[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 106 (Thursday, July 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5672-H5732]
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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 193 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2160.

                              {time}  1058


                     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) 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, with Mr. Linder in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July 
22, 1997, the bill had been read through page 27, line 23, and pending 
was the amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Pursuant to House Resolution 193, no further amendments to the bill 
or amendments thereto are in order except the amendments printed in the 
Congressional Record before July 22, 1997, the amendments printed in 
the Congressional Record numbered 21, 22, 23, and 35, one amendment by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] regarding assistance to the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the amendment by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], pending when the Committee of the 
Whole rose on July 22.
  Each amendment is considered read, debatable for 10 minutes, except 
as provided in section 2 of the resolution, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and opponent.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  After a motion that the Committee rise has been rejected on a day, 
the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may entertain another such 
motion on that day only if offered by the Chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations or the majority leader or their designee.
  After a motion that the Committee rise with the recommendation to 
strike out the enacting words of the bill has been rejected, the 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may not entertain another such 
motion during further consideration of the bill.
  Pending is the amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Pursuant to the resolution, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
and a Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, 2 years ago, when the majority party tried to cut the 
School Lunch Program, this Congress and the Nation finally rejected 
that. Last year, they tried to cut the WIC Program, the feeding program 
for women, children, and infants. The country rejected that. Now we are 
back with this bill, and this bill is $30 million short of the amount 
that is apparently required in order to prevent 55,000 women and 
children from being knocked off the program.
  At the same time, this Congress is being asked to approve a tax cut 
which will provide, on average, a $27,000 tax cut to the richest 1 
percent of people in this country. I think that is unconscionable. The 
bill itself is $180 million below the President's budget for the WIC 
Program.
  The amendment that I am offering today simply does not even restore 
the President's request. We simply try to restore $27 million so that 
we assure that no person is knocked off the program in the coming 
fiscal year. Now how do we pay for it? We pay for it simply by 
eliminating $36 million, which has been put in this bill above the 
President's budget to pay for subsidies for commissions for insurance 
agents who write crop insurance.
  This is not aimed in any way at changing what farmers receive by way 
of crop insurance. This is not aimed in any way at affecting what 
farmers pay. It is simply aimed at the abuses in the commissions which 
were described by the General Accounting Office when they pointed out 
that they had discovered above-average commissions paid to agents by 
one large company. They discovered the Government was being charged for 
corporate aircraft and excessive automobile charges, we were being 
charged for country club memberships and various entertainment 
activities for agencies and employees such as skybox rentals at 
professional sporting events.
  This amendment is, purely and simply, aimed at ending the rip-off of 
both farmers and taxpayers by some people who are involved in this 
program so that we can free up some money for starving and malnourished 
kids. It is as simple as that. I urge support of the amendment
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment.
  I would like to point out that we have worked long and hard to put 
together a bill that is reasonable and fair to all aspects of USDA, 
FDA, CFTC, and farm credit. I think we have before this House a bill 
that is balanced. It takes care of the needs of farmers and ranchers; 
research related to nutrition and ag production; housing, rural 
development, and nutrition of low-income people and the elderly; food, 
drug and medical device safety; and food for the needy overseas.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] trying to do 
what he is trying to do. If my colleagues look at this bill, they will 
see that we both regard WIC as the highest priority item in it. WIC 
received the largest increase in this bill, at $118.2 million over last 
year. This is on top of $76 million that was recently provided in the 
supplemental. With this increase, WIC is funded at $3.924 billion in 
fiscal year 1998. This amount fully supports the current participation 
level of 7.4 million.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] says that if 
this amendment does not pass, 55,000, now they are going up about 5,000 
a day from what I can gather after hearing the new statistics, 55,000 
women, infants and children will be taken off the program.

[[Page H5673]]

  I do not know where this information came from. We have two 
Statements of Administration Policy from the Executive Office of the 
President concerning this bill, and neither one says a word about 
people being forced off the program with the funding level included in 
this bill as it is now. We have heard these scare tactics before, let 
us not fall for them again.
  Mr. Chairman, I have presented this House with a balanced bill. This 
is a bill of compromises. The amendment in full committee to increase 
crop insurance also provided an increase for the FDA food safety 
initiative and tobacco regulation enforcement activities. This is a 
bill that can and should be supported by every Member of this body. I 
support this bill and ask my colleagues also to support it, and I 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time each side has 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. Each side has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, we live in a country where our 
agricultural production is so bountiful that it exceeds that which our 
people can consume. We have excess agricultural production each and 
every year. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of people in our 
country go to bed hungry every night. Many of these people who are 
hungry are women who are carrying infants, pregnant women. Others are 
young mothers, their infants and children.
  This is a brutal paradox. And the brutality of it is made worse by 
the bill before us, because the bill before us would deprive, it is 
estimated, 50,000 people, young mothers, pregnant women, young 
children, infants, from the ability to participate in the women, 
infants and children program, which provides basic nutrition for those 
folks.
  The Obey amendment seeks to correct that brutal situation by 
restoring $24 million to the women, infants and children program so 
that some of those pregnant women, some of those young mothers, some of 
those infants, and some of those children will get proper nutrition. 
This is a reasonable thing to do.
  The opposition says that the Obey amendment is going to hurt farmers. 
The facts of the matter are quite the contrary. The Obey amendment will 
help farmers. It will help farmers by taking care of some of that 
excess agricultural production. Dairy, for example. We have excess 
dairy production all across the northeastern part of this country and 
elsewhere in the United States.
  The Obey bill will make sure that some of that excess milk and other 
dairy products are consumed by people who are hungry and need the 
nutrition. It is a sensible, reasonable thing to do. He takes the 
money, the $24 million, from the commissions of people who sell crop 
insurance. And he talked a little bit earlier about some of the 
specific benefits, like skyboxes and airplane trips and things of that 
nature, that are enjoyed by these commissioners. And they will be, 
unfortunately, deprived of those amenities, but that money now will be 
used to make young mothers, pregnant women, young children whole, give 
them better nutrition, make them strong, make them healthy. It is a 
good amendment, and I hope that all Members of this House will support 
it.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen] for yielding me the time.
  Maybe it is time that we reviewed the facts in this issue rather than 
listen to the rhetoric. So let me just review the facts for one moment. 
The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] offers to reduce the crop 
insurance program by $23 million, adding it to a $3.9 billion program 
for WIC. That is almost an insignificant addition, if we understand the 
immensity of the WIC program already.
  However, if we take that same amount from the crop insurance program, 
we destroy the crop insurance program, we reduce it by 20 percent, it 
will not be available for agriculture. There will be nobody to deliver 
the crop insurance.
  So while all of us are concerned with the WIC Program, as we should 
be, I note that this issue was never raised in committee. There were no 
negative votes on this question. Everybody seemed to have their arms 
thrown around the program offered by the chairman, until we reach the 
floor. Is this a hit-and-run on the committee system? I suggest it well 
may be.
  Where should this whole thing be decided? We have added, as 
mentioned, $118 million to WIC at the same time in committee. Where 
should this be decided? It should be decided where it has always been 
decided. The Secretary of Agriculture of the United States of America 
and crop insurers ought to sit down and negotiate this program. That is 
what is being done now. We should not take away the negotiation 
opportunity for farmers by passing this kind of legislation.
  So, please, reject the Obey amendment and allow this to be done, as 
it is properly done, between the Secretary of Agriculture and crop 
insurers.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette].
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, one of the measures of a strong and 
prosperous nation is its ability and willingness to take care of its 
neediest communities. I believe, we as a country, have an obligation to 
address the problems of our most vulnerable citizens. We have a whole 
wealth of new research indicating importance of proper care for 
children, particularly at-risk children during their first few years of 
life.
  The very least we can do for these young children is to make sure 
that they have access to proper nutrition during these formative years. 
WIC has been proven to be one of our most successful programs at 
reducing low birth weight, infant mortality, and child anemia. It is 
one of the most effective social programs that we have.
  Why, then, would we fund WIC coming out of the committee $30 million 
short of what we need to simply maintain the current caseload in 1998? 
This subtraction of the $30 million will have a direct impact on 
children's health in this country. I think that the cost could be 
exacerbated, in fact, if the cost of food is higher in fiscal year 
1998.
  I think we need to look carefully at funding this program at levels 
that we have funded it in the past. I am sympathetic with the concerns 
of small farmers, but the money that this amendment is taking it from 
comes from insurance premiums. A GAO study in fact showed that the 
money that these insurance agents are taking from this program is being 
used for things like skyboxes. And frankly, if you weigh children's 
nutrition and healthful food and infant formula against skyboxes, I 
think the choice is pretty clear.
  This is not an intention to hurt farmers. And in fact, I think that 
we should support our farmers of this country, and I think the farmers 
of this country would support and do support programs that benefit 
young children.
  And so, for those reasons, I think this is a great amendment. I thank 
the gentleman for raising it.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
South Dakota [Mr. Thune].
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out because I was 
down here on the debate on the supplemental disaster bill and I was one 
who voted for $76 billion additional spending on the WIC Program. As 
was noted earlier today, we have a $118 million increase in WIC over 
last year's level in this appropriation bill.
  What I would like to speak about for just a minute because I was 
listening with great interest a couple of nights ago to the debate on 
crop insurance, I found somewhat humorous, if not tragic, the constant 
reference to skyboxes. I can tell my colleagues about the typical crop 
insurance agent in my State of South Dakota. Their business is on Main 
Street. They are mom and pop operations whose main line of business is 
probably another field of insurance, but they are also involved in crop 
insurance because somebody has to do it. They are not cutting a fat 
hog. They are making a living, having a tough

[[Page H5674]]

time of it, because they are dealing with a program which is fraught 
with redtape and bureaucracy.
  As I have listened to the crop insurance agents explain to me how 
difficult it is to be in this business, one of the things that 
repeatedly comes up is how much bureaucracy and redtape there is. I 
think as I look the our State of South Dakota, we have 77,000 square 
miles. Agriculture is our No. 1 industry. We do not have a professional 
sports team in South Dakota, so our guys are not going to skyboxes. But 
we have a lot of small crop insurance agents who make this program 
work. As a matter of fact, 90 percent of the farmers, the producers in 
South Dakota, are in the crop insurance program and 75 percent at the 
buyup level.
  That is precisely what we wanted to do by changing Government policy 
in this country, to encourage our producers to protect themselves 
against future loss so that we do not down the road have to come in 
with taxpayer dollars in the form of disaster assistance.
  Let me tell Members what I think are the alternatives if we do not 
have a workable crop insurance program. The first one is it will go 
back to the Federal Government. We will have a delivery system where 
the Federal Government is once again in the business of crop insurance. 
I think that is a lot less preferable than having people in the private 
sector who are delivering this program in a way that makes sense and is 
efficient and saves the taxpayers dollars.
  The second alternative is to have no program at all. Where does that 
leave us? That leaves us exactly where we were before, and that is year 
in and year out as a disaster strikes we will be coming back to the 
Congress and asking for disaster assistance to go to producers in the 
States that are in the business of agriculture.
  I think we have an efficient system that is delivering the product, 
that is working, and it is to our advantage to have a program that 
works for the producers, for the people who are trying to make a 
living, in the business of selling crop insurance, and if we do not 
have that sort of a system in place, those are the alternatives that we 
are left with.
  I would like to say, because I heard the other night the discussion 
on skyboxes, it might please the gentleman from Wisconsin to know that 
I am a Green Bay Packers fan and have been since I was about 5 years 
old. I have never been to a Green Bay Packers game, but I hope that 
someday in the future I will. I can assure the gentleman that if and 
when that happens that I probably will not be in a skybox. I would be 
happy to sit in general admission, which is where the crop insurance 
agents in my State of South Dakota, who are small businesses, mom and 
pop operations, will be sitting with me.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in all this discussion 
about small farmers. I am probably one of the few small farmers in this 
body. I have a small farm. I sure do not get whole lots of Federal 
subsidies or insurance agents. I never heard of this commission. But I 
do know about women's health. I do know what it means when a woman who 
is pregnant gets good nutrition. I do know what it means when a small 
child gets good nutrition. All these subsidies for farmers, come on. 
Farmers are in business. We do not subsidize farmers, or we should not. 
We certainly should not subsidize insurance agents, at the cost of 
health care and nutrition. We know that every dollar we put into health 
care and nutrition for pregnant women is a dollar that pays back time 
and time again.
  What does America stand for? Does it not stand for our children? Let 
us support the Obey amendment because the Obey amendment is sensible. 
It is common sense. It is common sense to invest in prevention. All 
this talk about skyboxes, gee, I never as a small farmer have ever seen 
one of these commissioners. I buy insurance because I think that is the 
American way. We buy things for small business. We do it ourselves. We 
do not take money and food out of the mouths of pregnant women and 
children so that we in business can get a little subsidy.
  As a farmer, I say let us support WIC. I say let us support the Obey 
amendment. Let us say finally that this is not a country that 
subsidizes everybody who wants to be in business. This is a country 
that stands for something. One of the things we stand for is healthy 
children, healthy mothers. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] for presenting this amendment. I say we should all support it.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first say that if there is a greater supporter 
of the WIC Program in this body than Charlie Stenholm, I do not know 
who it might be. I am a great supporter of WIC. It does wonderful 
things for people that need wonderful things done for them.
  This bill, as presented to us, increases by $118 million the amount 
of dollars in the WIC Program. If it will take more, I will be glad to 
join with my colleagues in supporting more. But let me remind all of 
us, we are dealing with tight budgets. That means we have got to 
scrutinize all programs, including the good ones, if we are going to do 
our job.
  In regard to crop insurance, I am a great supporter of crop 
insurance. We have some terrific problems, and time will not permit me 
to talk about some of the frustrations I have with the crop insurance 
program today. But this is not the time and the place to revise and 
reform the crop insurance program. That belongs in the authorizing 
committee, and we are going to do that.
  Let me remind everyone in regard to agents, right now we are 
racheting down the reimbursement rate for crop insurance agents from 31 
percent to 29 percent. We are scheduled to go to 28 percent in 1997. 
This bill takes it to 27 percent 1 year earlier. Therefore, all of the 
rhetoric about where this is going and how it is going to do, let me 
say to my colleagues, this is not the place to make arbitrary judgments 
regarding the crop insurance plan for some alleged wrongdoing. Stick 
with the committee bill, defeat the Obey amendment. We are all going to 
be supportive of WIC. We all are going to be supportive of crop 
insurance reform, but let the authorizing committee do its work, which 
I will publicly admit we have not done as yet, and that is a black mark 
on us, not the appropriators.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, let me try to place this debate and 
discussion in some context. The fact of the matter is that in the last 
session of the Congress, the Republican majority did not appropriate 
enough money for the WIC Program, Women, Infants and Children Program. 
They were forced, and in fact we helped to force them, to increase 
those dollars at the end of the process so that women, infants, and 
children would not be thrown off of the program. In fact, in several 
States that process has started. But the Democrats forced that debate 
in order for there to be an increase in funding in the WIC Program, 
what my colleague from Wisconsin is trying to do, because once again 
the Republican majority is shortchanging the WIC program and we will 
find ourselves in the same position where we will look at approximately 
55,000 people, women, infants and children, who will not be able to 
avail themselves of the program. My colleague from Wisconsin is trying 
to avoid that situation and in fact restore money so that we will not 
have to take women, infants and children off of this program. This 
program, we find, is a cost-effective one. It saves us dollars in other 
programs. It is a wise investment. What the Obey amendment is 
suggesting is that what we take the money from is the increase in the 
insurance rates to those who offer crop insurance to farmers. This does 
not decrease the amount of dollars to farm subsidies.
  I understand the problem of small farmers, or I try to do that. The 
fact of the matter is that the insurance agents are the ones who are 
benefiting from this effort. I trust the fact that we are trying to 
bring down the number, but we are talking today about 24 percent of 
premium. This is a hefty amount of premium. This should not go to the 
insurance agents but to women, infants and children.

[[Page H5675]]

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the Obey 
amendment. As working families in every corner of the country go to the 
grocery store today, they will find about 10,000 items to choose from. 
In many cases, the overwhelming majority of the cases, they will find 
good prices for good food products that people can buy in this country. 
People take that for granted, not understanding how important our 
agriculture industry is to this country. To amend this bill and to hurt 
farmers eventually will hurt consumers as they try to buy food in the 
grocery store.
  I know in this day and age we have become a victim to a great degree 
of our materialistic success and as we go to buy food in stores many 
Americans think somehow it just comes from the back storeroom or from a 
truck that came down the road, but that all started out on a farm in 
some State in this country. To do this to our farmers is a sad 
commentary on what we are arguing about here today.
  The WIC Program is something that we all support. We on our 
subcommittee in a bipartisan way have supported increased funds for the 
WIC Program because it is important. But to demagog this issue in the 
way that it is being demagoged this morning is a real tragedy. I hope 
Members will look in their hearts and look for the truth in what we are 
debating about here today and support the position that we have taken 
on the subcommittee to fully fund crop insurance and fully fund the WIC 
Program.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I want to address my concerns very 
briefly to the colleagues who have fiscal concerns. There is no better 
way to put it than to say we should not be penny wise and pound foolish 
on this subject. This is not profligate Government spending we are 
debating here. The WIC Program is a program that works and in the 
longer term actually saves Federal money. For every $1 used in the 
prenatal segment of the WIC Program, Medicaid saves untold amounts of 
money and gives healthy productive lives to all these children. WIC 
works, to put it very bluntly. It is not an area where we should be 
penny wise and pound foolish.
  I guess I have got to say, Mr. Chairman, and speaking now as a 
Republican fiscal conservative, in this the wealthiest Nation in the 
world, we should not see children going to bed hungry.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment to increase 
funding for the WIC Program by over $24 million by implementing 
offsetting cuts in funding for crop insurance sales commission.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a natural follow-on to the farsighted 
decision made by this Congress in May to fully fund the WIC Program in 
the disaster supplemental.
  Today, we are reducing for crop insurance sales commissions to 
provide food and health security for our children. Mr. Chairman, in the 
constant struggle to make sure that we set our priorities straight, 
this amendment is another step in the right direction.
  For those of my colleagues who have fiscal concerns--don't be penny-
wise and pound-foolish.
  This is not profligate Government spending we are debating here. The 
WIC Program is a program that works, and in the longer term, actually 
saves Federal money. For every $1 used in the prenatal segment of the 
WIC Program, Medicaid saves untold moneys and gives healthy productive 
lives to these children and cannot be measured in dollars and cents.
  WIC works. It reduces the instances of infant mortality, low 
birthweight, malnutrition, and the myriad other problems of 
impoverished children. The WIC Program also provides valuable health 
care counseling for expectant mothers for both mothers and children.
  In recent months Time and Newsweek magazines have written feature 
articles on the importance of the years from birth to age 3. These 
articles validate longstanding research based on up-to-date studies of 
prenatal and early childhood development. WIC funding is a big part of 
the future development of these infants. Let's not be penny-wise and 
pound-foolish.
  This $24 million for the WIC Program is good investment. A wise 
investment, at that.
  Mr. Chairman, this is the wealthiest Nation in the world and yet, 
children still go to bed hungry.
  WIC must remain fully funded and should be off limits. Only then will 
we preserve food for hungry babies.
  Mr. Chairman, we can take advantage of an opportunity today.
  We can meet the challenge of fiscal responsibility in two ways: 
First, through budget neutrality, that is finding offsets as we 
appropriate funds to different programs, and second, by making wise 
investments.
  This is a wise investment.
  With this amendment, we have the opportunity to enhance WIC funding 
and thereby protect low-income women and children and--incidentally--
the taxpayer.
  I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I certainly count myself among those in this 
body that fully support the WIC Program. I think that it ought to be 
funded so that it can operate and provide services and food to all that 
meet eligibility requirements. That, I do not think, is what is at 
issue here this morning. We are talking about a zero sum game. We are 
trying to increase the funding of one program at the expense of 
another. Of course it sounds more attractive to say we are going to 
feed infants and pregnant women at the expense of providing insurance 
agents with commissions. But I submit that is not really the issue. The 
issue is what type of a crop disaster program do we wish to have. Do we 
wish to have one that is based on an insurance principle or do we want 
ad hoc disaster payments? In the past we have paid out billions of 
dollars in some years in ad hoc disaster payments to farmers for crop 
losses. With an insurance-based program, the farmers are purchasing 
insurance. In order to make that program effective we have to have 
agents selling the insurance, and this program is essential to maintain 
that commission program and those agents.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Latham].
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I spoke the other evening on this subject, 
and there is a lot been made about the WIC program and caring for 
women, infants and children. There is plenty of money already in the 
bill for that, more than what is needed as far as the carryover. But I 
think one thing that is being very much forgotten here is the women, 
infants and children of farm families that they are going to destroy by 
taking away an opportunity for them to protect the risks that they have 
out there.
  Mr. Chairman, when we look at the hope and dream of a small family 
farm which is made up, by the way, of women, infants and children, they 
would rather have them apparently go on the welfare rolls than they 
would to survive in their businesses. All we are asking for is the 
opportunity for these people, these small farm families, to protect 
their risk so that they do not have to get on a Government program, so 
that we do not have to have disaster bills which cost us billions of 
dollars every year.
  If my colleagues want to think about women, infants and children, why 
do they not think about those on family farms?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, a propaganda sheet has been circulated by lobbyists who 
are lobbying against my amendment, claiming that this is an amendment 
that attacks farmers. That is certainly not true. I represent farmers, 
I have fought for them all my life; in my view farmers are not hurt by 
this amendment, they are hurt by two things. They are hurt by the 
misguided farm policies of the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton 
administrations that we suffered through for the last three 
administrations, and they are also being hurt by the failure of the 
Committee on Agriculture to reform the crop insurance program so that 
we do not get ripped off by some of the agents involved in this 
program. Most of the agents involved are perfectly rational, 
responsible and fair-minded people, but the fact is that nonetheless 
the program is

[[Page H5676]]

being ripped off. If we separate fact from fiction, the fact is that 
nothing in this amendment changes crop insurance for farmers, nothing 
in my amendment changes what farmers will pay for crop insurance. What 
we are trying to do is to stop the rip-offs on the commissions that 
some of the insurance agents are getting.
  Now the lobby sheet that is being circulated says that 10 percent 
commission is not enough. We are not cutting this to 10 percent. We are 
trying to cut the commission from 28 percent to 24\1/2\ percent, which 
is the amount USDA and the Office of Management and Budget both say is 
sufficient to run the program. We are not cutting it to 10 percent. And 
the reason we are doing that, as I said earlier, is because we have a 
General Accounting Office report which indicates that some of the 
commissions being charged included charges for corporate aircraft, 
excessive automobile charges, country club memberships, rental of 
things such as skyboxes, and they suggest that the best way to tighten 
up this program is to do exactly what we are doing in this amendment.
  I know we passed a freedom to farm program last year. I did not vote 
for it because I thought it was a lousy bill. But the fact is, freedom 
to farm is not freedom to milk farmers. It is also not freedom to milk 
taxpayers as some of these commissions are doing.
  The fact is my amendment is supported by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, it is supported by the Office of Management and Budget, it 
is an attempt to end the rip-offs of this program, and that is in the 
benefit of farmers. It is an attempt to use the money we save to help 
starving infants and to help malnourished mothers who are about to give 
birth to children who we want to be healthy. That is what it does.
  Stick with the kids. Do not listen to this propaganda sheet being 
pedaled by some of the agents. I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, three of the six counties in 
our district are in Appalachia where WIC is a very important program. I 
am a strong supporter of WIC, and if I believed for 1 minute that this 
bill shortchanged the WIC Program, I would be supporting the Obey 
amendment.
  I think the facts indicate otherwise. The WIC Program is completely 
funded in this program. We need to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me close and let me state the facts, the facts, once again. This 
bill does not force anyone to be taken off the program. I do not know 
where they are getting this information, but we have two statements of 
administration policy from the Executive Office of the President 
concerning this bill, and neither one says they are worried about 
people being forced off the program with the funding level included in 
the bill. We have heard these scare tactics once again raised, but, Mr. 
Chairman, they are not true, we have given our colleagues the facts, 
and I oppose this amendment.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank and support my 
colleague, Mr. Obey, for introducing such an important amendment today. 
The current bill provides just enough money to maintain current 
participation levels, but it is based on the assumption that the number 
of women and children in need and the cost of food will remain 
absolutely constant. A similar miscalculated assumption brought all of 
us to the floor 2 months ago to vote on increased funding for WIC in 
the middle of the 1997 fiscal year.
  The WIC funding level does not provide enough funding to ensure that 
no women, child or infant will be cut from this critical program. The 
cost of infant formula, for example, depends in part on the contract 
the State WIC program secure with formula manufacturers. This is not a 
fixed price. Furthermore, the prices for which the manufacturers have 
offered to sell formula to State WIC programs have been steadily 
increasing. If this trend continues, which many expect that it will, 
then this appropriations bill will fall far short of ensuring that 
current participation levels are maintained.
  The Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture project that the funding level the committee has provided 
would result in the loss of 55,000 to 60,000 women, infants, and 
children next year alone. In my State of California, 1,225,800 low 
income and nutritional at risk pregnant women, infants, and children 
benefit from WIC. It is not fair to suddenly strip many of these women, 
infants, and children of this vital program in the middle of the 1998 
fiscal year simply because we have lacked the foresight now to make 
accurate predictions of the needs of WIC recipients.
  The WIC program is one of the most cost-effective and successful 
programs in the country. The Government saves $3.50 for each dollar 
spent on WIC for pregnant women in expenditures for Medicaid, SSI for 
disabled children, and other programs. More importantly, research has 
demonstrated how effectively WIC reduces low-birthweight babies, infant 
mortality, and child anemia.
  On behalf of the State of California, which operates the largest WIC 
program in the country, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in 
voting ``yes'' on the Obey amendment. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195, 
noes 230, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 308]

                               AYES--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--230

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly

[[Page H5677]]


     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barton
     Dingell
     Hyde
     Kaptur
     Molinari
     Neal
     Schiff
     Stark
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1156

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Kaptur for, with Mr. Barton of Texas against.

  Ms. DANNER and Messrs. CLYBURN, COX, ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, 
ROHRABACHER, and MOLLOHAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PAPPAS, GIBBONS, SUNUNU, and STRICKLAND changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask, what are the rules of 
the House in terms of distributing literature at the door which 
absolutely, totally misdescribes and libels the amendment that was just 
offered by me?
  There is a sheet that was distributed which says ``Vote no on the 
Obey amendment to kill crop insurance''. It does absolutely no such 
thing. This House has a rule against that kind of misinformation. I 
would like to know what the rule is.
  The CHAIRMAN. The rule is that anything that is handed out at the 
doors or on the floor must bear the name of the Member authorizing it.
  Mr. OBEY. Could I ask, Mr. Chairman, what are the rules with respect 
to sheets which are absolutely, totally false and erroneous?

                              {time}  1200

  The CHAIRMAN. The rules of decorum may generally be applied to the 
contents of such handout.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. Chairman, under the rules of the House, what are the remedies 
available to a Member when the amendment that he has offered to the 
House is being falsely described in a sheet handed out by another 
Member?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is reluctant to address the question in a 
hypothetical manner but would be pleased to consult with the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand that response. This is 
not a hypothetical situation. This just occurred. I thought there was a 
requirement for truth on the sheets that are being distributed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair suspects the remedy would be the same as the 
remedy for any action by any Member in any committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I suggest this is an outrageous misstatement 
of the facts. The truth is regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands the gentleman's concern but has 
not had an opportunity to examine the flier.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Meehan

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Meehan:
       In the item relating to ``Risk Management Agency'' in title 
     I, after the last dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by 
     $14,000,000)''.
       In the item relating to ``salaries and expenses''--``Food 
     and Drug Administration'' in title VI, after the aggregate 
     dollar amount in the first undesignated paragraph, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] and a Member opposed, each will control 5 
minutes.
  Does the gentleman from New Mexico seek the time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. SKEEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I rise in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah [Mr. Hansen], my Republican colleague, a leader in the fight 
to protect America's children against tobacco and the cochair of the 
task force on tobacco and health in the Congress.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, most of my colleagues know that throughout 
my 17 years in this body I have been keenly interested in decreasing 
the use of alcohol and tobacco products by our children. I have no 
issue with the adults who choose to responsibly use legal tobacco and 
alcohol products, but I have become increasingly upset at the dramatic 
increase in tobacco use among our young people today.
  Cigarette smoking among high school seniors is at a 17 year high. 
Smoking among eighth and tenth graders has increased 50 percent since 
1991. These 13 and 14 year old children are being sentenced to shorter 
and unhealthier lives by addictive tobacco products. Even the tobacco 
industry now agrees to this conclusion. Tobacco smoking is a problem 
that clearly starts with our children. Almost 90 percent of today's 
adults who smoke started before the age of 18. The average youth smoker 
begins at age 13 and becomes a daily smoker at age 14. It is self-
evident that the message that tobacco kills is not reaching our 
children or our grandchildren.
  We have worked with the Food and Drug Administration over the past 2 
years to develop regulations to curb youth tobacco abuse. The 
comprehensive FDA plan intends to reduce tobacco use by our young 
people by 50 percent in 7 years.
  Some of the initiatives in the plan would require photo ID for the 
sale of cigarettes and tobacco smoke just like we do for alcohol. It 
would prohibit vending machine cigarettes, eliminate free samples and 
the sale of single cigarettes and packages with less than 20 
cigarettes, known as kiddie packs, that are known to be given to 
children.
  The FDA rule will also strive to make tobacco products less appealing 
to children by banning outdoor advertising within 1,000 feet of schools 
and prohibiting giveaways of products like hats or gym bags that carry 
cigarette or smokeless tobacco products. These measures will have no 
effect on adults who choose to use this product.
  However, our children should not be bombarded with advertising and 
promotion which tell them that the illegal use of tobacco products is 
fun, it is glamorous, it is cool. The age restrictions on tobacco 
products which are in law in every State exist because children lack 
sufficient information and experience to decide whether to use a 
product as harmful as cigarette or spit tobacco.
  The proposed FDA regulation would also require tobacco companies to 
notify consumers about the unreasonable health risks of their product, 
including warning labels on packages that kids

[[Page H5678]]

can understand, for example, warning: Cigarettes kill.
  I would urge Members to support the Meehan-Hansen amendment which 
would do something great for this country on health.
  Most of my colleagues know that throughout my 17 years in this body, 
I have been keenly interested in decreasing the use of alcohol and 
tobacco products by our Nation's children. I have no issue with adults 
who choose to responsibly use legal tobacco and alcohol products. But, 
I have become increasingly upset at the dramatic increase in tobacco 
use among young people today. Cigarette smoking among high school 
seniors is at a 17-year high. Smoking among 8th and 10th graders has 
increased by over 50 percent since 1991. These 13- and 14-year-old 
children are being sentenced to shorter and unhealthier lives by 
addictive tobacco products. Even the tobacco industry now agrees with 
this conclusion.
  Tobacco smoking is a problem that clearly starts with our children: 
Almost 90 percent of today's adult smokers started using tobacco before 
age 18. The average youth smoker begins at age 13 and becomes a daily 
smoker by age 14\1/2\. It is self-evident that the message that tobacco 
kills is not reaching our children and grandchildren.
  I have worked with the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] over the 
past 2 years to develop regulations to curb youth tobacco abuse. The 
comprehensive FDA plan intends to reduce tobacco use by young people by 
50 percent in 7 years.
  Some of the initiatives included in the FDA plan would: Require photo 
ID for the sale of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, just like for 
alcohol; prohibit vending machine sales of cigarettes; eliminate free 
samples and the sale of single cigarettes and packages with fewer than 
20 cigarettes, known as kiddie packs.
  The FDA rule will also strive to make tobacco products less appealing 
to children by banning outdoor advertising within 1,000 feet of 
schools, and prohibiting giveaways of products like hats or gym bags 
that carry cigarette or smokeless tobacco product names or logos. These 
measures will have no effect on adults who choose to legally use these 
products.
  However, our children should not be bombarded with advertisements and 
promotions which tell them that their illegal use of tobacco products 
is fun, glamorous, or cool. The age restrictions on tobacco products, 
which are law in every State, exist because children lack sufficient 
information and experience to decide whether to use a product as 
harmful as cigarettes or spit tobacco. When tobacco products are seen 
as popular and cool, you can count on an increase in underage smoking.
  The proposed FDA regulations will also require tobacco companies to 
notify consumers about the unreasonable health risks of their products, 
including descriptive warning labels on packages of cigarettes that 
kids can really understand:
  WARNING: Cigarettes Kill
  WARNING: Cigarettes Are Addictive
  WARNING: Cigarette Smoking Harms Athletic Performance
  WARNING: Smoking During Pregnancy Can Harm Your Baby
  Similar warnings will be included on smokeless tobacco products, such 
as:
  WARNING: Use of smokeless tobacco can make your teeth fall out.
  Who among us will stand up and argue with the accuracy of these 
warnings? This will be the first national program ever undertaken to 
reduce youth access to tobacco. I believe these are major strides in 
the right direction.
  However good these ideas may be, enforcement is the key to their 
success. Today, it is far too easy for kids to buy cigarettes and spit 
tobacco. Studies of over-the-counter sales have found that children and 
adolescents were able to successfully buy tobacco products 67 percent 
of the time. Despite the fact that it is illegal in all 50 States to 
sell cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to minors, our young people 
purchase an estimated 1.26 billion dollars' worth of tobacco products 
each year.

  Strong enforcement is the key to reducing youth access to tobacco. 
The Food and Drug Administration seeks $34 million to fund the 
enforcement of these regulations. The funding sought by FDA will not 
create a new Federal bureaucracy and the majority of these funds will 
go directly to State and local officials for enforcement.
  Let me repeat that, this funding will not create a new Federal 
bureaucracy and the majority of these funds will go directly to State 
and local officials for enforcement.
  The current Agriculture appropriations bill funds this vital program 
at only $24 million. The Meehan-Hansen amendment would provide the full 
funding request for this vital program.
  The offset for these funds would come from the Federal Crop Insurance 
Corporation's Crop Insurance Sales Commission, by decreasing that 
program's funding by $14 million and increasing the FDA's funding by 
$10 million, for a net savings of $4 million. The Agriculture 
appropriations bill currently funds the Crop Insurance Sales Commission 
at $188 million--an increase of over $36 million above the President's 
request. This program reimburses private insurance companies for 
expenses associated with selling and servicing crop insurance policies.
  A recent GAO audit of this program uncovered numerous inappropriate 
expenses, such as business acquisitions and lobbying. Also included in 
the program's expenses were: $22,000 for a trip to Las Vegas; $44,000 
for a fishing trip to Canada; country club memberships; tickets to 
sporting events, including $18,000 for a baseball skybox rental and $6 
million to fund above average individual agent sales commissions by one 
large company.
  In my humble opinion, these are not valid uses of taxpayer money. It 
appears this program is clearly one that can afford to spare a small 
percentage of its budget to improve and protect the health of our 
children and grandchildren. Even with the $14 million decrease in 
funding contained in this amendment, the program will still be funded 
at 114 percent of what Secretary Glickman deems necessary.
  Please join with 87 percent of the American public in supporting the 
FDA policy for restricting tobacco use among children. This is the 
right thing to do for the health of our children and future 
generations. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Hansen-Meehan 
amendment to fully fund the FDA efforts to enforce tobacco regulations 
to keep these products out of the hands of our children.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We started on this bill last Wednesday, and yesterday we offered a 
unanimous-consent request that would have allowed 30 minutes of debate 
on this amendment. We were informed to not bother making the offer 
because it would be objected.
  The bill is supported by the administration and they are very happy 
with this bill. They are very happy with the Food and Drug 
Administration number. Last year FDA spent $4.9 million on its 
antismoking tobacco program. The committee bill provides $24 million 
for this program, quadruple what it had last year. In all my years 
here, I have not ever seen a program that could absorb money that fast 
and spend it wisely.
  Nonetheless, this is an important initiative, and it is obvious that 
the committee supports it, but enough is enough. They are damaging one 
program, crop insurance, that also needs help. I ask Members for a no 
vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today because what we need to do with this 
amendment is fully fund the tobacco initiative. The administration does 
not support this. The administration requested $34 million to carry out 
the necessary enforcement and outreach that will effectively curtail 
sales of tobacco products to children. I would hope that we could all 
agree, there are 50 States that have laws that are in effect, to 
regulate tobacco use to children. This allows the FDA to fully enforce 
those laws. That is what this is all about.
  It does not affect tobacco farmers. It does not deal with the 
contentious or controversial issues relative to FDA regulation like 
marketing restrictions and advertising. All this attempts to do is give 
the FDA the resources that the administration says they need to 
effectively inform retailers of what they are to be doing; namely, 
carding a consumer who is underage who comes to buy tobacco products. 
The evidence is overwhelming that retailers are selling these products 
that kill children to children. The only thing we are trying to do with 
this amendment is allow the FDA to implement a program of education so 
that they can make sure that retailers know how they should protect 
children from sales. We have to card people, to educate people.
  We are talking about tobacco, the leading preventable cause of death 
in America. In nearly every category, children are using tobacco 
products more and more, 3,000 children experiment with tobacco products 
a day, 1,000 of them have their lives cut short. The minimum that we 
can do, the minimum we can do is enforce the laws that are in effect 
now. Let us make them card people. Let us make the retailers stop 
selling this destructive product to children.
  The way we do that is by giving the FDA the authority and the 
resources they need. Even with this money that

[[Page H5679]]

is available, the Department of Agriculture will still get 114 percent 
of what they asked for. There is no excuse for not passing this 
amendment. It is in the interest of America's children.
  This is a bipartisan bill. It is not a Democratic amendment. It is a 
bipartisan amendment. There are Members here who have been fighting all 
across America, attorneys general who have been fighting, hours and 
months of negotiating to keep tobacco products away from children. Let 
us join with those health experts. Let us join with the President and 
protect America's children. Vote for this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield].
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to this 
amendment. Obviously this is an emotional issue. As the gentleman from 
Massachusetts said, 50 States already prohibit the sale of tobacco 
products to minors, and those States have the responsibility to enforce 
those regulations. In addition, as the chairman said, the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], $24 million is in this bill to give FDA 
the authority to enforce its regulations.
  I would remind the gentleman from Massachusetts and the proponents of 
this amendment that the FDA in the Fifth Circuit in the U.S. District 
Court in North Carolina has stayed all of the FDA regulations with the 
exception of carding children 27 and below at retail establishments. 
There is sufficient funds available for that.
  In addition to that, in 1992, this Congress passed the SAMSA 
regulations with HHS. They also are enforcing these regulations. So 
this money is absolutely not needed at this time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise against the Meehan 
amendment and the Hansen amendment. Mr. Chairman, certainly none of the 
arguments posed here can be objected to by anyone. No one wants 
children to smoke. As a matter of fact, I do not want adults to smoke. 
I am so strong in that that I quit myself. But the idea here is simply 
that we are moving the funding to the wrong area.
  It has been said that there is an additional $24 million in this 
program. I support that idea. The problem here is that we are affecting 
all of agriculture. We are affecting wheat and corn and soybeans and 
all other agricultural products. This is not just directed at tobacco. 
This is directed against crop insurance.
  This is the risk management tool, Mr. Chairman, that we talked about 
in the last amendment; here again, no one is opposed to increasing WIC. 
No one is opposed to increasing the battle against children smoking and 
for tobacco itself. But in this amendment, maybe mistakenly, we have 
impacted all of agriculture and, again, we are attacking a program that 
must stay in place for a whole industry, and that is agriculture.
  Please, I ask all of my colleagues, again, oppose the Hansen-Meehan 
amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to 
fully fund the FDA's tobacco initiative to enforce restrictions on the 
sale of tobacco to children. Thirty-three States have pledged to work 
hand in hand with the FDA to ensure that provisions of its tobacco 
initiative are fully enforced. This amendment is critical to ensuring 
our Nation's success in reducing youth access to tobacco.
  Cigarette smoking among high school seniors is at a 17-year high, and 
smoking among 8th and 10th graders has increased by more than 50 
percent since 1991. According to a University of Michigan study, an 
astonishing 18.6 percent of eighth graders smoke. And they are getting 
cigarettes from stores--on average, kids are able to buy tobacco 
products over-the-counter 67 percent of the time.
  I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to stop kids from 
smoking. Very few adult smokers picked up their habit after age 20. In 
fact, 9 percent of adult smokers started smoking before age 12, and 90 
percent started before age 18. Every day, approximately 3,000 young 
people begin smoking, and over half of them become addicted.
  Despite the fact it is against the law in all 50 States to sell 
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to minors, kids purchase an estimated 
$1.26 billion worth of tobacco products each year. The FDA's initiative 
will make it more difficult for kids to sustain their smoking habit by 
reducing their access. It will require retailers to conduct ID checks 
of all tobacco purchasers who appear to be under age 27. This may 
appear to be a pretty high age for an ID check, but teens--particularly 
older teens--are notorious for being able to make themselves look older 
and more sophisticated.
  There are other important reasons to stop kids from smoking--
including a finding that heavy teen smokers are far more likely than 
nonsmokers to use heroin or other illegal drugs. Young smokers are also 
susceptible to a host of other health problems, including decreased 
physical fitness, respiratory illnesses, early development of artery 
disease, and reduced lung development.
  The offset for this amendment, the Crop Insurance Sales Commission 
program, reimburses private insurance companies for expenses associated 
with selling and servicing crop insurance policies.
  The GAO has found many inappropriate expenses included in 
reimbursement rates, including funds to cover country club memberships, 
a $44,000 fishing trip to Canada, and tickets to sporting events--
including $18,000 for a baseball skybox rental.
  As a remedy, the GAO recommended a $152 million appropriation. Even 
if this amendment is adopted, the Insurance Sales Commission program 
will still be funded at $174 million--well above what GAO recommended.
  Passage of this amendment is critical to reducing teen access to 
tobacco. The price of our failure to do so will be millions of tobacco-
addicted adults, billions of dollars in lost productivity and health 
care costs, and unmeasurable pain and suffering. Let's cut our losses 
and support this amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Meehan-
Hanson amendment which would increase funding for the Food and Drug 
Administration [FDA] by $10 million. This money would be used for 
outreach efforts to educate businesses about their responsibilities 
regarding the sale of tobacco products to children.
  Yes, it is against the law to sell tobacco to children. 
Unfortunately, these laws are rarely enforced. A review of 13 studies 
of over-the-counter sales reveals that children and adolescents were 
able to successfully buy tobacco products 67 percent of the time. Young 
people purchase an estimated 1.26 billion dollars' worth of cigarettes 
and smokeless tobacco each year.
  The bill that is on the House floor does not adequately fund the 
FDA's initiative to reduce children's access to tobacco products. The 
FDA's tobacco initiative mandates that retailers must check the photo 
identification of individuals who want to buy cigarettes. Without full 
funding, the FDA will not be able to adequately enforce this crucial 
restriction on the sale of tobacco to children.
  Tobacco continues to be a major health problem in the United States. 
The American Heart Association emphasizes that:

     more people die each year in the United States from smoking 
     than from AIDs, alcohol, drug use, homicide, car accidents, 
     and fires combined.

