[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 16, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5372-H5382]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 2160) making appropriations for 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1998, and for other purposes; and pending that, I ask unanimous consent 
that the general debate be limited to not to exceed 1 hour, the time to 
be equally divided and controlled by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur] and myself.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico.
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  2000


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2160), with Mr. Linder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  By unanimous consent, the bill was considered as having been read the 
first time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous-consent agreement, the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] 
each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer the fiscal year 1998 appropriations 
bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and related agencies. The bill totals $13,651,000,000 in discretionary 
spending and $39,796,855,000 in mandatory spending for a total of 
$49,447,051,000. This bill meets both the discretionary allocation of 
$13,650,196,000 and its outlay allocation of $13,967,000,000.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is the result of 13 days of hearings from 
mid-February through mid-March. The subcommittee took testimony from 
252 witnesses, including 20 Members of Congress. We marked it up in 
subcommittee on June 25 and in full committee on July 9.
  While our allocation was larger than last year, this bill spends 
about $424 million less than the administration requested. There are 
only a few significant increases in the bill: WIC, rural water and 
housing, FDA, and meat and poultry inspection. Most of the programs are 
reduced or frozen at the 1997 level.
  This is a good bill and a responsible bill. I want to remind all my 
colleagues that this legislation pays for critical programs that 
benefit us and every one of our constituents every day of their lives, 
no matter what part of this great country they live in. At the same 
time, it spends carefully and fulfills our obligation to move towards a 
balanced budget.
  Mr. Chairman I want to express my appreciation to the committee 
members and the staff, and particularly to the gentlewoman who is the 
ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], who has been a 
great help to me. We have a great team going, I think, on this 
particular bill.
  We have our differences once in a while, but they are mild compared 
to some we have heard in the earlier testimony before from this chair. 
So I want to thank all those folks who make this thing a reality, and 
for the hard work they do and the tremendous amount of time they put 
in.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill represents a lot of hard work and 
contribution by both the Democratic and Republican Members. I believe 
it deserves strong support from both sides of the aisle. I have not 
asked for a rule on this bill because I want my colleagues to have a 
chance to discuss and debate any issues which they believe are 
important.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to commend our chair, the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], an outstanding Member of this House to 
work with; all of the members of our subcommittee and the committee 
staff, for their wonderful leadership in putting together a solid bill. 
It will help keep our Nation at the leading edge for food, fiber, fuel, 
and forest production, as well as research, trade, and food and drug 
safety.
  There is no question that agriculture is America's lead industry. Our 
farmers and our agricultural industries remain the most productive in 
the world, and they well understand, as we do, how difficult it is to 
maintain our Nation's commitment to excellence in agriculture in tight 
budgetary times.
  Our bill appropriates $3.7 billion or 7 percent less than last year's 
budget, and $2.8 billion less or 5 percent less than the amount 
requested by the administration. Over two-thirds of the bill's spending 
is dedicated to mandatory programs, largely nutrition programs like the 
school breakfast and lunch programs and the Food Stamp Program, which 
comprise nearly 70 percent of the funding in this bill.
  The committee provided $35.8 billion in mandatory programs, which is 
a decrease of $4.3 billion below the amount available for fiscal year 
1997, and $2.4 billion below the budget request.
  The bill includes a total of $13.65 billion for discretionary 
programs, which is $599 million more than the amount appropriated in 
the last fiscal year, and $424 million less than the budget request.
  Mr. Chairman, those who serve farmers and work with agriculture are 
taught over and over again that there is a big difference between money 
and wealth. Our job on this Committee on Agriculture is to help create 
the wealth of America through the investments that we make in food, 
fiber, fuel, and forestry, all essential components of production 
agriculture.
  Market-oriented farm policy means farming for the market, not the 
Government, and requires investments in research, some of it high risk, 
in conservation, in sustainability, in education and technology 
transfer, which will keep agriculture competitive as we move into the 
new century.

[[Page H5373]]

  Overall, the bill represents a fair, bipartisan approach. The 
committee did face tough choices, given our spending constraints. There 
are no funds in this bill for any Member for university facilities. Our 
committee turned down over a dozen requests for university research 
facilities. Further, we were only able to fund $50 million of over $200 
million in requests for agricultural research.
  I am not proud of the fact that we can only provide $50 million. That 
is only a quarter of what we were asked to provide, but that is the 
reality in today's world. Facing tight budget constraints, we did our 
best to shift research needs to priority areas. But in every case where 
a priority program received additional funding, some other budget 
function had to be cut.
  Farm ownership and operating loans sustained a major cut in this 
bill, and were reduced $229 million below FY 1997 levels. This will 
have an impact. APHIS, the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service 
budget, was reduced by approximately 4 percent, at a time when we are 
experiencing increasing problems with inspection at our ports of entry.
  The Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation operations 
programs, the primary source of technical assistance to producers and 
landowners, was cut by $10 million over last year's level, and more 
than $112 million below the President's budget request.
  With the increasing public concern about food safety, I am pleased 
with the increase we were able to include for the food safety 
initiative under both the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration, as 
well as the Youth Tobacco Prevention initiative proposed under the FDA.
  It is also noteworthy that this bill includes, after great compromise 
on the committee and struggle, an $118 million increase for the women, 
infants, and children feeding program, which will allow the program to 
maintain its current participation level of 7.4 million participants.
  This bill also includes an $800,000 increase to upgrade investigative 
activities of the Grain Inspectors' Inspection Packers and Stockyards 
Administration regarding concentration in those industries. This 
increase is critical for monitoring and analyzing anticompetitive 
practices in the meatpacking industry, where now three huge firms 
control 80 percent of the meat that consumers in this country purchase.
  Mr. Chairman, I continue to have serious reservations about some 
amendments which were adopted in full committee, and hope that these 
issues can be resolved during this floor debate. For example, our 
subcommittee, after considerable debate, provided $152 million for 
sales commissions to private crop insurance agents, as requested by the 
administration. However, at the full committee level, the chairman's en 
bloc amendment included a further increase of $36 million. There are 
many other programs that are of higher priority in this bill than 
underwriting private insurance agents, particularly in light of the 
April GAO report on abuses discovered in the crop insurance program.
  In its report, GAO stated that expenses reimbursed with taxpayer 
funds appeared excessive, and I underline ``excessive,'' or did not 
appear to be reasonably associated with the sales and service of 
Federal crop insurance. These include, and I quote from the report, 
agent's commissions that exceeded the industry average, unnecessary 
travel-related expenses, questionable entertainment activities like 
skyboxes, expenses associated with acquiring competitors' businesses, 
profit-sharing bonuses, and lobbying.
  GAO suggested that future reimbursement rates could be reduced. 
Consequently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicated to our 
committee that $152 million would be sufficient funding for this 
program for fiscal year 1998, and that these funds would provide 
assurance that valuable crop insurance products would be delivered by 
private crop insurance companies and their agents.
  I strongly support the crop insurance program as a continuing safety 
net for our Nation's producers, but certainly a 24.5 percent level of 
commission, 24.5 percent, should be sufficient to encourage private 
companies to provide this service. Some might say it may even be too 
generous. Providing an additional $36 million increase to raise those 
commissions from 24.5 percent to about 27 percent of the value of the 
insurance policy is simply not the highest priority use of this 
subcommittee's limited funding.
  I also remain concerned about some of the reductions proposed for 
salary accounts in the Department of Agriculture, particularly 
reductions in the Farm Service Agency, and the potential for disruption 
of the delivery of programs and services to farmers at the local level.
  I strongly oppose the amendment adopted in full committee that would 
eliminate the salaries for the deputy and assistant deputy 
administrator of the Farm Services Agency. While we realize that the 
farmers and landowners in one State, Washington State, are very 
disappointed with the results of the 15th consecutive conservation 
reserve program sign-up, we strongly oppose this punitive and misguided 
attempt to effect a change through micromanagement of a Federal agency.
  There remains in this bill, language adopted in full committee which 
seems to give special preference and consideration to one university 
building under the CSREES buildings and facilities account. With 
limited Federal funding available for priority programs, this 
subcommittee agreed in fiscal year 1997 that it would end the practice 
of building academic research facilities for universities.
  While we followed this approach in subcommittee markup and provided 
no funding in this account, the language adopted in the full committee 
markup subverts an established process and I think compromises us at 
the conference committee level. It appears to give preference to one 
university while disallowing other priority proposals from 
consideration.
  The full committee also adopted an amendment that authorizes on this 
appropriations bill by changing the designation of a community in 
California from a rural to an urban community. I have extremely strong 
reservations about the intent of this language, since no hearings were 
held on the subject. I underline, no hearings were held on the subject. 
It sets a very bad precedent, including unintended consequences that we 
may not fully appreciate. This language should be stripped from the 
bill.
  Traditional farm programs continue to receive a decreasing portion of 
Federal support, and in my view, we should target our scarce 
agricultural dollars to smaller family farmers to assure competition in 
our industry now dominated by megagiants. I opposed last year's farm 
bill because I do not believe that it did enough to insure against 
undue risk to family farmers and to provide them with a safety net when 
times turn bad. While the farm bill made progress by enacting a $40,000 
payment limitation, I remain concerned that large corporate farmers can 
still have undue call on Federal payments.
  In recent decades, America has slowly eroded the historic basis of 
American agriculture, the family farmer, and is moving in the direction 
of giant corporate farms. We must address the increased concentration 
in agricultural markets that is squeezing family farmers out of 
business.
  In the final analysis, a concentrated production system risks price 
manipulation and lack of competition. Commodity prices must be 
maintained at a level high enough to compensate for the costs of 
production, and to maintain standards of living in order to attract and 
retain farmers and farm production.
  On the international front, we must also negotiate reciprocal trade 
agreements which encourage and enhance the ability of our farmers to 
compete in world markets.

