[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 14 (Tuesday, February 24, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H516-H521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, EXTENSION, AND EDUCATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 
                                  1998

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 365) regarding the bill S. 1150, the 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reauthorization Act of 
1998.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 365

       Resolved, That, upon the adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall be considered to have--
       (1) taken from the Speaker's table the bill S. 1150, to 
     ensure that federally funded agricultural research, 
     extension, and education address high-priority concerns with 
     national or multistate significance, to reform, extend, and 
     eliminate certain agricultural research programs, and for 
     other purposes;
       (2) struck out all after the enacting clause of the bill S. 
     1150 and inserted in lieu thereof an amendment consisting of 
     the text of the bill H.R. 2534, to reform, extend, and repeal 
     certain agricultural research, extension, and education 
     programs, and for other purposes, as passed by the House;
       (3) passed the bill S. 1150 as amended; and
       (4) insisted on the House amendment and requested a 
     conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 365. This 
resolution, upon adoption, will delete all of the Senate language 
within S. 1150, including that which has been the cause of concern of 
many Members, and insert in its place the language of H.R. 2534, which 
was passed by the House last November.
  Passage of the resolution is merely a necessary procedural step which 
allows the House to declare itself in disagreement with the Senate and 
to request a conference on the House-passed language.
  Mr. Speaker, so there is no confusion, I know my colleagues had 
concern with the Senate language. The objective here in H.R. 365 is 
simply to reauthorize the Foreign Agricultural Research Extension and 
Education Programs within the Department of Agriculture. The funding 
provisions which came under scrutiny in the Senate version are not, I 
repeat, are not in this bill or the language in this resolution.
  The language identical to 365 passed the Committee on Agriculture by 
a unanimous vote on Wednesday, October 29, and the full House on 
November 8 by a vote of 291 to 125. It is the first comprehensive 
overhaul of agricultural research programs since 1977. It encompasses 
over $14 billion in 5 years.
  The last two decades have brought sweeping changes to agricultural 
trade, production, and the government's approach to agriculture 
culminating in the reforms accomplished in the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, commonly referred to as the Freedom 
to Farm Bill.
  In the Committee on Agriculture, we have adapted to these changes by 
focusing on American agriculture's competitiveness around the globe, 
working to eliminate barriers to American farm products and to open 
international markets.
  Mr. Speaker, every farmer I know would prefer a market to a subsidy, 
and it is on that principle and in that knowledge that Congress, 2 
years ago, began getting government out of the farmers' business. But 
that is not to say that government does not still have a role. It 
clearly does, and agricultural research is an enormous part of it.
  Today, agricultural research is more important than ever in 
transitioning to a market economy and securing new markets for American 
farm products overseas and ensuring that we continue to produce the 
world's highest quality food and fiber at competitive prices. The core 
bill, H.R. 365 lives up to this challenge in addition to reauthorizing 
numerous agricultural research programs through the year 2002.