  Tobacco use accounts for more than $68 billion in health care costs 
and lost productivity each year.
  Nearly all tobacco use begins in the teenage years. Adolescent 
smokers become adult smokers. The key to reducing the rate of disease 
resulting from tobacco use is to discourage young people from starting 
to use tobacco products.
  Mr. Chairman, we can no longer close our eyes to a product that 
brings into its deathly fold 3,000 children each day. Teenage smoking 
is a national health care crisis that can be curbed by fully funding 
the FDA's tobacco initiative.
  It is my understanding that, in order to pay for this increase in 
funds to the FDA, $14 million would be taken from the crop insurance 
sales commissions of the USDA's Risk Management Agency. Under this 
program, private insurance companies are reimbursed for expenses 
incurred in the process of providing crop insurance for Federal 
programs. I believe this is a reasonable offset because the bill 
provides $36 million more than was recommended in the President's 
budget for this program, which is funded at $188 million. I also 
understand that a GAO report has raised some concerns about this 
program. According to the GAO, in past years, some of the 
reimbursements have included expenses for a trip to Las Vegas, $22,000, 
rental of a skybox, $18,000, and fishing in Canada, $44,000.
  What kind of an America will we leave for our children if we do not 
take steps to prevent yet another generation from becoming addicted to 
tobacco? Providing the FDA with adequate funds to implement and enforce

[[Page H5680]]

their tobacco initiative will change for the better the landscape of 
smoking in the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Meehan-Hansen amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, with so many of our children 
that are 18 years old----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, emphasizing the facts of how 
many of our children are smoking, the inquiry is, Mr. Chairman, with so 
many of our children dying from tobacco, why this debate is limited to 
5 minutes? What are the rules and why are we limited to not allowing 
the 24 Members who want to speak on this amendment, why can they not 
speak on this amendment opposing death by cigarettes to children?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, why can we not speak beyond 
the 5 minutes or the 10 minutes allotted?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Meehan amendment to H.R. 2160, the Agriculture Appropriations Act of 
1998.
  This amendment would transfer $14 million of the excess funds over 
the Department's request for their Federal Crop Insurance Sales 
Commission Program to fully fund the Food and Drug Administration's 
tobacco initiative. This transfer of funds from the Federal Crop 
Insurance Sales Commission would leave that account with 114 percent 
over the President's request for that area.
  The Federal Crop Insurance Sales Commission Program reimburses 
private insurance companies for expenses associated with selling and 
servicing crop insurance policies. This amendment would leave $22 
million in funding over the President's request.
  According to the University of Texas-Houston School of Public Health 
study titled ``Why Kids Start to Smoke,'' the smoking prevalence rates 
for minorities in Texas are slightly higher than the national 
statistics according to Dr. Steven Kelder, assistant professor of 
behavioral sciences and principal investigator with the Southwest 
Center for Prevention Research at the university.
  According to Dr. Laura K. McCormick, smoking is clearly a danger to 
health, and the number of teenagers who do smoke is considerable.
  Tobacco use is a problem that starts with children. Almost 90 percent 
of adult smokers began smoking at or before age 18. Every day 3,000 
children and adolescents become regular smokers, 1,000 of whom will 
eventually die prematurely because of tobacco use. More than 5 million 
children under age 18 alive today will die from smoking-related disease 
unless current rates are reversed.
  Thirty-three State attorneys general have requested that the FDA 
receive full funding for the tobacco initiative to help their States 
fight to protect kids from tobacco. Today, in our Nation 4.5 million 
kids age 12 to 17 are current smokers, while smoking among high school 
seniors is at a 17-year high.
  Since 1991, the answer to the question, ``Have you smoked over the 
past month,'' the response among eighth graders and tenth graders has 
increased by almost 50 percent. If we do not act to stem the tide of 
teenage smokers more than 5 million children under age 18 alive today 
will die from smoking-related disease, unless current rates are 
reversed.
  This amendment will have no effect on individual farmers. It leaves 
the Federal Crop Insurance Sales Commission Program very well funded by 
$22 million more than USDA Secretary Glickman has indicated is needed 
to effectively fund the crop insurance program.
  The Food and Drug Administration will use the funds made available by 
this amendment to begin work through training programs for the half 
million retailers in this country who sell tobacco products regarding 
their responsibilities under the law regarding tobacco sales to minors.
  I thank Congressman Meehan for his leadership in bringing this 
amendment to the House for adoption to the Agriculture appropriation 
bill.
  I would like to encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The question is on the amendment offered by gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Meehan] will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              CORPORATIONS

       The following corporations and agencies are hereby 
     authorized to make expenditures, within the limits of funds 
     and borrowing authority available to each such corporation or 
     agency and in accord with law, and to make contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the 
     programs set forth in the budget for the current fiscal year 
     for such corporation or agency, except as hereinafter 
     provided.

                federal crop insurance corporation fund

       For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act, as amended, such sums as may be 
     necessary, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b).

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund


                 reimbursement for net realized losses

       For fiscal year 1998, such sums as may be necessary to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized 
     losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed (estimated to 
     be $783,507,000 in the President's fiscal year 1998 Budget 
     Request (H. Doc. 105-3)), but not to exceed $783,507,000, 
     pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 17, 1961, as 
     amended (15 U.S.C. 713a-11).


       operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management

       For fiscal year 1998, the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for expenses to comply 
     with the requirement of section 107(g) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as 
     amended, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 6001 of the Resource 
     Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6961: 
     Provided, That expenses shall be for operations and 
     maintenance costs only and that other hazardous waste 
     management costs shall be paid for by the USDA Hazardous 
     Waste Management appropriation in this Act.

                                TITLE II

                         CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest 
     Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
     $693,000.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service

                        conservation operations

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of 
     the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-590f) including 
     preparation of conservation plans and establishment of 
     measures to conserve soil and water (including farm 
     irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for 
     soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent 
     floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control 
     agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation 
     plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil; 
     dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water, 
     and interests therein for use in the plant materials program 
     by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to 
     exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 
     428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of 
     permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and 
     maintenance of aircraft, $610,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), of which not less than 
     $5,835,000 is for snow survey and water forecasting and not 
     less than $8,825,000 is for operation and establishment of 
     the plant materials centers: Provided, That appropriations 
     hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for 
     construction and improvement of buildings and public 
     improvements at plant materials centers, except that the cost 
     of alterations and improvements to other buildings and other 
     public improvements shall not exceed $250,000: Provided 
     further, That when buildings or other structures are erected 
     on non-Federal land, that the right to use such land is 
     obtained as provided in 7 U.S.C. 2250a: Provided further, 
     That this appropriation shall be available for technical 
     assistance and related expenses to carry out programs 
     authorized by section 202(c) of title II of the Colorado 
     River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, as amended (43 
     U.S.C. 1592(c)): Provided further, That no part of this 
     appropriation may be expended for soil and water conservation 
     operations under the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-
     590f) in demonstration projects: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation 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 $25,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided 
     further, That qualified local engineers may be temporarily 
     employed at per diem

[[Page H5681]]

     rates to perform the technical planning work of the Service 
     (16 U.S.C. 590e-2): Provided further, That the Secretary is 
     authorized to transfer ownership of land, buildings and 
     related improvements of the plant materials facilities 
     located at Bow, Washington to the Skagit Conservation 
     District.

                     watershed surveys and planning

       For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation, 
     and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, and 
     for small watershed investigations and planning, in 
     accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 
     Act approved August 4, 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-
     1009), $10,000,000: Provided, That this appropriation 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 $110,000 shall be available for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

               watershed and flood prevention operations

       For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures, 
     including but not limited to research, engineering 
     operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of 
     vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in 
     use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and 
     Flood Prevention Act approved August 4, 1954, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-1009), the provisions of the Act of 
     April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and in accordance with the 
     provisions of laws relating to the activities of the 
     Department, $101,036,000, to remain available until expended 
     (7 U.S.C. 2209b) of which not more than $50,000,000 shall be 
     available for technical assistance: Provided, That this 
     appropriation 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 $200,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $1,000,000 of this appropriation 
     is available to carry out the purposes of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205), as amended, 
     including cooperative efforts as contemplated by that Act to 
     relocate endangered or threatened species to other suitable 
     habitats as may be necessary to expedite project 
     construction.

                 resource conservation and development

       For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out 
     projects for resource conservation and development and for 
     sound land use pursuant to the provisions of section 32(e) of 
     title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, as amended 
     (7 U.S.C. 1010-1011; 76 Stat. 607), the Act of April 27, 1935 
     (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 
     (16 U.S.C. 3451-3461), $29,377,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That this appropriation 
     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 $50,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                      forestry incentives program

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to 
     carry out the program of forestry incentives, as authorized 
     in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2101), including technical assistance and related expenses, 
     $6,325,000, to remain available until expended, as authorized 
     by that Act.

              outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 2501 of the 
     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 2279), $2,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                               TITLE III

           RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Rural Development to administer programs 
     under the laws enacted by the Congress for the Rural Housing 
     Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the 
     Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture, 
     $588,000.

                         Rural Housing Service

              rural housing insurance fund program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing 
     Act of 1949, as amended, to be available from funds in the 
     rural housing insurance fund, as follows: $3,950,000,000 for 
     loans to section 502 borrowers, as determined by the 
     Secretary, of which $3,000,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized 
     guaranteed loans; $30,000,000 for section 504 housing repair 
     loans; $15,000,000 for section 514 farm labor housing; 
     $128,640,000 for section 515 rental housing; $600,000 for 
     section 524 site loans; $25,000,000 for credit sales of 
     acquired property; and $587,000 for section 523 self-help 
     housing land development loans.
       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: section 502 
     loans, $128,500,000, of which $6,900,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans; section 504 housing repair 
     loans, $10,300,000; section 514 farm labor housing, 
     $7,388,000; section 515 rental housing, $68,745,000; credit 
     sales of acquired property, $3,492,000; and section 523 self-
     help housing land development loans, $17,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $354,785,000, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Housing Service, Salaries and 
     Expenses.''


                    multi-family housing guarantees

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     guaranteed loans for the multi-family housing guarantee 
     program as authorized by section 538 of the Housing Act of 
     1949, as amended, $19,700,000.
       For the cost of guaranteed loans for the multi-family 
     housing guarantee program as authorized by section 538 of the 
     Housing Act of 1949, as amended, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $1,200,000.

                       rental assistance program

       For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed 
     pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or 
     agreements entered into in lieu of debt forgiveness or 
     payments for eligible households as authorized by section 
     502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, 
     $493,870,000; and in addition such sums as may be necessary, 
     as authorized by section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt 
     incurred prior to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the rental 
     assistance program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act: 
     Provided, That of this amount not more than $5,900,000 shall 
     be available for debt forgiveness or payments for eligible 
     households as authorized by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, 
     and not to exceed $10,000 per project for advances to 
     nonprofit organizations or public agencies to cover direct 
     costs (other than purchase price) incurred in purchasing 
     projects pursuant to section 502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: 
     Provided further, That agreements entered into or renewed 
     during fiscal year 1998 shall be funded for a five-year 
     period, although the life of any such agreement may be 
     extended to fully utilize amounts obligated.

                  mutual and self-help housing grants

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A) 
     of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $26,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).


                 rural community fire protection grants

       For grants pursuant to section 7 of the Cooperative 
     Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-313), 
     $2,000,000 to fund up to 50 percent of the cost of 
     organizing, training, and equipping rural volunteer fire 
     departments.

                    rural housing assistance program


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, agreements, 
     and grants, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 42 U.S.C. 1472, 
     1474, 1479, 1486, and 1490(a), except for sections 381E, 
     381H, and 381N of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act, $86,488,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     direct loans and loan guarantees for community facilities, 
     community facilities grant program, rural housing for 
     domestic farm labor grants, very low-income housing repair 
     grants, rural housing preservation grants, and compensation 
     for construction defects of the Rural Housing Service: 
     Provided, That the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     amounts appropriated shall be transferred to loan program and 
     grant accounts as determined by the Secretary: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed 
     $1,200,000 shall be available for the cost of direct loans, 
     loan guarantees, and grants to be made available for 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities as authorized by 
     Public Law 103-66: Provided further, That if such funds are 
     not obligated for empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities by June 30, 1998, they remain available for other 
     authorized purposes under this head.

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Rural Housing Service, 
     including administering the programs authorized by the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, 
     title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, and 
     cooperative agreements, $58,804,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944, and not to exceed $520,000 may be used for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                   Rural Business-Cooperative Service

              rural development loan fund program account


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

       For the cost of direct loans, $16,888,000, as authorized by 
     the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)): 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for 
     the principal amount of direct loans of $35,000,000: Provided 
     further, That through June 30, 1998, of the total amount 
     appropriated, $3,345,000 shall be available for the cost of 
     direct loans for empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities, as authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus 
     Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, to subsidize gross 
     obligations for the principal amount of direct loans, 
     $7,246,000.

[[Page H5682]]

       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan programs, $3,482,000 shall be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Business-
     Cooperative Service, Salaries and Expenses.''

            rural economic development loans program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized 
     under section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act, as 
     amended, for the purpose of promoting rural economic 
     development and job creation projects, $25,000,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of 
     modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, up to $5,978,000, to be 
     derived by transfer from interest on the cushion of credit 
     payments, as authorized by section 313 of the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, as amended, to remain available 
     until expended.


                  rural cooperative development grants

       For rural cooperative development grants authorized under 
     section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1932), $3,000,000, of 
     which up to $1,300,000 may be available for cooperative 
     agreements for appropriate technology transfer for rural 
     areas program.

             rural business-cooperative assistance program


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants, 
     as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1928, and 1932, except for 
     sections 381E, 381H, and 381N of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act, $51,400,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for direct loans and loan guarantees for business 
     and industry assistance and rural business enterprise grants 
     of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service: Provided, That the 
     cost of direct loans and loan guarantees shall be as defined 
     in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
     amended: Provided further, That $500,000 shall be available 
     for grants to qualified nonprofit organizations as authorized 
     under section 310B(c)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932): Provided further, That the 
     amounts appropriated shall be transferred to loan program and 
     grant accounts as determined by the Secretary: Provided 
     further, That, of the total amount appropriated, not to 
     exceed $148,000 shall be available for the cost of direct 
     loans, loan guarantees, and grants to be made available for 
     business and industry loans for empowerment zones and 
     enterprise communities as authorized by Public Law 103-66 and 
     rural development loans for empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities as authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1993: Provided further, That if such 
     funds are not obligated for empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities by June 30, 1998, they remain available for other 
     authorized purposes under this head.

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Rural Business-Cooperative 
     Service, including administering the programs authorized by 
     the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended; 
     section 1323 of the Food Security Act of 1985; the 
     Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926; for activities relating to 
     the marketing aspects of cooperatives, including economic 
     research findings, as authorized by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Act of 1946; for activities with institutions 
     concerning the development and operation of agricultural 
     cooperatives; and for cooperative agreements; $25,680,000: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944, and not to exceed $260,000 may be 
     used for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                        Rural Utilities Service

   rural electrification and telecommunication loans program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     935), shall be made as follows: 5 percent rural 
     electrification loans, $125,000,000; 5 percent rural 
     telecommunications loans, $75,000,000; cost of money rural 
     telecommunications loans, $300,000,000; municipal rate rural 
     electric loans, $400,000,000; and loans made pursuant to 
     section 306 of that Act, rural electric, $300,000,000 and 
     rural telecommunications, $120,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     935 and 936), as follows: cost of direct loans, $12,461,000; 
     cost of municipal rate loans, $16,880,000; cost of money 
     rural telecommunications loans, $60,000; cost of loans 
     guaranteed pursuant to section 306, $2,760,000: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding section 305(d)(2) of the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, borrower interest rates may 
     exceed 7 percent per year.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $34,398,000, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Utilities Service, Salaries and 
     Expenses.''

                  rural telephone bank program account

       The Rural Telephone Bank is hereby authorized to make such 
     expenditures, within the limits of funds available to such 
     corporation in accord with law, and to make such contracts 
     and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out its 
     authorized programs for the current fiscal year. During 
     fiscal year 1998 and within the resources and authority 
     available, gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans shall be $175,000,000.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct loans authorized by the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 935), 
     $3,710,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the loan programs, $3,000,000, which shall be transferred 
     to and merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Utilities 
     Service, Salaries and Expenses.''

               distance learning and medical link program

       For the cost of direct loans and grants, as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 950aaa et seq., as amended, $15,030,000, to remain 
     available until expended, to be available for loans and 
     grants for telemedicine and distance learning services in 
     rural areas: Provided, That the costs of direct loans shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974.

                   Rural Utilities Assistance Program


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants, 
     as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1928, and 1932, except for 
     sections 381E, 381H, and 381N of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act, $577,242,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants 
     for rural water and waste disposal, and solid waste 
     management grants of the Rural Utilities Service: Provided, 
     That the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, as amended: Provided further, That the amounts 
     appropriated shall be transferred to loan program and grant 
     accounts as determined by the Secretary: Provided further, 
     That through June 30, 1998, of the total amount appropriated, 
     $18,700,000 shall be available for the costs of direct loans, 
     loan guarantees, and grants to be made available for 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as authorized 
     by Public Law 103-66: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $18,700,000 shall be for 
     water and waste disposal systems to benefit the Colonias 
     along the United States/Mexico border, including grants 
     pursuant to section 306C of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act, as amended: Provided further, That of the 
     total amount appropriated, not to exceed $5,200,000 shall be 
     available for contracting with qualified national 
     organizations for a circuit rider program to provide 
     technical assistance for rural water systems: Provided 
     further, That an amount not less than that available in 
     fiscal year 1997 be set aside and made available for ongoing 
     technical assistance under sections 306(a)(14) (7 U.S.C. 
     1926) and 310(B)(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932): Provided further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated, not to exceed $8,750,000 shall 
     be for water and waste disposal systems pursuant to section 
     757 of Public Law 104-127.


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Rural Utilities Service, 
     including administering the programs authorized by the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, as amended, and the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, and for 
     cooperative agreements, $33,000,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944, and not to exceed $105,000 may be used for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109.
  Mr. SKEEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of the bill, through page 47, line 7, be considered 
as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE IV

                         DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and 
     Consumer Service, $454,000.

                        Child Nutrition Programs


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), except section 21, and 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), 
     except sections 17 and 21; $7,766,966,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 1999 of which $2,548,555,000 
     is hereby appropriated and $5,218,411,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from funds available under section 32 of the Act of 
     August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c): Provided, That none of the 
     funds made available

[[Page H5683]]

     under this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations: 
     Provided further, That up to $4,124,000 shall be available 
     for independent verification of school food service claims.

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
                                 (WIC)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the special 
     supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), 
     $3,924,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     1999: Provided, That none of the funds made available under 
     this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations: 
     Provided further, That up to $12,000,000 may be used to carry 
     out the farmers' market nutrition program from any funds not 
     needed to maintain current caseload levels: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding sections 17 (g), (h) and (i) of such 
     Act, the Secretary shall adjust fiscal year 1998 State 
     allocations to reflect food funds available to the State from 
     fiscal year 1997 under section 17(i)(3)(A)(ii) and 
     17(i)(3)(D): Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     allocate funds recovered from fiscal year 1997 first to 
     States to maintain stability funding levels, as defined by 
     regulations promulgated under section 17(g), and then to give 
     first priority for the allocation of any remaining funds to 
     States whose funding is less than their fair share of funds, 
     as defined by regulations promulgated under section 17(g): 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this 
     account shall be available for the purchase of infant formula 
     except in accordance with the cost containment and 
     competitive bidding requirements specified in section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966: Provided further, That State 
     agencies required to procure infant formula using a 
     competitive bidding system may use funds appropriated by this 
     Act to purchase infant formula under a cost containment 
     contract entered into after September 30, 1996 only if the 
     contract was awarded to the bidder offering the lowest net 
     price, as defined by section 17(b)(20) of the Child Nutrition 
     Act of 1966, unless the State agency demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary that the weighted average 
     retail price for different brands of infant formula in the 
     State does not vary by more than five percent.


                           food stamp program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $25,140,479,000, to remain available 
     through September 30, 1998, in accordance with section 18(a) 
     of the Food Stamp Act: Provided, That $100,000,000 for the 
     foregoing amount shall be placed in reserve for use only in 
     such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to 
     carry out program operations: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds made available under this heading shall be used for 
     studies and evaluations: Provided further, That funds 
     provided herein shall be expended in accordance with section 
     16 of the food Stamp Act: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation shall be subject to any work registration or 
     workforce requirements as may be required by law: Provided 
     further, That $1,204,000,000 of the foregoing amount shall be 
     available for nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico as 
     authorized by 7 U.S.C. 2028: Provided further, That 
     $100,000,000 of the foregoing amount shall be available to 
     carry out the Emergency Food Assistance Program as authorized 
     by section 27 of the Food Stamp Act.


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mrs. Clayton

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mrs. Clayton:
       Page 49, line 21, insert ``(increased by $2,478,000,000)'' 
     after the first dollar figure.
       Page 49, at the end of line 14, add the following:
     Each amount otherwise appropriated in this Act (other than 
     this paragraph) is hereby reduced by 5 percent.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 193, the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
[Mrs. Clayton] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will each 
control 5 minutes.
  The gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] is recognized.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases the funding for food stamps by 
$2.4 billion in fiscal year 1998. The increase will result in food 
stamps being funded at the same level as in fiscal year 1997. This 
amendment is paid for, Mr. Chairman, by an across-the-board decrease of 
5 percent on all other accounts, mandatory and discretionary.
  Mr. Chairman, last Congress we agreed that our welfare system needed 
to be reformed, and we were right, but reforms should be directed to 
moving people out of poverty, not into poverty. Nutrition programs are 
essential for the well-being of millions of our citizens: the 
disadvantaged, our children, the elderly and the disabled.
  These are groups of people who, in many instances, cannot provide for 
themselves and need assistance for their basic existence. They do not 
ask for much, just a little help in sustaining them through the day, to 
keep their children alert in class, or to help others be productive on 
their jobs or as they seek and search for jobs.
  Nutrition programs in many cases provide the only nutritious meals 
that many of our Nation's poor receive on a daily basis. Many of those 
I am speaking about, far too many, are working people, working 
families. These working Americans are struggling to make ends meet and 
still cannot afford to feed their families.
  One-fifth of families receiving food stamps are working families who 
have a gross income below the poverty level. Of the 27 million people 
served by the food stamp program, over half, 51 percent, are children; 
7 percent are elderly.
  The program allows only 75 cents per person per meal. When was the 
last time any of us had to exist off of 75 cents per meal?
  I am concerned that in our zeal to balance the budget, we are failing 
to balance our priorities. That failure is demonstrated in a telephone 
call to my office recently. It was from a woman who, having labored for 
a lifetime, now lives on her Social Security of $6,500 a year.
  Her Social Security payment was increased by $16. Because of that 
increase, her food stamp allotment was lowered by $7. Her State then 
made adjustments in their Medicaid Program. Two types of needed 
medication that had cost her $1 each before, now cost her a total of 
$100. The $16 increase cost her a $107 cut in her already paltry 
income.
  We may be gliding toward a balanced budget, Mr. Chairman, but many of 
our citizens are sliding rapidly to the bottom, and this Congress has 
an obligation to understand what we are doing. The best efforts of the 
four Presidents and thousands of people who were in Philadelphia 
recently talking about voluntarism could not make up the difference 
required in the food banks and shelters if indeed we do not make that 
money available.
  It is time for us to stop picking on the poor, Mr. Chairman. It is 
time for us to understand that we, too, have an obligation to them. 
Hunger has a cure, and Congress is part of that remedy. I urge my 
colleagues to consider the needs of the poor and those who receive food 
stamps.
  Mr. Chairman, I had wanted to make that point so Congress is aware of 
our responsibility through the food stamp program and how we had been 
serving the food stamp program and what those cuts will mean to 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, because I know I will have a point of order, I will not 
call for a vote, and I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      Commodity Assistance Program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the commodity 
     supplemental food program as authorized by section 4(a) of 
     the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 
     612c (note) and provide administrative expenses pursuant to 
     section 204 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, 
     $141,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 1999: 
     Provided, That none of these funds shall be available to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities 
     donated to the program.


              food donations programs for selected groups

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 4(a) of the 
     Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 
     612c (note)), and section 311 of the Older Americans Act of 
     1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3030a), $141,165,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 1999.


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 51, line 6, insert after the dollar amount 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

[[Page H5684]]

       Page 56, line 15, insert after the second dollar amount 
     ``(reduced by $5,470,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] seek time in 
opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, yes, I stand in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Lobiondo] to speak on this bipartisan amendment 
which increases funding for Meals on Wheels.
  Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] for his cooperation and work on this very 
important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in my district the Meals on Wheels programs in 
Cumberland, Gloucester, Cape May, Atlantic, Burlington and Salem 
Counties consistently provide a valuable humanitarian service to 
thousands of seniors. Typically, the recipients of this service are 
individuals who are unable to leave their homes for a variety of 
reasons, sometimes due to chronic illness, sometimes because of a 
handicap, sometimes because of a temporary physical ailment.
  At a cost of between $5 and $6 per meal per day, county employees and 
volunteers, I may stress a large number of volunteers, deliver a meal 
on weekdays and sometimes on weekends to the doorsteps of needy senior 
citizens. These meals are hot, well planned and nutritionally balanced.
  More importantly, Mr. Chairman, these programs safeguard the well-
being of local seniors. For instance, volunteers delivering meals can 
check to see if the water is running. They can check to see, during 
this summertime when the temperatures are soaring, if air conditioning 
is working, if the seniors need any help. Library books are often 
delivered along with the meals. And an ambulance can be sent or help 
can be summoned if in fact the volunteer determines there is a need.
  I have personally participated in delivering Meals on Wheels with 
volunteers in the past, and can tell my colleagues from firsthand 
experience that this is a program that makes a positive difference to 
elderly Americans.
  As the gentleman from Vermont will point out, Meals on Wheels is also 
an efficient Federal program. For every $1 spent, $3 are saved on other 
senior programs like Medicare and Medicaid. And as we struggle to find 
those dollars, I think it is important to note how cost-effective these 
are. There are not many programs that can match this fiscal rate of 
success.
  Clearly, Mr. Chairman, Meals on Wheels is the kind of successful 
Federal and local partnership that Congress should be encouraging and 
looking to do more with. It strengthens the support of family, friends 
and neighbors. It encourages volunteerism. It is cost-effective.
  And yet, despite all these positive aspects, the Meals on Wheels 
program suffers from a chronic shortage of funding. In fact, this 
problem is starting to have a tangible effect on the local level.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  This amendment would reduce the funding for the Food and Drug 
Administration and increase funding for the elderly feeding program. 
And let me say to my colleagues, we have funded the elderly feeding 
program at the President's budget request and the same level as last 
year.
  Funding for the operation of this program, also known as Meals on 
Wheels, is actually contained in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. The 
program is administered through the Department of Aging, not USDA. USDA 
has no say or control over the program. All USDA does is provide a cash 
reimbursement for each meal served. Increasing the funding for this 
program in this bill will not increase participation in the program. 
The funding level provided in the bill supports the President's 
request.
  We all know how important FDA is to the health and safety of this 
country. We have had hundreds of letters sent to us asking that we 
increase FDA's funding for food safety and tobacco regulation 
enforcement. We have done the best we could to meet everyone's needs. 
The gentleman's amendment reduces funding for FDA, which will 
negatively impact these and other safety programs.
  And let me remind my colleagues that the elderly feeding program is 
not authorized, but the committee felt strong enough to continue its 
funding and it is funded at the level the President says it needs.
  I ask that the Members oppose this amendment, and ask the gentleman 
from Vermont to work with the authorizing committee to get this program 
reauthorized.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  What we are trying to do in a bipartisan way is to provide $5 million 
to some of the weakest and most vulnerable people in this country, 
senior citizens who are in need of nutrition but are too weak to get 
out of their own homes to get it, and we are taking that money from the 
salary and expense account of the FDA. I think it is the proper thing 
to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Vermont for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, no person in this country should go hungry. For years, 
Congress has shown a bipartisan commitment to ensuring adequate 
nutrition for our citizens, especially children and the elderly. We 
provide assistance to those in need through food stamps and other 
Federal nutrition programs, yet 41 percent of the programs still have a 
waiting list. These are real people.
  Now, $5 million may sound like too much money to some here, it may 
sound like too little to make a difference to others, but every day 
millions of people depend on senior nutrition programs.

                              {time}  1230

  According to studies, this $5 million will save $15 million in 
Medicare, Medicaid, VA health cost because undernourished people are 
less healthy.
  I urge the Members to support this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, one of my highest priorities since coming to Congress 
has been to ensure that our Nation's elderly are able to live with 
dignity. One can judge the humanity of any society by how it treats its 
very young, and its very old, the most vulnerable in our society.
  This is personal to me. My own mother, who until her death at the age 
of 94, 2 years ago, was able to remain in our own family home only 
because of the Meals on Wheels Program. And because of that, she lived 
with dignity and with peace of mind. I think we should treat all the 
people of America as I would want my mother treated. This is a very 
important program. It is fiscally and morally sound.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield all of 15 seconds to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this. This 
is the better public-private partnership I am aware of. Meals on Wheels 
helps seniors in every State of the Union. We must restore half the cut 
from last year. Let us support the Sanders-LoBiondo amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would just conclude and suggest that

[[Page H5685]]

last year there was a cut in this program. We are trying to restore 
half of the cut to the weakest and most vulnerable people in this 
country. It is the right thing to do. It is a bipartisan effort. I urge 
the Members to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, the elderly nutrition programs funded in this bill, 
which include Meals on Wheels and congregate meals are excellent 
examples of good government and common sense, as well as Federal-State-
local and public-private partnerships. This is exactly the sort of 
senior citizen program we should be funding. Therefore, I am delighted 
to be joined by Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Ney, Mrs. Thurman, Mr. 
Fox, and many more of our colleagues in offering a compromise amendment 
to increase funding for these programs by $5 million, making up half of 
the $10 million cut made last year.
  Mr. Chairman, across America today, about 6 million hot Meals on 
Wheels have been served to senior citizens who do not have the capacity 
to leave their homes, and another 6 million hot meals have been served 
to lower-income senior citizens at senior centers and other community 
locations through the congregate program.
  Mr. Chairman, this program is terribly important to millions of 
Americans. For many recipients of Meals on Wheels, the driver who 
delivers their meals may be their only visitor, their only contact with 
the world, in a given day. The Urban Institute recently estimated that 
as many as 4.9 million seniors--about 16 percent of the population aged 
60 and older--are either hungry or malnourished. According to studies 
from the University of Florida, 89 percent of Meals on Wheels 
recipients are at moderate to high risk for malnutrition. Meals on 
Wheels and congregate meals help these Americans stay healthy. Yet, 41 
percent of Meals on Wheels programs nationwide have waiting lists 
today--lists of senior citizens who go hungry because we are not 
funding this program at an appropriate level.
  Let me also point out that today in America, 4 million seniors live 
in poverty, and another 16 million are near poverty. Half of our senior 
citizens in this country live on incomes of $15,000 or less per year.
  As Mathematica Policy Research found last year, the senior nutrition 
programs are well-targeted at poor elderly Americans. The average 
beneficiary of these programs is 77 years old, and 90 percent of 
beneficiaries live below 200 percent of poverty; about 40 percent have 
subpoverty incomes.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell you about how one of 
my constituents' lives was saved by a Meals on Wheels driver. On March 
25 of this year, my constituent Cecil Utley of Barre, VT, fell and 
broke his hip. Unable to move, he lay on his floor for 5 hours until 
David Stevens, a Meals on Wheels driver for the Central Vermont Council 
on Aging, was troubled that Mr. Utley did not answer his door. He had 
another Council on Aging worker, Kathy Paquet, try to reach Mr. Utley 
by phone, and when they failed they obtained help from a neighbor who 
had a key to Mr. Utley's house. They found him barely conscious and 
called an ambulance. I am pleased to report that Mr. Utley is now doing 
well in his recovery.

  As his son Gayle wrote to the program, ``Without your help and 
concern, my father would probably not have survived this accident. You 
* * * will always be remembered fondly by our family. Keep up the great 
work.''
  Mr. Chairman, this program not only makes good social policy sense, 
it also makes excellent fiscal policy sense. Every $1 spent on these 
senior nutrition programs saves $3 in Federal Medicare, Medicaid, and 
veterans' health care costs since malnourished patients stay in the 
hospital nearly twice as long a well-nourished seniors, costing $2,000 
to $10,000 more per stay.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a modest, compromise amendment. Last year, the 
elderly nutrition programs in this bill were cut by $10 million, from 
$150 to $140 million. In my view, that was a penny-wise, pound-foolish 
cut to make. Given inflation and the aging of our population, funding 
for these programs is not keeping pace with either the rising cost of 
food or the increase in Meals on Wheels customers. Further, when 
Congress reauthorized the Older Americans Act in 1992, it said the per-
meal reimbursement rate of these programs should not fall below 61 
cents. Unfortunately, the rate has fallen to an estimated 58.5 cents 
per meal this year, and will fall further if our amendment is not 
adopted.
  This amendment is fully paid for with a modest, 0.6 percent cut in 
the FDA through its salary and expenses account. I am not here to bash 
the FDA or its hard-working staff, and it is not my intent to cut food 
safety initiatives or tobacco control enforcement activities with this 
amendment, but I do believe this $5 million will better serve the 
country if it is spent on hot meals for homebound senior citizens 
rather than administrative expenses at FDA.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
LoBiondo amendment to add $5 million in appropriations for the 
extremely successful Meals on Wheels Program.
  Because of this Federal-State-local program, many home-bound senior 
citizens in my district are able to receive at least one nutritious 
meal daily. Because many seniors on this program have disabilities, the 
$3 meals provided by this program are especially critical to seniors on 
a fixed income in Florida, who live alone or do not have anyone to care 
for them.
  As the Appropriations Committee's base bill essentially freezes 
fiscal year 1998 funding at the fiscal year 1997 level, this small 
increase in funding is very important to serve the growing number of 
elderly people who qualify for the program and to reduce the number of 
disabled who are being placed on waiting lists. I commend my colleague 
from New Jersey for advancing this meritorious amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Meehan

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Meehan] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 248, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 309]

                               AYES--177

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cook
     Coyne
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Yates

                               NOES--248

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte

[[Page H5686]]


     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryun
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barton
     Dingell
     Greenwood
     Hastert
     Livingston
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Stark
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1252

  Messrs. CONDIT, SNYDER and STOKES and Ms. DANNER changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CLAY, GALLEGLY, PAPPAS, SERRANO, RIGGS and BACHUS changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      food program administration

       For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic food 
     programs funded under this Act, $104,128,000, of which 
     $5,000,000 shall be available only for simplifying 
     procedures, reducing overhead costs, tightening regulations, 
     improving food stamp coupon handling, and assistance in the 
     prevention, identification, and prosecution of fraud and 
     other violations of law: Provided, That this appropriation 
     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 $150,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                                TITLE V

                FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

         Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service, 
     including carrying out title VI of the Agricultural Act of 
     1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development 
     activities abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to 
     coordinate and integrate activities of the Department in 
     connection with foreign agricultural work, including not to 
     exceed $128,000 for representation allowances and for 
     expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act approved August 3, 
     1956 (U.S.C. 1766), $135,561,000, of which $3,231,000 may be 
     transferred from the Export Loan Program account in this Act, 
     and $1,035,000 may be transferred from the Public Law 480 
     program account in this Act: Provided, That the Service may 
     utilize advances of funds, or reimburse this appropriation 
     for expenditures made on behalf of Federal agencies, public 
     and private organizations and institutions under agreements 
     executed pursuant to the agricultural food production 
     assistance programs (7 U.S.C. 1736) and the foreign 
     assistance programs of the International Development 
     Cooperation Administration (22 U.S.C. 2392).
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
     products.


               public law 480 program and grant accounts

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise 
     recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including 
     interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1691, 1701-
     1715, 1721-1726, 1727-1727f, 1731-1736g), as follows: (1) 
     $225,798,000 for Public Law 480 title I credit, including 
     Food for Progress programs; (2) $12,250,000 is hereby 
     appropriated for ocean freight differential costs for the 
     shipment of agricultural commodities pursuant to title I of 
     said Act and the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as amended; 
     (3) $837,000,000 is hereby appropriated for commodities 
     supplied in connection with dispositions abroad pursuant to 
     title II of said Act; and (4) $30,000,000 is hereby 
     appropriated for commodities supplied in connection with 
     dispositions abroad pursuant to title III of said Act: 
     Provided, That not to exceed 15 percent of the funds made 
     available to carry out any title of said Act may be used to 
     carry out any other title of said Act: Provided further, That 
     such sums shall remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b).
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of direct credit agreements 
     as authorized by the Agricultural Trade Development and 
     Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, and the Food for Progress 
     Act of 1985, as amended, including the cost of modifying 
     credit agreements under said Act, $175,738,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     Public Law 480 title I credit program, and the Food for 
     Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to the extent funds 
     appropriated for Public Law 480 are utilized, $1,780,000.

       commodity credit corporation export loans program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation's export guarantee program, GSM 102 and 
     GSM 103, $3,820,000; to cover common overhead expenses as 
     permitted by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     Charter Act and in conformity with the Federal Credit Reform 
     Act of 1990, of which not to exceed $3,231,000 may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for the 
     salaries and expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service, 
     and of which not to exceed $589,000 may be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for the salaries and expenses 
     of the Farm Service Agency.


