[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 45 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3147-H3169]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2854, FEDERAL AGRICULTURE IMPROVEMENT AND 
                           REFORM ACT OF 1996

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on rules, I 
call up House Resolution 393 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H.Res. 393

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2854) to modify the operation of certain 
     agricultural programs. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived.
       Sec. 2. Senate Concurrent Resolution 49 is hereby agreed 
     to.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman form Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks and 
include extraneous matter.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Members, if I could just 
have their attention, we will dispose of this rule in 10 minutes, at 
the most, with no vote necessary, since it is not controversial. So let 
us get on with it.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before the House today is necessary to permit 
the House to consider the conference report on the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act, or FAIR Act.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration. The waivers are necessary in large part 
because the Senate passed a much broader bill than the House.
  For example, the Senate bill and the conference report contain an 
extension of the Food Stamp Program, while there was no such provision 
in the original House bill.
  The rule also provides for the adoption of a Senate concurrent 
Resolution which directs the enrolling clerk to correct an error in the 
conference report as filed.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report represents the culmination of a 
long effort to change the way farming is done in America.
  Instead of having farmers produce to meet the requirements of 
Government programs, this bill is designed to move the Government out 
of the farming business, and let farmers start producing to meet the 
needs of consumers.

[[Page H3148]]

  In the long run this will result in lower cost to the taxpayers, and 
more efficient production of food for the market.
  Were it not for the dogged determination and strong leadership of the 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Roberts], this bill might never have materialized in its present form.
  Because this bill represents a change in 60 years of Federal farming 
policy, it has been one of the toughest farm bills ever in the history 
of this House to manage.
  The distinguished gentleman from Kansas, who used to serve in the 
U.S. Marines, I will note, has demonstrated the guts to get it through. 
We are all in your debt, Mr. Chairman.
  I would also like to commend the ranking minority member of the 
Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], and 
the other members of the committee for the long hours of work they have 
put into working out this final product.
  We have ended up with a bill that the President has said he is going 
to sign, and this is an indication of the degree to which concerns on 
both sides of the aisle have been taken into consideration.
  Putting this all together required not only bipartisan cooperation, 
but also a willingness to work out differences between the House and 
the Senate.
  Senator Lugar, the chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, 
proved an able Representative of the other body during long 
negotiations.
  Finally I would like to thank the staff members on both sides of the 
hill who worked on this conference agreement. Much of their work is not 
seen on the outside, but we who know how hard they work appreciate 
their efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, as many of you know the dairy provisions in this 
conference agreement have been of particular concern to me, since I 
represent one of the largest milk producing districts in the Nation. We 
have ended up with a fair and workable dairy program, one that ends 
Government subsidies to processors of milk products, like butter, 
powder, and cheese, but continues a non-taxpaying funded liquid milk 
price stabilization program that will guarantee small dairy farmers a 
fair and reasonable price for their milk.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we need to remember that the planting season is 
about to begin in some parts of the country, and that means that 
farmers need to know what the Government's farm policy is going to be. 
This bill provides the answer to that question. And in order to 
consider this conference report, it is necessary to adopt this rule. 
Therefore, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on 
the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this resolution, House Resolution 393, 
makes in order to consider the conference report on H.R. 2854, the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, and it waives all 
points of order against the conference report.
  The conference report on H.R. 2854 reauthorizes farm programs for 7 
years. It replaces the current Federal programs for major crops with a 
new system of fixed annual cash payments that would eventually be 
phased out. The measure is a dramatic overhaul of our Nation's farm 
laws, and if successful, it will cut Federal spending on agriculture, 
at the same time giving farmers greater flexibility in choosing which 
crops to plant.
  The conference report also reauthorizes various overseas food 
assistance and export programs of the Department of Agriculture. This 
includes a 7-year reauthorization of the Food for Peace Program, which 
is known as Public Law 480.

                              {time}  2315

  This is a very important program that feeds millions of people around 
the world. I have seen the food being delivered, I have seen it being 
used, and I have seen it save lives.
  During House consideration of the bill, I worked to include an 
amendment to make useful changes in the Public Law 480 program, and 
most of those changes were adopted by the conferees.
  Mr. Speaker, I do regret that the technical change in the conference 
report made by the rule might reduce the ability to implement the 
program in the period near the end of the fiscal year, and I hope that 
Congress will monitor the effect of this change and be prepared to make 
any additional changes to ensure the smooth operation of the program.
  The conference report sets payments for farmers for the next 7 years, 
but I also regret that it only reauthorizes the food stamp program for 
2 years. The food stamp program is a lifeline to the hungry in America 
and one of our most successful antipoverty programs. I believe that 
they should be given the same kind of long-term assurance that the 
farmers receive.
  Mr. Speaker, it is essential that Congress approve a farm bill 
quickly before the spring planting season begins, and I urge the 
adoption of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Members on this 
side, we are going to ask them not to speak. We are going to have one 
unanimous consent statement and 1 minute to the distinguished Chairman 
of the Committee on the Budget, and that is going to be it. We are 
going to roll this thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Goss], of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this brilliant, 
fair rule.
  I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls for yielding me this time, and 
I rise in support of the rule for the farm bill conference report. This 
is a fair rule, and it follows standard House procedure for the 
consideration of conference reports while fixing an important technical 
mistake. However, Mr. Speaker, I do have some concerns with the 
underlying bill. It is clearly a mixed bag for southwest Florida. On 
the one hand, we have seen a real breakthrough in Federal efforts to 
restore the Everglades--the $200 million in this conference report, in 
conjunction with the additional land swap authority added in 
conference, provides a jump start to the joint efforts by the State, 
the Federal Government, and the south Florida water management district 
to restore the everglades. This is a serious commitment, and a 
necessary one. We have not been good stewards of the Everglades and 
Florida Bay--a series of actions by the State, the federal government, 
agricultural interests and others has transformed a unique 50-mile wide 
freshwater river and its surrounding ecosystem--and not for the better. 
The periodic sheetflow of fresh water has been reduced, rechannelled 
and regulated for the convenience of agricultural interests and 
residential developments--causing a rapid loss of habitat necessary to 
sustain fisheries, waterfowl, and other wildlife. The nutrient 
pollution of this water has further degraded what habitat is left. 
Downstream, Florida Bay is dying. These situations have damaged 
resources that are vital to the economy and quality of life in Florida. 
We now understand that the once prevalent view that the Everglades is 
just a swamp is somewhat akin to looking at the grand canyon as just a 
big pothole.
  There has been a renewed interest in the Everglades system over the 
past few years, and we've seen several smaller-scale efforts toward 
restoration, but it is time to get the ball rolling on a comprehensive, 
coordinated plan to save what remains of this national treasure. And 
$200 million is a responsible sum to allocate. I do wish that we were 
more specific in identifying a funding source or sources for this 
money. Some of my Florida colleagues have suggested an assessment on 
agricultural interests that have benefited from the changes in the 
Everglades, and I think this idea should be given serious 
consideration. The taxpayers in southwest Florida are already paying 
more than their fair share in State taxes and extra water fees. The 
State has agreed to match Federal funds 50-50. Still, while I think we 
have some work to do in finding an offset, I strongly support the 
Everglades provision in this bill and I congratulate the conferees for 
their hard work.

  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support other aspects of this 
bill. For instance, the continuation of many large subsidy and price 
support programs concerns me. I recognize the difficulty involved in 
making significant changes in these programs. And there are some 
victories here--for instance, under this bill the dairy subsidy will be 
phased out over a 5 year period. But, the minor reforms in

[[Page H3149]]

most of the price support and subsidy programs just aren't enough. I am 
disappointed that Congress has missed this opportunity to remove the 
heavy hand of Government from the agricultural marketplace. I do not 
believe it makes much sense to lock in place these special benefit 
programs over the next 7 years when we are committed to phasing out 
unnecessary Government spending and involvement in private enterprise.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget, to give some accolades to somebody we know.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, and I think 
the Members here tonight should realize that, even though the hour is 
late, we are about to do something that is truly historic. That is to 
have the most sweeping change in the farm bill in over 40 years.
  Basically, when people across this country say they could never 
understand why we pay people not to do anything, not to plant anything, 
this will make such a major reform of the crops that they will not ever 
have to ask that question again at the end of the day.
  I think that the move towards the free market is where we ought to 
go; I think we could have saved a few more dollars; I think we could 
have reformed a few more crops, but I want to recommend that the 
freedom to farm act is a very positive step. The New York Times just 
the other day commended the committee for the most sweeping reform 
based on the free market that we have seen. I think it is an 
appropriate bill as we head into the 21st century. I want to 
congratulate the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture 
[Mr. Roberts] who has done a yeoman's job and walked over an awful lot 
of hot coals in order to see this day actually happen. So I want to 
congratulate him, congratulate Members on both sides of the aisle and 
to say I think the American people, when they understand what is in 
this bill, are going to give accolades to this Congress for having the 
courage to move the farm bill into the 21st century.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the majority is prepared to yield back all 
of its time and ask for a nonrecorded vote as soon as the minority 
yields back their time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I know that the hour is late, 
and I do not oppose this bill. My point in speaking at this late hour 
is simple. Earlier today when the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] 
made a motion which would address the issue of a minimum wage for the 
American worker, the majority decided to invoke a rule that would 
strike that motion on the premise that it somehow was an unfunded 
mandate.
  CBO has now ruled of course that that motion did not constitute an 
unfunded mandate. But in this bill, there is an unfunded mandate, and 
of course the rule waives that. Now, that is not the first time. I am 
sure the majority will use its power whenever it so wishes to deem 
something an unfunded mandate and then ignore another unfunded mandate 
and present the Members with a fait accompli.
  This was also typical of the three-fifths rule on tax increases. I 
cannot remember how many times we have waived that rule which we so 
proudly adopted on the opening day of this session.
  My reason for speaking is not to the substance of this bill but a 
constant attention to the majority's propensity to constitute whatever 
rules it wishes in violation of whatever standards it has adopted, even 
in this Congress where it took so much credit for changing the way we 
do our business here. Many Members on both sides of the aisle, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], certainly the leader, decided 
that the unfunded mandate issue needed to be addressed.
  Well, here, once again, we get the headline, and then when it comes 
down to implementation, we reject taking any action on this unfunded 
mandate. Yet we use it as an excuse when we do not want to deal with an 
issue that is unpopular for the majority but overwhelmingly popular in 
the country.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I simply have to rise in protest over the continuing 
misuse of the rules by the majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of the conference report to 
the bill H.R. 2854, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform 
Act, better known as the 1996 farm bill.
  In considering this legislation today, it is important to put it in 
some perspective, because as we all know, this was supposed to have 
been the 1995 farm bill.
  Since 1965, we have passed multiyear farm bills to reauthorize a wide 
variety of commodity, trade, research, conservation, rural development 
and nutrition programs.
  We passed farm bills in 1965, 1970, 1973, 1977, 1981, 1985, and 1990. 
The most recent two farm bills were passed with overwhelming bipartisan 
majorities.
  But when 1995 came and the Republicans took over control of the House 
and Senate, they decided to adopt a different tact. They abandoned what 
in past years was a broad-based, bipartisan bill based on open debate 
about our national agriculture policies and priorities.
  You might say that in their first year behind the plow, the GOP 
leadership used a new kind of fertilizer: partisan politics--to 
cultivate their favorite crop--political points.
  Instead of debating this legislation in a systematic fashion 
throughout the year, the Republicans waited until late in the year when 
appropriations bills, continuing resolutions, and debt ceilings held 
center stage. Then and only then, in a budget-driven exercise, GOP 
leaders decided to tie the farm bill's fate to controversial budget 
reconciliation legislation about which Democrats and President Clinton 
had expressed severe reservations.
  The chairman of the Agriculture Committee could not even muster a 
majority of votes within his committee and was forced to use special 
procedures to have the Budget Committee report the so-called farm bill 
as part of the reconciliation bill.
  Once the reconciliation bill was vetoed and the GOP strategy was 
shown to be flawed, farmers and consumers across the country watched 
the important authorizations for these programs expire. Farm fill 
consideration was forced to start from ground zero.
  This is not the way to make national agriculture policy.
  This is not the way to treat our largest industry, the United States' 
biggest employer, and our biggest export earner.
  In short, this is not the way to treat American farmers and the 
millions of Americans who depend upon them.
  These legislative tactics caused needless anxiety across the country, 
and to what end?
  The end is the conference report we consider today--a bill in better 
balance--similar to those we have always brought forward in the past--
that will move agriculture production forward in the years to come. But 
it is a bill we should have considered and passed into law many months 
ago.
  The conference report contains all the traditional titles included in 
the farm bill in the farm bill in addition to the commodity titles--
rural development, export promotion, foreign food assistance, domestic 
nutrition programs, and conservation.
  I think the GOP leadership needs to ask itself what might have 
happened last year if they had approached this crucial legislation in 
the same spirit as reflected by the conference report today. My sense 
is you would have a very similar product but you would have avoided the 
specter of partisanship. Better yet, you would have saved our farmers 
months of needless anxiety.
  Perhaps the GOP leadership considered the freedom to farm concept to 
be too controversial for any but heavy-handed and partisan tactics.
  But farmers in California understand that we must move to a market-
based farm economy. In fact, agriculture producers across the country 
have been positioning themselves, as we have in California, to take 
advantage of increased trade opportunities from NAFTA and GATT. 
Agribusiness has been making the investments necessary to respond to a 
growing, yet demanding and sophisticated world market.

  However, for my part, I believe there are two flaws in this bill that 
require attention, even if they are not sufficient to require a ``no'' 
vote today.
  First, the Senate voted down and the conference turned its back on a 
simple requirement that farmers plant a crop in order to qualify for a 
freedom to farm payment. Certainly, most farmers will continue their 
historic pattern of farming while using the expanded flexibility in 
this bill to boost production and pursue new marketing opportunities. 
But there will be many marginal farmers who will view payments not 
linked to planting as a one-time opportunity to take the money and run. 
The horror stories of farm welfare in the years to come are easy to 
anticipate, and they will represent a black eye for American 
agriculture, which is already not well understood by many Americans. It 
is a black eye that easily could have been avoided.
  Second, in moving to a market-oriented economy, we effectively have 
eliminated a

[[Page H3150]]

safety net program for our program crop farmers that is linked to 
prices. Prices are high now, and trade is booming. But not every future 
year will turn out that way, and there are always special problems that 
arise affecting individual commodities. I am concerned that trade wars 
or other unpredictable events in future years will wash away farmers 
who otherwise might have weathered the storm if a safety net program 
were in place.
  The conference has wisely included various conservation, export, 
research, credit, and promotion programs. These agriculture programs 
often receive less attention than commodity programs, but they are at 
the heart of American agriculture's success. Leaving them out of the 
House bill was a major mistake--one of the reasons I opposed the House 
version of this bill--and I'm pleased the conference has put them back 
in.
  In the final analysis, this bill is not perfect, and lacking 
perfection, it is a bill we could have arrived at many months ago. 
Ultimately, the GOP leadership must ask themselves if their partisan 
tactics have produced an improved product--I think the answer is a 
resounding no.
  Has the GOP leadership positioned Congress well to weather the 
charges of welfare for farmers that are likely to arise?
  Could the GOP's quest for budget savings have been accomplished much 
more easily by providing price-based safety net programs and being far 
more generous to research and trade promotion programs?
  Only time will answer these questions as we watch the effects of the 
bill we consider today in the years to come.
  While I cast a reserved ``yes'' vote for the farm bill conference 
report today, I unreservedly reaffirm my commitment to a strengthened 
American agriculture in the years to come. Congress must monitor the 
effects of this legislation carefully and be prepared to act again if 
necessary to ensure that American agriculture retains its preeminent 
position in the world.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by not 
apologizing at all for speaking on a major piece of legislation in the 
House of Representatives. The majority's manipulation of the schedule 
is outrageous enough, but now to say that this major piece of 
legislation, which the House majority leader a few years ago described 
I think aptly, he predicted welfare for farmers as he said in his 
Heritage Foundation piece. And I would not necessarily mind welfare for 
farmers, but they get 7 years of welfare, the AFDC recipients get 5, 
and of course there is no work requirements.
  But for the House to spend so much time doing so little for so long, 
and then take up a major piece of legislation, and the leadership 
decides it will come up late at night and then to say oh, well, it is 
late at night, you cannot debate it. That is like the kid who kills his 
parents and say, have mercy, I am an orphan.
  As the gentleman from California pointed out, before we were told 
that something is not an unfunded mandate, could not even be debated, 
the minimum wage, but this bill, according to CBO, has five unfunded 
mandates. And when it came before us as a bill, the Committee on Rules 
waived it. They would not even vote on that. So we get a bill with a 
lot of unfunded mandates.
  The first test of the new rule on unfunded mandates, they do not pay 
any attention to. They now are trying to browbeat the House into 
ignoring all of these important substantive issues, give the farmers 
welfare, spend billions of dollars, let us have some unfunded mandates, 
but it is 11:30, let us go home. Well, if my colleagues do not want to 
debate things at 11:30, they control the House, schedule them at a 
reasonable hour. But to take a major piece of legislation like this and 
then so manipulate the schedule that they want to sneak it through 
without adequate debate is unworthy of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, we ought to debate these unfunded mandates. We ought to 
debate the fact that farmers get billions of dollars for years for 
doing absolutely nothing whatsoever. I hope that the House will in fact 
repudiate these tactics.
  Let us debate this. My colleagues have waited a very long time. We 
could pick an appropriate time of the day and debate it honestly and 
fairly, and do not come here, deliberately work the schedule this way 
and then say, oh, but we want to be nice to everybody, let us go home. 
If Members want to go home, let them go home and let the rest of us 
stay here and do the business that we are paid to do.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the gentleman from 
Boston that this bill guarantees the people of Boston are going to have 
fresh milk for the next 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The text of Senate Concurrent Resolution concurred in pursuant to 
House Resolution 393 is as follows:

                            S. Con. Res. 49

       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representatives, 
     in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 2854) to modify the 
     operation of certain agricultural programs, shall make the 
     following corrections:
       In section 215--
       (1) in paragraph (1), insert ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), strike ``; and'' at the end and 
     insert a period; and
       (3) strike paragraph (3).

