[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4984-H5028]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H4984]]
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 482 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4101.

                              {time}  1147


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4101) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before I get into the floor statement I would like to 
pay my respects to the members of my committee and particularly to the 
ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and all the 
members of the committee and the staff and the rest for the fine work 
that they have done.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all my colleagues that have been on the 
committee on the minority and majority sides, and particularly the 
staff, the Members' staffs that have work with us and the committee 
staff, and I certainly am indebted to all of them.
  And, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House H.R. 4101, 
which makes an appropriation for Agriculture, Rural Development, and 
the Food and Drug Administration and related agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill meets our discretionary allocation of $13.587 
billion in budget authority and $14.002 billion in outlays, and the 
total spending in the bill includes mandatory programs of $55.9 
billion, an increase of about $6.4 billion over last year, which mainly 
reflects the increased spending from Commodity Credit Corporation 
funds.
  Our discretionary allocation is about $130 million less than last 
year, and this situation is made more difficult because the 
administration has proposed about $800 million in new spending in the 
bill that is paid for through user fees, and these user fees all 
require authorization in law. However, the administration sent up this 
legislative package only 3 weeks ago.
  The reality is that enactment of user fees will not occur. Therefore, 
any new spending must be offset from existing programs. The committee 
has tried on a bipartisan basis to construct a bill that funds our 
highest priorities and deals fairly with the very diverse programs that 
this bill pays for.
  The bill provides an additional $20.5 million for the Food Safety 
Inspection Service, the third year in a row that meat and poultry 
inspection have received a major increase. There is also an additional 
$15.5 million for the food safety initiatives scattered throughout 
several accounts.
  Farm operating loans have been increased by about $200 million, and 
this program is important to the administration's efforts to end 
discrimination against minority farmers.
  We have increased the Rural Community Advancement Program by $93 
million, with most of the increase going to rural water and sewer 
programs where there is a $3.5 billion backlog of applications for this 
particular funding.
  We have also cut a number of programs, and many are being held to the 
fiscal year 1998 level.
  For the first time in many years we have not provided an increase in 
the Women, Infants and Children, known as the WIC program, and this 
bill funds the WIC program at $3.924 billion, the same as fiscal year 
1998. Our reason for doing that is the USDA's fiscal estimate of the 
WIC fiscal year carryover is $180 million, and we believe that number 
will grow. We also believe that carryover gives the program a very 
large cushion of support.
  Mr. Chairman, I know many of my colleagues are unhappy that some of 
the programs are not funded at higher levels and that we have to tap 
mandatory programs just to get us to where we are now. During the 
course of the past five months we have received about 600 requests from 
Members, only one of which suggested program reduction. The rest wanted 
level or increased spending.
  I would also like to do more, but the money is just not there. Unlike 
the Office of Management and Budget, we cannot engage in phony 
accounting schemes with user fees. We must work in the reality of a 
very tight budget.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill pays for programs that benefit every American 
every day. It supports food safety and nutrition, whether in rural 
America or in our largest cities, and it supports agricultural 
production and research that enables less than 2 percent of our 
population to feed 270 million Americans and millions more overseas. It 
supports conservation programs to protect watersheds and the 
environment, and it supports rural development programs that bring 
affordable housing and clean water to rural America.
  I would say to my colleagues that when they vote for this bill they 
vote for programs that benefit all their constituents, no matter where 
they live in this great country, and, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues 
for their support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise today and commend my good friend, the 
chairman of our Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development, for 
his leadership in helping put this bill together, and all the members 
of our subcommittee who have worked so very, very hard over the last 
several months.
  There are other provisions in this bill that we also need to 
acknowledge many of our members. We want to thank the Committee on 
Rules for allowing several provisions to be included in the base bill 
that are self-executing concerning the civil rights provisions as well 
as lifting the sanctions in terms of food for Pakistan. We want to 
thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) in that regard, as 
well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who worked so 
very hard along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) York on 
the civil rights provisions in the bill, along with the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) and the gentlewoman from Georgia 
(Ms. McKinney). We are grateful to all these members and so many more 
who helped us craft a good bill.
  I want to state that without question this particular measure helps 
keep our Nation at the leading edge for food, fiber, fuel and forest 
production as well as research, trade and food safety. The jurisdiction 
of this subcommittee is very broad. There is no question that 
agriculture is America's leading industry and that our farmers and our 
agricultural industries remain the most productive in the world, and 
they well understand, as we do, how difficult it is to maintain our 
nation's commitment to excellence in agriculture in these tight 
budgetary times.
  Our bill contains $56.1 billion for 1999 in total budget authority, 
of which $13.6 billion is for discretionary programs and $42.5 billion 
is in mandatory programs which we have very little ability to 
influence. Our bill is $2.2 billion below the administration's budget 
request, and in fact over two-thirds of our bill's spending is directed 
in the mandatory area, largely the nutrition programs like our school 
lunch and breakfast programs as well as the Food Stamp Program. Those 
comprise nearly two-thirds, 70 percent, of what is in this bill.
  We believe this bill is as balanced a bill as we could get to try to 
accommodate our farmers, the needs of food and drug safety, the needs 
of rural development in communities across this country as well as 
protecting the safety of consumers and those in our population who are 
most nutritionally and medically at risk.

