[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 22, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5551-H5562]
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 further 
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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
  The motion was agreed to.

                              {time}  2202


                     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 further consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2160, with Mr. Pease, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose 
on Thursday, July 17, 1997, the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Callahan] had been disposed of and the bill had been read 
through page 13, line 24.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.

              Native American Institutions Endowment Fund

       For establishment of a Native American institutions 
     endowment fund, as authorized by Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 
     301 note), $4,600,000.

                          Extension Activities

       Payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
     Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and 
     American Samoa: For payments for cooperative extension work 
     under the Smith-Lever Act, as amended, to be distributed 
     under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said Act, and under section 
     208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for retirement and employees' 
     compensation costs for extension agents and for costs of 
     penalty mail for cooperative extension agents and State 
     extension directors, $268,493,000; payments for extension 
     work at the 1994 Institutions under the Smith-Lever Act (7 
     U.S.C. 343(b)(3)), $2,000,000; payments for the nutrition and 
     family education program for low-income areas under section 
     3(d) of the Act, $58,695,000; payments for the pest 
     management program under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $10,783,000; payments for the farm safety program under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $2,855,000; payments for the 
     pesticide impact assessment program under section 3(d) of the 
     Act, $3,214,000; payments to upgrade 1890 land-grant college 
     research, extension, and teaching facilities as authorized by 
     section 1447 of Public Law 95-113, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     3222b), $7,549,000, to remain available until expended; 
     payments for the rural development centers under section 3(d) 
     of the Act, $908,000; payments for a groundwater quality 
     program under section 3(d) of the Act, $9,061,000; payments 
     for youth-at-risk programs under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $9,554,000; payments for a food safety program under section 
     3(d) of the Act, $2,365,000; payments for carrying out the 
     provisions of the Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978, 
     $3,192,000; payments for Indian reservation agents under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $1,672,000; payments for sustainable 
     agriculture programs under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $3,309,000; payments for cooperative extension work by the 
     colleges receiving the benefits of the second Morrill Act (7 
     U.S.C. 321-326, 328) and Tuskegee University, $25,090,000; 
     and for Federal administration and coordination including 
     administration of

[[Page H5552]]

     the Smith-Lever Act, as amended, and the Act of September 29, 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 341-349), as amended, and section 1361(c) of 
     the Act of October 3, 1980 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), and to 
     coordinate and provide program leadership for the extension 
     work of the Department and the several States and insular 
     possessions, $6,370,000; in all, $415,110,000: Provided, That 
     funds hereby appropriated pursuant to section 3(c) of the Act 
     of June 26, 1953, and section 506 of the Act of June 23, 
     1972, as amended, shall not be paid to any State, the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin 
     Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and American Samoa 
     prior to availability of an equal sum from non-Federal 
     sources for expenditure during the current fiscal year.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to 
     administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress 
     for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the 
     Agricultural Marketing Service, and the Grain Inspection, 
     Packers and Stockyards Administration, $618,000.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

                         salaries and expenses


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, including those 
     pursuant to the Act of February 28, 1947, as amended (21 
     U.S.C. 114b-c), necessary to prevent, control, and eradicate 
     pests and plant and animal diseases; to carry out inspection, 
     quarantine, and regulatory activities; to discharge the 
     authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture under the Act of 
     March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C. 426-426b); and to 
     protect the environment, as authorized by law, $424,244,000, 
     of which $4,443,000 shall be available for the control of 
     outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal diseases and for 
     control of pest animals and birds to the extent necessary to 
     meet emergency conditions: Provided, That no funds shall be 
     used to formulate or administer a brucellosis eradication 
     program for the current fiscal year that does not require 
     minimum matching by the States of at least 40 percent: 
     Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available 
     for field employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and not to exceed $40,000 shall be available for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for the operation and 
     maintenance of aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed 
     four, of which two shall be for replacement only: Provided 
     further, That, in addition, in emergencies which threaten any 
     segment of the agricultural production industry of this 
     country, the Secretary may transfer from other appropriations 
     or funds available to the agencies or corporations of the 
     Department such sums as he may deem necessary, to be 
     available only in such emergencies for the arrest and 
     eradication of contagious or infectious disease or pests of 
     animals, poultry, or plants, and for expenses in accordance 
     with the Act of February 28, 1947, as amended, and section 
     102 of the Act of September 21, 1944, as amended, and any 
     unexpended balances of funds transferred for such emergency 
     purposes in the next preceding fiscal year shall be merged 
     with such transferred amounts: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to law 
     (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and alteration of leased 
     buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the 
     cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year 
     shall not exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value 
     of the building.
       In fiscal year 1998 the agency is authorized to collect 
     fees to cover the total costs of providing technical 
     assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other 
     political subdivisions, domestic and international 
     organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided 
     that such fees are structured such that any entity's 
     liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical 
     assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the 
     agency, and such fees shall be credited to this account, to 
     remain available until expended, without further 
     appropriation, for providing such assistance, goods, or 
     services.
       Of the total amount available under this heading in fiscal 
     year 1998, $88,000,000 shall be derived from user fees 
     deposited in the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection User Fee 
     Account.

                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance, 
     environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration, 
     and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized 
     by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 428a, $3,200,000, to remain available until expended.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service

                           marketing services

       For necessary expenses to carry on services related to 
     consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution, 
     transportation, and regulatory programs, as authorized by 
     law, and for administration and coordination of payments to 
     States; including field employment pursuant to section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $90,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $45,592,000, 
     including funds for the wholesale market development program 
     for the design and development of wholesale and farmer market 
     facilities for the major metropolitan areas of the country: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall be available pursuant 
     to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of 
     buildings and improvements, but the cost of altering any one 
     building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent 
     of the current replacement value of the building.
       Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization 
     activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31 
     U.S.C. 9701).


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $59,521,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative 
     expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or 
     other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this 
     limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the 
     Appropriations Committees.

    funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (section 32)


                     (including transfers of funds)

       Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 
     1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c) shall be used only for commodity program 
     expenses as authorized therein, and other related operating 
     expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the Department of 
     Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of August 
     8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in this Act; and 
     (3) not more than $10,690,000 for formulation and 
     administration of marketing agreements and orders pursuant to 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, 
     and the Agricultural Act of 1961.

                   payments to states and possessions

       For payments to departments of agriculture, bureaus and 
     departments of markets, and similar agencies for marketing 
     activities under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing 
     Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), $1,200,000.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     United States Grain Standards Act, as amended, for the 
     administration of the Packers and Stockyards Act, for 
     certifying procedures used to protect purchasers of farm 
     products, and the standardization activities related to grain 
     under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, 
     including field employment pursuant to section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $25,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $23,928,000: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall be available pursuant 
     to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of 
     buildings and improvements, but the cost of altering any one 
     building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent 
     of the current replacement value of the building.

                    inspection and weighing services


         limitation on inspection and weighing service expenses

       Not to exceed $43,092,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for inspection and 
     weighing services: Provided, That if grain export activities 
     require additional supervision and oversight, or other 
     uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded 
     by up to 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations 
     Committees.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Food Safety to administer the laws 
     enacted by the Congress for the Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service, $446,000.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

       For necessary expenses to carry on services authorized by 
     the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as amended, the Poultry 
     Products Inspection Act, as amended, and the Egg Products 
     Inspection Act, as amended, $589,263,000, of which $5,000,000 
     shall be available for obligation only after a final rule to 
     implement the provisions of subsection (e) of section 5 of 
     the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1034(e)), as 
     amended, is implemented, and in addition, $1,000,000 may be 
     credited to this account from fees collected for the cost of 
     laboratory accreditation as authorized by section 1017 of 
     Public Law 102-237: Provided, That this appropriation shall 
     not be available for shell egg surveillance under section 
     5(d) of the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1034(d)): 
     Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available 
     for field employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and not to exceed $75,000 shall be available for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 
     2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the 
     current replacement value of the building.

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by Congress for the Farm Service 
     Agency, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Risk Management 
     Agency, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, $572,000.

[[Page H5553]]

                          Farm Service Agency

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration 
     and implementation of programs administered by the Farm 
     Service Agency, $702,203,000: Provided, That the Secretary is 
     authorized to use the services, facilities, and authorities 
     (but not the funds) of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
     make program payments for all programs administered by the 
     Agency: Provided further, That other funds made available to 
     the Agency for authorized activities may be advanced to and 
     merged with this account: Provided further, That these funds 
     shall be available for employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                         state mediation grants

       For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural 
     Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106), 
     $2,000,000.


