[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6236-H6247]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like the Record to reflect that while 
I was not recorded as voting on the Durbin amendment that was just 
considered, I would have voted ``no.'' I was in fact on the floor, 
working the door, to the extent that I neglected to vote.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I call Members' attention to something that we just 
discovered this afternoon. Those of us that have been working on the 
Conservation Reserve Program, members of the Sportsmen's Caucus, the 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. 
Brewster, and others are concerned about some language. I wanted to 
enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are concerned about is some report language 
that appeared in the bill that affects the conservation part of this 
bill, but it was not under that part of the report language. It was 
under the part that had to do with the farm service agencies. What it 
does is, it requires that they take a look at the criteria for the 
Conservation Reserve Program in a specific way.
  The USDA is right at this time promulgating rules to extend this 
program. What this report language does is, it provides specific 
instructions to USDA as to how to proceed. What I am most concerned 
about is that it says in this report language that the committee 
directs that all acres are to be rebid and evaluated using the same 
criteria that was used during the 13th sign-up, a sign-up that was held 
last fall.
  My district in northwestern Minnesota has the ninth most conservation 
reserve acres in the United States. Last year under the 13th sign-up, 
only 700 acres in my district qualified. If this language goes forward 
and if we reauthorize the program using this 13th sign-up, what we are 
going to do is we are going to eliminate all the big tracts of CRP, we 
are going to eliminate most of the wildlife benefits that we have seen 
in the Conservation Reserve Program, and I do not believe that that is 
what we want to do in this House.
  Mr. Chairman, what I am asking is that the gentleman take another 
look at this and consider the possibility in conference committee of 
deleting this language. I do not think it makes any sense for us to be 
going in and prescribing to the Department what is going to be the 
criteria when they are in the middle of deciding that. They have not 
even at this point put forward the proposed rule. There has been no 
public comment. It just seems to me that we are jumping the gun. I 
would appreciate it if the gentleman would look at that.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the gentleman's 
concern and his consternation over finding this kind of language and 
what it will do. We will be happy to try to address the gentleman's 
concern when we get to conference with the Senate.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if I could comment on this 
briefly as well, I just want to express appreciation as a cochair of 
the Sportsmen's Caucus for your looking into this matter.
  The Conservation Reserve Program is a top priority for the 
Sportsmen's Caucus, something we have worked on for the last 2 years in 
this reauthorization. It is so important to the development for habitat 
for wildlife in our country. It has been tremendously successful as a 
habitat development program. It is an issue that the caucus has worked 
on very hard, and we appreciate very much your interest in working to 
assure that the concerns are addressed.
  Mr. SKEEN. I share the gentleman's concern. Certainly those programs 
are of great value to both of us. We will do our best to get something 
worked out.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just also 
ask the chairman to address this in conference committee. This is an 
extraordinarily consequential policy change to try and be moved forward 
in report language. That just is not right. It ought to come back to 
the authorization committee if this is going to be tackled head-on.
  I trust that, therefore, this record will establish that there is not 
clear legislative intent following the report language. I hope we 
finally get it worked out in a more appropriate way in the conference 
report.
  Mr. SKEEN. Once again, we share the gentleman's concern. We are 
certainly going to work with him every way we can to come to some 
resolution of this problem. I will include a table that have the 
Committee's bill totals,

[[Page H6237]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN96.000



[[Page H6238]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN96.001



[[Page H6239]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN96.002



[[Page H6240]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN96.003



[[Page H6241]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN96.004



[[Page H6242]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12JN96.005



[[Page H6243]]

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Armey was allowed to speak out of order.)


                          legislative program

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, it is our hope that we can complete this 
bill by 7 p.m. tonight, at which time we would intend to take up the 
budget. After the budget we would intend to take up the rule on the 
shipbuilding bill.