                              {time}  1200

  Our committee has fashioned a bill that is the best possible bill 
within the

[[Page H4985]]

allocation it has been dealt, and I want to thank our chairman, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for being gracious and treating 
both sides of the aisle evenhandedly. I appreciate his bipartisanship 
and his sensitivity to balancing the burden of these tight funding 
levels between various constituencies served by this bill.
  I would be remiss if I did not point out, however, that the funding 
levels are simply inadequate for several of our most critically 
important programs in the bill, beginning with food safety, but also 
including WIC, the Women, Infants and Children's feeding program, all 
of our rural conservation programs, our youth tobacco prevention 
initiative and our rural water and sewer, as well as the temporary 
emergency feeding programs serving so many of our food kitchens and 
food banks. Without an additional allocation of resources, we continue 
to betray our commitment to American farmers, and to all consumers who 
benefit from the bounty that they produce.
  For example, let us go through some of these shortcomings. As hard as 
we tried, we were unable to fully accommodate the requests for food 
safety in this bill, which provides only $15 million of the additional 
funds requested by the President, who asked for $95 million additional 
funds for the food safety initiative.
  In the WIC program, so important to pregnant women and children 
across this country, the funding level is frozen in the bill at the 
1998 level of $3.9 billion, which is $157 million below the President's 
budget request. This freeze level could mean the reduction of up to a 
few hundred thousand additional women, infants and children who will 
not be able to be served by WIC.
  In the youth tobacco prevention area, the bill includes $34 million 
for the President's tobacco initiative. However, the President had 
requested $100 million over that level, a level of $134 million for the 
Food and Drug Administration. We could not accommodate that full 
request.
  On the important conservation programs for our farmers, the primary 
source of technical assistance to producers and landowners are funded 
at $784.4 million, but this is $5 million below last year's level and 
$51.9 million below the President's budget request.
  This bill makes further reductions in critical mandatory conservation 
programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Environmental 
Quality Incentive Program, which is called EQIP, and the Wildlife 
Habitat Incentive Program.
  In addition, this bill includes no funding for the farmland 
protection program, because it has not been authorized. These lands are 
absolutely irreplaceable as a world resource, and it is really sad that 
in this measure we cannot include continuation of appropriations in 
that program because the authorizers have not brought that bill 
forward.
  In terms of TEFAP, the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, 
there is a $10 million reduction in this mandatory program compared to 
last year. It is under this program that we distribute commodities to 
individuals greatly in need of assistance. Demand for food assistance 
at our food banks and soup kitchens is increasing due to the 
implementation of welfare reform, and I would hope as we move toward 
conference, that we might be able to find a way at least to keep this 
program at last year's level, fully aware that the increased demand is 
occurring in food banks across this country.
  In terms of rural water and sewer, while we appreciate the increase 
of $39.5 million for direct water and sewer loans, we are concerned 
that this amount simply is not enough. The U.S. Department of 
Agriculture has told us that over $2.5 billion in backlog remains in 
the water and sewer program, and we must be able in future years to 
find additional funding to meet these critical needs for affordable 
water and sewer necessary to improve the life in our rural areas.
  Mr. Chairman, those who serve farmers and work with agriculture are 
taught over and over again that there is a big difference between money 
and wealth. Our job on this Committee on Agriculture is to help create 
the wealth of America through the investments we make in food, fiber, 
new fuels and forestry production, all essential components.
  Market-oriented farm policy means farming for the market and not the 
government, and requires investments in research and conservation and 
sustainability, in education and technology transfer, which will keep 
our agriculture competitive as we move into the new century.
  Traditional farm programs under this bill and in the past continue to 
receive a decreasing portion of Federal support and, in my view, we 
should be targeting our scarce agricultural dollars to family farmers, 
especially those who are smaller, to assure competition in an industry 
now dominated by megagiants.
  In recent decades, we have slowly eroded the historic base of 
American agriculture, the family farmer, moving more in the direction 
of giant corporate farms. It is kind of interesting to look at the 
numbers in the area of agriculture trade. We have to work hard to keep 
our edge in the international marketplace.
  As American agricultural exports grow and weather the volatile global 
markets, foreign agricultural exports are being shipped to the United 
States in greater magnitude. Since the early 1980s, U.S. agricultural 
exports initially declined from a level of about $43 billion to a low 
of $26 billion in 1986, and then hit a record level of $60 billion in 
exports in 1996. While that looks great in terms of overall dollar 
value, the fact is that the price per bushel to the average farmer has 
not really gone up, but in fact they are having to sell greater volumes 
and try to farm greater acreage in order just to meet the income levels 
they were able to achieve in the past. In many cases, products that our 
own farmers grow and process are being replaced by imports coming into 
our shores.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to express my appreciation again to 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for putting together the best 
bill that we could under the circumstances that we were dealt.
  Let me remind our colleagues that the agriculture portion of Federal 
spending has taken more than its fair share of cuts in these past 
several years. Discretionary funding for this coming year is $130 
million below comparable spending of last year, but total amounts 
provided under this bill, both in the mandatory and discretionary 
accounts, have declined by almost 30 percent, by one-third, since 1994. 
It is clear that agriculture, rural development and nutritional 
programs continue to bear more than their fair share of overall budget 
reductions.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill crafted 
by the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State Mr. Nethercutt), a member of the committee.
  (Mr. NETHERCUTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to support this agriculture 
appropriations bill and to salute the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and, most 
especially, the people on our subcommittee, but also in addition the 
great professional staff that has assisted in putting this bill 
together, which been such a good resource for all of us who serve on 
this committee.
  In particular, we have had a rather arduous undertaking to work 
through the issue of sanctions exemption that appear in this bill, as 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) mentioned in her opening 
statement. Fundamentally, this sanctions language is going to be of 
great assistance to the agriculture community in this country.
  The industry, the economy of agriculture, has never been more 
important with regard to low wheat prices in the West and across the 
country for