                        dairy indemnity program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity 
     payments to dairy farmers for milk or cows producing such 
     milk and manufacturers of dairy products who have been 
     directed to remove their milk or dairy products from 
     commercial markets because it contained residues of chemicals 
     registered and approved for use by the Federal Government, 
     and in making indemnity payments for milk, or cows producing 
     such milk, at a fair market value to any dairy farmer who is 
     directed to remove his milk from commercial markets because 
     of (1) the presence of products of nuclear radiation or 
     fallout if such contamination is not due to the fault of the 
     farmer, or (2) residues of chemicals or toxic substances not 
     included under the first sentence of the Act of August 13, 
     1968, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450j), if such chemicals or toxic 
     substances were not used in a manner contrary to applicable 
     regulations or labeling instructions provided at the time of 
     use and the contamination is not due to the fault of the 
     farmer, $350,000, to remain available until expended (7 
     U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That none of the funds contained in 
     this Act shall be used to make indemnity payments to any 
     farmer whose milk was removed from commercial markets as a 
     result of his willful failure to follow procedures prescribed 
     by the Federal Government: Provided further, That this amount 
     shall be transferred to the Commodity Credit Corporation: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary is authorized to utilize 
     the services, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity 
     disbursements.


           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928-1929, to 
     be available from funds in the Agricultural Credit Insurance 
     Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans, $430,828,000 of which 
     $400,000,000 shall be for guaranteed loans; operating loans, 
     $2,341,701,000 of which $1,700,000,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans and $191,701,000 shall be for 
     subsidized guaranteed loans; Indian tribe land acquisition 
     loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $500,000; for emergency 
     insured loans, $25,000,000 to meet the needs resulting from 
     natural disasters; for boll weevil eradication program loans 
     as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1989, $34,653,000; and for credit 
     sales of acquired property, $19,432,000.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership 
     loans, $19,460,000 of which $15,440,000 shall be for 
     guaranteed loans; operating loans, $67,255,000 of which 
     $19,210,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans and 
     $18,480,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans; Indian 
     tribe land acquisition loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, 
     $66,000; for emergency insured loans, $6,008,000 to meet the 
     needs resulting from natural disasters; for boll weevil 
     eradication program loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1989, 
     $500,000; and for credit sales of acquired property, 
     $2,530,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $218,446,000 of 
     which $208,446,000 shall be transferred to and merged with 
     the ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses'' account.

                         Risk Management Agency

       For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized by 
     the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 
     U.S.C. 6933), $65,000,000: Provided, That not to exceed $700 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i). In addition, for 
     sales commissions of agents, as authorized by section 516 (7 
     U.S.C. 1516) $188,571,000.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       On page 27, line 23, strike ``$188,571,000'' and insert 
     ``$152,571,000''.
       On page 48, line 11, strike ``$3,924,000,000'' insert 
     ``(increased by $23,700,000'').

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member raise a point of order 
under clause 2(f) of rule XXI against provisions of the bill addressed 
by the amendment but not yet reached in the reading (to wit: page 48, 
line 6, through page 49, line 18)?
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago this Congress had a major fight 
because the majority wanted to cut school lunches. Last year the 
majority tried to cut the WIC program, which is a nutrition program for 
infants and young mothers. In this bill they are again falling some $30 
million short in the WIC Program of what would be required to maintain 
our existing case load.
  What happens in this bill is that the committee is attempting to 
bring the carryover funds down to around 3 percent or less. That 
creates a problem because this program needs a certain amount of 
carryover funds in order to pay the reimbursements that come in after 
the end of the fiscal year.
  OMB and USDA both estimate that without this amendment that I am 
offering tonight that we run the risk of seeing 55,000 women, children, 
and infants bounced out of the WIC Program. Basically what we do is to 
restore that funding and pay for it by reducing the increase in this 
bill, which the committee provided above the administration request for 
commissions for crop insurance.
  Before anybody has a heart attack and says, oh, do not hurt our 
farmers, I want to make quite clear, this amendment will in no way hurt 
farmers. The GAO reported that under the crop insurance program we had 
a number of fiscal failures. The General Accounting Office said that 
they found in the crop insurance program expenses for above average 
commissions paid to agents by one large company, corporate aircraft and 
excessive automobile charges, country club memberships and various 
entertainment activities for agents and employees such as skybox 
rentals at professional sporting events. The GAO went on to indicate 
that the problem could best be addressed by reducing the commission 
that is provided to insurance agents under the program.
  Now, we have some scare tactics being followed by some people who 
would like to see this amendment not passed. Members are being told, 
for instance, in a letter circulated by the American Association of 
Crop Insurers that this is going to hurt farmers. That is absolutely 
not true. There are four separate assertions in this letter which are 
dead wrong.
  First of all, they say that the cuts that I am proposing will occur 
in addition to the Meehan amendment. That is in fact wrong. If my 
amendment is passed, the Meehan amendment cannot even be offered on the 
House floor.
  Second, they say that a 10.5-percent commission is insufficient and 
would cause cancellation of policies. We are not talking about a 10-
percent commission. We are talking about limiting these commissions to 
24.5 percent rather than the 28 percent in the bill.
  Third, they claim that the Obey amendment is an attack on farmers. 
That is absolute nonsense. What is an attack on farmers is the 
ridiculous farm policy that we have had under both Democratic and 
Republican administrations for the past 12 years which have driven 
prices down and driven many farmers off the farm. This proposal or this 
assertion that this cut in insurance rates or insurance commissions 
will hurt farmers is, as Mo Udall used to say, straight gumwah, 
absolute gumwah. All this does is to say that we want farmers and 
taxpayers to get the best possible deal for the money. This proposal 
does absolutely nothing to change the crop insurance program. It does 
absolutely nothing to raise the cost of this program for farmers. What 
it does do is to stop the rip-off that this program has had to endure 
from some of the people who have been trying to sell this insurance to 
farmers, and so it is a simple choice. If you want to continue to 
support the kind of rip-offs that some of these agents had provided, 
then you vote against the amendment.
  If you want to, on the other hand, ensure that we do not knock 55,000 
to 60,000 women and infants and children off the WIC Program, then vote 
for the amendment. That is the sound thing to do.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H5554]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, this bill is a fair and balanced bill. It takes care of the 
needs of farmers and ranchers, research related to agriculture, 
nutrition and food safety, rural development and housing for low-income 
people, the safety of our food, drugs, and medical devices, and the 
stoppage of gumwah. We have worked very hard to present the House with 
a well-balanced bill. The bill includes $3.924 billion for WIC, an 
increase of $118 million above last year, so no one is taking anybody 
off of WIC. I ask to defeat this amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment. As I recall 
what happened in the committee, when we were working through this 
issue, it was quite well discussed in the committee; the administration 
had asked for $154 million for the actual sales commissions. This is 
money, $154 million, that goes to agents who are brokering crop 
insurance in our country and their commissions.