                              {time}  2015

  On agricultural trade, we must work harder to recapture lost markets 
and increase exports. As American agricultural exports grow, foreign 
agricultural imports to our country are being shipped in greater 
magnitude.
  Since 1981, our agricultural exports have exhibited a rather roller 
coaster ride, first declining from $43.8 billion to a low of $26 
billion in 1986, and then rising to a record high of $60 billion in 
1996, but at the same time agricultural imports have increased from 
$10.8 billion to approximately $30 billion in 1996, now equaling half 
of our exports.

[[Page H5374]]

In many cases, these products our own farmers could be producing and 
marketing.
  In closing, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] for putting together the best bill we could 
under current fiscal circumstances. Let me remind our colleagues in 
closing that the agriculture portion of Federal spending has taken more 
than its share of budget cuts in these past several years. Overall 
spending on programs in our committee's jurisdiction has declined from 
$70.8 billion in fiscal year 1994 to $49.45 billion in fiscal year 1998 
projected.
  Employment at USDA has declined by approximately 13,000 since 1993. 
County-based office staffing has been reduced by 13.7 percent since 
fiscal year 1993 and will be reduced further for a total cut of 40 
percent by fiscal year 2002. I think our subcommittee has met the 
challenge to reduce Federal spending. I am not quite sure how much more 
we can do.
  Mr. Chairman, I again thank the gentleman from New Mexico for his 
cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with 
the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Skeen]. I am disappointed that the committee did not include 
funding for the Melaleuca Research and Quarantine Facility close to 
Fort Lauderdale, FL. The committee chose not to include funding 
although this project was authorized by Congress last year and 
specifically requested by the administration. Moreover, in previous 
years the committee has funded this project.
  Mr. Chairman, this project is critical to the survival, the very 
survival of the Everglades. Therefore, I hope that you will work with 
me during the conference committee if the Senate chooses to fund this 
project.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Shaw] that I will certainly work with the gentleman from Florida 
during the conference on this bill. I regret that the subcommittee 
could not include funding for this project. It suffers from the fate of 
many worthwhile projects, as was mentioned by the ranking member. There 
is just not enough money to go around. However, I am sure that this 
project will be fully funded in time because of its great importance to 
the Everglades.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], our distinguished ranking member.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  First, I would like to simply say that I think that there are no two 
Members of the House who are more popular than the gentlewoman from 
Ohio and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen]. I think everyone understands in these two individuals they have 
Members who want to work things out, they have Members who want to 
produce a bipartisan approach and who try to the best of their ability 
to accommodate the needs of this institution, the country and our 
individual Members.
  I want to say that I expected to support this bill with a fair amount 
of enthusiasm in the early stages of consideration. But, unfortunately, 
in the full committee a number of amendments were adopted which will 
make that very difficult.
  First of all, the gentlewoman has already mentioned the Crop 
Insurance Commission issue which was raised in full committee. The 
amount of funding put in the bill for that purpose now greatly exceeds 
that requested by the administration. I do not believe that that can be 
justified with so many other competing needs. I am for crop insurance, 
most definitely, but I am not for providing persons who sell it with a 
greater commission than they need in order to persuade people to buy 
what they ought to buy without any persuasion.
  I would also say that the development in full committee which 
eliminated the assistant deputy administrator of FSA I find to be an 
unseemly personalization of differences between individual Members of 
the Congress and the agency, and I believe that just as it did when 
similar action was taken by previous chairs of this subcommittee, I 
think that in this instance it also brings disrepute on the Congress as 
an institution for acting in a manner that is that extreme. I think 
that that will have to be removed before it is accepted by the 
administration.
  There are some other items as well. I would simply also take note 
that I do not know what exactly the number is, but I know the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] is one of the very few women who 
have either served as Chair or ranking minority member of an 
appropriations subcommittee. There have been, as I understand it, two 
women who served as subcommittee Chairs and three who have served as 
ranking members. I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur] for ascending to that position.
  Again, I express my appreciation for the way that the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] tries to conduct affairs in this place.
  I would also simply say that in general, at the proper time, I will 
be trying to insert in the Record a very interesting article from a 
newspaper in my home town called City Pages, which really traces the 
depths of despair which has developed on the part of many farmers in 
rural America because of the economic crunch that has beset them really 
for the past 20 years. In my view this bill cannot begin to address the 
damage that has been done to the social fabric of rural America and to 
the economic welfare of hard-working, struggling family farmers by what 
I consider to be inadequate and misguided farm policy over the past 
years, which unfortunately continues today.
  I will be inserting that article in the Record despite its length 
because I think it is important, when people are looking at reasons for 
the tuning out of large segments of our population, when they are 
looking for reasons why so many people join these misguided militia 
groups around the country, I think it is important to understand that 
when people are economically pressed to the wall, that their reaction 
is sometimes irrational.
  I would urge all Members, whether they are from urban or rural 
districts, to read it because it ought to teach us all a lesson.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a proposed move by the USDA of an experiment 
station in Griffin, GA to another location. This station has been in 
place since 1949. Over the last few years, in fact the last 7 years, we 
have spent some $2.5 million in improvements, in new plant facilities 
there. The proposed site is nowhere near comparable to the existing 
site.
  I am concerned, too, about the number of employees who would be 
affected by this move because these employees have been paid through 
another system, a university system, and would be ineligible for funds 
for moving to a new location.
  I have inquired with USDA and have not received any response from my 
inquiry. My inquiry to the gentleman is for him to seek out why this 
move is being made, if it is logical, if it is sound fiscal policy and, 
if not, let us move in some way to restrict this move.
  Mr. SKEEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COLLINS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, yes, we will go hand-in-hand with the 
gentleman and see what the problem is and get some answers for the 
gentleman. That I pledge to the gentleman.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].