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 393, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2854) to modify the operation 
of certain agricultural programs.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oxley). Pursuant to House Resolution 
393, the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
March 25, 1996, at page H2716.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] and 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] each will control 30 
minutes.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report. It is my understanding that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
Roberts] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] are both 
proponents of it, and I would like to claim time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Texas opposed?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I am not opposed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not opposed. If the 
gentleman from Texas is not opposed, the gentlemen from Kansas and 
Texas and Missouri will each be recognized for 20 minutes. The 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts] will be recognized for 20 minutes, 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] will be recognized for 20 
minutes, and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
  (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The House has before it today a historic conference report, H.R. 
2854, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. I 
call it historic because the Committees on Agriculture have produced a 
farm bill that represent a major departure from the past and a bold 
plan in regard to the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I have some 16 pages of very pertinent comments in 
regard to the Freedom to Farm concept that we have passed, but I am 
going to revise and extend my remarks and we are going to hope to try 
to conclude this.
  The Senate has passed the similar conference report 74 to 26, and the 
reason that we are trying to expedite this bill is to get it to the 
President as fast as possible. We have assurance from the Secretary of 
Agriculture that the President will sign it, and farmers have been 
waiting and waiting and waiting. And so as soon as we conclude this 
debate, we will try to make it just as short as possible to accommodate 
not only every farmer and rancher of America, but my colleagues here 
who I know wish to go home.
  Mr. Speaker, the House has before it today an historic conference 
report--H.R. 2854--the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act 
of 1996. I call it historic because the Agriculture Committees have 
produced a farm bill that represents a major departure from the past 
and a bold plan for the future.
  Embodied in the Conference Report before us today is what is commonly 
referred to as the Freedom to Farm concept that I, along with 
Congressman Barrett of Nebraska, introduced

[[Page H3151]]

last August. Freedom to Farm was developed after the Committee 
conducted 19 field hearings and traveled over 60,000 miles last spring 
listening to over 10,000 farmers, ranchers, and the agribusiness 
community.
  The original New Deal farm programs, over 60 years, ago were based on 
the principal of supply management. Control supply and raise prices. 
Over the last 20 years the principal justification for the programs has 
been that farmers receive federal assistance in return for setting 
aside a portion of their acreage. That assistance was largely in the 
form of deficiency payments to compensate farmers for prices below a 
government-set target price for their production.
  Today that system has collapsed as an effective way to deliver 
assistance to farmers. Worldwide agricultural competition usurps 
markets when we reduce production. World demand (along with the 
Conservation Reserve Program) has tightened supplies so that there have 
been no set-asides in wheat for five years--and none are projected in 
the foreseeable future, eliminating that justification for the 
programs. In short, the supply management rationale not only fails 
under close scrutiny by the many critics of agriculture policy, it has 
enabled our competitors to simply increase their production by more 
than we ``set aside,'' thereby causing significant impact on American 
farmers through lost market shares.
  The budget cuts of the last ten years have produced greater and 
greater bureaucratic controls on farmers. In fact, decoupling of the 
payments from production actually occurred ten years ago when Congress 
froze payment yields to save money. In 1990 the concept of ``unpaid 
flex acres'' was introduced to further weaken and devalue the programs 
in a budget-cutting move. For the last ten years, in effect, 
Congressional farm policy has been driven almost completely by budget 
reduction, and the 1995 debate reaffirmed the budget as the driving 
force for program policy.
  Most in the agricultural community have come to the realization that 
annual set-asides are counter-productive and only encourage our 
competitors to plant more and steal market share. However, to eliminate 
the Secretary of Agriculture's reliance on set-asides would cost either 
the taxpayers or the farmers $6.6 billion under the present farm 
program according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
  The Freedom to Farm Act [FFA] was born of an effort to create a new 
farm policy from an entirely new perspective. Acknowledging that budget 
cuts were inevitable, FFA sets up a new set of goals and criteria for 
farm policy; Get the government out of the farmers' fields; return to 
farmers the ability to produce for the markets, not government 
programs; provide a predictable and guaranteed phasing down of federal 
financial assistance.
  By removing government controls on land use, FFA effectively 
eliminates the No. 1 complaint of farmers about the programs: 
Bureaucratic redtape and government interference. Complaints about 
endless waits at the county office would end. Hassles over field sizes 
and whether the right crop was planted to the correct amount of acres 
would be a thing of the past. Environmentalists should be pleased that 
the government will no longer force planting of surplus crops and 
monoculture agriculture. Producers who want to introduce a rotation on 
their farm for agronomic reasons will be free of current restrictions. 
Allowing farmers to rotate their crops will allow them to reduce the 
use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer. This sample fact makes 
this bill the most ``green'' or environmentally friendly farm bill in 
my memory.

  Under FFA, farmers can plant or idle all of their acres at their 
discretion. The restrictions on what they can plant are greatly 
reduced. Response to the market would assume a larger role in farmer 
planning. Divorcing payments from production (a process already begun 
when yields were frozen in 1985) will end any pressure from the 
government in choosing crops to pursue. All production incentives in 
the future should come from the marketplace.
  The guarantee of a fixed (albeit declining) payment for seven years 
will provide the predictability that farmers have wanted and provide 
certainty to creditors as a basis for lending. The current situation in 
wheat, corn and cotton under which prices are very high, but large 
numbers of producers have lost their crops to weather or pests would be 
corrected by FFA. Those producers last year could not access the high 
prices without crops, and instead of getting help when they need it 
most, the old system cuts off their deficiency payments and even 
demands that they repay advance deficiency payments. FFA insures that 
whatever government financial assistance is available will be 
delivered, regardless of the circumstances, because the producer signs 
a binding contract with the Federal government for the next seven 
years.
  Some of my colleagues have expressed reservations about making high 
payments during period of high prices. First, the payments will not be 
high. You can't cut the amount of money we have cut out of agriculture 
spending over the last 20 years and still have ``high'' payments. No 
farmer is likely to take his market transition payment and retire. 
Farmers will continue to farm.
  Second, under FFA, the payments made to producers must be looked at 
from a new perspective. It is a transition to full farmer 
responsibility for his economic life. Just as farmers will need to look 
to the market for production and marketing signals, the FFA will 
require that farmers manage their finances to meet price swings. It is 
true that when prices are high, farmers will receive a full market 
transition payment. It is equally true that if prices decline, farmers 
will receive no more than the fixed market transition payment. That 
means the farmer must manage all his income, both market and 
government, to account for weather and price fluctuations.
  In short, the FFP authorizes Transition Payments to farmers--as 
opposed to the current program's deficiency payments--to serve as a 
form of compensation as we move U.S. agriculture from an economy 
heavily influenced by the federal government to one in which the 
government's role is substantially reduced and the primary influence is 
the market place.
  The old program provided market insulation for each bushel of 
production, but that system is collapsing under the weight of budget 
cuts. The FFA enhances the farmer's total economic situation--in fact, 
FFA results in the highest net farm income over the next 7 years of any 
of the proposals before Congress. This allows the farmer to become 
accustomed to saving when times are good and using those savings when 
times are tough. With government assistance declining, it is imperative 
that producers assume total responsibility for their economic futures. 
In the years that prices are strong and the farmer receives a payment, 
it will be his personal responsibility to save that money for the bad 
year or pay off debt so he can weather the bad years.

  The severest critics of farm programs at the New York Times, the 
Washington Post, the Economist, and a host of regional newspapers have 
hailed FFA as the most significant reform in ag policy since the 30's. 
Many congressional critics have also decided that FFA represents the 
kind of reform they can support. If the ``welfare'' charge was to be 
leveled, it should have come from this corner. Instead, they believe 
FFA is the kind of reform that is needed. Nearly every agricultural 
economist who has commented on FFA has supported it structure and its 
probable effect on farmers and the agricultural sector.
  The only people who are worried about it being classed as ``welfare'' 
are those populists who want to keep the status quo, some farm groups 
and others who are supportive of the old farm programs. Agriculture is 
now at a crossroads. It can either sink deeper into government controls 
and rapidly sagging government support, or it can strike out in a new 
direction that at least holds out the prospect of an assisted 
transition to the private marketplace. H.R. 2854 and the Freedom to 
Farm Act is that new direction and Congress needs to seize it.
  Never before has a farm program proposal enjoyed such broad and 
diverse support as this one. From the Ivory Towers of academia and the 
think tanks to the editorial board rooms of our nation's newspapers to 
a broad

[[Page H3152]]

spectrum of farm, commodity and agribusiness groups, support for this 
proposal is strong. Most importantly, Freedom to Farm enjoys widespread 
support among individual farmers across the country who are fed up with 
convoluted government programs, and exploding government debt.
  The following groups or individuals have endorsed either the Freedom 
to Farm Act or that concept as contained in H.R. 2854. I ask unanimous 
consent to insert in the record at this point a list of groups, 
organizations, and newspapers who have endorsed the Freedom to Farm 
concept:


                      farm and trade organizations

       American Farm Bureau Federation, National Corn Growers 
     Association, National Grain Trade Council, National Grain & 
     Feed Association, American Cotton Shippers, Iowa Farm Bureau 
     Federation, Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Cattleman's 
     Association, Kansas Farm Bureau, Kansas Association of Wheat 
     Growers, Kansas Bankers Association, Kansas Grain & Feed 
     Association, Kansas Fertilizer & Chemical Association, North 
     Dakota Grain Growers Association, the Minnesota Association 
     of Wheat Growers, the National Turkey Federation, the 
     National Sunflower Association, National Food Processors' 
     Association, Agricultural Retailers Association, American 
     Feed Industry Association, American Frozen Food Institute, 
     Biscuit & Cracker Manufacturers' Association, National 
     Oilseed Processors Association, Millers' National Federation, 
     and the Coalition for a Competitive Food and Agricultural 
     System (representing 126 members).


           public interest organizations and representatives

       U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Citizens Against Government 
     Waste; John Frydenlund--The Heritage Foundation; Paul 
     Beckner--Citizens for a Sound Economy; David Keating--
     National Taxpayers Union; Grover Norquist--Americans for Tax 
     Reform; Fran Smith--Consumer Alert; Ed Hudgins--The Cato 
     Institute; Jonathan Tolman--Competitive Enterprise Institute.


                  a sampling of newspaper endorsements

       Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Des 
     Moines Register, USA Today, Dallas Morning News, Chicago 
     Tribune, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Denver Post, Kansas City 
     Star, Wisconsin State Journal, The Daily Oklahoman, The 
     Wichita Eagle, The Indianapolis News, The Hartford Courant, 
     The Louisville Courier Journal, Washington Times, The Garden 
     City Telegram, The Manhattan (KS) Mercury. Also, Feedstuffs, 
     Farm Journal, New England Farmer.


                               economists

       Prof. Willard W. Cochrane, University of Minnesota, 
     Director Agricultural Economics, USDA, Kennedy 
     Administration; Dr. Lynn Daft, Abel, Daft, Earley & Ward 
     International, Agricultural Counselor, White House, Carter 
     Administration; Dr. Bruce Gardner, University of Maryland, 
     Assistant Secretary for Economics, USDA, Bush Administration; 
     Dr. Dale Hathaway, National Center for Food & Agricultural 
     Policy, Under Secretary for Economics, USDA, Carter 
     Administration; Dr. Robert Innes, University of Arizona, 
     Council of Economic Advisors, Clinton Administration; Dr. D. 
     Gale Johnson, University of Chicago; Dr. William Lesher, 
     Russell and Lesher, Assistant Secretary for Economics, USDA, 
     Reagan Administration; Dr. Lawrence W. Libby, University of 
     Florida; Dr. Don Paarlburg, Purdue University, Special 
     Assistant, President Eisenhower, Director of Agriculture 
     Economics, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, USDA, Nixon-
     Ford Administrations; Dr. Robert Paarlburg, Wellesley College 
     and Harvard University; Dr. C. Ford Runge, University of 
     Minnesota; Dr. John Schnittker, Schnittker Associates, Under 
     Secretary of Agriculture, USDA, Johnson Administration; Mr. 
     Daniel A. Sumner, University of California--Davis, Assistant 
     Secretary for Economics, USDA, Council of Economic Advisers, 
     Bush Administration; Dr. Robert L. Thompson, Winrock 
     International, Assistant Secretary for Economics, USDA--
     Reagan Administration; Dr. Luther Tweeten, The Ohio State 
     University; and Dr. Barry Flinchbaugh, Kansas State 
     University.

  Clearly the support for the concept of Freedom to Farm is widespread. 
But this bill is more than just Freedom To Farm. There are other major 
reforms contained in this package. This bill reforms the dairy 
industry. It instructs the Secretary to reduce the number of milk 
marketing orders in the nation. It phases out the price support. This 
bill provides regulatory relief for farmers in terms of conservation 
compliance and wetlands by injecting a little common sense into the 
process.
  This bill has a very strong trade title. It has strong embargo 
protection language that reminds the President we can't have a market-
oriented farm policy and allow the State Department to destroy those 
markets through foreign policy embargoes. The American farmer remembers 
the Soviet Grain Embargo of 1980--that nearly wiped out a generation of 
farmers. We can't go down that road again and this bill makes it more 
difficult for a President to choose that path.

  This bill also contains the Commission on 21st Century Agriculture. 
As I have alluded to, this is a transition bill. But many farmers have 
raised the question of a transition of what? This bill charges the 
Commission to look at where we have been and where we should head and 
report to Congress on the appropriate role of the Federal government in 
production agriculture after 2002.
  This bill also authorizes existing research programs for two years 
while Congress can undertake an extensive review of the $1.7 billion we 
spend on agricultural research. The House Agriculture Committee has 
sent out 57 questions to the research community stakeholders asking 
them for their guidance and input. On Wednesday, we began the hearing 
process that will hopefully lead to reform legislation that moves 
agricultural research in the direction of helping our farmers compete 
in a global marketplace against very tough competitors.
  This bill takes a small stab at reforming the way USDA goes about 
buying its computers. In the past, the USDA through the Commodity 
Credit Corporation has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on 
computers and information systems, often without very much 
Congressional oversight. The result has been the various agencies of 
the USDA all have different computer systems with little ability to 
communicate. Several years ago the USDA embarked upon Infoshare 
supposedly to better manage its computer and information systems. The 
Clinton administration abandoned that and is proposing to spend $175 
million next year on yet another computer purchasing extravaganza. This 
bill attempts to get a Congressional grip on those purchases and make 
them subject to greater Congressional review and accountability.
  This bill reforms and streamlines the current rural development 
system by establishing the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], 
which authorizes the Secretary to provide grants, direct and guaranteed 
loans and other assistance to meet rural development needs across the 
country. The new program provides greater flexibility, state and local 
decision making and a simplified, uniform application process.
  In summary, this bill is truly reform. It moves agricultural program 
policy into the 21st Century. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues that we bring them the most 
difficult title of this conference report, the dairy title. It has been 
the most acrimonious, but I think we bring a consensus package today 
which represents the most comprehensive reform of dairy policy in the 
last 50 years.
  What it does is first and foremost prepares us to deal with the 
inequities of dairy pricing across this country over the next 3-year 
period; and secondly, it allows us over the next 4 years to prepare for 
the American dairy farmer to successfully participate in the post-GATT 
world dairy economy.
  This is significant legislation, and I would encourage everyone to 
support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would now like to take just a few moments go through 
the dairy chapter of the conference report section by section to 
describe the improvements the conference report has made in the House-
passed bill.
  Section 141 retains the dairy price support program for 4 years, but 
eliminates the budget assessment on producers immediately. The support 
price will be set at $10.35/cwt in 1996, $10.20/cwt in 1997, $10.05/cwt 
in 1998, and $9.90/cwt in 1999. This level of support is higher than 
that provided by the Solomon-Dooley language in the House-passed bill, 
thereby assuring producers a higher income in those years.
  During this period, the Secretary is authorized to alter how the 
support price is allocated between butter and nonfat dry milk in an 
effort to minimize price support program purchases and maximize exports 
of those commodities.
  This section also terminates the dairy price support program on 
December 31, 1999, rather than on December 31, 2000, as the House-

[[Page H3153]]

passed bill would have done. This will allow the U.S. dairy industry to 
become competitive in the world market a full year before Solomon-
Dooley would have. This is absolutely critical to the future of the 
industry because the Uruguay Round will free up about 25 percent of the 
world market for butter, nonfat dry milk, and cheese from subsidies by 
the end of the century.
  Section 142 replaces the dairy price support program with a recourse 
loan program for processors of cheddar cheese, butter, and nonfat dry 
milk at a rate of $9.90/cwt of milk equivalent on a 3.67 butterfat 
basis. This marketing tool will be an important stabilizing tool as it 
enters the world market. It also serves a secondary purpose of 
maintaining a budget baseline for dairy commodity program outlays in 
the last 3 years of our 7 year budget cycle.
  Section 143 provides for milk marketing order consolidation and 
pricing reform to be completed by USDA during the 3 years that follow 
the enactment of the bill. This is 2 years faster than the 5-year 
period proposed by the Solomon-Dooley language in the House-passed 
bill.
  In completing the consolidation of the current 33 Federal milk 
marketing orders into not less than 10 nor more than 14 orders, the 
Secretary will have to redesign the entire price surface for milk in 
this country from the basic formula price for manufacturing milk to any 
differential for fluid (beverage) milk. Uniform component pricing for 
milk is specifically mentioned.
  The bill language also specifically prohibits the Secretary from 
using the current fluid milk differentials in any way to achieve that 
new price surface. Rather, it suggests that he review utilization rates 
and multiple basing points, among other issues, when designing that new 
fluid milk pricing system. This will undoubtedly result in a flatter 
price surface for fluid milk and a more level playing field nationally.
  All of the issues related to consolidation and pricing reform will be 
addressed through the information rulemaking process, assuring their 
completion within 3 years of the enactment of the legislation. There is 
a further safeguard to assure the timely completion of this reform in 
that, if the Secretary fails to complete these tasks within the 
allotted period of time, he will lose his authority to assess producers 
and handlers for marketing order services and administrative costs 
until those reforms are, indeed, completed.
  Section 144 is offered in an attempt to exempt California from 
existing Federal standards for the solids not fact content in Class I 
(fluid) milk. Regrettably, this section is drafted in such a way that 
the State standards would become a barrier to interstate commerce in 
fluid milk and, as a result, will likely spawn years of additional 
lawsuits on this issue.