                             export credit

       The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available not 
     less than $5,500,000,000 in credit guarantees under its 
     export credit guarantee program extended to finance the 
     export sales of United States agricultural commodities and 
     the products thereof, as authorized by section 202 (a) and 
     (b) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641).


                     emerging-markets export credit

       The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available not 
     less than $200,000,000 in credit guarantees under its export 
     guarantee program for credit expended to finance the export 
     sales of United States agricultural commodities and the 
     products thereof to emerging markets, as authorized by 
     section 1542 of Public Law 101-624 (7 U.S.C. 5622 note).

                                TITLE VI

           RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration, 
     including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for 
     rental of special purpose space in the District of Columbia 
     or elsewhere; and for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the 
     Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's 
     certificate, not to exceed $25,000; $857,971,000: Provided, 
     That none of these funds shall be used to develop, establish, 
     or operate any program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 
     9701.
       In addition to the foregoing amount, not to exceed 
     $91,204,000 in fees pursuant to section 736 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act may be collected and credited to 
     this appropriation and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That fees derived from applications 
     received during fiscal year 1998 shall be subject to the 
     fiscal year 1998 limitation.
       In addition, fees pursuant to section 354 of the Public 
     Health Service Act may be credited to this account, to remain 
     available until expended.
       In addition, fees pursuant to section 801 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act may be credited to this account, 
     to remain available until expended.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of 
order against the language in title VI of the Agricultural 
Appropriations Act for the Fiscal Year 1998 on page 56 of the bill, 
lines 18 through 24, based on the ground that this provision 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, in violation of rule 
XXI, clause 2 of the Rules of the House.
  The Prescription Drug User Fee Act, an act within the jurisdiction of 
the Committee of Commerce, authorizes the collection of user fees. 
However, this authority expires at the end of the fiscal year 1997. 
This provision of H.R.

[[Page H5687]]

2160 would authorize the collection and expenditure of these user fees 
beyond the year 1997. Therefore, I make a point of order against the 
language because it constitutes legislative language in an 
appropriations measure in violation of rule XXI, clause 2.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  As argued by the gentleman from North Carolina, the unprotected 
language on page 56 effectively would extend statutory authority that 
would otherwise expire. The language therefore constitutes legislation 
in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI. The point of order is 
sustained and the unprotected paragraph on page 56 is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of 
     or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not 
     otherwise provided, $21,350,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).

                         rental payments (fda)


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and 
     Drug Administration which are included in this Act, 
     $46,294,000: Provided, That in the event the Food and Drug 
     Administration should require modification of space needs, a 
     share of the salaries and expenses appropriation may be 
     transferred to this appropriation, or a share of this 
     appropriation may be transferred to the salaries and expenses 
     appropriation, but such transfers shall not exceed 5 percent 
     of the funds made available for rental payments (FDA) to or 
     from this account.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                      Financial Management Service

  Payments to the Farm Credit System Financial Assistance Corporation

       For necessary payments to the Farm Credit System Financial 
     Assistance Corporation by the Secretary of the Treasury, as 
     authorized by section 6.28(c) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, 
     as amended, for reimbursement of interest expenses incurred 
     by the Financial Assistance Corporation on obligations issued 
     through 1994, as authorized, $7,728,000.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), 
     including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) in the 
     District of Columbia and elsewhere; and not to exceed $25,000 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; $57,101,000, including 
     not to exceed $1,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided, That the Commission is 
     authorized to charge reasonable fees to attendees of 
     Commission sponsored educational events and symposia to cover 
     the Commission's costs of providing those events and 
     symposia, and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, said fees shall 
     be credited to this account, to be available without further 
     appropriation.

                       FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $34,423,000 (from assessments collected from 
     farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural 
     Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current 
     fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under 
     12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not 
     apply to expenses associated with receiverships.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law, 
     appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of 
     Agriculture for the fiscal year 1998 under this Act shall be 
     available for the purchase, in addition to those specifically 
     provided for, of not to exceed 394 passenger motor vehicles, 
     of which 391 shall be for replacement only, and for the hire 
     of such vehicles.
       Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of 
     Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances 
     therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 703. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of 
     the Department of Agriculture in this Act for research and 
     service work authorized by the Acts of August 14, 1946, and 
     July 28, 1954 (7 U.S.C. 427, 1621-1629), and by chapter 63 of 
     title 31, United States Code, shall be available for 
     contracting in accordance with said Acts and chapter.
       Sec. 704. The cumulative total of transfers to the Working 
     Capital Fund for the purpose of accumulating growth capital 
     for data services and National Finance Center operations 
     shall not exceed $2,000,000: Provided, That no funds in this 
     Act appropriated to an agency of the Department shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the approval 
     of the agency administrator.
       Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the 
     following appropriation items in this Act shall remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Animal and Plant 
     Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund to meet 
     emergency conditions, fruit fly program, and integrated 
     systems acquisition project; Farm Service Agency, salaries 
     and expenses funds made available to county committees; and 
     Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income country training 
     program.
       New obligational authority for the boll weevil program; up 
     to 10 percent of the screwworm program of the Animal and 
     Plant Health Inspection Service; Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service, field automation and information management project; 
     funds appropriated for rental payments; funds for the Native 
     American Institutions Endowment Fund in the Cooperative State 
     Research, Education, and Extension Service; and funds for the 
     competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), shall remain 
     available until expended.
       Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations 
     available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall 
     be available to provide appropriate orientation and language 
     training pursuant to Public Law 94-449.
       Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to 
     pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements 
     or similar arrangements between the United States Department 
     of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 
     percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the 
     purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out 
     programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This 
     does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on 
     grants and contracts with such institutions when such 
     indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all 
     agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act.
       Sec. 709. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     commodities acquired by the Department in connection with 
     Commodity Credit Corporation and section 32 price support 
     operations may be used, as authorized by law (15 U.S.C. 714c 
     and 7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide commodities to individuals in 
     cases of hardship as determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to reimburse the General Services Administration for payment 
     of space rental and related costs in excess of the amounts 
     specified in this Act; nor shall this or any other provision 
     of law require a reduction in the level of rental space or 
     services below that of fiscal year 1997 or prohibit an 
     expansion of rental space or services with the use of funds 
     otherwise appropriated in this Act. Further, no agency of the 
     Department of Agriculture, from funds otherwise available, 
     shall reimburse the General Services Administration for 
     payment of space rental and related costs provided to such 
     agency at a percentage rate which is greater than is 
     available in the case of funds appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 711. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of 
     other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such 
     space will be jointly occupied.
       Sec. 712. With the exception of grants awarded under the 
     Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, Public Law 
     97-219, as amended (15 U.S.C. 638), none of the funds in this 
     Act shall be available to pay indirect costs on research 
     grants awarded competitively by the Cooperative State 
     Research, Education, and Extension Service that exceed 14 
     percent of total Federal funds provided under each award.
       Sec. 713. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, 
     all loan levels provided of this Act shall be considered 
     estimates, not limitations.
       Sec. 714. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture 
     for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in 
     fiscal year 1998 shall remain available until expended to 
     cover obligations made in fiscal year 1998 for the following 
     accounts: the rural development loan fund program account; 
     the Rural Telephone Bank program account; the rural 
     electrification and telecommunications loans program account; 
     and the rural economic development loans program account.
       Sec. 715. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1998 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 716. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act 
     of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the 
     ``Buy American Act'').
       (b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
        (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products.
        (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the

[[Page H5688]]

     statement made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
        (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 717. Notwithstanding the Federal Grant and Cooperative 
     Agreement Act, marketing services of the Agricultural 
     Marketing Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service may use cooperative agreements to reflect a 
     relationship between the Agricultural Marketing Service or 
     the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and a State or 
     Cooperator to carry out agricultural marketing programs or to 
     carry out programs to protect the Nation's animal and plant 
     resources.
       Sec. 718. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     retire more than 5 percent of the Class A stock of the Rural 
     Telephone Bank or to maintain any account or subaccount 
     within the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank the 
     creation of which has not specifically been authorized by 
     statute: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used to transfer to the Treasury 
     or to the Federal Financing Bank any unobligated balance of 
     the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account which 
     is in excess of current requirements and such balance shall 
     receive interest as set forth for financial accounts in 
     section 505(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
       Sec. 719. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide assistance to, or to pay the salaries of 
     personnel who carry out a market promotion/market access 
     program pursuant to section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act 
     of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) that provides assistance to the 
     United States Mink Export Development Council or any mink 
     industry trade association.
       Sec. 720. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more 
     than $1,000,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of 
     activities related to all advisory committees, panels, 
     commissions, and task forces of the Department of Agriculture 
     except for panels used to comply with negotiated rule makings 
     and panels used to evaluate competitively awarded grants.
       Sec. 721. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel who carry out an export enhancement 
     program if the aggregate amount of funds and/or commodities 
     under such program exceeds $205,000,000.
       Sec. 722. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may 
     be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by 
     this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for 
     more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or 
     office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office 
     for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of 
     assignment.
       Sec. 723. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Agriculture shall be used to 
     transmit or otherwise make available to any non-Department of 
     Agriculture employee questions or responses to questions that 
     are a result of information requested for the appropriations 
     hearing process.
       Sec. 724. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be expended or obligated to fund 
     the activities of the Western Director and Special Assistant 
     to the Secretary within the Office of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture or any similar position.
       Sec. 725. None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Agriculture by this Act may be used to acquire 
     new information technology systems or significant upgrades, 
     as determined by the Office of the Chief Information Officer, 
     without the approval of the Chief Information Officer and the 
     concurrence of the Executive Information Technology 
     Investment Review Board.
       Sec. 726. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     fund the immediate office of the Deputy and Assistant Deputy 
     Administrator for Farm Programs within the Farm Service 
     Agency.
       Sec. 727. Nonrural Area.--The last sentence of section 520 
     of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490) is amended by 
     inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, and 
     the City of Galt, California, shall not be considered rural 
     or a rural area for purposes of this title''.

  Mr. SKEEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of the bill through page 68, line 16, be considered 
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against section 727 as constituting legislation on an appropriations 
bill in violation of House rule XXI, clause 2(b). It amends section 520 
of the Housing Act of 1949 concerning the definition of rural areas for 
the purposes of providing USDA funds.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member in addition seek to address the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The unprotected general provision in section 727 of the bill proposes 
a direct change in the Housing Act of 1949. The provision is therefore 
legislation in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI. The point of order 
is sustained and section 727 is stricken from the bill.


               Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt

  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Nethercutt: Strike section 
     726 (page 68, lines 8 through 11), regarding limitation on 
     the use of funds for immediate office of the Deputy and 
     Assistant Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs within 
     the Farm Service Agency.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt] and a Member opposed will each control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to join in the offering of this amendment with 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], who authored this amendment 
initially, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley], in restoring 
the funding for two particular offices within the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture.
  Incidentally, I had earlier in the full committee proposed and had 
adopted by the full committee an amendment which struck funding for the 
Deputy and the Assistant Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs within 
the Farm Service Agency. I proposed that amendment and argued in favor 
of it and was successful in getting it put into this bill because of my 
dissatisfaction, and others within my State, with the way the 
Conservation Reserve Program was administered by this office, or these 
offices, that we were seeking to grab the attention of.

                              {time}  1300

  In the last signup there was acreage across the country earlier this 
spring permitted to be enrolled in the conservation reserve program, 
which is a very good program that preserves highly erodible land and 
involves the farm service agency and the USDA in making sure that 
highly erodible land is preserved. In my State, relative to every other 
State in the country that had enrollments, my State received 21 percent 
of those acres that were sought to be enrolled were enrolled. That is 
compared to my neighboring States of Oregon and Idaho which had about 
80 percent that property that was sought to be enrolled enrolled, and 
there were problems in the administration of this program around the 
country and other States as well, but it has been dissatisfactory to 
the members of the minority as well as members of the majority.
  So my efforts in the full committee were to bring attention to what 
we expect to have as legislators, the fair administration of a program 
that is good for the country, and I had not felt that our State was 
treated fairly. So I looked for many options and found that this was 
perhaps the only option that we had at the time and wanting to make 
sure that there is a fair administration of the conservation reserve 
program for all States, not the least of which is my own.
  After conferring with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], 
conferring with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley], and having 
several good conversations with the Secretary of Agriculture this week 
and previously, it was my judgment that based on assurances that we 
received that there is going to be fair treatment of all States

[[Page H5689]]

in the next signup, which we expect to be September, not the least 
again of which is my own State, and understanding that the Congress and 
Members of Congress who are in farm-affected States will have the 
ability to talk with the Secretary and the agency and have input as to 
a fair signup ratio so that we do not have these terrible disparities 
that in my opinion are very unfair to my own State and others, I felt 
it was appropriate that at this time I join with the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr.  Stenholm] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley] 
and others who objected to my approach and the tactics we used to draw 
attention to this disparity, that we go ahead and do this now and that 
we allow this bill to proceed unencumbered.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Secretary is in my State today 
meeting with our farmers, addressing their concerns, and I think there 
is more to do. We need to make sure that the farmers from the districts 
of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dooley] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] 
and other farmers, Members who represent farmers, have their needs met 
so that there is a fair administration of this program. The bureaucracy 
sometimes gets out of control and is unwilling to be fair and unwilling 
to change its mind, I shall say more accurately. But nevertheless, 
Richard Neumann, who is the deputy administrator for farm programs, I 
believe is a fine person, and understanding a little more about this 
amendment, my sense is that he was not involved in this decision or 
what I perceive to be a failure on the part of the Department to 
correct the mistake. So I have since learned that he is a fine person 
and a high-quality administrator. But I think there has to be more work 
done at the assistant deputy administrator's office. I know these 
Federal employees are trying their best in this very difficult bill to 
implement, but, by golly, I think that the rest of us in Congress and 
people who care about farmers and agriculture have the right to expect 
high standards and high responsibility on the part of all Federal 
agencies.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say to the gentleman how 
impressed I am and our Members are on the manner in which you conducted 
yourself on this issue. I think the citizens of the State of Washington 
are extremely well represented, and I want to thank the gentleman for 
the manner in which he has operated in order to bring his concerns to 
the Department.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur] and cosponsors of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  If not, the question is the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Wynn

  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 35 offered by Mr. Wynn:
       On page 68, after line 16, add the following new section:
       ``Sec.   . For an additional amount for the purposes 
     provided for under the heading `Departmental Administration' 
     in Title I of this Act, $1,500,000, and the amount provided 
     under `National Agricultural Statistics Service' is hereby 
     reduced by $1,500,000.' ''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Wynn] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am delighted to be offering this amendment this afternoon along 
with my colleague the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] 
and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Hilliard]. I am also pleased to 
have been able to work with the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen]. I want to thank him for his cooperation in 
helping me with this amendment.
  This is a very simple amendment. It seeks to add $1.5 million to the 
Department of Agriculture's civil rights division. The purpose of this 
amendment and these additional funds is basically to assist the civil 
rights division in addressing its backlog of equal opportunity claims.
  Many of us on both sides of the aisle have said it is absolutely 
important that we address the problem of discrimination with our 
existing EEO laws. These additional funds will enable us to do that in 
an efficient way. The Secretary has said that with additional funds he 
can address the backlog with additional investigators and we can begin 
to move forward in resolving these complaints.
  We also have concerns about the problems and the plight of the black 
farmers in America, and these funds will also enable some of those 
concerns to be addressed.
  So I believe there is bipartisan support for this approach, and I am 
pleased to be here, as I say, with the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
[Mrs. Clayton].
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. 
Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the leadership of the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] and thank both the chair of the 
subcommittee and our ranking member of the subcommittee for both of 
them agreeing that this is the right thing to do.
  Let me just say parenthetically the $1.5 million will go a long ways. 
It does not represent the total amount of moneys we need to represent. 
It goes a long ways to represent what we need, but it does not 
represent the entirety. I think the department said they needed at 
least $3 million.
  So I want to think this is a step in the right direction. We need a 
few more steps before indeed we have enough funds to do the kind of 
investigation that is warranted to make sure those persons who have 
complaints have their complaints investigated properly.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina for her outstanding work on this measure. I do not believe we 
have any speakers in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, on that basis I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] to say that there have been 
several versions of this amendment and some of the other ones had 
scoring problems and this latest version appears budget-neutral and I 
will be happy to accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last three lines.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998''.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Cox of California

  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cox of California: At the end of 
     the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the 
     short title) the following new section:
       Sec. 728. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be made available to provide 
     assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, 
     except for assistance that is provided to needy people by the 
     United Nations World Food Program or private voluntary 
     organizations registered with the United States Agency for 
     International Development, and not by the Government of the 
     Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cox] and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be offering this amendment with my 
colleague from Ohio [Mr. Hall]. I am

[[Page H5690]]

pleased because this is a completely bipartisan amendment and one that 
I expect will be supported by Members on both sides.
  The purpose of the amendment is simple, to ensure that the United 
States of America, while doing all that it can to assist starving 
people victimized by the horrifying manmade famine caused by a half 
century of Stalinist agriculture policies in North Korea, does not 
empower the dear leader, Kim Jong-il. North Korea is one of the worst 
pariah states on Earth. North Korea spends over $5 billion a year 
militarizing itself. It is one of the most controlled societies on 
Earth, and the starvation caused by its Communist government and by 
those Communist government policies is horrific.
  We have, of late, been providing through the United Nations and 
nongovernmental organizations assistance to starving people in North 
Korea, but we are distressed to learn that this aid is not reaching its 
intended beneficiaries all too often.
  North Korea's chief ideologist, Hwang Jang-yop, defected to South 
Korea this year, and on July 10 he gave a news conference. He told the 
world that Kim Jong-il uses food to control people. U.S. taxpayers and 
the United States of America's policy ought not to support that. What 
he said at his press conference was that North Korea controls people 
with food, North Korea controls the entire country and people with food 
distribution. In other words, the food distribution is a means of 
control, quote, unquote.
  Observers report that Kim Jong-il is practicing regional triage, 
sealing off the hardest-hit regions in the north and northeast and 
leaving them to starve so that he can feed the elites, in particular 
the military. Kim Jong-il has spent tens of millions of dollars in a 
successful effort to develop medium-range missiles. He is spending many 
millions more to develop long-range missiles. We heard testimony in 
February of this year that North Korea was on a military shopping spree 
for aircraft and air defense systems, submarines, landing ships, and 
automatic weapons. This year he ordered a massive series of war-
fighting exercises that consumed huge amounts of food and fuel.
  General Shalikashvili, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, noted this recent increase in North Korea military exercises and 
asked,

       If they are in such great difficulty, and if they are in 
     need of assistance, why are they spending their resources on 
     this kind of exercising? You have to ask yours.

  Secretary of Defense Cohen recently stated that North Korea is 
seeking food to keep its citizenry fed while its military continues to 
function and soak up what limited sources they have. So in the view of 
the Secretary of Defense, we are indirectly subsidizing the North 
Korean military.
  Other expenditures by Kim Jong-il should also give us pause as we ask 
U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for assistance that ultimately is 
controlled by Kim Jong-il: $83 million recently for a mausoleum for Kim 
il-Sung, the great leader, the great Stalinist; $134 million for the 
dear leader's own residence, for Kim Jong-il's own humble abode; $6 
million to embalm Kim il-Sung; millions more just 2 weeks ago for 
nationwide ceremonies to honor Kim il-Sung.
  No wonder Jim Lilley, our former Ambassador to South Korea, has 
described these massive expenditures which dwarf our food aid as a 
veritable death cult.
  It is for these reasons that the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Tony Hall, 
and I have developed a bipartisan compromise that permits the 
administration to continue its policy but safeguards the delivery of 
this food so that the military may not receive it and the government of 
North Korea may not deliver it. By cutting them out of this process, 
the amendment will decrease the risk that Kim Jong-il's military 
government will succeed in diverting the food the United States sends 
to North Korea or manipulating its distribution.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox]?
  If not, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], to 
control the 5 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly rise in support of this amendment. It is 
not a perfect amendment, but it brings the bill in line with a long and 
proud American tradition, and that is extending humanitarian aid to 
people who are facing starvation. Not one jot of food should be used to 
feed North Korea's standing army, and under the current approach the 
food we donate to the world food program is reaching the program is 
reaching the children and ordinary civilians who are facing starvation, 
and that is verified by independent monitors.
  The policy we are pursuing towards North Korea is one we have 
painstakingly coordinated with our allies in South Korea. I believe it 
offers the best hope for making sure our humanitarian aid does not help 
North Korea's military.

                              {time}  1315

  In a few weeks, North Korea and China are meeting South Korea and the 
United States for peace talks. Negotiations to arrange these talks took 
more than a year. They offer the first real promise for peace in nearly 
five decades, since the Korean war ended.
  But now, nearly 50 years later, the best hope is not for a collapse 
of North Korea's regime. Observers say that almost certainly this would 
almost endanger the 37,000 American troops who safeguard South Korea's 
borders. They predict it would send millions of refugees fleeing into 
South Korea and China, and that only a $1 trillion investment would 
prevent it. No one expects South Korea would bail out North Korea on 
its own. I am sure none of us wants to see the United States facing 
that kind of a bill.
  Most experts say that the best hope today is for reforms that will 
bring to North Korea the prosperity and stability that has made South 
Korea the world's 11th largest economy. The shape of this reunification 
is the topic of considerable debate among experts here and in South 
Korea. But all agree that those changes start with peace.
  Undercutting American foreign policy now may make some Members of the 
House feel good, but it is the wrong thing to do and it is potentially 
a dangerous course. The right thing to do is to support the approach 
the United States and allies are taking.
  I have seen the conditions in North Korea, and I believe they are as 
desperate as the dozens of international and nongovernmental 
organizations working there constantly report that they are. I have 
watched the humanitarian approach to this difficult situation, and I 
believe it should be strengthened and not weakened. It is the innocent 
people in North Korea who suffer, and that is the group I am interested 
in, not the military. I support this amendment and I urge the House to 
support it.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would congratulate the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall] for working so diligently on this issue. The compromise is a good 
one, and this Member certainly supports it.
  This Member had tried to be helpful in the effort to reach common 
language on the North Korean famine, and was prepared to offer a second 
degree amendment that would have reflected the view that has been 
expressed in the Committee on International Relations. While the 
Parliamentarian ruled that the International Relations Committee's 
language would have been authorizing in an appropriation bill and was 
not in order. This Member would note, however, the intention of the 
International Relations Committee to move its North Korea policy 
language as part of the Foreign Assistance Act. This Member will 
discuss the components of the Bereuter perfecting amendment 
momentarily.
  Certainly it can be agreed that this Nation should be willing to 
provide food to starving women and children, regardless of the 
despicable nature of the regime under which they live. And, there is no 
more heinous regime than that of the Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea. It is perhaps the last Stalinist regime, and certainly one of 
the most brutal regimes that ever has existed.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the 
International Relations Committee, this Member has conducted three 
hearings and countless briefings on the situation in North Korea in the 
last several years. The subcommittee has followed this issue very 
carefully.

[[Page H5691]]

  Certainly there is starvation--some of it as the result of 
unprecedented flooding, but most due to the utterly incomprehensible 
and counterproductive agricultural policies of the North Korean 
Government. This Member would tell his colleagues that this famine is 
largely Government-induced, and not the result of natural catastrophe. 
But the famine is real. We have reliable reports of women and children 
eating grass and tree bark. The famine is so bad that many industries 
have simply ceased to exist because the workers no longer have the 
energy to perform even the most simple tasks.
  When the United States began working with the World Food Programme to 
provide humanitarian food aid to the North, this Member, together with 
the distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee, 
Mr. Gilman, and the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Hamilton, set 
forth certain criteria that were absolute preconditions for any U.S. 
food aid program. These included: One, assurance that our South Korean 
allies were consulted and supportive of the food aid deliveries; two, 
assurance that previous food aid and official confessional food 
deliveries have not been diverted to the military; three, North Korean 
military stocks have been tapped to respond to the North Korean unmet 
food needs; four, the World Food Programme would have the monitors on 
the ground to oversee the delivery and ensure that food aid is not 
diverted from the intended recipients; and five, that the United States 
Government encourage the North Korean Government to undertake a 
fundamental restructuring of its agricultural system.

  These basic, commonsense conditions are the essence of the Bereuter 
second degree amendment that this gentleman would have been prepared to 
offer had it been ruled in order.
  These types of basic conditions were deemed necessary because, in the 
past, food aid deliveries had in fact been diverted by the North Korean 
military. This Member would hasten to point out that U.S. humanitarian 
assistance was not diverted, but significant diversions of assistance 
from other countries has been detected.
  It would be entirely unacceptable if the North Korean military were 
to benefit from our humanitarian outpouring of good will. This body 
must be vigilant against this possibility. The Asia and the Pacific 
Subcommittee and the International Relations Committee are working very 
closely with the administration to ensure that these conditions have 
been met. We have taken steps to ensure that the administration 
dramatically increases the number of trained monitors on the ground to 
supervise the dispersal of food assistance. The International Relations 
Committee also has been working with excellent organizations such as 
Catholic Relief Services and CARE to ensure that the monitoring teams 
are adequate to perform the tasks they have been assigned. We continue 
to work with the administration, and this Member can assure his 
colleagues that the Asia and the Pacific Subcommittee and the 
International Relations Committee are following this extremely 
important matter very, very closely.
  Again, this Member commends the gentlemen for crafting an amendment 
that addresses the very real famine in North Korea while at the same 
time addressing the legitimate security concern that we not provide 
comfort to the North Korean military.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cox].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to rule 193, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Lowey

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mrs. Lowey:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section the 
     following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide or pay the salaries of personnel who 
     provide crop insurance or noninsured crop disaster assistance 
     for tobacco for the 1998 or later crop years.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey] and a Member opposed will each control 15 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The bipartisan Lowey-DeGette-Hansen-Meehan-Smith amendment will 
eliminate Federally-based crop insurance for tobacco and begin to get 
the Federal Government out of the tobacco business for good. According 
to the CBO, this amendment will save taxpayers at least $34 million.
  Tobacco products kill 400,000 Americans each year. Every day more 
than 3,000 American teenagers start smoking. One in three will die from 
cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses caused by smoking. American 
taxpayers should not be subsidizing this deadly product.
  The Federal Government is spending millions on crop insurance for 
tobacco; at the same time, we are spending almost $200 million to warn 
Americans about the dangers of tobacco and prevent its use. It is time 
for this hypocrisy to end. We must make our agricultural policy 
consistent with our public health policy.
  Mr. Chairman, opponents of this amendment will say that we are 
denying a service to tobacco growers that is available to all other 
farmers. That is simply not true. Only 65 of nearly 1,600 crops grown 
in the United States are eligible for Federal crop insurance; honey, 
broccoli, watermelon, squash, cherries, cucumbers, not covered.
  Opponents of this amendment will also say that it will hurt small 
tobacco farmers. But what they do not tell us is that tobacco is one of 
the most lucrative crops in America. An acre of tobacco yields a 1,000-
percent higher price than an acre of corn. Today we have an historic 
opportunity to dissolve the Federal Government's partnership with the 
tobacco industry. We must stop using taxpayer dollars to subsidize a 
product that kills millions of adults, addicts our kids, and costs 
billions a year in health care.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that one-half of my time be 
yielded to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur], and that she be 
allowed to further yield time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] will control 
7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will 
control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Price].
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the Lowey-DeGette amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not a reflexive defender of the tobacco industry. 
I favor effective public health and education measures, and I wish Joe 
Camel good riddance. But I find this amendment deeply offensive, 
punitive, and unfair, and I hope fair-minded colleagues will hear me 
out before they reflexively support it.
  Crop insurance is a protection that we offer to farmers of all major 
crops, as determined by yield, demand, and value. This amendment would 
stigmatize and deny this protection to one group of farmers. It targets 
the people who farm, punishing them for the crop which they are able to 
grow by virtue of climate and geography and the size of their farms. If 
that is not discrimination, if that is not unfairness, I would like to 
know what name you would put on it?
  Mr. Chairman, in North Carolina, the climate and soil are ideal for 
growing tobacco. Many of our farms are successfully diversifying, and 
we are attracting light industry to the countryside. But with an 
average size farm of just 160 acres, our farmers don't have the luxury 
of enough acreage to make a living planting only corn or cotton or 
soybeans; they have to make their living with what is theirs to work.
  Denying crop insurance or disaster relief to these individuals will 
not change their geography or climate or the economic facts of life. It 
will not miraculously enable them to turn to some other crop or other 
line of work. It will simply ruin many of them economically, especially 
those on the margins of profitability, those on the small farms.
  The burden of proof is on those who would withdraw crop insurance for 
one

[[Page H5692]]

and only one group of farmers. The Lowey amendment has nothing to do 
with smoking and health, everything to do with driving the small farmer 
off the land and hastening the day of corporate and contract farming. 
To stigmatize a group and exclude them from a common benefit simply 
because of the size of their farm, their climate, their geography, and 
what they grow, is the sort of discrimination we would reject out of 
hand in other realms. I urge my colleagues to reject it here.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Linda Smith], a cosponsor of the 
amendment and a fighter on antitobacco programs.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
this amendment. I think the major argument before us today will be that 
it is discrimination if we do not subsidize tobacco. I want to stand 
here before Members and tell them, there is only a handful of crops 
that qualify for Federal crop insurance, only a handful, less than 65.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe if people look to their own States and find 
out which crops are not insured, they will find that good crops, like 
in the State of Washington, peaches, berries, cherries, Christmas 
trees, alfalfa forage, are not insured. I would beg Members to go back 
to find out which crops in their State are discriminated against as 
they are voting for certain States to get preference.
  Let us look at the benefits of a peach. A peach is good for a kid. 
Now let us look at the benefits of tobacco. Tobacco kills kids. Where 
is the value for America? I looked up the amount of money pumped into 
this place for campaigns in the month of June. I did not see a whole 
lot from peaches. But I sure saw a whole lot from tobacco.
  Why would tobacco think, up against this vote, that they had to pump 
hundreds of thousands, yes, millions of dollars into campaigns of 
people incumbent in Congress? I did not see them walking down the 
streets handing out checks to the tourists. I did not see them mailing 
them to people in my home district. But they do report that they have 
given hundreds of thousands to this body in the month of June, 
anticipating this vote.
  I would beg Members to go home and look at their priorities, look at 
the crops that are being discriminated against in their State, and then 
justify to their constituents why they voted to subsidize tobacco.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment, and to all the tobacco growers in Oregon, I want to explain 
why. By the way, we do not have tobacco growers in Oregon.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, there are three reasons here that this is 
a bad idea. One, it unfairly singles out tobacco farmers for 
punishment. Second, it undermines the Federal crop insurance program, 
which we have discussed here at great length under the other two 
amendments. Finally, and most importantly, this does absolutely nothing 
to stop people from smoking.
  Mr. Chairman, if there is an effort here sincerely to stop people 
from smoking, I will join it. But I am not here to punish farmers. I am 
here to protect farmers. Listen to this, Mr. Chairman: 124,000 farms in 
21 States grow tobacco, 90,000 tobacco policies are under the crop 
insurance program of over $1 billion. To say that this amendment does 
not hurt farmers, listen to those numbers.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette], a proud cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, in 1989 Pat Rose died of lung cancer after 
smoking for 38 years, starting at the age of 16. Pat Rose was my 
mother, and she left behind me and my four younger siblings. Millions 
of Americans like my family are affected every year by smoking, and a 
new study shows that thousands of kids in this country every year die 
because of direct or indirect effects of smoking.
  The United States recognizes that smoking is not good for our 
children or our families, which is why last year we spent $200 million 
trying to get Americans to stop smoking. Paradoxically, last year we 
also spent $80 million for tobacco crop insurance. This is a policy 
that is schizophrenic and must change now.
  Let us debunk some myths, first of all. Members have heard that not 
every farmer has crop insurance. Only about 65 of the 1,600 crops grown 
in this country receive it. Healthy crops, as Members have heard, do 
not get a dime of Federal crop insurance, yet tobacco crops, which have 
no nutritional value, obtained this insurance. When our amendment 
passes, tobacco farmers can still obtain crop insurance, just not at 
the Government's expense.
  I daresay that as we move from tobacco in this country, we need to 
spend our time not arguing about whether we should grow it, but helping 
these small farmers to find alternative sources of income. I am very 
sympathetic with the small farmers. I think we need to support their 
ability to move into healthy crops. I also daresay there are many small 
tobacco farmers who are killed by the effects of smoking and whose 
families are affected by smoking as well.
  I urge all of my colleagues to think about our constituents, our 
friends and our families who are struck every year with the effects of 
tobacco, and the fact that smoking is increasing more than 50 percent 
among 8th through 10th graders. We must do everything in our power to 
discourage tobacco and to help the small farmers.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Coble].
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Here we are, Mr. 
Chairman, on our perennial trip to the whipping post. Who is to be 
whipped? Tobacco, of course, men and women who work 14 to 16 hours a 
day to get their crop to the barn and then to the market to make lives 
better for their children, workers who are employed at Lorillard in my 
hometown, nearby Phillip Morris, Reynolds, and Leggett, formerly, until 
American was forced to close their doors. And finally, the companies 
are to be whipped because they pay a million dollars of taxes to local 
and State governments, to enable these governments to extend services 
to thousands of citizens.

                              {time}  1330

  Tobacco, Mr. Chairman, has traditionally been known as the golden 
weed in my part of the country. One would think to hear this rhetoric 
in this hall that the weed was scarlet, the color of sin. Protect the 
golden weed. That is all we are asking. This is unconscionable what is 
being done here today, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment of my friend from New York and see it go down in flames.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], a cosponsor of this amendment.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, here we go again, confusing the public. I 
have never seen anything that confuses the public more than what we are 
doing right now. We spend $177 million to warn people of the use of 
this tobacco product. Then on the other hand here we are guaranteeing 
to subsidize the product.
  It is interesting, another statistic that I recently pulled out. We 
are spending $50 billion in health care in America to take care of this 
particular product. But we are still going to subsidize it. We confuse 
the public a little more. We now find out that more lives are lost due 
to this product than murder, suicide, AIDS, alcohol and car accidents 
combined. Still here we go again, let us subsidize the product.
  Is it a lucrative product? You bet it is. This amendment that we are 
working on does not affect the no net cost tobacco price support 
program for Federal Extension Services. Tobacco farmers are still able 
to grow tobacco and will still be able to sell it to the tobacco 
companies. This amendment is simply putting our agricultural policy in 
line with our health policy. I urge support for the amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. McIntyre].
  (Mr. McINTYRE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H5693]]

  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, if the idea today is to do away with the 
tobacco industry and smoking, this amendment will not work. All it will 
do is take some hard-working families from their farms.
  The only victims of this scheme are the small farmers. No one will 
stop smoking because of this amendment. The only thing it will do is 
take away the already endangered family farm. If we take away crop 
insurance from our tobacco farmers, we punish them for making an honest 
living from the soil of the earth. We punish them by keeping them from 
getting bank loans.
  Nobody asked for the two hurricanes that hit my district and 
destroyed crops in all eight counties last year. Are we going to punish 
the farmers for something they cannot help. This is what this amendment 
would do. It is a loser. Families first? No. Families last under this 
amendment. Mr. Chairman, we need to oppose this amendment and preserve 
the family farm.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Lowey-DeGette 
amendment that would eliminate Federal crop insurance and Federal 
disaster compensation for tobacco farmers. Mr. Chairman, proponents of 
this amendment would have you believe that it will curb smoking levels 
across the country. They would have you believe that removing Federal 
crop insurance for tobacco would somehow injure the tobacco industry 
which they hold responsible for youth smoking. The results of this 
amendment, however, will not be felt by the tobacco industry. That is 
the big deception. The true fall-out, Mr. Chairman, will be felt by 
tobacco farmers and their families.
  The truth of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is that the Lowey-DeGette 
amendment would do absolutely nothing to deter or stop the production 
of tobacco or punish cigarette companies. Can anyone honestly say that 
removing Federal crop insurance for tobacco farmers would promote a 
single smoker to give up the habit, or deter a single nonsmoker from 
initiating one? No.
  Mr. Chairman, let's look at exactly who this amendment will affect. 
The Lowey-DeGette amendment will take away the ability of small farmers 
to keep their families above the poverty line. Let me repeat that. The 
Lowey-DeGette amendment will prevent small farmers from growing a legal 
crop that often means the difference in their efforts to provide food, 
clothing, and shelter for their families.
  As an editorial in today's Fayetteville Observer-Times stated,

       If the plan is to do in the tobacco industry, it won't 
     work. What it will do is separate some hard-working people 
     from their family farms.
       Picture this (because this is all that the proposed 
     legislation would accomplish). The people who provide the 
     growers with the many things they need to get a crop started 
     wouldn't be affected. Neither would the warehousemen, the 
     corporate buyers, the manufacturers or the retailers. Only 
     growers would fall under its provisions.
       Moreover, the victims, if this scheme were to become law * 
     * * would be small farmers.
       Whatever the outcome, tobacco will still be produced, sold, 
     processed, re-sold, and smoked. The only thing that will come 
     close to disappearing is the already endangered family farm.