                              {time}  2215

  It is $154 million. It is not an insignificant amount of money. And, 
in fact, at that level we estimated every sales agent would receive a 
24.5 percent commission. Now, that is a pretty healthy commission, even 
at 24.5 percent.
  What happened once the bill came out of the subcommittee and moved to 
the full committee, at that point in the manager's amendment the 
proposal was to increase the sales commissions to $188 million, which 
would raise the amount of commission back to the level of about 27 
percent. So we are really talking about whether somebody who is selling 
insurance out there is making a 27-percent commission or if they are 
making a 24.5-percent commission.
  And if the GAO study had not been so clear on abuses in the program, 
I think that people who hold my opinion on this would not feel so 
strongly. We really do not believe, and we have taken the advice of the 
Department of Agriculture on this, we do not believe this is going to 
in any way diminish the amount of crop insurance available to farmers 
but, in fact, will put in the kind of regimen that we need in that 
program to make sure we counter abuses.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not really know why the proponents of the higher 
level of commission were able to prevail at the full committee level, 
but it seems to me we are being responsible in this amendment. We are 
trying to cut back on the abuses that the GAO identified.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman talked about a 27.5-percent 
commission, and I think in all due fairness to the insurance agents, 
the average commission for Federal crop insurance is about 10 percent 
to the agent. The other money goes to cover the administrative costs of 
running this program through the private sector.
  Now, if we do not pay those costs and all of that falls back on the 
Government, we will spend a lot more than that in beefing up our 
personnel at all the farm service agencies to handle this thing. We 
should be fair with the insurance agent. They are not getting 24.5 
percent, they are not getting 27.5 percent. The average is about 10 
percent.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, I think the GAO 
was very clear in the analysis that they did on an objective basis, and 
there are serious questions about who is making money.
  I think the taxpayers of our country would be pretty upset if they 
knew that they were paying for commissions to the private sector. That 
is not quite the way they think it is supposed to work. They do not 
understand a lot of the details about what crop insurance is all about, 
but the point is that it is not a program that has a terrific 
reputation and, therefore, we were trying to be fair.
  We did meet the requirements of the Department of Agriculture. They 
asked for $154 million. We passed that at the subcommittee level. When 
it went to the full committee, all of a sudden some of the powers that 
be, the ones that like making those bigger commissions, made their 
weight felt.
  I think the gentleman from Wisconsin has a responsible amendment. He 
represents a very agricultural State, as do I. We have seen abuses in 
this program, and this is a way of sending a very strong message that 
we are not going to overly reward those who are performing this 
service.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
she mentioned two things: No. 1 that they are getting this large 
commission, which is not the case; and, No. 2, the public does not 
think that people who sell Federal crop insurance earn a commission? 
That is what I understood the gentlewoman to say. I would think that 
they would not do it for nothing.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman understands my 
point that the taxpayers, if they really understood this, would be 
outraged that they are paying commissions to private sector insurance 
agents to sell this insurance.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin. It is understandable that he would attempt to move 
money to the WIC Program, but I want to point out to my colleagues why 
this is irresponsible to do it at this point and at this time.
  As has been mentioned, the WIC Program is already a $3.9 billion 
program. It has been increased this year $118 million, and this is an 
attempt to put $23 million, a dribble compared to the total, by 
decimating the crop insurance program in this country. The $23 million 
transfer amounts to a 20-percent reduction in crop insurance.
  Now, if we want to debate the question of crop insurance and should 
those insurers receive 24.5 percent or 27 percent, or 34 percent which 
they received last year, down to 28 percent, the bill funds it at 27 
percent, why do we not follow what is going on right now?
  The Department of Agriculture, as we speak, is negotiating with the 
crop insurers to determine at what level crop insurance will be funded. 
Now, if we eliminate the opportunity for crop insurance insurers to 
negotiate with the Department of Agriculture by passing this bill, we 
have already ended the negotiation. Now, that is foolishness. That is 
irresponsible.
  We are trusting the Secretary of Agriculture and the crop insurers to 
enter into a negotiation, which has always been the case. They will 
determine at what level crop insurers will be paid for. I am sure the 
Secretary of Agriculture will protect the taxpayers, as he has in the 
past, when they have negotiated.
  I add again, in the past crop insurers have received 34 percent. We 
are now down, if the gentleman's amendment is passed, down to 24 
percent. That is to cover 54 agricultural programs in America. I 
suggest there will not be crop insurance available for 54 commodities 
across the United States.
  And for someone to say this does not hurt farmers is preposterous. 
For someone to say this does not change crop insurance is preposterous. 
Of course it affects farmers, because it eliminates crop insurance. If 
we do not want to eliminate crop insurance, defeat this amendment and 
allow the Secretary to negotiate properly.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would just take a second to point out 
that we are taking the Secretary's advice in the original mark of the 
committee, which was at $154 million, and we agree that there should be 
negotiations. In fact, the proposal was the administration's Department 
of Agriculture's request. So I do not think we need to add to it.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that was the 
Secretary's offer. That was before the negotiation ever started. The 
negotiation has not been completed or culminated. The Secretary makes 
an offer, the crop insurers make an offer. That is the way negotiations 
are supposed to be conducted.
  So again I say to my colleagues, this hurts farmers across the 
country. Defeat this amendment.

[[Page H5555]]

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that this does not reduce crop 
insurance but it reduces crop insurance commissions. Let us be clear 
about that.
  I rise in strong support of the Obey amendment to increase funding 
for the Women, Infants, and Children Program, a program which provides 
nutrition assistance to pregnant women and to young children. Last year 
the congressional majority went after the school lunch program; earlier 
this year it was the milk and cereal for women and infants.
  If my colleagues recall, it was not long ago this year that the 
Congress debated the merits of the WIC Program during the disaster 
relief bill. Threats of reduction in the program. It was wrong then and 
it is wrong now.
  These reductions in the WIC Program, I might add, were met with an 
outcry across the country and, in fact, in a number of places we 
already saw people who were being thrown off of the program, women and 
children who were being let go from the program. But I will say that 
Congress rightly responded by providing the dollars that WIC needed to 
continue helping to provide nutritious food to women who are expecting 
children, to infants, and to young children.
  Fact is, is that our experience with the WIC Program shows that it is 
a wise investment. Each dollar invested in WIC saves more than $3 in 
other Government spending on programs such as Medicaid. It is a wise 
investment in the health and development of our youngest children, and 
each day we learn more and more about the critical elements of early 
childhood development. So supporting WIC helps kids get off on the 
right foot.
  For years we have been steadily progressing toward the goal of 
providing nutrition assistance to 7.5 million people through the WIC 
Program. At the very least, we need to hold the line and continue 
helping 7.4 million women and children as WIC now does.
  The funding level in this bill threatens to backtrack on WIC, help 
fewer people who depend on it. It includes unrealistic assumptions that 
could end up costing our kids plenty. It is important to note that WIC 
is funded at $180 million below what the President's request is.
  The Obey amendment will address the danger that women and children 
who need help will be left without healthy food. The Obey amendment 
will add $23.7 million, enough to provide WIC benefits for 45,000 
people, and the amendment prevents knocking off the 55,000 people off 
of the WIC Program.
  The Obey amendment offsets this amount by reducing the $36 million in 
excessive payments to crop insurance agents contained in the bill. One 
more time: It is crop insurance commissions and not crop insurance. The 
Secretary of Agriculture said the insurance agents do not need this 
extra money.
  The GAO has revealed that the taxpayer money is used for outrageous, 
unreasonable expenses, such as sky boxes at athletic events, country 
club membership fees, and corporate aircraft. This does not hurt 
farmers.
  The choice before us is to fund efforts to provide healthy food to 
pregnant women, to young children; or to pay insurance agents to buy 
sky boxes and to join country clubs. I urge my colleagues, really, to 
make the choice that is right; to deal with our values and priorities 
in this country. Let us help those who need the funds, women, infants, 
and children, and I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that we are not even 
asking that we meet the administration's request for funding level for 
WIC. This bill funds WIC at $184 million below the President's request. 
We are adding only a tiny portion back. That is hardly excessive.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure where to start here, because I 
think everyone should be informed, I guess, in their statements. And 
the fact of the matter is, on the WIC Program the administration says 
we need about a 2\1/2\ percent carryover. The bill, with the current 
funding, has over 3 percent carryover funds. There is more than enough 
money in the WIC Program to take care of any needs, any emergencies at 
all.
  I think the real debate here is what we are doing to farmers. And I 
can tell my colleagues, as a farmer myself, that the idea of tying the 
hands of farmers trying to protect their risk, and agriculture is 
probably the most volatile business one can be in. A farmer takes more 
risk than any other business on a year-to-year basis, and they are at 
the mercy of Mother Nature for hail, wind, rain. We flooded out at home 
this year.
  But the idea of taking away this tool from farmers, insurance, and 
under the farm bill last year, Mr. Chairman, we made a commitment to 
farmers out there. We said that they would have the freedom to make 
choices themselves but they would have with that freedom the 
responsibility to take care of the risks they have in agriculture. We 
assured them that there would be insurance available for them; that 
there would be revenue insurance plans, new innovative plans out there.
  Farmers are in the middle of a transition today, of going from the 
old 60 years of Government control, which has caused the demise of the 
small family farmer, now to the opportunity to finally make decisions 
for themselves, to insure their own risk, to create opportunities, to 
keep their family farms together.