  Section 145 resolves the so-called ``section 102''--(California make 
allowance--issue which has, similarly, been the subject matter of 
frequent, contentious litigation. Specifically, section 102 of the 1990 
farm bill is repealed and replaced, for a 4-year period, with a ceiling 
on State manufacturing allowances of $1.65/cwt for butter/nonfat dry 
milk and $1.80/cwt for cheese.
  The section further clarifies that these ceilings are the numbers 
which result from a State's yield and product price formulas, not the 
numbers which are plugged into and, then, adjusted by these formulas. 
If a manufacturing allowance resulting from the yield and pricing 
formulas of a State milk marketing order exceed these ceilings, 
processors in that State are precluded from selling surplus commodities 
to the Commodity Credit Corporation under the dairy price support 
program.
  Section 146 extends the fluid milk promotion program through the year 
2002. The House reluctantly accepted this provision even though we have 
not had hearings on this reauthorization to date. We will, in fact, 
have those hearings later this spring.
  Section 147 relates to the Northeast Interstate Dairy compact. While 
this interstate agreement has little support on the House side, we were 
confronted with a situation in conference that threatened the entire 
farm bill process if the Northeast compact were not among the 
provisions of the conference report. Given the delay that the 
Reconciliation process already imposed on a new farm bill and the 
prospect of farmers beginning their planting season without a farm 
bill, the House conferees reluctantly agreed to include the Northeast 
compact among the other farm bill provisions only after its proponents 
had agreed to the following limitations.
  First of all, consent is granted to the compact only if the Secretary 
of Agriculture finds that there is a compelling public interest for the 
compact in the region. Second, any consent will be terminated when the 
Secretary implements the consolidation and pricing reforms required by 
section 143.
  Further, the compact over-order price would be applicable only to 
fluid milk, and the CCC would have to be reimbursed for any additional 
purchases of milk and the products of milk resulting from any increased 
milk production in the compact region in excess of the increase in milk 
production nationally.
  Most importantly, the compact and its over-order price are not 
allowed to create a domestic trade barrier to milk and milk products 
coming into the compact region from other production areas around the 
country. While the mere establishment of an over-order price by the 
Compact Commission for use within the region itself will not be 
considered a prohibition or limitation on interstate commerce or the 
imposition of a compensatory payment, the Commission cannot require 
handlers bringing fluid milk into the region, either in bulk, packaged, 
or producer form, to add a compensatory payment or other up-charge to 
that milk.
  In this regard, the language in condition number seven is clear and 
unambiguous--the Compact Commission cannot prohibit or otherwise limit 
milk or milk products from other regions of the country from entering 
the region, it must abide by the rules and regulations that Federal 
orders have set up with respect to the classification of milk and the 
allocation of the proceeds from inter-order sales of milk, and it 
cannot use compensatory payments under section 10(6) of the compact.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, the legislation prevents the Northeast to use 
its compact in any way that could lead to the economic disadvantage or 
detriment of producers and processors in other regions of the country.
  Section 148 requires the full funding of the Dairy Export Incentive 
Program [DEIP] to Uruguay Round limits and gives the Secretary of 
Agriculture the sole discretion over the program to eliminate 
interagency disputes over the use of this program in the future.
  Sections 149 and 150 authorize the Secretary to assist the American 
dairy industry in establishing one or more export trading companies 
autonomous of the U.S. government and to find sources of funding for 
their activities. These entities would, then, assist U.S. companies in 
entering and remaining competitive in the world market.
  Section 151 requires the Secretary to study and report to the 
Congress on the impact that the new access cheese that our negotiators 
agreed to during the Uruguay Round proceedings will have on producer 
income and government purchases of cheese under the price support 
program.
  Finally, section 152 re-emphasizes the authority the National Dairy 
Board already has to use a portion of its annual budget to promote 
American dairy products internationally.
  As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this is a good dairy bill. Not only does 
it get us into the world market for dairy faster and provide greater 
marketing tools for the dairy industry than the Solomon-Dooley 
provisions, but is also kinder to producer income and gets us order 
reform and a more level domestic playing field faster than those 
Solomon-Dooley provisions. Accordingly, I recommend its adoption by my 
colleagues.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Kansas regarding Section 892 of H.R. 2854, currently 
entitled ``Use of Remote Sensing Data and Other Data to Anticipate 
Potential Food, Feed, and Fiber Shortages or Excesses and to Provide 
Timely Information to Assist Farmers with Planting Decisions.'' The 
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Smith, and I worked out some language on 
how we can encourage the use of remote sensing data to aid farmers 
across this country, but the language contained in Section 892 of H.R. 
2854 differs from what we agreed on and might be interpreted 
differently than is intended.
  First of all, the title of the section conveys a different meaning 
than intended. It should indicate that the federal government's role in 
this area is to assist farmers in using remote sensing data, not to 
provide the data directly. Subparagraph (b) of Section 892 directs the 
NASA Administrator and Secretary of Agriculture to work with the 
private sector to provide information, through remote sensing, on crop 
conditions, fertilization and irrigation needs, pest infiltration, soil 
conditions, projected food, feed, and fiber production, and any other 
information available through remote sensing. Some might interpret that 
to mean that NASA should provide data directly to farmers, even if 
private remote sensing firms can already meet those needs. That is not 
what is intended by this paragraph.
  Mr. ROBERTS. You are correct. That is not the intention of this 
language. There are excellent capabilities within NASA and the private 
sector to use remote sensing data for crop forecasting, precision 
agriculture, and projecting

[[Page H3154]]

food yield. We do want to find innovative ways of bringing these 
capabilities to the benefit of the American farmer. Under Subparagraph 
(b), NASA and the Secretary of Agriculture should work with the private 
sector to teach farmers how to obtain and use remote sensing data from 
commercial data providers for the purposes you mentioned. The NASA 
Administrator or the Secretary of Agriculture should not interpret this 
to mean that they are to provide farmers with remote sensing data that 
the private sector is making available on the market.
  Mr. WALKER. The NASA Administrator and the Secretary of Agriculture, 
then will not be allowed to compete with the private sector in 
providing earth remote sensing data, interpretation services, or tools 
to the agricultural community. It is also intended that NASA's efforts 
under this provision be managed by the Earth Observation for Commercial 
Application Program [EOCAP], based the Stennis Space Center in 
Mississippi.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Well, the gentleman is absolutely correct. The intention 
of this subparagraph is for the NASA Administrator and the Secretary of 
Agriculture to help the commercial remote sensing industry better meet 
the needs of the agricultural community through development of new pre-
commercial remote sensing technologies and interpretive tools. That 
way, we will ensure a steady steam of services and products that 
benefit American agriculture without adding to government expenditures 
or making American farmers dependent on the provision of government 
services. The EOCAP (E-OH-CAP) program has the most expertise in 
bringing these diverse requirements and capabilities together.
  Mr. WALKER. Subparagraph (c) also calls on the Secretary of 
Agriculture and the NADA Administrator to jointly develop a proposal to 
provide farmers and other prospective users with supply and demand 
information about food and fibers. We do not intend that this section 
shall require or direct the NASA Administrator to conduct a program 
within NASA that does crop forecasting.
  Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman has hit the nail on the head again. This 
subparagraph is intended to urge the NASA Administrator to provide to 
the Secretary of Agriculture remote sensing data or interpretative 
tools that it develops under its normal activities, if and when such 
data and tools may be helpful in understanding the supply and demand 
for food and fibers. This is not intended to place any requirements for 
programs or research efforts on the NASA Administrator that add to 
NASA's current responsibilities.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I yield to the gentleman, I would just like to observe that 
the little Mutt and Jeff or whatever kind of show that went on was 
quite a joke, and this bill is quite a joke.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota 
[Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I would observe I have never heard my colleagues more eloquent.
  I want to tell you at the outset that I feel badly all of you have to 
remain tonight for the debate preceding the vote. We asked the chairman 
to roll the vote. We are going to be here tomorrow. We might have had 
an extended debate, not inconveniencing you, but a full debate before 
the vote tomorrow.
  The chairman refused the request to roll the vote, and that is why 
you will participate in the debate. We will not be rushed in our effort 
to get on the record our reservations about this bill. And I do not 
care what tactics they use to put us in an awkward situation debating 
the bill at 11:30 at night.
  You are going to hear tonight a lot of thumping of the chests, a lot 
of patting on the back. We are passing a farm bill. You know, it is as 
though they did not realize the last farm bill expired at the end of 
1995. We have had farmers all across the country considering very 
difficult decisions in terms of what to plant, what financing to get in 
place, not just the farmers but lenders, agribusiness men, all 
wondering about the actions of this Congress. As far as I am concerned, 
the House Ag Committee had one thing and one thing only to do in 1995, 
and that is get a farm bill passed. And the House Committee on 
Agriculture failed to do it.
  Come 1996 January came and went, come February, against a vote that 
all of us opposed on this side of the aisle. The House voted to adjourn 
and went home, leaving several opportune weeks to get a farm bill in 
place wasted, as Members went back to their districts. Come March, the 
weeks start to toll, and now here, on March 28, and the chairman says 
we have to remain in session until sometime near midnight so we get a 
farm program in place for farmers.
  I think it has been an absolutely shameful debacle of a process that 
has brought this bill that left the last farm bill expiring before we 
had a new program in place for our farmers, and that is just the start 
of my reservations about this particular farm bill before us.
  I do not deny for a minute that the guaranteed payments, especially 
in the early going under the so-called freedom to farm bill we will be 
passing tonight, will be helpful to the farmers of North Dakota and 
across the country. It is what the farmers have been asked to give up 
for these early upfront payments that give me the most heartburn about 
this bill.
  For decades we have preserved the safety net for family farmers, 
recognizing that they expose enormous amounts of capital, but have 
their fate turning largely upon market prices over which they have no 
control whatsoever.
  We have provided a backstop when prices collapsed. We have given 
farmers a floor so that we do not drive them off their land, and this 
bill eliminates that hallmark of traditional family farm programs 
maintained by past Congresses.
  What makes this bill even more troubling is that American farmers 
were assured in exchange for giving up this long-term safety net they 
would have regulatory relief. Well, there is a good deal in there about 
planting flexibility, and I think those are positive components of this 
bill. But if falls far short of regulatory relief. In conference 
committee the conference adopted an amendment proposed by the gentleman 
from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson] and myself to reform the swampbuster 
legislation. I think more reform was needed here. And yet, without 
question, farmers will find the increased flexibility somewhat helpful. 
More should have been done. The promise of regulatory relief really, I 
think falls short in delivery than what was promised. In many other 
ways, this bill is still superior to the freedom to the farm package 
that was before the House at the end of February. It contains an 
oilseed marketing loan and a fund for rural America, both provisions 
that we offered in the House agriculture committee, but they were 
defeated by the Republican majority Members. Now they are in the final 
report. It makes it a better bill. It does not make it a bill worthy of 
passage.

  The debate on this bill has been long and contentious. It is 
unfortunate we did not have more of an opportunity for honest give-and-
take in the terms of trying to resolve our differences. I think once 
the farmers of our Nation get a good look at this program, they will 
see that at the end of 7 years, they are left without a safety net, 
they are left without the freedom to farm payments, and they will 
realize that this deal has been a bad deal for rural America.
  My sincere hope is that the Congress will have the chance to review 
and correct the grievous mistakes it is making in passing this 
legislation before the last family farmers in America are finally run 
out of business.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], the coauthor of the Freedom to 
Farm Act.
  (Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise tonight in support of the conference report on 
H.R. 2854. I want to thank the chairman of the full ag committee for 
yielding to me and for his leadership in bringing

[[Page H3155]]

this historic piece of legislation to this point.
  I am pleased that Congress will pass the conference report tonight. 
It will unleash agriculture, the Nation's single largest industry, from 
antiquated programs, and excessive Federal control.
  As the largest newspaper in Nebraska said on yesterday, it will allow 
farmers to, and here I quote, ``throw away the crutch of government 
subsidies and break free from the unending flow of dictates from 
Washington.''
  Mr. Speaker, in the interest of time and because of the lateness of 
the hour, I will conclude my remarks at this time and insert a longer 
statement in the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference agreement on 
the Federal Agricultural Improvement Act.
  As chairman of the General Farm Commodities Subcommittee, I traveled 
across the country last spring to receive testimony on our Nation's 
farm policy. I chaired a total of eight different hearings. The full 
committee held many more. Farmers, bankers, producer groups, and 
agribusinesses all had a chance to be heard.
  Mr. Speaker, there was a common theme running through that testimony 
the theme was give farmers the freedom to plant what they need to plant 
for the market, and give them the tools to do it. I'm pleased and even 
excited, that the 1996 farm bill does just that.
  As I travelled my district this past weekend, listening to the 
excitement in farmer's voices as they discussed their planting options, 
I couldn't help but think of all the changes that have occurred in 
agriculture in America over the past few decades, and wonder why it 
ever took so long to reform farm policy.
  Today, on farms across the country, computers and cellular phones are 
almost as common as tractors. Satellites, once used only at the 
Department of Defense, are now used to forecast weather, and track crop 
conditions. On the other hand, federal farm programs have not changed. 
They have not adapted to changing markets and advances in technology.
  Since the Great Depression, the federal government has attempted to 
maintain a federally determined income standard for farmers. The 
government offered loans, price supports, cash payments, and even 
placed restrictions on the use of agricultural land.
  Our economy is based on risk taking and competition--with few 
restrictions. These programs have made American agriculture run counter 
to most other sectors of our economy. Unfortunately, agriculture in 
America has not been market oriented.
  I'm pleased that the House has before it today, a Farm Bill 
conference report that would allow producers to plant for the market, 
to make choices, to weigh risk, and to be in charge of their future. 
The FAIR Act reforms agriculture the American way, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference 
report. Proponents of H.R. 2854 say that it represents reform of our 
antiquated federal agriculture policy. But I say it is business as 
usual.
  Proponents of the bill say it reforms the peanut program--one of the 
most glaring examples of misguided agriculture policy. But that is 
simply not true. The cosmetic reforms included in this bill do not 
sufficiently address my concerns with this program.
  The peanut program supports peanut quota holders at the expense of 
250 million American consumers and taxpayers. The GAO has estimated 
that this program passes on $500 million per year in higher peanut 
prices to consumers.
  The bill also lacks real reform of the sugar program. Like the peanut 
subsidy, the sugar program artificially inflates the price of sugar in 
America for the benefit of a handful of sugar growers. American 
consumers pay $1.4 billion more each year for products with sugar in 
them as a result of this program. That is a total consumer price tag of 
almost $2 billion for these two programs.
  This conference report also includes a provision that was placed in 
the bill during conference without having been debated or amended on 
the floor. The bill creates the mis-named Safe Meat and Poultry 
Inspection Panel to review and evaluate food safety procedures, adding 
another hurdle to the Food Safety and Inspection Service's efforts to 
protect the U.S. food supply.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. There are 4,000 deaths and 5 million 
illnesses annually in the U.S. as a result of food-borne pathogens. 
FSIS is trying to cut down this number, but they have been facing 
opposition every step of the way. This provision is another in a series 
of attempts to hinder their efforts. It was not in the House or Senate 
versions of the Farm Bill. It was not debated. It was not amended. Yet 
here it is in the conference report. This is no way to legislate.
  Just last week Mike Taylor, the Undersecretary of Agriculture for 
Food Safety, came before the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 
and told us how difficult it is for his agency to accomplish its goals 
of protecting our food supply with the limited budget it has been 
given. Now we are going to shoulder them with the fiscal burden of this 
panel. Unacceptable!
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report is filled with provisions that 
send our agriculture policy in the wrong direction. We can do much, 
much better. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Poshard], our distinguished colleague.
  (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act conference report, 
because I believe this legislation is good for our farmers, 
environment, and rural communities. The bill also moves us closer 
toward our goal of balancing the Nation's budget while allowing our 
farmers to provide consumers with high quality and low-cost food 
products.
  This conference agreement provides our farmers with the flexibility 
they need to meet growing and changing market demands. Under the bill, 
farmers can plant most any crop on acreage subject to a production 
flexibility contract. In addition, these new production contracts will 
greatly lessen the amount of paperwork and time required of farmers who 
enrolled in farm programs of years past.
  The conference report provides for continued marketing assistance 
loans to producers of program crops, as well as soybeans. In fact, the 
agreement includes an increase in the loan rate for soybeans that I am 
proud to say was added to the Senate bill by my Illinois colleague, 
Senator Carol Moseley-Braun. The bill also reauthorizes the farm 
lending program, which has assisted many farmers and their families in 
my congressional district.
  The conference agreement reauthorizes two very important programs 
that assist our Nation's farmers in continuing to be good stewards of 
our environment and lands, the Conservation and Wetlands Reserve 
Programs. These two programs have been very successful in making it 
cost-effective for farmers to set aside environmentally sensitive 
lands. While the conference report caps enrollment in the programs, it 
allows new acreage to be enrolled as idle land is taken out of the 
programs. The bill also provides $200 million annually for a new 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program which will provide technical 
and financial assistance to livestock producers and farmers to improve 
water quality.
  The bill authorizes a new USDA Rural Community Advancement Program to 
provide grants, loans and loan guarantees to meet the rural development 
needs of our local communities. The agreement provides $300 million 
over 3 years for a fund for rural America which will be available for 
rural development and competitive research activities. In addition, the 
conference report reauthorizes USDA's rural water programs.
  I am pleased the agreement reauthorizes various Federal agricultural 
research, extension, and education programs. These programs are 
essential to the future of our Nation's agricultural community and its 
future in the global marketplace. In Illinois, research and extension 
programs have played a major role in the Illinois agricultural 
community's success as a domestic producer and exporter of farm 
commodities.
  I thank the conferees for working swiftly on the conference report so 
that our farmers can begin planning and planting this year's crops. 
This bill provides our farmers with flexibility,

[[Page H3156]]

our environment with effective and reasonable protections, and rural 
communities with new and expanded ways to invest in needed 
infrastructure and economic development. I truly believe this 
legislation is a step in the right direction for our agricultural and 
rural communities, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this agreement.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], who is an outstanding legislator and knows a 
little bit about agriculture, quite a bit.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, gentlemen and ladies, last 
year, during the welfare debate, I heard speaker after speaker come to 
this floor and say that we had to end the practice of paying people to 
do nothing, that we should no longer pay people not to work.

