[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.

       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 

[[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.

       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
     
[[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.

       (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 

[[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.

       ``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 

[[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.

       ``(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)); and
       ``(2) subchapter C of chapter 1 of subtitle D.
       ``(B) Authorization of Appropriations for Livestock 
     Environmental Assistance Program.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary for each of the fiscal years 
     1996 through 2002, $100,000,000 for providing technical 
     assistance, cost-sharing payments, and incentive payments for 
     practices relating to livestock production under the 
     livestock environmental assistance program under chapter 4 of 
     subtitle D.''.

  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.

       (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 of any commodity:
       (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.--
       
[[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.

       ``(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. 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.

       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. 215. 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. 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.

       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. 218. 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. 219. 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. 220. 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:
     
[[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.

       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. 222. 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. 223. 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. 224. 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. 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.

       (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''.

     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.

       ``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. 231. 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. 232. 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
     
[[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.

       ``(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.
     
[[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.

       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. 254. 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. 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.

       ``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;
     
[[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.

       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. 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.

       (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. 273. 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. 274. 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. 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.

       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. 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.

       ``(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, 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.

       (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:
     
[[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)--

       (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. 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.

       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. 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.

       ``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. 291. 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''; 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 

[[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.

       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. 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.

       (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. 295. PROMOTION OF AMERICAN 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.''.
                        TITLE III--CONSERVATION
     Subtitle A--Environmental Conservation Acreage Reserve 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.

                          ____________________