                              {time}  2230

  This gutting amendment to crop insurance cuts at the heart of 
opportunity for farmers and anyone involved in agriculture today.
  We are not asking for much. We are asking for the opportunity to work 
inside the system. And a reduction like that, a 6, almost 7 percent 
reduction in the current bill from what insurance was last year, is 
harmful enough, let alone to take it down to a level where we are going 
to have insurance companies no longer offering crop insurance to real 
farmers out there.
  I am surprised that people who are from farm States would be offering 
this type of amendment, which is going to decimate the insurance 
business, going to hurt farmers out there, take away the opportunities 
to protect their own risk.
  Apparently, what we want to do is go back to a system where the 
Government comes in and helps out with disaster payments. And if we 
want to look at the trend in agriculture in farm bills, 10 years ago we 
were spending about $26 billion a year directly to farmers. This year 
it is about $5 billion. We are at 20 percent where we were 10 years ago 
support for agriculture and for farmers. And I think it is really a low 
blow to anyone who cares about agriculture.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Agriculture, for 7 of the last 11 years, has 
taken the biggest hit on reductions. I would like to convince my 
colleagues over on the left that we have now stopped and are phasing 
out subsidies for agriculture. I helped write the risk management 
language in the farm bill. They now have to pay for this insurance. No 
more disaster relief for agriculture.
  If we cannot phase in this kind of risk management insurance for 
farmers, we are going to be very hard-pressed. As we phase out the 
subsidy programs and do not pay the farmers that direct payment 
anymore, now we are simply saying farmers have to dig into their own 
pocket to start covering their risk, no more disaster insurance, no 
more subsidy payments. I think it is very important that we not cut way 
down on the phasing in of this risk management and insurance.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say in closing, 
anyone who likes to eat, who likes to eat food, good quality food, at a 
reasonable price, produced by family farms who care about agriculture 
should oppose this amendment, understanding there is way more money 
than necessary in the WIC program already, but you are cutting the 
heart out of the family farmers when you do this, and anyone who votes 
for this amendment is cutting out the family

[[Page H5556]]

farmer; and let them all remember that.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  For those of my colleagues who are prolife, as I am, I urge them to 
vote yes on the Obey amendment. This is one of the most positive 
prolife votes my colleagues will be called upon to cast. This program, 
we all know, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] knows, and the 
gentleman votes for WIC, this program helps pregnant women and nursing 
women and their children, their children both born and unborn.
  If one is truly prolife, it is not enough to be only anti-abortion. 
Prolife is a very positive position and not just a negative position. I 
am anti-abortion, but I am prolife. And there is a fundamental 
distinction in that.
  Many of my colleagues were elected to this Congress on a prolife 
platform. They campaigned on a prolife platform. They asked the 
National Right to Life for their endorsement. They asked their own 
State Right to Life for endorsement. They ran on a prolife platform, 
and many of them got elected because they ran on that prolife platform.
  I do not think any of them ran on a crop insurance commission 
platform. Now this is a chance for them to stand on that prolife 
platform. This is an essential vote for prolife. Be positive. Be for 
life. Vote for this amendment. My colleagues talk about food, feeding 
people. Pregnant women are hungry. Remember those words uttered about 
2,000 years ago: ``I was hungry, and you gave me to eat.'' Prolife, 
vote for this amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prolife, and I certainly agree with the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] that one of the strongest things one can do 
as a Member of the Congress who is prolife is to support people who are 
hungry. And that is why I am going to vote against the WIC bureaucrat 
increase and vote for the farmers.
  The farmers are the ones who produce foods, not Washington 
bureaucrats. It appears that our well-intended friends on the other 
side of the aisle are once again feeding bureaucrats, and this time 
they are taking the food away from the families by hitting the farmers 
right between the eyes on it.
  Mr. Speaker, the agriculture bill is always kind of a convoluted maze 
of price supports, import-export quotas, allotments, all kinds of 
different jargon that is unique to the ag committees and ag laws. But 
the results of it are spectacular. Two percent of the American 
population feeds 100 percent of the population plus millions of people 
throughout the world.
  Americans, on an average, pay 11 cents on a dollar earned for food. 
That is less than what they pay for recreation, on an average. That is 
why we have so many of these farm programs. Some of them are very hard 
to explain. But the results, when you are paying 11 cents on the dollar 
for food and 2 percent of the population is feeding 100 percent, it 
works.
  In this bill of $49 billion, $37 billion goes to food and nutrition 
programs. Just in May, 2 months ago, we increased WIC $76 million. And 
I quote from the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], my friend, 
May 1, 1997, ``the $76 million figure is based on numbers submitted 
from the States to the U.S. Department of Agriculture in early April of 
this year. These numbers are, in fact, only a few weeks old.''
  We increased in response to that $76 million. Now we have increased 
it again a mere 2 months later $118 million. Now, it is always nice to 
say, hey, we have got starving women. But according to the numbers of 
our colleagues on the left, that $76 million increase was full funded. 
Now we are going another 118. According to our figures, USDA figures, 
this is full participation of WIC at 7.4 million people.
  Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that WIC, as we speak, has 
a $200 million carry-over. That is a surplus in the WIC fund. We are 
not talking about children versus commission agents. We are talking 
about farmers versus bureaucrats. I know there are a lot of people who 
like bureaucrats and a lot of people who want to see government grow. 
But as for me, I am going to go with the farmers. Because it is the 
farmers who grow the food, it is the farmers who feed the children, it 
is the farmers who feed the families, it is the farmers who feed the 
babies. It is not Washington bureaucrats. The only thing that this 
thing does is take money away from farmers and give it to the 
bureaucrats. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I think that what happens is we are taking 
the taxpayers' money and giving the sales commissions to the insurance 
agents. That is who is getting the money.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, it would be great if we were 
privately funding the whole bill. But, unfortunately, the taxpayers are 
paying all $49 billion of this bill; $37 billion of it is going into 
food and nutrition programs for children, but that is not enough.
  What appears to be happening is that some folks want to take more 
away from the farmers and give more to Washington bureaucrats. The 
farmers are the ones feeding the families.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I 
agree with the gentleman. We had a freedom to farm bill and we said to 
the farmers of America, compete in the global marketplace. Why do we 
not say the same to the insurance agents?
  Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I know there are a lot of people 
who do not like the private sector, and I know the private sector is 
anathema to many Members on my colleague's side. But the fact is the 
private sector is delivering the insurance program cheaper than some of 
his friends over at USDA. It is saving taxpayer dollars. It is 
shrinking the size of Government. And it is more efficiently 
penetrating the marketplace so we do not have to have these disaster 
relief bills that are a big government expenditure year after year.
  I think, finally, the USDA has moved in a very smart, efficient, 
common-sense direction. But now again, Mr. Speaker, people want to take 
money away from the farmers and give it to the bureaucrats. Their 
amendment is bureaucrat and it is anti-food and anti-farmers. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I would like to get a little more direct in the conversation and try 
to have a little less demagoguery back and forth on either side here. 
Frankly, this is no way the type of bill it can be construed to be, the 
farmers versus the bureaucrats. We are talking about commissions here.
  Farmers, as far as I know, do not make insurance commissions. But we 
are talking about a WIC program that is generally perceived to be 
probably one of the most successful programs we have had in the social 
programs of this country. We are talking about a program that deals 
with low birth weights, deals with infant mortality, deals with child 
anemia, saves money in Medicaid in the future, and reduces the number 
of infants that need costly medical care in the future.
  Basically, what we are trying to do, as I think the Members on that 
side of the aisle well know, is make sure that we forward fund enough 
so that there is not a lapse going from one year to the next year and 
that we do not leave some 45 to 55 thousand women, infants, and 
children without the kind of nutritional work and without the kind of 
food that they need to be sustained in this successful program. And we 
are pitting that against, I guess you would say, the insurance people, 
the ones that are earning that commission, not against the farmers.
  Certainly, nobody has the intention of harming the farmers here. And 
few people in my district or many other districts, I would suggest, are 
going to believe that this is a thing against farmers and bureaucrats. 
It is commissions being earned by insurance people, and it is people 
that are women, children, and infants receiving nutrition that they 
need to make sure that they do not fall between the cracks as we go 
from one year to another.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TIERNEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