                              {time}  2345

  Something remarkable happened that day. Every single Member of this 
body voted to no longer pay people for not working. Many of us 
supported the coalition plan, the rest of the folks supported the 
Republican plan, but everyone supported at least one plan that would 
stop paying people for doing nothing. And it was remarkable, and it was 
a good thing.
  Unfortunately, in this bill there is a plan to pay people up to 
$80,000 a year per individual for 7 years to do nothing. You do not 
have to plant a crop, you do not have to work a field, you do not have 
to work fences, you do not have to start the tractor, you do not have 
to do anything. You do not even have to try to farm, and you get 
$80,000 a year.
  Earlier today this body by a majority voted to raise the debt limit 
up to $5.5 trillion. We are spending $2 million every 4 minutes on 
interest on the national debt. Where do we stop?
  I am not going to criticize the whole bill, but I can tell you, 
freedom to farm is a bad idea, because you can never wean people off 
Government dependence by paying them to do nothing, whether they are a 
welfare mother or whether they are a father who happens to be a farmer. 
It does not work. It does not work with welfare, and it will not work 
with farming.
  Please vote against this bill.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the House it 
is not just $80,000 to big investors that do not even live on the farm, 
they are in New York and Chicago and other places, they are getting the 
$80,000. They have not even been to the farm, and they are going to get 
the $80,000. But it is $36 billion, $36 billion over 7 years, to people 
that do not want to farm. That is right. Not $80,000; $36 billion. That 
is how much you are talking about, folks. Let us get the real numbers, 
Yes, $36 billion.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the new 
majority came to town promising to balance the budget, and yet this 
year's budget according to the Congressional Budget Office, will spend 
$270 billion more than we collect in taxes. If we can cut out anything, 
let us start with a program that pays people up to $80,000 a year not 
to go to work. Please vote against this bill.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was sorry the gentleman from New York would not yield 
to me. He said there was a glass of milk here from Massachusetts. Yes, 
there is a dairy compact from New England, which I opposed, which I 
think will hurt the consumers which was not in the House bill or the 
Senate bill. As I understand it, it shows up in the conference report. 
Typical. If people want to know what contempt of Congress means, it is 
the way the House has been treated recently on major issues, with the 
minimum debate the rules of the House allow. And now I can understand 
why they do not want to debate this.
  The gentleman from Mississippi talked about this program. This is the 
biggest welfare program we have left. It will be bigger than AFDC from 
the Federal dollar standpoint. What we are saying is, farmers will get 
welfare payments. There is a difference, however.
  By the way, I am not the only one who first thought of this. I must 
give credit where credit was due. In 1990, Richard Armey, writing in 
the Heritage Foundation, said ``If the goal of our farm programs is to 
help needy farmers, we should do so directly with welfare payments 
rather than with the complex and costly system of price supports. That 
would only cost $4 billion a year, rather than $12 billion.''
  Mr. ARMEY was a prophet, and that is what we are doing. We are giving 
to welfare to farmers because they are in need, rather than costly 
price supports. But the majority leader Mr. Armey is a little more 
expansive than the critic Mr. Armey, because we are going to do $35 
billion over 7 years, so it is $5 billion a year rather than $4 
billion.
  Note it is 7 years. If you are a 3-year-old whose mother has not done 
everything she should have done, you get cut off after 2 years, as I 
understand it, in the bill. So the farmer's welfare lasts for 7 years.
  Also if you are a 3-year-old, your parent has a work requirement. 
There is no work requirement in here for the farmers. There is not 
even, as I understand, it is a life requirement. If I am correct, under 
this bill a farmer who dies may pass on his share of these billions of 
dollars to his or her heirs.
  So at the same time we talk about how tough we are going to be on the 
dependent children, we are going to cut them off after 2 years. We are 
going to have a work requirement. Very late at night, in the hopes 
there will be no debate, we are going to give $35 billion to able-
bodied working people. As the majority leader said, ``let's give them 
welfare instead of requirements,'' and they will simply get that $35 
billion.
  The inconsistency between the toughness that is meted out to the poor 
and the lavish and gentle treatment that goes to the favored political 
few is outrageous. What right do people have morally to condemn the 
poorest people in this country, to not even allow them to debate the 
minimum wage, to cut welfare, to cut Medicaid, to cut everything else. 
But the farmers, apparently free enterprise has no real meaning here.
  Let us take $35 billion of deficit spending and simply give it to 
farmers because they happen to be farmers over the next 7 years. That 
is what is in the majority's bill, and that is why they are trying to 
burp this discussion and have it late at night and hit and run, and not 
have it talked about.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the House that 
to get this money, all you have to do was be in the program 1 year out 
of the last 5 years. If anybody would come to this House and say that I 
have been on welfare, I have been on AFDC, or on food stamps once in 
the last 5 years, and therefore I am entitled to 7 more years of it, we 
would say they are crazy, they are lunatic, that is crazy. But that is 
what this is. That is identical to what this is.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me 
just say, of course there is no foolishness in here about States 
rights. This is a pure, 100 percent unadulterated Federal entitlement. 
So we have fiscal discipline and toughness and harshness and work 
requirements and strict time limits for the very poor, but for those 
who can vote and those whose support politically is important to the 
majority, all of these hifalutin principles go out the window, and they 
are treated with a degree of consideration and care that the poor never 
get.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, we spend over $26 billion a year for food stamps, we 
provide additional monies for school lunch, for school breakfast, for 
temporary emergency food assistance, and for other assistance programs 
for migrants. No one can say that we are not attempting to care for the 
poor. Yet even as we try to provide assistance to the poor, we have 
managed to reduce expenditures in Agriculture programs in order to 
balance the budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H3157]]

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2854
  Mr. Speaker, it is with some considerable reservation that I stand 
here tonight encouraging my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the 1996 
[FAIR] Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act. However, I 
suggest to you all that we must put philosophical differences aside and 
think clearly and with conscientious conviction about who, not what we 
are supporting. Today's vote is for American farmers and the 
communities with families who sustain them. If this were March 1995 and 
we were debating future farm policy, but had functional farm laws in 
place, I would be adamant in my opposition to this legislation because 
it removes the safety net from under these peoples' lives. 
Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury today. At this stage in the 
game, with planting and credit decisions still in limbo, we must 
believe that any further delay only imperils the livelihoods of 
millions of people. Even with all it's potential shortcomings and 
pitfalls, I have to accept this legislation as the best we can provide 
at this time. I would not have authored it, but the majority's views 
prevailed. Although I believe many of the aspects of this bill will 
come back and haunt us, our debate, limited as it was, is over for now. 
We must move forward and provide some degree of predictability and 
assurance to our agricultural producers.
  If we force ourselves to stand back, remove emotion, and objectively 
view farm programs and their overall effects on society, it's apparent 
to me that the level of stability offered to markets by our support has 
allowed the American farmer to become the envy of the world. No farm 
programs that exist today are perfect; they never will be. From a long 
view though, they have been successful. It may be the time to embark on 
new social experiments but we cannot ignore or forget what has worked 
in the past.
  The current leadership believes in a text-book free market, but this 
completely ignores the role of other governments that don't practice 
free trade. The recent GATT accord has not changed this. The European 
Union, for example, over the past 5 years outspent the United States 6 
to 1 in terms of export subsidies, $10.6 billion versus less than $2 
billion by the United States, and will be able to maintain its 
historical advantage under the GATT Agreement. American farmers cannot 
unilaterally disarm in an international marketplace. I don't know of a 
single farmer who wouldn't rather receive his income from the 
marketplace, but the real world is subsidized agriculture. This is one 
of the areas where our Government must stand shoulder to shoulder with 
us. We must use all our tools to boost commodity export: first, 
programs to help U.S. exporters compete in terms of price; second, 
programs to help importers obtain credit needed to purchase U.S. 
commodities; and third, programs to provide U.S. farm products as food 
aid.
  All our efforts will be wasted however, if we neglect the 
infrastructure of rural America. We must continue to provide critical 
resources for rural communities as they work to address unmet needs at 
the local level. Water and sewer requirements alone cannot be met with 
the money that have been authorized. Research, education, extension, 
and seed money to develop value added programs are essential too, for 
rural economies to diversify and position themselves to compete in a 
rapidly changing global economy. Without public investment in 
stabilizing agriculture, you will witness further declines in rural 
America's security and strength.
  The provisions of the FAIR Act will result in dramatic adjustments in 
U.S. policy and continues cuts in spending. Overall, numerous 
challenges confront U.S. agriculture--challenges of first, responding 
to competition in the global marketplace; second, ensuring a 
profitable, sustainable food and agriculture sector; third, 
safeguarding natural resources and the environment; fourth, ensuring 
balanced nutrition and a high-quality food supply; and revitalizing 
rural America. The stakes are high, but the opportunities and rewards 
are unlimited. Whether the agriculture industry continues its move 
forward or falls behind is largely dependent upon the vision and 
imagination of its participants. More importantly, we cannot be afraid 
to re-examine any policy as it relates to the vitality and stability of 
the sector it is meant to serve. With that in mind, I urge you to vote 
``yes'' and put our farmers back to work.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment to the ones yelling ``vote,'' I 
am the one that tried to get the chairman to roll the vote so you would 
not have to be here.
  Mr. Speaker, I first would like to point out to the House, as the 
gentleman who started this debate on our side from North Dakota pointed 
out, that we are here tonight in a hurry to do something that should 
have been done last year in regular time, but it was not done, and it 
is not the fault of those of us on this side. It is the fault, no 
question about it, of those that are in the majority that did not do 
their job.
  Now, the next thing, the decoupling that has taken place between 
asking farmers to do things to help provide a food supply for this 
country is gone. It is no longer in this bill. The farmer does not have 
to plan at all, and in some parts of this country this year you are 
going to see less planting, you are going to see less rice, I will 
guarantee you, than we have ever had for years, and you are going to 
see other things happen.
  I talked to some agricultural economists about this problem. Mr. 
Speaker, what you are going to see in the future, right now we have 
shortages, so you have good prices, so you are going to see production. 
You are going to see all-out production. In about 2 years, with good 
crops, we are going to have overproduction, we are going to have 
oversupply. The price is going to drop, and the loan rate is capped in 
this bill, which means a lot of farmers out there are not going to make 
money.
  All farmers do not get this payment. Let me remind you of that. In my 
district, 60 percent of the farmers get nothing from this bill. The 
gentleman from Kansas, the chairman of the committee, in his district 
85 percent of the farmers get $30,000 a year, on average. My farmers, 
even those 40 percent, only get $3,500. Down in parts of Texas, cotton 
country, you get up to $80,000. In parts of rice country, you get 
around $60,000 to $70,000.
  There is no longer going to be a Federal crop program. It is gone, as 
good as gone. So when you look at that adequate food supply, you are 
going to see fewer farmers, you are going to see shortages, you are 
going to go back to the time, it is all history, you are going to go 
back to the time when there were no Government programs basically, and 
the big cycle starts, not only in prices, but in food supply. Yes, in 
food supply. You are going to have ups and downs. And when you have the 
down, you understand, then you are going to have problems with people 
having food.
  That is what you are getting out of this program. In the meantime, 
yes, big investors, bit people, 22 percent of that $36 billion is going 
to go to 2 percent of the farmers, and most of those people have never 
been on a farm. They are investors, most of them. Investors own 
farmers. They are going to get the big bucks.
  I do not know why we cannot learn from history. I do not know why we 
have to go back to the days of old and go through the same problems 
with agriculture, but that is basically where this program leads you. 
In 7 years, they say we are going to wean them off after 7 years. I do 
not believe so. But there is going to be no incentives in this program 
for farmers to produce, as we do in our regular programs when we had 
the safety net.
  We also have mechanisms to get people to produce certain crops so we 
can have additional crops if we need those crops. That is no longer 
here. That is gone. We have completely decoupled the programs of even 
what we call supply management from this bill completely. That is gone, 
folks. It is not in here anymore.

  And this all is not new, this whole program is not brand new. But 
what is really interesting to me is to find that when this freedom to 
farm, they call it, I call it freedom not to farm, first surfaced last 
summer, overwhelmingly rejected by most people, especially on this 
side.
  Well, I will say this to you, the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. 
Chairman, you have been persistent. You have wore them down. You have 
not worn me down. I said then and I will say now it is the wrong way 
for agriculture, it is a disaster for this country, and I say vote 
against H.R. 2854.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was give permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
time. I rise in strong support for this conference report, the most 
comprehensive reform of agriculture in my lifetime, the Federal 
Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act.

[[Page H3158]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report and 
would like to congratulate my full committee chairman, Mr. Roberts and 
subcommittee chairman Mr. Gunderson for all their time and hard work.
  For the first time Washington has seen fit to give producers the 
flexibility they have been demanding for years. The Federal 
Agricultural Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act finally allows our 
farmers and ranchers to produce for the market instead of the 
Government.
  The FAIR Act accomplishes the three goals that were set for this 
legislation: it transitions our agriculture sector towards the 21st 
century global economy; it saves the taxpayers billions of dollars; and 
it protects the environment.
  The FAIR Act represents the most sweeping reform in agriculture 
policy in 60 years. It puts farmers, not the Government in charge of 
planting decisions. Farmers are no longer required to plant the same 
crops year after year to receive assistance, allowing greater crop 
rotation and less dependence on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

  In addition to this the FAIR Act targets $1.2 billion over 7 years to 
assist crop and livestock producers with environmental and conservation 
improvements on the farm. Assistance can be used for animal waste 
management facilities, terraces, waterways, filterstrips, or other 
structural and management practices to protect water, soil, and related 
resources.
  Producers, the first and best stewards of the land, are given 
enhanced flexibility to modify conservation practices if they can 
demonstrate that the new practices achieve equal or greater erosion 
control. It also takes measures to ensure the protection of the Florida 
Everglades, a national treasure.
  This is the most environmentally friendly farm bill in history. We 
enhance the protection of the environment without new mandates, 
regulations, requirements and redtape. It makes the Federal Government 
a partner with producers in addressing environmental challenges, rather 
than an adversary. It is voluntary and incentive-based. Most 
importantly, it works.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].
  (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I give strong compliments to the chairman, 
Mr. Roberts, and Senator Dole for their leadership on this excellent 
farm bill we are about to pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report 
to accompany H.R. 2854, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform 
Act, historic legislation to completely overhaul this Nation's farm 
policy. Yet, as we move toward a more market-oriented agricultural 
policy in this Nation, one fact is easily overlooked in this entire 
farm bill debate--and that is Congress is about to pass the most 
environmentally sensitive farm bill ever. All of this is done without 
any new mandates, regulations, requirements or bureaucratic redtape. It 
makes the Federal Government a partner with agricultural producers in 
addressing agricultural changes, rather than an adversary.

  In particular, I am especially pleased that this conference report 
contains $200 million for funding of land acquisition and environmental 
restoration activities in one of our true national treasures--the 
Florida Everglades. Additionally, the bill does something that we 
should be all proud to support. It allows the Federal Government to 
dispose of surplus lands, up to $100 million, within the State of 
Florida for the purpose of acquiring additional environmentally 
sensitive lands in the Everglades.
  As the author of this provision in the House, I would like to take 
this time to thank those Members of Congress who worked so hard on 
finalizing this issue. First of all, I would like to thank 
Representative Richard Pombo from California, who was thrust into the 
role of attempting to reshape the legislation in conference and did an 
outstanding job in that role. Second, many thanks go to the House and 
Senate majority leadership--in particular Speaker Newt Gingrich who was 
especially instrumental in the role of discussing the idea of surplus 
land disposal for the purpose of environmental restoration. Senator Bob 
Dole played a vital role in inserting this language in the Senate bill 
when it was originally considered earlier this year. Special thanks go 
to my colleagues from Florida, especially the State's two outstanding 
Senators, Mack and Graham--both who worked in a bipartisan fashion to 
craft an acceptable provision to work on behalf of the Florida 
Everglades. Finally, thanks to my 299 Members of Congress who 
originally gave their stamp of approval to my amendment on February 29, 
1996.
  Since there is no report language accompanying the Everglades 
provisions, I would like to further take this opportunity as the author 
of the House provision to explain in greater detail some of the 
background behind this measure.
  The Everglades ecosystem is a unique national treasure that includes 
the Kissimmee River, the Everglades, and Florida Bay. Its long-term 
viability is critical to tourism, fishing, recreational activities, and 
agricultural industries as well as to the water supply, economy and 
quality of life for south Florida's population of more than six million 
people. Additionally, the restoration of the Everglades will have 
direct benefits to the Federal Government in that the Everglades 
ecosystem includes the Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge, and two National 
Parks, Everglades National Park and Biscayne Bay National Park.

  The State of Florida, in particular the State legislature has a long 
standing commitment to address the complex problems of the region and 
to restore this precious resource. Additionally, the agricultural 
industry south of Lake Okechobbee has committed up to $320 million for 
Everglades restoration as part of the 1993 Everglades Forever Act. 
While many would seek to find a single scapegoat for problems in the 
Everglades, I find this to be lacking in commitment to acting to 
preserve this precious resource. Therefore, today, it is important to 
remember that because south Florida is home to 7 of the 10 fastest-
growing metropolitan areas in the country, restoration is clearly on a 
critical path.
  It is clearly understood by all who are involved in the efforts to 
restore the Everglades that there is a significant gap in or scientific 
knowledge about ultimate ecological and water management needs of south 
Florida, and this necessitates continued detailed study. Yet, the 
framework for restoration and the design of major projects for land 
acquisition, water storage and restored hydrology is clear.
  Restoration of one of the largest functioning ecosystems in the world 
is a massive undertaking, and success will depend upon the Federal 
Government, the State of Florida, and all local, regional, and tribal 
interests working in tandem. As the author of this language in the 
House, it is not my intent that these funds supplant any previous funds 
committed to south Florida for the purpose of Everglades restoration. 
However, it is my intent that the purchasing agents give the absolute 
highest priority to those lands owned by willing sellers but taxpayer 
dollars should not be wasted by paying more than fair market value for 
lands purchased with these funds. This underscores importance of the 
annual report to Congress by the Secretary of Interior describing all 
activities associated with the expenditure of these funds.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day for the Hose of Representatives, 
and a historic day for the Everglades. I'm proud to be the sponsor of 
this original language, and I now would encourage my colleague to 
support the final passage of this bill and urge the President to 
quickly sign this bill into law.

