[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 116 (Thursday, August 1, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H9715-H9724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3603, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order
at any time to consider a conference report to accompany 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, that all points
of order against the conference report and against its consideration be
waived, and that the conference report be considered as read when
called up.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today,
I call up the conference report on 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Tuesday, July 30, 1996, at page H9368.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen]
and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
general leave
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
the conference report to accompany H.R. 3603, and that they may include
tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will be brief and ask that my formal remarks be inserted in the
Record. This conference report is almost the same as the bill that
passed the House on June 12.
Mr. Speaker, this conference agreement has programs that benefit
every one of our constituents and their lives every day no matter where
they live or what they do. I respectfully ask that we get an ``aye''
vote on the conference agreement on H.R. 3603.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to you today the conference
agreement for H.R. 3603, a bill making appropriations for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies
programs for fiscal year 1997.
This is a solid bipartisan bill which advances both the goals of
budget reduction and the support of a large number of programs
important to the health and safety of the American people.
Going into conference with the Senate, our bills were $316 million
apart in discretionary spending, with the House having the lower mark.
The leadership of both committees split the difference, giving the
House an additional $158 million.
This conference agreement is essentially the same as the bill that
passed the House on June 12. The additional money added in the
conference has gone almost entirely for rural development, research and
education programs all of which have high priority and long-term
benefits.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this agreement is right on our
required spending targets. Discretionary spending is at $12.96 billion
which is $350 million less than fiscal year 1996. Mandatory spending is
at $39.9 billion which is $9.9 billion less than the current year.
Total spending in the bill is $52.8 billion which is $10.2 billion less
than the current year and $5.6 billion below the administration
request.
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, this agreement supports
programs which benefit every one of your constituents every day, no
matter if they live in rural America, the suburbs or in our great
cities.
It supports the food stamp program, the Women, Infants and Children
feeding program, school lunch, school breakfast, elderly feeding
programs, and other essential services.
Our rural development funding brings clean water, affordable housing,
jobs, and economic growth to rural America.
Our research programs support the finest and most efficient
agricultural system in the world. This system not only delivers an
abundance of food to the American consumer but this year it creates a
more than $30 billion trade surplus in agricultural products, meaning
jobs in the food processing, transportation and service industries in
every State.
This conference report also supports the Food and Drug Administration
and the food safety and inspection service which protect our supply of
food, medicines and medical devices. I want to point out, Mr. Chairman,
that this agreement fully funds the food safety and inspection service
as it launches the most comprehensive change ever in our Federal meat
and poultry inspection system.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to point out one matter than I know is of
concern to a number of Members and that is the formula grants to 1890's
colleges and Tuskegee University. For the fiscal year 1997, cuts were
made in extension grants using an across-the-board formula with last
year's grants as a base. There was an error in the calculation of the
grant formula for 1890's colleges and Tuskegee University. I have
discussed this with representatives of these institutions and I want to
assure them and my colleagues that I will work to correct this error at
the first opportunity.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned at the start that this is a
bipartisan effort and I want to point out that the distinguished
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Durbin, successfully added a
package of reforms to the rural housing programs which have been needed
for quite some time. These reforms are not only good for rural
Americans in need of housing but they are good for the taxpayer as
well.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and your colleagues for the opportunity to
appear before you here today. I believe this will be the first domestic
conference report to clear the Congress. On behalf of the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee, I respectfully ask for the support of all
my colleagues in the House. Vote ``yes'' on the conference report for
H.R. 3603.
[[Page H9716]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU96.010
[[Page H9717]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU96.011
[[Page H9718]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU96.012
[[Page H9719]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU96.013
[[Page H9720]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU96.014
[[Page H9721]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU96.015
[[Page H9722]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01AU96.016
[[Page H9723]]
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to salute the chairman of this
committee, Mr. Skeen, who has done an extraordinarily good job over the
last 2 years under very difficult circumstances. As I have said before,
this is the most bipartisan subcommittee in the House. I think that
that is the case because of the leadership of Mr. Skeen. I have enjoyed
serving with him. It has been a tough job for him and the entire staff.
He has done an excellent job in preparing this conference committee
report.
We have responded to the need to reduce spending. We have done it. We
have done it in a way that will not imperil food and fiber production
across America. It will cause some discomfort, I am sure. The cutbacks
will affect some people, but I think we have done our job in a
responsible way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Traficant].
Mr. TRAFFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman. We will be
missing him, certainly, in the next Congress but certainly hoping we
will still be able to deal with him.
I would just like to put the committee on notice to be concerned
about certain imports of products that are damaging American farmers.
Mexican tomatoes coming in here at $2 being dumped, when it costs $6
for Florida farmers to produce them, Australian beef coming down
through Canada. We are damaging and destroying many beef producers in
our country.