[[Page H5375]]

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman in 
a colloquy. I intend to clarify in this colloquy the intention of the 
subcommittee in its report language for this bill that, quote, ``The 
Committee believes that the funding provided to the Foreign 
Agricultural Service will enable the Foreign Market Development/
Cooperator program to operate at the same level as fiscal year 1997.''
  Is it the gentleman's understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the Foreign 
Agricultural Service is approving $32 million for approved foreign 
market development/cooperator program marketing plans in fiscal year 
1998?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that the 
department intends to operate the FMD/cooperator program at a level of 
$32 million which includes new money and carryover funds. The bill 
provides sufficient funding for this. This is the meaning of the report 
language.
  We have not earmarked this level because it is nearly a quarter of 
the budget of the Foreign Agricultural Service and USDA needs the 
flexibility, to change the FMD/cooperator budget to meet other needs 
which may arise during the fiscal year. On the other hand, the FMD/
cooperator budget could go above the $32 billion level if USDA decides 
that is the best course.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh].
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2160 and 
its accompanying report that provides funding for Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration and related agencies for 
fiscal year 1998. I want to commend the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen], the subcommittee chairman, and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur], the ranking member, for their leadership and fine work in 
crafting this difficult bill. I would also like to thank the 
subcommittee staff for their diligence and the long hours they spent 
putting the bill together.
  The bill provides $49 billion for agricultural appropriations. This 
represents a reduction of $3.7 billion from last year's level. While 
discretionary spending in our bill has increased as a result of changes 
made to the food stamp and related nutrition programs, our subcommittee 
has had to make some very difficult choices as only a few of the 
programs in this bill are receiving increases over last year's level. 
The President's tobacco and food safety initiatives were largely funded 
in this bill, and the subcommittee has also provided $188 million for 
Federal crop insurance.

                              {time}  2030

  We have funded the wetlands reserve program that will be increased by 
$45 million. We have also increased funding for the EQUIP Program. 
These are environmental measures within the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture budget that are very important to our conservation of soil. 
We have also provided $7.8 billion for child nutrition programs, such 
as school lunch and school breakfast and $25 billion for food stamps.
  These are substantial commitments. Often the agriculture budget is 
considered an agricultural subsidy bill, but in fact it is not, it is 
the bill that provides the food and sustenance for most of our Nation's 
poor.
  I thank our leadership for supporting these programs, for providing 
money for nutrition, and I would urge a strong bipartisan support for 
this bill.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. LaHood].
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might enter into a colloquy 
about a particular research program.
  As a part of the President's budget there was a proposal to stop many 
ongoing agricultural research projects. Many of these are very good 
research projects and have had long-term agricultural benefit. I 
appreciate very much the chairman and the ranking minority member in 
helping continue some of these projects.
  There is one project I do want to ask about specifically. This 
project is known as the ``Genetic Engineering of Anaerobic Bacteria for 
Improved Rumen Function,'' research effort conducted at the Ag research 
lab in Peoria, IL. This project was not mentioned in the committee 
report, and I would ask the Chairman if he would assist me in ensuring 
that this project be included as a worthwhile project when the bill 
comes out of the committee on conference.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to respond to the 
gentleman that he has my assurances that we will look after this 
project. The gentleman from Illinois has always worked with the 
committee and he asked to keep this project earlier in the year. It was 
just an oversight that it was not mentioned in the report, and we will 
do what we can to make sure ARS keeps this project alive.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], an esteemed member of our subcommittee and 
full committee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the ranking member, 
the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], for yielding me this time and 
for her hard and diligent work on the bill.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] for 
listening to Members and for working hard to craft a good bill and for 
his work in bringing the bill to the floor today.
  This bill does fund a number of important priorities, but I still 
have a number of concerns about it. I am particularly concerned about 
the prevalence of tobacco use amongst young people. I appreciate that 
the chairman worked with me and other members of the subcommittee to 
provide $24 million for the FDA initiative to block youth access to 
tobacco.
  This is a good start toward the $34 million that was requested by the 
administration to stop kids from taking up smoking and becoming 
addicted. We need to bring that level up to $34 million. Three thousand 
youngsters start to smoke every day. One-third of them will die. We 
need to put an enforcement mechanism in place that curtails underage 
smoking.
  I am also pleased that the bill provides funding for the President's 
food safety initiative, for the WIC Program, which provides essential 
nutrition assistance for pregnant women and young children, and for 
agricultural research.
  I am dismayed, however, by a number of provisions and, in particular, 
by changes that were made at the full committee level. The full 
committee chose to recognize one specific construction project when, by 
agreement, numerous other worthy projects at sites around the country 
were left out of the bill and report. This is unfair to other members 
of the committee and to other Members of this House.
  I am concerned that the full committee added funds above what the 
Secretary of Agriculture deemed sufficient for payments to crop 
insurance agents, even though the General Accounting Office has 
revealed that taxpayer dollars are being used for outrageous and 
unreasonable expenses, such as skyboxes at athletic events, country 
club membership fees, and corporate aircraft. We should not be 
providing extra dollars in this area.
  The full committee could establish a dangerous precedent by its 
actions to eliminate two positions in the Department of Agriculture 
simply because a Member of the Congress is unhappy about the actions of 
an entirely different administrator.
  While I do have a number of concerns, I again would like to thank the 
chairman and the ranking member for their efforts and express my thanks 
to the staff.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Latham].
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the chairman, 
the gentleman from New Mexico, for yielding me this time and all his 
hard work; and the work of staff on the committee; as well as the 
ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] for the 
cooperation and help on this bill.