                              {time}  1830

  It is our hope and our belief that we could, under those 
circumstances, complete our work on shipbuilding and DOD tomorrow and 
avoid the need for us to be here in session on Friday.
  In consideration of these opportunities that would make themselves 
available in the schedule, I am going to be asking the managers of the 
bill and those who have amendments to offer, if it would be possible, 
perhaps, for them to work out a time agreement to complete any 
consideration of amendments on this bill and move us to final passage 
by 7 o'clock.
  Obviously, it is within their prerogatives to work out such an 
arrangement, but I would encourage them to do so. I would like to 
remind the Chairman and Members that I do have, under the rule, the 
option to rise and report. I would, of course, prefer not to exercise 
that option and, for that reason, would, to the maximum of my ability, 
encourage the bill managers and perhaps those with amendments, if at 
all possible, if they could work out this time arrangement so we can 
complete work on this bill and move on to the rest of the schedule.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back to the gentleman from New Mexico to see if 
perhaps he might want to explore that opportunity.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, certainly we would be willing to do that, 
and I assure the leader that we would get it done.
   Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on all amendments 
close at 7 p.m. and that the time from this point on be equally 
divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I want to 
discuss that. That is a problem. We have an amendment that is ready to 
be offered that, to me, is more important than the tobacco amendment 
that took up over an hour and a half or 2 hours, or the previous 
amendment that took a long time, because it has to do with rural 
America.
  My district is rural. Rural water and sewer is very important to my 
district. The amendment is to be able to restore some of the money that 
we need in rural water and sewer, and to say to that we are not going 
to even get to speak on it unless we do it in, say, a half-hour, means 
15 minutes on each side. There are any number of Members who wanted to 
speak on it because it is important to their district and we are being 
told we cannot do that.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, we are not saying the gentleman cannot do 
something. What we are telling him is something he can do, and what he 
can do is this: We want to give the other side every opportunity. How 
many amendments is the gentleman talking about?
  Mr. VOLKMER. One amendment that I know of at the present time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding to me. 
There is one amendment left from the distinguished gentleman from South 
Carolina, and all we ask is that we have assurances from the other side 
of the aisle that we have a proper amount of time to debate that 
amendment.
  If I am wrong, I would ask my colleague from Wisconsin to correct me, 
but as I understand it, that is the only pending amendment that remains 
for the evening.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, we 
are talking 30 minutes. Can we do it in 30 minutes?
  Mr. BONIOR. We would prefer to have a half-hour on each side.
  Mr. SKEEN. Let us go 40 minutes.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Would the gentleman give us 30 minutes and you take 10? 
That is 40 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, this is not a hog swap.
  Mr. VOLKMER. That is 40 minutes.
  Mr. SKEEN. How about 45 minutes:
  Mr. BONIOR. Why do we not split 45 minutes?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Make it 46.
  Mr. SKEEN. Forty-five equally divided.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Make it 46, 23 on each side.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman to repeat his unanimous-consent 
request.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this bill and all amendments thereto occur within 45 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, but I have decided not 
to ask for the amendment to be considered. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that it would be worthwhile for some of the 
Members to know why many of us on this side of the aisle are not going 
to vote for this bill. I know that the gentleman from New Mexico, who I 
very strongly support in all the work that he has tried to do, is 
working under constraints not of his own making. It is the budget, 
which we are going to take up next, or sometime this evening, that is 
causing all the problems, but that budget cuts back severely on 
agriculture programs that will impact adversely, severely, on many 
rural districts, including my own.
  We need more money in here for rural water and sewer, for economic 
development in the rural areas. That all is possible and would have 
been possible under the coalition or the blue dog budget. But, no, we 
had to do the Republican budget, and it makes these severe cuts in 
agriculture. It is not only in the rural water and sewer areas, but it 
is also in rural housing that is cut back.
  I do not know why the Republican majority wants to devastate rural 
America, but it seems that they are bound and determined to do so.
  If we look at another area of that budget, at the Medicare area, we 
will find what the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid will mean. In my 
district, in rural areas, we are going to have hospitals close. So I am 
going to have hospitals closing down. I will not be able to provide 
housing for many of my people, and I am going to continue to have 
communities that do not have adequate sewer systems, do not have any 
sewer system at the present time, cannot afford it on their own, and 
yet they do not want to provide the funds that would be necessary.
  I had hoped that the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] would 
have offered his amendment to restore $27 million; $27 million is 
vitally needed in this program but we do not have it.
  I do not have any alternative, Mr. Chairman, but to vote in protest 
against this bill. I recognize that the gentleman from New Mexico and 
the gentleman from Illinois have done their best within the framework 
of what the budget of the Republican majority has given them, but I say 
to them that that is not enough.
  I do not blame the gentleman from New Mexico, I blame his leadership, 
not only for coming down on agriculture, but later on education and 
other programs as well. I do not plan to vote on those types of things 
either.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is ill-conceived that they are trying to 
devastate rural America rather than helping it to grow, at the same 
time they say what they are doing is good for the country. I tell my 
colleagues this bill is not good for rural America. I believe that we 
have no alternative but to defeat the bill. I wish we could, but I know 
we will not be able to because we do not have the votes, the votes are

