[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.
____________________