  To paraphrase Shakespeare--and I can say this as a lawyer--the 
proponents of this awful, unfair, ugly amendment ought to say, ``The 
first thing let's do is to kill all the farmers,'' for economically 
speaking, that is exactly what supporters of this amendment will be 
doing.
  Go ahead. Make the farm killers' day. Just blow `em away. Let a 
hurricane or tornado or hail storm ruin their lives and the lives of 
their families.
  If we take away crop insurance from our tobacco farmers, we punish 
them for making an honest living from the soil of the Earth, we punish 
them by keeping them from getting bank loans, and we punish them again 
if disaster strikes. Do not do it. Do not take away their chance to 
make an honest living an be able to provide for their families.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture classifies small farmers whose 
income total $20,000 or less for 2 consecutive years as limited 
resource farmers. The States with the largest numbers of limited 
resource farmers are Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina. 
It is no coincidence that these States also make up a majority of the 
leading tobacco producing States in the Nation. Mr. Chairman, the 
limited resource farmers that grow tobacco are by no means wealthy 
people. They sweat and toil on small plots of land where oftentimes the 
only crop that can be grown in such small quantities and still bring a 
financial return sufficient to maintain their operation from year to 
year is tobacco. The argument put forth by proponents of the Lowey-
DeGette amendment that tobacco farmers could replace tobacco with 
another commodity is simply not true. The average size farm in tobacco 
country is 169 acres, of which tobacco is usually grown on 50 to 100 
acres. In order to replace the gross income from just 50 acres of 
tobacco, a farmer would have to produce 235 acres of peanuts, 372 acres 
of cotton, 1,442 acres of wheat, 1,161 acres of soybeans, or 747 acres 
of corn. The small amounts of land that are typically available to 
limited resource farmers makes any of these options mathematically 
impossible.
  My friends in the House, limited resource farmers do not grow tobacco 
to get rich. They do not grow tobacco so that cigarette companies can 
get rich. Limited resource farmers grow the legal crop tobacco in order 
to put a roof over their families' heads. They grow tobacco to put food 
on their families' tables. They grow tobacco so that they can someday 
send their children to school; so that they can provide the opportunity 
of a better life for their children.
   Mr. Chairman, proponents of the Lowey-DeGette amendment would have 
us believe that not a single farmer will lose his or her job as a 
result of their language. This, my colleagues in the House, is 
absolutely false. My friends, tobacco is an extremely difficult crop to 
grow. It is vulnerable to a variety of diseases, infestations, and is 
especially sensitive to weather variations. In addition, due to its 
proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, our tobacco farmers are also at the 
mercy of competely unpredictable natural disasters like hurricanes, two 
of which hit my district last year and wiped out entire tobacco fields 
across the region in all eight of the counties which I represent. The 
delicate nature of tobacco requires that farmers secure insurance in 
order to receive operating loans that many farmers rely on for the 
funding necessary to initiate planting each year.
  Without that insurance, farmers will not even be considered for the 
loans that enable them to begin planting each year. Without insurance, 
tobacco farmers will not have a means to make a living. USDA Secretary 
Dan Glickman recognized this and has made the availability of Federal 
crop insurance a top department priority. In a statement he made this 
past May, Secretary Glickman said, ``I am determined that everyone will 
have access to crop insurance--large farmers and small farmers alike, 
especially those with limited resources, minorities, and producers in 
all areas of the country.'' In addition, Secretary Glickman announced 
last week the formation of a National Commission on Small Farms to find 
new ways to support small farms and limited resource farmers. It would 
appear, then, that eliminating Federal crop insurance which is relied 
upon so heavily by small, limited resource farmers is not at all in 
line with the USDA. It is simply advancing someone's political agenda 
at the expense and heartache of farmer families. It is stealing bread 
off of the table. It is discrimination in its ugliest form. It is 
taking advantage of someone else who falls victim to a natural 
disaster.
  Mr. Chairman, limited resource farmers depend on Federal crop 
insurance and the protection it provides simply because they cannot 
afford the high cost of private insurance which proponents of the 
Lowey-DeGette amendment like to point to as an alternative. Let's take 
a closer look at that alternative. Limited resource farmers are simply 
unable to afford current premiums on private insurance. If they could 
afford it, they would certainly look in that direction for protection, 
for private insurance offers much more comprehensive coverage than its 
Federal counterpart. I have spoken with several private insurers in my 
district about the ramifications of losing Federal coverage. Without 
hesitation, they provided me with figures that indicate their premiums 
would increase nearly threefold, making private insurance even further 
out of reach financially for limited resource farmers. In addition, 
private insurers are in no way compelled to offer insurance to everyone 
who applies for it. The harsh truth is that even if limited resource 
farmers were to attempt to pull together enough capital to apply for 
private insurance, they would likely be denied. So don't listen to the 
falsehoods you are being told. Many tobacco farmers simply cannot go 
out and buy private insurance. No insurance means no loans. No loans 
means no tobacco crop. No crop means no income, no food, no future for 
their kids, no retirement. It means moving people from work to 
welfare--something I thought we were trying to get away from.
  This is reality, not the big deception that proponents of the Lowey-
DeGette amendment are trying to sell. The Lowey-DeGette


[[Page H5694]]

amendment will put farmers out of work, period. Mr. Chairman, this body 
has made great strides in recent years to reform out national welfare 
system. This body has passed legislation that thins the welfare roles 
by putting long-time recipients to work. My colleagues in the House, 
does it make sense, then, for this body to pass language that will 
reverse all of that excellent work? Does it make sense to pass language 
that will take people from work to welfare?
  My friends, I urge a no vote on the Lowey-DeGette amendment. Similar 
language was rejected by the House of Representatives last year, and 
this very same amendment was defeated by the Appropriations Committee 
last week. It is a loser. And under it, farm families would lose as 
well. Families first? Not under this amendment. Families last and 
political agendas first--that is what this amendment is all about. Do 
the right thing for families, reject it again.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan], cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, today it is time to bring our agricultural 
policy in line with our health policy. As the cochairman of the 83 
member congressional task force on tobacco and health, we need to 
correct this serious disconnect in Federal policy. We cannot credibly 
discourage the use of tobacco as long as we are subsidizing the growing 
of tobacco. It is really that simple.
  We may be able to come up with assistance to tobacco farmers, we 
should do that through the settlement that has been negotiated by the 
attorneys general. But it does not make any sense to take taxpayer 
money and subsidize the growth of tobacco in this country.
  We have made enormous progress on this amendment over the last few 
years. In fact, we have made so much progress that last year it failed 
by only two votes. Surely in the last year we have gotten enough 
information about what tobacco companies knew about the dangers of 
their product, about decades of duplicity and lying that they have 
perpetrated upon American people. Now is the time to pass this 
amendment. This is extremely important.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Kentucky [Mrs. Northup].
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, first of all I am proud to say I have 
never taken a dime from the tobacco companies and do not intend to now. 
I refuse all of their PAC checks. I have also been the proud sponsor of 
a lot of tough youth access legislation and hope to have that 
opportunity again. But this will hurt exactly the wrong people.
  There are some people that love this legislation. They are the 
farmers from Malawi and Brazil and Argentina that can grow cheap 
tobacco and replace our tobacco grown in this country. What does that 
do? That ruins small poor communities all across Kentucky. They are the 
communities with the highest unemployment rate. They are the 
communities with the fewest resources. This is the crop that enables 
them to pay their taxes so that they can support our schools, our small 
communities, and help capitalize the changes they are trying to make in 
agriculture so that they can convert to other crops. They understand 
how threatened they are. They understand the cheap tobacco that is 
flooding the world market. They understand how short a lifeline they 
are on. They are trying to capitalize the changes to get into other 
crops. Please, do not ruin our smallest, poorest communities.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Lampson].
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we know that tobacco use is the most 
preventable cause of death, yet 400,000 Americans die each year from 
causes related to the use of tobacco. Our young people have grown up 
certain in the knowledge that tobacco causes cancer. Yet 3,000 American 
teenagers start smoking cigarettes every day. Hopefully the new FDA 
guidelines will help lower that number dramatically.
  I believe we need consistency in our policy toward tobacco. If we do 
not offer Federal crop insurance for commodities that are not a serious 
public health risk, why should we offer insurance for tobacco? Last 
year the taxpayers footed the bill for about $80 million in net tobacco 
insurance costs. At the same time, we spent almost 177 million trying 
to discourage tobacco use. Now we must ask the question, should we 
spend money to promote tobacco use or to discourage tobacco use? That 
is the fundamental issue that we are discussing right now.
  I do not believe the American people want us to continue having it 
both ways. After all the tough decisions we had in cutting spending, 
this is a simple one. It is time to stop giving special aid to tobacco. 
Instead of protecting the special interests, we must take the 
opportunity to help our families protect their children.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, in discussing this amendment we really 
need to discuss the morality of young people smoking or the mortality 
of those who may be chronic long smokers. In spite of the good 
intentions of the sponsors, we are not doing that. What we should be 
talking about is fairness and the appropriate remedy. Is it fair to 
deny vulnerable persons, deny them and be the only ones who are farmers 
not receiving the protection of our crop insurance? It would mean those 
farmers would not be able to get loans, not being able to get loans 
they would go out of business.
  I can tell my colleagues, these are not big businesses. These are 
small farmers. These are small farmers who usually grow 10 or less 
acres of tobacco. I heard someone say how profitable it is. It is 
profitable. In order to make that same income, we would have to do 15 
times as much cotton, almost 20 times as much corn, if we could find 
the land that would grow the corn, grow the wheat. This is not the 
right way. Yes, American policy has spoken. It says we should protect 
our youth. We should bring that in correlation with each other. This is 
the wrong way to do it. It is the wrong remedy.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning].
  (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Lowey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Lowey 
amendment.
  This is a mean-spirited attack on small farmers throughout the South.
  We all know Mrs. Lowey and her cosponsors don't like smoking, but 
this amendment will not stop one person from smoking. It will only hurt 
small tobacco farmers in my district and throughout the South.
  The opponents of tobacco always imply that we should not pay farmers 
to grow tobacco. We do not. Let me repeat that. The Federal Government 
does not pay subsidies to farmers to grow tobacco.
  Sure our Government offers to tobacco farmers some of the same 
programs like crop insurance that are offered to other farmers.
  But we should offer them the same treatment other farmers receive. 
Tobacco farmers grow a legal crop.
  These farmers are not outlaws. They should be treated the same as 
those who grow corn or raise dairy cattle or any other commodity. 
Tobacco farmers should be able to purchase the same services almost 
every other farmer is able to purchase.
  What this amendment does is single out the small tobacco farmers who 
are the backbone of the agriculture industry in my State and all over 
the South.
  Most of these farmers, including the 14,400 tobacco growers in my 
district own small family farms. They may have a couple or 5 or even 10 
acres of tobacco that they use to offset their other costs in farming. 
Or maybe they use the extra income to send their children to college. 
So their children may have it just a little bit easier than they did. 
Where's the crime?
  Tobacco is a legal product. We have no right to treat honest 
taxpaying, hard-working Americans like they are outlaws. They have 
committed no crime, yet this amendment singles them out and treats them 
like criminals.
  This amendment will not do one thing to prevent smoking. It will not 
punish the big tobacco companies; it will not decrease the deficit. It 
will only treat small farmers like criminals.
  It's bad policy--it's unfair and it's wrong.

[[Page H5695]]

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro], a member of the committee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this is a debate about saving lives. The 
deadly effects of tobacco cannot be denied, each year more than 400,000 
Americans die of smoking-related illnesses. Each year the Federal 
Government pays and picks up the tab for many of these health care 
expenses. Yet our Government provides, pays for, subsidized crop 
insurance to tobacco growers, $34 million in taxpayers' dollars.
  Other crops such as broccoli and cucumbers are not covered by crop 
insurance. Why tobacco? Some of my colleagues who oppose this amendment 
will talk about its impact on farmers. It is not that we are not 
sympathetic to small farmers. But what about the families whose loved 
ones die due to deadly smoking habits? What about fathers, mothers, 
grandparents who are among the 400,000 who die each year due to tobacco 
habits?
  We are working at cross-purposes when we give tobacco subsidies with 
one hand and then we must spend health and education dollars to 
counteract tobacco's effects with the other. We have a clear and 
convincing evidence of tobacco's deadly impact. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Lowey amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Jones].
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, some have chosen to target the tobacco 
farmer. The denial of crop insurance is another attempt to suffocate a 
legitimate industry. This amendment will have a devastating effect on 
the tobacco farmer and his family. All farmers work hard to put food on 
the table for their families. The tobacco farmer is no different. He is 
no different than a corn farmer in the Midwest or a cotton farmer in 
Alabama. All farmers, including the tobacco farmers, deserve crop 
insurance. For the sake of fairness, vote ``no'' on the Lowey 
amendment.
  Some of my colleagues have chosen again to target the tobacco farmer. 
The denial of crop insurance to tobacco farmers and their family is 
simply another unfair and insensitive attempt to suffocate a legitimate 
industry.
  Some Members believe this amendment will stop teenagers from smoking. 
That is absolutely wrong. It will stop one person from smoking; it 
won't even punish the industry. Instead it will have a devastating 
effect on the tobacco farmer and his family. The farmer will be left 
unprotected, unlike any other farmer who grows a legal producing crop.
  All farmers work hard to make ends meet, to put food on the table for 
their families--the tobacco farmer is no different. He is no different 
than a corn farmer in the Midwest or a cotton farmer in Alabama. This 
amendment will blatantly discriminate against a legal commodity.
  These hard-working farmers struggle every day to make ends meet. You 
will be dealing them a devastating blow to their ability to make a 
living. Insurance premiums will double, if not triple, if they are 
required to seek private insurance, which may not be available.
  The economies of tobacco-producing States will be devastated by this 
amendment. Tobacco is a $7 billion industry for North Carolina--the 
State contributes $2.8 billion a year in Federal taxes. Schools, 
hospitals, community buildings, churches, and other community-based 
projects will not be built because of this revenue loss.
  At the national level, tobacco contributes $22.6 billion a year in 
Federal tax revenue--this money does not just come from producing 
States. Even nongrowing States will also be hit economically.
  New York, for example, could lose up to $4 billion if this amendment 
passes and as indicated it puts the tobacco farmer out of business. 
Even the State of California could lose up to $4 billion.
  I question whether any State can afford this revenue loss. I would 
like to ask my colleague from New York who will replace this revenue. 
In my opinion, it will be on the back of the taxpayer.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Lowey amendment and not to 
discriminate against our farmers.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Cook].
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise in strong support of the Lowey 
amendment. I am a freshman who decided to come to Congress because I 
wanted to fight to cut Federal waste. We have promised the American 
people that we would restore balance and prudence to the Federal 
budget, and yet last year we spent nearly $80 million on Federal 
subsidies for tobacco crop insurance. We spent this money to ensure a 
crop that kills people. Let us not mince words on this point. Tobacco 
kills people.
  Let us not as a nation spend $177 million to prevent tobacco abuse 
and then at the same time continue to pour taxpayer dollars into 
tobacco insurance subsidies.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are serious about cutting wasteful, needless 
Federal programs, let us start here. How can we justify cutting other 
Federal programs but continue to spend taxpayer dollars to insure crops 
that have no safe level of use?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Baesler].
  Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Chairman, a lot of words have been bandied about, 
one being hypocrisy, one inconsistency. Let me talk about hypocrisy. 
This amendment, no matter what the rhetoric is, goes just to the 
farmer. It does not stop anybody from smoking. It does not provide any 
health care.
  We keep on talking about the hypocrisy of the Federal Government. Let 
me talk about hypocrisy. On one side we want to cut the low man on the 
food chain, the farmer. On the other side we do not want to say a thing 
about the excise tax that these States collect from tobacco. New York, 
$674 million from tobacco excise tax. Are we stopping that? No. 
Hypocrisy. Colorado, $61 million from excise tax from cigarettes and 
tobacco alone; are we trying to stop that? No. Hypocrisy. Washington 
State, $257 million from tobacco excise tax; are we trying to cut that 
out? No. That is hypocrisy. Texas, $569 million of excise tax from 
tobacco. Are we going to cut that out? No. So when we speak of 
hypocrisy, Massachusetts, $230 million from excise tax, when we speak 
of hypocrisy, the hypocrisy is we want to take from the farmer but we 
want to stick it to the farmer at the same time.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in very strong support of this amendment.
  As has been pointed out here today, only 65 of our Nation's 1,600 
crops enjoy Federal crop insurance subsidies. Peaches, as was pointed 
out, watermelon, squash, cucumbers, none of them get these subsidies at 
all. That is point No. 1.
  Second, we have all become familiar with the large tobacco 
settlement. I do not know the exact amount, but it is in excess of $300 
billion over a period of time. We are talking around $32 million here 
for this program that perhaps the tobacco companies would have to step 
in and do something about.
  When we hear about the kind of money we are dealing with here, it is 
evident and clear to everybody in America that we do not need to 
continue to underwrite the insurance for the tobacco crops.
  And then, and perhaps most importantly, the public probably wonders 
what are we doing here? We have all these antismoking advertisements, 
we have all manner and members of the administration who are out saying 
we should not smoke, and many of us believe people should not smoke, 
and on the other hand we are paying people, or at least paying for 
their crop insurance, for the growth of tobacco. That is a tremendous 
problem.
  Tobacco does kill. We need to do something about it. We need to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Lowey 
amendment.
  This is the same proposal we rejected last year and the year before 
that, that the Committee on Appropriations rejected 2 days ago and the 
other body rejected yesterday. Here it is again. Here we go again.
  They rejected it because it has nothing to do with smoking, teenage 
smoking, or the hazards of smoking. This is about little tobacco. This 
is about small farms. This is not big tobacco. Big tobacco would love 
for us to pass this amendment so they could grow the tobacco overseas 
at one-third the cost,

[[Page H5696]]

lower the price of cigarettes and, in the meantime, encourage more 
smoking.
  It attacks the most vulnerable people. Kentucky farmers grow tobacco 
because it is the only way they can raise their family, send their kids 
to school, and buy food and clothing. We will drive out the American 
farmer and the companies will buy their tobacco overseas at one-third 
the cost. They will get cheaper tobacco. Cigarettes will become cheaper 
and smoking will increase.
  This is not a debate about smoking or how cigarettes are sold, or who 
buys them. We should do as we did last year. Reject this amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett], a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, the death subsidy must end. That is why I 
am a cosponsor of this amendment, because the taxpayer subsidy of the 
only agricultural product in this entire Nation, indeed in this world, 
when used precisely as directed by the producer, produces death, 
produces drug addiction, produces disease. Taxpayers do not want to 
subsidize that product.
  If we are ever going to get serious about preventing more of our 
children from becoming addicted to nicotine, then what we have to do is 
to break the stranglehold of the tobacco lobby on this Congress. 
Indeed, they have been successful day after day because they have oiled 
the machines of government very well.
  Only 65 of our Nation's 1,600 crops get the type of crop insurance we 
are talking about. When the watermelon farmers gather this summer at 
the Luling Watermelon Thump, and in McDade in central Texas, they will 
not get a dime of taxpayer subsidies.
  Why should we subsidize tobacco? Indeed, why should we subsidize 
cyanide or arsenic? That is the better comparison. Taxpayers are 
wasting $34 million on this subsidy.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Burr].
  Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, what is this about? This is about real people and real 
lives and real communities all over this country. It is about small 
tobacco farmers that are part of that community.
  The sponsors of this bill would suggest to us that this will not 
affect the crop and it will not affect crop insurance. Secretary 
Glickman does not think that. He says that the Department of 
Agriculture opposes this amendment. He went on to say ``Crop insurance 
is an essential part of the producer's safety net envisioned by the 
administration's agricultural policy.'' The administration's 
agricultural policy.
  Well, I have to tell my colleagues, crop insurance allows farmers 
that sense of security that they will not be financially devastated 
when there is a Hurricane Fran or a Hurricane Bertha. Most crops in 
North Carolina were destroyed during those two hurricanes.
  What does the gentlewoman from Colorado [Ms. DeGette] and the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] suggest we tell our tobacco 
farmers? Tough break? Well, that dog don't hunt.
  We should vote ``no'' on the Lowey amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Bishop].
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  I oppose this amendment. It is mean, it is punitive, it is 
misdirected. It does not attack smoking nor does it attack tobacco 
companies, as proponents claim, but it does attack small American 
family farmers trying to protect their land against hurricanes, floods, 
tornadoes, disease, and drought.
  We should not force family farmers to lose their homes and their 
lands because they cannot buy risk insurance. Help American farmers, 
not foreign farmers. Kill this amendment. It is bad.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].
  (Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I very strongly oppose the DeGette-Lowey amendment, 
which is terribly unfair to tobacco farmers.
  I understand that there are many in this House who would like to make 
a political statement against smoking. But this is surely not the right 
way to go about it.
  That's why Secretary of Agriculture Glickman has come out so strongly 
in opposition to this amendment. Even though this administration has 
promoted an unprecedented campaign against smoking, Secretary Glickman 
recognizes that taking away the safety net from small farmers has no 
place in that campaign.
  This amendment will do nothing to stop smoking. It will not limit 
youth access to cigarettes. It will not restrict tobacco advertising. 
And it will not put a dent in the profit margins of cigarette 
manufacturers.
  What is will do is inflict a lot of harm on tobacco farmers and the 
farming communities that depend on them. Many of these communities are 
located in my district.
  This amendment singles out tobacco farmers for treatment we would 
never consider in any other circumstances. It would deny them the 
benefit of disaster assistance available to every other farmer. It 
would deny them Government-backed crop insurance available to every 
other farmer.
  This is not only discrimination against tobacco farmers. It's also 
discrimination against tobacco farming communities. These communities 
are the ones who will pay the price if crops fail. They are the ones 
who depend on disaster assistance to help recover from natural 
calamities.
  Mr. Chairman, this is scapegoating, pure and simple. The backers of 
this amendment are upset with tobacco companies. So they are taking out 
their frustrations on farmers, many of them small family farmers 
struggling just to get by.
  I suggest they pick on someone their own size. Small farmers have 
enough troubles. They don't need to be treated like pariahs by this 
Congress. They deserve better than that.
  I urge you to soundly reject this wrong-headed amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I hear what the problem is here, 
but I want to say to America that we have to oppose this amendment.
  We have to oppose it because if the people who are proponents of this 
amendment want to cure this problem of tobacco, we all admit that it is 
very bad, let us make tobacco illegal. Let us make it illegal. That 
will cure all the things we have heard here today. It will stop it.
  But I tell my colleagues what we need to keep going, and that is 
these small farmers that are farming tobacco. And I say this every 
time. My father was a tobacco farmer. Honest man. The only place he 
could get any work was on a tobacco farm. I will never forget that. I 
know that was an opportunity for him, just as it is an opportunity now 
for the small farmer.
  It was an opportunity for the farmers when the hurricane that 
devastated farmers in my district had everything wiped out. If it were 
not for crop insurance, they could not have survived. If it were not 
for crop insurance, the orange growers in Florida would not have 
survived. We do not see those people. They are not here. They do not 
dress like we do. They do not talk like we do.
  They need their insurance to keep their families fed. I say to my 
colleagues that we must oppose this amendment because of that, survival 
for the small farmer.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
the Lowey amendment because of its devastating impact on the family 
tobacco farmers in my district across Kentucky.
  Those offering this amendment today think that they are attacking 
cigarettes, youth smoking and big tobacco. Those attacks, however, are 
hitting the tobacco farmers and hitting them hard, that small family 
tobacco farmer. Most of these farms in Kentucky in my district are 
small, often part-time. They are hard working farmers who are trying to 
make ends meet and providing a better life for their children.
  Denying crop insurance to Kentucky tobacco farmers will have no 
effect on youth smoking, will have no effect on tobacco use, will have 
no effect on the big tobacco companies, will have no effect on the 
local retailers, and will have no effect on the supply of tobacco.

[[Page H5697]]

  If we do not grow tobacco in the rural areas of Kentucky, then big 
tobacco will import it. In fact, big tobacco companies could then 
import cheap foreign tobacco and benefit, yes benefit from our vote in 
favor of the Lowey amendment.
  The only folks hurt by the Lowey amendment will be the small family 
tobacco farmer, who deserves the right to participate in the same USDA 
crop insurance or noninsurance disaster assistance program offered to 
every other farmer in this country.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge].
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
on behalf of the small farmers of North Carolina.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this attack on farmers. If not for insurance--
floods in the Midwest would have devastated wheat farmers; cold would 
have destroyed Florida orange growers; droughts would have ruined 
western farmers; southern farmers would not have survived hurricanes in 
1996. Yesterday, rain from Hurricane Danny flooded tobacco fields in 
North Carolina as farmers prepared to go to market. As adjusters survey 
the damage, farmers will count on crop insurance to pay the bills as 
they try to salvage what they can. Singling out these farmers is 
discriminatory and unfair.
  This assault on farmers threatens their last safety net. Secretary 
Glickman opposes the amendment because insurance is a safety net, not a 
subsidy.
  Proponents claim concern for public health and teen smoking. I 
understand that this amendment impacts neither. It will not stop teen 
smoking; will not hurt manufacturers profits; and will not reduce 
cigarette production. The demagoguery of this amendment is shameful. It 
threatens the balance reached in a tobacco settlement which includes 
the most extensive public health proposals on smoking in history. 
Eliminating insurance for tobacco will devastate victims of Hurricane 
Danny, hurt poor, minority farmers and do nothing for public health. 
Vote for fairness. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goode].
  (Mr. GOODE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Virginia tobacco growers I 
urge Members to defeat this amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the remaining time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] has 2 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has 1 
minute remaining, and has the right to close; and the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop this Federal subsidy of a 
crop that is both addictive and causes cancer.
  The passage of this amendment does not stop small tobacco farmers 
from growing tobacco. It just says we will stop one of the subsidies, 
one of the incentives for them to do so.
  Earlier today we read the debate on the Durbin amendment which bans 
smoking on airplanes from a couple of years ago. Many of the same folks 
that are arguing for a ``no'' vote were the same folks arguing ``no'' 
then.
  Guess what? The Airline Flight Attendants Union has now filed a $5 
billion suit against the airlines for allowing this to happen. Would it 
not have been nice if they had not been able to file this suit at all 
and had this Durbin amendment passed many years earlier?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield].
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, those of us who oppose this amendment do 
not represent the tobacco lobby. We represent 142,000 farm families 
around this country who for generations have grown this product.
  If we continue our efforts to destroy the tobacco farmers, we will 
have to come up with a new program to provide economic assistance to 
142,000 farm families who have an average income of $13,000 a year. 
This is a supplemental income product.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not require anyone to smoke. There still is such 
a thing as personal responsibility in America.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard the rhetoric and the people 
testifying and talking about tobacco and the ills of tobacco. If we 
want to vote to do away with tobacco, this is not the way to do it.
  We will be called on in just a few minutes to take this little card 
and we will vote, and potentially the lives and the livelihoods of 
millions of people across this country will be affected.
  But this is not going to stop one teenager, one child, nobody from 
smoking. We will say to these farmers that go out and mortgage their 
farms, mortgage their allotments and make commitments, we will say to 
them, OK, these other folks can get crop insurance, but we are sorry 
about that. These tobacco farmers cannot have crop insurance. If there 
is a hurricane or a severe storm or whatever, that is just tough, they 
will not get any insurance.
  That is punitive, and it affects the lives of thousands and thousands 
of people that are on the small farms throughout all of this country in 
different places in this country. That is not fair.
  And we do not affect the big tobacco companies. This will not have 
any impact on the big tobacco companies. Somebody said, oh, the big 
tobacco companies. This does not do anything to the big tobacco 
companies. All we will do is penalize that hard working family that is 
trying to send their kids to school and to make a decent living.
  This is punitive, it is unfair, and I beg my colleagues when they put 
their cards in the slot to think of all the people they will be 
affecting across this country.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey amendment to eliminate 
the Tobacco Crop Insurance Program.
  Today, we provide crop insurance to 65 of the 1,600 crops grown in 
the United States. Nutrition-packed vegetables like broccoli and squash 
are not eligible for crop insurance. But we spend millions of dollars 
to insure the growth of tobacco.
  Millions to promote a crop that is unlike any other covered by the 
Federal Crop Insurance Program. A crop that is neither food nor fiber. 
A crop that neither provides us with food for our table nor clothes for 
our backs.
  This amendment eliminates the $34 million taxpayer subsidy for crop 
insurance for tobacco growing.
  Tobacco--when used according to directions--harms and kills hundreds 
of thousands of Americans every year.
  To combat this health threat, Mr. Chairman, America spends hundreds 
of millions of dollars each year to curtail tobacco use.
  We spend billions of dollars each year to treat emphysema, lung 
cancer, and heart disease.
  In my State, Massachusetts, over 10,000 people die each year from 
smoking-related illnesses. And the costs of treating those illnesses in 
my State alone totals more than $1 billion.
  Across America, tobacco use is the single largest drain on the 
Medicare trust fund. Tobacco costs Medicare more than $10 billion and 
Medicaid more than $5 billion per year.
  We now have irrefutable evidence of the damage tobacco use wreaks on 
our citizens and our Federal budget.
  The proposed settlement between the State attorneys general and the 
tobacco industry requires a payout of $368 billion over 25 years. This 
legal settlement is a testament to the disasters of tobacco use. While 
far from perfect, it represents a step in the right direction for 
advancing public heath.
  Clearly, in the case of tobacco, the time has come to bring our 
agricultural policy in line with our health policy.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are always eager to let 
the market provide for other sectors of our economy. They do not want 
to subsidize community service, education standards, economic 
development, or the arts.

[[Page H5698]]

  I say to my colleagues, we should not be subsidizing the growth of 
tobacco.
  Tobacco is a lucrative crop. It yields an average of $4,000 per acre; 
$4,000 compared with a yield of only $200 for an acre of wheat.
  Despite the ability of tobacco growers to pay the cost of crop 
insurance, we continue to fund large portions of their premiums. So, 
not only do farmers see high profits, but they also have taxpayers 
footing the bill for their insurance.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not subsidize tobacco. We should not promote 
the growth of a crop that kills. Support the Lowey amendment and let 
the market provide for tobacco plants.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, we are not antifarmer or 
antiagriculture. We are prohealth care, we are prochildren. It is our 
goal to stop lung cancer in our lifetime.
  The Government that gives a Surgeon General warning on the dangers of 
smoking should not be subsidizing insurance for the crop of tobacco.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard that this amendment is mean-spirited and 
that it will hurt tobacco growers. The simple fact is that tobacco is 
one of the most lucrative crops in America. Our amendment will not stop 
these farmers from growing tobacco. The amendment says they can 
continue to grow tobacco, but they will have to purchase crop insurance 
on their own.

                              {time}  1400

  Now if that is a hardship, it is a hardship for all the small 
businesses in America that they manage to overcome. My colleagues on 
the other side of this debate will also say that this amendment will 
not end smoking. They are right. This amendment is not a cure-all, but 
it will bring us one step closer to a consistent Federal policy on 
tobacco.
  Every year 400,000 Americans die from cancer. One of them was my dad. 
My father smoked three packs a day. At the age of 54, he died. I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. We have heard from the proponents of this amendment two 
things. First, we need to outlaw tobacco companies from producing 
tobacco that is harmful to Americans. Second, we need to keep children 
from smoking. This amendment has absolutely nothing to do with either 
one of those two issues.
  I have 5,000 small family tobacco farmers in my district. This 
particular amendment penalizes those 5,000 farm families who work hard 
every day to produce a living for their family growing a legal crop. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment 
to eliminate the Federal subsidy for tobacco crop insurance.
  This amendment is consistent with Congress' effort to control Federal 
spending and target our dollars only to the most necessary and 
appropriate programs. In 1996, Federal taxpayers paid around $80 
million in net tobacco crop insurance costs. The Congressional Budget 
Office estimates that adoption of this amendment will save $34 million 
in the coming fiscal year. Beyond that, eliminating this subsidy will 
go a long way toward lowering tobacco use and reducing the severe 
public health risks associated with its use.
  Personally, I would prefer to see this $34 million applied to cancer 
research, or research into other diseases afflicting millions of 
Americans in this country.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
cigarettes kill more Americans each year than AIDS, alcohol, car 
accidents, murders, suicides, drugs and fires combined. With the 
growing number of individuals suffering from health problems that are 
related to smoking, second-hand smoke, and tobacco use, it is in the 
public interest for Congress to remove taxpayer support for this type 
of crop which harms, and often kills its users.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey-De-
Gette-Hansen-Meehan-Smith amendment. This amendment would save $34 
million by eliminating subsidized crop insurance for tobacco--$34 
million in savings scored by CBO.
  It is time that we confront the glaring and unforgivable 
inconsistency in our Federal tobacco policy. We currently spend over 
$177 million on programs to prevent tobacco use. Yet, USDA spent $80 
million for Federal crop insurance subsidies in fiscal year 1996. How 
can we possibly continue to encourage the growth of tobacco?
  Some of our colleagues will argue that jobs are at stake here. But 
passage of this amendment would not result in the loss of any jobs. The 
private insurance market can provide crop insurance to tobacco farmers 
who want it--just like it does for the overwhelming majority of crops, 
such as honey, broccoli, watermelon, cherries, and livestock.
  This amendment simply ends one more Federal subsidy for a product 
that threatens the public health. This Nation can no longer close its 
eyes to a product that kills 400,000 Americans each year and brings 
into its deathly fold 3,000 children each day, more than 1 million new 
smokers each year. It is time to take the necessary steps to prevent 
another generation from becoming addicted to this deadly product. 
Ending subsidized crop insurance for tobacco is an important step in 
this process.
  Vote tonight to get the Federal Government out of the tobacco 
business. Vote ``yes'' on the Lowey-DeGette-Hansen-Meehan-Smith 
amendment.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, the Chair announces 
that proceedings will resume on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cox] immediately following disposition of the 
pending amendment. The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209, 
noes 216, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 310]

                               AYES--209

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--216

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher

[[Page H5699]]


     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     Meek
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Towns
     Turner
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barton
     Blunt
     Dingell
     Molinari
     Rangel
     Rogan
     Schiff
     Stark
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1421

  Mr. MATSUI changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BEREUTER and Mr. GREENWOOD changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 310, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 310, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Cox of California

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 418, 
noes 0, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 311]

                               AYES--418

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Barton
     Blumenauer
     Cannon
     Coyne
     DeGette
     Dingell
     Goode
     Jenkins
     Lewis (CA)
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Stark
     Taylor (NC)
     Visclosky
     Wise
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1429

  Mr. CAMPBELL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Miller of Florida

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Miller of Florida:
       Insert before the short title the following new section:

[[Page H5700]]

       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act to the Department of Agriculture shall 
     be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel who 
     issue, under section 156 of the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7272), any nonrecourse loans to 
     sugar beet or sugar cane processors.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller] and a Member opposed will each control 15 minutes.
  Who seeks to control the time in opposition?
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Ewing] if he would yield one half of his time to me and that I be 
allowed to further yield time.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that one half of my 
time be yielded to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] and that she 
be allowed to further yield time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 
half of my time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] for 
purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] will control 
7\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] will control 
7\1/2\ minutes, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] will control 
7\1/2\ minutes, and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] will control 
7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment we have before us today is for an 
incremental change to the sugar program. Last year the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Schumer] and I introduced legislation for a total 
phaseout of the program, but this year the amendment only addresses the 
issue of nonrecourse loans. The sugar program is considered the sugar 
daddy of corporate welfare because the benefits go to a limited number 
of people; in fact, 42 percent of the benefits of the sugar program go 
to only 1 percent of the growers. The sugar program is an old command-
and-control economic model that still exists, unfortunately, in this 
country, and it keeps the price of sugar at twice the world price.
  The sugar program was not changed in the last year's farm bill, and 
that is unfortunate because last year's farm bill had very significant 
change in agriculture in this country. But, sadly, sugar was the one 
product or crop that was exempted, and this is what happened:
  For example, last year in Time magazine, the week that President 
Clinton signed the legislation a full page article in Time did not talk 
about all the good things of that program, it talked about the fact 
that sugar sweetest deal, the landmark farm deal, left sugar subsidies 
standing, reformers wondering what went wrong. Agricultural socialism 
was supposed to end this week by the signing by President Clinton. But 
for America's sugar growers, how sweet it still is.
  The fact is the sugar program continues to keep the price of sugar at 
twice the world price. My colleagues can look at the Wall Street 
Journal. There are two prices published for sugar, one for the United 
States and one for the rural price, and it makes it very difficult for 
us to compete when we have to pay twice as much for sugar. That is 
unnecessary.
  Let me describe how the program works. We cannot grow enough sugar in 
the United States so we must import sugar, so farmers can produce all 
the sugar they can grow now but we still must import because the demand 
is so great. What the Federal Government does is it restricts the 
amount of sugar allowed to enter the United States, and by so 
restricting it, we force the price to twice the world price. The 
incentive for the Federal Government to do that, to maintain this high 
price, is the nonrecourse loan, because the nonrecourse loan is such 
that sugar processors, not farmers, these loans do not go to farmers by 
the way, they go to processors, big companies, and they get to borrow 
the money and put up the collateral sugar. They can pay back with sugar 
or money, cash.
  But what they do is, the Federal Government does not want to get paid 
back in sugar, so since the Federal Government does not want to get 
paid back in sugar, they force the price up high. This is bad for the 
American consumer, this is bad for jobs in America, this is bad for the 
American taxpayer, and it is also bad for the environment in this 
country.
  The consumer, according to the General Accounting Office, pays $1.4 
billion more, and for people of lower incomes, when they pay a high 
percentage of their food, money goes into food cost. This is a very 
regressive cost to the American consumer.
  It is bad for jobs. Refineries are closing. There is an editorial in 
the San Francisco Examiner today talking about how a refinery may close 
in San Francisco because there is not enough sugar to process. Then the 
jobs are also affected because the manufacturers that use a lot of 
sugar, whether it is candy or baked goods and such, cannot get enough 
sugar and so they have to pay more for it. They cannot compete with the 
Canadian companies.
  Bob's Candies in Albany, GA, a candy cane company; how can they 
compete when they pay twice as much for sugar as the Canadian company? 
That is unfair, and we are penalizing our manufacturers in this 
country, and that is wrong.
  And then the taxpayers get stuck with it, too. The taxpayers pay in 
several different ways. One area they pay is that we are major 
purchasers of food products in the United States, whether it is 
veterans hospitals or the military. GAO says it is costing the American 
taxpayer another $90 million there.
  And then we have the Everglades issue. In Florida, my home State, the 
Everglades, one of the most important natural resources we have in my 
home State, it is being damaged, the Everglades, by the sugar program 
because the sugar program encourages overproduction of sugar on 
marginal lands and it is damaging the Everglades.
  And then what we have to do to solve the sugar program is pay 
additional for the cost of land. We are inflating the price of land 
because of the sugar program.
  The sugar program is a bad program. It is time to start phasing out. 
This is only a limited change. I urge my colleagues to support this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the intent of the Miller-Schumer amendment is to kill 
an efficient U.S. sugar industry and send those jobs overseas. The 
sugar program was reformed in the 1996 farm bill. The sugar program 
retained only protection at the border from the other hundred countries 
in this world who produce sugar and want the American market to dump 
their sugar on. It would only hurt those people in the sugar industry 
and raise costs to the consumer if we were to adopt this amendment.
  There are more changes coming in the sugar program. The sugar program 
must move with the changes in the GATT agreement, and I support that, 
and most people in this body do for bringing the sugar program into 
competition in world market.
  We cannot change alone. We cannot tie one hand behind us and expect 
the rest of the world to respect our program.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend from New York for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the amendment.
  Our current sugar program is costing us money and it is costing us 
jobs. It restricts the amount of sugar that can come into this country 
by having an arbitrarily high price for sugar. That means American 
consumers are paying twice what they should for the cost of sugar. That 
is corporate welfare. That is not what it should be.
  Talk about costing jobs. In my district, Domino Sugar Refinery has a 
plant. Seven times within a year they

[[Page H5701]]

had to close because they could not get enough sugar at a competitive 
price in order to refine that sugar. There are 800 jobs there. That is 
jobs for this country.
  So whether my colleagues are interested in the American consumer or 
they are interested in American jobs, they cannot justify our current 
sugar program.
  The nonrecourse loan program allows sugar production here to 
guarantee a certain price. As the gentleman from Florida explained, the 
government does not want to get the sugar for the debt. Therefore the 
price of sugar is kept at an arbitrarily high level.
  For the sake of our consumers, for the sake of jobs, for the sake of 
fairness, support the Miller-Schumer amendment. It is in the interests 
of our constituents.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding time to me.
  If the Miller-Schumer amendment were to pass today, it would mean 
virtually the end of the domestic sugar production here in this 
country, and it would forfeit over 400,000 jobs, about 6,000 in my 
district.
  I come from an agricultural part of Hawaii. We are very proud of the 
contributions that the sugar industry has made not only to the State 
but to the country.
  The only people that are going to benefit from the Miller-Schumer 
amendment are the mega-international food cartels because it is in 
their interests to be able to buy cheap sugar. They are not interested 
in the American jobs that are dependent upon the sugar program, and 
contrary to what the gentleman said in offering this amendment, last 
year in the farm bill there were major revisions made to the sugar 
program and those revisions were agreed to by those of us who support 
this program.
  So I urge my colleagues, in the interests of saving U.S. jobs, 
protecting the farmers, understanding the commitment we made for 7 
years to this program, I urge them to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, throughout this sugar debate you have and will continue 
to hear opponents refer to a 1993 General Accounting Office [GAO] and a 
subsequent 1997 GAO report that argue for the elimination of the 
American sugar program. The U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 
responded to the 1993 GAO report that it was flawed.
  In a correspondence I received from the USDA Under Secretary, they 
found that the GAO used incorrect data and ignored integral components 
of the sugar program in generating their conclusions. In fact, the USDA 
found that even using the GAO's flawed methods, it could still show 
hundreds of million of dollars in benefits to consumers depending upon 
which years were studied. The letter I received from the USDA stated 
that had the GAO looked at 1973-75, rather than 1989-91, the analysis 
would have showed an annual savings to domestic users and consumers of 
$350 to $400 million, contrary to the opponents claim that the program 
was costing taxpayers over $1.4 billion. In fact, the GAO later 
conceded that the $1.4 billion was simply unsubstantiated.
  The USDA analysis not only revealed the deficiencies of the 1993 GAO 
report, but it reinforced the fact that America's sugar growers do not 
receive subsidies and that it is operated at no cost to the Government, 
as is required by law. The USDA analysis supports the sugar program's 
proponents assertions that the our Nation's sugar policy benefits 
consumers by providing a stable supply of sugar at prices 32 percent 
below other developing countries. In reality, the reason for this price 
differential is because foreign countries subsidize their sugar 
industry. On the average, retail price for a pound of sugar in America 
is 0.41 cents. Compare that to the 0.92 retail cost of sugar in Japan 
or Norway and you can see that American consumers do not pay the 
astronomical cost for sugar as opponents contend.
  Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the Record a letter from USDA Under 
Secretary Eugene Moos dated October 24, 1995, refuting the April 1993 
GAO report.
  To recover from last year's embarrassment, adversaries of the U.S. 
sugar program asked the GAO to conduct another study of the sugar 
program. Mr. Chairman, Congress reformed the U.S. sugar program just 
last year. The request for an additional study was a waste of taxpayers 
money. In fact, to no one's surprise, the subsequent 1997 GAO report 
used the same flawed methodology as in the 1993 report. Similarly, the 
USDA found the same errors in the 1997 GAO report and refuted its 
contentions.
  I urge my colleagues to reject these false arguments against the 
sugar program. It more than pays for itself. It benefits taxpayers, 
benefits consumers, and provides thousands of American jobs.

