102 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1702) is amended to read as
follows:

``SEC. 102. AGREEMENTS REGARDING ELIGIBLE COUNTRIES AND
PRIVATE ENTITIES.

``(a) Priority.--In selecting agreements to be entered into
under this title, the Secretary shall give priority to
agreements providing for the export of agricultural
commodities to developing countries that--
``(1) have the demonstrated potential to become commercial
markets for competitively priced United States agricultural
commodities;
``(2) are undertaking measures for economic development
purposes to improve food security and agricultural
development, alleviate poverty, and promote broad-based
equitable and sustainable development; and
``(3) demonstrate the greatest need for food.
``(b) Private Entities.--An agreement entered into under
this title with a private entity shall require such security,
or such other provisions as the Secretary determines
necessary, to provide reasonable and adequate assurance of
repayment of the financing extended to the private entity.
``(c) Agricultural Market Development Plan.--
``(1) Definition of agricultural trade organization.--In
this subsection, the term `agricultural trade organization'
means a United States agricultural trade organization that
promotes the export and sale of a United States agricultural
commodity and that does not stand to profit directly from the
specific sale of the commodity.
``(2) an.--The Secretary shall consider a developing
country for which an agricultural market development plan has
been approved under this subsection to have the demonstrated
potential to become a commercial market for competitively
priced United States agricultural commodities for the purpose
of granting a priority under subsection (a).
``(3) Requirements.--
`(A) In general.--To be approved by the Secretary, an
agricultural market development plan shall--
``(i) be submitted by a developing country or private
entity, in conjunction with an agricultural trade
organization;
``(ii) describe a project or program for the development
and expansion of a United States agricultural commodity
market in a developing country, and the economic development
of the country, using funds derived from the sale of
agricultural commodities received under an agreement
described in section 101;
``(iii) provide for any matching funds that are required by
the Secretary for the project or program;
``(iv) provide for a results-oriented means of measuring
the success of the project or program; and
``(v) provide for graduation to the use of non-Federal
funds to carry out the project or program, consistent with
requirements established by the Secretary.
``(B) Agricultural trade organization.--The project or
program shall be designed and carried out by the agricultural
trade organization.
``(C) Additional requirements.--An agricultural market
development plan shall contain such additional requirements
as are determined necessary by the Secretary.
``(4) Administrative costs.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make funds made
available to carry out this title available for the
reimbursement of administrative expenses incurred by
agricultural trade organizations in developing, implementing,
and administering agricultural market development plans,
subject to such requirements and in such amounts as the
Secretary considers appropriate.
``(B) Duration.--The funds shall be made available to
agricultural trade organizations for the duration of the
applicable agricultural market development plan.
``(C) Termination.--The Secretary may terminate assistance
made available under this subsection if the agricultural
trade organization is not carrying out the approved
agricultural market development plan.''.

SEC. 214. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALES.

SEC. 215. USE OF LOCAL CURRENCY PAYMENT.

SEC. 216. ELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.

Section 202 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1722) is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Nonemergency Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator may provide
agricultural commodities for nonemergency assistance under
this title through eligible organizations (as described in
subsection (d)) that have entered into an agreement with the
Administrator to use the commodities in accordance with this
title.
``(2) Limitation.--The Administrator may not deny a request
for funds or commodities submitted under this subsection
because the program for which the funds or commodities are
requested--
``(A) would be carried out by the eligible organization in
a foreign country in which the Agency for International
Development does not have a mission, office, or other
presence; or
``(B) is not part of a development plan for the country
prepared by the Agency.''; and
(2) in subsection (e)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Private
Voluntary Organizations and Cooperatives'' and inserting
``Eligible Organizations'';
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``$13,500,000'' and inserting
``$28,000,000''; and
(ii) by striking ``private voluntary organizations and
cooperatives to assist such organizations and cooperatives''
and inserting ``eligible organizations described in
subsection (d), to assist the organizations'';
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``a private voluntary
organization or cooperative, the Administrator may provide
assistance to that organization or cooperative'' and
inserting ``an eligible organization, the Administrator may
provide assistance to the eligible organization''.

SEC. 217. GENERATION AND USE OF FOREIGN CURRENCIES.

SEC. 218. GENERAL LEVELS OF ASSISTANCE UNDER PUBLIC LAW 480.

SEC. 219. FOOD AID CONSULTATIVE GROUP.

SEC. 220. SUPPORT OF NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS.

[[Page H1559]]

``(6) Nongovernmental organization.--The term
`nongovernmental organization' means an organization that
works at the local level to solve development problems in a
foreign country in which the organization is located, except
that the term does not include an organization that is
primarily an agency or instrumentality of the government of
the foreign country.''.

SEC. 221. COMMODITY DETERMINATIONS.

SEC. 222. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

SEC. 223. AGREEMENTS.

SEC. 224. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

SEC. 225. EXPIRATION DATE.

Section 408 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1736b) is amended by
striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''.

SEC. 226. REGULATIONS.

Section 409 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1736c) is repealed.

SEC. 227. INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS.

Section 410 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1736d) is repealed.

SEC. 228. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

SEC. 229. COORDINATION OF FOREIGN ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

Section 413 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1736g) is amended by
inserting ``title III of'' before ``this Act'' each place it
appears.

SEC. 230. USE OF CERTAIN LOCAL CURRENCY.

Title IV of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1731 et seq.) (as amended by
section 222) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 416. USE OF CERTAIN LOCAL CURRENCY.

SEC. 231. LEVEL OF ASSISTANCE TO FARMER TO FARMER PROGRAM.

SEC. 232. FOOD SECURITY COMMODITY RESERVE.

[[Page H1560]]

(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``wheat'' and inserting
``eligible commodities'';
(5) so that subsections (c) through (f) read as follows:
``(c) Release of Eligible Commodities.--
``(1) Determination.--If the Secretary determines that the
amount of commodities allocated for minimum assistance under
section 204(a)(1) of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1724(a)(1)) less the amount
of commodities allocated for minimum non-emergency assistance
under section 204(a)(2) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1724(a)(2)) will
be insufficient to meet the need for commodities for
emergency assistance under section 202(a) of the Act (7
U.S.C. 1722(a)), the Secretary in any fiscal year may release
from the reserve--
``(A) up to 500,000 metric tons of wheat or the equivalent
value of eligible commodities other than wheat; and
``(B) any eligible commodities which under subparagraph (A)
could have been released but were not released in prior
fiscal years.
``(2) Availability of commodities.--Commodities released
under paragraph (1) shall be made available under title II of
the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954
(7 U.S.C. 1721 et seq.) for emergency assistance.
``(3) Exchange.--The Secretary may exchange an eligible
commodity for another United States commodity of equal value,
including powdered milk, pulses, and vegetable oil.
``(4) Use of normal commercial practices.--To the maximum
extend practicable consistent with the fulfillment of the
purposes of this section and the effective and efficient
administration of this section, the Secretary shall use the
usual and customary channels, facilities, arrangements, and
practices of the trade and commerce.
``(5) Waiver of minimum tonnage requirements.--Nothing in
this subsection shall require the exercise of the waiver
under section 204(a)(3) of the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1724(a)(3)) as a
prerequisite for the release of eligible commodities under
this subsection.
``(d) Transportation and Handling Costs.--
``(1) In general.--The cost of transportation and handling
of eligible commodities released from the reserve established
under this section shall be paid by the Commodity Credit
Corporation in accordance with section 406 of the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7
U.S.C. 1736).
``(2) Reimbursement.--
``(A) In general.--The Commodity Credit Corporation shall
be reimbursed for the costs incurred under paragraph (1) from
the funds made available to carry out the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691 et
seq.).
``(B) Basis for reimbursement.--The reimbursement shall be
made on the basis of the lesser of the actual cost incurred
by the Commodity Credit Corporation less any savings achieved
as a result of decreased storage and handling costs for the
reserve.
``(C) Decreased storage and handling costs.--For purposes
of this subsection, `decreased storage and handling costs'
shall mean the total actual costs for storage and handling
incurred by the Commodity Credit Corporation for the reserve
established under title III of the Agricultural Act of 1980
in fiscal year 1995 less the total actual costs for storage
and handling incurred by the Corporation for the reserve
established under this Act in the fiscal year for which the
savings are calculated.
``(e) Management of Reserve.--The Secretary shall provide
for--
``(1) the management of eligible commodities in the reserve
as to location and quality of commodities needed to meet
emergency situations; and
``(2) the periodic rotation of eligible commodities in the
reserve to avoid spoilage and deterioration of such stocks.
``(f) Treatment of Reserve Under Other Law.--Eligible
commodities in the reserve established under this section
shall not be--
``(1) considered a part of the total domestic supply
(including carryover) for the purpose of administering the
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7
U.S.C. 1691 et seq.); and
``(2) subject to any quantitative limitation on exports
that may be imposed under section 7 of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2406).'';
(6) in subsection (g)--
(A) by striking ``(g)(1) The'' and inserting the following:
``(g) Use of Commodity Credit Corporation.--The'';
(B) by striking ``wheat'' and inserting ``an eligible
commodity''; and
(C) by striking paragraph (2);
(7) in subsection (h)--
(A) by striking ``(h) Any'' and inserting:
``(h) Finality of Determination.--Any''; and
(B) by striking ``President or the Secretary of
Agriculture'' and inserting ``Secretary''; and
(8) in subsection (i)--
(A) by striking ``(i) The'' and inserting:
``(i) Termination of Authority.--The'';
(B) by striking ``wheat'' each place it appears and
inserting ``eligible commodities''; and
(C) by striking ``1995'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2002''.
(d) Effective Date.--Section 303 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 1736-
1 note) is amended by striking ``October 1, 1980'' and all
that follows through the end of the section and inserting
``on the date of enactment of this Act.''.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 208(d)(2) of the
Agriculture Trade Suspension Adjustment Act of 1980 (7 U.S.C.
4001(d)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Applicability of certain provisions.--Subsections
(b)(2), (c), (e), and (f) of section 302 of the Food Security
Commodity Reserve Act of 1995 shall apply to commodities in
any reserve established under paragraph (1), except that the
references to `eligible commodities' in the subsections shall
be deemed to be references to `agricultural commodities'.''.

SEC. 233. FOOD FOR PROGRESS PROGRAM.

The Food for Progress Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 1736o) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``(b)(1)'' and inserting ``(b)''; and
(ii) in the first sentence, by inserting
``intergovernmental organizations'' after ``cooperatives'';
and
(B) by striking paragraph (2);
(2) in subsection (e)(4), by striking ``203'' and inserting
``406'';
(3) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``in the case of the
independent states of the former Soviet Union,'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2);
(C) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``in each of fiscal
years 1996 through 2002'' after ``may be used''; and
(D) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (5) as
paragraphs (2) through (4), respectively;
(4) in subsection (g), by striking ``1995'' and inserting
``2002'';
(5) in subsection (j), by striking ``shall'' and inserting
``may'';
(6) in subsection (k), by striking ``1995'' and inserting
``2002'';
(7) in subsection (l)(1)--
(A) by striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting ``1996
through 2002''; and
(B) by inserting ``, and to provide technical assistance
for monetization programs,'' after ``monitoring of food
assistance programs''; and
(8) in subsection (m)--
(A) by striking ``with respect to the independent states of
the former Soviet Union'';
(B) by striking ``private voluntary organizations and
cooperatives'' each place it appears and inserting
``agricultural trade organizations, intergovernmental
organizations, private voluntary organizations, and
cooperatives''; and
(C) in paragraph (2), by striking ``in the independent
states''.
Subtitle C--Amendments to Agricultural Trade Act of 1978

SEC. 251. AGRICULTURAL EXPORT PROMOTION STRATEGY.