[[Page H4986]]

other commodities. It is insane that our country would impose 
unilateral sanctions on the industry that is there to provide food and 
fiber and assistance to people who are hungry, not only in our country 
but in all countries of the world, not the least of which are Pakistan 
and India, which deal very prominently with my State of Washington, in 
the export of wheat products and wheat to Pakistan. It is a huge market 
for us, and for the law to impose unilateral sanctions seems to me 
wrongheaded.
  What we tried to do on the subcommittee was to provide the fastest 
method possible to get the sanctions exemption under the Arms Export 
Control Act, so we added it to the agriculture appropriations bill, 
and, through a bipartisan effort, not just within our committee, the 
subcommittee and the full committee, but outside the committee, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Chairman Smith), the gentleman from North Dakota 
Mr. Pomeroy), the gentleman from Kansas Mr. Moran), the gentleman from 
my own State of Washington Mr. Hastings) on the Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from Montana Mr. Hill), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
(LaHood) and many others, who got involved in saying we must exempt 
these sanctions from agriculture.
  It is in the bill, it is a very important measure, and I am delighted 
it was able to stay through the assistance of a lot of people.
  Other than that, this is a bill that funds agriculture research very, 
very effectively. It goes above the President's request for budget 
approval of agriculture research and it restores the facilities that 
were reduced in the budget by the President to Prosser, Washington, and 
Mandan, North Dakota, which are two very important facilities that will 
very much help agriculture and agriculture research.
  One of the things we passed when we adopted the farm bill two years 
ago was that we assured the farmers that we must have a strong 
agriculture research component if the freedom to farm concept was going 
to be successful. Not only research, but tax relief and exports. Those 
three components were the most important, as well as regulatory reform.
  This bill restores some of that agriculture research funding that is 
so critical to agriculture research and the success of the agriculture 
economy across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in favor of the special grants. I know 
it is nice to say ``Let's have everything peer-reviewed,'' but there 
are some areas of the country that have unique disease programs or 
yield problems that need a special grant. So I am here to argue very 
forcefully in favor of special grants, some of which benefit my Pacific 
Northwest region of the country, but other regions of the country as 
well. That is a very important component of this bill.
  One other thing that I think is very important that is not precisely 
agriculture-related but affects the welfare of people around the 
country has to do with diabetes. In the bill we have language that 
would provide for a pilot demonstration project to rural residents of 
Hawaii and Washington. They will get access to state-of-the-art health 
technology and education related to diabetes and diabetes complications 
through the existing Extension Service county office structure and 
communications system.
  Josslin Diabetes Center, located in Boston, Massachusetts is 
recognized as the world leader in diabetes research and clinical care. 
It is going to lend its technology and advanced care pilot program not 
only through the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs, but 
through the Department of Agriculture. It is going to help Native 
American people all over this country if we can have this diabetes 
demonstration project undertaken.
  Remember, diabetes affects all races and religions. It especially 
hits our minority populations, and through this Extension Service 
assistance, diabetes research will be advanced and people will be 
helped.
  We are going to restore PL 480 programs in this bill. We are going to 
restore the market access program. We are going to have food 
distribution program language through the Department of Agriculture 
that is going to greatly help Native American children. We now give 
fatty foods through our program under the Indian reservation 
distribution program, and, with the language that we have imposed here, 
the Department of Agriculture will be working with the Indian Health 
Service in trying to work through and make sure we give good food to 
these Indian children, who are the beneficiaries of this food program, 
all be they laudable, but we want to be sure these kids are not 
unnecessarily treated to diabetes.
  So, overall, this is a great bill. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), the gentleman from New Mexico Mr. Skeen) and all the 
professional staff and the full Committee on Appropriations looked very 
carefully at this bill, and we very much support it. I urge all of my 
colleagues to resist many of these amendments that would change this 
bill. Let us pass it today and really assist American agriculture to 
the greatest extent that we can.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to rise in support of this bill and to 
commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the ranking 
member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for the very fine, 
persistent and diligent work they have done to bring this bill to the 
floor.
  This is a comprehensive bill. It affects a wide range of 
constituents, so there are different sectors of our communities who are 
concerned about its success or its failure.