                              {time}  1500

  The bill includes reform provisions to ensure peer and merit review 
of all USDA research programs, greater accountability in the 
development of Federal research priorities, and greater dependence on 
cost sharing through requirements for matching funds. I urge my 
colleagues to support the resolution so that we may move forward with 
this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 365, a resolution 
which contains four provisions that upon their adoption will provide 
the following:
  One, it will take Senate bill 1150 from the Speaker's table; two, it 
will strike all after the enacting clause and insert the text of H.R. 
2534 as passed by the House and ably described by the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Smith); three, it will pass Senate bill 1150 as amended by 
H.R. 2534 and insist on the House amendment and request a conference 
with the Senate.
  I would like to make it perfectly clear that this resolution merely 
allows us to go to conference with the Senate. That is all.
  H.R. 2534 passed the House on November the 8th, 1997, by a vote of 
291 to 125 and is the result of a bipartisan effort. H.R. 2534 provides 
for a straightforward reauthorization and reform of current USDA 
agricultural research programs. H.R. 2534 does not contain any of the 
savings and reallocation measures associated with Senate bill 1150.
  Confusion and concern over this issue prevented our going to 
conference on this bill at the end of the first session, the 105th 
Congress. I recognize that there are concerns about provisions in the 
Senate bill. For this reason I urge Members to permit us to go to 
conference so we can begin to work through these differences. The 
sooner we begin working on a suitable conference report, the more time 
we will have to carefully consider these concerns while ensuring that 
support for vital agricultural research programs is not unnecessarily 
delayed.
  Again, I strongly urge passage of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston).
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time; and I rise in support of the resolution.
  I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Committee on 
Agriculture on this bill. Agricultural research is the heart of a 
system of agriculture which allows less than 2 million American farmers 
and ranchers to feed 260 million Americans and hundreds of millions of 
more people overseas.
  This bill reflects great credit on the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), and 
all of his colleagues, particularly my two good friends, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the distinguished ranking member, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  I do wish to raise a serious concern about the bill that has come out 
of the other body. That bill, creates more than $1 billion in new 
mandatory spending that I believe contradicts all the hard work that 
has been done in cutting the budget here in this House in the last 3 
years.
  In particular, section 301 of the Senate bill creates a new $780 
million mandatory spending program for research; and I would point out 
that we already are spending annually about $1.6 billion in the two 
major agriculture research programs in the discretionary account.
  Section 226 of the Senate bill adds $300 million to an existing 
mandatory program called ``The Fund for Rural America.'' About half of 
the annual $100 million of spending in that program goes to research 
which, as I have already pointed out, already gets substantial 
discretionary funding.
  The other half of the annual $100 million goes to rural development 
activities. I would like to remind all my colleagues that, in the 
current fiscal year, we are supporting a program level of more than $6 
billion in rural development through discretionary funding.
  Again, I think the House bill is a good bill; and I commend the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and

[[Page H517]]