(a) In General.--Section 103 of the Agricultural Trade Act
of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5603) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 103. AGRICULTURAL EXPORT PROMOTION STRATEGY.

[[Page H1561]]

``(d) Priority Markets.--
``(1) Identification of markets.--In developing the
strategy required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
identify as priority markets--
``(A) those markets in which imports of agricultural
products show the greatest potential for increase by
September 30, 2002; and
``(B) those markets in which, with the assistance of
Federal export promotion programs, exports of United States
agricultural products show the greatest potential for
increase by September 30, 2002.
``(2) Identification of supporting offices.--The President
shall identify annually in the budget of the United States
Government submitted under section 1105 of title 31, United
States Code, each overseas office of the Foreign Agricultural
Service that provides assistance to United States exporters
in each of the priority markets identified under paragraph
(1).
``(e) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the
Secretary shall prepare and submit a report to Congress
assessing progress in meeting the goals established by
subsection (c).
``(f) Failure To Meet Goals.--Notwithstanding any other
law, if the Secretary determines that more than 2 of the
goals established by subsection (c) are not met by September
30, 2002, the Secretary may not carry out agricultural trade
programs under the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5601 et seq.) as of that date.
``(g) No Private Right of Action.--This section shall not
create any private right of action.''.
(b) Continuation of Funding.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary of Agriculture makes a
determination under section 103(f) of the Agricultural Trade
Act of 1978 (as amended by subsection (a)), the Secretary
shall utilize funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
promote United States agricultural exports in a manner
consistent with the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act
(15 U.S.C. 714 et seq.) and obligations pursuant to the
Uruguay Round Agreements.
(2) Funding.--The amount of Commodity Credit Corporation
funds used to carry out paragraph (1) during a fiscal year
shall not exceed the total outlays for agricultural trade
programs under the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5601 et seq.) during fiscal year 2002.
(c) Elimination of Report.--
(1) In general.--Section 601 of the Agricultural Trade Act
of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5711) is repealed.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The last sentence of section 603
of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5713) is
amended by striking ``, in a consolidated report,'' and all
that follows through ``section 601'' and inserting ``or in a
consolidated report''.

SEC. 252. EXPORT CREDITS.

(a) Export Credit Guarantee Program.--Section 202 of the
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5622) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``Guarantees.--The'' and inserting the
following: ``Guarantees.--
``(1) In general.--The''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Supplier credits.--In carrying out this section, the
Commodity Credit Corporation may issue guarantees for the
repayment of credit made available for a period of not more
than 180 days by a United States exporter to a buyer in a
foreign country.'';
(2) in subsection (f)--
(A) by striking ``(f) Restrictions.--The'' and inserting
the following:
``(f) Restrictions.--
``(1) In general.--The''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Criteria for determination.--In making the
determination required under paragraph (1) with respect to
credit guarantees under subsection (b) for a country, the
Secretary may consider, in addition to financial,
macroeconomic, and monetary indicators--
``(A) whether an International Monetary Fund standby
agreement, Paris Club rescheduling plan, or other economic
restructuring plan is in place with respect to the country;
``(B) the convertibility of the currency of the country;
``(C) whether the country provides adequate legal
protection for foreign investments;
``(D) whether the country has viable financial markets;
``(E) whether the country provides adequate legal
protection for the private property rights of citizens of the
country; and
``(F) any other factors that are relevant to the ability of
the country to service the debt of the country.'';
(3) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:
``(h) United States Agricultural Components.--The Commodity
Credit Corporation shall finance or guarantee under this
section only United States agricultural commodities.'';
(4) in subsection (i)--
(A) by striking ``Institutions.--A financial'' and
inserting the following: ``Institutions.--
``(1) In general.--A financial'';
(B) by striking paragraph (1);
(C) by striking ``(2) is'' and inserting the following:
``(A) is'';
(D) by striking ``(3) is'' and inserting the following:
``(B) is''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Third country banks.--The Commodity Credit
Corporation may guarantee under subsections (a) and (b) the
repayment of credit made available to finance an export sale
irrespective of whether the obligor is located in the country
to which the export sale is destined.''; and
(5) by striking subsection (k) and inserting the following:
``(k) Processed and High-Value Products.--
``(1) In general.--In issuing export credit guarantees
under this section, the Commodity Credit Corporation shall,
subject to paragraph (2), ensure that not less than 25
percent for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997, 30 percent
for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and 35 percent for
each of fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002, of the total
amount of credit guarantees issued for a fiscal year is
issued to promote the export of processed or high-value
agricultural products and that the balance is issued to
promote the export of bulk or raw agricultural commodities.
``(2) Limitation.--The percentage requirement of paragraph
(1) shall apply for a fiscal year to the extent that a
reduction in the total amount of credit guarantees issued for
the fiscal year is not required to meet the percentage
requirement.''.
(b) Funding Levels.--Section 211(b) of the Agricultural
Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (2);
(2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) as
paragraph (2) and indenting the margin of paragraph (2) (as
so redesignated) so as to align with the margin of paragraph
(1); and
(3) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Export credit guarantees.--The Commodity Credit
Corporation shall make available for each of fiscal years
1996 through 2002 not less than $5,500,000,000 in credit
guarantees under subsections (a) and (b) of section 202.''.
(c) Definitions.--Section 102(7) of the Agricultural Trade
Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602(7)) is amended by striking
subparagraphs (A) and (B) and inserting the following:
``(A) an agricultural commodity or product entirely
produced in the United States; or
``(B) a product of an agricultural commodity--
``(i) 90 percent or more of the agricultural components of
which by weight, excluding packaging and added water, is
entirely produced in the United States; and
``(ii) that the Secretary determines to be a United States
high value agricultural product.''.
(d) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the
effective date of this title, the Secretary of Agriculture
shall issue regulations to carry out the amendments made by
this section.

SEC. 253. EXPORT PROGRAM AND FOOD ASSISTANCE TRANSFER
AUTHORITY.

SEC. 254. ARRIVAL CERTIFICATION.

SEC. 255. REGULATIONS.

Section 404 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5664) is repealed.

SEC. 256. FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE.

Section 503 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5693) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 503. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL
SERVICE.

[[Page H1562]]

``(2) carrying out market promotion and development
activities;
``(3) providing agricultural technical assistance and
training; and
``(4) carrying out the programs authorized under this Act,
the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954
(7 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.), and other Acts.''.

SEC. 257. REPORTS.

SEC. 271. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TOBACCO.

Section 214 of the Tobacco Adjustment Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C.
509) is repealed.

SEC. 272. TRIGGERED EXPORT ENHANCEMENT.

SEC. 273. DISPOSITION OF COMMODITIES TO PREVENT WASTE.

SEC. 274. DEBT-FOR-HEALTH-AND-PROTECTION SWAP.

SEC. 275. POLICY ON EXPANSION OF INTERNATIONAL MARKETS.

Section 1207 of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (7
U.S.C. 1736m) is repealed.

SEC. 276. POLICY ON MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF EXPORT
MARKETS.

SEC. 277. POLICY ON TRADE LIBERALIZATION.

Section 1122 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1736q) is repealed.

SEC. 278. AGRICULTURAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS.

Section 1123 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C.
1736r) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1123. TRADE NEGOTIATIONS POLICY.

that should result in increased exports of United States
agricultural products, jobs, and income growth in the United
States;
``(6) the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture did not
succeed in completely eliminating trade distorting domestic
support and export subsidies by--
``(A) allowing the European Union to continue unreasonable
levels of spending on export subsidies; and
``(B) failing to discipline monopolistic state trading
entities, such as the Canadian Wheat Board, that use
nontransparent and discriminatory pricing as a hidden de
facto export subsidy;
``(7) during the period 1996 through 2002, there will be
several opportunities for the United States to negotiate
fairer trade in agricultural products, including further
negotiations under the World Trade Organization, and steps
toward possible free trade agreements of the Americas and
Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC); and
``(8) the United States should aggressively use these
opportunities to achieve more open and fair opportunities for
trade in agricultural products.
``(b) Goals of the United States in Agricultural Trade
Negotiations.--The objectives of the United States with
respect to future negotiations on agricultural trade
include--
``(1) increasing opportunities for United States exports of
agricultural products by eliminating tariff and nontariff
barriers to trade;
``(2) leveling the playing field for United States
producers of agricultural products by limiting per unit
domestic production supports to levels that are no greater
than those available in the United States;
``(3) ending the practice of export dumping by eliminating
all trade distorting export subsidies and disciplining state
trading entities so that they do not (except in cases of bona
fide food aid) sell in foreign markets at below domestic
market prices nor their full costs of acquiring and
delivering agricultural products to the foreign markets; and
``(4) encouraging government policies that avoid price-
depressing surpluses.''.

SEC. 279. POLICY ON UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES.

Section 1164 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-198; 99 Stat. 1499) is repealed.

SEC. 280. AGRICULTURAL AID AND TRADE MISSIONS.

(a) In General.--The Agricultural Aid and Trade Missions
Act (7 U.S.C. 1736bb et seq.) is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7 of Public Law 100-277
(7 U.S.C. 1736bb note) is repealed.

SEC. 281. ANNUAL REPORTS BY AGRICULTURAL ATTACHES.

Section 108(b)(1)(B) of the Agricultural Act of 1954 (7
U.S.C. 1748(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``including
fruits, vegetables, legumes, popcorn, and ducks''.

SEC. 282. WORLD LIVESTOCK MARKET PRICE INFORMATION.

Section 1545 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-624; 7 U.S.C. 1761 note) is
repealed.

SEC. 283. ORDERLY LIQUIDATION OF STOCKS.

Sections 201 and 207 of the Agricultural Act of 1956 (7
U.S.C. 1851 and 1857) are repealed.

SEC. 284. SALES OF EXTRA LONG STAPLE COTTON.

Section 202 of the Agricultural Act of 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1852)
is repealed.

SEC. 285. REGULATIONS.

Section 707 of the Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian
Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992 (Public Law
102-511; 7 U.S.C. 5621 note) is amended by striking
subsection (d).

SEC. 286. EMERGING MARKETS.