                              {time}  0000

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], who has been such 
a help to us on the environmental section of the bill.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this farm bill--a bill that 
is good for farmers, good for consumers, good for taxpayers, and good 
for environmentalists--categories that, I hasten to add, are hardly 
mutually exclusive.
  I want to focus on two aspects of the bill, in particular--first, the 
dairy provisions. This bill eliminates the assessments farmers pay, 
phases out price supports, funds export promotion, and consolidates 
milk marketing orders. The bill, in short, saves farmers and taxpayers 
money without imposing new burdens on consumers or creating chaos for 
Northeast dairy farmers. I want to thank the farmers in my district and 
throughout our region for their patience, their time, and most of all 
their critical guidance during this protracted debate. They worked 
closely with my colleagues and me in the Northeast ag caucus, which I 
am privileged to cochair, and together we fashioned responsible 
legislation.
  Now, let me turn to the conservation title of this bill, which is 
another cause for celebration.
  This week the Washington Post has run a series of spirited editorials 
critical of Republican environmental initiatives. I hope the Post

[[Page H3159]]

and others take notice of the revolutionary conservation measures 
included in the 1996 farm bill.
  The 1996 farm bill is not only the greenest farm bill in the history 
of the Republic, it is the most significant environmental legislation 
passed in this Congress or the previous Congress, which by the way was 
Democrat controlled.
  The over $3 billion provided in the farm bill for the Wetlands 
Reserve Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Environmental 
Quality Improvement Program, and the restoration of the Everglades will 
do more to improve water quality and wildlife habitat in this country 
than any bill proposed by the Clinton administration in the past 4 
years. Millions of acres of environmentally sensitive lands across the 
nation will be protected.
  Two weeks ago a conservation amendment to the farm bill, an amendment 
I authored, was adopted on the House floor by a vote of 372 to 37. A 
Republican amendment on the environment involving millions of acres of 
land and billions of dollars was approved with resounding bipartisan 
support.
  Republicans have gotten the message on the environment, and unlike 
many in this town, we are responding with sensible, proenvironment, 
legislation like the 1996 farm bill.
  The Republican Party is returning to its roots, as the party of 
conservation and sensible environmental protection. Teddy Roosevelt 
would be proud of the conservation initiatives being advanced in the 
1996 farm bill.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this proenvironment, profarmer 
legislation.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard], a valued member of the committee.
  (Mr. ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2854. This is the 
most market-oriented environmental farmer friendly bill we have ever 
passed.
  It balances the needs of producers and the needs of the environment, 
while providing significant regulatory relief to producers.
  We reauthorize the Conservation Reserve Program which provides 
incentives to producers to idle environmentally sensitive land. The new 
CRP takes into account water quality needs important to midwestern 
states and soil erosion and wildlife habitat concerns of the Great 
Plains. The conference committee did a remarkable job of balancing the 
needs of different regions so we can all claim to be winners.
  The conference report also provides money for the restoration of the 
Everglades. The provisions that we included will protect the Everglades 
and hopefully provide a model for restoration of other environmentally 
sensitive areas.
  The conference report also establishes a new account that will 
provide mandatory money for cost share practices to reduce soil erosion 
and protect water quality. This program incorporates provisions from 
the legislation I introduced earlier this year, but expands it to 
include more money and more practices. It is an important program that 
will provide tremendous environmental benefits in rural and urban 
areas.
  Also, the conference committee included language that will place a 
moratorium on actions by the Forest Service that have the effect of 
denying owners of water the use of that water through regulatory 
action. During the time this moratorium is in effect experts in the 
fields of public land law and Western water law will study this issue 
and issue a report on how to avoid the illegal taking of water from 
agricultural and municipal users. I am happy to have this provision in 
law, but want to make clear that it in no way recognizes the legality 
of recent Forest Service actions. The language in the conference report 
is an attempt to stop the Forest Service from taking actions that run 
counter to law and allow them to find alternatives to imposing by-pass 
flows and avoid law suites they would surely lose.
  Finally, this legislation incorporates other important reforms that 
we can be proud of, such as; making the USDA loan process more 
responsible and allowing the Department to more quickly release 
inventory property. Reform of Conservation Compliance that will allow 
the Department and the producer to work in a more cooperative manner 
while reducing regulatory burdens on the producer.
  This is groundbreaking legislation that I hope all of my colleagues 
can support.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Ewing], chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk Management 
and Specialty Crops.
  (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for a job well done.
  I would just like to say a couple things about the peanut and sugar 
program, which were under my subcommittee. First, these programs will 
not cost the taxpayer one dollar. Yes, without these programs, you 
might have a lot more cost to the consumers in this country. I would 
remind the gentlewoman from New York, who was so critical of these 
programs, that these programs were so bureaucratic after decades of 
being controlled on that side of the aisle in farm programs that it 
would have truly been unfair to the people who farm and grow peanuts 
and sugar in America, a lot of little people, had we cut their legs off 
at the knees and expected them to go out of these programs immediately. 
These are a good transition to the marketplace.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, all over this country, family farms have 
been disappearing in great numbers as a result of the failure of our 
current agricultural policy. In Vermont, in 1977, we had 3,300 farms. 
Today we have less than 2,000. All over the country this is happening. 
This is an American tragedy.
  In 1989, some people in New England got together to figure out how we 
could save the family farm in our region, and they came up with a 
concept called the Northeast Dairy Compact. This compact could provide 
dairy farmers in New England finally with a fair price for their 
product, a fair price which they are not getting today. It is an 
opportunity to save the family farm. All six legislatures in New 
England overwhelmingly approved the compact; all six Governors, liberal 
and conservatives, approved the compact.
  Mr. Speaker, originally when we voted on the bill, the compact was 
not in the farm bill, but today it is in the farm bill as a result of 
the work the conferees did. Mr. Speaker, the Northeast Dairy Compact 
could become a model for farms all over this country for regions all 
over this country. It is good for New England. It is good for America.
  There is a lot in this bill that I do not support, but I certainly 
fervently support the Northeast Dairy Compact section.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
  (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, the origins 
of which are partly in the Iowa plan.
  Whether we call it the Fair Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, 
the Agricultural Market Transition Act, or my favorite, the freedom to 
farm act, this is truly an evolutionary piece of legislation.
  For the first time since the 1930's when Federal farm policy took 
shape, we will begin to remove the inside-the-beltway, Washington 
bureaucrat from the backs of the American farmer.
  Although we had to wait until 1996, nearly an entire lifetime, I am 
pleased that this body has come to the realization that farmers, out in 
the fields, actually know more about farming than the bureaucrats in 
Washington do. In no small part do we owe our thanks to Chairman 
Roberts for bringing us to this enlightened state.
  This is a good bill. It saves taxpayers money. It provides long 
needed flexibility. It makes good free-market sense. It is 
proenvironment. And it stops paying farmers not to plant.
  Under the freedom to farm approach in this bill, we provide 
flexibility and develop a true safety net for our farmers. That is why 
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 all support this 
bill.
  Those in opposition to this legislation will say that it either ends 
the safety net for our farmers or its is a free handout just like 
welfare. This is simply not true.
  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 refjection of those failed policies of the 
past. A vote for this bill

[[Page H3160]]

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 to support this bill.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, taken as a whole, this is a good bill. There are a 
number of essential programs. For example, one-fifth of all the $210 
billion global trade in agriculture belongs to the United States, and 
we have to protect ourselves. But our leadership in this area is under 
assault from all our competitors, whether it is Asia, Europe, wherever 
it might be. We must fight these unfair trade practices in agriculture 
and this bill does that.
  This bill makes the first real reform in dairy policy in over a 
decade. This legislation is long overdue, and the reforms in here are 
long overdue, especially in the milk marketing order. The current milk 
marketing order is totally out of date. It is a relic of a bygone era 
when raw milk had to be transported great distances for processing. 
Today our dairy industry is highly efficient.
  Mr. Speaker, while I support the overall bill, I must register my 
serious concerns about the provisions which establish a special dairy 
system for the New England region. In essence, this is Government-
mandated protectionism for one segment of our Nation's dairy industry. 
When this bill is going toward a free market system, this particular 
provision takes us in the totally different direction.
  Nevertheless, this is a good bill. Overall, it is a good bill. It 
makes major reforms that will help our farmers and our exporters. It 
will contribute to a stronger, more competitive and expanding 
agricultural sector, and it will help the United States remain the 
world's leader in agriculture in the 1990's and the 21st century. 
Remember, of the $210 billion export market in agriculture, one-fifth 
belongs to the United States, and we want to make sure we continue in 
that direction and this bill does that.
  Mr. Speaker, taken as a whole, this farm bill is good legislation and 
should be passed. Let me address three provisions of the bill which I 
have worked on. Title 2 reflects the amendment which I offered along 
with Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Hall on February 29. This title 
reauthorizes and strengthens our agricultural trade programs.
  These programs are essential to the competitive position of American 
agriculture in world markets.
  Currently the United States has one-fifth of the $210 billion global 
trade in agricultural goods.
  But our leadership is under assault, by our competitors in Europe, 
and Asia and Latin America.
  In my Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade, we 
carefully examined the competition in world agriculture.
  The reality is, every major trading nation has programs to help their 
exporters take sales away from Americans.
  We have to meet this competition. The amendment I offered, which is 
now part of this final bill, reflects the recommendations of every 
major farm group in the country.
  This title extends our export credit programs for farm goods.
  These programs support $3 billion in farm exports.
  This title also improves our programs to combat unfair trading 
practices in agriculture.
  Without these programs, we would have no defenses against the 
predatory financial inducements that other countries use to undercut 
American farmers and exporters.
  This title also reauthorizes and reforms our food assistance 
programs, which are vital to the relief of starvation and suffering 
around the globe.
  In our domestic farm programs, this bill makes the first real reforms 
in U.S. dairy policy for more than a decade. In particular, this bill 
requires long-overdue reforms in the milk marketing order system.
  The bill incorporates the approach I recommended in legislation which 
I have sponsored for a number of years. The current milk marketing 
order system is an out-of-date artifact of a bye-gone era when raw milk 
had to be transported great distances for processing.
  Today, our dairy industry is highly efficient, but the old pricing 
system remains. Efficient dairy farmers in Wisconsin and other Great 
Lakes States are penalized under this unfair system.
  This legislation is a major step toward reform.
  While I support this bill overall, I must register my serious concern 
about the provisions which establish a special dairy system for New 
England regions.
  In essence, this is Government-mandated protectionism for one segment 
of the Nation's dairy industry.
  It goes against the rest of the bill, which moves American 
agriculture toward a more market-oriented system.
  Nevertheless, this is a good bill overall.
  It makes major reforms that will help our farmers and our exporters.
  It will contribute to a stronger, more competitive and expanding 
agriculture sector.
  And it will help the United States remain the world's leader in 
agriculture into the 21st century.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this 
landmark legislation.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I voted against this bill the first time 
it came before the House of Representatives and voted against it in 
committee. I had serious reservations then and still I have some 
reservations now. But, I will take comfort in the fact that this 
conference report is the best legislation for our farmers and ranchers 
that we can achieve at this point in time. I am certain though that we 
will revisit this topic in the near future.
  It is obvious that this legislation is greatly improved from when it 
left the House. Cognizant of that fact, I will reluctantly support this 
bill. The conference report now includes funds for nutrition programs 
that were not present in the House version, funds for environmental 
improvement programs, and conservation programs and funds for rural 
development; however, I do not believe that the rural development funds 
are sufficient to meet the existing needs in our communities.
  I believe so strongly in funding rural development properly that I 
introduced an amendment in the Agriculture Committee that asked for 
$3.5 billion for the Fund for Rural America. However, the amendment was 
defeated in committee by a party-line vote. It was then reintroduced as 
an en bloc amendment by the ranking minority member Kika de la Garza 
during floor consideration. Even though the amendment was again 
defeated in a roll call vote, the Senate version of the bill included 
the $3.5 billion for Rural Economic Development. Ultimately, the final 
figure was wheedled down to $300 million during the conference 
deliberations--only a drop in the bucket. But, I do think that these 
limited funds are a step in the right direction and will be well spent 
on the infrastructure and research needs of rural America.
  I realize that small family farmers still need help while many of the 
traditional safety nets are being removed. After lengthy deliberation I 
have decided that farmers must have some protection and ability to farm 
their land.
  We are fast approaching the planting season and need to begin to 
identify ways in which we can help our farmers put their crops in the 
ground.
  I was also heartened that the conference report retains permanent 
agricultural authorization law, thereby reducing the chances that 
farmer programs would end altogether after the year 2002, when the 
authorization for the production flexibility contracts expires.
  In addition, I was pleased to see that the peanut program was not 
abolished outright, but instead reformed substantially.
  The conference report was also stengthened as it retained the Senate 
language for the new Environmental Quality Program [EQIP], which would 
provide payments to livestock producers and farmers for nutrient and 
manure management to improve water quality.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this conference report.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr],
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening in support 
of this farm bill. It is not perfect. Freedom to farm certainly 
deserves a lot of debate. But this bill is better than no bill. 
California farmers in my district are the most productive specialty 
crop growers in the world. They produce $2.5 billion worth of fresh 
vegetables a year without any Federal price supports or even Federal 
water. But even market-driven agriculture needs a national farm policy 
and a vision toward the future. Conservation, research, rural 
development and market promotion are areas that need a Federal partner.

[[Page H3161]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am happy that this farm bill is a major step in 
building this new national agriculture policy. This bill begins to draw 
the line, the green line, to stop urban sprawl from paving over prime 
ag lands, and I am particularly happy that this bill makes the Federal 
Government a partner with the States in efforts to protect prime farm 
land from urban sprawl.
  I am also glad that this bill allows the Secretary to provide seed 
money grants to private food programs that bring fresh, healthy food to 
low-income communities. I urge the support of this bill.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not perfect legislation, but I feel that we 
should approve it because it addresses all of the areas of concern to 
rural America; from feeding the poor to making affordable improvements 
out in the rural areas.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that in 1981, I managed my first farm bill. 
This is the fourth time that I rise to support a farm bill and it will 
be my last time that I do so. I stated then that it was a long, long 
way from the banks of the Rio Grande to Washington, DC. A poor boy 
shining shoes in the streets of Mission, TX, to managing a farm bill. 
It is with great pride now that I do so. This will be the fourth time I 
have managed a farm bill, this is the greatest number of anyone who has 
served in this House.
  I ask you to support this legislation, not because of myself or what 
I have done, but because it is the art of the possible. Legislating is 
the art of the possible. What is possible now may not be possible 1 
hour from now. It addresses human needs. It addresses the issues of the 
poor.
  We are the best fed people in the world, in the history of the world, 
for the best amount of disposable income per family. We have the best 
quality food in the world. A lot of the costs that people complain 
about are for the many other areas in agriculture such as meat 
inspection and poultry inspection. That is not to say that agriculture 
programs are perfect. Now and then you have a fault, but the intent is 
to help farmers provide reasonable, safe, and affordable food. We have 
gone, I think, Mr. Speaker, a long, long way in helping ensure that we 
are the best fed people in the world in the history of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for his kindness to 
me; his working with me. This is not perfect legislation. I have never 
said that any bill that I brought to the floor was perfect legislation. 
If there are flaws in this bill, they may yet be corrected in the 
future. We have reduced the budget deficit. Agriculture has reduced the 
deficit over $60 billion in the past 10 years. If every committee in 
the House had done that, we would not be worried about a balanced 
budget. We have reduced that, but we have done it quietly. We have done 
it with a scalpel, not with a meat ax. You should be proud of what 
agriculture has done and what we have worked for and what we will 
continue to work for. But for me today, this is my last hurrah.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], my 
chairman.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman emeritus of the 
Committee on Agriculture for yielding to me.
  Note for my colleagues in the House, I know the hour is late, but 
note that I said the chairman emeritus of the House Committee on 
Agriculture. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Kika de la Garza, is not the 
ranking member. He has been our leader, and in words that I cannot 
describe, the real chairman emeritus of the committee.
  The fourth farm bill. He has seen us through the despair and the farm 
crisis days of the 1980's. He has seen us during unprecedented good 
times in the modern miracle of agriculture. He is without question the 
international secretary of state of agriculture. He has led the 
committee with comity, with leadership, with decency and always with a 
revering institutional memory of our committee. I think it is time that 
the House of Representatives rise and a thank you and a tribute to Kika 
de la Garza.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I accept your ovation on behalf of all of those who were 
the wind beneath my wings when we flew.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that I thank all of my colleagues, and one 
final time, let me say that a long time ago I went on a submarine. I 
asked the commander how long he could keep that submarine underwater. 
We knew that the other side knew where our troops were, where our ships 
were, where our planes were. The only thing the other side did not know 
was where that submarine was under the ice cap. Because of this 
deterrent peace and democracy came out the winner throughout the world.
  When I asked the commander how long, he said, ``As long as I have 
food for my crew.''
  Mr. Speaker, it was farmers and ranchers of America for whom we 
worked tonight that brought the peace, that brought democracy, that 
made us the leader in the world we are today, and I dedicate this, my 
last words, to them who have kept us fed--the best fed people in the 
world.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report on H.R. 2854. I do this 
with the recognition that this conference report is not perfect. Most 
legislation that we pass in Congress is not perfect.
  As I have said before, legislation is the art of the possible, and 
what is possible at this moment may not be possible 1 hour from now. 
However, as with any legislation, we as elected representatives must 
evaluate and decide whether or not, in its entirety, a specific piece 
of legislation addresses the concerns of our constituents. I have 
decided that this bill does just that.
  When the Agriculture Committee started the legislative process on 
H.R. 2854 we were very much divided, not only along regional lines, as 
most farm legislation is, but also along partisan lines. I am glad to 
report that the partisan differences have disappeared and we were able 
to come together as a body to do what is best for American agriculture.
  When we started this process, I had three major areas of concern. 
First was the lack of recognition that agriculture has contributed more 
to deficit reduction than any other major entitlement program--and 
continues to do so. Yet, we were being asked to cut more than any other 
sector. This bill saves over $2 billion from the December baseline, and 
we are proud of the fact that agriculture is the only entitlement 
program to enact real budget deficit reduction this Congress.
  Clearly, agriculture has more than met its responsibility to budget 
deficit reduction. Indeed, with this bill, agriculture--once again--
continues to contribute more than its fair share to budget deficit 
reduction. Once again, agriculture leads the way to a balanced budget.
  My second concern was centered on the lack of a safety net for 
farmers and therefore for consumers. Let everyone understand, to the 
extent that there is volatility in commodity prices, consumers will 
pay. We tried to design agricultural programs in the past that would 
ameliorate wide fluctuations. Were the programs perfect? No. Is this 
program perfect. No. However, this bill does go a long way in 
addressing flexibility and commodity distortions. Still, I am concerned 
that the loan rates may be too rigid in times of low prices.
  We are able to maintain the 1949 Act as permanent law. Although most 
would not advocate implementing the 1949 Act, it is important in that 
it reaffirms our future commitment to farmers and it will give us the 
impetus needed in 7 years to actively address agricultural programs.
  Frankly, I am concerned about the political ability to maintain these 
guaranteed contracts in times of high prices or record farm income. 
However, I must trust that future Congresses will have the wisdom to do 
what is best for agriculture.
  My third concern was that the House bill failed to address the 
totality of circumstances in rural America. Gone is the time when we as 
policymakers could rely on farm programs alone to provide rural 
development. The country is much more complex than that today. People 
need telecommunications and business and industrial development in 
addition to the very basic infrastructure development of water and 
waste water facilities.
  The Fund for Rural America goes a long way in addressing these rural 
development needs. By providing additional money for research it 
provides resources for the future of agriculture. It is through 
research that we will maintain our status as the premier food 
production system in the world.
  In addition, by reauthorizing the nutrition programs we ensure that 
our less fortunate neighbors are not left out. To those who want 
welfare reform, reauthorizing the programs for 2 years still allows us 
to do what we need to do to get people to self-sufficiency while at the 
same time providing certainty to the beneficiaries of the continuation 
of the programs.
  Once again, I support this bill. On the whole, it addresses my 
concerns regarding rural America, and I am hopeful that it will