the authorizing committee for their work. I believe, however, that in 
conference the conferees must eliminate the costly and unnecessary 
mandatory programs in the Senate bill in order for the conference 
report to have sufficient support to pass.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding 
me this time.
  Let me simply say that I have mixed feelings about this bill. I 
certainly have no objection to the bill as it is leaving the House. I 
think the House bill is a responsible bill. But as both gentlemen know 
who are managing the bill, I have three major concerns with the Senate 
bill with which this bill will be conferenced.
  As the gentleman from Louisiana just indicated, first of all, that 
Senate bill creates new mandatory spending for agriculture research. 
While I certainly support an expansion of agriculture research, I 
strongly oppose making ag research an entitlement program. Research is 
inherently a discretionary function of the budget, whether it is cancer 
research or energy research or agriculture research, and there is no 
reason to elevate agricultural research to a different standard.
  I would also say that creating new mandatory programs in the ag 
research area will not add to a net gain in spending for the 
agricultural research community because, if a new mandatory program is 
created, you can bet your last dollar that when the 302 allocations are 
made in the appropriations process, that that new mandatory research 
will be taken into account and discretionary research will be reduced 
accordingly by the majority party when they establish their 302 
allocations. So there will be, in the practical world, no net gain for 
ag research.
  My second objection is that the source of the savings in the 
mandatory spending is the food stamp program. And while I certainly 
agree that States should not be able to double bill the Federal 
Government for food stamp administrative costs, there are other 
pressing needs in the food stamp arena that ought to be met, including 
restoring food stamp benefits to legal refugees, including the Hmong 
veterans who fought side-by-side with American troops during the 
Vietnam war.
  Thirdly, even if full savings were not needed to restore food stamp 
benefits to immigrants or refugees, there are other mandatory spending 
issues that the authorizing committee ought to be addressing, in my 
view, rather than raiding the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  I would point out that spending $200 million a year for sales 
commissions in the crop insurance program means that there will be less 
discretionary money spent for important agricultural research programs, 
and I think that the authorizing committee ought to fix that problem 
before they set up new mandatory spending programs.
  So I would simply say to Members who have asked me about whether they 
should vote for this bill or not, I have no problem voting for this 
resolution at this time. But I hope that Members who talk about holding 
spending caps will, if this bill comes back from conference with new 
mandatory spending, I hope they will be prepared to vote against that 
conference report and deep-six it, as it will justifiably deserve to be 
deep-sixed, if it adopts the approach taken by the Senate.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), chairman of the Subcommittee on General 
Farm Commodities of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in full support of the Agricultural 
Research, Extension and Education Reauthorization bill.
  I think it is a very well-reasoned and responsible bill that will 
make sure that vital agriculture and related research will, in fact, 
continue through the year 2002, including reform provisions which 
ensure peer and merit review of agricultural research. It also includes 
provisions which will provide for input into the priority setting 
process by those who benefit from agricultural research.
  I think it is important for us to remember that the bill has already 
been passed. It is important for us to know that this is a clean 
resolution that will simply substitute our language for the other 
body's language and will simply allow us to go to conference on this 
issue.
  Strong agricultural research programs have certainly enabled our 
farmers and ranchers to produce the highest quality food and fiber in 
the world at competitive prices. This resolution simply reauthorizes 
our agricultural research. It updates and modernizes our research 
program so that American farmers will, in fact, maintain their 
competitive edge in an increasingly global marketplace.
  As the current Asian crisis is teaching us, our ability to ensure a 
stable export market is tenuous at best. Therefore, we need to 
continually work at expending our ag markets in every region of the 
world. This requires, among other things, the ability to be on the 
cutting edge of agricultural research, to provide agricultural products 
that these markets demand.
  In addition, for my very agricultural district in Nebraska, this 
reauthorization is, in fact, critical. Among the many provisions of the 
bill that are key to Nebraska agriculture are provisions for research 
on wheat scab, precision agriculture, ethanol, animal waste and 
management, and methyl bromide.
  The reauthorization provides a new direction in ag research. I think 
it is reform at its best, and I encourage all Members to vote ``yes'' 
on the resolution.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I appreciate this opportunity.
  I am in strong support of H.R. 2534 as written by the House and, has 
been stated already, it has been passed by the House. This piece of 
legislation needs to go forward to conference.
  The problem is not with this bill. The problem is with S. 1150, the 
Senate version of agriculture research, which uses a considerable 
amount of saving from the food stamp administration for other purposes 
in the majority, other than responding to the needs of the hungry and 
for which food stamp monies are authorized for. Therefore, the 
conference needs to proceed very carefully.
  While this legislation contains very important items, many of those I 
support, such as authorization of the use of research in extension 
grants to study the impact of pfiesteria and other microorganisms that 
pose threats to human and animal health upon our waterways; increasing 
the priority of finding alternative resources to methyl bromide; animal 
waste management; and significantly increasing the funding for 
historically black colleges and universities for research.
  All of these, indeed, I support. And this bill, again as stated, is a 
wonderful bill; and it is much needed in the agricultural community.
  I am gravely concerned and I urge the conferees as they go forward to 
please consider the needs of the hungry and that the food stamp savings 
will be there; that they should, in fact, go for those purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this, but I also urge 
the conferees to understand what my reservation would be, and I look 
forward to seeing how the conference turns out.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk 
Management and Specialty Crops.
  (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation before us; and the 
conference committee, I hope, will take note of what is said here today 
as they do their deliberations on this legislation.
  First of all, this is the first comprehensive overhaul of the 
agricultural research program in 20 years. This legislation is a 
crucial step toward meeting an increasing demand for world food and, 
yes, the commitment which we made to our farmers when we passed the 
Freedom to Farm Act: the Federal Government's responsibility for 
research.

[[Page H518]]

  The bill improves the ability and capacity of participants in the 
U.S. food and agricultural sector to meet consumer needs for high-
quality, safe, nutritious, affordable and convenient food.
  H.R. 2534 will help those participants compete in a global market and 
produce products in an environmentally sound manner. The legislation is 
vital in ensuring the United States remains at the forefront of 
producing the world's highest quality food and fiber at competitive 
prices.
  This bill creates an exciting new food genome research initiative 
which is fundamental in developing new and improved uses.

