[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.
____________________