[[Page H6244]]

over there to do it, but I want the people to know, the people of this 
House to know, that the gentleman from Missouri, Harold Volkmer, is not 
going to vote for a bill that devastates rural America.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to 
the fiscal year 1997 Agricultural Appropriations Act. I would like to 
commend the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee chairman, Mr. 
Skeen, for doing a tremendous job in balancing the many demands for 
funds in this bill with a severe reduction in discretionary authority. 
I am especially pleased with the attention given to projects and 
programs which benefit producers in North Dakota and the upper Great 
Plains. The support given to all aspects of agricultural research and 
the funding of conservation programs certainly represent significant 
achievements in this bill. Finally I am relieved the committee restored 
funding to the market transitions payments the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee had cut.
  In the final analysis, however, I find that I cannot support final 
passage for a few reasons. The main reason is the severe and 
unwarranted modifications made to the sugar program. Language inserted 
in the appropriations bill would cap the price of raw sugar at 21 cents 
per pound, a cent lower than the current domestic market price. 
Mandating what amounts to a price control on sugar at a time when in 
all other industries we continually call for free and open markets 
makes no sense. This provision will actually increase the amount of 
foreign sugar imported into the United States. Why we would want to 
increase sugar imports at the expense of our domestic sugar producers 
defies comprehension.
  During the farm bill debate Congress passed a 7-year sugar reform 
program that raised import levels, removed marketing allotments, and 
assigned penalties for forfeiture of sugar. These reforms withstood 
tough votes on both the House and Senate floor. Now, less than 2 months 
after passage of those reforms, the Appropriations Committee has--at 
least in the language before us--decided to abandon the reform and make 
further modifications to the sugar program. If this action represents 
the commitment of Congress to the 7-year farm bill I truly fear for the 
rest of the guarantees in that law. Modification of complex and 
critical programs such as the sugar program in the closed rooms of the 
Appropriations Committee represents a dangerous precedent that should 
not be upheld. This attack on the sugar producers and sugar industry 
workers in the United States must not stand.
  Additionally, the elimination of $2 million in funding for the 
agricultural mediation program is particularly troublesome. In North 
Dakota the mediation program has helped hundreds of farmers work 
through difficult credit problems, usually allowing them to service 
their loans without resorting to bankruptcy. With this elimination of 
the mediation grants these producers will have nowhere else to turn. 
This highly successful program certainly deserves continuing funding.
  Finally, the Appropriations Committee, in report language, instructed 
the Secretary of Agriculture on how to conduct signups for the 
Conservation Reserve Program. The Secretary currently is preparing 
regulations for the next signup for CRP. To specify in this bill what 
the rule will be for the next signup could throw the process into a 
tailspin.
  For these reasons I must oppose this bill. Despite the many good 
things in this bill, I cannot support such a brazen attack on the hard-
working sugarbeet farmers in North Dakota and the thousands of North 
Dakotans employed in the sugar industry, and I cannot support the 
elimination of the highly successful North Dakota Ag Mediation Program. 
I hope these problems and the CRP provisions can be corrected in the 
Senate and in conference so I can support the necessary funding of the 
Nation's No. 1 industry--agriculture.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this summary of the U.S. AID's 
Inspector General's report be included in the Record. This summary 
deals exclusively with the Public Law 480 program and details some of 
the title III failures as well as title II successes.

  U.S. Agency for International Development, Office of the Inspector 
General, June 11, 1996, to Darren Willcox, From Paul Armstrong, Acting 
                                 AIG/A


                  requested examples of pl-480 audits

       As requested, I'm sending you some write-ups on recent PL-
     480 audits which were included in our most recent Semiannual 
     Reports to the Congress. The audits are listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Date                                                  
  Report No.     issued                    Report title                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-286-94-014..   8-10-95  Audit of USAID/India's Monitoring of the PL-  
                           480 Title II Program                         
3-650-95-18 ..    9-8-95  Audit of REDSO/ESA's PL-480 Title II Program  
                           in Southern Sudan                            
1-521-95-008..   6-23-95  Survey Report on Losses of PL-480 Title II    
                           Commodities in Haiti During the Political    
                           Transition Period September 15, 1994 to      
                           January 13, 1995                             
3-656-96-003..    2-9-96  Audit of USAID/Mozambique's Management of PL- 
                           480 Title III Program.                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       I hope this information is helpful.