                              {time}  1515

  It also establishes an animal waste management research initiative, 
which is very important across the country as we have many, many 
controversies in America and in Illinois over waste from animal 
facilities. Mr. Speaker, this is really a piece of legislation whose 
time has come. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to support it.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. 
Speaker, I come here with some reservations about this bill, but with 
some confidence. This bill as it will leave this House and go to 
conference will not contain a provision which when it comes back from 
conference I guarantee you it will have, and that is a provision that 
will take, it is not clear how much, it is somewhere between perhaps $1 
billion to $2 billion, from the food stamp program, which are 
considered administrative savings, and those moneys will be used for 
which programs we do not know. But the concern that a number of us have 
is that if we are going to take money out of food stamps, and we took a 
whole lot of money out of food stamps two years ago when we passed the 
welfare reform law, that we should put the money back into services for 
the hundreds of thousands of families, including mostly families with 
children that were now as a result of this bill denied access to food 
stamps.
  As I said before, I have reservations but I have confidence from 
speaking to many of my colleagues that a serious effort will be made to 
address this concern if in fact we have moneys that comes out of the 
food stamp account. I trust that the members of the Committee on 
Agriculture will remember that the moneys in these savings should go 
into those programs from where the money came. If that is done, then 
certainly when this bill comes back after conference, all of us could 
say that we could support the programs.
  I support those ag programs, the ag research programs that are there. 
If it were a straight bill on agriculture research, it would have my 
vote. But I express my reservation at this stage because it is unclear 
to me where we will head. But as I said before, I do have confidence, 
especially because of my colleagues the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), that an 
effort will be made to ensure that if we take money from food stamps, 
it will be used to help the thousands of families who are in great need 
of providing nutrition to their children. With some reservations I say 
this is a bill that we should see go to conference, and with confidence 
I do say that I believe at the end we will all be able to vote for it.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh), a former member of the Committee on 
Agriculture, now on the powerful Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this very 
good bill. I would congratulate the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) 
and all the members of the Committee on Agriculture for putting 
together a very responsible bill. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is that the 
Senate bill takes $1.2 billion in savings from the food stamp 
administrative savings and then creates two new mandatory programs, one 
for ag research, which I support but we are already spending $1.6 
billion on it, and another for rural development, a program we are 
spending $6 billion on. The House did the right thing. The Senate has 
not. My concern is if this goes to conference, the temptation will be 
too great to spend that money on other programs that do not, quite 
frankly, need the funds. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, over 900,000 
legal immigrants, including over 150,000 children, have lost food stamp 
benefits. I think most of us would agree that that is wrong and that 
these funds need to be put back into the program to help to feed those 
people. In addition, there are many elderly and disabled persons who 
have lost food stamp benefits and I think we need to correct that 
wrong, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I would again reluctantly oppose the bill, ask that we 
return it to the committee and allow them to put some language into the 
bill that directs the committee bill to provide for language that would 
keep those funds within the food stamps program. For that reason, Mr. 
Speaker, I oppose the bill.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I know that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Smith) faces a difficult conference, as does the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm) and their colleagues. I am here simply to express my 
fervent hope that in conference they will take a look at the 
President's proposal on food stamps for legal immigrants. We are 
talking about in no way undoing welfare reform. I worked for and voted 
for the ultimate product. This is about hungry kids and this is about 
hungry elderly people, many of them refugees. The cuts in food stamps 
were very, very large and no one is suggesting at this point the 
restoration of most of them. But the President's proposal focuses on 
those most vulnerable, kids, most of them citizens themselves. Their 
parents are not yet. And the elderly, many of them, as I said, refugees 
and asylees. So I am here simply to say as they deal with the 
complexities, please do not forget these very vulnerable people who are 
here in our midst legally.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Combest), chairman of the Subcommittee on Forestry, 
Resource Conservation, and Research, whose subcommittee drew this bill.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution. 
I would like to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dooley) for their hard work and cooperation in bringing this bill 
to the floor. As chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over 
agricultural research programs, I presided over a series of hearings 
last summer and through the fall to prepare for this bill. We worked 
diligently to improve upon the current research, education and 
extension structure by increasing coordination, communications and 
competition among the public and private sectors and across State 
lines. This bill represents a significant step toward that goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for our colleagues who may be 
watching or for their staffs who may be watching to make for certain 
that they understand what this is. The House has passed this bill. All 
we are simply trying to do is to go to conference. We had the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations. We had the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the 
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. We had the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh), a subcommittee chairman of appropriations, 
who the one common thing throughout their statements was what a great 
bill this was.
  Mr. Speaker, we did not make any changes in the food stamp program in 
this bill. I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). We 
need to fix the crop insurance program. Nothing about crop insurance is 
in this bill. I agree with the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Clayton), who is a member of our committee about her concerns on food 
stamps. Nothing in this bill has anything to do with food