[[Page H5376]]

  Mr. Chairman, I think some very important things are included in 
this; first of all, the sanctity of the contracts that we had last 
year. Last year I was on the authorizing committee and, as a farmer 
myself, I know how important it is to maintain those contracts to make 
sure that the farm bill, that really is going to help all farmers in 
the future, the sanctity of that farm bill stays intact.
  That is extremely important as we go through a transition of 
Government controls in agriculture to a truly free-market agriculture 
based on exports on value added products. I am very pleased with that 
portion.
  Also the portion about funding for crop insurance. While we did 
increase in the full committee somewhat the funding for crop insurance, 
it is still a decrease from the amount that was spent on crop insurance 
last year. But it does maintain a level of funding which is absolutely 
critical for agriculture, unless we want to go back to the days of 
disaster payments and coming to the Federal Government year after year 
for more and more money.
  If we are going to finally have farmers, who now in the freedom to 
farm bill have that freedom to choose the crops that they want, they 
also have to take the responsibility to insure that crop. And for us to 
cut the funding for crop insurance is absolutely wrong and upside down 
unless we want to get the Federal Government back involved in disaster 
bills year after year.
  I am very pleased in this bill that we continue our commitment as far 
as agricultural research. This really is the future for agriculture. It 
is the basic research we need, especially in my district where we are 
challenged by so many environmental concerns today, with some of the 
hog lots and those types of situations.
  The bill also continues to fund marketing export promotion programs 
that are absolutely critical. We talk about having free and open trade. 
While that is the case, and we would like to get to that point, we are 
not there yet, so we do need the Federal Government involved as far as 
having a way of competing in the marketplace around the world.
  I am very pleased too that this bill includes funding for the 
President's food safety initiative, the meat and poultry inspection, 
and enforcement of the FDA tobacco regulations aimed at reducing youth 
smoking. It also continues the bipartisan effort to support the WIC 
Program and holds the line on Federal spending.
  I think everyone should understand in the small portion of this 
agriculture appropriations bill that actually goes to farmers, we are 
at a level of about 20 percent of where we were 10 years ago in support 
for agriculture directly. I would challenge any other agency in this 
Government to take those kinds of severe cuts and still have an 
industry out there that prospers and grows.
  We have finally unleashed the power of agriculture in America with 
the farm bill. This bill supports that. This is the right direction to 
go, maintaining the safety net through individuals taking 
responsibility for themselves. And I am just very, very pleased that 
after 60 years of Government controls in agriculture, we have finally 
freed up what is going to be the most dynamic part of this whole 
economy, and that is the American agriculture machine.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink.]
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], for yielding me this time. I would 
like to rise initially to give my strong support to H.R. 2160 and to 
commend the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the chairman of the 
subcommittee, and members of the Committee on Appropriations for not 
yielding to the many demands and requests to amend the farm bill that 
we struggled so hard a year ago to enact.
  I also rise to take the time during general debate to remind the 
House that, notwithstanding the popular view of Hawaii as a tourist 
mecca of the country and the world, that it is in my district that the 
bulk of the agricultural economy of my State is sustained. Therefore, 
we have a very strong support and reliance upon a strong farm bill, and 
I rise to reiterate the struggles that we had a year ago.
  Specifically, on the sugar debate, which we anticipate once again 
will come during the amendment stages, I received a communication 
today, which I know I cannot insert in the Record at this point, but I 
would like to read from portions of it. It came from the American Sugar 
Alliance and is addressed to Members of Congress. It is signed in 
particular by a large number of organizations, but I wanted to cite one 
in particular, Gay & Robinson, of Hawaii, who is a sugar producer on 
the Island of Kauai, whose future will be intimately affected by the 
outcome of the debate on sugar, if there should be one.
  Sugar cane and sugar beet growers, this letter says, in 17 States, 
went to their bankers last year to get financing, which they were able 
to achieve because of the passage of a 7-year farm bill. In the middle 
of all of this effort, we are now being threatened with the possibility 
of this program coming to a halt.
  The sugar producers pay back their loans with interest, and that is 
why it is so unfair for people who attack this program to suggest that 
we have a subsidy and that we are costing the taxpayers money. In point 
of fact, we are producing about $40 million each year.
  The giant food manufacturers are the ones that are attacking this 
program because they want to see foreign subsidized sugar dumped into 
our markets in order for them to increase their profits. So I hope that 
in the course of the debate on the amendments that we will rely on what 
we did last year and not break faith with the farmers of America.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I would like to 
respond to the gentlewoman from Hawaii and thank her for getting the 
road fixed out to the research station in Hawaii for the fruit fly 
project.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, it was because of the gentleman's 
energetic intervention on that matter that we were able to resolve it. 
So I wish to thank the gentleman for raising this issue to my 
attention.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, thanks to the 
gentlewoman, my back healed up from that rough road.
  Mr. Chairman I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I rise to engage the chairman of the subcommittee and 
the gentlewoman from Idaho in a colloquy. I am very concerned about the 
administration's proposed American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
  First, this initiative, originally announced by President Clinton in 
his State of the Union Address this last January, will threaten 
property rights if it is implemented. Although the initiative purports 
to be community led, it is the Federal agencies involved that will 
dominate the process and could well dictate to property owners how they 
can use their land.
  If this occurs, we could see a severe erosion of the property rights 
guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution. A prime example 
of this would occur in the West, where restricting cattle from streams, 
their only water supply, would create enormous uncompensated losses for 
ranchers.
  The administration is advancing this initiative without sufficient 
input from Congress, and this concerns many of us greatly. The American 
people have not been granted a say about what is going on here. The 
agencies involved are currently planning to reprogram funds for 
purposes that were not authorized or appropriated by Congress.

                              {time}  2045

  We are all aware that the justification for creation of the program 
can be found in the words ``There is no new money involved.'' However, 
the reprogramming of funds to pay for an initiative where the voices of 
the American people have not been heard is simply not acceptable.
  Until Congress has reviewed this initiative and the agencies have 
provided sufficient budget justification material as well as 
substantial protections for private property rights, I am proposing 
that Congress in general, and the Committee on Agriculture 
Appropriations in particular, withhold any funds for