[[Page H3162]]

meet the needs of American agriculture and our Nation as we move into 
the 21st century. To the extent that problems arise during the next 7 
years, I am confident that corrective action can be taken to address 
any such problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to entertain a colloquy with the distinguished chairman 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde]. I would ask the sponsor of the just-passed Congressional Review 
Act of 1996, the gentleman from Illinois and chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary [Mr. Hyde], whether the bill, if signed by the 
President this week will apply to the Department of Agriculture's rules 
that will be promulgated under the Federal Agricultural Improvement and 
Reform Act.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, yes, I will inform my colleagues that all 
Federal agency rules will be subject to congressional review upon 
enactment of the Congress Review Act.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, obviously the rules implementing the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act will have a large 
economic impact on the agricultural community and farmers. I ask the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, if the 
Department of Agriculture were to issue major rules under the Federal 
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, will they be held up for 60 
calendar days by the Congressional Review Act?
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, yes, 
my colleague is correct. If any Federal agency issues what the 
Congressional Review Act defines as major rules, those rules would not 
be allowed to go into effect for at least 60 calendar days. However, I 
advise my colleague that the President, by executive order, may declare 
a health, safety or other emergency, and that particular major rule 
would be exempt from the 60-day delay. I would add that the President's 
determination of whether there is an emergency is not subject to 
judicial review.

                              {time}  0015

  Mr. ROBERTS. As the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary may 
know, we in the conference on H.R. 2854 did not contemplate such prompt 
enactment of the congressional review bill. I would inform the chairman 
that H.R. 2854 requires that the Secretary of Agriculture, within 45 
days of enactment, offer market transition contracts available to 
eligible producers. These contracts must not be further delayed, or 
they will not be effective for the 1996 planting season. Moreover, 
these contracts are worth billions of dollars, and they are certainly 
going to qualify as major rules under the Congressional Review Act.
  Would the chairman agree that these major rules are the type that are 
contemplated by his committee as qualifying for the emergency exemption 
available to the President?
  Mr. HYDE. Yes, I agree with the chairman of the committee that the 
other emergency exception from the 60-day delay of major rules was 
included for this kind of circumstance. Certainly, it would be totally 
appropriate for the President to determine by Executive order that the 
market transition contract rules promulgated this spring under the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act are emergency rules that 
would not be subject to the automatic 60-day delay.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde].
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Boehner], a valued member of the committee.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, we are here, and over the last year I think 
all my colleagues know that none of us at any time thought we would 
ever get here, but I want to congratulate the chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Roberts, for the work that he has done to guide this 
bill throughout the last year. He has done a marvelous job, along with 
the members of our committee.
  Let me also say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] and to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who were great partners along 
the way, sometimes difficult moments, but they were a great help to us 
in the conference. This is an effort that was a team effort, and all of 
us are to be congratulated for the job we have done on behalf of 
American agriculture.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee for yielding this time to me, and I first want to commend him 
for the outstanding job of leadership that he has provided us during 
this most difficult year as we have undertaken agricultural 
restructuring in a legislative sense. He is to be highly commended for 
his patience and his many enduring qualities including his patience 
with me.
  I finally want to say hail and farewell in just this momentary sense 
to our dear friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza]. I would 
like to associate myself with his remarks here this evening. Our 
chairman emeritus has always spoken with the most deeply felt passion 
about America's No. 1 industry, agriculture, and his voice will 
continue to be heard, I am sure, even though after this year he will no 
longer be speaking from this Chamber.
  So, I say to the gentleman, ``Kika, God bless you, and thank you for 
all the great efforts that you have made over the years. You have been 
truly an inspiration.''
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the measure before the 
House.
  Mr. SPEAKER, I rise in support of H.R. 2854, the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. This conference agreement will 
provide American farm producers with a definitive farm program plan as 
they begin planting the 1996 crop and prepare for a new crop marketing 
year. This bill gives farmers the direction they need while also 
delivering the U.S. taxpayer a program that represents budgetary 
savings over the next 7 years.
  For many years now, the American consumer has enjoyed the most 
abundant and affordable supply of food and fiber in the world. Our 
Nation's Federal agricultural policy is responsible, in part, for this 
success and it is on that foundation that we must work toward the 
future.
  The world around us has evolved over the past 6 years and now our 
agricultural livelihood must evolve in response to those changes. As we 
prepare for the next millennium of American agriculture, we will look 
to the future and see a global market that is more critical to the 
American producer than ever before. Moreover, in some reaches of the 
globe, the outlook has never looked so promising.
  This conference agreement before us today is a step forward in the 
evolution of farm policy. H.R. 2854, the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act, includes budgetary saving provisions 
contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. It represents sweeping 
change in farm policy by presenting farm producers with greater 
flexibility to pursue profits from the marketplace, but retains 
elements of the policy that has served us so well over the years such 
as the nonrecourse marketing loans.
  This measure also contains improvements to the widely supported Food 
for Peace Program, which build on the successful aspects of the program 
by making modifications to refine and update the existing structure.
  The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act represents 
compromises made to help ensure that producers in all regions of the 
country will make a smooth transition to a more market-oriented 
program. Most importantly, it offers the regulatory reform and 
flexibility that farmers have been seeking to help them plant for the 
world market rather than the U.S. Government. Moreover, H.R. 2854 moves 
future farming generations toward a more secure financial future by 
helping attain our responsible balanced Federal budget goals.
  Today, we have the opportunity to get our Federal fiscal policy and 
farm legislation back on the right track through the passage of this 
conference report--I strongly urge its adoption.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Missouri, ``Mr. 
Emerson, we love you, man.''
  And to Mr. Pomeroy and Mr. Taylor and Mr. Volkmer, good friends of 
mine all, I have a lengthy, lengthy refutation as to why freedom to 
farm is not

[[Page H3163]]

welfare, and how we have halved the budget in regards to agriculture 
and saved $10 billion. But I am just going to autograph what I have 
down here, and turn it in, and revise and extend.

           The Market Transition Payment and the Welfare Myth

       The political rhetoric: Currently within the agricultural 
     community there are some who seem to be concerned with the 
     appropriateness of federal payments--``market transition 
     payments'' under the Agricultural Market Transition Act--for 
     farmers during periods of high prices. Some even liken market 
     transition payments to welfare. Agriculture Secretary Dan 
     Glickman, in recommending a Presidential veto of the Balanced 
     Budget Act, restated this position:
       . . . As we move to balance the budget, farmers should not 
     receive windfall payments when market conditions are good. 
     They should receive assistance when in greatest need--when 
     prices are low, as provided for by the current structure of 
     programs. . . .
       I have highlighted ``market conditions'' and ``low 
     prices.'' This statement may reflect the Secretary's 
     thinking, but is the statement accurate in the real world of 
     agriculture? First, farm programs are not welfare and 
     partisan statements equating farm programs with welfare do a 
     disservice to farmers and ranchers.
       Check Webster's--Agriculture doesn't fit the definition of 
     welfare: One of the most unfair arguments against farmers is 
     to say that agriculture payments--of any kind--are welfare 
     payments. Under current law, to receive ``welfare,'' whether 
     it's food stamps or Aid to Families with Dependent Children 
     (AFDC), an individual simply meets the definition of 
     ``disadvantaged'' to receive government assistance. In total 
     contrast, farmers work on their land, and receive a payment 
     for agreeing to a variety of conditions. FIRST, farmers must 
     adhere to environmental mandates--conservation compliance and 
     wetlands requirements--in return for a federal payment. There 
     is a clear exchange of beneficial environmental practices for 
     benefits received by farmers in the program. Second, the 
     federal payment helps to offset unfair trading practices 
     under which farmers live. Farmers are at the mercy of many 
     trade restrictions. Major markets in the Middle East such as 
     Iran and Iraq are under export embargoes. Threats to 
     continued trade with China also pose significant concern in 
     American agriculture. And finally, due to federal assistance, 
     U.S. farmers can ensure a stable and affordable food supply 
     for American consumers. A federal payment is a small price 
     for a national food supply that guarantees the basic staples 
     of bread, meat and milk at the lowest prices in the world.
       What about ``high and low prices'' and farm income: Those 
     who call a market transition payment ``welfare'' follow the 
     basic proposition that Congress cannot justify paying farmers 
     when prices are high because they would get an enormous 
     ``windfall.'' For this scenario to work, farmers must be 
     selling above average quantities of commodities at very high 
     prices. But, does that often happen? The answer is no.
       Here's how it really works: Think of the basics of supply 
     and demand: When supplies are tight, prices go up; when 
     supplies are excessive, prices drop. Supply--tight or 
     excessive--usually determines a windfall profit. Farmers 
     receiving a windfall through a market transition payment 
     during periods of high commodity prices, as Secretary 
     Glickman indicates, depends upon whether farmers actually 
     have a commodity to sell.
       Follow this example: Consider the two following scenarios 
     that a wheat farmer could face:

       High prices: Wheat: $5.00 per bushel; average production: 
     15/bu./acre; Gross Revenue acre: $75/acre.
       Low Prices: Wheat: $3.00 per bushel; Average Production: 40 
     bu./acre; Gross Revenue/Acre: $120/acre.

       Who's right?: Under the current government program in the 
     situation outlined above, the farmer should receive a payment 
     in the year of relative low prices even though his income is 
     higher. In fact, those who complain about giving a payment 
     when prices are high cannot justify their view when you 
     compare farmers' gross revenues. When you actually look at 
     the real world facts, the rhetorically-popular ``welfare'' 
     argument no longer hold up.
       Market transition payments allow farmers to manage their 
     own destinies: A market transition payment gives the farmer 
     responsibility for his own economic life. Just as farmers 
     will need to look to the market for production and market 
     signals, the Agricultural Market Transition Program will 
     require farmers to manage their own finances to meet market 
     swings. Government is out of the business of running the 
     farm.
       Don't believe us--check with the economists: The economic 
     consulting firm of Abel, Daft, Earley and Ward looked at the 
     calculations and agreed. They said, ``variations in 
     production more than offset variations in market price, 
     usually in the opposite direction. While market prices 
     typically are lower with a larger crop, the positive impact 
     of an increase in crop size on crop value more than offsets 
     the negative impact of a lower market price. And, the reverse 
     is true as well. The increase in market price associated with 
     a small crop is typically not sufficient to offset the 
     negative effect a small crop has on crop value.''
       How to avoid a $2 billion payback disaster: The facts prove 
     that the market transition payment is NOT welfare for 
     farmers. Indeed, it actually corrects a major flaw in the 
     present target price system. High prices, but no crop, means 
     farmers have to pay back their advance deficiency payments. 
     Without a crop or federal payment, farmers have repeatedly 
     called for disaster assistance in the past--which costs 
     billions of dollars. That's why the market transition payment 
     is a sound basis for the transition out of a 60-year-old 
     government-run farm program. The key in looking at the policy 
     options is to consider farm income, not high price.
       What about ``market conditions'': Market conditions involve 
     much more than price. One ``market condition'' could be the 
     circumstance of weather-related factors. The market 
     transition contract will provide payments in lean years as 
     well as in a year such as this when production is down in 
     various regions of the country, but prices are strong. One 
     thing is very clear: The market transition payment is not a 
     welfare payment.


 the federal agricultural improvement and reform act is responsible to 
                               taxpayers

       1. Average expenditures for commodity and export programs 
     in this farm bill are significantly less than previous farm 
     bills.
       Average expenditures for commodity and export programs (CCC 
     expenditures): 1985 Act-$15.5 billion per year; 1990 Act-
     $10.6 billion per year; HR 2854-$6.7 billion per year.
       2. Budget Certainty. Expenditures are capped so that ag 
     program spending is no longer an open-ended entitlement.
       CBO is the 1985 farm bill would cost $55 billion over 5 
     years--it cost nearly $80 billion.
       The 1990 farm bill was supposed to cost about $41 billion--
     instead it cost $56 billion.
       Under this bill there is budget certainty--expenditures 
     will not exceed $47 billion on farm programs and ag. export 
     promotion programs.
       3. Payment limitation is reduced by 20 percent, to $40,000 
     from the current level of $50,000.
       4. Part of the payments are really to compensate producers 
     for the fact that deficiency payments have been capitalized 
     in land values. The transition payments will buffer any 
     shocks to land values that may come about as we move to a 
     more market-oriented agriculture.
       5. The Market Transition Payment recognizes the fact that 
     high prices do not translate into high income levels. Often 
     the reason prices are high is because farmers didn't have a 
     crop and a high price times no crops does not equal high 
     income.
       6. Payments are based on 85 percent of each farm's former 
     base acres and program yield multiplied by the per bushel 
     payment. Estimated average payments are corn: 36 cents per 
     bushel, wheat: 63 cents per bushel, upland cotton: 7.3 cents 
     per pound and rice: $2.43 per cwt.
                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                       Committee on Resources,

                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 1996.
     Hon. Pat Roberts,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Although the Speaker declined to name 
     members from the Committee on Resources as conferees on the 
     House and Senate farm bills, both measures do contain 
     provisions which fall within the Committee on Resources' 
     jurisdiction. I am sending this letter to confirm our 
     continued jurisdictional interest in these provisions and 
     hope that you will take our views into consideration during 
     the conference on S. 1541 and H.R. 2854.
       Senate bill (S. 1541)
       Section 313, Wetlands Reserve Program. Section 313 of the 
     Senate bill amends the wetlands reserve program of the Food 
     Security Act. As the primary successor in interest to the 
     Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, the Resources 
     Committee received its jurisdiction over ``fisheries and 
     wildlife, including restoration and conservation''. The 
     Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee has successfully 
     argued that the crucial role that wetlands serve as habitat 
     for migratory waterfowl, their contribution to the nutrient 
     base and habitat for many species of fish and wildlife 
     (including endangered species) at critical stages in their 
     development and their function in shoreline protection and 
     flood protection all gave that Committee a strong 
     jurisdictional interest in legislation affecting wetlands. 
     The Merchant Marine Committee's jurisdiction over bills 
     affecting wetlands, including those amending or affecting the 
     Food Security Act, have long been recognized, with the 
     Committee receiving sequential referrals on the wetlands 
     provisions of the farm bills in both 1985 and 1990. The 1985 
     Food Security Act report (H. Rept. 99-272, Part II) states 
     ``(t)he Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee's 
     jurisdiction over fish and wildlife, including habitat, 
     provides the basis for Committee jurisdiction over 
     legislation affecting wetlands''. Most recently, the Merchant 
     Marine Committee was also represented on the 1990 conference 
     on the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act. 
     Finally, the Resources Committee itself has received 
     referrals of wetlands bills in the past (see H.R. 1203, a 
     bill to promote the conservation of migratory waterfowl and 
     to offset or prevent the serious loss of wetlands by the 
     acquisition of wetlands and other essential habitat, referred 
     to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in the 99th 
     Congress).
       The changes proposed to the wetlands reserve program in 
     section 313 of the Senate bill will enhance benefits for fish 
     and wildlife