[[Page H5557]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Tierney] for yielding.
  I simply want to say that I find a couple of the last statements 
bordering on jokes. Just because one repeats a mistake 50 times does 
not make it a fact. And the fact is that this does not do anything to 
cut crop insurance. It cuts crop insurance commissions.
  Now when they passed a freedom to farm act, I would say to our 
friends on the other side of the aisle, they did not pass a freedom to 
milk the farmers act. And neither did they pass a bill that allowed 
salesmen to milk the taxpayers.
  What we are trying to do is to simply meet our primary responsibility 
to farmers to see to it that programs which we have on the books for 
their assistance are defensible so that demagogs do not rip them up. 
And the fact is that when insurance agents are going around charging 
skyboxes at baseball and football stadiums to the taxpayer, that 
discredits the entire program. And that kind of nonsense has to stop, 
and that is what we are attempting to do.
  It so happens to be that the USDA and the OMB, the Office of 
Management and Budget, and the Agriculture Department both agree with 
the Obey amendment because they know that in the long run nothing 
protects farmers more than protecting the integrity of programs that 
are supposed to serve farmers. When we have insurance agents ripping 
this program off, it does not do diddly for farmers, despite the 
propaganda mantra that is being repeated this evening, and it certainly 
does not do diddly for the taxpayers.
  If my colleagues are on the side of farmers and not on the side of 
women and infants and children who need WIC funding, they support this 
amendment; they do not listen to the propaganda of the insurance agents 
who are ripping off the country in this case.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I obviously associate 
myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and 
I close by saying that we have to take a chance, Mr. Chairman. I do not 
want to take a chance that 45 to 55 thousand women, infants, and 
children are going to be at risk at the end of this year. I will take 
the chance that some insurance agency does not make all of the 
commission that they might otherwise be entitled to under this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2245

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 40 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman when he says let us not 
demagog this. Let us be perfectly up front of what is happening. We did 
away with subsidies for farmers in the freedom to farm bill last year. 
Risk management is a new type of insurance. It is insurance that not 
only is sunshine insurance on the weather, but it is also insurance on 
what happens to those crop prices in the new revolution of world trade 
where other countries can affect now the price as much as production in 
this country.
  So we are moving into a new area of insurance called risk management 
insurance. The amount of money that we call commissions is a subsidy to 
farmers, because if that commission is not paid by taxpayers in this 
transition to this new type of insurance program, then it is going to 
be paid by the farmers. That money is going to be charged to somebody.
  Right now the Secretary of Agriculture is negotiating to the best of 
his ability to get those commissions as low as possible. So I would 
suggest with great respect for the people that made this amendment's 
feeling of need for the WIC Program is that it is not a good policy 
judgment to take it out of a new risk management program as we try to 
move farmers into their decisionmaking of deciding how much of what 
crop to plant instead of Government doing it, as we put the burden on 
farmers for the risk of disaster and the risk of their success in 
farming, as we take away the deficiency programs that taxpayers have 
paid to farmers for the last 50 years.
  So in an effort to make this transition, I think it is very important 
that we move farmers into reaching into their own pocket, which they 
are doing with this insurance program, and satisfying their risk 
management needs. But it is a new area. Let us not cut down or cut back 
on the transition to this new era where agriculture and farmers and 
ranchers are moving into the private sector and the real marketplace.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment. I would like 
to address it from two basic areas. One is the credibility and the 
importance of the WIC Program. The second will be about the difference 
between our argument over here about insurance commissions versus the 
good will and the kind of product that we get out of the WIC Program.
  Members will hear me on this floor talk many times about early 
childhood development. Let me give my colleagues some statistics about 
what early childhood development really means to us as taxpayers on 
both sides of the aisle.
  It is estimated by national nonpartisan groups that we as taxpayers 
pay approximately $800,000 per child where we have to pay for nutrition 
programs, remedial education, sometimes incarceration and all kinds of 
other social programs later on in life. We pay that. Instead of 
investing merely 10 percent of that money early on, we can prevent 
those kinds of problems. In the age group 0 to 6, which is where the 
WIC Program really focuses its effort, if we put our money into that 
area, we will save taxpayers on both sides of the aisle a great deal of 
money.
  In my State of Rhode Island just recently, a pregnant woman on the 
WIC Program gave birth to a daughter, Mindy, but after only 27 weeks of 
pregnancy. When Mindy was born, she was merely 1 pound 5 ounces, with 
her head barely the size of a small peach. But thanks to special 
formula and the follow-up visits because of the WIC Program we have put 
into place, nutritionists helped Mindy and her mother, and now after a 
year and a half she is as active as any toddler that we would know.
  Mindy's mom could never have afforded her continual visits and the 
nutrition she received as a result of WIC. The assistance WIC has given 
to her is exactly how we can save taxpayers money later on. Medical 
research has found that WIC reduces infant mortality, improves diet and 
has been linked to improving development among children. For every 
dollar that we put into the WIC Program, we save $3.50 later on in 
Medicaid and other costs.
  The validity and the importance of WIC is undeniable. So the real 
question is why would we take $23.7 million out of the crop insurance 
fund for this? Let me tell my colleagues, if they were on this side and 
arguing this, they would say any program that has overhead and 
commission of 27 percent should be looked at and changed. They would 
say privatization is the cure to that. And if any company was operating 
on an overhead and a commission of 27 percent, they should be looked 
into as a part of the Government. We are saying, quite frankly, that 
overhead and commission is far too much. To knock it down to 24.5 
percent is barely reasonable, to knock it down even more than that is 
more than reasonable for the taxpayers. What we are saying is do not 
hurt the farmers, but do not hurt the women, infants and children. 
Realize that there should be a reduction in this overhead and this 
commission and it should go to helping women, infants and children.
  If Members are for insurance rates and are for paying that outrageous 
fee for overhead and commission, do not vote for the Obey amendment. 
But if Members truly are concerned about saving taxpayers money and 
helping women, infants and children, vote for the Obey amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for the Obey amendment to 
the Agriculture appropriations bill. This amendment, as my colleagues 
have

[[Page H5558]]

heard, is going to add $23.7 million for the special supplemental food 
program for women, infants and children. Under that amendment, $23.7 
million would be taken from funding for crop insurance sales 
commissions. The Committee on Appropriations raised the funding for 
crop insurance sales commissions above the level that was approved by 
the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations. 
The Department of Agriculture has indicated that the level approved by 
the subcommittee is sufficient for the crop insurance sales 
commissions. The offset appears to be appropriate and reasonable.
  The Committee on Appropriations funding level for WIC is $30 million 
short of what is needed to maintain the current caseload in fiscal year 
1998, and it would result in a reduction in participation of 55,000 to 
60,000 women, infants and children next year.
  Mr. Chairman, WIC is an effective prevention program that saves on 
future health care costs. WIC provides food, education, and child care 
to poor women, infants and children. It is estimated that 1 in 5 
children in our country is living in poverty and 5 million children 
under the age of 12 go to bed hungry each month. No child in our 
country should go to bed hungry. Only well-nourished children reach 
their potential and become productive contributing members of society.
  Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, the pain and violence of hunger can be 
reduced by appropriating additional money to the WIC Program. This 
increase would provide supplemental food and nutrition education for at 
least 45,000 women, infants and children per month in the coming fiscal 
year. Without this additional money, these eligible participants will 
be part of the growing childhood hunger epidemic that plagues us.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote on the amendment.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that I was going to offer, but I am 
going to withdraw that amendment and rise in support of the Obey 
amendment. The one difference in my amendment and his amendment is he 
is asking for $23 million and I was asking for $184 million for the 
1998 fiscal year. Actually I was asking to bring WIC up to the request 
that the President had asked for. Again, another difference is rather 
than take it from the crop insurance, I had asked for a cut across the 
board which would represent 37 percent of all discretionary accounts in 
that program.
  The choice between whether we ask for the crop insurance or ask for 
WIC, that is a hard issue obviously. But in the final analysis, it is 
really not a hard issue if we are going to raise children. If the 
difference is between having kids to eat, having kids to be healthy, 
that is no question at all. My preference is that we do not take it 
from the crop insurance, because I personally know the crop insurance 
is needed.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for that amendment 
if she puts it in, but let us not take it out of crop insurance that 
farmers are going to suffer from.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. The gentleman will vote for $184 million for WIC?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. If the gentlewoman takes it out as a pro rata 
reduction across the board. But do not take it out of crop insurance 
that is so important in the transition of the Freedom to Farm bill.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. The gentleman has concurrence on his side that he will 
vote for the $185 million?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I will vote for it.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Did the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] hear the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] say that he would be willing to 
move from $23 million to $184 million that I had offered? I was just 
wondering and that seemed like a bargain to me, but I do not know if he 
has concurrence on his side of the aisle.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentlewoman will yield, with all due respect, I 
think we have the proper amendment before us. The gentleman is 
suggesting that he would add what?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. That he would raise it from $23 million to $184 
million.
  Mr. OBEY. Where does the money come from?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. My amendment would have it coming from across the 
board.
  Mr. OBEY. I understand the gentlewoman's would, but where is he 
suggesting?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, where is the gentleman from Michigan 
suggesting?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Pro rata across the board like she is 
suggesting.
  Mr. OBEY. I do not think that is the proper way to do business.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, the point is that trying to raise the 
level of children to be healthy indeed is not a hard decision.
  I think the preferable way would be across the board. That is what my 
amendment would do. But if we are not going to raise it $23 million, I 
can ill expect that we are going to raise it $184 million, what the 
President asked for.
  We have a bill before Congress called Hunger Has a Cure. It simply 
means that those of us who care about children and care about starving 
people or care about their health, we feel it ought to be raised to an 
issue. I personally have a preference that it should come across the 
board. But if I am not going to get that opportunity, I am going to 
withdraw that amendment. If the Obey amendment goes down, maybe I will 
offer it, but if it does not go down, we will indeed be supportive of 
it.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think there has been a healthy debate here. I 
certainly have not agreed with all of the theories put out, 
particularly on the other side, but I think there are some points that 
need to be made.
  No. 1, the Federal crop insurance program costs are being reduced. It 
is a fact that if we expect USDA to carry this program all on their own 
without the private sector, the Government would cost 147 percent more 
than the private sector. So it is not a good investment for us to be 
cutting a program that is cost effective.
  There has been a lot of talk over here about skyboxes. But let me 
tell my colleagues that the Federal Crop Insurance Program makes a 
contract with the insurers and at a set rate reimburses them. If an 
insurance company or anyone else chooses to have a skybox, that is 
something else and it is not charged to the Federal Government. They 
enter into a contract, the Federal Government, with the crop insurance 
agency.
  Let me also say that farmers will suffer because of the Obey 
amendment. Under this amendment, service will be cut, farmers will have 
to wait longer for an adjuster to come, they will wait longer to get a 
claim settled, and the range of products which are offered to America's 
farmers will very likely change.