[[Page H5377]]

implementation of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
  I appreciate the work of the chairman on behalf of private property 
rights, but I remain concerned that there are no concrete protections 
for property rights. Any assurances that the chairman could provide 
that no reprogramming requests will be entertained by the committee 
until all questions have been answered and private property rights have 
been protected would be greatly appreciated.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Smith] bringing this matter to the attention of the Members. I, 
too, have grave concerns about the Clinton administration's American 
Heritage Rivers Initiative. There are so many things wrong about both 
the program and the process by which it was brought forth that we 
simply do not have time to go into the details now. But I 
wholeheartedly agree with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
  Yesterday, the full House Committee on Resources met and held a 
hearing on this very proposal. It was very interesting, and I learned 
that this so-called initiative will cost the taxpayers millions and 
millions of dollars every year, and yet Congress has never authorized 
nor appropriated funds for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
  And the last time I checked, we were still the responsible party for 
authorizing and appropriating money for new programs. But what this 
does mean is that other programs, such as Bureau of Land Management, 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service programs, that already have 
been authorized and money appropriated for those authorized programs, 
are being robbed by the American Heritage Rivers Program on line. And 
this was from testimony by Mrs. McGinty and Secretaries Bruce Babbitt 
and Dan Glickman.
  When we are desperately striving to meet our existing obligations and 
commitments, when we ask the American people to once again tighten 
their belts, and when we continue to spend into our grandchildren's 
money and into their future by engaging in deficit spending, I have to 
ask if this is the best use of the taxpayers' money.
  I think, instead, it is sort of like saying, well, if the peasants do 
not have bread, let them eat cake. No, this is not a priority to the 
American people, because it tramples on States' rights. And to this 
end, I introduced H.R. 1842, a bill to stop this ill-conceived 
proposal. And I note that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] is a 
cosponsor, and I thank him very much for raising this ill-conceived 
program to the attention of the Members.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] and the gentlewoman from Idaho 
[Mrs. Chenoweth] have raised a very important issue. The committee 
shares their concern; and in its report accompanying the bill, it 
addresses this issue with respect to the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service. And in the report, we have directed the agency to enhance its 
accountability of appropriations.
  To underscore how serious this matter is, we have prohibited the 
agency from using funds to support the American Heritage Rivers 
Initiative, as well as other similar administration-hatched 
initiatives, until justification is provided and the programming and 
reprogramming requests are approved by Congress.
  My colleagues can be certain that I have the same concerns as the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] and others and will not agree to 
funding this program until we can be completely assured that there are 
adequate protections for private property rights.
  In response to me and as one of the steps in the right direction, the 
administration has agreed to add the following to the final version of 
the initiative: ``In implementing the American Heritage Rivers 
Initiative, Federal departments shall act with due regard for 
protection of private property provided by the fifth amendment to the 
United States Constitution.''
  In addition to this, the Council on Environmental Quality has given 
numerous assurances that they will continue to work with me in 
clarifying and protecting property rights and agriculture. However, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] has my assurance that I have no 
intention of entertaining any reprogramming requests until outstanding 
questions and problems with the American Heritage Rivers Initiative 
have been sufficiently addressed.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I want to just ask the gentleman a question if I might.
  Just for clarification purposes, in the report that accompanies our 
bill, we did direct the administration with the following language: 
``Funds for these initiatives are not available until justification and 
reprogram requests are approved.''
  So I think we put language in the report accompanying the bill to put 
our subcommittee directly in oversight over what is happening. And I 
will say to the chairman of our subcommittee, I was hoping our 
community could get one of these designations. We have several rivers 
we need help on. But I look forward to working with the gentleman on 
the language as we move to conference.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Mexico has expired.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentlewoman 
from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] is correct. We have begun the process of making 
this a more responsible piece of legislation. It has already begun, and 
I assure the gentlewoman that we are going to work together to make 
sure that this Heritage system is conducted properly and in the right 
way, with the proper safeguards.
  And we would like very much to have her river designated, but our 
river we are going to have to fight every inch, because water is water 
in our part of the country, and there is no substitute.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I inquire as to the time on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has 
8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale].
  Mr. McHALE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the American 
Heritage Rivers Initiative and in sharp contrast to the comments that 
were made previously by the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], my 
friend and colleague.
  As indicated by the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] in her 
comments, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative was a subject of a 
full hearing yesterday of the Committee on Resources. There is now an 
extended comment period for public participation.
  Today's debate and the legislation introduced by the gentlewoman from 
Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] amply demonstrates that there will be a full 
legislative role in this process. There is no new bureaucracy under 
this program, no new statutory authority given in terms of land use 
policy to the administration.
  The initiative for inclusion in this program is purely local and 
voluntary. I would suggest to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. 
Chenoweth] that if her community does not wish to participate, I 
respect that, but that she not block those efforts and those interests 
locally generated in communities, such as my own, to have 10 rivers 
nationwide designated for participation in this program.
  I represent a community of 70 different municipalities. We are 
attempting to restore a river; and in that effort, we seek a Federal 
voluntary partnership.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2160. I 
thank the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the chairman, and the 
entire committee and subcommittee, which has worked so hard to 
formulate this bill that should be supported by all Members of the 
House.
  We have worked diligently to make sure that our Nation protects the 
food we eat, ensures the safety of prescription drugs and medical 
devices used

[[Page H5378]]