[[Page H1563]]

``(a) Funding.--The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make
available for fiscal years 1996 through 2002 not less than
$1,000,000,000 of direct credits or export credit guarantees
for exports to emerging markets under section 201 or 202 of
the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5621 and 5622),
in addition to the amounts acquired or authorized under
section 211 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 5641) for the program.''.
(3) Agricultural fellowship program.--Section 1542 of the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 is
amended--
(A) in subsection (b), by striking the last sentence and
inserting the following: ``The Commodity Credit Corporation
shall give priority under this subsection to--
``(A) projects that encourage the privatization of the
agricultural sector or that benefit private farms or
cooperatives in emerging markets; and
``(B) projects for which nongovernmental persons agree to
assume a relatively larger share of the costs.''; and
(B) in subsection (d)--
(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``the Soviet Union'' and inserting ``emerging markets'';
(ii) in paragraph (1)--

(I) in subparagraph (A)(i)--

(iii) in paragraph (2)--

(iv) by striking paragraph (3).
(4) United states agricultural commodity.--Subsections (b)
and (c) of section 1542 of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 are amended by striking
``section 101(6)'' each place it appears and inserting
``section 102(7)''.
(5) Report.--The first sentence of section 1542(e)(2) of
the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 is
amended by striking ``Not'' and inserting ``Subject to
section 217 of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization
Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6917), not''.
(b) Agricultural Fellowship Program for Middle Income
Countries, Emerging Democracies, and Emerging Markets.--
Section 1543 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and
Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 3293) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``middle income
countries and emerging democracies'' and inserting ``middle
income countries, emerging democracies, and emerging
markets'';
(2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Emerging market.--Any emerging market, as defined in
section 1542(f).''; and
(3) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``food needs'' and
inserting ``food and fiber needs''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 501 of the Agricultural Trade Development and
Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1737) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``emerging democracies''
and inserting ``emerging markets''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following:
``(1) Emerging market.--The term `emerging market' means
any country that the Secretary determines--
``(A) is taking steps toward a market-oriented economy
through the food, agriculture, or rural business sectors of
the economy of the country; and
``(B) has the potential to provide a viable and significant
market for United States agricultural commodities or products
of United States agricultural commodities.''.
(2) Section 201(d)(1)(C)(ii) of the Agricultural Trade Act
of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5621(d)(1)(C)(ii)) is amended by striking
``emerging democracies'' and inserting ``emerging markets''.
(3) Section 202(d)(3)(B) of the Agricultural Trade Act of
1978 (7 U.S.C. 5622(d)(3)(B)) is amended by striking
``emerging democracies'' and inserting ``emerging markets''.

SEC. 287. IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER URUGUAY ROUND
AGREEMENTS.

Part III of subtitle A of title IV of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465; 108 Stat. 4964) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 427. IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER URUGUAY ROUND
AGREEMENTS.

``Not later than September 30 of each fiscal year, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall determine whether the
obligations undertaken by foreign countries under the Uruguay
Round Agreement on Agriculture are being fully implemented.
If the Secretary of Agriculture determines that any foreign
country, by not implementing the obligations of the country,
is significantly constraining an opportunity for United
States agricultural exports, the Secretary shall--
``(1) submit to the United States Trade Representative a
recommendation as to whether the President should take action
under any provision of law; and
``(2) transmit a copy of the recommendation to the
Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on International
Relations, and the Committee on Ways and Means, of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, and the Committee on Finance, of the
Senate.''.

SEC. 288. SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING MULTILATERAL
DISCIPLINES ON CREDIT GUARANTEES.

SEC. 289. FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT COOPERATOR PROGRAM.

The Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``TITLE VII--FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT COOPERATOR PROGRAM

``SEC. 701. DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE TRADE ORGANIZATION.

``SEC. 702. FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT COOPERATOR PROGRAM.

``SEC. 703. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years
1996 through 2002.''.
Subtitle E--Dairy Exports

SEC. 291. DAIRY EXPORT INCENTIVE PROGRAM.

[[Page H1564]]
respect to which shipments from the United States are otherwise
restricted by law.''.
(b) Sole Discretion.--Section 153(b) of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14(b)) is amended by inserting
``sole'' before ``discretion''.
(c) Market Development.--Section 153(e)(1) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14(e)(1)) 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''.
(d) Maximum Allowable Amounts.--Section 153 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14) is 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 the Food Security Act of 1985 (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.''.
(e) Conforming Amendment.--Section 153(a) of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (15 U.S.C. 713a-14(a)) is amended by
striking ``2001'' and inserting ``2002''.

SEC. 292. AUTHORITY TO ASSIST IN ESTABLISHMENT AND
MAINTENANCE OF EXPORT TRADING COMPANY.

SEC. 293. STANDBY AUTHORITY TO INDICATE ENTITY BEST SUITED TO
PROVIDE INTERNATIONAL MARKET DEVELOPMENT AND
EXPORT SERVICES.

(a) Indication of Entity Best Suited to Assist
International Market Development for and Export of United
States Dairy Products.--If--
(1) the United States dairy industry has not established an
export trading company under the Export Trading Company Act
of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.) for the purpose of
facilitating the international market development for and
exportation of dairy products produced in the United States
on or before June 30, 1996; or
(2) the quantity of exports of United States dairy products
during the 12-month period preceding July 1, 1997 does not
exceed the quantity of exports of United States dairy
products during the 12-month period preceding July 1, 1996 by
1.5 billion pounds (milk equivalent, total solids basis);

the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to indicate which
entity autonomous of the Government of the United States is
best suited to facilitate the international market
development for and exportation of United States dairy
products.
(b) Funding of Export Activities.--The Secretary shall
assist the entity in identifying sources of funding for the
activities specified in subsection (a) from within the dairy
industry and elsewhere.
(c) Application of Section.--This section shall apply only
during the period beginning on July 1, 1997 and ending on
September 30, 2000.

SEC. 294. STUDY AND REPORT REGARDING POTENTIAL IMPACT OF
URUGUAY ROUND ON PRICES, INCOME AND GOVERNMENT
PURCHASES.

SEC. 295. PROMOTION OF AMERICAN DAIRY PRODUCTS IN
INTERNATIONAL MARKETS THROUGH DAIRY PROMOTION
PROGRAM.

SEC. 311. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ACREAGE RESERVE PROGRAM.

Section 1230 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3830) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 1230. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ACREAGE RESERVE
PROGRAM.

``(a) Establishment.--
``(1) In general.--During the 1996 through 2002 calendar
years, the Secretary shall establish an environmental
conservation acreage reserve program (referred to in this
section as `ECARP') to be implemented through contracts and
the acquisition of easements to assist owners and operators
of farms and ranches to conserve and enhance soil, water, and
related natural resources, including grazing land, wetland,
and wildlife habitat.
``(2) Means.--The Secretary shall carry out the ECARP by--
``(A) providing for the long-term protection of
environmentally sensitive land; and
``(B) providing technical and financial assistance to
farmers and ranchers to--
``(i) improve the management and operation of the farms and
ranches; and
``(ii) reconcile productivity and profitability with
protection and enhancement of the environment.
``(3) Programs.--The ECARP shall consist of--
``(A) the conservation reserve program established under
subchapter B;
``(B) the wetlands reserve program established under
subchapter C;
``(C) the environmental quality incentives program
established under chapter 4; and
``(D) a farmland protection program under which the
Secretary shall use funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation
for the purchase of conservation easements or other interests
in not less than 170,000, nor more than 340,000, acres of
land with prime, unique, or other productive soil that is
subject to a pending offer from a State or local government
for the purpose of protecting topsoil by limiting
nonagricultural uses of the land, except that any highly
erodible cropland shall be subject to the requirements of a
conservation plan, including, if required by the Secretary,
the conversion of the land to less intensive uses. In no case
shall total expenditures of funding from the Commodity Credit
Corporation exceed a total of $35,000,000 over the first 3
and subsequent fiscal years.
``(b) Administration.--
``(1) In general.--In carrying out the ECARP, the Secretary
shall enter into contracts with owners and operators and
acquire interests in land through easements from owners, as
provided in this chapter and chapter 4.
``(2) Prior enrollments.--Acreage enrolled in the
conservation reserve or wetlands reserve program prior to the
effective date of this paragraph shall be considered to be
placed into the ECARP.
``(c) Conservation Priority Areas.--
``(1) Designation.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall designate watersheds
or regions of special environmental sensitivity, including
the Chesapeake Bay Region (consisting of Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and Virginia), the Great Lakes Region, the
Rainwater Basin Region, the Lake Champlain Basin, the Prairie
Pothole Region, and the Long Island Sound Region, as
conservation priority areas that are eligible for enhanced
assistance through the programs established under this
chapter and chapter 4.
``(B) Application.--A designation shall be made under this
paragraph if agricultural practices on land within the
watershed or region pose a significant threat to soil, water,
and related natural resources, as determined by the
Secretary, and an application is made by--
``(i) a State agency in consultation with the State
technical committee established under section 1261; or
``(ii) State agencies from several States that agree to
form an interstate conservation priority area.
``(C) Assistance.--The Secretary shall designate a
watershed or region of special environmental sensitivity as a
conservation priority area to assist, to the maximum extent
practicable, agricultural producers within the watershed or
region to comply with nonpoint source pollution requirements
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251
et seq.) and other Federal and State environmental laws.
``(2) Applicability.--The Secretary shall designate a
watershed or region of special environmental sensitivity as a
conservation priority area in a manner that conforms, to the
maximum extent practicable, to the functions and purposes of
the conservation reserve, wetlands reserve, and environmental
quality incentives programs, as applicable, if participation
in the program or programs is likely to result in the
resolution or amelioration of significant soil, water, and
related natural resource problems related to agricultural
production activities within the watershed or region.
``(3) Termination.--A conservation priority area
designation shall terminate on the date that is 5 years after
the date of the designation, except that the Secretary may--
``(A) redesignate the area as a conservation priority area;
or
``(B) withdraw the designation of a watershed or region if
the Secretary determines the area is no longer affected by
significant

[[Page H1565]]
soil,water, and related natural resource impacts related to
agricultural production activities.''.

SEC. 312. 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
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.

SEC. 313. WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM.

(a) Purposes.--Section 1237(a) of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(a)) is amended by striking ``to assist
owners of eligible lands in restoring and protecting
wetlands'' and inserting ``to protect wetlands for purposes
of enhancing water quality and providing wildlife benefits
while recognizing landowner rights''.
(b) 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) Minimum Enrollment.--The Secretary shall enroll into
the wetlands reserve program--
``(1) during the 1996 through 2002 calendar years, a total
of not more than 975,000 acres; and
``(2) beginning with offers accepted by the Secretary
during calendar year 1997, to the maximum extent practicable,
\1/3\ of the acres in permanent easements, \1/3\ of the acres
in 30-year easements, and \1/3\ of the acres in restoration
cost-share agreements.''.
(c) Eligibility.--Section 1237(c) of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2002''; and
(2) by inserting ``the land maximizes wildlife benefits and
wetland values and functions and'' after ``determines that''.
(d) Other Eligible Lands.--Section 1237(d) (16 U.S.C.
3837(d)) is amended by inserting after ``subsection (c)'' the
following ``, land that maximizes wildlife benefits and that
is''.
(e) Easements.--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 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, in consultation with the State
technical committee.'';
(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) Cost Share Agreements.--The Secretary may enroll land
into the wetland reserve through agreements that require the
landowner to restore wetlands on the land, if the agreement
does not provide the Secretary with an easement.''.
(f) 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.--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--
``(1) 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;
``(2) in the case of a 30-year easement or a cost-share
agreement, pay the owner an amount that is not less than 50
percent, but not more than 75 percent, of the eligible costs;
and
``(3) provide owners technical assistance to assist
landowners in complying with the terms of easements and
agreements.''.