                              {time}  2300

  So it does have a detrimental effect.
  Finally, all the criticism about the Federal crop insurance program 
and how it operates and all the talk about WIC. Well, while WIC is a 
fine program, I am sure, there are many who claim that there is waste 
and fraud in the WIC Program, and I believe that is substantiated by 
GAO, and yet we hear nothing about that as if there were no problems in 
that. There are problems in probably every Federal program, so throwing 
more money at it is certainly not the answer.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EWING. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am on the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and the gentleman is on the Specialty Commodities 
Committee. Now on these programs, to make sure, is WIC fully funded?
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding.
  Mr. KINGSTON. According to our calculations it is funded at 7.4 
million participants and that it is fully funded.
  Now does WIC have any leftover money, or are they scraping the bottom 
right now?
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I think they had $200 million, was it left 
in their account?

[[Page H5559]]

  Mr. KINGSTON. They have a $200 million carryover, and so the 
discussion of saying that there are children starving and because of 
this we have got to give the benefit of the doubt is totally specious, 
totally emotional, total demagoguery. The children are not starving. 
The only thing we are going to do here is increase the bureaucracy on 
the backs of the American farmer. That is what we are talking about.
  Mr. EWING. Did we not just increase WIC funding a couple months ago?
  Mr. KINGSTON. We increased it in May by $76 million. We increase it 
in this bill $118 million.
  Mr. EWING. That is almost $200 million.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Exactly. And 2 months ago we were told the $76 million 
increase would bring us up to the full participation level, and we did 
not have a dialog or a debate about this in committee. It was everybody 
was happy.
  Mr. EWING. In the appropriation process, has the gentleman found that 
just large expenditures and new money make a program better?
  Mr. KINGSTON. No; I have not.
  That is a very good point because there seems to be something here 
that WIC is good, pay more money into it. It can be good at adequately 
funded levels right now, and I am not sure why people are trying to run 
away from that. It is possible that the program is good as is. I think, 
and the gentleman has already suggested, we should try to increase the 
efficiency of it. I think that there is some waste in it. Twenty-five 
percent of the money goes to administration. I think we could do a 
better job and feed more children from that, and less bureaucrats. But 
to add money to a program that has a $200 million carryover, a $200 
million surplus, if the gentleman will, and a program that is already 
completely fully funded is ridiculous, and to take it away from 
American farmers is even worse.
  Mr. EWING. Reclaiming the balance of my time, I appreciate the 
comments of the gentleman from Georgia, I appreciate the hard work he 
has done on this bill, and I think we should defeat this amendment.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my very strong support for the Obey 
amendment. We all experienced the debate that we had to restore the $76 
million just a few months ago when there was reported to be a shortfall 
that would severely impact on all of our districts, and so here again 
we are now confronted by a committee deliberation, which, as I 
understand it, will be shortfalling again a full funding as recommended 
by the Department of Agriculture, some $30 million short. The Obey 
amendment will provide $23.7 million of this shortfall.
  The issue is we have to base our funding upon reliable statistics 
from either OMB or the Department of Agriculture. It makes no sense for 
us to discuss what the estimated number of participants will be in this 
program. We have to trust the estimates provided us by the Department, 
and by their statistics and their analysis there will be some 50,000 
individuals left out if this additional money were not provided.
  So I support that. It seems to me that if we could support this 
program with a sense that if there are eligible people that meet the 
criteria that we have set by our legislation, then they ought not to be 
left without support under the program. It should be as simple as that. 
If my colleagues do not like the eligibility standards or because they 
think too many people are being allowed in, then change the standards. 
But as long as we have the standards there that say 185 percent of 
poverty, they qualify; if they have children younger than 1 year of age 
and so forth, if they meet these qualifications, it seems to me it is 
perfectly right that the Government appropriate the moneys necessary to 
meet this obligation. I consider this an obligation.
  The program has provided tremendous benefits to all of us, not only 
the children and the mothers involved, but because with the early 
support and the early nutritional information and the foods that are 
supplied, we have been able to cut down the costs of Medicaid and other 
health benefits which they might have an entitlement to receive. So it 
is a very, very cost-benefit, cost-efficient program.
  So it seems to me that it is very logical that if my colleagues 
support the women, infants children program, that they would do 
everything they can to fully fund it to make sure that every child that 
is eligible, every expectant mother who is eligible would have the 
necessary program support.
  Now we have heard tonight about this $200 million, moneys that have 
not been called for. I had the opportunity to attend a WIC conference 
in San Francisco not too long ago, and there was a discussion there as 
to why this additional moneys seem to have a carryover at the end of 
the year. The reason is simple. All of us run our offices. We incur 
obligations, we pay bills, we send our vouchers to the finance office 
here for payment. But the payments are not forthcoming. It may take a 
month, it may take 2 months to have our bills paid. But that does not 
mean because we have these funds on reserve in our committee account 
that they are not obligated. That $200 million is obligated.
  The people who I talked to from the WIC Program tell me these are 
unpaid vouchers that have been submitted but have not been paid to 
that. This is not extra money that we can use to balance the budget or 
reduce the deficit. These are moneys that have been committed to the 
program up to the end of the fiscal year. They have been vouchers 
submitted to the Government but not paid. Let us not steal from this 
money just because it seems to be a carryover balance. These are moneys 
that are committed.
  If we are going to budget for the next fiscal year, let us be real, 
let us count the number of families, number of women and children that 
we believe are going to be eligible, estimate what the costs are going 
to be; costs are rising, the price of the commodities is going up; and 
let us appropriate sufficient amounts of money so that we do not have 
to come here in the spring next year and worry about a supplemental 
allocation. It seems to me that that is the least we can do to support 
this program which so many people say is so beneficial to our families.
  We all run on a family first kind of agenda. This is truly a family 
first amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. 
Mink] answered the very important question about any suggestions of a 
$200 million slush fund for the WIC Program. It is very obvious 
accounting principles that those are attributable to unpaid invoices 
that have to be paid.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I think the real question to my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle is whether or not they will opt for luxury 
skyboxes or whether or not they will opt to feed women, infants and 
children. I think it is appalling that even though we are $184 million 
short, we cannot find enough humanity to allow a mere $23 million 
increase.
  I join the honorable gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] 
in supporting the $184 million increase. Recognizing that the amendment 
on the floor is the amendment by the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], I support the $23 million because I want to 
ensure that we get some relief for the 55,000 women who would not be 
covered but for this amendment.
  It just, if my colleagues will, causes me great consternation that 
the Republicans cannot see the logic in this particular amendment. No 
one is talking about crop insurance per se as much as they are talking 
about the commissions attributable to such.
  Let me give my colleagues just a few statistics. One, it is 
interesting that this country, one of the most developed and 
sophisticated countries in the world, has a high infant mortality rate. 
We can go to any place in this Nation, urban centers, rural 
communities, and find a high infant mortality rate. In fact, we will go 
to various WIC centers around the Nation and find that at the 
certification process some 43 percent of the women who come in that are 
pregnant have three or more nutrition risk factors. That means that 
women who come into the WIC centers to secure the kind of nutritious 
treatment that they should get in order to ensure that

