[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.

                          ____________________