SEC. 314. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES 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 INCENTIVES PROGRAM

``SEC. 1238. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
``(1) farmers and ranchers cumulatively manage more than
\1/2\ of the private lands in the continental United States;
``(2) because of the predominance of agriculture, the soil,
water, and related natural resources of the United States
cannot be protected without cooperative relationships between
the Federal Government and farmers and ranchers;
``(3) farmers and ranchers have made tremendous progress in
protecting the environment and the agricultural resource base
of the United States over the past decade because of not only
Federal Government programs but also their spirit of
stewardship and the adoption of effective technologies;
``(4) it is in the interest of the entire United States
that farmers and ranchers continue to strive to preserve soil
resources and make more efforts to protect water quality and
wildlife habitat, and address other broad environmental
concerns;
``(5) environmental strategies that stress the prudent
management of resources, as opposed to idling land, will
permit the maximum economic opportunities for farmers and
ranchers in the future;
``(6) unnecessary bureaucratic and paperwork barriers
associated with existing agricultural conservation assistance
programs decrease the potential effectiveness of the
programs; and
``(7) the recent trend of Federal spending on agricultural
conservation programs suggests that assistance to farmers and
ranchers in future years will, absent changes in policy,
dwindle to perilously low levels.

[[Page H1566]]

``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the environmental quality
incentives program established by this chapter are to--
``(1) combine into a single program the functions of--
``(A) the agricultural conservation program authorized by
sections 7 and 8 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590g and 590h) (as in effect before
the amendments made by section 355(a)(1) of the Agricultural
Reform and Improvement Act of 1996);
``(B) the Great Plains conservation program established
under section 16(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590p(b)) (as in effect before the
amendment made by section 355(b)(1) of the Agricultural
Reform and Improvement Act of 1996); and
``(C) the water quality incentives program established
under chapter 2 (as in effect before the amendment made by
section 355(k) of the Agricultural Reform and Improvement Act
of 1996); and
``(D) the Colorado River Basin salinity control program
established under section 202(c) of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)) (as in effect before
the amendment made by section 355(c)(1) of the Agricultural
Reform and Improvement Act of 1996); and
``(2) carry out the single program in a manner that
maximizes environmental benefits per dollar expended, and
that provides--
``(A) flexible technical and financial assistance to
farmers and ranchers that face the most serious threats to
soil, water, and related natural resources, including grazing
lands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat;
``(B) assistance to farmers and ranchers in complying with
this title and Federal and State environmental laws, and to
encourage environmental enhancement;
``(C) assistance to farmers and ranchers in making
beneficial, cost-effective changes to cropping systems,
grazing management, manure, nutrient, pest, or irrigation
management, land uses, or other measures needed to conserve
and improve soil, water, and related natural resources; and
``(D) for the consolidation and simplification of the
conservation planning process to reduce administrative
burdens on the owners and operators of farms and ranches.

``SEC. 1238A. DEFINITIONS.

``In this chapter:
``(1) Land management practice.--The term `land management
practice' means nutrient or manure management, integrated
pest management, irrigation management, tillage or residue
management, grazing management, or another land management
practice the Secretary determines is needed to protect soil,
water, or related resources in the most cost effective
manner.
``(2) Large confined livestock operation.--The term `large
confined livestock operation' means a farm or ranch that--
``(A) is a confined animal feeding operation; and
``(B) has more than--
``(i) 700 mature dairy cattle;
``(ii) 1,000 beef cattle;
``(iii) 100,000 laying hens or broilers;
``(iv) 55,000 turkeys;
``(v) 2,500 swine; or
``(vi) 10,000 sheep or lambs.
``(3) Livestock.--The term `livestock' means mature dairy
cows, beef cattle, laying hens, broilers, turkeys, swine,
sheep, or lambs.
``(4) Operator.--The term `operator' means a person who is
engaged in crop or 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, permanent wildlife habitat, or another
structural practice that the Secretary determines is needed
to protect soil, water, or related resources in the most cost
effective manner.

``SEC. 1238B. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES 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, education to
operators, who enter into contracts with the Secretary,
through an environmental quality incentives program in
accordance with this chapter.
``(2) Eligible practices.--
``(A) Structural practices.--An operator who implements a
structural practice shall be eligible for technical
assistance or cost-sharing payments, education or both.
``(B) Land management practices.--An operator who performs
a land management practice shall be eligible for technical
assistance or incentive payments, education or both.
``(b) Application and Term.--A contract between an operator
and the Secretary under this chapter may--
``(1) apply to 1 or more structural practices or 1 or more
land management practices, or both; and
``(2) 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.
``(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 priorities
established in section 1238C 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 and Incentive Payments.--
``(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 more than 75 percent of the
projected cost of the 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 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.
``(f) Technical Assistance.--
``(1) 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 in 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 in a fiscal year.
``(2) 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.
``(g) Modification or Termination of Contracts.--
``(1) Voluntary modification or termination.--The Secretary
may modify or terminate a contract entered into with an
operator under this chapter if--
``(A) the operator agrees to the modification or
termination; and
``(B) the Secretary determines that the modification or
termination is in the public interest.
``(2) Involuntary termination.--The Secretary may terminate
a contract under this chapter if the Secretary determines
that the operator violated the contract.
``(h) Non-Federal Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may request the services
of a State water quality agency, State fish and wildlife
agency, State forestry agency, or any other governmental or
private resource considered appropriate to assist in
providing the technical assistance necessary for the
development and implementation of a structural practice or
land management practice.
``(2) Limitation on liability.--No person shall be
permitted to bring or pursue any claim or action against any
official or entity based on or resulting from any technical
assistance provided to an operator under this chapter to
assist in complying with a Federal or State environmental
law.

``SEC. 1238C. EVALUATION OF OFFERS AND PAYMENTS.

``(a) Regional Priorities.--The Secretary shall provide
technical assistance, cost-sharing payments, and incentive
payments to operators in a region, watershed, or conservation
priority area under this chapter based on the significance of
the soil, water, and related natural resource problems in the
region, watershed, or area, and the structural practices or
land management practices that best address the problems, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(b) Maximization of Environmental Benefits.--
``(1) In general.--In providing technical assistance, cost-
sharing payments, and incentive payments to operators in
regions, watersheds, or conservation priority areas under
this chapter, the Secretary shall accord a higher priority to
assistance and payments that maximize environmental benefits
per dollar expended.
``(2) National and regional priority.--The prioritization
shall be done nationally as well as within the conservation
priority area, region, or watershed in which an agricultural
operation is located.

[[Page H1567]]

``(3) Criteria.--To carry out this subsection, the
Secretary shall establish criteria for implementing
structural practices and land management practices that best
achieve conservation goals for a region, watershed, or
conservation priority area, as determined by the Secretary.
``(c) State or Local Contributions.--The Secretary shall
accord a higher priority to operators whose agricultural
operations are located within watersheds, regions, or
conservation priority areas in which State or local
governments have provided, or will provide, financial or
technical assistance to the operators for the same
conservation or environmental purposes.
``(d) Priority Lands.--The Secretary shall accord a higher
priority to structural practices or land management practices
on lands on which agricultural production has been determined
to contribute to, or create, the potential for failure to
meet applicable water quality standards or other
environmental objectives of a Federal or State law.

``SEC. 1238D. DUTIES OF OPERATORS.

``To receive technical assistance, cost-sharing payments,
or incentives payments under this chapter, an operator shall
agree--
``(1) to implement an environmental quality incentives
program plan that describes conservation and environmental
goals to be achieved through a structural practice or land
management practice, or both, that is approved by the
Secretary;
``(2) not to conduct any practices on the farm or ranch
that would tend to defeat the purposes of this chapter;
``(3) on the violation of a term or condition of the
contract at any time the operator has control of the land, to
refund any cost-sharing or incentive payment received with
interest, and forfeit any future payments under this chapter,
as determined by the Secretary;
``(4) on the transfer of the right and interest of the
operator in land subject to the contract, unless the
transferee of the right and interest agrees with the
Secretary to assume all obligations of the contract, to
refund all cost-sharing payments and incentive payments
received under this chapter, as determined by the Secretary;
``(5) to supply information as required by the Secretary to
determine compliance with the environmental quality
incentives program plan and requirements of the program; and
``(6) to comply with such additional provisions as the
Secretary determines are necessary to carry out the
environmental quality incentives program plan.

``SEC. 1238E. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM PLAN.

``An environmental quality incentives program plan shall
include (as determined by the Secretary)--
``(1) a description of the prevailing farm or ranch
enterprises, cropping patterns, grazing management, cultural
practices, or other information that may be relevant to
conserving and enhancing soil, water, and related natural
resources;
``(2) a description of relevant farm or ranch resources,
including soil characteristics, rangeland types and
condition, proximity to water bodies, wildlife habitat, or
other relevant characteristics of the farm or ranch related
to the conservation and environmental objectives set forth in
the plan;
``(3) a description of specific conservation and
environmental objectives to be achieved;
``(4) to the extent practicable, specific, quantitative
goals for achieving the conservation and environmental
objectives;
``(5) a description of 1 or more structural practices or 1
or more land management practices, or both, to be implemented
to achieve the conservation and environmental objectives;
``(6) a description of the timing and sequence for
implementing the structural practices or land management
practices, or both, that will assist the operator in
complying with Federal and State environmental laws; and
``(7) information that will enable evaluation of the
effectiveness of the plan in achieving the conservation and
environmental objectives, and that will enable evaluation of
the degree to which the plan has been implemented.
``(8) Not withstanding any provision of law, the Secretary
shall ensure that the process of writing, developing, and
assisting in the implementation of plans required in the
programs established under this title be open to individuals
in agribusiness including but not limited to agricultural
producers, representatives from agricultural cooperatives,
agricultural input retail dealers, and certified crop
advisers. This process shall be included in but not limited
to programs and plans established under this title and any
other Department program using incentive, technical
assistance, cost-share or pilot project programs that require
plans.

``SEC. 1238F. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

``To the extent appropriate, the Secretary shall assist an
operator in achieving the conservation and environmental
goals of an environmental quality incentives program plan
by--
``(1) providing an eligibility assessment of the farming or
ranching operation of the operator as a basis for developing
the plan;
``(2) providing technical assistance in developing and
implementing the plan;
``(3) providing technical assistance, cost-sharing
payments, or incentive payments for developing and
implementing 1 or more structural practices or 1 or more land
management practices, as appropriate;
``(4) providing the operator with information, education,
and training to aid in implementation of the plan; and
``(5) encouraging the operator to obtain technical
assistance, cost-sharing payments, or grants from other
Federal, State, local, or private sources.