every day in our homes and local hospitals and we make certain that 
children who are most in need receive food and care and our neediest 
school children are provided food during the school year.
  This bill maintains agriculture research and foreign market 
development programs that will enable our farmers to expand trade and 
access as we transition from farm payments to self-sufficiency. 
Although important to the Pacific Northwest, the research projects 
contained in this bill benefit all of America.
  I also want to make sure that the body knows that we have been 
careful to write legislation that considers the taxpayer and the long-
term goals of agriculture. We are going to reduce the amount of 
pesticides used on crops by helping to develop insect resistance plants 
and develop new methods of disease and pest controls. So the 
environmental benefits in this bill are enormous, not only to farmers 
but consumers as well.
  I know we will have a good debate tomorrow on the issue of defunding. 
Certain members of the Farm Service Agency, that was my amendment, and 
I look forward to that debate, because that debate will be all about 
accountability. It will require that Government officials acts fairly 
to all States, all regions of the country, and that they administer 
programs according to their charge, and that they do so fairly and 
equitably to all farmers.
  We have heard a lot of talk in this body about fairness and 
expectations of Government agencies to do what they should do under the 
law. This is a good example and we will have a good chance to debate 
the whole issue tomorrow about what is fair and what is not and about 
what consequences there should be to Federal officials who do not do 
their job.
  So I urge all Members to support this bill.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. McCarthy].
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me the time.
  Of the $141 million provided for the commodity assistance program, I 
understand that the committee intends $96 million specifically for the 
commodity supplement food program, CSFP, to ensure that there is no 
reduction in current caseload. Is this correct?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. McCarthy] is 
correct.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentlewoman; and I want her to know, as a new Member, I did not know 
anything about agriculture, and now I see it working in my community 
and feeding our elderly and our children and our women.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. It is 
very important for us to realize what we are doing with American farm 
policy. Two percent of Americans are farmers, and yet they feed all 100 
percent of us, plus many, many other people throughout the globe.
  Our farm bill always gets criticized for the research, for the 
programs, and so forth. And yet within those programs is a very strong 
delivery system. As convoluted as it may seem, so often it makes sense 
when the fact that very, very few people in America go to bed hungry, 
and it makes even more sense when we realize that through the 
international programs, less go to bed hungry than they would without 
these programs.
  We have had skirmishes. We are going to have skirmishes on peanuts, 
on sugar, on tobacco, on the market access programs, and on a number of 
other things. Yet, through it all, we must remember that we are feeding 
Americans with this bill and, finally, we are doing it at less dollars 
than we have ever in the past.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume, and I would like to inquire of the Chair on time remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. Each side has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. McIntyre].
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, 
if he would engage me in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the sum of approximately 
$24 million has been appropriated to the Food and Drug Administration 
for the purpose of implementing new regulations concerning tobacco 
sales to minors. In light of the fact this funding represents a $20 
million increase over similar funding in the prior fiscal year budget, 
I would ask the chairman if it is his understanding and the 
understanding of those on the committee that none of this funding is to 
be used to monitor or regulate the growing, cultivating, or use of raw 
tobacco?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINTYRE. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. The answer to that question is, yes.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Reclaiming my time, furthermore, is it the committee's 
expectation that this authority should remain exclusively with the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture?
  Mr. SKEEN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, once again, the 
answer is yes.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield one minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation. I 
want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for an outstanding 
job in meeting the Nation's agriculture, agribusiness, rural housing 
and small community housing and development programs with limited 
resources. I am particularly appreciative of some assistance for the 
Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance, 12 major leading 
universities plus corporations; a quarter of a million dollars for a 
very special and detrimental disease affecting grain sorghum; for 
drought mitigation research projects; and for various CSRS projects at 
the University of Nebraska.
  Also I want to say to the gentleman, the gentlewoman and also to the 
former member, Mr. Durbin, that I think that the loan guarantee 
programs for housing, like the 502 program and the demonstration for 
the 538 program, are working well. I appreciate their continued support 
and again I thank them for the tremendous work.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following letter for the Record:
         Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, 
           Committee on Appropriations,
                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 1997.
     Hon. Doug Bereuter,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Doug: Earlier you wrote me regarding funding for 
     several Department of Agriculture special research grants.
       I am pleased to say that the FY 1998 Agriculture 
     Appropriations Bill reported by the Committee includes 
     $300,000 for the Alliance for Food Protection in Nebraska and 
     Georgia, $200,000 for drought mitigation in Nebraska, $42,000 
     for the Food Processing Center in Nebraska, $423,000 for the 
     Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance, $64,000 for 
     Nonfood Agriculture Products in Nebraska, and $59,000 for 
     Sustainable Agriculture Systems in Nebraska.
       I hope we will have not only your vote, but also your 
     personal support when the bill is considered by the House.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Joe Skeen,
        Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, 
                                     Food and Drug Administration.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the chairman of the 
subcommittee in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I am particularly concerned with the effect of 
additional

[[Page H5379]]

cuts in Farm Service Agency funding on staff positions in my district 
and across the country.
  Can the gentleman describe to me the impact this funding decrease 
will have on FSA county jobs, in addition to county office closures and 
the ability of the FSA to adequately serve the needs of our Nation's 
farmers?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POSHARD. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Let me first assure the gentleman that I have worked 
closely with the Department of Agriculture in arriving at the current 
appropriation level. I am satisfied that, although less money will be 
allocated to the FSA under this bill, the funding level will not result 
in more office closings than was planned and agreed to by Congress in 
the Reorganization Act of 1994. The reason we are able to use less 
funds here is due to erroneous assumptions in the President's budget 
regarding FSA's nonsalary funding needs as well as a higher than 
expected staff year reduction by FSA in the months since submission of 
the President's budget.
  Mr. POSHARD. Although I continue to harbor doubts about the effect of 
these cuts, I will accept the gentleman's response. However, Mr. 
Chairman, I must also express my serious concerns regarding the effects 
of the initial cuts to FSA which were included in the 1994 act. The 
impact of these cuts is ongoing and I believe that the hardships that 
they have caused in the form of job loss, office closures and the 
potential for decreased service availability must be addressed and 
should be limited as effectively as possible in the future.
  Mr. SKEEN. I thank the gentleman for sharing his concerns with this 
body. I will continue to work with him to ensure that any changes 
within FSA are made equitably and with the serious consideration 
befitting such an issue.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the 
distinguished chairman of this incredible committee that has one of the 
most important jobs in all of Congress because it is so diverse to have 
to deal with all the issues of agriculture. I rise in support of a very 
important issue to American specialty crop growers.
  As the gentleman knows, for 4 years the Salinas ARS station, located 
in the heart of the largest vegetable production area in the United 
States, has been without a research scientist, to the detriment of the 
lettuce industry.
  Does the gentleman agree that the lettuce farmers would be greatly 
aided by filling this position with a scientist at USDA with expertise 
in lettuce breeding?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. I tell the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] that, yes, 
I agree that the lettuce farmers would be greatly aided by the filling 
of this position.
  Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman.
  Would the gentleman agree that the research for such a specific crop 
be conducted in the Salinas Valley?
  Mr. SKEEN. Once again in the affirmative, yes, it is important that 
the research be conducted in the field under real farm conditions for 
the best achievable and quantifiable results. Research in the field is 
where farmers will have quickest access to breakthrough technology.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
commitment and the commitment of the committee in directing USDA to 
fill this vacant research position at the Salinas Valley ARS station to 
ensure that the final bill will include funding for this ARS position 
to support onsite lettuce research.
  Mr. SKEEN. It is my pleasure to assist the gentleman in this 
endeavor, and I appreciate his commitment to good agricultural 
research.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I 
look forward to supporting him on this great, important bill.
  Mr. SKEEN. I thank the gentleman. We can sure use it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen] to verify the committee's intent with respect to two 
Agricultural Research Service projects.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee has provided an increase of $500,000 for 
vomitoxin research, a matter of great importance to many of my wheat 
growers and millers. With this increase, will ARS be able to 
subcontract with universities to undertake portions of a broad research 
plan that I know was brought to the subcommittee's attention by myself 
and several of my colleagues?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARCIA. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. The gentleman is correct. ARS could use existing authority 
and these funds to contract with universities to undertake appropriate 
portions of their proposal.
  Mr. BARCIA. I thank the gentleman.
  The subcommittee also provided $727,000 for global climate change 
research. My understanding is that this funding will allow the 
Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network to 
continue the agricultural related work that they already have under way 
with ARS. Does the gentleman share my understanding?
  Mr. SKEEN. Again the gentleman from Michigan is correct. We funded 
this portion of the request of the Agricultural Research Service.
  Mr. BARCIA. I thank the gentleman for his assistance and for his 
answers and also thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], the 
distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], the extremely talented, 
knowledgeable and experienced ranking member of the authorizing 
committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I join in commending the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Skeen], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Kaptur], the ranking member, for the excellent work that they have 
done as well as the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman 
of the full committee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] the 
ranking member.
  Working on the agricultural appropriation bill cannot be fun. We have 
so many needs and so many limited resources that the pressures are 
great, but they have done a good job and I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 2160.
  I have only one negative remark to say about the work, and that was 
it has one blemish. The Nethercutt amendment, I think, was unfortunate. 
It will, as the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt] mentioned a 
moment ago, be debated in full tomorrow, and I hope that the full House 
will join in striking this amendment. It has no place in a bill of the 
nature of which we are talking about today. But all in all it is a good 
bill.
  The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has done a great job again 
in putting together as best we can to meet the needs of the number one 
industry in the United States. If one eats, he is involved in 
agriculture. It is something we have heard our colleagues from the 
urban areas talk about tonight, coming to realize that food production 
is extremely important to all of us. The authorizing committee does not 
have very many problems this year with the appropriators, and that in 
itself is saying quite a bit here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the debate tomorrow and helping to 
defeat many of the amendments that some of our colleagues will be 
offering which