[[Page H3164]]

     while also recognizing landowner rights. We have no objection 
     to including the measure in the conference report as long as 
     our jurisdictional interests in this matter continue to be 
     recognized.
       Section 545. Cooperative Work for Protection, Management, 
     and Improvement of the National Forest System. The Committee 
     on Resources has jurisdiction over ``forest reserves . . . 
     created from the public domain''. This provision would affect 
     the operation of these forests. With this understanding of 
     our jurisdictional interest, however, we have no objection to 
     having the provision included in the conference report.
       Section 554, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. This 
     section establishes a $50 million Wildlife Habitat Incentive 
     Program overseen by the Secretary of Agriculture. The program 
     will provide payments to landowners to develop ``upland 
     wildlife, wetland wildlife, threatened and endangered 
     species, fisheries and other types of wildlife habitat 
     approved by the Secretary.''
       We are sympathetic to the policy underlying this measure, 
     which is similar to provisions included in H.R. 2275, 
     reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act of 1972, However, we 
     also believe that, based on the arguments outlined above, the 
     Committee on Resources would be the primary committee of 
     jurisdiction should this provision be introduced as a 
     separate bill. We have no objection to its inclusion in the 
     conference report, but will fully exercise our jurisdiction 
     over the implementation of the program in the future.
       Section 557, Clarification of Effect of Resource Planning 
     on Allocation or Use of Water. Section 557 amends the Forest 
     and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act and the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act to ensure that private 
     property rights, including water rights, will be recognized 
     and protected in the course of special use permitting 
     decisions. The Committee on Resources shares jurisdiction 
     over these laws based on its jurisdiction over ``forest 
     reserves and national parks created from the public domain''. 
     Section 557 would affect the management of National Forests 
     created from the public domain.
       We agree with the policy underlying these amendments and 
     would have no objection to including the provision in the 
     conference report with this recognition of our shared 
     jurisdiction.
       Section 824, Aquaculture Assistance Programs. The Committee 
     on Resources enjoys jurisdiction over aquaculture, as 
     outlined in the discussion below. The amendments made by this 
     section to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Teaching Policy Act of 1977 implement the National 
     Aquaculture Act referenced below for the Department of 
     Agriculture. Although we prefer that all aquaculture 
     activities take place as part of the larger aquaculture plan 
     developed under the National Aquaculture Act, the amendments 
     made by this section are acceptable and we have no objection 
     to including this provision in the final conference report.
       Section 872, Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research 
     Center. This provision is a slightly modified version of H.R. 
     33, a bill introduced in the 104th Congress by Congresswoman 
     Lincoln to transfer a fish laboratory in Arkansas from the 
     Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture. 
     The bill was referred solely to the Committee on Resources, 
     and passed by the House of Representatives on December 18, 
     1995, by voice vote under Suspension of the Rules.
       With this understanding of our jurisdiction, we have no 
     objection to including this measure in the conference report, 
     with one change. We noticed after passage in the House that 
     the bill contains a typographical error: it refers to 
     ``station and stations''; it should be ``station or 
     stations'' to execute properly.
       Section 873, National Aquaculture Policy, Planning and 
     Development. This section amends the National Aquaculture Act 
     of 1980. The bill creating that Act (H.R. 20, 96th Congress) 
     was referred originally to the Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
     Committee. I was an original cosponsor of the measure. After 
     it was reported, it was sequentially referred to the 
     Committee on Agriculture. The reauthorization of the law in 
     1984 was provided for in H.R. 2676 (98th Congress); the 
     referral pattern is the same. The law was again reauthorized 
     in 1985 as part of the Food Security Act of 1985, which 
     incorporated the National Aquaculture Act reauthorization 
     measure H.R. 1544, a bill referred originally to Merchant 
     Marine and sequentially to Agriculture. Finally, the Act was 
     reauthorized in 1990 in the Food Security Act of 1990. As 
     stated earlier, the Merchant Marine Committee received a 
     sequential referral of the 1990 and 1985 farm bills, 
     including a referral of sections of the bills dealing with 
     aquaculture.
       In addition, in the 103rd Congress, Congressman Studds 
     introduced H.R. 4853, which amended the National Sea Grant 
     College Program Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act to 
     enhance marine aquaculture in the United States. This bill 
     was referred solely to the Merchant Marine and Fisheries 
     Committee. Mr. Studds also introduced H.R. 4854, which 
     amended the National Aquaculture Act of 1980; that bill was 
     jointly referred to the Merchant Marine and Agriculture 
     Committees. Finally, in the 103rd Congress, Congresswoman 
     Lambert introduced H.R. 4676, a bill which looks remarkably 
     similar to Section 873. This bill was also jointly referred 
     to Merchant Marine and Agriculture Committees. It is very 
     clear that the Committee on Resources has a substantial 
     jurisdictional interest in aquaculture.
       Section 873 makes radical changes to the National 
     Aquaculture Act, including changing the definition of 
     ``aquaculture'' to exclude private ocean ranching of Pacific 
     salmon in a State where such salmon is prohibited by law. In 
     addition, the section adds a definition of ``private 
     aquaculture'' to include the activities of ``the Federal 
     Government, any State or local government, or any Indian 
     tribe recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.'' Most 
     importantly, the amendments to the National Aquaculture Act 
     strips the co-equal decision making authority of the 
     Secretaries of Interior, Commerce and Agriculture in 
     developing Federal aquaculture policy, and gives this 
     authority to the Secretary of Agriculture, with a mere 
     consultative role for the other Secretaries. In short, if 
     adopted, these proposed amendments would cede authority for 
     all forms of aquaculture, both onshore and offshore, to the 
     Department of Agriculture.
       This is a major policy departure from the original Act, In 
     the 1980 law, it is clear that all three Departments will 
     have equal status in developing policy, regulations and the 
     continuing assessment of aquaculture in the United States. In 
     fact, the Act authorizes equal funding for the three 
     Departments for Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993.
       While changes to the National Aquaculture Act may be 
     warranted, we have not addressed this issue during the 104th 
     Congress. Therefore, until the Committee on Resources has had 
     an opportunity to examine the need for change in United 
     States aquaculture policy and these specific changes, we ask 
     that you drop this provision from any conference agreement at 
     this time.
       HOUSE BILL (H.R. 2854)
       Section 507, Everglades Agricultural Area. Section 507, as 
     added on the House Floor, provides $210 million to the 
     Secretary of the Interior for restoration of the Florida 
     Everglades. Even under a very restrictive view of the Rules 
     of the House, the Committee on Resources would have primary 
     jurisdiction over this provision as it affects the Everglades 
     National Park, several National Wildlife Refuges, the Florida 
     Keys National Marine Sanctuary and the restoration of the 
     Everglades for the benefit of fish and wildlife.
       One of the House conferees on this section, Congressman 
     Richard Pombo has been working extensively with me and my 
     staff to see that protections for the Everglades are 
     effective, reasonable and in the public interest. Therefore, 
     I would support the inclusion of an Everglades acquisition 
     provision in the final conference report IF the provision is 
     acceptable to Congressman Pombo.
       New Provision. We understand that the conference committee 
     may include a measure similar to section 872 of the Senate 
     bill which transfers a fish culture laboratory in Marion, 
     Alabama, from the Department of the Interior to the 
     Department of Agriculture. This provision is taken from H.R. 
     1205, the Marion National Aquaculture Research Center Act of 
     1995, introduced by Congressman Hilliard. The bill was 
     referred to both resources and Agriculture Committees.
       Although we do not have the benefit of a hearing record on 
     this measure (as with the Stuttgart fish laboratory 
     transfer), we know of no reason why the laboratory should not 
     be transferred between the departments. Therefore, with this 
     recognition of our jurisdiction, we have no objection to this 
     discretionary measure being included in the conference 
     report.
       I appreciate your consideration of these recommendations 
     (which affect what I hope are noncontroversial provisions in 
     the historic Agricultural Market Transition Act) and ask that 
     you include this letter in the conference report on the 
     bills. You and your staff should be congratulated on the 
     reforms you are trying to accomplish in the text of these 
     bills.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Don Young,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                    U.S. House of Representatives,


                                         Committee on Science,

                                   Washington, DC, March 27, 1996.
      Hon. Pat Roberts,
     Chairman, Committee on Agriculture,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Roberts: I am writing to clarify the 
     legislative history associated with the termination of the 
     Agricultural Weather Service which you reference in the Joint 
     Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference on H.R. 
     2854, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 
     1996. As you are aware, under Rule X (n)(11) of the House of 
     Representatives, the National Weather Service (NWS) and all 
     its programs are within the jurisdiction of the Science 
     Committee.
       Last year, during consideration of the fiscal year (FY) 
     1996 authorization of the NWS' programs, the Science 
     Committee amended the NWS Organic Act to forbid the NWS from 
     continuing specialized weather services that can be provided 
     by the private sector including the Agricultural Weather 
     Service. The Committee also included report language which 
     specifically addressed the issue of the Agricultural Weather 
     Service. Report 104-237 (Part 1) reads:
       ``* * * The Committee supports terminating the National 
     Weather Service Agricultural and Fruit Frost specialized 
     weather forecast programs in fiscal year 1996. The Committee 
     notes that concerns have been raised about terminating the 
     programs on

[[Page H3165]]

     October 1, 1995. The Committee believes that the Secretary of 
     Commerce should have flexibility to continue the programs 
     beyond October 1, 1995 if he finds that the private sector is 
     unwilling or unable to provide replacement services. Under no 
     circumstances should such an extension last beyond April 1, 
     1996.
       ``* * * No additional money has been authorized for the 
     continuation of existing Agricultural and Fruit Frost 
     services and any expenses associated with these services, if 
     necessary, should come from National Weather Service's 
     operating budget * * *''
       The Committee's NWS authorization passed the House on 
     October 12, 1995 as part of H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Civilian 
     Science Authorization Act of 1995. On March 4, 1996, the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
     printed notice of its intent to terminate specialized weather 
     services including the Agricultural Weather Service on April 
     1, 1996 in the Federal Register.
       The Science Committee continues to support the 
     privatization of specialized weather services such as the 
     Agricultural Weather Service. The Committee expects the 
     service to be terminated on April 1, 1996. Further, the 
     Committee has not authorized appropriations for Agricultural 
     Weather Service for FY 1996 or FY 1997, and no money should 
     be appropriated for its continuation.
       I hope this letter helps clarify the legislative history 
     associated with the Agricultural Weather Service. Please let 
     me know if I can provide you with any additional information 
     on the subject.
           Cordially,
                                                 Robert S. Walker,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

     Hon. Robert S. Walker,
     Chairman, Committee on Science,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter. As you 
     indicate, under Rule X of the House of Representatives, the 
     National Weather Service and all its programs fall under the 
     primary jurisdiction of the Committee on Science. The 
     statement of the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee 
     of Conference on H.R. 2854, the ``Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996'', was intended as an 
     expression of support for a program within the Science 
     Committee's jurisdiction and this Committee's concern that 
     weather service be provided to rural areas and that those 
     involved in agriculture continue to have adequate collection 
     and dissemination of weather data.
       Thank you for providing me with the historical context 
     under which the Department of Commerce has recommended 
     terminating the agricultural weather service.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Pat Roberts,
                                                         Chairman.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill which will 
move the Federal Government out of planting decisions while providing 
some support during the shift to a market driven agricultural economy. 
However, I must express my strong opposition to language inserted in 
the bill during the conference which will severely impact our ability 
to move to a modern science-based meat and poultry inspection system.
  Section 918 of this bill establishes a permanent advisory committee 
to evaluate and review meat and poultry inspection programs. This 
proposal is similar in effect to the proposal made last summer in the 
Appropriations Committee to slow meat and poultry inspection reform by 
forcing USDA to undertake negotiated rulemaking at a late point in the 
regulatory process.
  Section 918 was never subject to public hearings and was not included 
in the Senate or House passed bills.
  This advisory committee would review every decision made by the Food 
Safety Inspection Service, including inspection procedures, labor 
relations, employee work rules, food safety practices in meat and 
poultry plants and approval of new technologies. This could delay the 
implementation of the new Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points 
[HACCP] inspection system, a science-based system endorsed by both 
industry and consumers.
  Further, this panel will be able to meet in secret and conduct its 
deliberations outside of public scrutiny because it is specifically 
exempt from the requirements of Federal Advisory Committee Act.
  Mr. Speaker, last year there were five million foodborne illnesses 
and 4,000 deaths in our Nation. Section 918 has no place in this bill 
and we should take no actions which will decrease public confidence in 
the healthfulness and safety of our meat and poultry products. Have we 
learned nothing from the recent British experience?
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, the conference report of the farm bill, 
which is before us today, will benefit farmers, rural communities, and 
taxpayers. I congratulate the members of the conference committee for 
their diligence in crafting an innovative bill that will continue to 
provide Americans with an affordable food supply.
  I am particularly pleased that the final report contains a provision 
that will provide Federal funding for State farmland protection 
efforts. This provision will make the Federal Government a partner in 
State efforts to gain long-term protection of important agricultural 
resources. The measure will help to counter the loss of millions of 
acres of productive farmland to urbanization.
  It has come to my attention, however, that a provision has been added 
to the bill in conference that threatens consumer confidence in the 
safety of meat and poultry in the United States. Constituents have 
advised me that language has been included in the conference report to 
establish a meat and poultry inspection panel to review every decision 
made by the Food Safety and Inspection Service [FSIS]. This panel could 
delay the implementation of the new Hazard Analysis and Critical 
Control Points [HACCP] inspection system and undermine the authority of 
the FSIS.
  The language calls for two new Federal Register publication steps in 
the decision process which would add delays to the existing decision-
making process. Moreover, the provision was not subject to hearings or 
public debate, and it has been my experience over the years that meat 
and poultry inspection issues have been considered separately, not as 
part of past farm bills.
  It is my understanding that FSIS is underfunded, and that both meat 
and poultry producers have complained about the shortage of inspectors. 
The agency simply cannot afford to pay for another advisory panel.
  The Centers for Disease Control and the Department of Agriculture 
point out that contaminated meat and poultry cause five million 
illnesses and four thousand deaths every year. The purpose of the meat 
and poultry inspection program is to protect human health. If this 
provision is implemented, public confidence in the safety of meat and 
poultry products could erode, which will not be beneficial to either 
consumers or the industry.
  I appreciate the opportunity to add my comments regarding this 
innovative and important farm bill.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conferees agreed to 
include a provision in the bill that I originally sponsored in the 
House regarding revenue insurance. I believe, as do farmers in Iowa's 
5th District, that revenue-based risk management tools are a vital 
resource for today's and tomorrow's American farmer as the weather, 
market, and global trading patterns continue to fluctuate and pose 
often unpredictable risks for farmers worldwide.
  The FAIR Act would require the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to 
offer pilot revenue insurance programs for a number of crops for crop 
years 1997 through 2000 so that by 2002--when the production 
flexibility contracts expire--we will have well-tested revenue based 
risk management products available for farmers.
  It is very important to note, however, that it was never my intent to 
restrict the authority of the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation as it 
currently exists under law to conduct pilot programs. There are two 
revenue insurance pilot programs currently operating for crop year 
1996. I don't, and I don't believe the Conferees, intend for this new 
language in any way to interfere with the operation or expansion of 
these existing programs to other crops under the same terms and 
conditions under which they are currently operating--for example, on a 
whole state basis. Rather, my intent was to encourage the Corporation 
to expand current efforts to other crops and speed the development of 
such products for the American farmer.
  I strongly urge the Corporation to further experiment with revenue-
based insurance products and to do so under similar terms and 
conditions represented by the 1996 crop year revenue insurance 
programs.
  I wish to state for the Record that I fully agree with Representative 
Latham that the FAIR Act is not intended to restrict the existing 
authority of the FCIC to approve pilot programs under similar terms as 
the 1996 revenue pilot programs. The language agreed to by the 
Conferees is intended to be liberating, not restricting, in terms of 
FCIC authority.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and 
Reform Act [FAIR] is truly an historic opportunity for farmers and for 
rural communities. This legislation seeks to reform Federal agriculture 
programs that begin to wean farmers off government subsidies and move 
them toward more market oriented principles. In addition, it 
consolidates existing grant and loan authorities and places primary 
administrative responsibility with the states and is the most 
environmentally friendly farm bill in 60 years. This legislation is a 
giant step in the right direction and I enthusiastically support it.
  Hoosier farmers will be the beneficiary of such incremental steps to 
move the farmer into the next century and be able to plant for the 
market. Washington bureaucrats have told farmers for far too long what 
to plant, when to plant, and where to plant. The result has been 
ineffective farm policy.
  The weaning of farmers off government subsidies is important to our 
country's financial health. Government should not be in the business of 
subsidizing inefficient operations.

[[Page H3166]]