                p.l. 480 title iii program in mozambique

       In an effort to help alleviate poverty and liberalize 
     commodity markets in Mozambique, the United States donated 
     over 458,000 metric tons of commodities under the P.L. 480 
     Title III Program. These commodities (mostly grain), valued 
     at $88 million, were donated to the Government of Mozambique 
     between 1991 and 1994 on the condition that the commodities 
     be used to generate local currency for the purpose of funding 
     various governmental ministries, as well as supporting 
     private voluntary organization activities.
       An audit of this program found that USAID had established a 
     system to monitor the receipt, storage, and sale of 
     commodities as required by Agency policies and procedures; 
     however, the following problems were reported: poor quality 
     commodities, subsequently determined by USAID management to 
     be ``unfit for human consumption,'' arrived in Mozambique, 
     resulting in a loss of $8 million for purchase, transport and 
     disposal costs; and pilferage of $1,376,378 worth of 
     commodities occurred at Mozambique ports during the unloading 
     of shipments--often in plain view of port security guards.
       USAID in Mozambique had complained about the poor quality 
     of commodities being received and the U.S. Ambassador had 
     reported that the shipments had 1) a higher moisture content 
     than allowed under regulations and 2) insect infestation so 
     bad that the entire cargo and ship had to be fumigated 
     several times. A response from USAID and the U.S. Department 
     of Agriculture in Washington stated that the cause for this 
     problem as the floods of the Mississippi watershed and 
     suggested that the Mission upgrade its standard 
     specifications for corn transports to Mozambique. The Mission 
     did so and the quality of commodities has since improved. The 
     audit made no recommendations in this area.
       Regarding the commodity thefts, the audit recommended that 
     USAID condition future shipments of P.L. 480 Title III 
     commodities on improvements in port security, warehouse 
     facilities, and operating procedures for the handling of bulk 
     grain commodities in order to minimize the opportunity to 
     future thefts. The Mission agreed and has suspended a 
     shipment of 18,000 tons of corn (and all future shipments) 
     until such improvements are made. The Mission is also 
     requesting that the Government of Mozambique compensate the 
     U.S. government for the loss.
       The audit could not assess whether local currency generated 
     from the sale of commodities was used for its intended 
     purposes because the Mission had not assessed the reliability 
     of the Mozambique government's accounting systems, nor had 
     audits been performed on local currency expenditures. The 
     Mission stated that a previously scheduled assessment had 
     been postponed due to the signing of Mozambique's UN-brokered 
     peace accord in 1992 and the first multi-party elections in 
     October 1994. In addition, the Government of Mozambique's 
     principal audit agency was considered incapable of conducting 
     the audits. The OIG recommended that the Mission conduct an 
     accountability assessment and financial audits as required. 
     If the local audit agency cannot be relied upon, the 
     independent public accounting firms or other alternative 
     means should be pursued. USAID concurred with all the 
     recommendations and initiated corrective actions. (Audit 
     Report No. 3-656-96-003)


          monitoring of the p.l. 480 title ii program in india

       A recent audit of the Food for Peace Program in India 
     showed that USAID/India has corrected problems previously 
     identified by a prior audit, and has taken additional steps 
     to improve the program. The Agricultural Trade Development 
     Assistance Act of 1990, Public Law 480 (P.L. 480), is the 
     statutory authority for the Food for Peace Program. During 
     fiscal years 1993 and 1994, $135 million in food aid was 
     delivered to 8.3 million poverty-stricken people in India. 
     This food was mainly administered through two private 
     voluntary organizations (PVOs)--Cooperative for Assistance 
     and Relief Everywhere (CARE) and Catholic Relief Services 
     (CRS).
       The audit found that USAID/India generally ensured that the 
     objective of the P.L. 480 Title II program was being 
     achieved, losses were being reported, that claims were 
     submitted on time, and claims were eventually being resolved. 
     (A prior audit had found problems with one of the PVOs 
     failing to report food losses or resolving claims). Finally, 
     the Mission ensured that losses were held to reasonable 
     levels, although improvements could be made in monitoring the 
     ordering and allocating of food by one of the two PVOs.
       The audit report recognized USAID/India's efforts to 
     correct problem areas previously reported and the Mission's 
     ongoing efforts to improve the P.L. 480 Program. One 
     recommendation was made for USAID/India to improve its 
     monitoring over the PVO's ordering and allocation of food. 
     Mission officials generally concurred with the report's 
     conclusions and the recommendation was closed upon report 
     issuance. (Audit Report No. 5-386-95-014)


        redso/esa's p.l. 480 title ii program in southern sudan

       USAID's Title II Emergency Relief program in Sudan is an 
     ongoing effort to alleviate the suffering of the southern 
     Sudanese people following the war between the Christian South 
     and the Islamic government in