                                        Department of Agriculture,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                 Washington, DC, October 24, 1995.
     Hon. Patsy T. Mink,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Mink: Thank you for your letter of July 
     26, 1995, concerning the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
     report that stated that the U.S. sugar program costs domestic 
     users and consumers an average of $1.4 billion annually and 
     GAO's July 1995 analysis that the sugar program cost the 
     Government an additional $90 million in 1994 for its food 
     purchase and food assistance programs.
       In my opinion, GAO's April 1993 report was flawed in its 
     estimates. Some data were used incorrectly and important data 
     and sugar market issues were not considered. Based on GAO's 
     methodology, but by selecting prices in different time 
     periods, the results are more ambiguous. Depending on the 
     timeframe, one may contend that the domestic sugar program 
     either costs or benefits U.S. users and consumers.
       GAO's estimate of $1.4 billion annually was based on an 
     assumption of a long-run equilibrium world price of 15.0 
     cents per pound of raw sugar if all countries liberalized 
     sugar trade. GAO added a transportation cost of 1.5 cents per 
     pound of raw sugar to derive a landed U.S. price (elsewhere 
     in the report GAO stated that the transportation cost 
     adjustment should be 2.0 cents per pound.) To derive a world 
     price of refined sugar of 20.5 cents per pound, GAO added a 
     refining spread of 4.0 cents per pound.
       GAO compared its constructed U.S. sweetener price with its 
     derived world price. However, GAO constructed the U.S. price 
     for the 1989-1991 period during which 1989 and 1990 were 
     unusually high price years for U.S. refined sugar. This 
     exaggerated the difference between the so-called world 
     derived price and the U.S. sweetener price. By selecting a 
     period of world price spikes, such as 1973-1975, GAO's 
     analysis would show an annual savings to domestic users and 
     consumers of $350 to $400 million.
       Clearly, the expected world price of raw sugar with global 
     liberalization is critical to any analyses of the effects of 
     the U.S. sugar program. In 1993, the Australian Bureau of 
     Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) estimated that 
     sugar trade liberalization in the United States, European 
     Union, and Japan alone would result in an average world price 
     of 17.6 cents per pound of raw sugar--2.6 cents per pound 
     higher than GAO's derived world price.
       Based on the ABARE analysis and using a transportation cost 
     of 1.75 cents per pound, which more accurately reflects 
     global transportation costs to the United States, plus a 
     refining spread of 4.27 cents per pound (Landell Mills 
     Commodities Studies, Incorporated), a world price of refined 
     sugar is estimated at 23.6 cents per pound. Based on this 
     world price estimate and an average U.S. sweetener price of 
     1992-1994, a more normal price period, it can be shown using 
     GAO's methodology, that there are no costs to domestic users 
     and consumers.
       The estimated effects of the U.S. sugar program are highly 
     sensitive to expected world prices if global sugar trade is 
     liberalized. GAO's analysis, in my judgement, does not 
     adequately consider the complexities and dynamics of the U.S. 
     and global sugar markets.
       With respect to the effects of the U.S. sugar program on 
     Government costs of its food purchase and assistance 
     programs, an independent analysis by the Economic Research 
     Service (ERS) estimates the cost at $84 million based on the 
     difference between U.S. world refined sugar prices in 1994. 
     However, just as for the GAO analysis, different effects 
     could be estimated by using other time periods when the price 
     gap between U.S. and world prices was smaller. Moreover, with 
     global liberalization, the price gap would narrow because of 
     the dynamics of adjustment which were not considered in the 
     ERS analysis.
           Sincerely,

                                                  Eugene Moos,

                                      Under Secretary for Farm and
                                    Foreign Agricultural Services.

  Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Sugar Program was significantly reformed in 
the farm bill passed last Congress. We cannot renege on our 7-year 
commitment made only a year ago to America's sugar growers and 
producers. The elimination of the nonrecourse loan provisions will lead 
to the destruction of the support structure for America's sugar farmers 
and drive them and their families to joblessness and unemployment. The 
nonrecourse loan is an integral element of America's sugar program. 
Without these loans, the sugar operations in my district, with the 
exception of a refinery owned facility, would probably close. That 
could mean a loss of a 6,000 jobs directly and indirectly in an already 
weakened Hawaii economy.

[[Page H5702]]

  Nonrecourse loans work by allowing the harvested sugar to be used as 
a collateral in exchange for a loan from the Community Credit 
Corporation [CCC]. In addition, these loans support sugar prices and 
ensure that America's sugar growers have the ability to make a profit 
and repay their obligations with interest. Last year, Congress reformed 
the sugar program by stipulating that nonrecourse loans, and the 
guarantee of a minimum raw sugar price, would be available only when 
imports are high. Furthermore, it imposed a 1 cent per pound penalty on 
any processor who forfeits sugar to the CCC.
  Opponents claim that last year's reforms were inadequate and 
contributes to higher food prices. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. Compared with other developed countries, the U.S. price for 
sugar is about 32 percent below what consumers in other countries pay. 
The cost for sugar-added products, like cookies, cakes, candy, ice 
cream, and cereal have all risen 1 to 3.4 percent when the price for 
raw sugar has fallen.
  It's obvious that the very ones making the argument to eliminate the 
safety net for American farmers and consumers, are generating record 
profits for themselves. It's shear greed without regard to our American 
producers. This amendment promoted by the mega-food corporations is to 
allow them to buy cheap foreign subsidized sugar and reap bigger 
profits on the backs of hardworking Americans.
  If you vote for this amendment you are allowing greedy candy 
manufacturers and their allies to gain access to foreign subsidized 
sugar. Mr. Chair, America's sugar farmers need our help. From September 
1996 to May of this year, raw sugar prices have plummeted 3 percent to 
0.21 cents per pound. This drop is significant for sugar growers 
because this determines whether or not they make a menial profit or 
file for bankruptcy. If this amendment passes it would mean the end of 
thousands of America's small farmers. This action betrays last year's 
agreement and is a slap in the face of America's hardworking sugar 
farmers. I strongly urge my colleagues to keep our promise to America's 
farmers and vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues in the 104th Congress passed a contract 
with agriculture. Over 300 of them voted for it, and it was a contract 
which I am sure even the proponents of this bill will support, and that 
means that all subsidies and all support systems are gone in 7 years, 
now 6 years.

                              {time}  1445

  It was a commitment made by Congress with farmers. It allowed farmers 
to free up their planning, but it also said it is the end in 7 years.
  Now, if Members pass this amendment, they break the contract with 
farmers. They not only break it with sugar, they break it for the rest 
of the farmers. Why not wheat? Why not soybeans? Why are we not talking 
about these as well? How about dairy?
  We made a contract with the farmers. They depend upon it. They have 
borrowed money on the basis of 7 years. The CoBank, the largest 
agriculture bank in the country, said if we pass this amendment it 
jeopardizes $1 billion worth of loans to farmers.
  Please, I ask the Members not to jeopardize the farm bill they 
passed.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from Mr. Jack Cassidy 
to Chairman Livingston.
  The letter referred to is as follows:


                                                       CoBank,

                                         Denver, CO, July 2, 1997.
     Hon. Robert L. Livingston,
     Chairman, Appropriations Committee, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I'm writing to express CoBank's 
     opposition to H.R. 1387, legislation that would effectively 
     end the federal sugar policy.
       With $18 billion in assets, CoBank is the largest bank in 
     the Farm Credit System. We provide financing to about 2,000 
     customers, including agricultural cooperatives, rural utility 
     systems, and to support the export of agricultural products. 
     At present, CoBank has 25 farmer-owned cooperative customers 
     involved in the sugar or sweetener industry, with loans from 
     CoBank totaling about $996 million.
       CoBank's customers, their farmer members, and CoBank itself 
     have made numerous business decisions and financial 
     commitments based on the seven-year farm bill passed by 
     Congress in 1996. As you know, that legislation included 
     provisions vital to the U.S. sugar industry at no cost to 
     U.S. taxpayers. Great hardship would result to sugar farmers 
     and their cooperatives if Congress fails to live up to the 
     commitments made just last year as part of the farm bill.
       For these reasons, we urge you to support the existing farm 
     bill provisions and oppose any proposals that would undermine 
     the existing sugar policy.
       Please call me if you or your staff have any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Jack Cassidy,
                                            Senior Vice President.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], our distinguished leader.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] who 
just spoke, the chairman, is absolutely right. Last year this House 
made a promise to America's sugar farmers. We promised that we would 
stand by them, by their families, in case of a natural or an economic 
disaster. We made this commitment for 7 years. We made it in good 
faith.
  The amendment that we now discuss would break that promise. It would 
strip these farmers of the security we gave them in last year's farm 
bill. In my State alone, in Michigan, we have 2,800 sugar beet farmers. 
They employ, with other ancillary businesses, about 23,000 people in 
our State.
  The modest safety net at issue here simply makes it possible for 
these families to plan their future with some sense of peace of mind. 
What we are talking about is enabling hard-working families to weather 
a tough season without going broke. It is in everybody's interest for 
the farmers to continue to do what they do best, and that is to farm. 
One bum crop could put them in the poorhouse. It would not help 
anybody: Not them, not the Government, and not the public.
  So, contrary to some assertions today, this safety net we are talking 
about is not a handout. It was a handshake. It was a promise. It was a 
commitment that we made on the floor of this House when we passed the 
farm bill. Breaking this promise would be bad policy. Breaking this 
promise would demonstrate bad faith. So I urge my colleagues to support 
these farmers and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the members of the committee, there is 
no more sacred obligation of this House when it makes a promise to 
citizens of this country than to keep those promises.
  The previous speakers are exactly right. In the 1996 bill we set the 
course for the farm communities of America for the next 7 years. The 
sugar program was the only one where we said nonrecourse loans would 
not be available to farmers once import levels exceeded 1.5 million 
tons. We made that commitment in that agreement in 1996. I urge Members 
to keep that agreement.
  If they adopt this amendment, they are saying to American sugar 
farmers that one bad season means the Government comes and takes their 
farm, takes their equipment, and they are out of business. That is not 
the way this Government ought to work. It certainly is not a thing this 
Congress ought to do.
  The bill we passed with over 3,300 votes last year sets the stage for 
the farm communities for the next 7 years. We ought to keep our word, 
keep our promise, defeat this Miller-Schumer amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, the Miller-Schumer amendment 
has very strong bipartisan support. It would delete sugar price 
supports and laws that keep sugar prices artificially high. Eleven out 
of 22 sugar refineries in the United States have closed. Domino Sugar, 
which operates a plant in my district and employs almost 1,000 people 
in New York State, has closed three plants.
  How can anyone look at this record and say the sugar program is a 
success? Instead of the sugar program providing American jobs, it is 
taking good, solid jobs away from the refining industry and giving them 
to a privileged few sugar growers.
  This year Domino has suspended production in my district because it 
could not purchase enough imported sugar to maintain its profit margin. 
Deregulating sugar prices would keep sugar refiners like Domino up and 
running. It

[[Page H5703]]

also would lower sugar prices and food prices for consumers. American 
consumers pay twice as much for sugar as the rest of the world.
  The American people deserve better. They deserve cheaper sugar and 
they deserve to keep their jobs. Vote for this amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, my grandparents were farmers. I represent farmers in 
east Tennessee. Those same farmers continue to support me even though I 
voted against the farm bill last year. Why? Because I do not think we 
can really have reform until we eliminate price supports and subsidies.
  These farmers that support me are not in favor of price supports or 
subsidies. They are in favor of being left alone to do their work, 
whether it is peanuts, sugar, tobacco. I agree, why not all of them? 
Why do we not eliminate all the subsidies? It does not make any sense.
  After all, the people of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were 
willing to risk their lives to have what we not only take for granted 
but abuse, and that is the free market. We cannot continue to beat up 
on the free market with price supports and subsidies and have consumers 
pay higher prices for things because the Government is involved where 
the Government should not be involved. A pure pro-farm vote is leave 
the farmers alone and pull the government out of the farm business.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Camp].
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. Our sugar policy was reformed in the 1996 farm bill, Mr. Chairman, 
which many speakers have mentioned. But I know our opponents also say 
that they rely on this discredited GAO report claiming that U.S. sugar 
is overpriced. They constantly cite this 1993 report.
  The authors of this flawed report based their entire analysis on a 
faulty assumption. They assumed that without a sugar policy, U.S. 
consumers could pay an outrageously low world price of 14 cents a pound 
for sugar. They failed to mention that the world price was a dump 
price, the price sugar-exporting countries get for dumping their 
highly-subsidized sugar on world markets.
  The world dump price for sugar is hopelessly flawed and cannot be 
used as a gauge for measuring sugar's cost. Even the USDA says the GAO 
report was ``* * * flawed in its estimates, and important data and 
market issues were not considered.'' The USDA also said, ``Using 
different world price estimates, it can be shown using GAO's 
methodology that there are no costs to domestic users and consumers.''
  Oppose the Miller-Schumer amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. This is all we have to see right here, Mr. Chairman. 
Do Members want to hear about jobs? We all have people that work hard, 
and I understand the tradition of this country is if you work hard, you 
are supposed to be rewarded. Our sugar growers are the most productive 
people on the face of the Earth, and they are up against wage slavery.
  If Members want to vote for wage slavery, do it, but do not do it on 
the backs of American working people. If Members want to blame 
corporations and tax them, go ahead and tax them for the profits they 
are making.
  But I would like to bring this forward to Members for their 
consideration. Do Members think for an instant if they kill the sugar 
program that Coca-Cola is going to cost us any less because it is Diet 
Coca-Cola? They pocket those profits right now, and if Members kill the 
sugar program they are inviting Coca-Cola and everybody else to take 
even more profits, laugh all the way to the bank, and hurt the American 
working man and woman.
  Stand up for the American working man and the American working woman, 
and fight off the big corporate profits that will be made if Members 
pass this amendment today. I rest my case.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, no sugar is used in Coca-Cola. It is corn syrup. They 
priced themselves out of the market. There is no sugar in Coca-Cola.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith]
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, there is a misconception about 
bringing the sugar prices down by doing away with this program. I 
served for 4 years as the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs in 
USDA. I assure you that today's agricultural policy is developed based 
on the priorities of having an abundant supply of food and fiber at a 
reasonable price for the American consumer.
  Consumers are paying less for sugar in this country than most of the 
major countries of the world. It makes no sense to compare a dumping 
price for sugar from another country against the current domestic 
price. Consider our vulnerability and what we are going to have to pay 
for sugar if we do away with our sugar producers in this country, it is 
ridiculous. Our price for sugar is one of the cheapest in the world. Do 
not compare it to the dump price of sugar. Keep producing quality sugar 
in this country. Keep this program.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Miller], who is going to yield a minute of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by 
my friends, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Dan Miller] and the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Schumer. This amendment prohibits the use 
of any funds in the bill to carry out the nonrecourse loan portion of 
the sugar program. It only affects nonrecourse loans. We are losing 
sight of that fact. It leaves in place recourse loans for processors 
and the sugar tariff rate quota. I think that is an important 
distinction.
  The sugar industry obviously is a very particular concern in my home 
State of Florida for economic and environmental reasons. The 
delegation, frankly, is split. The sugar industry has contributed great 
benefit to the economy in Florida, but it has also contributed to some 
of the problems in the Florida Everglades, and I hope that the industry 
will continue to pitch in to help with the cleanup efforts and future 
preventative activity.
  But the critical issue here today, I believe, is the great majority 
of the people I represent in Florida believe that the time for deep 
Government involvement in agricultural markets has ended. It actually 
ended a long time ago. So on their behalf I am pleased to support the 
Miller-Schumer amendment, and I commend them for their efforts.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
  (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. It is a choice between farmers and candy. Vote for farmers.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].
  (Mr. BARCIA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, I also register my strong opposition to the 
Miller-Schumer amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Miller-Schumer 
amendment. It is an amendment that should not even be considered on an 
appropriations bill because it is clear from statements made in ``Dear 
Colleagues'' by our two colleagues that their intention is to change 
the sugar program, a legislative action if I ever saw one.
  I join my colleagues who say that this battle has been fought and is 
over until the next farm bill. Remember last year when our opponents 
resorted to fairy tale characters to try to undermine the zero-cost and 
well-intended sugar program. Well, in the words of a former President, 
there they go again. Now they are looking for the big bad wolf to keep 
huffing

[[Page H5704]]

and puffing until he can find a house to blow down.
  I represent some of the hardest working, most efficient farmers in 
this country. They have worked their entire lives to bring the best 
quality food supply to our consumers at the most reasonable prices in 
the world. We made a 7-year deal with them last year, and it is wrong 
for us to change it after they have made their plans based upon our 
holding out a multiyear program to them.
  Mr. Chairman, those who want to end the sugar program any way they 
can have resorted to using false information to denigrate the program. 
We have heard them claim that the Food and Agricultural Policy Research 
Institute has a study that was kept secret that says damage to our 
domestic sugar industry would be minimal if we changed the program.
  That's an old story. The facts now are that FAPRI's 1995 report was 
not buried, but rather was publicly released, provided to congressional 
staff, and available on the FAPRI website for several months. FAPRI, in 
fact, found that the harm to U.S. sugar producers would be substantial 
if our sugar policy was lost, not minimal as the opponents to the sugar 
program claim. And FAPRI has acknowledged that it probably understated 
the probable damage to American sugar growers, and that because of 
errors on FAPRI's part on U.S. costs of production, if the study were 
updated, FAPRI would likely demonstrate even larger declines in 
domestic production.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a bad thing to change a good program when it is 
working. It is even worse to change a good program based on misleading 
and discredited information. I urge a ``no'' vote on Miller-Schumer.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, the family farmers that work in their fields in the Red 
River Valley that I represent must be watching this debate with utter 
amazement. After all, U.S. sugar prices are 32 percent below developed 
countries. U.S. retail prices are the third lowest in the developed 
world. U.S. spending on sugar is the lowest in the world per capita.
  Last year we reformed the sugar program, addressing many of the 
concerns raised by the opponents. We gave them a straight up-or-down 
vote on whether this program should be continued.
  Now all North Dakota farmers, like farmers everywhere, ask for is 
that this body maintain the commitment made in last year's farm bill 
that there will be some price safety net on this product as they deal 
with the vagaries of weather and other external circumstances that make 
farming such a high-risk, low-profit business. Do not pull the rug out 
on America's farmers. This country has a good deal with the sugar 
program. It should be continued.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].

                              {time}  1500

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-
Schumer amendment. I have people in my district who are working hard to 
support their families. What we are seeing is that this anticompetitive 
program costs consumers over $1 billion per year in higher prices. 
Because of this program, it is threatening jobs in my district. We see 
it at Refined Sugars in Yonkers. At Domino's in Brooklyn. It is so 
critical that we reform the program. I rise in strong support of the 
Miller-Schumer amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina [Mr. Sanford].
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment 
because there has been much talk about commitment. Yet what I think we 
need to ultimately be committed to is to the simple theme of common 
sense. What we have with our sugar subsidy program is a system that 
does not make common sense. I say that because here we have a program 
that costs American consumers an additional $1.4 billion a year in the 
form of higher sugar price. All that benefit is handed to in essence 
the hands of a very few, for instance the Fanjul family that live down 
in Palm Beach and get $65 million a year of personal benefit. They have 
got yachts and helicopters and planes. They are on the Forbes 400 list.
  So what I have got are people that live in my home district, living 
in trailers subsidizing the lifestyles of the rich and famous. To me 
that does not make common sense. I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding the time to me.
  I do rise in opposition to the amendment. The U.S. sugar program is 
not about corporate welfare. It is not about lower prices for 
consumers. It is not about environmental protection. The amendment is 
about eliminating a self-financing, substantially reformed and positive 
program for American sugar growers and producers and taxpayers.
  I think it is important to keep in mind that the sugar program is 
almost a new program. The 1996 farm bill created a free domestic sugar 
market, froze the support price at 1995 levels. It required that the 
USDA impose a penalty on producers who forfeit their crops instead of 
repaying their marketing loans, and it increased imports.
  Do not doubt these reforms have a significant impact on all sugar 
producers. Sugar producers in my district and all across the country 
have accepted it and generally welcome the opportunity to work in the 
new program, an opportunity for them to succeed.
  I am proud to represent our sugar beet growers, and I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose this misguided amendment and support American 
sugar producers.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this issue is about American jobs, not about 
highfalutin Congress speak. I live where these people grow this sugar. 
I live with the pain of those who think for a moment that they may not 
have a job at some point in time. We stand around here and talk about 
jobs in my districts and your district. Let me tell my colleagues about 
the 44,000 jobs that are produced by the American sugar industry. I can 
assure my colleagues of this, the argument about who makes profits, do 
we penalize Bill Gates for owning Microsoft? Hell no. What we do is we 
support those efforts of manufacturers and businesses and so does the 
sugar industry. If you do not get it here, you are going to get it 
there. And if you get it there, it is going to cost more and it is 
going to cost more in American jobs.
  Please know that this is an important program not just to Members but 
to people and to hospitals in these rural areas and to the little bitty 
stores and to the little bitty businesses that crop up as a result of 
this.
  Completely defeat this amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].
  (Mr. CRAPO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. John].
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
Ohio for yielding me the time.
  Let us be very honest about what we are doing here. This amendment 
has nothing to do with saving taxpayers' dollars. It has nothing to do 
with protecting American consumers. In fact this amendment has 
everything to do with bad public policy. It is about doing through the 
appropriations process what could not be done in the 1996 farm bill.
  In the gentleman's own words, the gentleman from Florida said we 
tried to totally eliminate this program last year and we could not do 
it. So please, I urge my colleagues, do not go along with this 
amendment. This is a back-door approach to try to wreck the American 
farmers and not the big farmers but the small farmers.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Quinn]. The Chair announces that the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] has 2 minutes and 10 seconds 
remaining, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] has 2 minutes 
remaining, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] has 2\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  For the purposes of closing the debate, the Chair announces that the

[[Page H5705]]

gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] will close. The gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] will go third to last. The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Schumer] will finish his time first, and the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Ewing] will go second to last.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Foley].
  (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, something was mentioned today on the floor 
about the environment. The Miami Herald, an environmental newspaper 
located in Miami, FL: Congress weighs sugar policy. Dismantling the 
U.S. sugar program will not save the Everglades. Sugarcane, the plant, 
is still the most benign crop grown in the Everglades agricultural 
area, requiring less water than rice, releasing fewer polluting 
nutrients than vegetables or cattle pastures. Studies show that the 
crops that might supplant sugarcane would pose a greater threat to the 
environment and, if the land became fallow, it would be quickly 
overtaken by melaleuca and Brazilian pepper.
  We heard about price. Let me show my colleagues what the farm bill 
did last near. Raw sugar prices down 3.4 percent. Wholesale refined 
sugar down 5.2 percent; cereal up 1; ice cream up 1.8; 2 percent for 
candy; 2.1 for retail refined sugar; and cookies and cakes up 3.4 
percent.
  Reducing the price of sugar as the amendment would suggest will not 
create a consumer benefit. Reject this amendment. It is about jobs, as 
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] said. It is about a bill that 
was fairly negotiated on this floor. They lost. They should accept 
their defeat. Protect the program. Defeat Miller-Schumer.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to 
correct my good friend from Florida in his original statement. He said 
a couple of things that are just flat wrong. First of all, we changed 
the sugar program in the last Congress, and that needs to be 
understood. Second of all, this does not just affect processors. This 
affects farmers because in my district the plants are owned by the 
farmers. These are people that have 500, 600 acres. They have a 
cooperative. They own this plant. They have put tremendous investments 
into these plants. We have made a commitment with them in this farm 
bill last year that we were going to leave this alone for 7 years. It 
is not fair to do what they are doing to these farmers.
  I just wish that we would be honest about what we are doing here. 
What we are trying to do, legislate on an appropriations bill. We are 
trying to do what could not be done last time. It is not fair to the 
farmers in my district and the farmers of this country. We need to 
defeat the Miller-Schumer amendment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller], my coauthor on 
this amendment. We have heard a lot of passion on the floor. We have 
not heard too many facts. I would like to rebut a few.
  People say the sugar program was reformed in 1995. That is not true. 
Wheat was reformed, corn was reformed. Sorghum was reformed; soybeans 
was reformed. All of you reformed your programs. Sugar and peanuts 
refused to be reformed. Right now the average subsidy per acre of sugar 
is $480. No other industry farm or farmer otherwise gets that. The 
average subsidy for wheat is $35. The average subsidy for corn $45. No 
wonder the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] says, do not change it. 
If you were making $480 per acre, you would not want to change it 
either. We all pay for it.
  Second, it emasculates the poor sugar farmers. Do you know who the 
money goes to? The refiners. The farmers did not get a nickel from this 
program. And in fact the program is so skewed to the top that the 1 
percent wealthiest, including the Fanjuls, my friend from California 
said this is farmers versus candy, this is the American people versus 
the Fanjuls, plain and simple.
  One percent of the subsidy, 1 percent of the people get 56 percent of 
the subsidy, the top 1 percent of those subsidized get 56 percent. This 
is a rich man's benefit.
  Finally, the environment, every day, my colleagues, another 5 acres 
of the Everglades is destroyed; 500,000 acres of precious Florida 
wetlands are destroyed. Is it no wonder that free market think tanks, 
environmental groups, consumer groups all are together in eliminating 
the program? Let us be honest. There are jobs on the sugar side. There 
are jobs on the refiner side. Jobs are being lost. We argue net jobs 
are being lost. But why do we give such a huge subsidy to this one 
program?
  The gentleman in the well said, Bill Gates, Bill Gates prospered. 
Yes, my colleagues, he prospered without a Federal subsidy. If the 
Fanjuls can prosper without a Federal subsidy, God bless them. If they 
were American citizens, I would say God bless America.
  But they do not. They prosper to subsidize. That is why they are here 
with everything they are giving to everybody. That is why they can 
afford to buy refiners and offer to buy my refinery. That is why they 
can afford to spread all their money around because of all the money we 
make, and it comes from the average hard-working American who nickel by 
nickel pays for that. End this subsidy once and for all.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  There has been a lot of conversation about reform of the sugar 
program. Those of us who have studied it know that it was reformed and 
reformed as much as any agricultural program. Now, right now this 
amendment, who is interested in this amendment? It is not the little 
guy that you are worried about. It is not the senior citizen. It is the 
big consumer of sugar, the manufacturers who want to destroy the sugar 
price in America.
  The sugar price in America as compared around the world, we are less 
than the developed world. What is at risk here is opening the doors 
because all that is left is border protection to dumping of foreign 
sugar on America's sugar industry and destroying it. Then we will put 
out of business those who create jobs in the sugar industries and those 
farmers who pursue a livelihood there. Vote no on this amendment.

                              {time}  1515

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], the distinguished ranking member 
of the authorizing Committee on Agriculture.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, quickly, fact: The sugar program has not 
cost the U.S. Treasury 1 cent since 1985. Fact: We will reduce the 
deficit by $288 million over the life of the farm bill that some said 
was not reformed.
  Now I want to talk about M&M candy. I like M&M candy. They include 
sugar in M&M candy. They also have less than 1 percent corn starch in 
M&M candy.
  This reference that the consumer is going to pay a billion dollars 
more is laughable. There is 25 grams of sugar in this package. The 
market price is 22 cents. That makes 1.23 cents worth of sugar in this 
candy.
  If we lowered it to the world prices, as the authors of this 
amendment want us to do, it will lower it to 8 cents a pound. That will 
make 0.78 cents per pound worth of sugar in this candy. We can buy this 
in the Capitol from the vending machines for 55 cents. Do we believe 
for a moment that there will be a new price at 54.217 cents on that 
vending machine if we pass this amendment?
  Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I want to correct some of the information stated today. First of all, 
there was no significant change in the sugar program last year. It only 
lost by a handful of votes. Five votes made a difference. As Time 
magazine said, ``The landmark farm bill left sugar subsidies 
standing.'' They did not get changed last year.
  We just have to look at the price of sugar. Five years ago the price 
of sugar was 22, 23 cents a pound. Today it is 22, 23 cents a pound in 
the United States. And under this farm bill it will stay at

[[Page H5706]]

that same price for the next 5 years. But look at the world price. In 
Canada it is about 11 or 12 cents a pound. That is the world price of 
sugar.
  What will happen to those candy companies is that they are going to 
ship their jobs to Canada. It is happening now. It is not right for the 
jobs in this country.
  When we talk about subsidized sugar, France has subsidized sugar. 
There are laws on the books to keep that sugar out of the United 
States. I agree with that. When countries like France are not allowed 
to ship it in, that is what I agree with. But a country like Australia, 
the largest exporter of sugar in the nation, they are allowed to ship 
and sell it anywhere in the world at 11, 12 cents. We can compete with 
Australia.
  Now, last year, we did not pass a total reform. What we want to do 
now is just a modest change, which is a nonrecourse loan. Veterans do 
not get nonrecourse loans. Students do not get nonrecourse loans. 
Businesses around this country do not get nonrecourse loans. So why 
should sugar farmers get nonrecourse loans?
  Now, to my Republican colleagues, 55 percent of the Republicans last 
year voted with me for total repeal. This is just an incremental change 
and there is no reason why they should not be able to come along with 
me this time. It is pro-jobs, it is pro-consumer, it saves taxpayers 
money, and it is a good environmental vote.
  This will be a scored vote by environmental groups, and the free 
market, the think tanks all say, hey, if we believe in the free 
enterprise system, this is a bad program with sugar so we should 
support this amendment.
  To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are concerned 
about the environment, this is a big environmental vote, and it is bad 
for consumers and for lower income people who pay so much for their 
food. It does impact the cost of their food.
  So I encourage all my colleagues to say let us begin the process. 
This is one step in the direction of reforming sugar which did not get 
reformed last year. This is the right thing to do for the American 
consumer and the American taxpayer.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly oppose the Miller-
Schumer amendment. This ill-conceived measure breaks the market-
oriented contract made with the hard-working sugar farmers around the 
country and in my home State of Montana and undermines the viability of 
our rural communities.
  This amendment flies in the face of common sense. Montana's sugar 
producers and their families have made investments based upon the 
Federal Government's word in the 1995 farm bill. In this planting year 
alone, farmers are counting on these promises for a fair return on 
their investment. Yet, this amendment would place America's sugar 
producers at great risk by eliminating the safety net they were 
promised in the farm bill.
  For example, Montana's sugar producers are counting on getting up to 
70 percent of their net returns from the nearby processors in December 
of this year. These net returns are ultimately based upon what was 
supposed to be a 7-year Federal sugar policy commitment. The Miller-
Schumer amendment ignores that commitment and compromises the financial 
investments made by our Nation's producers. Mr. Speaker, Montana's 
farmers can't unplant what has been planted and can't recover their 
investments if Congress erases those investments.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. This 
dangerous amendment puts our farmers and communities at great and 
unfair risk and forgets our word to the people. It's time to assure our 
agriculture community that the promises made by the Federal Government 
are promises kept.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Miller-Schumer 
amendment to eliminate the nonrecourse portion of the U.S. sugar 
program. As you know, during consideration of last year's historic farm 
bill, significant reforms were made to the U.S. sugar program. Among 
the changes were the elimination of all domestic production controls, 
an increase in the marketing assessments sugar farmers must pay to 
reduce the Federal deficit, and new penalties to further discourage 
loan forfeitures and maintain the now 12-year-old no-cost operation of 
sugar policy.
  Our domestic sugarbeet and sugarcane growers provide taxpayers with 
almost $300 million in Federal revenues through the collection of 
assessments. In fact, because our domestic growers have been so 
successful in providing U.S. consumers with stable, high-quality 
supplies of sugar at a retail price well below the developed country 
average, our farmers were willing last year to contribute their fair 
share in the overall goal of reforming Federal farm support programs.
  But while our sugar industry has been successful, it does face stiff 
competition from subsidized sugar growers throughout the world. GATT 
mandated no reduction in the price support for sugar in the European 
Union. Thus, while U.S. growers operate under a strict loan program, 
European farmers receive subsidies to artificially lower the market 
cost on their sugar sales.
  Recognizing the threat that dumping sugar by foreign countries could 
have on the United States, sugar growers have one remaining safety net, 
the nonrecourse loan guarantee. While some of my colleagues here have 
attempted to portray this as a gimmick to raid the Federal Treasury, in 
actuality, this program would only come into effect when at least 1.5 
million tons of foreign imports begin to flood our markets.
  I believe this safety net is important to keep our domestic sugarbeet 
and sugarcane industry viable. Without this small measure of protection 
from the vagaries of foreign subsidized sugar, a critical sector of our 
farm economy could collapse. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in support of the 
Miller-Schumer amendment to the fiscal year 1998 agriculture 
appropriations bill which would prohibit the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture from spending Federal funds to implement the nonrecourse 
loan program for sugar producers.
  This amendment takes another step forward in our continued efforts to 
phase out the Federal Government's out-dated sugar price subsidy. The 
USDA's complex program of loan subsidies, price supports, and good old-
fashioned protectionism benefits only a handful of farmers at the 
expense of American consumers.
  I think the American people would be appalled to learn that more than 
30 farmers and corporations receive in excess of $1 million annually in 
USDA sugar subsidies. Meanwhile, consumers pay $1.4 billion a year in 
higher prices on sugar products and hundreds of consumer items that use 
sugar.
  Last year, Congress passed landmark agriculture legislation, known as 
the FAIR Act, which opened up most American farmers to the free market 
and new agricultural opportunities. There is no reason why these same 
free market principles should not apply to sugar farmers. If passed, 
this amendment would also have the benefit of opening up new 
opportunities to sugar farmers while still providing them refuge from 
foreign dumping and unfair trade barriers in markets overseas.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Mr. Miller and Mr. Schumer for their 
collaborative work on this issue and I urge all my colleagues to 
support their amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 253, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 312]

                               AYES--175

     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clement
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Fawell
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hayworth
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paul

[[Page H5707]]


     Paxon
     Payne
     Petri
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--253

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vento
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Sisisky
       

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Barton
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Stark
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1538

  Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. ORTIZ, and Mr. OWENS changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SAXTON, COOK, VISCLOSKY, and EHRLICH changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by 
the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore [Mr. Quinn] 
announced that the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 265, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No 313]

                               AYES--158

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--265

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

[[Page H5708]]



                             NOT VOTING--11

     Ackerman
     Barton
     Gonzalez
     Lewis (GA)
     Meek
     Molinari
     Reyes
     Sanford
     Schiff
     Stark
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1600

  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Neumann

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Neumann:
       Insert before the short title the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to carry out, or to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel of the Department of 
     Agriculture who carry out, a nonrecourse loan program for the 
     1998 crop of quota peanuts with a national average loan rate 
     in excess of $550 per ton.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield half of 
my time, or 7\1/2\ minutes, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Kanjorski] for purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] will control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] 
will control 15 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that half of the 
time, 7\1/2\ minutes, be yielded to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. 
Kaptur] the ranking member, for purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  First, I would like to thank my very competent staff for bringing 
this issue to my attention and getting me fully informed on the details 
of this particular program. It is a very interesting program. It is a 
program in which the United States Government controls the amount of 
peanuts that can be produced in the United States under a system called 
a quota system. By limiting the amount of peanuts that are available 
for sale in the United States of America, a very interesting thing 
happens and it is not unexpected; by controlling the availability of 
peanuts that limits the supply, naturally with a limited supply the 
price of peanuts goes up. And the fact is when a hardworking family 
walks into a store to buy a jar of peanut butter, they literally wind 
up paying 30 cents a jar extra for no other reason than that the U.S. 
Government is in the middle of the program.
  Let me give my colleagues some of the numbers here that lead to the 
30-cent increase in the cost of making peanut butter and jelly 
sandwiches for lunches in many of the hardworking families across 
America. In the world market, peanuts sell for $350 a ton, but because 
the U.S. Government is involved in this quota system, peanuts in the 
United States of America sell for $650 a ton, almost double the world 
price on peanuts. As a matter of fact, our Government has this loan 
guarantee program in place where they guarantee a loan at $610 per ton.
  Now an interesting fact came to light in our research. In fact, our 
American farmers produced peanuts that are sold in the world markets. 
That is to say they are producing roughly 300,000 tons of peanuts that 
are sold in the world markets at $350 a ton. So why is it that here in 
the United States of America, we are asking our consumers to pay all 
this extra money every time they want to make a peanut butter and jelly 
sandwich for their kids' lunch when they head them off to wherever it 
is, whether it be a job or to school or whatever?
  Another interesting fact came to light when we started studying who 
owns these quotas, who has got this limited right to raise peanuts in 
the United States of America. A lot of people were saying, ``Well, it 
helps the farmers, and therefore you should allow it to continue.''
  Sixty-eight percent of the quotas are owned by nonfarmers in the 
United States of America. It is time for this program to end.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. Smith), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time to me.
  Again, in the last Congress they passed a couple of bills. One was, 
of course, the Freedom to Farm which eliminated all subsidies in 7 
years, and prior to that they changed the peanut program. It is no 
longer a Government-subsidized program. In fact, by the year 2002, $434 
million will be saved. That is what they did.
  But I am sure many of my colleagues do not like the peanut program. 
They may not, but they signed a contract, the contract with farmers, 
the Government with farmers. They signed the contract for 7 years. For 
7 years there will be no peanut subsidy or no peanut program.
  So remember this: It is a contract, it is a commitment, it is a 
Government promise, the Government-farmer agreement. Do not violate the 
agreement. Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
which implements the first step in the Shays-Lowey peanut program 
elimination bill.
  The peanut program epitomizes wasteful, inefficient Government 
spending. It supports peanut quota holders at the expense of 250 
million Americans, consumers and taxpayers.
  The GAO has estimated that this program passes on $500 million per 
year in higher peanut costs to the consumers. What does this mean to 
average American families? Well, as a mom who sent her three kids to 
school with peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for years, I find it 
unacceptable that this program forces American families to pay an 
average of 33 cents more for an 18-ounce jar of peanut butter. Now that 
is not peanuts.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for American consumers and support 
this amendment. It is good fiscal and consumer policy.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Rodriguez].
  (Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to defend the peanut 
farmers in my district and throughout the Nation. Once again we see the 
multicorporations trying to come in and be able to take the profits. 
When we look at it, the family farmer is less than 100 acres, and so we 
are looking at a situation where less than 100 acres for the average 
family farmer in this country. These farmers must compete with 
multicultural corporations in dealing with them. They had, last time 
around they had, and it was cut from 678 to 610; now they are coming 
back for more.
  My colleagues, before you is a Snickers. I paid 60 cents for it. It 
has gone up 5 cents. Have my colleagues seen a cut on it? No.
  In addition to that, the peanuts that are in this Snickers is 
approximately 2 cents. Do my colleagues foresee that there will be a 
cut of 58 cents? I will attest to my colleagues that that is not going 
to occur.
  What we see before us is an attempt by the multicorporate 
corporations to be able to get some additional moneys. I thank my 
colleagues, and I ask them to vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, in 1934 the Great Depression led 
Congress to establish the Federal peanut program to protect the peanut 
producers