                              {time}  1215

  I want to tell the Members, this bill does bring some unique 
opportunities. It is an opportunity to right a wrong. In the self-
executing rule that was just passed was a provision of opportunity, 
removing a stumbling block that thousands of minority black farmers 
have had in not being able to have their case adjudicated before the 
courts or administrative remedies. So I want to thank both sides of the 
aisle, but particularly the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Marcy Kaptur) and the leadership for 
bringing this to the floor.
  It also has the opportunity to make sure we do not use food as a 
sanction in the cases of India and Pakistan. I think those are 
obviously commendable areas.
  I also want to raise the issue of providing new opportunities for 
inspection of food and quality of food, new resources for conservation 
and clean water. Many of our farm areas are impacted and need this 
additional assistance to make sure they have a continuous opportunity 
for providing those resources to keep their environment clean.
  However, there are some shortcomings to this bill. We just signed the 
bill on research over at the White House a few minutes ago, and this 
bill, by this act, will now zero out what we have just said. I think 
that is a mistake. It removes the infrastructure for water and sewer 
and some of the housing initiatives that rural areas had. Also, we 
reduce, in my judgment below the need to do it, both the WIC and 
nutritional program and the emergency food program. I hope at least we 
have an opportunity to look at the amendment.
  All in all, this is a good bill. It is a bill that not only does a 
fair appropriation of our scarce resources for a wide range, but we 
have an opportunity to right a wrong. Righting that wrong is to afford 
all Americans the opportunity to use our resources for agriculture and 
growing. The black farmers who have been denied that opportunity want 
to say, through me, they certainly appreciate this opportunity to have 
that remedy in court.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Smith).
  (Mr. SMITH of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4101, the agriculture 
appropriation bill. I wanted to, indeed, thank the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from

[[Page H4987]]

Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for bringing up this very important legislation. I 
wanted to commend both of them and their staffs for their hard work in 
achieving balance with limited resources.
  I want to particularly commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Nethercutt) for his hard work to eliminate an immediate threat to 
America's farmers. The Nethercutt amendment included in the bill fixes 
a problem that was created by, I think, an erroneous interpretation of 
the Arms Export Control Act.
  The Nethercutt amendment clarifies that USDA credit, credit 
guarantees, or other financial assistance for the purchase or provision 
of food or agricultural commodities are not included in the sanctions 
provided for in section 102 of the Arms Export Control Act.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill, as reported by the Committee on Rules, also 
deals with an issue that has directly concerned me and other members of 
the Committee on Agriculture for the past 2 years, providing access to 
judicial and administrative remedies to hundreds of black farmers who 
have been the victims of racial discrimination in the operation of the 
Department of Agriculture programs.
  Because of a statutory limitation, these farmers have been barred 
from seeking appropriate relief. An amendment worked out by the 
Committee on the Judiciary and other interested parties, and that is 
contained in this bill, would allow persons who have filed complaints 
of racial or other discrimination to seek redress in the Federal court 
system.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress passed a monumental reform to our Nation's 
agricultural policy in 1996. At that time we eliminated depression-era 
production controls and subsidies. Congress promised American farmers 
that we would replace these outdated programs with a new emphasis on 
research, on risk management, and regulatory reform. Three weeks ago 
Congress passed the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education 
Reform Act of 1998 in which we voted overwhelmingly to shift spending 
from bureaucracy to the cutting edge of research.
  Just a short term ago, today, the President signed that bill into 
law. Due to tremendous resource constraints and competing priorities, 
the Committee on Appropriations was forced to offset the cost for 
existing programs and other new initiatives by eliminating this new and 
vital research program.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to strongly encourage my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) to work with his 
counterparts in the Senate to reprioritize programs so they can restore 
these important funds. I understand that this will be a difficult 
challenge, but it is essential that this program be funded.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman 
from New Mexico, Mr. Skeen.
  I would say to the chairman, as he knows, on June 14 the House passed 
the conference report on S. 1150, the Agricultural Research, Extension, 
and Education Reform Act of 1998, by a vote of 364 to 50. The House 
vote overwhelmingly to shift spending from the bureaucracy to cutting 
edge research, and allocated $120 million for that purpose.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us provides no funding for this 
program, while the Senate measure includes full funding.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, due to tremendous resource constraints and 
competing priorities, the Committee on Appropriations was forced to 
offset the costs for existing programs and other new initiatives by 
eliminating this new and vital research program.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, many of our colleagues 
representing the agriculture community ask that you give funding 
consideration to this important function when again you meet with the 
Senate in conference.
  Mr. SKEEN. The Committee on Appropriations is often faced with the 
difficult task of striking a balance among competing and worthy 
initiatives. Research has always been a priority of mine. I can assure 
the gentleman that it will be a priority during the conference 
negotiations. I appreciate gentleman's adherence to it.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I indeed thank the chairman for his assistance 
in this matter.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a 
colloquy with the ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the chairman of the committee and the ranking 
member, first of all, let me commend them for the outstanding work they 
have done on bringing this bill to the floor, and also especially for 
recognizing the unique problems and needs of African-American farmers.
  I would like to bring to the Members' attention and to the attention 
of the floor a project that has significant support but was not 
included for funding in this bill.
  The AGD project is a plant genome sequencing project being undertaken 
by Loyola University of Chicago, in conjunction with the University of 
Illinois at Chicago. This is an important project that has positive 
implications for agriculture and agribusinesses, both in the United 
States and abroad.
  Back on March 16 Members of this body, both Republicans and 
Democrats, even members of the Committee on Appropriations, requested 
that specific funding be made available for this project. However, it 
is my understanding that except in very limited circumstances, no new 
projects were funded under the research and educational activities 
account.
  I would ask the gentlewoman, is that correct?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. That is correct.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. While I understand that not every project that 
is requested can be funded, the AGD project is an extremely important 
one. Congress has already recognized the critical role plant genomic 
research plays in the improvement of crop production and increased 
productivity.
  I am hopeful that projects like the AGD, which received such vigorous 
support for funding from so many Members of this body but were not 
specifically funded in this bill, be given special consideration for 
funding as we move to conference.
  I would appreciate a response, Mr. Chairman.
  Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I 
want to thank the Congressman for being so vigilant on this particular 
request for plant genome sequencing at Loyola University of Chicago. No 
one has been a stronger advocate in this Congress than has the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  We will work with him as this legislative process moves forward, and 
urge the gentleman to also consider pursuing funding in the National 
Science Foundation plant genome initiative. But we will continue to 
work with the gentleman.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I thank the gentlewoman very much.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I seek to enter into a colloquy with my 
chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take just a moment to address the issue 
of funding for the Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Program that 
prevents the entry of exotic animals and pests into the United States.
  Funding for AQI is of great importance to my district, which includes 
the two largest agriculture producing counties in the Nation. As we 
know, the authorized funding level for AQI is $100 million. However, 
the FY 1999 appropriation for the program was set at $88 million.
  Does that mean that the committee believes that the annual 
appropriation for AQI should only be at $88 million per fiscal year?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his concern and 
his strong support of American agriculture. The committee strongly 
supports the AQI program, but our budget situation will only allow us a 
level of $88 million in user fees. There is, however, an additional $30 
million in appropriated funds for this program. I