[[Page H519]]

stamps. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), all expressed their concerns about what the 
Senate has done. We cannot even talk to the Senate if we do not get 
this bill out of here under this resolution and go to conference.
  So I want to make for certain that people understand, everybody loves 
this bill. But if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is correct in 
his efforts, as he said reluctantly, to defeat the bill, nothing he is 
trying to do in regards to the money for food stamps is done. I want to 
make for sure that we understand where we are and I want to make for 
sure that Members understand that all we are doing is going to 
conference on a bill that has passed the House and all of the concern 
that has been raised on the floor today is about the Senate bill. We 
have got to go to conference before we can even begin to cure the 
problems. Let us not get caught up in these other things that are of 
legitimate concern to us as well in a bill that has nothing to do with 
it and keep from American agriculture the opportunity to move forward 
with a research bill that has not been reauthorized in, I believe, 15 
years, and is vitally important to the future of agriculture and to all 
of our producers and to all of those people involved in it. All we are 
doing today is trying to go to conference.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, many of us are talking about the debate that we had last 
year, actually in November. At the time there were serious concerns, 
not with the House bill itself but with major funding decisions at 
stake in the conference committee. Those same concerns remain, and I 
would repeat them. Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill creates over 
$1.2 billion in new mandatory spending, offset by administrative 
savings from the food stamp program. Programs to be funded with those 
savings, however worthy, should not take precedence over feeding hungry 
people. The food stamp program has already been drastically cut, and it 
is only fair that a substantial share of any food stamp savings should 
be reinvested in addressing the critical food and nutrition needs, in 
particular restoring food stamp benefits to vulnerable groups of legal 
immigrants, including the elderly, the handicapped and families with 
children.
  We did not have an opportunity to offer a motion to instruct 
conferees on this important concern. So if we pass this resolution, we 
will send this bill to conference with no firm assurance that a fair 
share of food stamp savings will be reinvested in feeding the hungry.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to pass this resolution, but 
send a very strong signal to conferees that many of us will work to 
defeat a conference agreement that does not invest at least half the 
Senate bill's food stamp savings in feeding hungry people, specifically 
vulnerable groups of legal immigrants and refugees facing hunger and 
hardships as a result of losing food stamps.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am confident that both the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) have heard enough comments and concerns today so that they 
will go into that conference doing what needs to be done on behalf of 
people who are hungry and who are in need of the food stamp program. I 
would like to echo the comments made by other Members here today, the 
fact that this is a very difficult situation. On one hand, we want to 
be supportive of agricultural research. On the other hand, we know that 
so much good can come of the food stamp program, more so than we have 
had up to now, especially in the area of legal immigrants. And so my 
role today here is again to echo what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall) said before. I will do nothing to stop this resolution from 
leaving the House. I will be supportive of its passage, in the hope 
that we come back with a conference report that I will not have to 
oppose, a conference report that will take into consideration the 
balance that is needed in this issue.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
sending this bill to conference. I think that many of us have heard the 
comments of many of the Members who have raised some concerns, not 
about the House bill but about the Senate bill. I think all of us who 
played a major role in crafting the bill that was passed, the ag 
research bill that was passed by the House, were motivated by some 
primary objectives. One is we have to ensure that the taxpayer dollars 
which are invested in agriculture research are going to obtain the 
maximum benefit to all of our society, all members of our economy. I 
think the bill that we passed made some major improvements to ensure 
that we will be getting the best return on behalf of the taxpayers. I 
would also state that many of us are sympathetic and sensitive to the 
issues in terms of how we will allocate any dollars that might have 
been saved in the food and nutrition side of this bill.