``SEC. 1238G. ELIGIBLE LANDS.

``Agricultural land on which a structural practice or land
management practice, or both, shall be eligible for technical
assistance, cost-sharing payments, or incentive payments
under this chapter include--
``(1) agricultural land (including cropland, rangeland,
pasture, and other land on which crops or livestock are
produced) that the Secretary determines poses a serious
threat to soil, water, or related resources by reason of the
soil types, terrain, climatic, soil, topographic, flood, or
saline characteristics, or other factors or natural hazards;
``(2) an area that is considered to be critical
agricultural land on which either crop or livestock
production is carried out, as identified in a plan submitted
by the State under section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1329) as having priority problems that
result from an agricultural nonpoint source of pollution;
``(3) an area recommended by a State lead agency for
protection of soil, water, and related resources, as
designated by a Governor of a State; and
``(4) land that is not located within a designated or
approved area, but that if permitted to continue to be
operated under existing management practices, would defeat
the purpose of the environmental quality incentives program,
as determined by the Secretary.

``SEC. 1238H. LIMITATIONS ON PAYMENTS.

``(a) Payments.--The total amount of cost-sharing and
incentive payments paid to a person under this chapter may
not exceed--
``(1) $10,000 for any fiscal year; or
``(2) $50,000 for any multiyear contract.
``(b) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations
that are consistent with section 1001 for the purpose of--
``(1) defining the term `person' as used in subsection (a);
and
``(2) prescribing such rules as the Secretary determines
necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable application of the
limitations contained in subsection (a).''.
Subtitle B--Conservation Funding

SEC. 321. CONSERVATION FUNDING.

(a) In General.--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 Incentives Program.--
``(1) In general.--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
under the environmental quality incentives program under
chapter 4 of subtitle D.
``(2) Livestock production.--For each of fiscal years 1996
through 2002, 50 percent of the funding available for
technical assistance, cost-sharing payments, and incentive
payments under the environmental quality incentives program
shall be targeted at practices relating to livestock
production.
``(c) Advance Appropriations to CCC.--The Secretary may use
the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out
chapter 3 of subtitle D, except that the Secretary may not
use the funds of the Corporation unless the Corporation has
received funds to cover the expenditures from appropriations
made available to carry out chapter 3 of subtitle D.

``SEC. 1242. ADMINISTRATION.

``(a) Plans.--The Secretary shall, to the extent
practicable, avoid duplication in--
``(1) the conservation plans required for--
``(A) highly erodible land conservation under subtitle B;
``(B) the conservation reserve program established under
subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D; and
``(C) the wetlands reserve program established under
subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D; and
``(2) the environmental quality incentives program
established under chapter 4 of subtitle D.
``(b) Acreage Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not enroll more than
25 percent of the cropland in any county in the programs
administered under the conservation reserve and wetlands
reserve programs established under subchapters B and C,
respectively, of chapter 1 of subtitle D. Not more than 10
percent of the cropland in a county may be subject to an
easement acquired under the subchapters.

[[Page H1568]]

``(2) Exception.--The Secretary may exceed the limitations
in paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that--
``(A) the action would not adversely affect the local
economy of a county; and
``(B) operators in the county are having difficulties
complying with conservation plans implemented under section
1212.
``(3) Shelterbelts and windbreaks.--The limitations
established under this subsection shall not apply to cropland
that is subject to an easement under chapter 1 or 3 of
subtitle D that is used for the establishment of shelterbelts
and windbreaks.
``(c) Tenant Protection.--Except for a person who is a
tenant on land that is subject to a conservation reserve
contract that has been extended by the Secretary, the
Secretary shall provide adequate safeguards to protect the
interests of tenants and sharecroppers, including provision
for sharing, on a fair and equitable basis, in payments under
the programs established under subtitles B through D.
``(d) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the
effective date of this subsection, the Secretary shall issue
regulations to implement the conservation reserve and
wetlands reserve programs established under chapter 1 of
subtitle D.''.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous

SEC. 351. FORESTRY.

(a) Forestry Incentives Program.--Section 4 of the
Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103)
is amended by striking subsection (k).
(b) Office of International Forestry.--Section 2405 of the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7
U.S.C. 6704) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized each fiscal year such sums as are necessary to
carry out this section.''.

SEC. 352. STATE TECHNICAL COMMITTEES.

Section 1261(c) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3861(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(9) agricultural producers;
``(10) other nonprofit organizations with demonstrable
expertise;
``(11) persons knowledgeable about the economic and
environmental impact of conservation techniques and programs;
and
``(12) agribusiness.

SEC. 353. CONSERVATION OF PRIVATE GRAZING LAND.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) privately owned grazing land constitutes nearly \1/2\
of the non-Federal land of the United States and is basic to
the environmental, social, and economic stability of rural
communities;
(2) privately owned grazing land contains a complex set of
interactions among soil, water, air, plants, and animals;
(3) grazing land constitutes the single largest watershed
cover type in the United States and contributes significantly
to the quality and quantity of water available for all of the
many uses of the land;
(4) private grazing land constitutes the most extensive
wildlife habitat in the United States;
(5) private grazing land can provide opportunities for
improved nutrient management from land application of animal
manures and other by-product nutrient resources;
(6) owners and managers of private grazing land need to
continue to recognize conservation problems when the problems
arise and receive sound technical assistance to improve or
conserve grazing land resources to meet ecological and
economic demands;
(7) new science and technology must continually be made
available in a practical manner so owners and managers of
private grazing land may make informed decisions concerning
vital grazing land resources;
(8) agencies of the Department of Agriculture with private
grazing land responsibilities are the agencies that have the
expertise and experience to provide technical assistance,
education, and research to owners and managers of private
grazing land for the long-term productivity and ecological
health of grazing land;
(9) although competing demands on private grazing land
resources are greater than ever before, assistance to private
owners and managers of private grazing land is currently
limited and does not meet the demand and basic need for
adequately sustaining or enhancing the private grazing lands
resources; and
(10) privately owned grazing land can be enhanced to
provide many benefits to all Americans through voluntary
cooperation among owners and managers of the land, local
conservation districts, and the agencies of the Department of
Agriculture responsible for providing assistance to owners
and managers of land and to conservation districts.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this section to
authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to provide a
coordinated technical, educational, and related assistance
program to conserve and enhance private grazing land
resources and provide related benefits to all citizens of the
United States by--
(1) establishing a coordinated and cooperative Federal,
State, and local grazing conservation program for management
of private grazing land;
(2) strengthening technical, educational, and related
assistance programs that provide assistance to owners and
managers of private grazing land;
(3) conserving and improving wildlife habitat on private
grazing land;
(4) conserving and improving fish habitat and aquatic
systems through grazing land conservation treatment;
(5) protecting and improving water quality;
(6) improving the dependability and consistency of water
supplies;
(7) identifying and managing weed, noxious weed, and brush
encroachment problems on private grazing land; and
(8) integrating conservation planning and management
decisions by owners and managers of private grazing land, on
a voluntary basis.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Private grazing land.--The term ``private grazing
land'' means privately owned, State-owned, tribally-owned,
and any other non-federally owned rangeland, pastureland,
grazed forest land, and hay land.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
(d) Private Grazing Land Conservation Assistance.--
(1) Assistance to grazing landowners and others.--Subject
to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary shall
establish a voluntary program to provide technical,
educational, and related assistance to owners and managers of
private grazing land and public agencies, through local
conservation districts, to enable the landowners, managers,
and public agencies to voluntarily carry out activities that
are consistent with this section, including--
(A) maintaining and improving private grazing land and the
multiple values and uses that depend on private grazing land;
(B) implementing grazing land management technologies;
(C) managing resources on private grazing land, including--
(i) planning, managing, and treating private grazing land
resources;
(ii) ensuring the long-term sustainability of private
grazing land resources;
(iii) harvesting, processing, and marketing private grazing
land resources; and
(iv) identifying and managing weed, noxious weed, and brush
encroachment problems;
(D) protecting and improving the quality and quantity of
water yields from private grazing land;
(E) maintaining and improving wildlife and fish habitat on
private grazing land;
(F) enhancing recreational opportunities on private grazing
land;
(G) maintaining and improving the aesthetic character of
private grazing lands; and
(H) identifying the opportunities and encouraging the
diversification of private grazing land enterprises.
(2) Program elements.--
(A) Funding.--The program under paragraph (1) shall be
funded through a specific line-item in the annual
appropriations for the Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
(B) Technical assistance and education.--Personnel of the
Department of Agriculture trained in pasture and range
management shall be made available under the program to
deliver and coordinate technical assistance and education to
owners and managers of private grazing land, at the request
of the owners and managers.
(e) Grazing Technical Assistance Self-Help.--
(1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(A) there is a severe lack of technical assistance for
grazing producers;
(B) the Federal budget precludes any significant expansion,
and may force a reduction of, current levels of technical
support; and
(C) farmers and ranchers have a history of cooperatively
working together to address common needs in the promotion of
their products and in the drainage of wet areas through
drainage districts.
(2) Establishment of grazing demonstration.--The Secretary
may establish 2 grazing management demonstration districts at
the recommendation of the Grazing Lands Conservation
Initiative Steering Committee.
(3) Procedure.--
(A) Proposal.--Within a reasonable time after the
submission of a request of an organization of farmers or
ranchers engaged in grazing, the Secretary shall propose that
a grazing management district be established.
(B) Funding.--The terms and conditions of the funding and
operation of the grazing management district shall be
proposed by the producers.
(C) Approval.--The Secretary shall approve the proposal if
the Secretary determines that the proposal--
(i) is reasonable;
(ii) will promote sound grazing practices; and
(iii) contains provisions similar to the provisions
contained in the promotion orders in effect on the effective
date of this section.
(D) Area included.--The area proposed to be included in a
grazing management district shall be determined by the
Secretary on the basis of a petition by farmers or ranchers.
(E) Authorization.--The Secretary may use authority under
the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, to operate, on a demonstration basis,
a grazing management district.

[[Page H1569]]

(F) Activities.--The activities of a grazing management
district shall be scientifically sound activities, as
determined by the Secretary in consultation with a technical
advisory committee composed of ranchers, farmers, and
technical experts.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section--
(1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
(2) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 1997; and
(3) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and each subsequent
fiscal year.