[[Page H5709]]

and to control the domestic supply. Well, the peanut program is now 63 
years old. That is 63 years of price controls, 63 years of higher 
prices for consumers and 63 years of centrally-planned economics.
  I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] which compels the USDA to be fair to consumers 
when establishing a loan level for the peanut quota.
  Mr. Chairman I grew up on a family farm, a small family farm in 
Arkansas, and this is not about farming but this is about Government 
and Government quotas. The peanut program combines production quotas, 
price support, loans and import restrictions which stifle the U.S. 
peanut industry and endanger trade for other agricultural commodities.
  This is a program which benefits only the elite few. The GAO reports 
that 68 percent of quota owners do not actually participate in farming. 
They rent their Government quotas for a profit. If a farmer does not 
sell his crop, he can forfeit to the Government and receive $610 per 
ton.
  The world market price is only $350 per ton; that is more than what 
is necessary. That is an additional $500 million a year in inflated 
prices for American consumers. It is time we stop this arcane 
Government program. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Lucas].
  Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is the 
pending business before the House should be entitled the ``How Many 
Rural Economies Can We Wreck in 1997 Amendment''. Simply put, the 
Neumann amendment will devastate rural economies throughout the South. 
Last year's farm bill contained significant reforms for the Nation's 
peanut program. Further reductions in the support price will cause the 
economic ruin of thousands of family farms, rural banks and country 
towns that they support. Contrary to the claims of many, this amendment 
will not give consumers cheaper candy bars or peanut butter. It is 
anti-farmer, and it should be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, let us let the 1996 farm bill work. I repeat. Let us 
let the 1996 farm bill work.
  I would urge my colleagues in joining me to vote against this 
amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Etheridge].
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. Peanut farmers 
are the backbone of the economy in the poorest counties in the South. 
They agreed to the reforms in the program just last year. Loan rates 
were reduced, quotas were reduced, programs were opened to new 
producers, out-of-State quota holders were eliminated. In return they 
have been given a farm bill, a 7-year promise of stability.
  Mr. Chairman, peanut farms face many obstacles without having to 
worry about whether or not they can pay their bills. Too much rain 
gives soggy peanuts, drought turns them to dust. Peanut farmers are 
hardworking people. They need stability. They do not need to face this 
problem.
  Proponents claim they are fighting for consumers. Hogwash. Candy 
manufacturers have said they will not pass on any of the savings to 
consumers. Savings will be passed on to a few of the multibillion-
dollar companies, and the price of candy bars will not go down.
  If there is any integrity left in this Congress, we will live up to 
the commitment that was made last year to the peanut farmers and defeat 
this amendment.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle] the former Governor.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and I rise in strong support of the Neumann-Kanjorski 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal peanut program is completely antiquated, 
and only those who believe in Peter Pan could believe that the program 
works well. Over the last 2 years USDA announced the national peanut 
quota production level of 100,000 tons below expected demand. What does 
this mean? USDA basically created an artificial government-induced 
shortage of peanuts which, in short, means peanut-loving taxpayers get 
Jiffed; I mean gypped. At a time when we are reviewing every program 
for savings in order to balance the budget, it is simply nuts to spend 
taxpayer dollars on a program that refuses to adopt commonsense reforms 
to achieve real savings.
  Mr. Chairman, the Neumann-Kanjorski amendment is a positive step 
toward true reform of the peanut program. I believe it does help to 
protect consumers from Government price fixing, create a more 
competitive peanut economy and lower prices on peanut products. I ask 
all of my colleagues, Republicans, Democrats, crunchy peanut butter 
lovers and creamy peanut butter lovers, to support the Neumann-
Kanjorski amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, I have been doing this a pretty long 
time. I used to be in the packaging business. To say that you would 
save 18 cents with peanut butter and jelly is a nice little symbol, but 
let me just tell the Members something. For the last I think 5 years 
peanut paste from China has been coming through Canada into the United 
States like at 25 percent cheaper. Members will see in a few moments a 
chart showing the rise in peanut butter prices. Oddly enough, oddly 
enough, the price of peanut butter in Canada is more than the price in 
the United States.
  There are many reasons to vote against this amendment, but I would 
like to focus on another one. Many Members may not know it, but we have 
already voted to enact annual cuts in the effective support price for 
peanuts. Along with a long list of reforms, last year's farm bill 
contained a 10-percent price cut in the support price for peanuts, but 
it also froze that price for 7 years with no adjustment for inflation. 
The freeze amounts to an automatic annual cut in the support price, and 
each year, as Members know, expenses go up.
  If my colleagues really want to cut the real support price for 
peanuts, there is one alternative to this amendment: Leave the farm 
bill alone and vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Neumann-Kanjorski 
amendment, which would devastate peanut farmers in the State of 
Virginia.
  This controversy is not new. Almost every year we consider yet 
another proposal to cut the peanut support price. I'm afraid many 
Members may be forgetting that last year's farm bill already cut the 
support price by 10 percent.
  The farm bill contained a long list of reforms that transformed the 
peanut program. From the perspective of Congress, the most important of 
these reforms may have been doing away with all cost to the taxpayer. 
The program actually gives back $83 million to the Treasury that goes 
toward reducing the deficit.
  For most peanut farmers, however, the most important change was 
losing 10 percent of their support price. A close runner-up was having 
their support price frozen for 7 years--with no adjustment for 
inflation.
  Many farmers in my district were not happy with this deal. The 10 
percent cut was a bitter pill to swallow. A price freeze over 7 years, 
with expenses cutting into revenue more and more every year, was even 
tougher.
  But it was a deal, and farmers accepted it. What we're talking about 
today is reneging on that deal. This amendment would effectively gut 
the peanut program before we've had a chance to determine the effects 
of last year's reforms.
  We still don't know how farmers will adapt to all the changes in the 
farm bill. The 10 percent cut in the support price has already taken 
most of the profit out of peanut farming in Virginia.
  Fortunately, though, farmers have not felt the full effects of that 
cut. That's because prices for other commodities have been high, and 
farmers have not had to rely on peanuts to keep them in the black.
  But believe me, that will change. Already, bad weather has taken its 
toll on farmers in Virginia. With only an inch of rain since planting, 
many farmers won't be able to harvest enough cotton to make a profit. 
Prices on other commodities have also fallen.
  And what about 6 years from now? We don't know how farmers are going 
to adjust to a support price frozen at a level 10-percent lower than 
before. Remember, this freeze

[[Page H5710]]

amounts to an automatic annual cut in their support price. Every year, 
their support is reduced by the amount of inflation.
  In fact, if the U.S. support price drops below $610, many farmers in 
Virginia are not going to be growing peanuts anymore. At $550, they 
simply won't be able to get financing. Rural communities will lose the 
bread and butter of their economies, on which so many other businesses 
depend.
  Now, we've all heard about how the world price for peanuts is 
supposedly half the U.S. support price. But this argument dissolves on 
closer inspection. The so-called world price is simply not comparable.
  It generally applies to an inedible, poor quality peanut used mainly 
for oil. We might as well be talking about the world price for oranges. 
If the U.S. price were at the so-called world level, there wouldn't by 
many American peanut farmers left.
  If my colleagues really want to cut the support price for peanuts, 
there is an alternative.
  Do nothing.
  The price freeze in last year's farm bill amounts to an automatic 
annual price cut. Let the freeze take effect over the full term of the 
farm bill. Let's see the real-world effects of what we've already done.
  In the meantime, I urge my colleagues not to renege on last year's 
deal. We should not be making it impossible for peanut farmers to make 
a living at a time when Mother Nature is making it hard enough.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Neumann/Kanjorski 
amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Augusta, Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I will tell the Members quick what is nuts. What is 
nuts is people from Delaware and people from Wisconsin getting up here 
and talking about something they do not know the first thing about. My 
good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann] actually saw a 
peanut plant one time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have lived in a family who grew peanuts. They hated 
the Government regulations. They wanted to get away from them, but we 
made them do it. Now give them a chance over the next 7 years to live 
with this no-cost program to the taxpayers, and undo what we have done 
to them for the last 50 years. Get off the back of the peanut farmer.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford].
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, 
because leaving aside the good and the bad of what we have heard about 
the peanut program, I think what we need to consider is the fact that 
if Members look at the peanut program as it is now configured, Members 
would look straight back to the Dark Ages. In the Dark Ages there was a 
feudal system wherein if you were lucky and drew the long end of the 
straw you were lord of the manor, and if you were unlucky you were a 
serf out there toiling on the land.
  In 1997, with our peanut program the way it is configured, if you 
draw the long end of the stick you have a quota from the Government and 
can sell your peanuts for about $600 a ton, and if you draw the short 
end of the stick you can sell them for about half that, the same 
peanuts. To make matters worse, about two-thirds of the quota owners, 
and again we are not talking about farmers here, are people that live 
in Los Angeles and New York and Miami.
  So I would simply make the observation that we need to move from the 
Dark Ages and into the light ages of a market-based system. I urge the 
adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Everett].
  (Mr. Everett asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment 
which is based on false information. It is poor from a policy 
standpoint and unworkable from a practical standpoint.
  We reformed the peanut program last year extensively. We, the 
Committee on Agriculture, and the House and the Senate and the 
President authorized a reform program at no cost to taxpayers, and yes, 
at no additional cost to families who buy peanut products.
  Opponents claim that the peanut program costs families additional 
money. That is not true. What they do not tell us is in one of the 
reports they used when they quote from, the GAO identifies consumers as 
those corporations who first purchased the peanut from the farmer; 
again, not the housewife but the corporations.
  As far as passing along lower prices to the housewife, that is a 
joke. The only person who would believe that would be somebody who does 
believe in Peter Pan. Since the peanut farmer received the cuts for 
their peanuts that were slashed last year, the price of peanut products 
has increased, not been passed on. Not one penny of the money taken 
from farmers has been passed on to the families, not one penny.
  Also, studies show thousands of jobs in farm-related industries, such 
as manufacturing of farm equipment and those supplying farmers, will be 
lost if this flawed amendment passes. This issue was fully considered 
last year. Now let the program work. This Congress, both House and 
Senate, and the administration made a commitment to our farmers. We 
should honor it, and stop this silly and flawed business of trying to 
rewrite the farm bill every year.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Newmann-Kanjorski 
amendment which is based on false information, is poor from a policy 
standpoint and unworkable from a practical standpoint.
  The appropriation bill is not the appropriate place to consider this 
issue. This is nothing more than an attempt to rewrite the farm bill in 
a way that is punitive to farmers.
  I could stand up here all day long and discuss the merits of the 
peanut program, the reforms we made in the 1996 farm bill, and the 
financial situation of the peanut farmers. But Mr. Chairman, this is 
not the time or the place to do it. You see, we did that last year * * 
* extensively, and we, the Agricultural Committee, and subsequently the 
House, Senate, and President, authorized a reformed program that 
benefits all Americans and at absolutely no cost to taxpayers, or, and 
please hear this--at no cost to families who buy peanut butter and 
other peanut products.
  We have been fighting this fight for many years. The fight, however, 
is not about reform, we have done that, this effort is about corporate 
greed, pure and simple. These multinational corporations have been 
lining the Halls of Congress with money for years claiming that the 
Peanut Program cost families additional money. That is simply not true. 
The GAO report you will hear quoted does not say the program cost the 
housewife and families one thin dime. In the report, the GAO identifies 
``consumers'' as those multinational corporations who first purchase 
the peanut from the farmer. Again, not the buying public, but these 
corporations who are trying to increase their profits by taking money 
out of the pockets of already struggling farmers.
  As a matter of fact, since the peanut program was reformed last year, 
the price farmers received for their peanuts has been slashed, their 
profits greatly reduced, and, consequently many farmers have stopped 
farming. But guess what, the price of that candy bar has increased, the 
cost of that jar of peanut butter is still the same, but the profits of 
these manufacturers have increased. Not one penny of the money taken 
from farmers was passed on to families. Not one penny. This amendment 
is purely about corporate greed and it is a sad thing to hear these 
members say it cost families money when what they are really doing is 
siding with greedy corporations against working farmers. Members who do 
that do a serious disservice to both working farmers and working 
families while they increase the profit margins of these corporations.
  And, should this flawed amendment carry the day, it will not be only 
farmers who lose jobs. Studies show many more thousands of jobs in farm 
related industries such as the manufacturing of farm equipment and 
those supplying farmers will be lost. We saw it happen a few years ago 
when thousands of farm equipment employees lost their jobs. That's real 
jobs lost, not the pie in the sky stuff you'll hear today. If these 
members are successful today, they will continue to attack all other 
farm programs and the jobs lost in farm related industries will occur 
in the tens of thousands.
  This issue was fully considered last year, now let the program work. 
This Congress, both the House and the Senate and this administration 
made a commitment to our farmers--we should honor it and stop this 
silly nonsense of trying to rewrite the farm bill every year.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I come from Pennsylvania, and I understand the pleas of 
all my friends from the agricultural

[[Page H5711]]

States, the arguments that they make, and they are credible arguments. 
I heard the gentleman from Georgia argue about how we are getting into 
the key commodity and economic activity of the State of Georgia. I 
understand that. Then I watch my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, a 
very good friend of mine. I had the occasion to talk to him. This does 
affect and impact his district.
  We are not trying to completely end the peanut subsidy program here 
today, because I think that would be unfair. We are merely trying to 
set in the appropriation bill a 10-percent reduction, from $610 a ton 
to $550 a ton. Furthermore, it is only effective through the next year, 
the life of this appropriation bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we do this in this way and support this amendment 
because we are sensitive to economies that need help, and to sectors of 
economies that need help. But I know as an addict of nicotine that, 
regardless of how many pledges you make, you invariably will go back to 
smoking until you find a substitute or you find a way to wean yourself 
from your addiction.
  Now we have a price support addiction. It is a pathetic addiction. If 
we were arguing that these quotas were farmers' quotas alone and all 
the profit went to the farmer, the person who worked in the field, that 
would be one thing. But when we read the statistics: over 68 percent of 
these quotas are traded as securities by very wealthy people in this 
country who are buying and selling quotas, and then renting those 
quotas out to little old farmers who are really their tenant farmers. 
The major part of the peanut profit goes to these speculative 
investors. Sixty-three years of that support system.
  When this program started, I have no doubt that in 1934 the State of 
Virginia, the State of North Carolina, the State of Georgia, the State 
of Alabama, needed that help. I would have been one of the Members of 
Congress who would have argued for this program or any other that would 
have supported the peanut farmer at the time or the family farmer.
  But suddenly we grandfathered this provision. You now inherit a quota 
from the U.S. Government because your grandaddy had one. You can go out 
and buy it speculatively in the market and trade it and negotiate it 
and sell it. We have created Government-supported securities here that 
are being readily traded in the market, all with the idea that we are 
saving the economies of these peanut-producing States.
  I say, if Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama need 
economic development money, I will be the first one up here to vote for 
it. But we will not have it grandfathered and we will not have it in 
speculators' hands and it should not exist for 65 years. There has to 
be a time that you wean off Federal support.
  I am speaking to many Members on my side because I think we sometimes 
have a hard time getting away from subsidies, but I want to talk to my 
conservative friends on the Republican side that are always telling me 
about the great nature of the free enterprise system: ``Let the market 
work. Do not vote and create favoritism.''
  What are we doing, after 63 years, is continuing this favoritism. And 
what States are we now supporting? I know there are rural areas of 
Georgia that need help, but there is no more dynamic economy in the 
United States than Georgia today, with a 2-percent unemployment rate. I 
urge my colleagues to start the process of weaning us off peanut quotas 
by supporting this amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Boyd].
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in opposition to this. I want to address 
the subject that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski] 
brought up, and also my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Sanford].
  Mr. Chairman, last year this Congress changed the peanut program. It 
fixed the abuses that those gentlemen are talking about, whereby people 
who live not on the farm and are not active producers are no longer 
able to own those peanut allotments, and that is the reason they are 
being sold and put in the hands of people who actually farm. I want to 
make sure that we get that straight.
  I would urge Members to defeat this well-intentioned but poorly 
thought-out amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, if we look at the guts of the farm bill, it is, indeed, 
as complicated as the inside of the Pathfinder. As the Pathfinder 
trudges and scrutinizes the surface of Mars, the American public and 
Members of Congress are scrutinizing the inside of the farm bill. 
Anyone who looks at it looks at it in pure disbelief, not knowing what 
components mean what, and so forth.
  It is true, the peanut program under the new reforms is a no-net-cost 
program that contributes $83 million to deficit reduction, it supports 
about 30,000 jobs, and there is a phaseout of the program in under 7 
years.
  But if we take a step back and shut the hood and look at the total 
picture, Americans have an abundant food supply at cheap prices year 
around. We spend 11 cents on the dollar on food. The farm bill is 
working, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to let it work, and do not 
do reforms on a piecemeal basis, which is what this amendment would do. 
I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Bishop].
  (Mr. BISHOP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the largest peanut-growing district in the 
country. A lot of people in our area depend upon peanuts. It is the 
economic foundation of our area. But I have to say that those people 
came together well before the farm bill last year and put their heads 
together and worked with people of good will to address the critics of 
this program, and to address the issues that were raised, such as those 
raised by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
  We addressed that in the farm bill last year. We created a no-net-
cost program to the taxpayers. It is a market-oriented program, but yet 
it still provides a safety net for the farmers. We enacted a contract, 
a 7-year contract, for this farm bill by which we promised that this is 
what we would operate our farm policy on for 7 years. Our people 
mortgaged property, they made loans, they bought equipment on time and 
installments with that in mind.
  Now we want to pull the rug out from under them and renege on that 
commitment. Let us defeat this amendment. Let us stand up for the farm 
bill we passed last year.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Washington, Mrs. Linda Smith.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support 
of the Neumann amendment because something really simple happens when 
we mess with prices. That is, the cost of the peanut butter sandwich 
for the kid goes up.

                              {time}  1630

  That is what we are seeing today. But greater than that, we hear that 
it is for a small number of farmers. The reality is only one-third of 
the quota holders are actually farmers. The rest are people who 
inherited the quotas or purchased them and who lease them to the real 
farmers who then get less than the quota floor price.
  I think it is important that we realize that is a subsidy. But really 
what is greater, it just raises the cost to the consumer. We need to 
stop doing this. We need to get in line with what is really happening 
in the world market and stop this practice. I really do support the 
Neumann amendment and encourage the rest of the Members to take a look 
at who really benefits from this system.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is real important, as we wrap up my portion 
of this debate, that we really understand what this program is all 
about. This program is about, because of the rules and regulations of 
the U.S. Government, people that go into the store and buy peanut 
butter or peanut related products pay more money than they otherwise 
would. Of course somebody benefits because other people are overpaying 
for a product. Of course there

[[Page H5712]]

are people that benefit from that sort of practice.
  Why is it that the U.S. Government should have these quotas out there 
that limit the production of peanuts and by limiting the production of 
peanuts keep the price of peanuts higher than they otherwise should be? 
What is there that would tell the people in Washington that they ought 
to be in the middle of developing these quotas.
  I think the kicker in this whole argument is who owns the quotas, 
these quotas that have been passed down from generation to generation. 
These quotas limit the amount of peanuts that can be grown and tell the 
peanut owners, they literally tell the peanut owner how high the price 
is going to be because the more they limit the number of pounds of 
peanuts that are grown, the higher the price goes. So by limiting the 
price, they have kicked the price all the way up to $650 a ton in the 
United States, where in other countries we find and in the world 
markets we find the price is actually $350 a ton.
  I heard some arguments today like, well, the Freedom to Farm Act was 
passed last year. I think every Representative in this House 
understands that the peanut program was virtually untouched in that 
compared to other farm programs that were weaned off of these subsidy. 
And the reason for that, of course, was that vote was very close, and 
in order to provide the votes necessary to pass the bill, peanuts were 
left alone, along with the sugar products.
  I heard another argument, the other argument went like this, that 
person held up a product, and they said, look, even if the price of 
peanuts comes down, these companies are not going to lower the price to 
the consumer. I have to tell you, I am a home builder. I come out of 
the home building business. I find that argument to be borderline 
ridiculous because, if somebody said to me in the home building 
business, well, starting tomorrow you get the siding for these houses 
free, would that mean that I am going to charge the same price to my 
consumer even if I did not have to pay for some of the products going 
into the house? Of course not. We would have been able to produce the 
houses at a lower cost if the siding would not have cost us anything as 
a company or if the siding would have been free.
  The argument that somehow, if the price of peanuts comes down, the 
price of this jar of peanut butter will not be affected just does not 
add up in a free market society and the kind of society that we live in 
today. I cannot put much credence in that particular argument.
  I think, to wrap it up, we should talk about what this is really all 
about. It is not really all about the U.S. Government and quotas and 
these regulations. It is about hard-working families in this great 
Nation of ours that work very hard to earn their money. And typically 
they get up every morning of the week and go to work but before they go 
to work they pack lunches either for themselves or the kids. Many times 
these lunches include peanut butter or candy or other peanut related 
products.
  What this is really all about is asking these hard-working families 
that go to work five days a week when they pack those lunches in the 
morning to pay more than they otherwise should be asked to pay because 
of regulations of the U.S. Government.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
My home State of North Carolina ranks third nationally in the 
production of peanuts. I want to appeal to my colleagues' sense of 
justice, fairness and equity as we toy with the livelihood of many of 
my constituents who do not think they are on charity but feel they are 
working every day. This amendment does nothing to lower the consumer 
prices. Today's peanut prices are lower, not higher than they have been 
for the last 10 years.
  Remember too that the farm price of the peanut, that the real price 
of the peanut as it goes to the farmers is only 26 percent of the total 
price, 26 percent. Where does that other 74 percent go? Yet you are 
picking on those people who are contributing less than one-fourth, not 
much more than one-fourth of the total price. Again, we did reform. We 
did reform, contrary to what has been said. Perhaps not the reform we 
wanted, but there was reform to the peanut program. We lowered the 
price of the peanut farmer. We lowered the amount of the quota; 
therefore, it should not have been, as you say, that we did nothing. 
Those pounds were reduced and therefore the family farmer expected that 
you will live toward that commitment.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], ranking member of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, in regard to whether or not what we did 
last year had any effect on farmers, I would like to insert into the 
Record a letter from the Stevenville Production Credit Association that 
stated if we did the 10-percent reduction last year in the support we 
would lose 36.1 percent of our farmers. We lost 34.42.
  Also when we talk about prices to consumers, is it not interesting 
that in Mexico and in Canada, they pay $2.55 in Mexico, $2.72 for an 18 
ounce equivalent jar of peanut butter. In the United States, our 
consumers get at $2.10. Yet our consumers pay this outlandish price to 
producers for peanuts.
  Let us talk about the M&Ms again. When we start talking about the 
consumer, there are 25 grams of peanuts in this. The price support is 
30.1 cents per pound. That is 1\2/3\ cents cost in this peanut. If you 
reduce it by 10 cents, you are correct. Those who have argued the 
consumer will benefit, the cost will go down by .168 percent. That 
would reduce this price in the vending machine in this Capitol building 
to 54.832 cents. I will introduce legislation to mint a 54.832 cent 
coin to make sure that the consumer gets the benefit of the gentleman's 
amendment. Vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I 
think the debate shows what is going to happen. There are those 
interests in the House that still want to hold on to the peanut support 
system.
  I hope that this amendment serves one good purpose. Which is to point 
out that we can no longer afford to continue to do business in this 
institution as it has always been done. If we are really going to go to 
a supply and demand free enterprise economy, we have got to wean 
ourselves from the subsidy systems of the last 63 years. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Neumann-Kanjorski amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], in the heart of peanut country.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, let me just very quickly respond to my 
good friend from Wisconsin who I agree with on so many issues but on 
this one I must disagree with him very vehemently.
  I look at the jar of peanut butter that you hold up and you say that 
the peanut program adds 33 cents to the cost of that peanut butter jar. 
Let me tell you that the amount of peanuts that goes to the farmer that 
is in that jar of peanuts is 43 cents. So if your amendment reduces the 
amount of money by 33 cents, then the farmer is going to get 10 cents 
out of that peanut jar. So somewhere along the way the figures have 
been skewed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood].
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I just want us to also recognize and ask the American consumer to 
recognize, do you want Mexican peanuts or do you want American peanuts? 
None of us disagree totally with some of the things they are saying. I 
say to my friend from Pennsylvania, we do not want your derned subsidy. 
But you should have done that in 1950. You forced this program on us 
for 60 years. Give them a chance to get out from under it. That is all 
they are asking to do.
  Vote against this silly amendment.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Texas held up his M&Ms 
awhile ago. We share a very favorite candy here and a hope folks eat a 
lot of it because it contains good American

[[Page H5713]]

peanuts. I went back and bought this bag of candy a minute ago in the 
cloakroom. I did not get as good a deal as my friend from Texas. I paid 
75 cents for this. But I asked Helen back there, I said, Helen, we 
reduced the price of peanuts 10 percent last year. Has the price of 
candy gone down any to you from last year? She said absolutely not. It 
is the same price. But here we are arguing again that this support 
price program inflates the cost of products to consumers.
  It is just not true, Mr. Chairman. The average peanut farm in Georgia 
is 98 acres. That is not the big corporate farm, the big rich farmer 
that lives out of State that my friend from Pennsylvania has reference 
to. In fact, in last year's farm bill, we produced a no net cost 
program, a program that is more market oriented because we eliminated 
all those out-of-State quota holders. They are no longer going to be 
eligible to participate in the program.
  At the same time we provided a safety net for our farmers, the small 
farmers in my area which number about 7,500 plus the other small 
farmers throughout the South that depend upon the peanut program. We 
made a deal. We made a deal in April 1996 with the 1996 farm bill. It 
expires in 7 years. Let us let it work.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Neumann/
Kanjorski amendment to establish a maximum market price for peanut 
sales of $550 per ton.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to keep our promise to the 
American people to reform the peanut program, one of a number of 
inappropriate and outdated subsidies.
  While last year's Farm Act, better known as the ``Fair Act'' gave 
farmers of agricultural commodities greatly expanded flexibility, 
removed the heavy hand of government, and reduced government payments 
to farmers; the peanut program continues to waste taxpayer's dollars.
  The sole beneficial peanut provision for consumers in the farm bill--
the 10 percent price reduction, sold to Congress as reform, has been 
severely undercut by the Department of Agriculture's deliberate 
reduction in the national marketing quota for peanuts. As implemented, 
the peanut program completely ignores the needs of consumers for more 
reasonable peanut prices.
  Under the current system it is up to the USDA to project what the 
domestic consumption of peanuts will be and set a marketing quota. In 
the past the USDA has under estimated the quota creating an artificial 
shortage of peanuts and thus raising the price. By creating an 
artificial shortage, USDA has effectively denied the promised reduction 
in the price of peanuts under the reform provision contained in the 
farm bill.
  This amendment follows through with our commitment to reform the 
peanut program. It will ensure that the Secretary of Agriculture 
provides the small measure of reform that was promised in the Farm 
bill.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to vote for 
this amendment, not only because it is a sound economic decision, but 
also because it will ensure that consumers will have the opportunity to 
buy peanuts at a more reasonable price. Let me explain:
  By reducing the load rate from $610 per ton to $550 per ton, the 
amendment forces the Secretary of Agriculture to provide a measure of 
the reform that was promised in the 1996 Farm bill.
  Just as was then predicted, the USDA has administered the peanut 
program so as to create an artificial shortage of peanuts by reducing 
the national production of quota peanuts.
  A limited national supply of peanuts has ensured that the so-called 
price reduction is rendered meaningless.
  The General Accounting Office has determined that the peanut program 
inflates the price that consumers pay for peanuts and peanut products 
by as much as one half billion dollars every year, which is $3 billion 
over the 6 remaining years of the farm bill.
  The artificial government price inflation translates to an extra 33 
cents per 18-ounce jar of peanut butter. This extra cost can be 
especially significant for low-income families that would otherwise 
substitute peanuts for more expensive sources of protein.
  While some proponents of the current peanut program argue that 
manufacturers will keep any savings from a reduction in the loan level, 
what seems to happen is that the retail price of peanut butter closely 
tracks the movement of peanut prices. Between 1991 and 1993, for 
example, when the price of shelled peanuts dropped three cents per 
pound, the retail price of peanut butter dropped from $2.15 to $1.79.
  If you are concerned about consumers and this includes virtually all 
the parents of young children, the U.S. peanut industry, and good 
government, I encourage you to vote for this peanut program amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 242, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 314]

                               AYES--185

     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clement
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hayworth
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Levin
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Northup
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Petri
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     White
     Wolf

                               NOES--242

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frost
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard

[[Page H5714]]


     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Barton
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Stark
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1701

  Mrs. CHENOWETH and Mr. CUMMINGS changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mrs. KELLY, Mr. RYUN, and Mr. CHRISTENSEN changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise and report the 
bill back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause 
be stricken.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I take this time simply to talk about 
something that has not at all been addressed today. I want to talk 
about something I intended to talk about but have been precluded from 
doing so under the rule.
  Rural Members will already know what I am talking about, but I really 
would ask urban Members to listen for a moment to understand what it is 
I am going to say. We are debating an agriculture appropriation bill 
which can provide some help to rural communities. But, in fact, we are 
operating under the handicap of national farm policy.
  We have, I believe, for a number of administrations, the previous two 
and this one, which are essentially anti-rural and which are driving 
farmers to the wall. And I want to bring to the attention of my 
colleagues what I think is a very important study done by an Oklahoma 
University scientist.
  I have an article here by a reporter by the name of Joel Dyer called 
``Harvest of Rage: How the Rural Crisis Fuels the Anti-Government 
Movement.'' I would just like to talk with my colleagues for a moment 
about some of the points that are raised by this article.
  This article points out that suicide is by far the leading cause of 
death on American family farms and that those suicides are a direct 
result of economic distress. This article points out a number of 
things, as follows: It says, for instance, ``Many debt-ridden farm 
families will become more suspicious of government as their self-worth, 
their sense of belonging, their hope for the future deteriorate. These 
families are torn by divorce, domestic violence, and alcoholism. There 
is a loss of relationship of these communities to the State and the 
Federal Government. We have communities that are made up now of 
collectively depressed individuals, and the symptoms of that community 
depression are similar to what you would find in someone that has a 
long-term chronic depression.''
  The article then goes on to point out that ``The United States has 
lost more than 700,000 small to medium-sized family farms since 1980 
and that this loss is a greater crisis than was even the Great 
Depression, if you live in rural America.''
  It then goes on to say, ``By the tens of thousands, some of these 
same farmers are being recruited by the antigovernment militia 
movement. Some are being enlisted by the Freeman and Christian identity 
groups that compromise the most violent components of this revolution 
in the heartland.''
  It then goes on to say, ``The main cause for the growth of these 
violent and anti-government groups is economic, and the best example of 
this is the farm crisis. Men and women who were once the backbone of 
our culture have declared war on the government, which they blame for 
their pain and suffering, and not without some cause.''
  Then the article goes on and says the following: ``Losing a farm does 
not happen overnight. It can often take 4 to 6 years. By the end, these 
families are victims of chronic long-term stress. Once a person is to 
that point, there are only a few things they can do.''
  It then goes on to point out the following: ``To lose a farm is to 
lose part of one's own identity. There is probably no other occupation 
that has the potential for defining one's self so completely. Those who 
have gone through the loss of a family farm compare their grief to a 
death in the family, one of the hardest experiences in life.''
  And then it goes on to say that ``Because of those economic stresses, 
it is no wonder that many in rural America are falling prey to some of 
the outlandish theories of some of these anti-government groups.''
  I simply take the time in quoting a few paragraphs from this story, 
which I am going to insert in the Record in full, to ask Members, 
especially from urban areas, to understand that we have an incredible 
crisis in rural America which is not just affecting farmers, it is 
affecting whole communities, it is affecting a whole way of life. And, 
with all due respect to the leadership of both parties, if we do not 
adopt a farm policy which is substantially different than that being 
followed by any of the past three administrations, we run the risk of 
seeing this despair grow deeper, we run the risk of seeing this despair 
in turn create even more potential for violence. And I do not think any 
of us on either side of the aisle want to see that happen.
  I would simply ask that after this bill is passed, my colleagues 
understand that until far greater changes are made in American farm 
programs, we will be complicit in the growth of these anti-government 
and sometimes violent movements in America.
  I urge us to recognize the need to do everything we can to turn that 
trend in the other direction.

                            Harvest of Rage

                             (By Joel Dyer)

       It's two in the morning when the telephone rings waking 
     Oklahoma City psychologist Glen Wallace. The farmer on the 
     other end of the line has been drinking and is holding a 
     loaded gun to his head. The distressed man tells Wallace that 
     his farm is to be sold at auction within a few days. He goes 
     on to explain that he can't bear the shame he has brought to 
     his family and that the only way out is to kill himself.
       Within hours Wallace is at the farm. This time the farmer 
     agrees to go into counseling; this time no one dies. 
     Unfortunately, that's not always the case. Wallace has 
     handled hundreds of these calls through AG-LINK, a farm 
     crisis hotline, and many times the suicide attempts are 
     successful. According to Mona Lee Brock, another former AG-
     LINK counselor, therapists in Oklahoma alone make more than 
     150 on-site suicide interventions with farmers each year. And 
     Oklahoma has only the third highest number of farm suicides 
     in the nation, trailing both Montana and Wisconsin.
       A study conducted in 1989 at Oklahoma State University 
     determined suicide is by far the leading cause of death on 
     America's family farms, and that they are the direct result 
     of economic stress.
       As heartwrenching as those statistics are, they also are 
     related to a much broader issue. Those who have watched the 
     previously strong family farm communities wither have seen 
     radical, anti-government groups and militias step in all 
     across the country, and especially in the Midwest.
       As far back as 1989, Wallace--then director of Rural Mental 
     Health for Oklahoma--was beginning to see the birth pangs of 
     today's heartland revolt. In his testimony before a U.S. 
     congressional committee examining rural development, Wallace 
     warned that farm-dependent rural areas were falling under a 
     ``community psychosis:''
       ``Many debt-ridden farm families will become more 
     suspicious of government, as their self-worth, their sense of 
     belonging, their hope for the future deteriorates. . . . 
     These families are torn by divorce, domestic violence, 
     alcoholism. There is a loss of relationships of these 
     communities to the state and federal government.
       ``We have communities that are made up now of collectively 
     depressed individuals, and the symptoms of that community 
     depression are similar to what you would find in someone that 
     has a long term chronic depression.''
       Wallace went on to tell the committee that if the rural 
     economic system remained fragile, which it has, the community 
     depression could turn into a decade's long social and 
     cultural psychosis, which he described as ``delayed stress 
     syndrome.''
       In 1989, Wallace could only guess how this community 
     psychosis would eventually express itself. He believes this 
     transition is now a reality.

[[Page H5715]]

       ``We knew the anti-government backlash was just around the 
     corner, but we didn't know exactly what form it would take. 
     You can't treat human beings in a society the way farmers 
     have been treated without them organizing and fighting 
     back. It was just a matter of time.''


                           the rural sickness

       ``I don't even know if I should say this,'' says Wallace 
     regarding the explosion that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah 
     building killing 168 people, ``but the minute that bomb went 
     off, I suspected it as because of the farm crisis. These 
     people (farmers) have suffered so much.'' Wallace, who has 
     spent much of his professional life counseling depressed 
     farmers, could only hope he was wrong.
       The United States has lost more than 700,000 small- to 
     medium-size family farms since 1980. For the 2 percent of 
     America that makes its living from the land, this loss is a 
     crisis that surpasses even the Great Depression. For the 
     other 98 percent--those who gauge the health of the farm 
     industry by the amount of food on our supermarket shelves--
     the farm crisis is a vaguely remembered headline from the 
     last decade.
       But not for long. The farms are gone, yet the farmers 
     remain. They've been transformed into a harvest of rage, 
     fueled by the grief of their loss and blown by the winds of 
     conspiracy and hate-filled rhetoric.
       By the tens of thousands they are being recruited by the 
     anti-government militia movement. Some are being enlisted by 
     the Freemen and Christian Identity groups that comprise the 
     most violent components of this revolution of the heartland.
       Detractors of these violent groups such as Morris Dees of 
     the Southern Poverty Law Center blame them for everything 
     from the Oklahoma City bombing to the formation of militia 
     organizations to influencing Pat Buchanan's rhetoric. They 
     may be right.
       But, the real question remains unanswered. Why has a 
     religious and political ideology that has existed in sparse 
     numbers since the 1940s, suddenly--within the last 15 years--
     become the driving force in the rapidly growing anti-
     government movement which Dees estimates has five million 
     participants ranging from tax protesters to armed militia 
     members?
       The main cause for the growth of these violent anti-
     government groups is economic, and the best example of this 
     is the farm crisis. What was for two decades a war of 
     economic policy has become a war of guns and bombs and arson.
       At the center of this storm is the ``Justice'' movement, a 
     radical vigilante court system, a spin-off of central 
     Wisconsin's Posse Commitatus system of the 1980s, and which 
     will likely affect all our lives on some level in the future. 
     It may have touched us already in the form of the Oklahoma 
     City bombing.
       Freeman/Identity common-law courts are being convened in 
     back rooms all across America, and sentences are being 
     delivered. Trials are being held on subjects ranging from 
     the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' handling of 
     Waco to a person's sexual preference or race. And the 
     sentences are all the same--death.
       We may never prove the Oklahoma City bombing was the result 
     of a secret common-law court, but we can show it was the 
     result of some kind of sickness, a ``madness'' in the rural 
     parts of our nation. Unless we move quickly to address the 
     economic problems which spawned this ``madness,'' we are 
     likely entering the most violent time on American soil since 
     the Civil War.
       Men and women who were once the backbone of our culture 
     have declared war on the government they blame for their pain 
     and suffering--and not without some cause.