                              {time}  1530

  But I would also point out that when we look at the major advocates 
in this country who spend so much time in trying to ensure that the 
needs of some of the most impoverished of our country will be met are 
supporting this bill going to conference.
  We can look at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who are 
asking this Congress to vote, yes, to send the bill to conference, the 
National Council of La Raza, the Food Research and Action Committee, 
and the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. We have a broad coalition of 
people, advocates on behalf of food stamp recipients and advocates on 
behalf of making the most appropriate investment of research dollars to 
benefit the ag industry are saying let us send this bill to conference 
in order that we can develop the compromises and the resolution with 
the Senate version so that we can bring it back so that we can have a 
bill that is going to be in the best interests not only of the 
agriculture sector through increased investments in ag research, but 
also on the interests of ensuring that we are going to help the most 
impoverished in our country.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Combest), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for their work in 
the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) for his 
work in bringing us here today, and I urge my colleagues to support 
this resolution. Let us go to conference and try to work out these 
issues in the best way that we possibly can for all concerned.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) especially who have been 
side by side with us in a very cooperative fashion putting together a 
research program that has not been reauthorized since 1977. So it is 
time, I think, that we did act and we are acting.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we are not guilty of raiding the Committee on 
Appropriations. We are not guilty of starving children. We are not 
guilty of making all of these horrible choices. We are guilty of 
bringing our colleagues a straightforward bill that addresses research 
in America. And I remind those Members, and we have heard them all, 
that if there are concerns that they have should this bill survive 
conference, there would be many chances for them to be heard on this 
floor. This is not their last opportunity to express their thoughts.
  So in the meantime, please help us pass this bill, and let us move 
forward with research for American agriculture.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
resolution, which will move the agriculture research reauthorization 
bill one step closer to enactment. This resolution strikes the Senate 
language and moves the House bill to conference.
  I would like to thank Chairman Smith, Chairman Combest, ranking 
member Dooley, and

[[Page H520]]

the committee staff for their hard work on this important bill. I am 
particularly pleased that this bill includes the essential part of 
legislation I authored: The Precision Agriculture Research, Education, 
and Information Dissemination Act.
  Several new technologies make up precision agriculture. These include 
global positioning satellites, digital field mapping, grid soil 
sampling, and the list continues to grow as technologies develop.
  If our farmers are to remain the most productive and most efficient 
growers and producers in the world, precision technology must be made 
available to them. This technology is just as revolutionary as moving 
from the horse to the tractor, or from plow to conservation tillage.
  Let's not deny our farmers the opportunity to remain the best in the 
world. Today's vote is just another step in bringing our farmers into 
the 21st century.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the 
House Resolution 365, which would order the House to go to conference 
with the Senate on the Agricultural Research bill.
  The House version of the research bill, HR 2534, which I supported 
and voted for last year, was a good bill. When we acted on that bill, 
it did not contain the $1.25 billion food stamp administrative savings 
contained in the Senate version of the bill.
  The issue of how these savings should be divvied up, between 
nutrition program needs, agricultural research, rural development and 
crop insurance is the only outstanding issue holding up a good bill 
from becoming law.
  I urge the House to proceed to conference with the Senate and on this 
bill, in order to settle the differences over this matter. I trust that 
the goals of all parties can be addressed in conference, and the 
traditional strong alliance between the agricultural and nutrition 
programs can be rekindled.
  Mr. Speaker, I recently saw first hand the importance of agricultural 
research at the dedication of the National Environmentally Sound 
Production Agriculture Laboratory (NESPAL).
  This new facility is an exciting addition to the other outstanding 
research and educational facilities located across southwest Georgia. 
It is important to our state and, in fact, to the whole country. This 
is one more reason why that area of Georgia is recognized as a center 
of cutting-edge agricultural research--the kind of research we must 
have if we are to meet the awesome challenges in the years ahead.
  NESPAL is a shining example of how business, the academic community, 
and government are working together to achieve the level of scientific 
research and development needed to sustain agricultural leadership in 
an increasingly-competitive world.
  The Georgia Research Alliance, made up of agribusiness and 
agricultural and environmental sciences researchers and educators, 
provided the non-federal funds to match USDA's $3.6 million grant, as 
well as key leadership support, that gave Georgia the edge in the 
competition for this facility. This is a great thing for Georgia--but 
it is just one of many things the Alliance has done to boost research 
and development in Georgia, including raising $50 million a year to 
help create new programs and enhance existing ones at Georgia's 
research universities. The Alliance has played a major part in building 
the foundation that has made Georgia the number one state in high-tech 
growth.