[[Page H5560]]

they have a long-term pregnancy, they go to full term, that they do not 
have premature birth, those women, if they were not in the program, 
would suffer through three nutrition risks, and that means they would 
be subject to the very tragic potential of infant mortality, sometimes 
a premature birth, low birth rate in their babies.
  It seems to be without any sort of real thinking that one would have 
to dwell on whether I choose luxury skyboxes or whether I choose the 
program that feeds women, infants and children.
  Interestingly enough, if we just take the statistics in my own 
community in Harris County, we will find that there are at least 12,000 
women who are on the WIC Program during the month. There are more that 
need to be on the program. Five thousand breast-feeding women receive 
WIC services per month. There are more that need to be on the program. 
Nine thousand postpartum women receive WIC services per month. More 
need to be on the program. Twenty-nine thousand infants benefited from 
WIC services per month. More need to be on the program. And 51,000 
preschool children benefited by the WIC Program. More need to be on the 
program.
  This $23 million, a mere drop in the bucket, will help 55,000 women 
across this Nation, women, infants and children to be served as they 
should be served. The question is what are the services? Well, it is 
what we take for granted. How many of us in this Congress take for 
granted eggs, peanut butter, cheese, juices, beans? And how many of us 
take for granted that those that we know, our family members and 
friends, have a ready access to infant formula? Do my colleagues 
realize there are Americans in this country, there are people living in 
this Nation, that do not have access to eggs and peanut butter, cheese, 
juices, infant formula? It seems incredulous, but it seems incredulous 
to me again that we can stand on this floor and talk about skyboxes and 
talk about golfing trips and various other substitutes while $23 
million that would help the children, would help the women and would 
help the infants.
  Again it is interesting. As my colleagues stood on the floor, I am 
delighted that this is a combination of those of us who have come 
together who believe in the quality of life. I heard my colleague 
mentioning his pro-life posture. He rises. I happen to believe in 
another aspect of choice. I rise. It would seem that if we can come 
together around this very important issue, I do not see why this is not 
a bipartisan amendment, I do not see why there are not more voices 
rising and saying that we can support a $23 million addition that will 
help children, will help women, and will help our infants and decrease 
infant mortality in this Nation.
  I support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Obey amendment because 
it increases funding for the WIC Program by $23.7 million.
  I have been told that we measure the humaneness of a society by how 
well it treats its young, how well it treats its old, and how well it 
treats those who cannot take care of themselves, and so when we 
increase funding for this program, we are looking out for those who 
have the most difficulty in looking out for themselves. And even the 
$23.7 million is still less than the $30 million that is really needed.
  Now I have heard those argue that we really do not need the 
additional money because there may be some shortfall that can be 
overcome by surpluses. The reality is that when we look at those 
projections, we are taking a gamble. I do not want to gamble with the 
lives of 45 to 50,000 women and children who could, in fact, benefit 
for certain.

                              {time}  2315

  There has been a great deal of talk about family values, about the 
development of people. Yet, when there is an opportunity to put our 
monies where the conversations are, we find that providing insurance 
protection, providing commissions is more important than providing milk 
and butter and eggs and cheese.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the little bit of money we are 
talking about right now for WIC, in my area in Chicago and Cook County 
there are well over 100,000 women and children who benefit from this 
program. As a matter of fact, many of the large urban centers 
throughout the country could have solved the 45,000 to 50,000 alone, by 
themselves; when we really go into the crevices and cracks of our 
society, we find those who are untouchable and unreachable.
  I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for giving this House 
an opportunity to demonstrate its humaneness. I urge support for the 
Obey amendment.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief. I think it is safe to say I 
have a long history in support of the women and children program, that 
program and others of that nature, in my other life, in another place.
  I also would like to take the Members for a little walk, if I could, 
about some of the things I think we ought to be thinking about. I 
wonder if we have forgotten that in many places of the world, in the 
modern world, that nearly all of disposable income is spent for the 
food and fiber we subsist on. In this Nation we enjoy like 14 percent 
or 15 percent of our disposable income being used for that purpose.
  I have no quarrel with the WIC program. I support it. But I do 
suggest to the Members that to take it from this area is wrong. The 
spin on that is not something that we would anticipate. We do not want 
to do this. Yes, a bill was passed before I got here, the Family Farm 
Act. I would have supported it if I had been here. I think the time had 
come. But for that to work we have to have the opportunity for them to 
have some coverage, some insurance to stay in business.
  I come from a farm community. That is what I do. I have been known to 
have had a lot of dirt under my fingernails, as some of the other 
Members. But I can tell the Members, why, I know of nobody, I never 
been invited to any sky box, and I do not know anybody who has. I do 
not think that is the issue. I think that horse has been ridden to 
death this evening.
  I think it is OK to try to increase the WIC program, but not from 
this source. I would guess in this great House of Representatives here, 
that if we really care about those things that have been talked about, 
that we can bring our minds together and do something to enhance that. 
I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], I do not think this 
is the place to get it.
  I regret to have to go against the gentleman on this, but I must do 
that, because I feel that at least I come from the sense that we have 
to work together if we are going to produce the food and fiber that 
this country needs, and not be dependent on it from somewhere else. So 
I oppose it, and I hope that we can find some other source to address 
this problem.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will yield to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, we are hearing 
limits on debates on this matter and other matters. I was wondering if 
the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations could shed some 
light on this.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Chairman. Let 
me simply say that as the gentleman knows, trying to figure out what is 
happening at any point in this House on any subject, the way it is 
being run these days, is extremely difficult, to say the least.
  Let me simply say that for the last 2 days this House has been at a 
procedural impasse because the majority party in the Committee on Rules 
arrogantly disregarded the rights of minority managers of the bills. It 
arbitrarily denied the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] the 
right to offer a major amendment on the foreign operations bill, a bill 
which she is supposed to manage on this side of the aisle. It did the 
same thing to the gentlewoman