[[Page H6245]]

     Khartoum. An audit of this program found that USAID made a 
     significant impact in its effort through the delivery of 
     large amounts of food aid to the needy. Considering the war 
     conditions, the Regional Economic Development Support Office 
     (REDSO/ESA) had been successful in minimizing the food 
     losses, although some food diversions did occur. For 
     instance, financial difficulties forced a small non-
     governmental organization (NGO) to withdraw from the relief 
     effort, putting war victims of two displacement camps at risk 
     of starvation. The OIG brought this matter to the attention 
     of REDSO/ESA and food aid was immediately delivered to the 
     camps. In another instance, inadequate transport funding by 
     the Bureau for Humanitarian Response had forced another NGO 
     to suspend food aid distribution, putting 150,000 war victims 
     at risk of hunger. Again, REDSO promptly resumed the delivery 
     of emergency supplies. Finally, the audit found inaccuracies 
     in recipient population estimates. Without accurate 
     estimates, excess food aid deliveries to areas with over-
     stated populations would lead to the diversion of food to 
     military personnel or market profiteers, while a shortage to 
     areas with under-stated populations would deny starving 
     people.
       The audit recommended that REDSO/ESA take steps to ensure 
     the NGOs obtain reasonable population estimates, recover 
     claims for losses of food aid commodities, and improve on the 
     system for reporting and recovering losses. REDSO/ESA 
     management concurred with the audit findings and promptly 
     took action to close the recommendations. All recommendations 
     had been closed upon report issuance. (Audit Report No. 3-
     650-95-018)


         losses of public law 480 title ii commodities in haiti

       The OIG conducted an audit survey of alleged losses of 
     Public Law (P.L.) 480 Title II commodities in Haiti. The 
     survey included a review of the physical security environment 
     and control structure of the feeding program and a partial 
     assessment of whether USAID/Haiti can provide reasonable 
     assurances that program commodities are adequately 
     safeguarded and used for intended purposes. The survey was 
     conducted between September 1994 and January 1995, when Haiti 
     was in transition from a military to a civilian government.
       The survey found that the P.L. 480 Title II food program 
     incurred substantial commodity losses due to theft during the 
     political transition period. Three Title II cooperating 
     sponsors reported 2,732 metric tons of commodity losses 
     valued at $1.1 million or 16 percent of the total commodities 
     while reporting 14,259 metric tons of commodities distributed 
     during the first quarter of fiscal year 1995.
       Although civil unrest has subsided and general stability 
     has returned to Haiti, the situation remains somewhat 
     volatile and uncertain. The OIG believes that a normal P.L. 
     480 Title II control structure is not designed to function 
     under the absence of civil authority and the type of civil 
     instability that occurred; therefore, the report recommended 
     that USAID/Haiti establish procedures for determining the 
     extent and causes of commodity losses in order to formalize 
     alternatives for providing additional security measures to 
     prevent future losses. USAID/Haiti generally agreed with our 
     report findings. (Audit Report No. 1-521-95-008)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this appropriations 
bill, which provides funding for many of the important agricultural 
programs that have helped to make our Nation's farming industry strong. 
While the funding that is provided in this bill is reduced from last 
year for many programs, I am also supportive of the effort to reign in 
Federal spending and balance the Federal budget. I urge my colleagues 
to join with me in support of the tough fiscal decisions the 
Appropriations Committee has made.
  Particularly important for Missouri agriculture is the inclusion of 
funding for soybean cyst nematode research. This funding supports 
research which is conducted at the University of Missouri's Delta Area 
Agricultural Research Center in Portageville. Last year, American 
soybean farmers lost hundreds of millions of dollar of farm income 
because of soybean yield losses. Fortunately, the Delta Center has made 
significant advances in order to help the many U.S. soybean farmers 
fighting this profit destroying cyst nematode.
  I am also particularly supportive of the aspects of this bill which 
will facilitate a growing export market for agricultural goods. Without 
a doubt, world trade is the key to the future of American Agriculture. 
Within our borders, U.S. consumers enjoy an abundant supply of food at 
a price lower than nearly anywhere else on earth. Therefore, in order 
to expand, American agriculture must look to foreign populations and 
consumers that are anxious to obtain a higher quality and a wider 
variety of foodstuffs.
  Agricultural exports are expected to grow rapidly in the near future 
in certain markets, especially in the Pacific Rim. However, in other 
markets that are developing less rapidly, assistance through PL-480, or 
Food for Peace, will pave the way to greater U.S. exports in the long 
term. I have a longstanding interest in food aid and have observed many 
examples of countries that successfully have made the transition from a 
concessional to a cash buyer. And, as we help these countries meet 
their basic food needs, we also help U.S. farmers who grow the 
commodities and those who process, bag, can, rail, and ship the food to 
developing countries.
  Accordingly, I am especially supportive of the funding that H.R. 3603 
provides for the Food for Peace program and urge my colleagues to vote 
in favor of this bill.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
bill. But, while I do support this bill, due to the full committee's 
correction of a major flaw in the measure originally reported by the 
subcommittee, I'm still very concerned that agriculture, year after 
year, is asked to do more than its fair share to help balance the 
budget.
  Balancing the budget must remain a priority, and I'm a strong 
supporter of balancing the budget. However, the bill before us reduces 
spending for USDA, FDA, and related agencies by 16 percent--over $10 
billion!
  Unfortunately, not only are the spending reductions in this bill 
excessive, the appropriations subcommittee on agriculture attempted to 
revisit many of the issues we debated and voted on during the farm bill 
debate. For example, the House has spoken on the sugar program, which I 
remind you is mandated to operate at no net cost to the Government, and 
on granting farmers true freedom to manage their land. I'm afraid some 
in this urban-dominated Congress do not understand the nature of 
farming or agriculture programs.
  The Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, the FAIR 
Act, was the first real reform  of Federal farm programs in 60 years, 
and the only entitlement reform bill to be signed into law during the 
104th Congress. I'm proud to have joined with Agriculture Chairman 
Roberts in this historic legislation that transitions farmers from 
dependence on Government subsidies to independent planting and 
marketing decisions. Enactment of the FAIR Act was a great 
accomplishment for this Congress, and the final vote reflected true 
bipartisan support.