  Agriculture faces challenges of historic magnitude in the years 
ahead. For one thing, there will be many more people to feed in the 
world, and much less arable land to grow the food and fiber they will 
need. Over the next 50 years, the world's population is expected to 
jump from the current figure of between 5 and 6 billion people to more 
than 9 billion--not quite double the current population, but close to 
it. The land available for planting is already decreasing at an 
alarming rate as developing countries expand and provide housing for 
growing populations. As farm land disappears, people throughout the 
world will continue to destroy timber resources and even rain forests 
as they try to find the last acre on which they can plant. Without 
adequate scientific advances, these conditions pose an extremely-dire 
threat to the world's environmental well-being.
  Another factor is the rise in the standard of living which is 
occurring throughout much of the world, including Southeast Asia and 
China, where food consumption is already sharply increasing. As income 
rises, so does the demand for food and fiber--in terms of both quantity 
and quality.
  To meet these demands, the United States will be called upon to 
increase production three-fold over the next 50 years. If our country 
is prepared to meet this demand, we have the potential to provide an 
unprecedented level of prosperity for our farmers and our agricultural 
economy in general. This is both a responsibility and an opportunity. 
It is also something that will not be attained easily.
  A corn producer, for example, will have to increase per-acre yields 
from 130 bushels to more than 300 bushels to meet this projected 
demand. This seems like an insurmountable goal. But current research 
indicates it can be done. Research projects that are underway in 
several states are routinely producing yields of 200 bushels an acre--
and occasionally yields of more than 300 bushels.
  U.S. farmers could not have tripled the country's corn production 
over the past 60 years, as they have done, if it has not been for the 
research done by both the public and the private sectors. This is an 
impressive achievement. But we know it isn't the end of the story. 
Current research suggests that we have the potential to make even more 
dramatic gains. We are not there yet--but we can, in fact, develop new 
and improved ways to meet the needs that are projected for the years 
ahead.
  Without a sufficient investment in research, we will almost surely 
fail. But, as long as we keep our diverse research efforts going 
strong, I have no doubt our farmers and agri-businesses will have the 
tools they need to seize the exhilarating new opportunities that are 
opening before them as the new century approaches. Thanks to visionary 
citizens like those in the Alliance, we are headed in the right 
direction.
  One of the things we need to do to fulfill our agricultural potential 
in an environmentally-progressive way, I believe, is to make greater 
use of farm materials in the production of industrial goods.
  We're talking about making non-food products out of renewable, earth-
friendly commodities grown on the farm rather than depletable, 
environmentally troublesome resources like petroleum.
  The number of trailblazing farm utilization companies that are 
emerging all over the country is rapidly growing--companies that 
transform soybeans into ink, canola into hydraulic fluid; cotton gin 
waste into cleansers; beets into a heart transplant medication; corn 
and potatoes into lubricants, paint and plastic products ranging from 
packing material to disposable diapers.
  Most people know about ethanol, the motor fuel made mostly from corn, 
which as captured 7 percent of the petroleum market over the past 20 
years. But many people are not as aware of the fact that plastic was 
originally developed from vegetable starches when discovered in the 
late 1800's. After the turn of the century, it was found that plastic 
made from petroleum had a big advantage in both quality and cost--and 
by the end of World War II petro-based plastic had taken over the 
entire market.
  Now, veggie-based plastic is making a comeback. It still costs less 
to make plastic from petroleum. But research has narrowed the gap, and 
the demand for the biodegradable kind is increasing. In just the past 
15 years, the amount of plastic produced in the U.S. from vegetables 
has climbed from virtually nothing to more than 100 million pounds a 
year. While this is just a drop in the bucket compared to the 60 
billion pounds of petro-plastic produced every year, it represents a 
secure foothold in the market--a foothold that's growing every year.
  Cotton is another example of the country's shift back to farm 
materials. Cotton production went into a tailspin in the 1950's, when 
synthetic fabrics that require less ironing took over the market. This 
changed when researchers developed wrinkle-resistant cotton and cotton-
blend fabrics--triggering a new boom for cotton in Georgia and much of 
the South.
  Not coincidentally, I understand some portions of the NESPAL 
building's floor is covered by linoleum--a farm-based product made from 
linseed oil.
  Two farm utilization companies can be found in the Second 
Congressional District of Georgia--BioPlus, Incorporated of Ashburn and 
Scientific Ag Industries of Blakely. Both of these companies are using 
peanut hulls as their basic resource--buying the hulls for just a few 
dollars a ton and transforming them into products like cat litter, 
cleansing absorbents, and activated carbon used in air and water 
filters that sell for $120 or more a ton.
  They are marketing the breakthroughs that came from our research 
universities, from government, and from their own research efforts. 
While both are still relatively small companies, with 30 employees or 
less, their potential for spurring commercial growth in rural areas, 
while helping improve the environment, is tremendous.
  BioPlus and Scientific Ag are improving the environment by diverting 
many thousands of tons of peanut hulls from landfills. They are also 
providing a new source of income for farmers and shellers, And, as they 
become commercially successful, other industrial investors are sure to 
follow their lead--creating a chain-reaction of new industrial 
development. BioPlus is already a success. After operating in the red 
for about eight years, the company turned the corner two years ago and 
is now earning a nice annual profit. The firm