                         the economics of hate

       The 1989 rural study showed that farmers took their own 
     lives five times more often than they were killed by 
     equipment accidents which, until the study, were considered 
     to be the leading cause of death.
       ``These figures are probably very conservative,'' says Pat 
     Lewis who directed the research. ``We've been provided with 
     information from counselors and mental health workers that 
     suggests that many of the accidental deaths are, in reality, 
     suicides.''
       Wallace, who was one of those mental health workers, 
     agrees. ``The known suicides are just a drop in the bucket. 
     We have farmers crawling into their equipment and being 
     killed so their families can collect insurance money and pay 
     off the farm debt. They're dying in order to stop a 
     foreclosure.''
       This economic stress has been caused by 20 years of 
     government refusal to enforce the anti-trust laws which once 
     protected the small farmer. Now, with only six to eight 
     multi-national corporations controlling the American food 
     supply, farmers and ranchers have no choice but to sell their 
     products to these monopolies, often for less than their 
     production costs. In 1917, wheat was $2.14 a bushel. In the 
     last five years prices have dipped as low as $2.17 a bushel, 
     yet costs are a hundred times higher now than then.
       As if monopolies weren't enough of a problem, the federal 
     government is allowed to increase the interest rates on its 
     loans to troubled farmers to ridiculous figures, sometimes 
     reaching more than 15 percent. And, as many bitter farmers 
     will tell you, the only reason many of these loans exist is 
     that the government's Farm Home Administration (FMHA) agents 
     sought farmers out in the 70s encouraging them to take out 
     loans. The government agents told them that the value of 
     their farms was inflating faster than the current interest 
     rates and that to turn down a loan was a poor business 
     decision. During this time, FMHA lenders received bonuses and 
     trips based on how much money they lent. But when land values 
     tumbled in the 80s, the notes were called and the farms 
     foreclosed. Ironically, bonuses are now awarded based on 
     an agent's ability to clean up the books by foreclosing on 
     bad loans.
       In Oklahoma, the government is foreclosing on Josh Powers, 
     a farmer who took out a $98,000 loan at 8 percent in 1969. 
     That same loan today has an interest rate of 15 percent--
     almost twice as high as when the note was first issued. The 
     angry farmer claims that he's paid back more than $150,000 
     against the loan, yet he still owes $53,000 on the note. Says 
     Powers, ``They'll spend millions to get me, a little guy, off 
     the land--while Neil Bush just walks away from the savings 
     and loan scandal.''
       The 1987 Farm Bill allowed for loans such as this to be 
     ``written down,'' allowing farmers to bring their debt load 
     back in line with the diminished value of their farm. The 
     purpose of the bill was to keep financially strapped farmers 
     on the land. But in a rarely equaled display of government 
     bungling, this debt forgiveness process was left to the whims 
     of county bureaucrats with little or no banking experience.
       As Wallace points out, ``Imagine the frustration when a 
     small farmer sees the buddy or family member of one of these 
     county agents getting a $5 million write-down at the same 
     time the agent is foreclosing on them (the small farmer) for 
     a measly $20,000. It happens all the time. When these little 
     farmers complain, they're given this telephone number in 
     Washington. It's become a big joke in farm country. I've even 
     tried to call it for years. You get this recording and nobody 
     ever calls you back.
       ``These farmers are literally at the mercy of these county 
     bureaucrats and some of them are just horrible people . . . 
     We've had to intervene several times to keep farmers from 
     killing them.''
       Most Americans are unaware that the farm crisis isn't over. 
     According to counselor Brock, things are as bad now for the 
     family farmer as they were in the 80s. She notes that recent 
     USDA figures that show the economic health of farms improving 
     are, in fact, skewed by the inclusion of large farming 
     cooperatives and corporate farms. Brock also says that 
     ``state hotlines are busier than ever as the small family 
     farmer is being pushed off the land.''
       According to Wallace thousands of people have died as a 
     result of the farm crisis, but not just from suicides. The 
     psychologist says the number of men and women who have died 
     of heart attacks and other illnesses--directly as a result of 
     stress brought on by foreclosure--dwarfs the suicide numbers.
       These deaths are often viewed as murder in farm country.
       This spring, I went to western Oklahoma and met with a 
     group of farmers who have become involved in the Freeman/
     Identity movement. This meeting demonstrated not only their 
     belief that the government is to blame for their loss, but 
     also the politics that evolve from that belief.
       ``They murdered her,'' says Sam Conners (not his real name) 
     referring to the government. The room goes silent as the gray 
     haired 60-year-old stares out the window of his soon-to-be-
     foreclosed farmhouse. In his left hand he holds a photograph 
     of his wife who died of a heart attack in 1990. ``She fought 
     'em as long as she could,'' he continues, ``but she finally 
     gave out. Even when she was lying there is a coma and I was 
     visiting her every day--bringing my nine-year-old boy to see 
     his mamma everyday--they wouldn't cut me no slack. All they 
     cared about was getting me off my land so they could take it. 
     But I tell you now, I'm never gonna' give up. They'll have to 
     carry me off feet first and they probably will.''
       The other men in the room sit quietly as they listen to 
     Conners' story, their eyes alternating between their dirty 
     work boots and the angry farmer. The conversation comes to a 
     sudden halt with a ``click'' from a nearby tape recorder. 
     Conners looks clumsy as he tries to change the small tape in 
     the micro-cassette recorder. His thick earth-stained fingers 
     seem poorly designed for the delicate task. ``I apologize for 
     recording you,'' he says to this reporter. ``We just have to 
     be careful.''
       With their low-tech safeguard back in place, one of the 
     other men begins to speak. Tim, a California farmer who looks 
     to be in his early 30's, describes his plight: another farm, 
     another foreclosure, more anti-government sentiment. Only 
     this time, the story is filled with the unmistakable 
     religious overtones of the Christian Identity movement; one 
     world government, Satan's Jewish bankers, the federal 
     reserve, a fabricated Holocaust, a coming holy war. ``This 
     kind of injustice is going on all over the country,'' says 
     Tim. ``It's what happened to the folks in Montana 
     (referring to the Freemen) and it's what happened to me. 
     That's why LeRoy (Schweltzer, the leader of the Justus 
     Township Freeman) was arrested. He was teaching people how 
     to keep their farms and ranches. He was showing them that 
     the government isn't constitutional. They foreclose on us 
     so they can control the food supply. What they want to do 
     is control the Christians.''


                         The Mind of the Farmer

       Losing a farm doesn't happen overnight. It can often take 
     four to six years from the time a farm family first gets into 
     financial

[[Page H5716]]

     trouble. By the end, says Wallace, these families are victims 
     of chronic long term stress. ``Once a person is to that 
     point,'' he explains, ``there are only a few things that can 
     happen.
       ``There are basically four escape hatches for chronic long 
     term stress. One, a person seeks help--usually through a 
     church or the medical community. Two, they can't take the 
     pain and they commit suicide. They hurt themselves. Three, 
     they become psychotic. They lose touch with reality. They 
     basically go crazy. And last, they become psychotic and turn 
     their anger outward. They decide that since they hurt, 
     they're going to make others hurt. These are the people that 
     wind up threatening or even killing their lenders of FMHA 
     agents. They're also the ones that are most susceptible to a 
     violent anti-government message.''
       Unfortunately, psychotic personalities looking for support 
     can find it in the wrong places. ``Any group,'' says Wallace, 
     ``can fill the need for support. Not just good ones. 
     Identity, militias or any anti-government group can come 
     along and fill that role. Add their influence to a 
     personality that is already violent towards others and you 
     have an extremely dangerous individual.''
       No one knows how many members of the 700,000 farm families 
     who have already lost their land or the additional hundreds 
     of thousands that are still holding on to their farms under 
     extreme duress have fallen prey to this violet psychosis, but 
     those who have watched this situation develop agree the 
     number is growing.
       Wallace says that most people don't understand the mind set 
     of farmers. ``They ask, why don't farmers just get a new job 
     or why does losing a farm cause someone to kill themselves or 
     someone else?'' Another rural psychologist, Val Farmer, has 
     written often on this subject. In an article in the Iowa 
     Farmer Today, he explained why farm loss affects its victims 
     so powerfully.
       ``To lose a farm is to lose part of one's own identity. 
     There is probably no other occupation that has the potential 
     for defining one's self so completely. Those who have gone 
     through the loss of a family farm compare their grief to a 
     death in the family, one of the hardest experiences in life.
       ``Like some deaths, the loss may have been preventable. If 
     a farmer blames himself, the reaction is guilt. Guilt can 
     stem from a violation of family trust. By failing to keep the 
     farm in the family, he loses that for which others had 
     sacrificed greatly. The loss of the farm also affects the 
     loss of the opportunity to pass on the farm to a child. Guilt 
     can also arise from failing to anticipate the conditions that 
     eventually placed the farm at risk: government policy, trade 
     policies, world economy, prices, weather.
       ``On the other hand, if the loss is perceived to have been 
     caused by the actions and negligence of others, then the 
     farmer is racked with feelings of anger, bitterness and 
     betrayal. This feeling extends to lenders, government, the 
     urban public or the specific actions of a particular 
     individual or institution.''
       ``The stress intensifies with each new setback: failure to 
     cash flow, inability to meet obligations, loan refusal, 
     foreclosure notices, court appearances and farm auctions.'' 
     Farmer concludes that ``these people start grasping at 
     straws--anything to stave off the inevitable.''


                          Preying on the Sick

       Wallace agrees with Farmer and believes the anti-government 
     message is one such straw. ``When you reach the point where 
     you're willing to kill yourself, anything sounds good. When 
     these groups come along and tell a farmer that it's not his 
     fault, it's the government's fault or the bank's fault, 
     they're more than ready to listen. These groups are preying 
     on sick individuals.''
       It's no wonder that groups like the Freemen, We the People 
     and Christian Identity have found such enthusiastic support. 
     They preach a message of hope for desperate men and women.
       The Freemen offer their converts a chance to save the farm 
     through a quagmire of constitutional loopholes and their 
     complicated interpretations of the Uniform Commercial Code. 
     Their legal voodoo may seem nuts to a suburban dweller, but 
     to a desperate farmer they offer a last hope to hang on to 
     the land their grandfather homesteaded, a trust they intended 
     to pass on to their children.
       And just how crazy their rhetoric is remains to be seen. 
     Not all in the legal community scoff at the Freemen's claims. 
     Famed attorney Gerry Spence--who represented Randy Weaver, a 
     survivor of Ruby Ridge--has stated that at least some of 
     their interpretations of constitutional law are accurate. It 
     will be years before the court system manages to sort out the 
     truth from the myth, and only then provided it desires to 
     scrutinize itself--something it historically has shown little 
     stomach for.
       Organizers of We the People told farmers they could receive 
     windfalls of $20 million or more from the federal government. 
     They explained to their audiences--which sometimes reached 
     more than 500--that they had won a Supreme Court judgment 
     against the feds for allowing the country to go off the gold 
     standard. They claimed that for a $300 filing fee the 
     desperate farmers could share in the riches.
       The media has repeatedly described the exploits of Freeman/
     We the People members: millions in hot checks, false liens, 
     refusal to leave land that has been foreclosed by the bank 
     and sold at auction and plans to kidnap and possibly kill 
     judges.
       Members of the press, including the alternative press, have 
     commented on the fact that what all these people seem to have 
     in common is that they are unwilling to pay their bills.
       The Daily Oklahoman quoted an official describing these 
     anti-government groups as saying, ``We are talking about 
     people who are trying to legitimize being deadbeats and thugs 
     by denying their responsibilities.''
       But that analysis is at best partially true and at worst 
     dead wrong.
       What most of these radical anti-government people have in 
     common--and what most government officials refuse to 
     acknowledge--is that they were, first and foremost, unable to 
     pay their bills. It was only after being unable to pay that 
     they took up the notion of being unwilling to pay.
       These farmers are the canaries in the coal mine of 
     America's economy. They are in effect monitoring the fallout 
     from the ever widening ``gap'' between the classes. The 
     canaries are dying and that bodes poorly for the rest of us 
     in the mine.
       Both Farmer and Wallace agree that, as a rule, farmers have 
     an extremely strong and perhaps unhealthy sense of morality 
     when it comes to paying their bills. They suffer from deep 
     humiliation and shame when they can't fulfill their financial 
     obligations.
       Wallace says, ``It's only natural that they would embrace 
     an ideology that comes along and says they are not only not 
     bad for failing to pay their debts but rather are morally and 
     politically correct to not pay their debts. It's a message 
     that provides instant relief from the guilt that's making 
     them sick.''
       In much the same way, only more dangerous, Christian 
     Identity offers a way out for stressed farm families. 
     Identity teaches that Whites and native Americans are God's 
     chosen people and that Jews are the seed of Satan. Identity 
     believers see a conspiracy of ``Satan's army of Jews'' taking 
     control of banks, governments, media and most major 
     corporations and destroying the family farm in order to 
     control the food supply. They believe that we are at the 
     beginning of a holy war where Identity followers must 
     battle these international forces of evil and establish a 
     new and ``just'' government based on the principles of the 
     Bible's Old Testament as they interpret it. They become a 
     soldier in a holy war under orders to not give up their 
     land or money to the Jewish enemy.


                          and justice for some

       The renegade legal system known as the ``Justice'' movement 
     is now estimated to be in more than 40 states. It seems to 
     have as many variations as the fractional anti-government 
     movement that created it. Some mainstream Patriots hold 
     common-law courts at venues where the press and those accused 
     of crimes are invited to attend. Sentences from these 
     publicly held trials usually result in lawsuits, arrest 
     warrants, judgments and liens being filed against public 
     officials.
       In Colorado, Attorney General Gail Norton has been just one 
     of the targets of these courts. She's had millions of dollars 
     worth of bogus liens filed against her. Across the nation, 
     thousands of public officials including governors, judges, 
     county commissioners and legislatures have been the targets 
     of this new ``paper terrorism.'' In most cases they are found 
     guilty of cavorting with the enemy: the federal government.
       Ironically, arresting those involved in this mainstream 
     common law court revolution isn't easy. It's not because they 
     can't be found; it's because they may not be doing anything 
     illegal. Last month, Richard Wintory, the chief deputy of the 
     Oklahoma attorney general's office, told the Daily Oklahoman 
     that he could not say whether common-law court organizers had 
     broken any laws.
       The debate as to whether or not citizens have a 
     constitutional right to convene grand juries and hold public 
     trials will eventually be resolved. It's only one of the 
     fascinating legal issues being raised by the heartland 
     revolt. But there is a darker side to this vigilante court 
     system, one that deals out death sentences in its quest to 
     deliver justice and create a new and holy government.
       In his book Gathering Storm, Dees describes Identity this 
     way: ``There is nothing `goody, goody' or `tender' about 
     Identity. It is a religion, a form of Christianity, that few 
     churchgoers would recognize as that of Jesus, son of a loving 
     God. It is a religion on steroids. It is a religion whose god 
     commands the death of race traitors, homosexuals, and other 
     so-called children of Satan.''
       It is for this reason that the common law courts convened 
     by those groups influenced by the Identity belief system are 
     by far the most dangerous. Death sentences can be doled out 
     for almost any conceivable transgression.
       In the remote western Oklahoma farmhouse, Freeman/Identity 
     farmers discussed the Justice movement. One man who had 
     recently lost his farm to foreclosure explained their court 
     system. ``What you're seeing right now is just the beginning 
     of taking back our country, the true Israel. The Bible says 
     that we're to be a just people. Where is justice in this 
     country? Our judges turn loose rapists and murderers and put 
     farmers in jail. We're about justice. Why would anyone be 
     afraid of that?
       ``We're holding courts right now in every part of this 
     land. We're finding people guilty and we're keeping records 
     so we can carry out the sentences. It's the citizen's duty 
     and

[[Page H5717]]

     right to hold common law courts. It's the militia's job to 
     carry out the sentences.''
       The farmer goes on to explain that Identity doesn't believe 
     in prisons. He says that nearly all serious offenses are 
     dealt with by capital punishment and that this punishment 
     system is based on the Bible, the first 10 amendments to the 
     Constitution and the Magna Carta. When asked how these death 
     sentences would be carried out, he says, ``There's a part of 
     the militia that's getting ready to start working on that 
     (death sentences). I think they're ready to go now. You'll 
     start seeing it soon.''
       Perhaps we already have. Was the Oklahoma City bombing only 
     the largest and most recent example? When asked, the men in 
     the room state emphatically that they have no first hand 
     knowledge of the bombing--even though some of them were 
     questioned by the FBI within days of the deadly explosion. 
     They say they don't condone it because so many innocent 
     people died. But they agree that it may well have been the 
     result of a secret court sentence. The court could have found 
     the ATF guilty for any number of actions--including Waco and 
     Ruby Ridge--and the militia foot soldiers, in this case 
     McVeigh and Nichols, may have simply followed orders to carry 
     out the sentence.
       Whatever the case in Oklahoma City, it seems likely that 
     this new and radical system of vigilante justice can't help 
     but produce similar catastrophes.
       The process that gave us that bomb was likely the result of 
     the same stress-induced illness that is tearing our country 
     apart one pipe bomb or burned-down church at a time. 
     Comprehending and healing that illness is our only hope for 
     creating a future free of more bombs, more death and 
     destruction.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this motion. It is 
another delaying tactic. I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 125, 
noes 300, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 315]

                               AYES--125

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Yates

                               NOES--300

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barton
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Kennedy (RI)
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Stark
     Waters
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. FARR of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SCHUMER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Chabot:
       Insert before the short title the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to carry out section 203 of 
     the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) or to pay 
     the salaries and expenses of personnel who carry out a market 
     program under such section.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] 
will be recognized for 5 minutes on behalf of his motion and a Member 
opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, in the last Congress, in historic legislation, we 
overhauled the welfare system as it applied to poor people in this 
country. I think it was good legislation, we are working on it now, but 
it affected poor people.
  There is one type of welfare that we have hardly touched in that 
Congress or this Congress and that is something called corporate 
welfare. Now corporate welfare affects the powerful, it affects the 
wealthy. We have hardly touched it.
  One particularly egregious type of corporate welfare in my opinion is 
something called the market access program. Now some of the folks on 
the other side on this issue will argue that it was reformed. This is a 
program where we spend $90 million a year in taxpayer money to 
advertise products overseas for trade associations and essentially for 
corporations.
  Now the folks who favor this will say, well, we reformed it already, 
and

[[Page H5718]]

basically what was done is we changed the name of it from the market 
promotion program to the market access program. Big deal. That is 
essentially the reform that we did in the last Congress.
  I mean, should corporations advertise their products overseas to 
promote trade? Of course they should. But who should pay for it; the 
taxpayers or the corporations and the trade associations that benefit? 
I would argue not the taxpayers, but the people who benefit, the 
corporations themselves, ought to pay for this. If they were using 
their own money, they would be very careful.
  There is all kinds of examples where the money has been wasted. A 
good example was in the case where my colleagues probably remember the 
Marvin Gay song, and I think Gladys Knight and the Pips had it also: 
``I Heard It Through The Grapevine,'' the California raisins 
commercial. Well, money from this program was used to advertise for 
raisins over in Japan.
  Now the problem is they did some surveys on this afterwards, and it 
turns out that they did absolutely no good at all. In fact, a lot of 
the people that saw the commercials, rather than think they were 
raisins, they thought they were potatoes. They actually scared small 
children.
  Now would the corporations who would have benefited from this 
program, if they were using their own money, would they have done a 
little research so that they did not waste this money? Of course they 
would. But since they are using taxpayer money, the research was not 
done, the dollars were wasted.
  They will argue, those who favor this program will say it creates 
jobs, but the real jobs it creates are government jobs or the 
bureaucrats in the department.
  So let us end this program.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] but I yield such time 
as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  (Mr. RIGGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out we can export our 
products or we can export our jobs, and I rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise in strong 
opposition to this amendment to cut a program which has been very 
successful in fighting subsidies that continue to be provided by our 
international trading competitors in agriculture. We have literally 
transformed this bill through debates on this floor over the last 
several years. This program was at one time authorized at $350 million. 
It is now down to 90 million.
  We are concentrating on small business. Of the 564 companies that are 
participating in this program, putting up equal amounts to match the 
Federal dollars, we now have 417 of them, small businesses as defined 
by the SBA.
  We are doing away with the branded marketing concept. I regret that, 
frankly, but it had critics here and we did away with it.
  But the GAO tells us that we need to do more of this, that we are 
being taken advantage of in the international market. Despite the fact 
that our ag exports have grown by 50 percent since 1990, we continue to 
find, in crop after crop, that foreign subsidies push our farmers out 
of markets.
  We should not adopt this amendment.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of this program.
  There is probably no more important tool for export promotion than 
MAP throughout the United States and particularly in California.
  I would ask the gentleman what his point is in offering this 
amendment.
  Does he think we spend too much on MAP?
  MAP was funded at $200 million as recently as 5 years ago, and was 
authorized at one time for $350 million.
  I believe that was some recognition of the importance of market 
promotion to the American economy--a viewpoint buttressed not just by 
USDA but by the GAO who reported we should be doing far more of it in 
the face of enormous subsidies by our competitors.
  Now it's down to a barebones $90 million.
  Does the gentleman want MAP funds to go to small companies? FAS says 
that 417 of the 564 companies participating in MAP qualify as small by 
the SBA definition.
  Is the gentleman against branded product promotion by large 
companies?
  FAS has reduced funding for brand promotion by large companies by 35 
percent in 1996, 45 percent in 1997, and will eliminate it altogether 
in 1998.
  Does the gentleman want to make sure that MAP funds don't just 
substitute for marketing efforts the company would have undertaken 
anyway?
  It is a requirement of the program, and every dollar has to be 
matched by the company's own funds as well.
  But in the gentleman's zeal to oppose so-called corporate welfare, he 
completely ignores the value of this program to our economy.
  Agriculture exports climbed again last year, fiscal year 1996, to 
$59.8 billion--up some $19 billion or close to 50 percent since 1990.
  In an average week this past year, U.S. producers, processors, and 
exporters shipped more than 1.1 billion dollars' worth of food and farm 
products to foreign markets, compared with about $775 million per week 
at the start of this decade.
  The overall export gains raised the fiscal year 1996 agricultural 
trade surplus to a new record of $27.4 billion.
  In the most recent comparisons among 11 major industries, agriculture 
ranked No. 1 as the leading positive contributor to the U.S. 
merchandise trade balance.
  As domestic farm supports are reduced, export markets become even 
more critical for the economic well-being of our farmers and rural 
communities, let alone the suburban and urban areas that depend upon 
the employment generated from increased trade.
  Agriculture exports strengthen farm income.
  Agriculture exports provide jobs for nearly a million Americans.
  Agriculture exports generate nearly $100 billion in related economic 
activity.
  Agriculture exports produce a positive trade balance of nearly $30 
billion.
  MAP is critical to U.S. agriculture's ability to develop, maintain, 
and expand export markets in the new post-GATT environment, and MAP is 
a proven success.
  In California, MAP has been tremendously successful in helping 
promote exports of California citrus, raisins, walnuts, prunes, 
almonds, peaches, and other specialty crops.
  We have to remember that an increase in agriculture exports means 
jobs: A 10-percent increase in agricultural exports creates over 13,000 
new jobs in agriculture and related industries like manufacturing, 
processing, marketing, and distribution.
  Where do those increased agriculture exports come from?
  For every $1 we invest in MAP, we reap a $16 return in additional 
agriculture exports.
  In short, the Market Promotion Program is a program that performs for 
American taxpayers.
  I urge my colleagues to support American agriculture and oppose the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that this program is really a waste 
and a travesty and a giveaway; my colleagues can pick whatever word 
they want. It should have been killed years ago, but MAP has more 
incarnations than Vishnu. In the congressional equivalent of the 
witness protection program, MAP performs so abysmally we had to change 
its name, not once, but twice, in order to hide the program from the 
taxpayer. When I got here it was called TEA, then MPP, and after three 
excoriating GAO reports and billions in corporate welfare giveaways, it 
became MAP. If my colleagues do not like the name, we can change it 
again, but what we should do is get rid of the program.
  MAP and its forefathers have given 70 million to Sunkist, 40 million 
to Blue Diamond, 20 million to Sunsweet, 60 million to Gallo. We are 
figuring out ways to cut the budget and cannot cut this kind of 
corporate welfare? Of course, we can. One million dollars to 
McDonald's.
  And then this. We are giving $1 million to McDonald's to advertise 
overseas. Are there not better needs for our money than that?
  And finally, as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] mentioned, and 
my colleagues ought to listen to this one, it is one of the best they 
will hear, the California Raisin Advisory Board won a grant to 
introduce raisins to Japan. What a fiasco, using taxpayer funds, the ad 
``I heard it through the grapevine'' claymation raisin campaign that 
won many awards in the United States.

[[Page H5719]]

  But there will be no awards in Japan. First it turns out that these 
claymation raisins were not bilingual, so in Japan they were singing 
only in their native English. Second, Marvin Gay is unknown in Japan so 
the audience did not understand the song or get the pun. Third, since 
the Japanese have never seen raisins, it is not a product in Japan, 
they were baffled by these gargantuan vaudevillian dangerous dancing 
raisins. They thought they were dancing potatoes. And finally, the 
raisins had four fingers, which apparently is a bad omen in Japan. They 
frighten children.
  Perhaps the raisin board would have done a little bit of market 
research if they were using their own money instead of the taxpayers'. 
Let us end this program once and for all.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  (Mr. SKELTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment and in favor of the market access program that is being so 
very important to exports in America.
  The Market Access Program is a $90 million USDA cost-share program 
aimed at helping maintain, develop, and expand U.S. agriculture export 
markets.
  The program was substantially reformed in the 1996 farm bill:
  Participants contribute up to 50 percent or more toward program cost.
  MAP is targeted toward small businesses, farmer cooperatives, and 
trade associations.
  Requires funds to be used only to promote American grown and produced 
commodities and related products.
  MAP is a key part of the new 7-year farm bill, which gradually 
reduces direct income support to farmers. Expanding exports is 
extremely important--exports now account for as much as one-third of 
domestic production. Export markets are extremely competitive, 
especially since other nations and the European Union greatly outspend 
U.S. promotion efforts.
  In 1996, Missouri exported approximately 1.3 billion dollars' worth 
of agricultural products--soybeans, feedgrains, wheat, cotton, poultry, 
animals/meats--which sustained more than 22,000 jobs.
  MAP has helped the agriculture sector become the largest positive 
contributor to the U.S. trade balance.

             Promoting Missouri Exports and Protecting Jobs


                   usda's market access program [map]

       USDA's Market Access Program (MAP) has been a tremendous 
     success in helping promote U.S. and Missouri agriculture. It 
     has also helped protect jobs, counter subsidized foreign 
     competition, and contribute to economic growth and an 
     expanding tax base. As a cost-share program providing 
     assistance to farmers and ranchers through their associations 
     and cooperatives, and to related small businesses, MAP 
     continues to be of critical importance.


       map is important to missouri agriculture, economy and jobs

       Number of jobs: Nearly 1 in 6 Missouri Jobs Depend on 
     Agriculture.
       Number of farms: 105,000.
       Value of agriculture production: Over $4.5 billion.
       Value of agriculture exports: More than $1.2 billion.
       Export-related jobs: Approximately 20,000.


         map is important to u.s. agriculture, economy and jobs

       Agriculture largest single U.S. industry: Accounts for 16 
     percent gross domestic product.
       Exports key to continued economic growth.
       Value of U.S. agriculture exports: Record $60 billion in 
     1996.
       U.S. agriculture trade surplus: Record $30 billion in 1996.
       U.S. agriculture export-related jobs: Over 1 million 
     American jobs.


             map helps meet subsidized foreign competition

       The global marketplace is still characterized by subsidized 
     foreign competition. The European Union (EU) maintains a 10 
     to 1 advantage over the U.S. in terms of export subsidies. 
     Many other countries and the EU also support industry market 
     development and promotion efforts to encourage exports. MAP 
     is one of the few programs allowed under the Uruguay Round 
     Agreement to help U.S. agriculture and American workers meet 
     such foreign competition.


       map is a successful partnership with broad public support

       Serves as ``Buy American'' Program by promoting only 
     American-grown and produced agricultural commodities and 
     related products.
       Strongly supported by 75 percent of American public based 
     on 1996 national election day exit poll conducted by Penn & 
     Schoen Associates, Inc.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Herger].
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. It would be foolish and negligent of us to cut one of our 
most successful programs that provides Americans with needed jobs, 
increases American earnings and significantly stimulates our national 
and local economies. For every dollar spent on value-added products 
under the market access program, our Nation receives a return of $7.61. 
This means we are receiving a 761 percent return on our MAP investment. 
This program is a major success. Remember, the purpose of the market 
access program is not to subsidize but to open markets for American 
small businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, this program works, and it works well. I urge my 
colleagues to support the market access program and vote ``no'' on the 
Chabot-Schumer amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Royce].
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support to eliminate this program 
which uses taxpayers' dollars to subsidize the overseas advertising 
budget of major corporations.
  Since 1986 this program has spent several billion dollars in this way 
and, incredibly, has even supported advertising by foreign-owned 
corporations, including some in Tokyo and in Paris. Studies from 
several government offices and groups across the political spectrum 
have blasted the MAP. A U.S. General Accounting Office study reported 
that MAP funding goes to corporations that have no need for taxpayer 
funds to support their products.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].
  (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the market 
access program and against the Chabot amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to eliminate 
funding for USDA's Market Access Program.
  The Market Access Program, or MAP, has been a tremendous success in 
maintaining and expanding U.S. agriculture exports, competing with 
foreign subsidized agriculture, and protecting American jobs.
  This is true across the country as well as in my home state of 
Mississippi. With the help of MAP, Mississippi agriculture exports--
including cotton, soybeans, poultry, rice, livestock, and animal 
products--reached nearly a billion dollars last year. It helped provide 
nearly 14,000 jobs statewide. This not only strengthened farm income, 
it provided a significant economic boost to many local communities.
  The program helped promote record U.S. agricultural exports of nearly 
$60 billion last year, contributing to a record trade surplus of almost 
$30 billion, and providing jobs for over one million Americans. Every 
billion dollars in exports helps create as many as 17,000 new jobs.
  MAP is a cost-share program. Participants are required to contribute 
as much as 50 percent of their own resources to be eligible for the 
program. In addition, the program remains a key part of the 1996 farm 
bill and its 7-year commitment to our farmers and ranchers. The program 
remains critical to our effort to open up foreign markets and to combat 
subsidized foreign competition. According to the U.S. Trade 
Representative, more than 46 countries continue to use trade barriers 
which limit or restrict U.S. agriculture exports. For example, the 
European Union spent nearly $10 billion on export subsidies last year, 
while the U.S. spent less than $150 million. Eliminating MAP would hurt 
our farmers and ranchers, as well as American workers whose jobs depend 
on agricultural exports.
  The choice is simple. We can either export our products or we can 
export our jobs.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I say to the Members, hey, wake 
up and smell the coffee. What do Members think this program is all 
about?

[[Page H5720]]

 Members sit there and watch television, where Juan Valdez is wandering 
around the supermarket selling Colombian coffee, where the Greeks are 
selling olive oil, where the French are selling wine. Where do Members 
think those countries are paying for those products to get into our 
markets?
  How are we going to do world trade unless we can reach out and sell 
our products? Agriculture has the best balance of trade, $30 billion in 
surplus. Support this program. Members are foolish to cut us off and 
shoot us in the feet and not allow American products to be sold abroad. 
Smell the coffee. Defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the Market Access Program [MAP] is critical to the 
future health of our Nation's agriculture. If we cut MAP, we will pull 
the rug out from underneath American farmers.
  First, the Market Access Program benefits American agriculture. Every 
dollar spent by M.A.P. provides several dollars in export sales. For 
fruits and vegetables alone, each dollar of MAP creates $5 dollars in 
export sales. MAP benefits all American agriculture: grains, livestock, 
fruits and vegetables, cotton--all benefit from MAP.
  Thanks in part to MAP, U.S. agriculture exports are the single 
largest positive contributor to the U.S. trade balance. Despite years 
of trade deficits, agricultural trade continues to run a surplus--$27 
billion this year alone. This year alone the United States will export 
457 billion in agricultural goods--that's double the size of exports 
when the program started in 1985.
  Second, MAP is very small in comparison to what other countries spend 
on export promotion. Europe alone spends $350 million a year on export 
promotion programs--over three times the amount we spend in our 
country. Fourteen other countries--including Australia, Brazil, Canada, 
Japan, and Norway--spend a total of $400 million per year on export 
promotion programs. When you buy Juan Valdez coffee, Greek olive oil, 
or French wine, you're buying a product that profited from foreign 
export promotion.
  Third, some say MAP is a subsidy--but that just isn't true. MAP gives 
first priority of funding to small businesses, cooperatives, and trade 
associations. No MAP funding may supplement or replace private sector 
funding; it can only be in addition to private-sector funding. MAP 
funding is matched by up to 50 percent, or sometimes more, by 
participants. MAP funding has been steadily reduced, from $300 million 
in 1985 to less than $100 million today.
  American agriculture depends more on exports than ever before--don't 
kill a program that works. Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think companies such 
as Sunkist, Dole, Gallo, and M&M Mars are capable of smelling the 
coffee themselves. If there ever was a program that defines welfare for 
corporations, this is it, $90 million annually for corporations to 
conduct advertising abroad.
  Mr. Chairman, if we ever wanted to cast a vote to end corporate 
welfare, this is it. I urge an ``aye" vote on the pending amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on the proponents' side of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot].
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett].
  (Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh].
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. This program helps American farmers to find markets in a 
very competitive global environment marketplace. We are not supporting 
our farmers nearly to the degree Europe is. I would also like to 
suggest to the proponents of this amendment that they get some new 
material. That California raisin story is getting very, very old.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Chabot 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have stood before you many times over the years to 
praise the achievements of America's farmers and ranchers. And, up 
until now, I have been somewhat restrained, which is not always easy 
for a Texan.
  In past years I have told you that agriculture was the No. 2 
contributor to U.S. trade, behind the aerospace industry--not bad when 
you consider that airplanes are priced in the millions, and wheat is a 
few dollars a bushel.
  Well, agriculture is no longer No. 2. This year, agriculture is the 
No. 1 contributor the positive side of our trade balance. Believe me, I 
am from Texas, and I know big. And our exports of agricultural products 
in the past year have been big--$60 billion.
  Critics claim that the Market Access Program, or MAP, has been 
ineffective--that it has not played an important role in the success 
story of American agriculture. But the experts at the Foreign 
Agricultural Service disagree. In a detailed 1995 report, they 
concluded that export promotion activities under MAP and its 
predecessor programs have been the leading factor in the 200 percent 
increase in U.S. high-value consumer food exports since 1986.
  The University of Arizona's National Food and Agricultural Policy 
Project agrees. The project analyzed export values, quantities and 
prices; measures of foreign income, prices, populations, and exchange 
rates; and export promotion expenditures by commodity, country and 
year. They concluded that not only does each promotion dollar return 
multiple dollars to the commodity being promoted, there is also a halo 
effect.
  This halo effect refers to the contribution that promotion of one 
product contributes to sales of other U.S. products. The Arizona 
project concludes that MAP ultimately serves as a ``Buy USA'' campaign, 
with broader application than the products it specifically promotes.
  Cornell University's National Institute for Commodity Promotion 
Research & Evaluation has extensively studied the effectiveness of 
agricultural promotion programs. The institute concluded that export 
promotion programs are highly effective in increasing private sector 
investment in export promotion, and that USDA's programs have 
stimulated promotion expenditures in both the domestic and the export 
market.
  Why have U.S. agricultural exports doubled in the last 10 years? 
Because American agriculture, long recognized as the most productive in 
the world, have increased their focus on world markets. They are 
producing more sophisticated products that cater to the tastes of 
foreign consumers. And, thanks to MAP, they are marketing those 
products more effectively.
  Last year we voted to phase out subsidies over a period of 7 years. 
Farmers and ranchers lost their safety net, and were told to look to 
foreign markets to make up the difference. MAP was an integral part of 
last year's farm bill.
  How important is the program to those farmers who lost the safety 
net? The Foreign Agricultural Service concluded that in 1992, export 
promotion boosted net farm income by $642 million. By the year 2000, 
the level of net farm income supported by the Market Access Program is 
expected to exceed $1 billion. That translates into 124,000 jobs, 
including 80,000 nonfarm jobs, in trade, transportation, services, food 
processing, and manufacturing.
  Not only does MAP create jobs for farmers and nonfarmers alike, it 
also contributes to the U.S. Treasury. By the year 2000, annual tax 
receipts to the Treasury from economic activity generated by the 
program are expected to reach $250 million.
  Our competitors continue to outspend us in every area of agricultural 
export promotion--from direct subsidies to market promotion. The EU 
spends about $10 billion annually on subsidies and $500 million on 
market promotion. USDA research indicates doubling the MAP program 
level would support 40,000 additional U.S. jobs by the year 2000.
  In the competitive world in which we live, we shouldn't be here today 
talking about eliminating a program that gives us a fighting chance in 
export markets. We should be here talking about what else we need to do 
to build markets we can depend on to stay competitive in the years to 
come.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, 
the question here is, do we want to advertise our products worldwide or 
do we not?
  We know that the return and the leverage on this Market Access 
Program is 10 to 1. Sometimes it is 20 to 1. We