[[Page H4988]]

thank the gentleman again, and look forward to working with him.
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I appreciate the clarification, Mr. Chairman, and 
look forward to working with the gentleman and all the members of the 
committee next year in seeking full funding for AQI in the next fiscal 
year.
  Mr. SKEEN. I thank the gentleman.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill as 
currently drafted. I would urge my colleagues today to support the 
amendments that will be offered that will strip the dairy provisions 
from this bill.
  More specifically, Mr. Chairman, section 736 was added to this annual 
agricultural appropriations bill. It allows Congress to delay reforming 
the Federal milk marketing ordering system for another 6 months. It 
also allows the ill-advised Northeast Dairy Compact to remain intact 
for an additional 6 months.
  In the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill, Mr. Chairman, Congress was unable 
to find a legislative remedy for the regional dairy policy which has 
been in existence for too long that has pitted producers in various 
regions of this country against one another. That bill instead 
authorized the Department of Agriculture to develop a market-oriented 
system.
  Now some Members of this Congress, through a back room deal, have 
decided that reform should be delayed another 6 months, which would 
also extend to the New England Dairy Compact. Who knows how much longer 
it is going to be delayed beyond that point?
  Mr. Chairman, the Secretary's office has informed me that they are on 
track for passing the final rule this fall and implementing it early 
next year. They have had public hearings, they have accepted public 
comment. They are ready to go forward with this market-oriented reform 
of dairy policy. This legislation would set that effort back.
  I would say, let us stop delaying the inevitable. Instead, let us 
allow a fair market-oriented dairy policy to take effect. The 1996 farm 
bill held out the promise that farmers could produce for the 
marketplace, rather than for a government program. Today dairy farmers 
and consumers should not be subjected any longer to a Depression-era 
dairy policy in this country.
  Let us let the Department of Agriculture do its job, Mr. Chairman. I 
would encourage my colleagues to support the amendments that are going 
to be offered a little later this afternoon that would strip the dairy 
provisions and allow the Department of Agriculture to move forward on a 
more market-oriented, fairer system for our dairy producers throughout 
the entire country.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, Congress debated the issue of 
national organic standards in 1990 by passing the Organic Foods 
Production Act, requiring the USDA to implement a national organic 
program.
  The proposed rules, however, did not represent the intent of the 
Organic Foods Production Act, the recommendations of the National 
Organic Standards Board, or consumer expectations. Organic foods should 
be grown and processed without synthetic pesticides or chemicals, and 
organic livestock should be treated humanely and not medicated with 
steroids or antibiotics.
  Over 200,000 people, including 38 Members of Congress, showed their 
support for high standards during the public comment period. I would 
like to ask the chairman if he supports further revision of the 
proposed rule for organic standards, in collaboration with the NOSB and 
within the guidelines of the OFPA, and if he supports providing 
adequate resources for the national organic program and the NOSB.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that Congress has 
shown its commitment to high organic standards, and that commitment 
will continue.