[[Page H5380]]

they have every right to do, but I think we have to keep together the 
basic structure of agriculture as intended under the farm bill and with 
the intent of the appropriators and the work that they have done. I 
look forward to supporting them in that endeavor.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2160 is an important bill which funds the 
operations of the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the many 
functions of those agencies. The Department of Agriculture is an 
important partner to our nation's farmers and ranchers, and with this 
bill Mr. Skeen, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Obey, and the other 
Members of the Appropriations Committee have recommended a bill that 
carefully balances program priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, agriculture is our Nation's most basic industry. Every 
day, slightly over 2 million farmers are laboring to produce food to 
feed a nation of 265 million people and much of the world. In 1996, our 
nation exported $60 billion worth of agricultural products and our 
trade balance in agricultural products was a positive $25 billion. The 
House considers this bill today under a backdrop of both uncertainty 
and opportunity over the prospects for the business of agriculture. 
Milk prices are at 5-year lows, wheat prices have fallen by more than 
half since a little more than a year ago, and corn prices are not much 
better.
  At the same time, government financial support for agriculture is 
declining under the 1996 farm bill and the income certainty which once 
came with government programs for major crops no longer exists. 
Adjustments to these changes in conditions are occurring at a rapid 
pace as farm numbers shrink and concentration in agriculture grows.
  Mr. Chairman, the economic upheavals that pose such a serious 
challenge to our farm families are closely paralleled by general 
conditions in the rural economy. As farming resources become 
concentrated into fewer hands, we also see a comparable trend in the 
rural industries closely associated with farming and rural life. Farm 
product processing facilities, rural retailers, and providers of 
financial services have become fewer and larger. In many instances, 
those towns which traditionally served as trade centers are being 
bypassed. The subsequent challenges to the leaders of those communities 
are truly profound.
  Our Nation's important focus on the quality of our natural 
environment is one that is shared by our nation's farmers. The 1996 
farm bill made important changes in programs meant to assist farmers 
and coordinate efforts to promote environmental health. Our policies 
work best when priorities set in Washington are closely coordinated 
with the natural interest the farmer and rancher have in promoting the 
health and productivity of the soil and the safety of our food supply.
  Mr. Chairman, these trends in farm and rural economies pose 
significant challenges to the rural communities of our Nation and to 
those of us who serve them. H.R. 2160 will provide the Agriculture 
Department with the resources it needs to address the challenges facing 
rural America. Under the bill, funding is provided for cooperative 
efforts in agricultural research--the key to sustained economic 
viability for agriculture. It provides funding for the administration 
of the basic farm programs established under the farm bill. It provides 
funding for the delivery of federal crop insurance. It provides funds 
for the conservation programs which are an increasingly important focus 
of the mission of USDA. The bill also funds important programs that 
will help rural communities address the substantial economic challenges 
they face.
  I am concerned about the impact the funding level provided will have 
on Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] as well as the 
restrictions that the bill places on the amount of funds that can be 
transferred for technical assistance work.
  According to the Department of Agriculture, the impact of the level 
of funding that was provided for NRCS salaries and expenses in the 
committee-passed bill would result in cutting NRCS employment by 500 
staff years--over and above the personnel reductions that will occur 
from the absorption of projected pay increases, inflation, and 
retirement costs that this bill requires of all agencies within the 
Department.
  It is my understanding the Senate's Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee recommends a higher level of funding for conservation 
operations than H.R. 2160. It is my hope the conference agreement will 
yield a level sufficient to ensure that NRCS is able to carry out vital 
mandated conservation activities.
  With regard to the NRCS funding situation, Committee on Agriculture 
needs to deal with what I believe was an unintended consequence of 
language included in the 1996 farm bill. Section 161 of that bill to 
the extent it imposes a limitation on transfers for activities under 
the Commodity Credit Corporation Charger Act proven to have detrimental 
effects on the ability to provide adequate reimbursement for NRCS 
activities such as the agency's role in the Conservation Reserve 
Program sign-ups.
  Mr. Chairman, I raise these issues because I am concerned about the 
fact that in terms of real dollars we are spending less today on 
conservation activities on private land than we did back in 1937. In 
constant dollars, we invested 6 percent of the 1937 Federal budget for 
USDA conservation programs. Spending on USDA conservation programs in 
1996 was 0.17 percent.
  By contrast, the appropriation for the Farm Services Agency [FSA] 
salaries and expenses represents a level of funding sufficient to run 
the Agency at the Administration's proposed 1998 level of staffing. The 
FSA work force has been reduced by more than 500 staff years in fiscal 
year 1997 since the President's budget was submitted. This reduction in 
personnel, along with lower nonsalary budget needs, means that FSA 
requires $44 million less funding in 1998 than the administration's 
February request, and will mean staffyears can be reduced by 1,000 
instead of the 2,000 staffyear reduction included in the President's 
budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a very real concern about language that was 
included in the Committee report regarding NRCS's implementation of the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program [EQIP], specifically the 
allocation formula that was used to determine each State's share of 
EQIP funds.
  The report indicates that EQIP funds were distributed based on 
historical allocations for programs which are no longer authorized. 
However, section 334 of the 1996 farm bill states that the purposes of 
EQIP are to ``combine into a single program the functions'' of the 
agricultural conservation program, the Great Plains conservation 
program, the water quality incentives program and the Colorado River 
Basin Salinity Control Program.
  While these individual programs are no longer authorized, the intent 
of the Agriculture Committee and the conferees was very clear in last 
year's farm bill, in that this new program was intended to carry out 
the same types of practices as the repealed programs. The Department is 
expected to do this in a way that maximizes the environmental benefits 
per dollar expended, as well as take into account regional priority 
areas and the significance of the environmental problems being 
addressed.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe combining the cost-share programs in the farm 
bill was a bold step which should prove to be beneficial in the long 
term. However, I am concerned that because of the limited amount of 
resources available and the great number of pressing needs throughout 
the country, we may have a situation where some types of activities may 
no longer be considered important, even though they may have legitimate 
conservation benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not tie the administration's hands in terms 
of the flexibility needed to respond to arising needs. Obviously, if 
the program does not meet expections, we can legislate changes. 
However, we should preserve a certain degree of administrative 
flexibility as well.
  I believe that some lesser-known conservation programs that have been 
carried out over the years have yielded this country a great deal of 
benefit, and I want to ensure that this continues to be the case.
  In my district, dairy farmers are striving mightily to comply with 
environmental requirements. We must do all we can to ensure that areas 
with specific needs have access to the programs and funding needed to 
meet particular, legitimate conservation and environmental activities.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill overall but it does have one 
significant blemish. The Appropriations Committee adopted an amendment 
designed to eliminate the jobs of the Administrator and Deputy 
Administrator for Farm Programs of the Farm Services Agency. As I 
understand it, the amendment stemmed from the dissatisfaction of its 
sponsor with a policy decision related to the Conservation Reserve 
Program. Frankly, by the trivial approach taken by my colleagues on the 
committee. This provision is particularly unworthy in light of the 
important and profound work accomplished by this legislation in so many 
other areas.

  Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to strike this provision 
from the bill, and I hope my colleagues will join with me to 
acknowledge that there are better ways to respond to adverse 
administrative decisions than to eliminate the jobs of Department 
officials.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, it appears that once again we will use the 
annual agriculture appropriations process to debate the merits of 
several farm bill programs. While the House has the ability to address 
these issues--and did so during debate on the farm bill--through the 
normal legislative process, we will again rehash these debates today.

[[Page H5381]]

  Mr. Chairman, our colleagues continue to challenge farm programs in 
spite of the evidence of their success. Ours is the best-fed nation in 
the world. Our food is delivered to us in return for a lower percentage 
of disposable income than any other industrial nation in the world. 
Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, we will hear today the sad story of how our 
Nation's's family farms are somehow managing to take advantage of the 
enormous candy-manufacturing conglomerates.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will pay careful attention and 
will acknowledge the many reforms made to our program in the 1996 farm 
bill, and stand against these amendments which, if adopted, would 
greatly diminish the standing of an otherwise excellent piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for the time, and I again wish to 
commend the Committee on Appropriations and its leadership for the 
excellent work they have done on this important bill.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
2160, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998.
  First, I need to thank my chairman, Joe Skeen, and the ranking 
Democrat, Marcy Kaptur, for their work and assistance this year. This 
is my first full year on the subcommittee, and I have enjoyed 
participating in our budget oversight hearings and offering a much-
needed California perspective.
  The work of our subcommittee was nearly doubled this spring because 
of our consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill. I want to 
commend Joe Skeen in particular for his inclusive manner during those 
proceedings--he included Jim Walsh and me in his deliberations on the 
agriculture components of that bill because we were conferees on the 
bill representing other subcommittees, and that spirit is evident 
throughout this bill as well.
  H.R. 2160 is not a perfect bill. In fact, it continues an alarming 
trend in providing the absolute minimum resources to USDA to run the 
Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and 
the rural development agencies and other important agencies in order to 
fund some other significant initiatives.
  For example, we have done a good job in proposing increases for the 
President's initiatives in the area of food safety and youth tobacco 
prevention, as well as increasing resources for competitive research 
and for the operations of the Food and Drug Administration. We've 
increased WIC although not as much as the administration requested. We 
have also funded the administrative costs of crop insurance--a new 
responsibility handed to us by the 1996 farm bill.
  However, those increases have come at the expense of many of the 
Department of Agriculture's normal operations, where we have actually 
reduced salaries and expenses for many agencies. Over time, this can 
only have a detrimental effect for the services that many of our 
farmers and others expect from USDA.
  We also had some contentious debate in the full committee and some 
unfortunate party line votes on some less consequential matters. I was 
particularly disappointed in one amendment adopted in the committee 
that added report language recommending that up to $4.75 million be 
made available for a building at Auburn University.
  Actually, I support a limited amount of funding in this account. My 
highest priority has been the final Federal funding component 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.
  Institutions who benefit from these funds--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.
  I understand the desire by the committee to phase out and halt this 
funding over time. However, I believe we have a responsibility to 
States that have put up hard matching dollars in good faith and whose 
projects are within a reasonable range of funding for completion. Since 
the bill lacks funding in this account, I was disappointed that the 
committee voted along partisan lines to single out the building at 
Auburn for special consideration.
  Despite some of these reservations, I support the bill and I think 
Joe Skeen and Marcy Kaptur have done a good job under demanding 
circumstances.
  I have particular praise for several items of importance to 
California agriculture and to my district.
  First, the bill has fully funded the President's proposed food safety 
initiative--or, I should say, comes within $200,000 of fully funding 
the President's initiative. We include funds for the Food and Drug 
Administration to improve surveillance, upgrade research and 
inspections, and perform increased risk assessments. We also provide 
funds for the Food Safety and Inspection Service to increase related 
surveillance and inspections. In addition, the food safety initiative 
increases related research in both the Agricultural Research Service 
and the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service.
  This is a promising initiative, and it is an area of increasing 
importance to the health concerns of American consumers. I am very 
happy to have had a part in pushing this initiative forward, and I 
commend our chairman and other members of our committee for ensuring 
that it is funded in a year when our agriculture budget is under 
considerable stress.
  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 climbed to $59.8 billion in fiscal year 1996--up 
some $19 billion or close to 50 percent since 1990. In an average week 
this past year, U.S. producers, processors and exporters shipped more 
than $1.1 billion worth of food and farm products to foreign markets, 
compared with about $775 million per week at the start of this decade.
  The overall export gains raised the fiscal year 1996 agricultural 
trade surplus to a new record of $27.4 billion. In the most recent 
comparisons among 11 major industries, agriculture ranked No. 1 as the 
leading positive contributor to the U.S. merchandise trade balance.
  As domestic farm supports are reduced, export markets become even 
more critical for the economic well-being of our farmers and rural 
communities, as well as suburban and urban areas that depend upon the 
employment generated from increased trade.
  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 $30 
billion.
  MAP is critical to U.S. agriculture's ability to develop, maintain 
and expand export markets 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, prunes, 
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 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 particularly grateful that funds have been provided in support 
of our nutrition research centers. These centers will play an important 
role in the food safety research that will be a vital part of the food 
safety initiative. Funds have also been provided to begin the move of 
the Western Human Nutrition Research Center to the campus of the 
University of California at Davis. I believe its location there, along 
with one of the preeminent nutrition programs in the nation as well as 
our ag and medical schools, will provide the synergy necessary to make 
important research strides in the years to come.
  There are other research areas of importance to California, including 
alternatives to the use of methyl bromide, PM-10 particulate air 
quality research, sustainable agriculture practices, and alternatives 
to rice straw burning. Certainly our future success in agriculture, 
especially market-oriented agriculture as envisioned by the 1996 farm 
bill, will require an on-going commitment to research if we are to 
maintain the U.S. lead.
  In summary, this is a fair bill given the many needs and many issues 
within the committee's jurisdiction. I commend Chairman Joe Skeen and 
Ranking Member Marcy Kaptur for their leadership in support of American 
agriculture, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2160, the 
Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.

[[Page H5382]]

  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, 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. 2160) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________