[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.
____________________