[[Page H5721]]

are getting huge, huge opportunities from this program. It is one of 
the few programs we have in our quiver to attack what is happening 
around the world. If we withdraw unilaterally, we hurt the United 
States of America. We have built up a $26 billion trade surplus in this 
program.
  Here is what is happening in Europe: $45 billion for domestic and 
export subsidies. We are at $5 billion, and as I mentioned many times, 
phasing out at the end of 6 years. Are we going to eliminate our one 
opportunity here to sell abroad? I think not. It is foolish. It is 
foolish of us to withdraw from this program. This is no time to 
withdraw from international trade.
  By the way, those of the Members in business, it is the very best 
business decision you will ever make. Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Market 
Access Program [MAP]. Once again, the opponents of the MAP have their 
facts wrong and I would like to take this opportunity to correct the 
rhetoric and misinformation espoused by the opponents of this 
invaluable program.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, the congressional district I represent 
includes the Napa Valley, widely regarded as the prime growing region 
of the U.S. wine industry. The U.S. wine industry produces an award-
winning, high-value product that competes with the best in the world.
  However, the agriculture sector in the United States, and 
specifically wine, continues to face unfair trading practices by 
foreign competitors. Domestic agriculture industries must compete with 
the lower wages and the heavily subsidized industries of Europe, East 
Asia, and other emerging global regions. The European Union alone 
subsidizes its wine industry by over $2 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, opponents of the MAP label the program as just another 
form of corporate welfare, claiming the program benefits only large 
corporations. Nothing could be further from the truth. The MAP is an 
invaluable resource for American agriculture to compete against 
massively subsidized foreign agriculture exports. What is more, it is a 
resource that allows America's small farmers to compete in highly 
restrictive foreign markets. Simply, the MAP is pro-trade, pro-growth 
and pro-jobs.
  Opponents of the program continue to ignore the fact that in 1995, 
the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee reformed the MAP to 
restrict branded promotions to trade associations, grower cooperatives, 
and small businesses. Additionally, Secretary of Agriculture Dan 
Glickman, in March this year, announced that large companies will no 
longer be able to participate in the branded program. The primary 
emphasis of the MAP is toward the small family farmer. A sizable number 
of the so-called large corporations receiving MAP moneys are actually 
grower cooperatives.
  The purpose of the MAP is simple: Move high-value American-grown 
agriculture products overseas, knock down trade barriers, and create 
and protect American jobs. A recent study by the University of Arizona 
showed that for every dollar of MAP funds spent overseas promoting 
American wine there was a return of $7.44; for table grapes, a return 
of $5.04; and for apples, a return of $18.19.
  In the world marketplace, competition is fierce. Every year, American 
jobs become more dependent on foreign trade. Efforts to dismantle our 
leading export promotion program are penny-wise and pound-foolish. To 
retreat in the international marketplace is shortsighted and 
counterintuitive. We must actively engage our trading partners and open 
up emerging markets to our agriculture goods.
  Don't be fooled by the rhetoric. Do what is right for America by 
supporting American jobs and American exports. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Market Access Program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
shortsighted amendment which would have a devastating impact on the 
people I represent in Sonoma and Marin Counties, CA.
  The wine and winegrapes from my district are famous worldwide, but 
vintners have to fight to enter and complete in the world market.
  The Market Access Program helps the small wine producers in my 
district compete with heavily subsidized foreign producers who still 
dominate the global agricultural marketplace.
  The European Union export subsidies amounted to approximately $10 
billion last year. In fact, the European Union spends more on export 
promotion for wine than the United States does for all of our 
agriculture programs combined.
  We need only look at last year to see this unfair disparity in 
action--market promotion funds for the American wine industry totaled 
approximately $5 million, whereas the heavily subsidized European wine 
industries received $1\1/2\ billion.
  The money we spend to increase the markets for American agricultural 
products is money well spent. Because of assistance from the market 
access program, U.S. wine exports had their 12th consecutive record-
breaking year in 1996, reaching $320 million. This level is an $85 
million increase in 1 year, which means that each Market Access Program 
dollar being spent generated a $17 increase in exports. In the last 10 
years, an additional 7,500 full-time jobs and 5,000 part-time jobs have 
been created by exporting wine. This is not only good for the American 
balance of trade--it's good for the American economy.
  Mr. Chairman, we should help export U.S. products, not U.S. jobs. 
Oppose the Schumer-Chabot-Royce amendment.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Market 
Access Program [MAP] and oppose any attempt to further weaken the 
program's ability to assist in the promotional activities for U.S. 
agricultural products. The Market Access Program is good for 
agriculture, international trade, and promotes small business and 
American-made products. MAP simply helps develop foreign markets for 
U.S. exports. The MAP provides cost-share funds to nearly 800 U.S. 
businesses, cooperatives, and non-profit trade associations to promote 
their products overseas. Additionally, funds allocated under the MAP 
are limited to U.S. entities.
  In a time when America's farmers and agricultural sector are just 
beginning to adjust to Freedom to Farm, a way of operating Government 
farm programs without the assurance of price supports or safety-nets, 
it makes no sense to take away other underlying support programs like 
the MAP. I have said the same thing about research funding and funding 
for adequate revenue and crop insurance. Congress promised America's 
farmers certain fundamental things as we moved to Freedom to Farm. 
Although producers no longer can rely on the Government to come through 
and pick up the tab when commodity prices are lower than certain target 
prices, they should be able to rely on certain supplemental programs 
run by the Department of Agriculture that keep producers' heads above 
an already narrow margin.
  In my State of North Dakota, the MAP contributes to the promotion of 
$1.7 billion in exports, and 29,300 jobs. I might add that in Ohio, the 
home State of the proponent of this amendment, agricultural interests 
receive support for $1.6 billion worth of exports related to 27,400 
jobs. Source: USDA, Bureau of Census--1996.
  Rural income depends on--and is at the mercy of--many variables. 
Weather and domestic supply are examples. But the ability to export 
overseas and compete with foreign markets is another integral piece to 
maintaining rural income. The MAP offers one small opportunity to help 
American agricultural interests compete with international markets--
during a time when farm income is now more dependent than ever on 
exports and maintaining access to foreign markets. The elimination of 
MAP would represent unilateral disarm-
ament--shooting oneself in the foot actually--in the face of continued 
subsidized foreign competition.
  Don't take away a great tool from our agricultural sector that has 
the potential to help even the playing field with foreign market 
interests.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the 
amendment offered by Representatives Chabot and Schumer, that would 
eliminate the Market Access Program.
  The sponsors of this amendment suggest that the Market Access Program 
subsidizes large agribusinesses' export promotion activities, and that 
it is a waste of taxpayers' money.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. The 1996 farm bill 
substantially reformed this program, by targeting it toward small 
producers, trade associations, and cooperatives, to promote home-grown 
U.S. agricultural products. In addition, the farm bill requires Federal 
funds to be matched by the programs beneficiaries.
  In reality, the Market Access Program has been a highly effective 
tool to promote U.S. exports. And as the Federal Government becomes 
less and less involved in the everyday decisions of farming, it is even 
more important that the Government take the initiative to increase our 
share of the world market.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the 
remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. This 
amendment would eliminate funding for one of the most successful 
Federal programs that we have. It is unfortunate that the overwhelming 
support that this program has received over the years illustrates its 
importance.
  Think about this: The European Union's 1996 budget allowed for export 
subsidies for grains and grain products of $1.3 billion, for sugar of 
$1.9 billion, for fresh fruits and vegetables of $125 million, for 
processed fruits and

[[Page H5722]]

vegetables of $18 million, for wine of $72 million, for dairy products 
of $2.5 billion, for meats and meat products of $2.4 billion and for 
other processed food of $752 million. This compares to a total for the 
United States of less than $150 million.
  The EU spends nearly $500 million on market promotion specifically. 
We are debating the fate of a $90 million program that provides the 
only market promotion funding available to agricultural producers in 
the United States. Since 1985, the MAP has provided cost-share funds to 
nearly 800 U.S. companies, cooperatives, and trade associations to 
promote their products overseas. In that period, total U.S. 
agricultural exports have more than doubled, from $26.3 billion to a 
projected $60 billion in 1996. During those same years, exports of U.S. 
high-value products have more than tripled, and now account for 34 
percent of all U.S. agricultural exports, up from 12 percent in 1980. 
In addition, the U.S. share of world trade in these products has risen 
from 10 percent to 17 percent.
  Over the years the MAP and its predecessor programs MPP and TEA have 
been criticized for many perceived shortfalls. All of these concerns 
have been addressed either legislatively or through regulations. The 
1996 farm bill made permanent program changes that address these 
concerns. First, participants are required to contribute up to 50 
percent or more toward programs costs. Second, for-profit corporations 
that are not recognized as small businesses are no longer allowed to 
participate in the program. Third, funds can be used to promote only 
American grown and produced commodities and related products. Fourth, 
participants are required to undergo review, certification and a 5-year 
graduation from the program.
  Mr. Chairman, last year we undertook the greatest rewrite of Federal 
farm programs in nearly 60 years. The changes that we made make it 
imperative that the U.S. remain a strong force in the international 
market. The continued health of the U.S. agriculture sector is reliant 
on continued exports and future export markets. Our competitors have 
made a financial commitment to export subsidies and export promotion. 
We need to ensure that we continue our commitment to our Nation's 
farmers.
  I urge my colleagues to continue their support.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Chabot].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 193, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] will 
be postponed.


           Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
       Insert before the short title the following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds appropriated or made available 
     by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of 
     personnel who work at a regional office of the Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service or to provide a support 
     service for a regional office of the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a statement, and 
to have a colloquy with the ranking member and the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations, and the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, I will make a brief statement and proceed into the 
colloquy. In the last year the National Conservation Service has 
created a new regional bureaucracy. NRCS has local, State, and national 
offices. That is what they had before. Now they have put a new tier of 
bureaucracy between the State offices and the national offices.
  There was a situation in Congress in 1994, partially in 1995, when 
the Democrats and Republicans said that Washington is too top-heavy in 
USDA. So what happened? There was no firing of personnel, but all of 
those top-ranking, high-grade executives in the Department of 
Agriculture, as part of that reorganization, those personnel were not 
fired or pink-slipped but they were transferred to regional offices, a 
new tier of six regional offices for our conservation service.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues that are concerned with 
conservation, concerned about the service to farmers and ranchers in 
this country, to call their conservationists in their area and ask them 
about the slow-down of paperwork, the slow-down of personnel.
  We have $22 million in this budget for these regional offices. This, 
Mr. Chairman, is the first year that these six regional offices 
existed. I think it is important that we not allow those to be 
entrenched.
  Mr. Chairman, new bureaucracy makes no sense in the era of 
``reinvented government'' and budget cuts. As we phase out payments to 
producers and scale back agricultural programs, it is unreasonable to 
add new layers of bureaucracy.
  I urge my colleagues to join this effort to cut back unnecessary 
bureaucracy at NRCS. If we go to conference with this amendment, we can 
talk out this problem and reach a solution.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to call on the chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], 
would he review this issue and the spending of $22 million for these 
new regional offices in the conference committee, and work to include 
such report language to ensure that these six new regional offices will 
not continue if they are an unnecessary level of bureaucracy?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned about these new 
conservation offices using $22 million of our taxpayers' money. I 
assure the gentleman that our committee will review this issue. I have 
no intention of spending $22 million if it is not a constructive 
addition to our conservation system.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. If it is a new level of bureaucracy, it makes 
no sense.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's constructive 
work in trying to assure that these regional offices actually serve a 
useful purpose, and would add my support to the gentleman's request for 
an inquiry to make sure that the offices themselves are not new nor 
unnecessary levels of bureaucracy which could complicate our efforts to 
assist farmers and meet our goals of conservation.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.
  I would like to address the question to the chairman of the standing 
Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, can we pursue this question in 
the gentleman's committee?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague from 
Michigan that I appreciate his concern on the matter, that our 
committee will pursue an inquiry and review the new regional offices. I 
think it is obvious that we need to assure ourselves and the American 
agriculture community that this is indeed an effective and proper use 
of funds.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I thank my colleagues, Mr. Chairman. Let us 
remind ourselves, this is the first year of these six new regional 
offices. If we let them be entrenched, then we go for 2 and 3 and 4 
years. It is going to be that much more difficult. It is a cost of $22 
million that could be much better spent at our local county offices, in 
our State offices. That is where the action is. That is where farmers 
and ranchers need their help.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment on the general amendments that 
we have had today. Look, the reason we have farm programs in this 
country is to assure an adequate supply of food and fiber. Let me tell 
the Members what these farm programs have done. It does not go into the 
pockets of farmers. It is not subsidizing.
  We have ended up with a farm program that has created the most 
efficient industry in the world as far as agricultural production. That 
is why the American people eat and spend only 11

[[Page H5723]]

percent of their take-home pay on food, the cheapest, highest quality 
food in the world.
  So when we talk about knocking down these amendments for export 
enhancement programs, for programs that allow farmers to buy the kind 
of insurance that is going to move ahead with our Freedom to Farm bill, 
putting farmers on an even keel with the rest of the world, that is the 
challenge we have. When other countries are subsidizing their crops and 
subsidizing their exports into this country, we need to do something to 
make sure we have a strong industry.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has proposed and seems to have indicated 
he might be satisfied with a study, and he has gained the support of 
the ranking member and the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee 
and the chairman of the authorizing committee. But I would like to put 
additional facts on the record at this point.
  We have heard a little comment or two about these issues. They are 
all fairly negative by the gentleman from Michigan. But I would like to 
point out to my colleagues that the staff to form the regional offices 
came from several former organizational levels, including the national 
headquarters, national technical centers, of which there were four, and 
State offices. In fact, only 25 percent of the regional office 
employees came from positions in the national headquarters.
  The regional offices have provided essential and successful 
managerial and oversight functions for the restructured NRCS by 
bringing managerial authority closer to the field and the actual work 
and customers. Previously the NRCS assistant chiefs who held some of 
the current regional managerial authorities were actually located in 
this city. They were too far removed from local needs to be effective.
  Given the funding realities of the last several years, we have been 
able to keep significant staff in the field largely by making as many 
cuts above the field level as possible. Without the regional offices, 
the move toward them, I would say that some of this would have been 
impossible.
  The NRCS regional conservationists hold full authority for funding 
within their regions. This has put funding decisions closer to the 
field and to the customer, the client. Regional conservationists, I 
would suggest, based upon input I receive, are better able to address 
priority issues in a timely manner than previously when funds and 
decisions were held here in the Nation's Capitol.
  If the various requirements in the GAO asking for strengthening 
oversight activities alone were not being handled by the regional 
offices, we would be forced to assign those responsibilities to the 
State office level in the organization. This approach would hinder the 
ability to put additional staff at the field level, cause the State 
operations to be more focused on administrative duties, and reduce the 
amount of technical backup the State offices are now providing the 
field, which has directly improved customer service.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this approach allows the agency to recognize 
the different parts of the country and the fact that they have very 
different natural resource needs, different agricultural systems, and 
different customers. The old system forced our policy to approach 
solutions which were national in scope and tended to be kind of one-
size-fits-all.

                              {time}  1800

  The regional approach, I think, is assisting in fostering our efforts 
of locally-led conservation. And as the regional system continues to 
mature, it will ensure, I hope, that local needs are met with local 
solutions. And I say ``hope'' because we have moved to this arrangement 
only a year ago. So I would suggest that radical surgery is too 
premature at this time.
  Certainly, it is appropriate for the authorizing committee in 
particular to examine this issue, but I did want to bring these facts 
to my colleagues' attention at some point.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] about the important issue of 
outstanding USDA loans. As the chairman is aware, there are billions of 
dollars in outstanding USDA loans. There are hundreds of individuals 
with unpaid debts of more than $1 million each, and many of these loans 
are more than several years overdue.
  Right now the USDA is receiving less than 10 cents on the dollar on 
the loans that the Department tries to collect. If we were able to 
improve our collection on these loans, we could help reduce our budget 
deficit at a time when we are working hard to balance the Federal 
budget.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Edwards] that I agree with him. The outstanding loans are a significant 
problem at the USDA.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
I believe we could be more efficient in the way that we collect on 
those loans if we allowed qualified private sector firms to contract 
out for these collections. This is a process being used effectively and 
efficiently by other Federal agencies.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again yield, 
contracting out would be a good way, in my opinion, to try to collect 
on these loans. It is my understanding that the USDA has the authority 
now to contract out but has not yet engaged in any such contracts. And, 
like the gentleman from Texas, I would support efforts to privatize 
this collection process, and I am urging the USDA to move forward on 
this plan and to contract out for the collection of these large overdue 
loans.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his attention to 
this very important matter.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Pombo

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Pombo:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. 728. None of the funds made available in title III of 
     this Act may be used to provide any assistance (other than 
     the servicing of loans made on or before September 30, 1997) 
     under any program under title V of the Housing Act of 1949 
     relating to any housing or project located, or to be located, 
     in the City of Galt, California.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Pombo] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member in 
opposition, the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] will be recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, to start off with, I would like to clear up a little 
bit about what this amendment is all about. First of all, neither I nor 
the city of Galt is opposed to affordable housing. As a city 
councilman, I worked hard to establish affordable housing in the city 
of Tracy, which I had the pleasure of representing. Also, the city of 
Galt itself has participated directly in financing of low- to very low-
income housing within their city limits.
  The city of Galt, which is located in my district, is in a unique and 
critical situation. They have developed a financial plan to pay for 
their infrastructure within their city, to pay for their schools, to 
pay for their roads, their sewer system, their water system. A lot of 
that was based upon the housing that was going to be developed within 
their city.
  Unfortunately, they have run into a problem. Part of that problem is 
the fact that they are now making up 70 percent of the rural housing 
and community development service loans

[[Page H5724]]

within the Sacramento region. The reason that that has become a problem 
is that the Sacramento region, Sacramento County is made up of 1.1 
million people. The city of Galt is made up of 16,000 people, and yet 
they are being asked to absorb 70 percent of these low-income 
developments into their city.
  Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the question has come up about whether or 
not they are trying to keep affordable housing out of their city. I 
will just point out to my colleagues that the city of Galt currently is 
made up of 67 percent affordable housing, according to Sacramento 
County Assessor's Office.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pombo amendment because I 
truly do not believe that this is a matter for our Committee on 
Appropriations.
  I am opposed to the amendment of the gentleman from California that 
redesignates Galt, CA, as an urban community rather than a rural 
community.
  I remain concerned about the purpose of this language and the 
unintended consequences that may result. The town council of Galt has 
not voted to ask the Congress for repeal of its eligibility for rural 
housing assistance. There is no official resolution asking us to do 
this. And in fact even if they had, the appropriations bill is not the 
proper place in order to consider this.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, the current Federal statutes do not force 
any town to take rural housing assistance. It is optional if they wish 
to seek it. So why would any Member wish to lift this designation from 
their town?
  Finally, it is our understanding that many low-income families 
seeking to invest their own sweat equity in helping to build their own 
homes will lose that opportunity in Galt as a result of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have continued to strongly oppose this amendment. 
This addresses a local matter in which this Congress, certainly the 
Committee on Appropriations, should not intervene. Why should the 
Federal Government set a separate policy affecting one community that 
sets a terrible precedent for other communities to appeal to the 
Committee on Appropriations for special treatment to resolve their 
local issues. It is simply not our job to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the ranking member on the 
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, and urge a ``no'' 
vote on the Pombo amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment. I have had an opportunity to discuss this with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo]. It would have been appropriate 
for this issue to come before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community 
Development and for us to be able to determine the facts of the 
specific request made by the gentleman from California pertaining to 
the building of low-income housing in his district.
  The purpose of this rural housing initiative funded by the Farmers 
Home Administration is really to provide, in most cases in the area 
that it is being built, permanent housing for the farm worker 
community. There is an underlying concern that many people have voiced 
to me that what this amendment is about is keeping a farm worker 
community out of a specific part of the district of the gentleman from 
California, the area of Galt, CA.
  Mr. Chairman, if that is in fact what this amendment is attempting to 
do, then I would oppose the gentleman's amendment with every ounce of 
strength I could, and I am sure other Members would as well. The 
gentleman from California assures me that that is not what it is about. 
The difficulty is that we have no evidence to suggest whether it is or 
whether it is not and it puts us in a very difficult position.
  I have tried to work out with the gentleman an agreement that I think 
the chairman of the committee as well as the ranking member would have 
supported. The gentleman has insisted upon taking this to a vote. I 
think it is a mistake. I think that if in fact the Subcommittee on 
Housing and Community Development could have had an opportunity to hear 
directly from the people involved, get a sense of where the farm worker 
community was coming out, get a sense of what the needs are.
  I understand from the statistics cited by the gentleman from 
California that 67 percent housing in his community in fact is 
considered affordable. But I also understand that there are only 335 
units of subsidized housing in that area. The truth is that if we are 
going to stabilize the farm worker community of this country, I believe 
that it is important that we provide permanent housing for that 
community. It has worked throughout the State of California and other 
States around the country, and I think if what this is is a veiled 
attempt to push those people out, that all of us should understand 
exactly what the policy being pursued is trying to attempt.
  Now, as I say, I have been assured that that is not what the policy 
is and I would just hope that the chairman of the committee, if he 
would enter into just a brief colloquy with me and make certain that 
if, in fact, the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, 
working in a bipartisan way, determines that in fact this is an attempt 
at a ``snob zoning'' requirement, that the gentleman from New Mexico 
[Mr. Skeen] would, in fact, try to make certain that that amendment 
would not be accepted once we get into a conference committee.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I tell the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] it is my understanding that this provision is that it has no 
effect on the general USDA rural development policy, and I am prepared 
to accept the amendment and we will work with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts in any way, in any possible manner, to quell the concerns 
that he has. I appreciate the work that the gentleman has already done 
on it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
chairman's indication that we will make certain to find out exactly 
what the policy is, and I respect the suggestion of the gentleman from 
California that that is not what he is trying to do, and if in fact 
that is the case, we would be happy to work with the gentleman.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bonilla] a member of the committee.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo]. I was the one who originally 
proposed the amendment in the subcommittee markup.
  Mr. Chairman, my understanding of this issue, it is a clear 
distinction of what we stand for philosophically as conservatives in 
this body versus those who believe that big government needs to 
micromanage local government. This is a case where we have a Hispanic 
mayor and Hispanic leadership in a community that are asking for 
Washington to let them determine their own future, and with the 
understanding as well that there is an abundance of low-income housing.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a Member who is proud to have been recognized by 
farm worker organizations throughout my work in Congress. I have a 
large migrant farm worker population in my district that I work very 
closely with. Neither I nor the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], 
would do anything that would harm this population, because they are 
hard-working Americans aspiring to live the dreams that all of us have 
had in this body.
  So I would suggest that we should allow the local officials, the 
mayor and the council, and the others who feel that they should have 
the latitude to control their destiny, to let them do this. I hope that 
there is not an implication here that the Hispanic leadership of this 
local community somehow is not capable of determining their own future, 
and perhaps because they are people of an ethnic group or people of 
color that perhaps they are not capable of making decisions that are in 
the best interest of their community.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues in this body to allow these 
people to determine their future for the best interest of the farm 
workers and the best interest of this population.

[[Page H5725]]

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONILLA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla] that this was in fact approved 
by the city council of Galt. That is how we got to this state.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is my point; I 
appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts reiterating it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield, the housing that we are talking about has been 
approved by the city council of Galt, CA. They have approved this 
housing. It was taken to court to try to have that ruling reversed. 
That is how this housing got to this point.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the entitlements for the housing are approved by the 
city council. That is a local zoning decision that is made. The city of 
Galt attempted to file suit against USDA to stop this project from 
proceeding. Their case was thrown out of court because they were told 
they did not have standing.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard somebody say that this was somehow a 
partnership with local government. They were thrown out of court and 
told they did not have standing.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I do not know what kind of a partnership this might 
be. This is a dictate from the Federal Government down to the local 
city council and the local community telling them that this is what 
they are going to have.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Pombo].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to the bill?


                 Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Chabot

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150, 
noes 277, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 316]

                               AYES--150

     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Borski
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Ensign
     Fawell
     Foglietta
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hastert
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lazio
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     Wolf
     Yates

                               NOES--277

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Barton
     Boehner
     Gonzalez
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Stark
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1835

  Messrs. HILL, DIXON, RUSH, PETRI, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Ms. McKINNEY, and 
Mr. EVERETT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. DeLAY, GUTIERREZ, ISTOOK, NEUMANN, NEY, MOAKLEY and Mrs. 
FOWLER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Meehan amendment to 
the fiscal year 1998 agriculture appropriations bill. This amendment is 
the next important step in the fight against teen smoking.
  This amendment appropriates $10 million to the Food and Drug 
Administration to implement the agency's tobacco initiative requiring 
retailers to check the photo identification of persons seeking to 
purchase tobacco products. Similar to the way retailers check ID for 
alcohol purchases, this amendment does the same for cigarettes.
  There is a large body of evidence about the harmful and addictive 
effects of tobacco. Adults have the right to decide for themselves 
about the choices they make with regard to what they eat, drink, or 
smoke. However, children are not always able to make those same 
decisions. It is illegal to sell tobacco to children under the age of 
18. This amendment helps to implement the FDA policy of carding those 
individuals who smoke. It is merely an enforcement tool in the fight 
against youth smoking. This amendment should be non-controversial and 
should enjoy unanimous support in this chamber.

[[Page H5726]]

  I urge my colleagues to support the Meehan amendment.
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Messrs. Schumer and Miller.
  Mr. Chairman, while I understand and appreciate the proponents' 
interests in pursuing this amendment, I believe their concerns are 
misplaced and their proposed remedy misguided. I have worked closely 
with my friend and colleague from New York, Mr. Schumer, on a number of 
important issues over the years, and I do not question his motives; 
however, I regret that we are once again at odds over this emotional 
agricultural matter.
  Mr. Chairman, only last year, the Congress enacted major, far-
reaching agricultural reform legislation. In that measure, we 
dramatically changed our Nation's long-standing policies affecting 
farming and agricultural markets, including sugar production--which, I 
believe, is the only program crop to lose the Government guarantee of a 
minimum price. I supported these efforts to reform and modernize the 
sugar price support program and believe these changes have benefited 
all segments of the industry. These reforms represented an important 
first step.
  However, we simply have not allowed enough time to pass to ensure we 
achieved our goals in revising the sugar program and determine whether 
these changes were sufficient. I would also remind my colleagues that 
this House defeated a similar amendment during the farm bill debate.
  Mr. Chairman, for this reason alone, I believe it is unfair and 
unwise to make such a drastic change in the U.S. sugar program as 
proposed in the amendment at this time.
  We will hear today that this is an issue of fairness and the free-
market system; consumers will be pitted against farmers, producers 
against refiners and manufacturers. I believe these arguments are 
overly simplistic, picking and choosing statistics which best represent 
the proponents' arguments, and the distinctions they promote to do an 
injustice to the sugar producers of our great Nation, be they farmers 
of sugarcane, sugar beet, or corn.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not deny that there are some very real differences 
between the proponents and opponents on the issue before us, and I 
doubt any amount of debate is likely to change the position of the 
amendment's authors. However, I have learned over my years in Congress, 
and as a New York City councilman, that no issue is one-sided, nor is 
there often only one all-inclusive right answer to a problem. 
Reasonable people can, and often do, disagree.
  I believe the issue before us here today falls into that category. We 
differ on what the impacts of a particular program may or not be, and 
who best to address these issues. But, I do not believe either side has 
a claim to the so-called high ground.
  And, with all due respect to the amendment's proponents, I do not 
take a back seat to their concern for the American consumer. I 
represent a congressional district, a part of New York City, where the 
1990 median family income was only around $30,000 a year. In the areas 
of Queens and the Bronx which I have the pleasure to represent, the 
cost of living is a very real issue with everyday impacts on the hard-
working families of the 7th Congressional District of New York.
  The proponents argue that their's is the only way to protect the 
consumer, to potentially lower the cost of sugar and products 
containing agricultural sweeteners by a few cents or, more likely, 
fractions of a cent. This is all well and good, if they can ensure the 
savings they propose will indeed be passed along to the American 
consumer. A prospect which they cannot guarantee.
  But, cost aside, the proponents can also not be sure their amendment, 
if approved, would not seriously disrupt the supply and availability of 
sugar throughout our country.
  Mr. Chairman, my constituents do not benefit if they have the 
potential of saving a penny or two on a product but can no longer 
obtain that commodity or the product is no longer available in a 
sufficient and steady supply to meet their needs.
  I have often commented in meetings I have had over the years that I 
am unaware of any farms in my urban district, except for one lone 
Victory Garden started during World War II. But, I am sure of one 
thing, and that is that each and every one of my constituents eats and 
needs a secure, steady supply of produce and food products at a 
reasonable price. As such, I will continue to support those programs 
which I believe ensure just that, and oppose those measures which I 
believe will not.
  I will note here, also, that New York State does play role in 
domestic sugar production, with numerous farms that grow corn which is 
utilized in sweetener production.
  Mr. Chairman, my strong, historic support of agriculture programs, 
including sugar, and the associated refining and processing 
infrastructure, is based upon this--perhaps simplistic--premise: That 
the United States must continue to ensure all its people are provided 
the best, most secure, and stable source of food products possible. 
And, I believe this goal is best accomplished by reducing our 
dependence on foreign sources of agriculture products through the 
encouragement and promotion of a strong domestic agriculture system, 
and challenging unfair, anticompetitive foreign sources of food.
  While we are usually on the same side of most food related issues, 
from time to time, I part paths with this Nation's food processors. As 
is the case here, I side with the producers and not the refiners and 
processors. I do not fault them for their support of this amendment and 
the desired changes they seek in the sugar program, and I know we will 
work together on future issues of mutual concern.
  I believe the virtual elimination of this program as now proposed 
would place the U.S. sugar industry as a whole, and the American 
consumer in particular, at the mercy of the inconsistent and heavily 
subsidized world sugar market.
  Unlike my colleagues who support the amendment, I simply do not 
believe the American consumer is likely to realize a significant, if 
any, benefit should the amendment prevail. But, I am concerned that the 
domestic producers of sugar could suffer from reduced prices and would 
be made particularly vulnerable to foreign sources of sugar.
  While refiners may pass along their savings, I seriously doubt many 
processors are likely to reciprocate. While the cumulative amounts 
being bandied about today are significant, and represent real money 
regardless of one's social standing, the bottom-line is that we are 
talking about pennies or fractions of pennies on a commodity basis.
  Quite frankly, I do not even know how one would calculate the savings 
that say a manufacturer should pass along for their finished product 
that now may cost them a fraction of a cent less to produce. Are we 
likely to see cans of soda from a machine selling for 59 cents instead 
of 60 cents?
  At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to some very basic 
statistics which I believe make clear the short-sightedness of the 
amendment.
  The current sugar program operates at no cost to the Federal 
Government, and a special marketing tax on sugar farmers is earmarked 
for deficit reduction, U.S. consumers pay an average of 25 to 28 cents 
less for sugar than do shoppers in other developed countries. From 1990 
to 1995, the retail price of sugar actually decreased approximately 7 
percent. U.S. retail sugar prices are approximately 32 percent below 
the average of other developed countries and the third lowest in the 
developed world. New York consumers pay 5 percent less for sugar than 
the average consumer worldwide. Close to $7 billion are generated each 
year by the U.S. sugar industry in the State of New York along. 
Finally, more than 5,690 jobs in New York State rely on the sugar 
industry.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and cast 
a vote in favor of a strong, fair and balanced domestic sugar program 
and to protect the American farmer.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
amendment. I strongly support the Meals on Wheels Program that provides 
nutritious meals to our most vulnerable seniors, and I would like to 
see more money going to this program.
  The problem with this amendment is the offset. Time and time again, 
members searching for easy deficit reduction targets turn to Federal 
employees and agencies' salary and expenses budgets. Federal employees 
and agencies have borne a disproportionate share of cuts as we have 
worked to balance the budget. This raid on Federal employees and 
agencies must stop. Over the last 4 years, we have streamlined every 
Federal agency and reduced our Federal work force by nearly 270,000 
FTE's.
  Already, the bill before us today will reduce FDA's work force by 70 
FTE's. The additional cuts contained in this amendment would reduce FDA 
by another 65 FTE's, leading to a total reduction of 135 from a total 
of 954--about a 14 percent reduction. Such a reduction would hinder 
FDA's ability to protect and promote public health. The Office of 
Women's Health, the Office of Consumer Affairs, the Office of Special 
Health Issues, the Office of Science, and many important projects would 
suffer.
  The authors had a great idea when they decided to increase Meals on 
Wheels, but their offset would seriously hinder FDA's important work, 
and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I join in support of my 
colleague, Congresswoman Clayton, and also as a sponsor of this 
amendment to increase funding by $2.5 billion to our Nation's food 
stamp program.
  Although our intent is to withdraw this amendment the goal is to 
bring the issue of food and hunger before the House as we debate the 
Department of Agriculture's appropriations bill.
  In the State of Texas participation in the Food Stamp Program this 
year for the month

[[Page H5727]]

of May, numbered 2.23 million which represents 738,468 households.
  The need to provide adequate food to our Nation's poor is of vital 
importance, and therefore cannot and must not be left underfunded. 
State and private entities do not have the resources to assist those 
who are less fortunate in our society.
  One key provision of the Emergency supplemental appropriations which 
finally passed was additional funding to the Women, Infants, and 
Children's program which was underfunded last Congress. This program 
would have run out of funds prior to the close of the agency's fiscal 
year because of lack of adequate budgetary planning on the part of 
Congress.
  It is our budgetary responsibility as Members of the House to 
adequately fund each area of government so that such readjustments 
prior to the close of a department's fiscal year are not necessary, 
unless unforeseen disaster or emergencies beyond our ability to take 
preemptive action.
  In 1995, a reported 14.7 million children lived in poverty, with a 
national child poverty rate of 20.8 percent. The United States is the 
highest child poverty rate amongst the 18 industrialized countries of 
the world. With these numbers we can and should adequately plan to use 
the resources of our Nation to meet the needs of our Nation's poor.
  We must feed our children, provide education that is challenging and 
offers them the promise of a better life, as well as secure their 
future through sound government policy.
  I ask that my colleagues focus on the needs of all of our Nation's 
children regardless of social and economic status. This is indeed a 
blessed nation with wealth and resources in such abundance that we can 
share with other nations. However when we make decisions to purchase 
expensive weapons systems which are not requested by the Pentagon, or 
increase the Intelligence budget over what the administration requests, 
but underfund nutrient, food, and housing programs, makes me wonder if 
we have our priorities in a Tom Clancy novel and not on human beings.
  I would ask my colleagues to play real patriot games and take care of 
our Nation's poor.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the issue of funds 
for administrative expenses for crop insurance agents.
  The Agriculture appropriations bill presents difficult choices for 
members from rural America for support for production agriculture--
including crop insurance--competes directly against vital nutrition 
programs such as the Women, Infants, and Children [WIC] program. In a 
budget climate where discretionary funds are stretched between vital 
resources such as research, school lunch programs, rural utilities, and 
food safety, it is easy to forget about production agriculture.
  It seems we already have in some aspects. The amendment in full 
committee to increase funding for crop insurance was not off-set by 
cuts in nutrition but within production agriculture, namely, the Export 
Enhancement Program. The choice was difficult but necessary. The Obey 
amendment, however, would leave farmers with both fewer resources to 
compete against European subsidies and a less viable crop insurance 
program to compensate for the loss of the farm program safety net.
  Putting ``urban'' agriculture against ``rural'' agriculture is not 
the way to debate this fight.
  WIC is a stable program, and funded by the bill with $118 million 
more than last year. Further, this amendment would fund the WIC 
program's ``carryover'' money, not funds directly for the program. More 
than likely, the program will not even use this funding.
  The federal crop insurance program is still on feeble legs, as are 
producers as they look to alternatives for risk management. Congress 
modified farm programs just last year, creating the ``freedom to farm'' 
and taking away the safety net for price volatility. Along with changes 
to the farm programs, producers were assured that certain safeguards 
would remain in place, like the effectiveness of adequate crop 
insurance. Crop insurance is just about the only risk management 
assurance producers have, and these producers depend on the time and 
effort of thousands of insurance agents to provide adequate coverage 
and information.
  We often forget that it is ``rural'' agriculture that provides the 
affordable and safe food and fiber for ``urban'' agriculture programs 
and cities.
  To address a few other points I have heard during this debate, I urge 
you to keep some things in perspective:
  Crop insurance agents are not typical insurance agents.
  Crop insurance agents are working to provide information and coverage 
for twice the number of acres insured than in 1994. Thus efforts to 
reduce their administrative expense reimbursements come at a time when 
they are performing more tasks than ever.

  Crop insurance agents don't just sign up farmers once-a-year and then 
wait until the next year to follow up; they often visit with producers 
10 times per year.
  The level of funding we put in this bill for administrative expenses, 
whether it is 24.5 percent, 27 percent, or 28 percent, is not pure 
commission for agents. Not even close. The percentage figure goes to 
account for the Department of Agriculture's mandatory requirements on 
agents to administer the program: like training, compliance, paper 
work, processing, adjusting, and other overhead. After all that, the 
real ``commission'' is closer to 12 percent.
  Some of the flaws in the GAO report include:
  The report only examined three crop years, two of which were some of 
the best in history. Of course insurance companies do better in some 
years than others, especially when there are fewer weather 
catastrophes.
  The GAO report rhetoric makes for nice 2 minute ``Fleecing of 
America'' TV clips, but in reality the report only acknowledges 
``excessive expenses'' as the exception, not the norm. Furthermore, the 
expenses noted by the report as ``excessive'' were clearly legal.
  In this time of transition for production agriculture, shifting from 
disaster payments and price supports of the old farm programs to 
reformed crop insurance and the ``freedom to farm,'' farmers are 
depending more than ever on promises made by the last Congress. During 
recent reforms of our government's role in agriculture, Congress 
promised certain foundational assistance for farmers would remain: 
farmers understood that agriculture research, risk management tools, 
and technical assistance would be maintained.
  If we reduce the administrative expenses for crop insurance agents, 
we are taking away our promise to farmers and production agriculture 
that they would receive effective service in managing risk from 
unpredictable weather and market prices.
  I urge you to maintain the current level of funding for crop 
insurance.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2160, the 1998 
House Agriculture appropriations bill. In particular, I am pleased that 
this legislation includes sufficient funding to continue the vital 
research done at the Children's Nutrition Research Center in Houston, 
one of the six human nutrition centers of the Agriculture Research 
Service.
  The CNRC is one of the world's leaders in the field of pediatric 
nutrition. Their work has resulted in both better health and reduced 
health care costs for children. For instance, Texas Children's Hospital 
in my district has developed a more cost-effective, nutritionally 
balanced approach for feeding premature children as the result of a 
CNRC study.
  The CNRC has led the way in providing more accurate dietary 
recommendations for calcium requirements for young girls. With these 
recommendations, young women will now have the necessary nutritional 
tools to help reduce the number of low-birthweight babies born to 
teenage mothers. In addition, these calcium recommendations will help 
prevent future injuries later in life, such as hip replacement 
surgeries and broken bones. Girls and women will benefit from new 
information that will help increase bone density in their system and 
help prevent these injuries.
  The CNRC has also done important research on obesity in children. 
This information along with newly discovered molecular genes, will lead 
to more effective treatments to prevent these ailments in children. 
This research may also lead to new treatments for serious diseases such 
as atheroscelerosis, osteoporosis, and diabetes.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and am 
pleased that it includes vital research funding for pediatric research.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey-DeGette-
Hansen-Meehan-Smith amendment to the fiscal year 1998 Agriculture 
appropriations bill. This amendment is exactly what the doctor ordered.
  It is ridiculous for the Federal Government to be subsidizing the 
crop insurance for a product that is so harmful and addictive.
  Taxpayers now pay for the crop to be harvested, provide insurance 
against crop damage, pay for the health care costs of tobacco related 
illness through increased Medicare and Medicaid costs, and pay for 
advertising subsidies for overseas promotion.
  It is outrageous to me that while we limit the safety net for our 
poor, sick and elderly, we maintain a safety net for agribusiness and 
tobacco. This subsidy should be eliminated.
  Mr. Chairman, Joe Camel does not need a government handout. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to the bill?
  If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Nussle) 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.

[[Page H5728]]

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, pursuant to 
House Resolution 193, he reported the bill back to the House with 
sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Schumer

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from New York opposed to 
the bill?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Schumer moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2160, to the 
     Committee on Appropriations.

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, if 
ordered, will be taken on the motion to recommit.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 423, 
noes 4, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 317]

                               AYES--423

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--4

     Bono
     Boyd
     DeFazio
     Frank (MA)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Barton
     Gonzalez
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Stark
     Waters
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1855

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Motion to Reconsider The Vote Offered by Ms. Eshoo

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.


         Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table 
the motion to reconsider the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings] to lay on the 
table the motion to reconsider the vote offered by the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Eshoo].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 15-minute vote which may be 
followed by a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 258, 
noes 165, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 318]

                               AYES--258

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer

[[Page H5729]]


     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--165

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clement
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barton
     Clayton
     Fawell
     Gonzalez
     Lazio
     McDade
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Stark
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1913

  Mr. HORN and Mr. HERGER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The question is on the motion 
to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 56, 
noes 363, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 319]

                                AYES--56

     Barrett (WI)
     Blagojevich
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     DeGette
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lowey
     Luther
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Skaggs
     Smith, Adam
     Stokes
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Waxman
     Yates

                               NOES--363

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence

[[Page H5730]]


     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     DeFazio
     Lipinski
       

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Ballenger
     Barton
     Ehrlich
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Hinchey
     McKinney
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Stark
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1923

  Mr. ENGEL changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Motion To Reconsider The Vote Offered By Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.


         Motion to Table Offered By Mr. Hastings of Washington

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion 
to reconsider.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings] to lay on the 
table the motion to reconsider the vote offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 285, 
noes 139, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 320]

                               AYES--285

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--139

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clement
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Ballenger
     Barton
     Gonzalez
     LaFalce
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Smith, Adam
     Stark
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1942

  Mr. HUNTER and Mr. HANSEN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The question is on the passage 
of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-- yeas 392, 
nays 32, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 321]

                               YEAS--392

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling

[[Page H5731]]


     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--32

     Andrews
     Campbell
     Cardin
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Doggett
     Ensign
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Jackson (IL)
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kucinich
     Lofgren
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tierney
     Velazquez

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachus
     Barton
     Cannon
     Gonzalez
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Spratt
     Stark
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1952

  Messrs. FORD, SANFORD, and KENNEDY of Rhode Island changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Motion to Reconsider the Vote Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.


         Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion 
to reconsider the vote.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 284, 
noes 132, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 322]

                               AYES--284

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--132

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Stabenow
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Archer
     Bateman
     Brown (CA)
     Cannon
     Fowler
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Hoyer
     Kennelly
     Levin
     Linder
     Molinari
     Schiff
     Stark
     Thomas
     Wexler
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2009

  So the motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page H5732]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________