  However, it's time to move on. With the farm bill signed into law and 
with the passage of the fiscal year 1997 agriculture appropriations 
bill, I believe we must rebuild the partnership of all rural districts 
in support of agriculture--the largest single sector of the economy. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues as this Congress comes to an 
end and into the future to raise the voice of rural America.
  The appropriations subcommittee on agriculture was put in a difficult 
position with its low budget allocation. I respect your work and thank 
you for making the best of a bad situation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
3603, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.
  First, I need to thank my chairman, Joe Skeen, and the ranking 
Democrat, Dick Durbin, for their assistance during the last few weeks. 
I only recently became a member of this subcommittee, although it is 
one I have admired for many years. My admiration stems from the 
bipartisanship traditionally displayed by this subcommittee, and 
exemplified by the Skeen-Durbin team, and it is truly a model for the 
House, so I am proud to join the subcommittee's ranks.
  H.R. 3603 is not a perfect bill. In fact, our bill continues an 
alarming trend in providing the absolute minimum resources to USDA to 
accomplish their important missions in the areas of agriculture 
research, animal and plant inspection, food safety and inspection, 
conservation programs, and rural housing and development.
  The Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee is a victim of our 
budget-balancing efforts, which, of course, we all support. But the 
implications of our balanced budget efforts have manifested themselves 
in several disagreeable ways:
  First, we had perhaps an unnecessary confrontation with our brethren 
on the Agriculture Committee when our subcommittee acted in a manner 
which I thought appropriate under the circumstances, to ask farmers to 
share some of the burden demanded by our budget allocation--which was 
nearly $1 billion below last year.
  Second, our budget allocation has been changed at least twice--the 
first in response to complaints abut our action which cut just 1.5 
percent from the farm transition payments, and second, the result of a 
scoring problem pointed out by the Congressional Budget Office.
  But these problems point to the overall difficulty with the 
Republican budget resolution, and the inadequate domestic budget 
allocations, and the real impact it has on our agriculture programs and 
other important functions of Government.
  Despite some of these reservations, I support the bill and I think 
Joe Skeen and Dick Durbin have done a good job under demanding 
circumstances.