SEC. 354. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Agricultural Conservation Program.--
(1) Elimination.--
(A) Section 8 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h) is amended--
(i) in subsection (b)--

(I) by striking paragraphs (1) through (4) and inserting
the following:

``(1) Environmental quality incentives program.--The
Secretary shall provide technical assistance, cost share
payments, and incentive payments to operators through the
environmental quality incentives program in accordance with
chapter 2 of subtitle D of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3838 et seq.).''; and

(II) by striking paragraphs (6) through (8); and

(ii) by striking subsections (d), (e), and (f).
(B) The first sentence of section 11 of the Soil
Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590k) is
amended by striking ``performance: Provided further,'' and
all that follows through ``or other law'' and inserting
``performance''.
(C) Section 14 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 590n) is amended--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``or 8''; and
(ii) by striking the second sentence.
(D) Section 15 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 590o) is amended--
(i) in the first undesignated paragraph--

(I) in the first sentence, by striking ``sections 7 and 8''
and inserting ``section 7''; and
(II) by striking the third sentence; and

(ii) by striking the second undesignated paragraph.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Paragraph (1) of the last proviso of the matter under
the heading ``conservation reserve program'' under the
heading ``Soil Bank Programs'' of title I of the Department
of Agriculture and Farm Credit Administration Appropriation
Act, 1959 (72 Stat. 195; 7 U.S.C. 1831a) is amended by
striking ``Agricultural Conservation Program'' and inserting
``environmental quality incentives program established under
chapter 2 of subtitle D of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3838 et seq.)''.
(B) Section 4 of the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of
1978 (16 U.S.C. 2103) is amended by striking ``as added by
the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973'' each
place it appears in subsections (d) and (i) and inserting
``as in effect before the amendment made by section 355(a)(1)
of the Agricultural Reform and Improvement Act of 1996''.
(C) Section 226(b)(4) of the Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6932(b)(4)) is amended
by striking ``and the agricultural conservation program under
the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C.
590g et seq.)''.
(D) Section 246(b)(8) of the Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962(b)(8)) is amended
by striking ``and the agricultural conservation program under
the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C.
590g et seq.)''.
(E) Section 1271(c)(3)(C) of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C.
2106a(c)(3)(C)) is amended by striking ``Agricultural
Conservation Program established under section 16(b) of the
Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590h,
590l, or 590p)'' and inserting ``environmental quality
incentives program established under chapter 2 of subtitle D
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.)''.
(F) Section 126(a)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended to read as follows:
``(5) The environmental quality incentives program
established under chapter 2 of subtitle D of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.).''.
(G) Section 304(a) of the Lake Champlain Special
Designation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-596; 33 U.S.C. 1270
note) is amended--
(i) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Special
Project Area Under the Agricultural Conservation Program''
and inserting ``A Priority Area Under the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program''; and
(ii) in paragraph (1), by striking ``special project area
under the Agricultural Conservation Program established under
section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b))'' and inserting ``priority area under
the environmental quality incentives program established
under chapter 2 of subtitle D of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.)''.
(H) Section 6 of the Department of Agriculture Organic Act
of 1956 (70 Stat. 1033) is amended by striking subsection
(b).
(b) Great Plains Conservation Program.--
(1) Elimination.--Section 16 of the Soil Conservation and
Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 590p) is repealed.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 is amended by
striking ``Great Plains program'' each place it appears in
sections 344(f)(8) and 377 (7 U.S.C. 1344(f)(8) and 1377) and
inserting ``environmental quality incentives program
established under chapter 2 of subtitle D of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.)''.
(B) Section 246(b) of the Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962(b)) is amended by
striking paragraph (2).
(C) Section 126(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended--
(i) by striking paragraph (6); and
(ii) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (10) as
paragraphs (6) through (9), respectively.
(c) Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.--
Section 202(c) of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Act (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)) is amended by striking paragraph (1)
and inserting the following:
``(1) The Secretary of Agriculture shall implement salinity
control measures, including watershed enhancement and cost-
sharing efforts with livestock and crop producers, as part of
the Agricultural Conservation Assistance Program established
under section 312 of the Conservation Consolidation and
Regulatory Reform Act of 1996.''.
(d) Rural Environmental Conservation Program.--
(1) Elimination.--Title X of the Agricultural Act of 1970
(16 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) is repealed.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 246(b) of the
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. 6962(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking paragraph (1); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (8) as
paragraphs (1) through (7), respectively.
(e) Other Conservation Provisions.--Subtitle F of title XII
of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 2005a and 2101
note) is repealed.
(f) Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act.--Section 5(g)
of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C.
714c(g)) is amended to read as follows:
``(g) Carry out conservation functions and programs.''.
(g) Resource Conservation.--
(1) Elimination.--Subtitles A, B, D, E, F, G, and J of
title XV of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (95 Stat.
1328; 16 U.S.C. 3401 et seq.) are repealed.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 739 of the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1982 (7 U.S.C. 2272a), is
repealed.
(h) Environmental Easement Program.--Section 1239(a) of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839(a)) is amended by
striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting ``1996 through
2002''.
(i) Resource Conservation and Development Program.--Section
1538 of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3461)
is amended by striking ``1991 through 1995'' and inserting
``1996 through 2002''.
(j) Technical Amendment.--The first sentence of the matter
under the heading ``Commodity Credit Corporation'' of Public
Law 99-263 (100 Stat. 59; 16 U.S.C. 3841 note) is amended by
striking ``: Provided further,'' and all that follows through
``Acts''.
(k) Agricultural Water Quality Incentives Program.--Chapter
2 of subtitle D of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985
(16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.) is repealed.

SEC. 355. WATER BANK PROGRAM.

Section 1230 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3830) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Water Bank Program.--For purposes of this Act,
acreage enrolled, prior to the date of enactment of this
subsection, in the water bank program authorized by the Water
Bank Act (16 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) shall be considered to have
been enrolled in the conservation reserve program on the date
the acreage was enrolled in the water bank program. Payments
shall continue at the existing water bank rates.''.

SEC. 356. FLOOD WATER RETENTION PILOT PROJECTS.

Section 16 of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act (16 U.S.C. 590p) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(l) Flood Water Retention Pilot Projects.--
``(1) In general.--In cooperation with States, the
Secretary shall carry out at least 1 but not more than 2
pilot projects to create and restore natural water retention
areas to control storm water and snow melt runoff within
closed drainage systems.
``(2) Practices.--To carry out paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall provide cost-sharing and technical assistance for the
establishment of nonstructural landscape management
practices, including agricultural tillage practices and
restoration, enhancement, and creation of wetland
characteristics.
``(3) Funding.--
``(A) Limitation.--The funding used by the Secretary to
carry out this subsection shall not exceed $10,000,000 per
project.
``(B) Use of commodity credit corporation.--The Secretary
shall use the funds, facilities, and authorities of the
Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out this subsection.
``(4) Additional pilot projects.--

[[Page H1570]]

``(A) Evaluation.--Not later than 2 years after a pilot
project is implemented, the Secretary shall evaluate the
extent to which the project has reduced or may reduce Federal
outlays for emergency spending and unplanned infrastructure
maintenance by an amount that exceeds the Federal cost of the
project.
``(B) Additional projects.--If the Secretary determines
that pilot projects carried out under this subsection have
reduced or may reduce Federal outlays as described in
subparagraph (A), the Secretary may carry out, in accordance
with this subsection, pilot projects in addition to the
projects authorized under paragraph (1).''.

SEC. 357. WETLAND CONSERVATION EXEMPTION.

Section 1222(b)(1) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3822(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) converted wetland, if--
``(i) the extent of the conversion is limited to the
reversion to conditions that will be at least equivalent to
the wetland functions and values that existed prior to
implementation of a voluntary wetland restoration,
enhancement, or creation action;
``(ii) technical determinations of the prior site
conditions and the restoration, enhancement, or creation
action have been adequately documented in a plan approved by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service prior to
implementation; and
``(iii) the conversion action proposed by the private
landowner is approved by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service prior to implementation; or''.

SEC. 358. RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
REAUTHORIZATION.

Section 1538 of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16
U.S.C. 3461) is amended by striking ``1991 through 1995'' and
inserting ``1996 through 2001''.

SEC. 359. CONSERVATION RESERVE NEW ACREAGE.

Section 1231(a) of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.
3831(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
Secretary may enter into 1 or more new contracts to enroll
acreage in a quantity equal to the quantity of acreage
covered by any contract that terminates after the date of
enactment of the Agricultural Market Transition Act.''.

SEC. 360. REPEAL OF REPORT REQUIREMENT.

Section 1342 of title 44, United States Code, is repealed.

SEC. 361. WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOOD PREVENTION ACT
AMENDMENTS.

(a) Declaration of Policy.--The first section of the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C.
1001) is amended to read as follows:

``SECTION 1. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

``Erosion, flooding, sedimentation, and loss of natural
habitats in the watersheds and waterways of the United States
cause loss of life, damage to property, and a reduction in
the quality of environment and life of citizens. It is
therefore the sense of Congress that the Federal Government
should join with States and their political subdivisions,
public agencies, conservation districts, flood prevention or
control districts, local citizens organizations, and Indian
tribes for the purpose of conserving, protecting, restoring,
and improving the land and water resources of the United
States and the quality of the environment and life for
watershed residents across the United States.''.
(b) Definitions.--
(1) Works of improvement.--Section 2 of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1002) is amended, with respect to the term ``works of
improvement''--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, nonstructural,''
after ``structural'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (11);
(D) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraphs:
``(3) a land treatment or other nonstructural practice,
including the acquisition of easements or real property
rights, to meet multiple watershed needs,
``(4) the restoration and monitoring of the chemical,
biological, and physical structure, diversity, and functions
of waterways and their associated ecological systems,
``(5) the restoration or establishment of wetland and
riparian environments as part of a multi-objective management
system that provides floodwater or storm water storage,
detention, and attenuation, nutrient filtering, fish and
wildlife habitat, and enhanced biological diversity,
``(6) the restoration of steam channel forms, functions,
and diversity using the principles of biotechnical slope
stabilization to reestablish a meandering, bankfull flow
channels, riparian vegetation, and floodplains,
``(7) the establishment and acquisition of multi-objective
riparian and adjacent flood prone lands, including greenways,
for sediment storage and floodwater storage,
``(8) the protection, restoration, enhancement and
monitoring of surface and groundwater quality, including
measures to improve the quality of water emanating from
agricultural lands and facilities,
``(9) the provision of water supply and municipal and
industrial water supply for rural communities having a
population of less than 55,000, according to the most recent
decennial census of the United States,
``(10) outreach to and organization of local citizen
organizations to participate in project design and
implementation, and the training of project volunteers and
participants in restoration and monitoring techniques, or'';
and
(E) in paragraph (11) (as so redesignated)--
(i) by inserting in the first sentence after ``proper
utilization of land'' the following: ``, water, and related
resources''; and
(ii) by striking the sentence that mandates that 20 percent
of total project benefits be directly related to agriculture.
(2) Local organization.--Such section is further amended,
with respect to the term ``local organization'', by adding at
the end the following new sentence: ``The term includes any
nonprofit organization (defined as having tax exempt status
under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)
that has authority to carry out and maintain works of
improvement or is developing and implementing a work of
improvement in partnership with another local organization
that has such authority.''.
(3) Waterway.--Such section is further amended by adding at
the end the following new definition:
``Waterway.--The term `waterway' means, on public or
private land, any natural, degraded, seasonal, or created
wetland on public or private land, including rivers, streams,
riparian areas, marshes, ponds, bogs, mudflats, lakes, and
estuaries. The term includes any natural or manmade
watercourse which is culverted, channelized, or vegetatively
cleared, including canals, irrigation ditches, drainage
wages, and navigation, industrial, flood control and water
supply channels.''.
(c) Assistance to Local Organizations.--Section 3 of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1003) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``(1)'' the
following ``to provide technical assistance to help local
organizations'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting after ``(2)'' the following: ``to provide
technical assistance to help local organizations''; and
(B) by striking ``engineering'' and inserting ``technical
and scientific''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(3) to make allocations of costs to the project or
project components to determine whether the total of all
environmental, social, and monetary benefits exceed costs;''.
(d) Cost Share Assistance.--
(1) Amount of assistance.--Section 3A of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1003a) is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting
the following:
``(b) Nonstructural Practices.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, Federal cost share assistance to local
organizations for the planning and implementation of
nonstructural works of improvement may be provided using
funds appropriated for the purposes of this Act for an amount
not exceeding 75 percent of the total installation costs.
``(c) Structural Practices.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, Federal cost share assistance to local
organizations for the planning and implementation of
structural works of improvement may be provided using funds
appropriated for the purposes of this Act for 50 percent of
the total cost, including the cost of mitigating damage to
fish and wildlife habitat and the value of any land or
interests in land acquired for the work of improvement.
``(d) Special Rule for Limited Resource Communities.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Secretary may provide cost share assistance to a limited
resource community for any works of improvement, using funds
appropriated for the purposes of this Act, for an amount not
to exceed 90 percent of the total cost.
``(e) Treatment of Other Federal Funds.--Not more than 50
percent of the non-Federal cost share may be satisfied using
funds from other Federal agencies.''.
(2) Conditions on assistance.--Section 4(1) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1004(1)) is amended by striking ``, without cost to
the Federal Government from funds appropriated for the
purposes of this Act,''.
(e) Benefit Cost Analysis.--Section 5(1) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1005(1)) is amended by striking ``the benefits'' and
inserting ``the total benefits, including environmental,
social, and monetary benefits,''.
(f) Project Prioritization.--The Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act is amended by inserting after section 5
(16 U.S.C. 1005) the following new section:

``SEC. 5A. FUNDING PRIORITIES.

``In making funding decisions under this Act, the Secretary
shall give priority to projects with one or more of the
following attributes:
``(1) Projects providing significant improvements in
ecological values and functions in the project area.
``(2) Projects that enhance the long-term health of local
economies or generate job or job training opportunities for
local residents, including Youth Conservation and Service
Corps participants and displaced resource harvesters.
``(3) Projects that provide protection to human health,
safety, and property.
``(4) Projects that directly benefit economically
disadvantaged communities and enhance participation by local
residents of such communities.
``(5) Projects that restore or enhance fish and wildlife
species of commercial, recreational, subsistence or
scientific concern.
``(6) Projects or components of projects that can be
planned, designed, and implemented within two years.''.

[[Page H1571]]

(g) Transfer of Funds.--The Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1001-1010) is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:

``SEC. 14. TRANSFERS OF FUNDS.

``The Secretary may accept transfers of funds from other
Federal departments and agencies in order to carry out
projects under this Act.''.
TITLE IV--NUTRITION ASSISTANCE

SEC. 401. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM.

(a) Disqualification of a Store or Concern.--Section 12 of
the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2021) is amended--
(1) by striking the section heading;
(2) by striking ``Sec. 12. (a) Any'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 12. CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES AND DISQUALIFICATION OF
RETAIL FOOD STORES AND WHOLESALE FOOD CONCERNS.

``(a) Disqualification.--
``(1) In general.--An'';
(3) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:
``(2) Employing certain persons.--A retail food store or
wholesale food concern shall be disqualified from
participation in the food stamp program if the store or
concern knowingly employs a person who has been found by the
Secretary, or a Federal, State, or local court, to have,
within the preceding 3-year period--
``(A) engaged in the trading of a firearm, ammunition, an
explosive, or a controlled substance (as defined in section
102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) for a
coupon; or
``(B) committed any act that constitutes a violation of
this Act or a State law relating to using, presenting,
transferring, acquiring, receiving, or possessing a coupon,
authorization card, or access device.''; and
(4) in subsection (b)(3)(B), by striking ``neither the
ownership nor management of the store or food concern was
aware'' and inserting ``the ownership of the store or food
concern was not aware''.
(b) Employment and Training.--Section 16(h)(1) of the Food
Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(1)) is amended by
striking ``1995'' each place it appears and inserting
``2002''.
(c) Authorization of Pilot Projects.--The last sentence of
section 17(b)(1)(A) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2026(b)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``1995'' and inserting
``2002''.
(d) Outreach Demonstration Projects.--The first sentence of
section 17(j)(1)(A) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2026(j)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``1995'' and inserting
``2002''.
(e) Authorization for Appropriations.--The first sentence
of section 18(a)(1) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2027(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``1995'' and inserting
``2002''.
(f) Reauthorization of Puerto Rico Nutrition Assistance
Program.--The first sentence of section 19(a)(1)(A) of the
Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2028(a)(1)(A)) is amended by
striking ``$974,000,000'' and all that follows through
``fiscal year 1995'' and inserting ``$1,143,000,000 for
fiscal year 1996, $1,174,000,000 for fiscal year 1997,
$1,204,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $1,236,000,000 for
fiscal year 1999, $1,268,000,000 for fiscal year 2000,
$1,301,000,000 for fiscal year 2001, and $1,335,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002''.
(g) American Samoa.--The Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2011 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 24. TERRITORY OF AMERICAN SAMOA.

``From amounts made available to carry out this Act, the
Secretary may pay to the Territory of American Samoa not more
than $5,300,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2002 to
finance 100 percent of the expenditures for the fiscal year
for a nutrition assistance program extended under section
601(c) of Public Law 96-597 (48 U.S.C. 1469d(c)).''.

SEC. 402. COMMODITY DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM; COMMODITY
SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM.

(a) Reauthorization.--The first sentence of section 4(a) of
the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (Public
Law 93-86; 7 U.S.C. 612c note) is amended by striking
``1995'' and inserting ``2002''.
(b) Funding.--Section 5 of the Agriculture and Consumer
Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-86; 7 U.S.C. 612c note)
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``1995'' and
inserting ``2002''; and
(2) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``1995'' and
inserting ``2002''.
(c) Carried-Over Funds.--20 percent of any commodity
supplemental food program funds carried over under section 5
of the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973
(Public Law 93-86; 7 U.S.C. 612c note) shall be available for
administrative expenses of the program.

SEC. 403. EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

(a) Reauthorization.--The first sentence of section
204(a)(1) of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983
(Public Law 98-8; 7 U.S.C. 612c note) is amended by striking
``1995'' and inserting ``2002''.
(b) Program Termination.--Section 212 of the Emergency Food
Assistance Act of 1983 (Public Law 98-8; 7 U.S.C. 612c note)
is amended by striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''.
(c) Required Purchases of Commodities.--Section 214 of the
Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (Public Law 98-8; 7
U.S.C. 612c note) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``1995'' and inserting ``2002''; and
(2) in subsection (e), by striking ``1995'' each place it
appears and inserting ``2002''.

SEC. 404. SOUP KITCHENS PROGRAM.

Section 110 of the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 (Public
Law 100-435; 7 U.S.C. 612c note) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``1995'' and inserting ``2002''; and
(2) in subsection (c)(2)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``1995'' and
inserting ``2002''; and
(B) by striking ``1995'' each place it appears and
inserting ``2002''.

SEC. 405. NATIONAL COMMODITY PROCESSING.

The first sentence of section 1114(a)(2)(A) of the
Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 1431e(2)(A)) is
amended by striking ``1995'' and inserting ``2002''.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 501. INVESTMENT FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AMERICA.

Section 5 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act
(15 U.S.C. 714c) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following:
``(g) Make available $2,000,000,000 for the following
purposes:
``(1) Conducting rural development activities pursuant to
existing rural development authorities.
``(2) Conducting research, education, and extension
activities pursuant to existing research, education, and
extension authorities.''.

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

[[Page H1572]]
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. EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA.

(a) In General.--On July 1, 1996, out of any funds in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall provide $200,000,000 to the Secretary of the
Interior to carry out this section.
(b) Entitlement.--The Secretary of the Interior--
(1) shall accept the funds made available under subsection
(a);
(2) shall be entitled to receive the funds; and
(3) shall use the funds to conduct restoration activities
in the Everglades ecosystem, which may include acquiring
private acreage in the Everglades Agricultural Area including
approximately 52,000 acres that is commonly known as the
``Talisman tract''.
(c) Transferring Funds.--The Secretary of the Interior may
transfer funds to the Army Corps of Engineers, the State of
Florida, or the South Florida Water Management District to
carry out subsection (b)(3).
(d) Deadline.--Not later than December 31, 1999, the
Secretary of the Interior shall utilize the funds for
restoration activities referred to in subsection (b)(3).

Mr. STENHOLM (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
Mr. ROBERTS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I would like
to inquire of the Chair, in terms of the requirement of reading what is
contained in the motion to recommit, it is my understanding there are
229 pages of the proposal. We have not seen these 229 pages. Could the
Chair inform me if, in fact, there are 229 pages and was the Clerk
going to read all 229?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Unless the reading is dispensed with, the
Clerk will read the full 229 pages.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I
would like to inform the Members of the House that I am certainly not
going to have the Clerk read the 229 pages. But we do not know what is
in the motion to recommit. We have a summary here that has been handed
to me about 30 seconds ago and, under my reservation, perhaps if the
gentleman from Texas could answer several questions, we could expedite
the process.
Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to briefly explain the
amendment in careful, concise language so that everyone can understand
it.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, since we will be
allotted the appropriate time to do that, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the
motion to recommit in regards to the addition of a nutrition program
which is not permitted in the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, title I includes the provisions from the
Senate-passed farm bill: Restores the rice payment, eliminates the
peanut loan rate penalty, provides oilseed market loans at 85 percent,
retains current dairy law but prohibits the collection of assessments
in calendar year 1996. A refund is provided for those already
collected. Requires contract acres to be devoted to agricultural uses,
allows operators to sign for contracts, CRP equipment, at the same time
but only if already eligible for CRP.
Summary of the trade title: It includes the Roth amendment as
approved by the House. It reauthorizes market promotion export
enhancement, exports credit guarantees, food for progress, farmer to
farmer and food aid programs, provides greater flexibility in the
administration of export programs. Promotes export of dairy products to
the maximum extent possible consistent with WTO commitments, increases
the amount and variety of food that may be drawn each year from
emergency reserves.
In the conservation title: It includes the CRP Program as authorized
under the House-passed version today, exactly the CRP as was approved
by the full House. It also includes a wetlands reserve program, an
environmental quality incentive program better known as EQIP.
It also provides under subtitle B, Conservation Funding: CCC funding
is authorized for CRP, WRP, and EQIP. In EQIP, 50 percent of the
funding is targeted to livestock producers.
Under miscellaneous, we include the Senate miscellaneous provisions
on forestry, State technical committees, conservation, and private
grazing lands.
A summary of the nutrition title; this is very important to a large
number of Members: It reauthorizes for 7 years the Food Stamp Program
and the commodity distribution programs, including the Emergency Food
Assistance Program, better known as TEFAP.
It also ensures funding for 7 years for the modified Food Stamp
Program and in American Samoa that benefits the elderly, blind, and
disabled.
Under miscellaneous, it includes the Fund for Rural America, what we
just debated but was defeated. We also include the Everglades
amendment, exactly providing the $200 million to the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct restoration activities in the Florida Everglades
for the purpose of private acreage within the Everglades agricultural
area.
It is the language that was included in the Senate bill and also what
we just approved earlier in the amending process.
There is also a technical amendment dealing with AQI.
I urge support of the motion to recommit. I might also say, if I have
additional time, it is supported by numerous organizations from the
producing side of the communities, the environmental community, and the
food and nutrition community. It also answers many of the questions
that the secretary has had about the legislation before us.
We believe that it will expedite, and this is the final point I would
make of our recommittal, if there is one thing that I would hang my hat
on, I believe that this recommittal would in fact expedite the
consideration so that our farmers who have been waiting for months for
a farm bill will be able to get it out of Congress to the President in
a form he will sign and do it expeditiously. That is something that
everyone wants.