  Technology is ever so important to farmers. If Indiana farmers are to 
successfully move into the next century and compete in the world 
marketplace, we must continue the public/private research initiatives. 
This legislation will aid in the transition into the market-oriented 
farm policy of the future.
  Furthermore, this legislation reduces the regulatory burden on 
farmers. Every time I meet with Hoosier farmers, the discussion quickly 
turns to regulatory relief. The regulatory demands on time and 
resources upon the family farmer is too great. This bill is the 
beginning of the end of needless, overbearing regulations.
  The FAIR Act continues our commitment to rural communities. Indiana, 
and particularly the Fifth District, have benefited tremendously over 
the years from rural development programs. Many rural communities 
throughout Indiana need assistance to meet needs which include rural 
housing, rural water supply and wastewater infrastructure, and rural 
economic development.
  There are several Federal programs to assist rural communities in 
meeting their needs through a combination of loan and grant funds. It 
is this position that streamlines and consolidates a variety of 
existing rural development programs, in order to provide a more focused 
federal effort and encourage additional decision-making at the state 
level.
  It is important that we address rural programs that: First, provide 
assistance to attain basic human amenities; second, alleviate health 
hazards; third, promote stability of rural areas by meeting the need 
for new and improved rural water and waste disposal systems; fourth, 
meet national safe drinking water and clean water standards. Most very 
small systems have no credit history and have never raised capital in 
financial markets. Increasingly, many small communities are being 
forced to install or remodel water and wastewater systems in order to 
meet state and federal water quality standards. It is these smaller, 
mostly rural communities that have the most difficulty in complying 
with drinking water regulations and securing the financial resources to 
meet their needs.
  This legislation seeks to authorize a new delivery system for rural 
development programs called the Rural Community Advancement Program. It 
would consolidate existing grant and loan authorities and place primary 
administrative responsibility with the state directors of USDA's RECD 
offices. Existing rural housing, development, and research programs 
would receive $300 million in mandatory funding.
  The demand by local communities in Indiana's 5th Congressional 
District facing these funding concerns during my three years in office 
have included, Medaryville, Francesville, Goodland, Bass Lake, Lake of 
the Woods, Monticello, Buffalo, New London, Lowell, Cedar Lake, Cayuga, 
Wheatfield, DeMotte, Kewanna and Fowler. All of these communities are 
small towns with limited resources. Municipal water supplies and 
wastewater treatment facilities not only help protect the environmental 
resources of these communities, but they also form the infrastructure 
framework necessary to attract economic development.
  Rural development is an integral part of the farm bill. Rural America 
must have access to the economic infrastructure to enable it to 
compete, including clean water, adequate housing, and good/low cost 
sewage infrastructure; all of which are prominent issues to Hoosiers in 
rural America.
  The FAIR Act marks the most environmentally friendly farm bill in 60 
years. It lifts the requirements that tie farmers to the same crop year 
after year, which will allow them to maintain soil health and fertility 
through crop rotation. Thus, farmers will rely less on chemical 
fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides to maintain yields.
  The FAIR Act promotes soil conservation and wetlands protection by 
requiring all regulations of such, to be met in order for farmers to 
qualify for payments. Additionally, it reauthorizes for seven years two 
successful programs, the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands 
Reserve Programs, creates the Quality Incentives Program, and protects 
wetlands, water quality, and fights erosion.
  Hoosiers will be the beneficiary of this legislation. Weaning farmers 
off government subsidies and lessening government involvement will 
provide America's agri-businesses the opportunity to continue to be the 
most productive and the most cost effective in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act is 
an historic opportunity for farmers and for rural communities. The FAIR 
Act reforms programs designed in the depression area and moves them 
into the next century. This bill gives Hoosier farmers the opportunity 
to do what they do best--farm the land with minimal government control 
and provide the resources to improve the quality of life in rural 
communities. I strongly support the FAIR Act.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, farmers in my district are in desperate 
need of some type of farm legislation now.
  Although I am not totally sold on the freedom to farm concept, I 
fully support this conference report which will provide our nation's 
producers with some direction immediately.
  I think the House and Senate Agriculture Committees have done a good 
job of shaping a bill with peanut program reforms that will make it no-
net costs.
  I believe the conservation programs contained in this bill are the 
strongest that we have ever reported out in a farm bill. This bill 
retains our commitment to help farmers as the stewards of America's 
land.
  I am also pleased to see that the conference committee chose to 
include the fund for rural America. This fund will give small towns in 
rural America the tools through research and economic development 
activities to provide their citizens with safewater 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.
  Mr. Speaker it is time to send the President this agreement on farm 
policy.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I want to focus briefly on one section of 
this conference report that's particularly important for Colorado and 
other western States where municipal water supply facilities are 
located on or above National Forest lands.
  During its consideration of this bill, the Senate adopted an 
amendment by Colorado's senior Senator that would have amended existing 
laws applicable to the National Forest System. The amendment was 
explained as a response to Forest Service proposals that renewal of 
permits for water facilities serving several Colorado municipalities be 
accompanied by changes in the management of those facilities that would 
result in smaller diversions from streams on National Forest lands.
  In arid States like Colorado, Mr. Speaker, no issues are more 
sensitive and important than those relating to water. So, even though I 
had very serious concerns about how his amendment would affect 
management of the National Forests, I understood why Senator Brown 
attached such importance to this matter.
  But I was disappointed to note that in his explanation of the 
amendment, the Senator referred to Boulder, a city located in my 
congressional district. It seems to me that this could have lead some 
to mistakenly think there's a need for new legislation to resolve a 
dispute between that city and the Forest Service. In fact, however, 
that is not the case. It's true that the city of Boulder wants to 
replace a water supply pipeline that now brings water across National 
Forest lands. But the city and the Forest Service are not in deadlock. 
Rather, they are both acting in accordance with agreements, worked out 
with my direct participation, establishing the terms and conditions of 
an easement for the pipeline and the procedure to be followed in 
determining its route. Furthermore, Boulder has reached an agreement 
with the State of Colorado regarding continued in-stream flows, and the 
Forest Service has determined that this meets relevant requirements, so 
that there is no need for the city to take further steps to maintain 
bypass flows.
  So, in addition to other serious reservations about Senator Brown's 
amendment, I was concerned that its enactment might undermine the 
progress that Boulder and the Forest Service had made in connection 
with the pipeline project.
  I also was concerned that a letter from Boulder's city manager to 
Senator Brown regarding the amendment might have the inadvertent effect 
of creating confusion about the Boulder pipeline project. To clarify 
matters, I've both met and corresponded with the city manager, who 
confirmed that the city was continuing to work toward a successful 
outcome to the pipeline project. For reference, I am attaching my 
letter to the city manager and his reply as part of this statement.
  For all these reasons, I'm glad that the conference report drops the 
original language of the Brown amendment and instead provides for an 
18-month moratorium on certain Forest Service decisions while a special 
task force develops recommendations for possible ways to address this 
subject in the future.
  I also am very pleased to note that the conferees, in the statement 
of managers regarding section 389, make it clear that ``the moratorium 
imposed by this section is not intended to interfere with the ability 
of the Forest Service to negotiate or comply with the requirements of 
voluntary agreements concerning the use of National Forest land for 
water supply facilities.''
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, enactment of section 389 of this 
conference report will neither rewrite the laws applicable to 
management of the National Forests nor interfere with continued 
progress in connection with Boulder's pipeline. The Forest Service will 
be able

[[Page H3167]]

to proceed with issuance of a draft environmental impact statement 
concerning possible routes, and the terms and conditions of an easement 
across National Forest lands will be as provided in the existing 
agreement between the Forest Service and the city of Boulder.
  Therefore, I can support this part of the conference report.


                                U.S. House of Representatives,

                                                   March 26, 1996.
     Mr. Stephen T. Honey,
     City Manager, City of Boulder, Boulder, CO.
       Dear Tim: I'm glad to have had the chance to briefly 
     discuss with you the status of Boulder's application or 
     renewal of the permit for the Lakewood Pipeline. I also 
     appreciate your providing me a copy of your February 16 
     letter to Senator Brown expressing support for his amendment 
     to the farm bill dealing with water facilities on national 
     forest land.
       Your letter repeats some of the city's previously expressed 
     complaints about the U.S. Forest Service's approach to 
     permitting renewal for the Lakewood Pipeline, and it provides 
     a separate historical outline that includes description of 
     more recent negotiations, agreements, and environmental 
     reviews in which the city and the Forest Service are engaged.
       Frankly, I was a little surprised by the letter's emphasis 
     on problems the city feels it has had in the past with this 
     process since I had believed that, through negotiations I was 
     pleased to sponsor, most of those problems had been resolved 
     or set aside.
       In particular, the city and the Forest Service agreed to 
     language for a water conveyance facility easement for the 
     pipeline. That language does not, as I understand it, negate 
     the city's claim to a permanent right-of-way for the 
     pipeline, but rather postpones an assertion of that right 
     while the negotiated easement is in place.
       I was also pleased that we were able to secure in the 
     easement negotiated with the Forest Service its 
     acknowledgement that the city's instream-flow agreement with 
     the State of Colorado is sufficient for forest management 
     purposes.
       Also, as you know, the city and the Forest Service have 
     entered into a memorandum of understanding that is now 
     guiding formal and public consideration and comparison, under 
     the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), of alternate 
     locations for the rebuilt pipeline. While these agreements 
     are described in the background paper attached to the letter, 
     the letter itself seems to suggest that there has been a 
     lack of cooperation and effort on the part of the Forest 
     Service toward fulfillment of these agreements.
       The letter, for example, speaks of the city's difficulty 
     with another provision in the easement language agreement, 
     relating to compliance with Forest Management Plan standards 
     and guidelines. Is there some chance that the city intends to 
     withdraw from that portion of the agreements? If so, I'd like 
     to know more about that.
       The letter also includes a discussion of projected problems 
     with alternatives being considered in the NEPA review, 
     including statements that I would have expected to be made in 
     the form of comments on the imminently forthcoming draft 
     Environmental Impact Statement.
       As you know, I have believed that issues surrounding the 
     Lakewood Pipeline permitting process can and should be 
     settled locally through negotiations and without resorting to 
     the expense and trouble of litigation or to legislation that 
     would revise one or more of the laws applicable to the 
     National Forest System. Because I believed that the Forest 
     Service and the City of Boulder were making progress along 
     those lines, I found it surprising that Senator Brown cited 
     Boulder's experience in connection with the Lakewood Pipeline 
     as demonstrating the need for new legislation.
       I assume the city hasn't changed its position regarding the 
     desirability of resolving this matter through the existing 
     agreement with the Forest Service. And, if the city believes 
     that the Forest Service is failing to fulfill its obligations 
     under the memorandum of understanding or other agreements, I 
     would like to know more about that failure and what steps I 
     could take to assist to rectify the situation. In any case 
     I'd appreciate an update about progress made and work 
     completed under the framework of the existing agreements.
       Thanks again for your continuing efforts to keep me 
     informed and, where I can be useful, involved on this matter. 
     I look forward to continuing to do what I can toward a 
     successful outcome.
           Sincerely yours,
     David E. Skaggs.
                                                                    ____

         City of Boulder, Office of the City Manager,
                                                   March 26, 1996.
     Hon. David Skaggs, Longworth H.O.B., Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Skaggs, I am pleased to respond to your 
     March 26th letter and your request for clarification on 
     specific issues surrounding the Lakewood Pipeline 
     Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
       Please keep in mind that as of today, March 26th, a draft 
     EIS has not been released by the Forest Service. Although we 
     have been working with the Forest Service staff in supplying 
     information for them to review and possibly use in the EIS, 
     we have not received any final, written documents from the 
     Forest Service as to their assessment of the issues. Their 
     preliminary assessment will be included in the draft EIS and 
     their record of decision is scheduled to be implemented in 
     November, 1996. As such, perhaps my February 16th letter was 
     more an expression of the frustration about the timeliness 
     for this project than the integrity of the project. If so, I 
     apologize for that.
       You are correct that the language for the water conveyance 
     facility easement does not negate the City's claim to a 
     permanent right-of-way, but rather postpones a decision on 
     that right while the easement is in place. If the EIS 
     contains all this information and an easement is executed, 
     then this concern will be resolved.
       With regards to the City's in-stream flow agreement with 
     the State of Colorado, I did not mean to imply that the 
     Forest Service doesn't recognize and support this program. In 
     fact, it is our understanding that the Forest Service has 
     evaluated and determined that the in-stream flow program does 
     meet the Forest Management Plan standards and guidelines and 
     no additional bypass flows will be required, and I expect 
     that the draft EIS will reflect this.
       With respect to compliance with the Forest Management Plan, 
     the MOU indicates that the EIS will analyze the information 
     in compliance with the National Forest Management Act of 
     1976, as well as other applicable statutes, regulations and 
     Forest Service Manual direction. In addition, the MOU says 
     the Forest Service will assure compliance with all federal 
     and state laws and regulations. There is not specific 
     statement about the Forest Management Plan standards and 
     guidelines. At this point, we don't know if there will be any 
     difficulty in complying with the Forest Management Plan until 
     the draft EIS is released and the Forest Service's analysis 
     is reviewed by the public. Between the time I signed the MOU 
     and the decision is implemented, more than 2 years will have 
     passed, and some changes to the Forest Management Plan may 
     have occurred. At this point, I just don't know what the 
     impacts of these changes may mean.
       My previous letter included a discussion about some of the 
     alternatives. We do intend to fully and carefully comment on 
     the draft EIS when it is released, but the comments may 
     change depending upon the content of the draft EIS. I believe 
     it is important for the City to discuss the issues throughout 
     the process, but I apologize for any confusion which may have 
     resulted from our concerns about what may appear in the draft 
     EIS.
       The City continues to work toward a successful outcome for 
     this project. Your assistance and leadership in this project 
     has been essential, and the City greatly appreciates your 
     commitment to achieving the goals set forward in our joint 
     MOU with the Forest Service.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Stephen T. Honey,
                                                     City Manager.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the safe meat and poultry inspection panel provision which was added at 
the last minute, with no hearings or public debate, to the farm bill. 
Although its title suggests otherwise, the safe meat and poultry 
inspection panel will actually hamper consumer protection efforts by 
delaying meat and poultry inspection reform.
  The seven-member panel, consisting primarily of meat scientists, 
poultry scientists, and food scientists, would be responsible for 
reviewing every decision made by the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection 
Service [FSIS]. This industry-friendly panel would have broad authority 
over USDA decision making in such matters as inspection procedures, 
labor relations, employee work rules, food safety standards, food 
safety practices in meat and poultry plants, and approval of new 
technologies. Such broad authority gives tremendous power to a part-
time panel that does not necessarily include public health doctors. 
Yet, even if the panel met full time year round, it could not 
meaningfully address the large volume of decisions made regularly by 
the USDA's FSIS. It is obvious that the safe meat and poultry 
inspection panel would quickly cause a bottleneck in the FSIS decision 
making process. The FSIS food safety reform agenda would be 
substantially delayed, if not entirely blocked, by this panel.
  In fact, the safe meat and poultry inspection panel is actually an 
attempt at back door regulatory reform. It puts additional regulatory 
review power in the hands of industry-friendly panel members. This 
panel provision also adds two new Federal Register publication steps to 
the existing decision process. In other words, it creates another 
regulatory hurdle to delay implementation of additional safeguards. 
However, each delay in the reform process further undermines the 
public's confidence in the meat and poultry inspection system and food 
supply.
  In these times of severe budget constraints, the Food Safety 
Inspection Service is struggling to simultaneously meet its current 
inspection responsibilities and make needed

[[Page H3168]]

food safety reforms. The agency certainly cannot afford to pay for 
another advisory panel; yet, this provision provides no new funds to 
finance the panel. I cannot believe that at a time when Americans want 
less Government, the Congress is creating an unfinanced panel that 
actually duplicates the work of the existing National Advisory 
Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Food [NACMCE], which has a 
diverse membership and has worked closely with the FSIS since 1987.
  The safe meat and poultry inspection panel is not needed and would 
actually work against the consumer protection mission of the FSIS. It 
has no place in this otherwise fine farm bill compromise. Mr. Speaker, 
I appreciate this opportunity to express my opposition and greatly urge 
my colleagues to join me in opposition to the safe meat and poultry 
inspection panel.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report on the farm bill. I voted against this legislation when it was 
first addressed by the House, because I was concerned that the 
legislation did not address reauthorization of nutrition programs and 
did not include the northeast dairy compact. I am pleased that the 
conference committee saw fit to include these provisions in the 
conference report.
  The northeast dairy compact was approved by all six New England and 
will play a significant role in boosting farm income and stabilizing 
the dairy industry in the northeast through interstate cooperation. It 
is my hope that this compact will serve as a model partnership between 
farmers and consumers to maintain stable milk prices.
  I am also pleased that in reauthorizing many nutrition programs, the 
conference committee included the Community Food Security Act which 
will provide a one-time infusion of funds for projects designed to meet 
the food needs of low-income people. This vital assistance will help to 
make good quality, and reasonably priced food available to many low-
income communities like those in my home city of Hartford.
  While I believe that this farm bill conference report is greatly 
improved, I remain concerned about the seven year market transition, 
which would make payments to farmers without requiring them to farm at 
all. But I believe that the reauthorization of nutrition programs, 
strong conservation provisions, and the inclusion of the Community Food 
Security Act and the northeast dairy compact has greatly improved this 
legislation and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this 
legislation.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the House and Senate 
conferees for S. 1541, the Agricultural Market Transition Act of 1996, 
included a provision to protect horses during transport to 
slaughterhouses. In particular, I would like to thank Congressman Steve 
Gunderson and Chairman Pat Roberts for their support.
  Last year, I introduced H.R. 2433, the Safe Commercial Transportation 
of Horses for Slaughter Act, intended to improve the handling, care, 
and equipment requirement for the safe transportation of horses to 
slaughterhouse facilities. My colleague, Senator Mitch McConnell, 
introduced similar legislation in the Senate. Since then, my office has 
received tremendous support for introducing this legislation from the 
public and Members of Congress who have large horseman populations in 
their congressional districts.
  Two years ago, I sent a dear colleague to Members bringing their 
attention to an article I read in ``equidae,'' the National Horseman's 
Inc. publication, that exposed the inhumane treatment of horses 
transported for slaughter. Two constituents in my district visited a 
horse auction in New Holland, PA and described the horrible conditions 
to which these horses are subjected. Imagine injured, pregnant, and ill 
horses crammed into cattle cars with combative stallions and other 
horses to be shipped on long journeys to slaughterhouses with no 
dividers separating them. Often, these horses travel for days without 
food or water. As a thoroughbred owner, I find this appalling.
  While Americans traditionally view horses as pets or companions, the 
reality is that many of our beloved friends are sent to slaughterhouses 
for consumption in European, Asian, and Latin countries. Horses have a 
unique, trusting relationship with people and deserve to have a humane 
and dignified end to their lives as other household pets.
  Fortunately, through the hard work of Senator Mitch McConnell, 
Congressman Gunderson and other Members of the House and Senate 
Agriculture Committee, the conference committee was able to come to a 
compromise on language that will ensure the safe transportation of 
horses for slaughter while protecting other livestock and poultry for 
slaughter from regulation. The language provides authority to the 
Secretary of Agriculture to authorize guidelines for the regulation of 
persons engaged in the commercial transportation of horses for 
slaughter. The Secretary shall consider in carrying out this section of 
the bill food, water, rest, and the segregation of stallions from other 
horses during transportation.
  I am hopeful these guidelines will be issued in timely manner to 
protect the thousands of horses sent to slaughter each year. I would 
suggest the Secretary consider requiring horses be rested and provided 
food and water after traveling no longer than 10 hours, vehicles be 
required to be in sanitary condition and provide at least 7 feet, 6 
inches of headroom, and provide for the separation of stallions from 
other horses.
  This legislation has the full support of the horse industry and 
animal feed industry including the American Horse Council, the American 
Horse Protection Association, the Humane Society of the United States, 
the American Association of Equine Practitioners, American Horse Shows 
Association, American Veterinary Medical Association, Pennsylvania 
Horse Breeders Association, the American Feed Industry Association, and 
the National Pork Producers.
  Once again, I would like to thank the Members of the House and Senate 
conference committee for their compassion and hardwork. I am sure this 
legislation will go a long way in protecting horses transported for 
slaughter and provide incentive for those in the industry to treat 
horses with greater care and respect.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Oxley). The question is on the 
conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 318, 
noes 89, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 107]

                               AYES--318

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schaefer
     Schiff

[[Page H3169]]


     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                                NOES--89

     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Engel
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hoke
     Jackson (IL)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kleczka
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Markey
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Stark
     Taylor (MS)
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Wamp
     Waters
     Williams
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Beilenson
     Bryant (TX)
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Eshoo
     Fowler
     Gibbons
     Hayes
     Lantos
     Martinez
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Neal
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Schroeder
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stokes
     Studds
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Yates

                              {time}  0036

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. TORRES changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________