[[Page H5561]]

from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] several weeks ago on a previous bill. It did the 
same thing to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] on the Interior 
appropriations bill.
  The majority party determined to bring the agriculture bill to the 
floor without a rule. The procedural protest which this side has been 
engaging in on the other problems is apparently now being responded to 
by attempts to go to the Committee on Rules and draft what we 
understand is going to be a draconian rule which will allow virtually a 
meaningless 5 minutes of debate on serious amendments, which will 
apparently eliminate the right to strike items in this bill, which goes 
to the heart of the congressional prerogative to protect the power of 
the purse.
  I would simply say that if that is indeed the case, then it makes the 
debate which we are having on this amendment at this point tonight 
useless, because it apparently is simply a time-filler until the 
majority party responds in exactly the wrong way to our concerns.
  Mr. Chairman, this is exactly opposite the actions which would be 
taken by a party that wanted to promote bipartisanship, that wanted to 
promote collegiality. And in my view, if they do intend to proceed down 
that road, it will certainly lead to more acrimonious days on the floor 
of the House.
  It apparently is not enough that they are cannibalizing themselves in 
their own caucus. Apparently the legislative process itself is to be 
cannibalized. I would simply urge the majority party, if they are 
planning to do that, that they think about it overnight, because that 
would be a most destructive way to proceed. It would not be a fair 
outcome. It would be a total misreading of their responsibilities, 
given the already acrimonious feelings in this House. I would hope that 
in their own interests, as well as the interests of this House, they 
would reconsider their apparent plans.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what is of concern to 
me is not only the discussion that we have had tonight that would 
basically be a discussion that would be wasted, but I have an amendment 
that is a fundamentally important amendment to the future of this 
country regarding tobacco use in America and protecting America's 
children from tobacco.
  What I am hearing is we are going to have a rule that is going to 
limit debate on that amendment to a mere 5 minutes per side, which I 
find an absolute outrage. At 11:25 in the evening, I am getting word 
that a bill that fundamentally affects the ability of this country to 
regulate tobacco use among children is going to be limited to 5 
minutes, an absolute outrage. If that is what is going on at the 
Committee on Rules right now, I would suggest that the Members of the 
majority party get their act together.
  Because if we have a 5-minute debate on a rule that would limit 
debate on amendments that affect tobacco use specifically, an amendment 
that I have that would allow the FDA to enforce rules and regulations 
that are on the books all over this country, if we are going to limit 
debate after waiting all day for this amendment to be offered, then I 
think the majority party better think and act very, very cautiously. 
Because I as one Member would be outraged if we get a rule and this 
Congress is asked to pass that rule tomorrow and limit debate on 
fundamentally important issues of tobacco use.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my colleagues in strongly 
protesting the proposed rule, and I have not seen the rule as yet, but 
I would hope that this misguided rule is just a rumor, and not reality.
  I have an amendment with the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette] 
and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Riggs], and many other Members join us in support of 
this amendment, that would also deal with the tobacco subsidy and would 
try to bring some consistency to this policy, to make sure that our 
health policy is consistent with our subsidy policy. It just does not 
make any sense at all.
  And to think that we are going to limit this debate on this very 
important issue to 15 minutes a side, and we hear about this at 11:25 
at night when we have been waiting all day and all night to debate this 
issue, this just does not make any sense at all.
  I would appeal to my colleagues, our distinguished chairman on the 
other side of the aisle, to protest this rule, because limiting this 
important discussion to either 5 minutes a side on the amendment of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] or 15 minutes a side on our 
amendment just does not make any sense at all.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I would also add to the words of my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from New York, to point out that our tobacco 
policy in this country is inconsistent. Last year we spent nearly $200 
million to prevent tobacco use, and we spent $80 million on tobacco 
crop insurance subsidies. That is why the Lowey-DeGette-Hansen-Meehan 
amendment enjoys broad bipartisan support on both sides of the aisle. 
That is why it would be a real crime if we limited the debate on this 
issue to just a few minutes per side.
  There are many voices on both sides of the aisle that have a lot to 
say about the tobacco policy in this country, about a policy that is 
killing millions of Americans and causing millions of young people to 
begin smoking every year. That is why I would hope that this rule would 
not be limited, and I would also join my colleagues in urging the 
Committee on Rules to rethink any such proposed rule.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MEEHAN. What is really concerning about this, Mr. Chairman, is if 
we look at the fact that 44 attorneys general from all across America 
have spent months and months negotiating on this issue of tobacco and 
FDA regulations, when we look at the fact that there have been 
literally millions of pages of newspapers all across America debating 
the issue of tobacco in America and what we are going to do about it, 
to think that we are going to limit, in the people's House, we are 
going to limit the debate on this major, fundamentally important issue 
to 5 minutes here or 15 minutes here is an outrage. America is waiting 
for a discussion about how we are going to protect the next generation 
of Americans from the leading preventable cause of death in America.
  We are saying that we do not want to debate this, we are going to 
limit debate, because it is 11:30 at night and some Members may be 
tired. It makes us wonder how the tobacco companies really work and 
when they are working and where they are working.
  We ought to have a substantive discussion, it seems to me, about 
tobacco in this country, and it seems that the majority has been 
running away from this discussion. Let us have this discussion and have 
a rule, maintain the rule, and let us get up and debate this. I just 
want to say that I, too, am outraged that they, the majority party, 
could even contemplate such a ridiculous move.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, consistent with the 
arguments of my colleague, it just does not make sense at all to know 
that we are spending $200 million to prevent our youngsters from using 
tobacco, and yet we are going to limit our debate to make our policy on 
crop insurance consistent with our health policy to 15 minutes a side.
  And we are not talking about the billions of dollars that are being 
spent in Medicaid and Medicare. Many of my colleagues have a lot to say 
on this issue. Tobacco is on the minds of thousands and thousands of 
our constituents.
  I would ask my colleagues, and I know I am joined by colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, to reconsider any rule that would limit the 
discussion to 10 minutes on either side, or even 15 minutes on either 
side. This is an important issue and we should give it fair time.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe what I am hearing, honestly. We worked 
in a

[[Page H5562]]

bipartisan way on this agriculture bill. We brought it to the floor 
without a rule so that we could have unlimited debate on these issues. 
And what we find when we come to the floor is everybody wants to talk 
about everything but agriculture.
  And the fact is, when we brought this bill up last week, the dilatory 
tactics that were undertaken by the minority precluded any substantive 
debate on agriculture. It was all about, we got one after another after 
another, motion to rise, motion to rise, motion to rise.
  We could have been debating the gentleman from Massachusetts's 
amendment. We could have been debating the gentlewoman from Ohio's 
amendment and the gentlewoman from New York's and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin's, but we could not get a vote. We could not have any debate 
because of the dilatory tactics.
  Now we come in today. We are prepared to debate the agriculture bill 
again, and we have a series of suspension votes, which normally means 
that we just voice vote them because everyone basically agrees to them. 
We are forced to vote on every single issue, rollcall votes that tie 
everybody up in knots, that preclude us from doing our committee work, 
that preclude us from having a substantive debate on agriculture. And 
now we propose, if we cannot have a substantive debate, we will have to 
limit the rule so that we can get back to the issues at hand and the 
minority complains.
  You reap what you sow on the agriculture bill and every other bill. 
If we cannot work in a bipartisan way, then we have to have a rule.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I will not yield to the gentleman. He has 
had all night.
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that the Appropriations 
Committee has reported continued funding for the Agricultural 
Development in the American Pacific [ADAP] project and the Tropical and 
Subtropical Agricultural Research Programs, both conducted by the 
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service within the 
USDA.
  With committee provisions reporting ADAP funding at $564,000, as in 
previous years, the American Government demonstrates its continuing 
commitment to provide funds and grants to its communities in the Asia-
Pacific region. These include not only Guam, but also Hawaii, the 
Northern Marianas Islands, American Samoa, the Federated States of 
Micronesia, and the Freely Associated States.
  ADAP funds a number of activities for the Asia-Pacific communities. 
These include financing research of regional agricultural problems 
common to members of the five land-grant institutions in the American-
affiliated Pacific, strengthening market information systems, producing 
instructional materials development and distribution, and providing 
scholarships for land-grant faculty and staff.
  I commend the committee's continued support for ADAP, however, I am 
disappointed with the decreased funding it has reported for the 
Tropical and Subtropical Agricultural Research Programs. Not only does 
this program impact Guam, it also affects Hawaii, Florida, Puerto Rico, 
and the Virgin Islands. For the people of Guam, the Tropical and 
Subtropical Research Programs fund numerous activities. These include 
financing research contributing to the establishment of energy and 
labor efficient irrigation and fertigator systems, watermelon disease 
control, modeling crop production systems, market surveys, and the 
biological control of pests in order to increase productivity.
  Although I have stressed the benefits Guam receives from these 
programs, I also point to the implications the Tropical and Subtropical 
Research Programs have on the neighboring regions. Knowledge and 
expertise culled from these studies not only improve Guam's local 
agricultural industry, they are disseminated throughout Micronesia, 
Asia, and Africa.
  American tropical and subtropical regions face agricultural needs 
unique to other areas. Continued support for the Tropical and 
Subtropical Research Programs are necessary steps to improving not only 
the livelihood of the people of Guam, but also other tropical regions 
of the world.
  I will continue to actively support funding for ADAP and the Tropical 
and Subtropical Agricultural Research Programs. These programs are 
fundamental vehicles for improving standards of living not only on 
Guam, but also other tropical regions of the United States.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) 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.

                          ____________________