point of order

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]
insist on his point of order?
Mr. ROBERTS. I do, Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
It is my understanding there is a nutrition program extension; that
is, the Food Stamp Program included. This is not included in H.R. 2854.
It is an entitlement program that amounts to about 50 percent of the ag
appropriations each year. This is a 7-year extension, not germane to
the rest of the bill. I insist on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]
wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. STENHOLM. I do, Mr. Speaker.
If the gentleman from Kansas insists that the nutrition programs
dealing with the feeding of the people with the food that is produced
by our farmers should be stricken from this farm bill, I will extract
that from our recommittal so that no longer is an issue because I
understand the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point
of order.
The amendment proposed in the motion to recommit, among other things,
amends the Food Stamp Act. The bill as amended does not amend that act,
nor does it otherwise address nutrition assistance programs.

{time} 1400

The bill, as perfected, addresses production and distribution of
agricultural products and not the food programs.
Therefore, the point of order is sustained.
Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] have another motion?

[[Page H1573]]

motion to recommit offered by mr. stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
recommittal be resubmitted with the point of order that has just been
sustained, that portion dealing with nutrition programs be extracted
from the consideration, everything else shall remain as previously
explained.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. SOLOMON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I would
ask the gentleman a question. He knows that the Solomon amendment
passed by a vote, an overwhelming vote, on this.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] knows that the Solomon
amendment, which carried overwhelmingly, almost 2 to 1 on the
gentleman's side of the aisle, same thing on our side of the aisle,
would have made the corrections and we would have been able to go to
conference with the Senate.
The gentleman is repealing the Solomon amendment in his motion to
recommit; is that correct?
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let us hope everybody
understands that because the gentleman is trying to again make the
Gunderson proposal in the dairy bill right now, which is going to
increase the cost of milk 20 to 40 cents per gallon, and the gentleman
knows it, and that is what we want to be able to go and negotiate in
conference.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
I thank the gentleman because his first question was correct; his
restatement of the question was not correct. We are not putting the
Gunderson amendment back in. The gentleman is correct; the House voted
overwhelmingly against the Gunderson compromise amendment. We are not
putting that back in, but we are in fact repealing the Solomon
amendment because there is a general belief that many who voted for the
gentleman last night did so because of concerns of the nutrition
programs.
Mr. SOLOMON. On that point the nutrition program now is removed;
right? The gentleman just removed the Food Stamp Program
reauthorization; is that correct?
Mr. STENHOLM. That is correct.
Mr. SOLOMON. OK.
Mr. STENHOLM. Not at our request, I would say to the gentleman. We
preferred to have the nutrition programs in this bill, but it was at
the request of a point of order of those that choose not to have them
included that they were extracted.
Mr. SOLOMON. Just briefly continuing my reservation, I am just going
to tell the gentleman he knows very well what is going to happen when
we get to conference. We all know that the existing dairy language is
what the Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Dairy wants. They
will be fighting for that. That is going to affect everybody's district
in this House right now. We better vote down this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
Mr. VOLKMER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, it is my
understanding that the dairy provision in the motion to recommit
permits the dairy program that presently exists to expire at the end of
this year. Is that correct or incorrect?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. And there is no Gunderson proposal or anything else in
this recommittal motion that can go to conference because there is not
anything like that in here. The provision in here just lets it expire
at the end of this year. Now it is going to be whether we do something
or not before the end of the year if we want to do something, but the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is completely wrong in what he
said about the dairy provision that is in here. All it does is permit
the dairy provision to expire at the end of this year, what it does
under present law.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VOLKMER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for yielding and would point out
again that we do repeal the assessments on our dairy farmers which
gives some equivalence to the dairy industry as compared to the market
transition program, as compared what we tried to do for the soybean
producers and oil seeds.
Mr. VOLKMER. That is correct.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the second motion to
recommit is considered read.
There was no objection.
(For text of motion to recommit see prior motion to recommit, minus
title IV, and redesignate title V as title IV.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time I believe that we
have fully explained our original amendment. Nothing has changed other
than we removed the onerous nutrition components to the bill. The rest
of it is as was explained.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from Texas what is
in his AQI technical amendment?
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. AQI technical amendment?
Mr. ROBERTS. That amendment was withdrawn by the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]. It is extremely important to Florida,
California, whatever.
Mr. STENHOLM. That is in the bill, in the gentleman's bill, that has
already been adopted. We added that as part of our bill because we
agreed with the wisdom of the majority.
Mr. ROBERTS. It is a minor point.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Thomas].
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit has 229 pages. What
he did not tell you that is in those 229 pages was that we just voted
on a measure for $3.5 billion, almost 100 Members of the House said no,
it is in there. There are a number of other items that are in there
that have been defeated. What my colleagues have got to do is
understand that interesting dialog about the fact that Gunderson is not
in here for the milk provision. I will tell my colleagues where the
gentleman from Wisconsin will be. He will be at the table during the
conference. Our colleagues will not be. If my colleagues voted yes for
Solomon, they have to vote no on the motion to recommit because he is
going to be at the table and my colleagues are not.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I realize this farm bill debate has been
like Lonesome Dove; we are almost home, and we have all of our body
parts, and we will get there if we will just pay a little bit of
attention.
This is a revote on some of the amendments that we have just
considered. As has been indicated by the gentleman from California, the
$3.5 billion in regard to rural development, we all know we would like
to have rural development, but it is $3.5 billion. We just voted on
that.
We have another situation in regard to conservation funding. The
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Boehlert], and the rest of us put together a package, and this package
is another $300 million over that which we cannot afford.
Then again, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has pointed
out in regard to dairy, there are significant reductions in regard to
the dairy program.

[[Page H1574]]

So this is simply a repeat of past amendments we have had before, and
I must say in terms of a motion to recommit with 229 pages that nobody
has seen up there--well, somebody had to see it--that nobody has really
perused to know what is in it, we at least know in terms of cost and
policy these are amendments that we voted on before. We ought to get on
with it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
views on H.R. 2854, the Agricultural Market Transition Act, and the
Democratic substitute to H.R. 2854, which is being offered by my
distinguished colleague from Texas, Mr. de la Garza. First, there are
not a lot of farms in the 18th Congressional District, which I am
privileged to represent, but these agricultural programs, through the
cost of prices at the local grocery store, affect all Americans. This
bill is important to the State of Texas because Texas is a large,
agricultural producing State and Texas needs an efficient and effective
agricultural system to keep our economy strong.
Most Members of Congress realize the great need for reform of our
system of deficiency payments to farmers and the need for greater
attention to issues relating to conservation and rural development.
H.R. 2854, however, is not the answer to all of our dreams of
agricultural reform. It goes too far by repealing the agricultural law
of 1949. It is important to note that the Senate recently passed a farm
bill that did not repeal this important law.
Second, H.R. 2854 does not contain sufficient funding for programs
relating to conservation, rural development, research, education and
cooperative extension. These programs are critical to improving the
quality of life for millions of Americans.
Third, unlike the Senate bill, H.R. 2854 does not reauthorize
nutrition programs, which have made a tremendous difference in the
lives of children in the 18th Congressional District and around the
country.
Congressman de la Garza's substitute is a noble attempt to improve
upon H.R. 2854. It would restore funding for some very important
agricultural and conservation programs. His substitute would also help
preserve an endangered species, the small farmer. I also support the
motion to recommit which reauthorized Federal nutrition programs, among
other, important farm laws.
I understand that these issues are controversial and emotional,
particularly as we make changes in the various commodity programs. I
urge my colleagues to support the de la Garza substitute, and the
motion to recommit. Both are a better approach than H.R. 2854 in
resolving some of these contentious issues.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the de la Garza motion
and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
This provision would provide the gravely needed allocation of funds
to this farm bill for rural development activities.
H.R. 2854 does not adequately address critical rural development
needs.
The motion to recommit would provide funding for rural housing, water
and waste facilities and rural business development.
The district I represent has a number of colonias with substandard
health and living conditions.
As you may know, colonias are unincorporated rural subdivisions
situated along the border region.
Colonias are characterized by dense population, rundown housing, lack
of sanitary sewerage, drainage, and potable water systems as well as
unpaved roads.
Unemployment is high, and diseases are numerous.
Often such communities are ignored by our Federal Government.
This amendment would provide greatly needed Federal assistance in
upgrading vital basic services in this area.
Without such funding we will be mandating local rural governments to
respond to the increasing demand for water and waste disposal and other
programs at a time when their tax base is shrinking, employment is
declining and consumer spending is weakening.
Our Nation has a long history of assisting rural communities in the
development of water and waste facilities.
Now is not the time to abandon this effort when basic sanitation is
unavailable to our citizens in rural areas along the United States-
Mexico border.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of my good
friend, Representative Kika de la Garza's motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 156,
nays 267, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 41]

YEAS--156

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Camp
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frost
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
Metcalf
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Spratt
Stenholm
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn

NAYS--267

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moakley
Molinari
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton

[[Page H1575]]

Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--8

Collins (IL)
de la Garza
Furse
Hastings (FL)
Laughlin
McKinney
Rangel
Stokes

{time} 1426

Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Ms. DeLAURO, Ms. BROWN of
Florida, and Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. GORDON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is
on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 270,
nays 155, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 42]

YEAS--270

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torricelli
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NAYS--155

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Goss
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hinchey
Hoke
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McNulty
Meehan
Metcalf
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Yates
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--6

Collins (IL)
de la Garza
Furse
Hastings (FL)
McKinney
Stokes

{time} 1444

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Ms. Furse for, with Mr. Stokes against.

Messrs. DOGGETT, SCHUMER, and OLVER changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}