I would just like to place the committee on notice to take a look at
these issues. I believe that our agriculture policies are hurting many
farmers at this point and we need more oversight.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the conference report
for the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture Appropriations Act. In general
this conference report represents a vast improvement from the bill that
passed the House earlier this year. Among the most important
improvements from the point-of-view of North Dakota was the elimination
of the sugar price cap included in the House passed bill. This
important improvement is a validation of the 7-year commitment to sugar
producers made by Congress when it passed the new farm bill this
spring. The conferees also restored $2 million in funding for State
Agriculture Mediation Grant program which aids farmers in settling debt
disputes. Finally the conferees agreed to increase funding for the
grain inspection, packer and stockyards administration so it can
implement recommendations from the recent Commission on Concentration
in Agriculture. These are important victories for North Dakota
producers and for farm families nationwide.
I am quite disappointed, however, by the conferees' decision to leave
out a remedy for our Nation's barley producers which was included
during Senate consideration of the bill. The Senate, during debate on
the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill, included language to move $20
million from payments in the years 1999-2002--$5 million each year--to
fiscal year 1998 in order to make up for this year's shortfall. This
represented a step toward fulfilling the promises made to barley
producers earlier this year. The conferees, however, decided to
eliminate this important and needed provision from the final conference
report.
This fix was needed to live up to the promises made during the farm
bill debate earlier this year. Barley producers were promised a
transition payment of 46 cents per bushel under the production
flexibility contracts. From November until April this estimate stood as
the payment barley producers expected from participation in the new
program. Many made financial and planting plans based on this figure.
Once the new farm bill was signed into law, however, barley producers
discovered an error had been made in estimating the payments. Barley
would now be eligible for a 32-cent payment, over a 30-percent decrease
from the promised amount, and a much steeper decrease from the
estimates promised to other commodities. Nationwide this decrease
amounts to over $20 million in lost income to barley producers in 1997.
The decision by the conferees to reject the temporary fix adopted by
the Senate only reaffirms the unfair treatment of barley farmers, and
should not stand. I will continue to search for a way to correct his
error that will leave many barley producers shortchanged under the new
farm bill.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3603,
the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.
The appropriations process historically has been a process
emphasizing bipartisanship, compromise, and camaraderie. No bill
emphasizes those attributes more than this bill, and no team of Chair
and ranking member puts those attributes on display better than the
team of Joe Skeen and Dick Durbin for the past 3 years. It has been a
pleasure to be associated with them and their bipartisan handiwork in
this bill.
H.R. 3603 is not a perfect bill. The discretionary spending in this
bill is $350 million below fiscal year 1996 and $1.1 billion less than
President Clinton requested.
We really have to ask ourselves how long we expect to continue this
trend and believe it somehow has no impact. Over a number of years, we
have cut back our trade promotion efforts, our commitment to rural
development, and our agricultural research and extension activities.
The impact is being felt by our farmers, our rural communities, and our
land-grant institutions. In addition, USDA is feeling the squeeze as it
provides services to our farmers and farm communities, and as it
carries out its important missions of animal and plant inspection and
food safety.
These are worrisome long-term trends that I hope will be addressed in
the years to come, but Joe Skeen and Dick Durbin have done a good job
with this conference report under demanding circumstances.
Fortunately, cooler heads in the leadership prevailed, and we were
able to achieve a more generous final allocation that increased the
House bill by $158 million. The majority of this money was allocated to
unmet needs of our rural communities--both rural housing loans, and
water and sewer loans.
I was also pleased that the conferees included a House provisions,
authored by our colleague Marcy Kaptur, to require farmers actually to
plant a crop to receive payments under the new farm bill. This was a
commonsense provision, and it was revised to take into account
disasters, conservation uses and other sensible exceptions, but it is
an important affirmation of our intentions in the 1996 farm bill.
I have particular praise for several items of importance to
California agriculture and to my district.
First, funds have been included for an important integrated pest
management research facility at the University of California at Davis.
Recent passage of the pesticides and food safety bill after a long
stalemate is a reflection that the use of agricultural pesticides and
the effect on health are of the greatest concern to the American
public. Minimizing the use of pesticides while continuing the crop
yields that Americans expect which, in turn, produce such low cost food
products must continue to be a priority.
It is imperative that we have the up-to-date facilities to develop
effective methods to deal with pests, especially in California.
California has been the Nation's top agricultural producer since 1948,
and America depends upon the wide variety of agricultural commodities
that are produced. Yet, in a State where a new pest is introduced every
60 days, we are particularly susceptible to pest infestation. This
facility will support and accelerate research needed for
environmentally compatible pest management strategies.
Second, the bill includes mandatory funds for the Market Access
Program [MAP].
Agriculture exports, projected to exceed $50 billion again this
year--up from $43.5 billion for fiscal year 1994--are vital to the
United States. And there is probably no more important tool for export
promotion than MAP, especially for California's specialty crop
production.