[[Page H521]]

got substantial start-up advice and assistance from the University of 
Georgia. More recently, it received federal venture capital to finance 
the expansion that helped break into the black. Most of all, it did 
intensive research on its own--acquiring four patents while 
substantially improving its product and making it more desirable and 
profitable.

  Scientific Ag is the 2-year-old creation of a group of Georgia Tech 
researchers, who plan to put about as much emphasis on doing research 
on new industrial uses for farm materials as they do in selling the 
peanut hull-based activated carbon they have perfected and are 
producing for sale. This new firm, which has also relied on the 
country's whole spectrum of research programs, is just now getting to 
the production stage, and I believe its future is also very promising.
  These companies are fairly representative of this whole movement. 
They are the end result of the partnership between the public and 
private sectors--that wide range of research programs that are 
collectively providing the scientific advances and the business 
assistance that make our farmers and manufacturers competitive in the 
world.
  This is a partnership we must nurture and build upon. It would be 
catastrophic if we ever let our research infrastructure break down. 
Inadequate research would be a disaster for our economic future just as 
it would be for our national defense. If we failed to maintain a lead 
in military weaponry, you know what would happen--the country's 
influence would be weakened and our national interests would become 
more vulnerable throughout the world. If we failed to maintain our 
economic lead, our position in the world would also be weakened--as 
would as our standard of living.
  Overall, this Ag Research Reauthorization bill strengthens the role 
of government in ag research--not just in terms of authorizing funds, 
but by ensuring that the inseparable bond between the public and 
private sectors involved in ag research is reinforced in the funding 
formulas themselves.
  When we preserve this partnership, we are preserving something that 
is historic. Early in the nation's history, the federal government got 
involved in agriculture by collecting seeds from throughout much of the 
world and distributing them to farmers so they could experiment with 
new crops. This activity was managed by the Patent Office, which began 
to expand its farm research role in the 1840's by publishing new 
discoveries by our farmers for use by other farmers. In 1887, the Hatch 
Act greatly expanded the federal government's agricultural research 
activities by setting up the first experiment stations at a number of 
colleges in the 13 states.
  Out of this beginning grew the collaboration that now exists. The 
private sector is the biggest part of this partnership. But the public 
contribution is not far behind. According to the National Research 
Council, private expenditures account for about 57 percent of our 
agricultural research and government about 43 percent. We need both.
  The Georgia Research Alliance does a great job of promoting a sound, 
responsible, innovative, highly-diversified research infrastructure, 
and I commend them for what you are doing to enhance the quality of 
life for everyone. They are certainly doing its part to maintain this 
partnership, and it is up to us in Congress to make sure the federal 
government continues to contribute its share.
  Government must stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the business and 
educational communities to produce the healthiest and most abundant 
food and fiber supply in the world; achieve our potential in 
agricultural exports and restore the balance of trade; reduce our 
dependence on oil imports; protect the environment; and keep the 
country economically secure for our generation and for generations to 
come.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in sending this 
bill to conference.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend 
the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 365.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________