  I have particular praise for several items of importance to 
California agriculture and to my district.

[[Page H6246]]

  First, funds have been included for buildings and facilities 
construction within the Cooperative State Research Service, including 
funds for an important integrated pest management research facility at 
the University of California at Davis.
  A new pest is introduced into California every 60 days, and it is 
imperative that we have the up-to-date facilities to develop effective 
methods to deal with them. This facility will support and accelerate 
research needed for environmentally compatible pest management 
strategies.
  These institutions--such as the University of California at Davis--
are required to provide a specific and verifiable cost-share. So this 
program represents a real commitment by State governments and the 
Federal Government to developing the successful agriculture strategies 
of the future.
  Second, the bill provides funds mandated by the Agriculture Committee 
for the Market Access Program [MAP].
  I anticipate that this program will come under attack again this year 
by an amendment seeking to eliminate it.
  But there is probably no more important tool for export promotion 
than MAP. In California, where specialty crop agriculture is the rule, 
export promotion is extremely important.
  Agriculture exports, projected to exceed $50 billion again this 
year--up from $43.5 billion fiscal year 1994--are vital to the United 
States.
  Agriculture exports strengthen farm income.
  Agriculture exports provide jobs for nearly a million Americans.
  Agriculture exports generate nearly $100 billion in related economic 
activity.
  Agriculture exports produce a positive trade balance of nearly $20 
billion.
  If U.S. agriculture is to remain competitive under GATT, we must have 
policies and programs that allow us to remain competitive with our 
competitors abroad.
  GATT did not eliminate export subsidies, it only reduced them.
  The European Union spent, over the last 5 years, an average of $10.6 
billion in annual export susidies--the United States spent less than $2 
billion.
  The EU spends more on wine exports--$89 million--than the U.S. 
currently spends for almost all commodities under the Market Promotion 
Program.
  MAP is critical to U.S. agriculture's ability to develop, maintain 
and expand export market in the new post-GATT environment, and MAP is a 
proven success.
  In California, MAP has been tremendously successful in helping 
promote exports of California citrus, raisins, walnuts, almonds, 
peaches, and other specialty crops.
  We have to remember that an increase in agriculture exports means 
jobs: a 10 percent increase in agricultural exports creates over 13,000 
new jobs in agriculture and related industries like manufacturing, 
processing, marketing, and distribution.
  For every $1 we invest in MAP, we reap a $16 return in additional 
agriculture exports. In short, the Market Promotion Program is a 
program that performs for American taxpayers.
  Third, the committee has continued to provide the greatest possible 
funding for research in two main forms: through the agricultural 
research stations of the Agricultural Research Service, and through the 
special grants and competitive grants in the Cooperative State Research 
Education and Extension Service.
  I am concerned that formula funding for our land-grant colleges and 
universities has been affected by our low budget allocation--requiring 
about a three-percent reduction from last year's levels. All of us who 
represent land-grant institutions know that State governments are 
having the same difficulties as the Federal Government in providing the 
resources these institutions deserve.
  Our future success in agriculture, especially market-oriented 
agriculture as envisioned by the Farm Bill enacted just a few months 
ago, will require an on-going commitment to research if we are to 
maintain the U.S. lead.
  Nevertheless, the committee has done a good job in keeping those 
resources as generous as possible under the circumstances. And I'm 
especially pleased that the committee was able to provide an increase 
for research into alternatives to methyl bromide and has initiated a 
special research grant to develop alternatives to rice-straw burning.
  In summary, this is not a perfect bill, but it is a fair bill given 
the many needs and many issues within the committee's jurisdiction. I 
commend Chairman Joe Skeen and ranking member Dick Durbin for their 
efforts in support of American agriculture, and I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 3603, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1997.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no other amendments, under the rule the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Dreier) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 3603) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 451, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 351, 
nays 74, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 234]

                               YEAS--351

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon

[[Page H6247]]


     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--74

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Blute
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Coyne
     Crapo
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Doggett
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Green (TX)
     Hancock
     Hoke
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnston
     Kleczka
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Markey
     Martini
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Neumann
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Stark
     Stockman
     Studds
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Velazquez
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Waxman
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Calvert
     Frelinghuysen
     Gillmor
     Hayes
     Horn
     Lincoln
     McDade
     Roukema
     Wilson

                              {time}  1901

  Messrs. COOLEY of Oregon, MINGE, and FATTAH changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BONILLA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________