Third, the conference agreement has put the additional allocation to
good use with regard to research and extension activities and support
for our land-grant institutions. Agricultural research will take on
even greater importance in the years to come as farmers make the
transition to a full market-oriented farm economy envisioned by the
1996 farm bill.
In that light, it is important that we sustain and hopefully increase
our commitment to research through the agricultural research stations
of the Agricultural Research Service, thought the formula funding for
our land-grant institutions, and through the special grants and
competitive grants in the Cooperative State Research Education and
Extension Service. Only through such investments can we maintain the
U.S. lead in agriculture and enable it to continue its significant and
positive impact on our economy.
In summary, this is a good bill given our budgetary circumstances and
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 the conference report on H.R. 3603, the
Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3603 and its
accompanying conference report that provides funding for Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and related agencies
programs
[[Page H9724]]
for fiscal year 1997. I want to commend subcommittee chairman Skeen and
ranking member Mr. Durbin for their leadership and fine work in
crafting this difficult bill. I also would like to thank the
subcommittee staff for their diligence and for the long hours they
spent putting together this bill.
This bill provides $53.3 billion for Agricultural appropriations.
This represents a reduction of $10.3 billion from last year's level.
Discretionary spending in our bill has been reduced by $350 million,
forcing our subcommittee to make some difficult choices. We have had to
consolidate and reduce spending on a number of rural development and
rural housing programs and spending in this bill is still woefully
inadequate to meet the needs of those rural communities seeking water
and sewer loans.
Fortunately, there are many positive areas in this bill that deserve
special recognition. For one, we were finally successful in reforming
the section 515 low-income housing program. This multifamily rural
rental housing program assists elderly, disabled and low-income working
families in securing affordable housing. In this bill we have extended
the section 515 program for another year and have permitted funding to
be used for construction of new affordable housing units. This program
has been in need of reform for years and I am hopeful that these
overdue changes will enable us to operate this program more efficiently
so that we will be able to provide increased funding to the program in
future years.
In this bill we have also significantly increased spending on
nutrition and feeding programs. We have provided $8.7 billion for child
nutrition programs such as the school lunch and school breakfast
programs and $27.6 billion for food stamps. The important WIC program
is funded at last year's level of $3.73 billion. With the large
carryover balances in the WIC account, we are within reach of full
funding for WIC, a goal that I believe its shared by all Members of
Congress.
We have also provided the administration's full request of $574
million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. Ensuring the safety
of our Nation's food supply is one of the highest priorities in this
bill. We are committed to providing the Food Safety and Inspection
Service with the needed funding required to maintain the current
inspection system while providing the needed investments required to
implement the new hazard analysis and critical control point [HACCP]
meat and poultry inspection system.
This bill also provides critical resources to the Natural Resources
Conversation Service that will enable them to provide planning and
technical assistance for watershed projects and to help farmers
implement conservation compliance plans on highly erodible lands. We
need to do a better job in controlling soil erosion and protecting
environmentally sensitive crop lands. We do that in our bill by
providing strong funding levels for conservation operations, the
conservation reserve program, the wetlands reserve program and the
newly created environmental quality incentives program [EQUIP].
One of my major regrets in this bill is the failure to include the
Northern Forest Stewardship Act in the agriculture appropriations
conference report. The Northern Forest Stewardship Act is bipartisan
legislation that positively balances the environmental and economic
future of resource-dependent communities in northern New England and
New York. This bill represents a carefully, crafted compromise based on
the recommendations of the northern forest land council. Foresters,
conservationists, and recreationists have worked together to develop a
plan of action that protects the scenic and wildlife resources of the
region while preserving the economic timber base of the region and
without infringing on the rights of landowners. We must protect and
enhance the forest health, forest economies and community development
of these northern forests for current and future generations. I
strongly support this consensus approach to preserving our treasured
natural resources.
The decision by the Agriculture Appropriation Subcommittee conferees
to not include riders, or potentially controversial authorization
language on our bill, led our subcommittee to reluctantly drop the
Northern Forest Stewardship Act from the conference report.
Nevertheless, I plan on continuing to work closely with my northeastern
colleagues to find a way that expedites passage of the Northern Forest
Stewardship Act in this Congress.
In spite of my reservations on a few specific provisions in the bill
I believe that the bill overall is a good one. We have done the best we
can with the resources available to us and I urge Members to support
this bill and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation for the
remarks that were made by the ranking member and say that he set a good
example for me and we followed through on exactly that kind of
demeanor. I, too, want to say to him that he has been a delight to work
with and is certainly a great gentleman in this body and we will see
what happens after the election.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further proceedings on the conference
report will be postponed until after the vote on the legislative branch
appropriations conference report.
____________________