                              {time}  1230

  The USDA is committed to developing organic standards that everyone 
will accept, and the rulemaking procedure should continue with the help 
of public comments and the NOSB recommendations.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I applaud USDA for 
revising the rule. And I hope the gentleman agrees that a second draft 
be released in a timely manner. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen) for his time, and I look forward to working with him on 
this issue in the future.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I too look forward to reviewing the second 
draft of the proposed rule soon.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have no further requests for time. I want to 
acknowledge the hardworking members of our staff, certainly Mr. Tim 
Sanders, Sally Chadbourne, Bobbie Jeanquart, and John Ziolkowski have 
served us so very well during this process and we want to thank them 
very, very much for doing the very best job they could for our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) and I would to follow her lead on those remarks and the 
appreciation that we have for the folks that work with us day after 
day.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Representative Skeen 
and Representative Kaptur for all of their hard work. I know it has 
been difficult to balance the many important priorities that this bill 
must fund, especially given the funding constraints that Congress 
faces.
  I am, however, very concerned that we could not do more to support 
vital programs that improve the day-to-day-lives of American families. 
I am concerned that the real and urgent needs of this country--to 
reduce smoking among young people, to protect the safety of our food, 
and to ensure high-quality nutrition for mothers and their children--
could not receive the full attention that they deserve.
  One of the most serious issues before this nation is tobacco use 
among America's youth. For years, the tobacco industry deliberately 
targeted children. Now, an astounding 4.5 million 12-17 year-olds 
smoke. Three thousand young people under the age of 18 become regular 
smokers each day. And when children this young take up smoking, they do 
not shake the habit easily. Almost 90 percent of adult smokers began by 
age 18.
  This year, the President requested a $100 million increase to expand 
FDA enforcement of laws prohibiting tobacco sales to minors and to 
expand the FDA's national public education campaign to get the word out 
to Americans across the country that these laws are being enforced. 
Sadly, this bill does not provide this important investment.
  I also am disappointed that, while this bill includes an additional 
$15 million over current spending levels for the President's food 
safety initiative, additional resources are not available for both the 
FDA and USDA to ensure the safety of our food supply. Americans need to 
be able to sit down together at the table and know that everything 
possible has been done to ensure that their meals are free from 
contamination.
  But each year, an estimated 9,000 Americans die, and another 5 
million get sick, from food-borne pathogens. If we are truly going to 
protect the health of American families, we must commit greater 
resources to assure the safety of their food and produce. Americans 
deserve better safeguards, stronger enforcement, and greater research 
and understanding of how our food supply becomes contaminated.
  Furthermore, I am disappointed that the WIC program could not be 
funded to reach more mothers and their children. WIC currently 
guarantees that 7.4 million young women and their children receive 
adequate nutrition and health advice--preventing future illnesses and 
other health problems in their lives.
  WIC dollars are excellent long-term investments in America's future. 
Each dollar spent on WIC yields more than three dollars in savings to 
the government through reduced spending on programs such as Medicaid.
  I am pleased that this bill requires WIC to streamline its program 
and eliminate waste, providing more services to more deserving people, 
yielding higher returns on the dollar.
  Thank you again Representative Skeen and Representative Kaptur for 
crafting this bill under such difficult funding restrictions. But, I 
must emphasize that, as members of Congress, it is our responsibility 
to invest in programs that ensure the long-term safety and

[[Page H4989]]

security of Americans and their families. The Tobacco Initiative, WIC 
and the Food Safety Initiative do exactly that. They deserve our 
commitment to the highest levels possible.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
important agriculture bill. I want to thank the distinguished Chairman 
of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee for his hard work in 
bringing a solid bill to the floor in which our agricultural community 
so desperately relies on.
  Additionally, I would like to say that I am in support of the Horse 
Protection language that is included. As we know, there has been a 
sizable uproar over the USDA's Animal and Health Inspection Services' 
(APHIS) implementation of the Horse Protection Strategic Plan.
  I have been actively involved with USDA, APHIS, the horse show 
industry and my constituents on this important issue, trying to strike 
a common ground on a fair and just plan. I have attended many public 
and private meetings with all sides and have worked with other 
Representatives to try and gage USDA's position.
  The Horse Protection Act of 1976, protects show horses from injury 
and abusive training practices. Since 1976, this Act has authorized the 
establishment of industry inspection programs to assist the Department 
with its enforcement efforts at more than 1000 Walking Horse shows 
annually. Six industry regulatory organizations and inspection programs 
currently have been certified by the Department to conduct inspections 
and otherwise carry out the regulatory responsibilities of the Act.
  In December of 1997, APHIS released its Strategic Plan for Horse 
Protection outlining several proposals for industry self-regulation. 
Unfortunately, the Plan does not adequately address all of the issues 
which need to be resolved. The Committee has included important report 
language that will assist the USDA and the horse show industry, in 
reaching fair and universal practices, procedures, penalties and 
guidelines. There is still a sizable amount of disagreement on who is 
qualified to regulate and how they are trained to execute inspections. 
Furthermore, examination procedures outlined in the Strategic Plan do 
not properly reflect appropriate equine medical principles.
  For these reasons, I feel that the Department needs to work closely 
with the six industry regulatory organizations, as well as Congress, to 
further develop the proper framework for industry self-regulation.
  Although this language does not go as far as I would like in an 
attempt to iron out all the differences between the Department of 
Agriculture and the Walking Horse Industry, I am pleased that the 
Committee has shown its concern for an industry that is vital to 
Tennessee.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress needs to remain engaged in our agricultural 
oversight function and regain control of the situation surrounding the 
enforcement of the Horse Protection Act. In that regard, I think we 
have come one step closer with the language included in this bill.
  I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in 
supporting this important horse protection language, as well as this 
critical agriculture bill.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4101, The 
Agriculture Appropriations Act of 1999. I want to specifically 
acknowledge the provision which allots $1 million for pesticide and 
crop disease research. This will directly benefit Southern California 
floriculture and nursery crop producers.
  With over 20 percent of the total agriculture share, California 
farmers rank first in the nation in overall production of nursery 
products. I want to make sure California farmers have every tool 
available to continue leading the nation. The research this legislation 
provides is truly what every California grower can support; higher 
production that's environmentally friendly.
  This research can positively impact rural and suburban economies, and 
increase international competitiveness by helping prevent the spread of 
pests and diseases among nursery and floriculture crops. Growers in my 
community made the need for this research very clear. Much of their own 
success has been a direct result of similar research.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Mr. Skeen for once again 
producing an Agriculture Appropriations bill that is beneficial for the 
American farmer. He has done a fabulous job meeting the needs of our 
nation's agriculturalists.
  Farming is still one of the toughest jobs in America. Our nation's 
farmers can put in a 40 hour work week by Tuesday noon and I want to 
make sure that is not forgotten here in Washington.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill. I know the Chairman has worked very hard to bring 
a balanced bill to the floor today that addresses all of the challenges 
that face American Agriculture, whether it be the pests that damage our 
crops to competing in the world market.
  I believe that this bill works to balance the needs of agriculture 
from Texas to Washington to California to Connecticut. It was a very 
difficult task to balance all of the important competing interests, but 
the bill before you today does just that and still meets the needs of a 
balanced budget. This bill provides money to fund vital agriculture 
research to help our farmers and ranchers become more competitive and 
improve production, it supports food safety and conserves our natural 
resources while improving the lives of those who live in rural America.
  More specifically the bill provides funding for the boll weevil 
eradication program which is vital to cotton producers across the 
cotton belt. The boll weevil is the primary cotton pest and it has cost 
our economy billions of dollars. Currently five states has passed 
referenda and are planning for program initiation. This program is at a 
pivotal point and the money in this bill will allow for full 
implementation of the program across the cotton belt.
  This bill also contains funding to support a variety of research 
projects for both plants and animals. One example is a research project 
that enhances cancer fighting agents that occur naturally in 
vegetables. A super carrot has already been developed and now they are 
working on other foods.
  The Committee has also made a significant commitment to food safety. 
The bill increases spending on food safety by $20.6 million.
  Not only will our producers be growing more food that is better for 
you we will be able to maintain our outstanding record on food safety. 
These are just a few examples of very important projects that are in 
this bill. The list is certainly much longer.
  Americans enjoy the world's safest and most abundant food supply. 
This bill goes a long way to ensure that Americans will continue to 
enjoy this privilege in the future. The bill supports the people who 
keep Americans fed and clothed, our food supply safe and I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
4101, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1999.
  Although this is only my second year of service on the subcommittee, 
it is also my last year of service due to my retirement, and I want to 
congratulate and thank my chairman, Joe Skeen, and the ranking 
Democrat, Marcy Kaptur, for their work and assistance this year. I have 
enjoyed participating in our budget oversight hearings and offering the 
perspective of California agriculture, the largest agriculture-
producing state in the nation.
  H.R. 4101 is not a perfect bill, but it is probably the best bill 
that could come forth after receiving a budget submission from the 
Administration based on over $750 million of user fees which have not 
been enacted by Congress. Based on our allocation, our bill is $130 
million less than the fiscal year 1998 appropriations. That meant that 
many difficult decisions had to be made in putting together a bill that 
would sustain the types of USDA and FDA activities that Americans 
expect in the areas of food safety, rural development, research, 
conservation, market promotion and the many other activities in our 
bill.
  The most controversial part of our decision-making stemmed from using 
savings from mandatory programs--the Fund for Rural America and the new 
research program in the agricultural research bill--to avoid a set of 
across-the-board cuts in virtually every program in the bill. Even so, 
we have held WIC, the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants 
and Children, to last year's appropriations, the first time in many 
years when we have been unable to provide an increase that would serve 
additional beneficiaries.
  However, we have made some important progress on food safety by 
adding $15 million to support increased inspection of imported fruits 
and vegetables by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as new 
activities of the Food Safety Inspection Service, and new food safety 
research activities by the Agricultural Research Service and the 
Cooperative State Research Extension and Economic Service. And $34 
million has been provided to continue the President's important 
initiative to prevent youth smoking.
  I have particular praise for several items of importance to 
California agriculture and to my district.
  First, the bill provides funds mandated by the Agriculture Committee 
for the Market Access Program (MAP). This is a program that 
traditionally has come under attack on the House floor, but has been 
supported strongly by the House membership. I am pleased that perhaps 
this will be the first year that opponents come to their senses and 
understand both the value of the program and the deepseated support for 
it.
  There is probably no more important tool for export promotion than 
MAP. In California, where specialty crop agriculture is the rule, 
export promotion is extremely important.
  Agriculture exports climbed to $59.8 billion in fiscal year 1996--up 
some $19 billion or

[[Page H4990]]

close to 50 percent since 1990. In an average week this past year, U.S. 
producers, processors and exporters shipped more than $1.1 billion 
worth of food and farm products to foreign markets, compared with about 
$775 million per week at the start of this decade.
  The overall export gains raised the fiscal year 1996 agricultural 
trade surplus to a new record of $27.4 billion. In the most recent 
comparisons among 11 major industries, agriculture ranked No. 1 as the 
leading positive contributor to the U.S. merchandise trade balance.

  As domestic farm supports are reduced, export markets become even 
more critical for the economic well-being of our farmers and rural 
communities, as well as suburban and urban areas that depend upon the 
employment generated from increased trade.
  Agriculture exports strengthen farm income.
  Agriculture exports provide jobs for nearly a million Americans.
  Agriculture exports generate nearly $100 billion in related economic 
activity.
  MAP is critical to U.S. agriculture's ability to develop, maintain 
and expand export markets in the new post-GATT environment, and MAP is 
a proven success.
  In California, MAP has been tremendously successful in helping 
promote exports of California citrus, raisins, walnuts, prunes, 
almonds, peaches and other specialty crops.
  We have to remember that an increase in agriculture exports means 
jobs: A 10% increase in agricultural exports creates over 13,000 new 
jobs in agriculture and related industries like manufacturing, 
processing, marketing and distribution.
  For every $1 we invest in MAP, we reap a $16 return in additional 
agriculture exports. In short, the Market Promotion Program is a 
program that performs for American taxpayers.
  Second, the committee has continued to provide the greatest possible 
funding for research in two main forms: through the agricultural 
research stations of the Agricultural Research Service, and through the 
special grants and competitive grants in the Cooperative State Research 
Education and Extension Service.
  I am particularly grateful that funds have been provided in support 
of our nutrition research centers. These centers will play an important 
role in the food safety research that will be a vital part of the food 
safety initiative. Funds have also been provided to complete the move 
of the Western Human Nutrition Research Center to the campus of the 
University of California at Davis. I believe its location there, along 
with one of the preeminent nutrition programs in the nation as well as 
our ag and medical schools, will provide the synergy necessary to make 
important research strides in the years to come.
  There are other research areas of importance to California, including 
alternatives to the use of methyl bromide, PM-10 particulate air 
quality research, sustainable agriculture practices, and alternatives 
to rice straw burning. Viticulture research has received a boost in 
ARS, and that is in keeping with its growing importance to the U.S. 
economy. The U.S. grape crop, now grown in over 40 states, has doubled 
in the last decade from $1.35 billion in 1987 to $2.7 billion in 1997. 
Grapes are now the highest value fruit crop in the nation and the 
seventh largest crop grown. Long-term research on rootstocks will 
assist this burgeoning industry.
  Another new initiative that has received attention is a special 
research grant regarding floriculture and nursery crops. Floriculture 
and nursery crops represent more than 10% of total U.S. farm crop cash 
receipts, and I believe this research which will be coordinated with 
the University of California--Davis and will examine environmental, 
pest and biodiversity issues, is vital to that component of our 
country's agriculture. Certainly our future success in agriculture, 
especially market-oriented agriculture as envisioned by the 1996 Farm 
Bill, will require an on-going commitment to research if we are to 
maintain the U.S. lead.
  I also appreciate the assistance of the committee in resolving a 
problem that co-ops in California and elsewhere were experiencing with 
regard to USDA's commodity purchase program. In the committee's view, 
USDA was using too restrictive an interpretation about small business 
set-asides which worked not just against co-ops, but against 
competitive bidding when USDA conducts surplus commodity buys for the 
school lunch program and other feeding programs. Language included in 
the bill directs USDA not to prohibit eligibility or participation by 
farmer-owned cooperatives, essentially recognizing that they are simply 
associations of small businesses equally deserving of consideration in 
these competitive bids.
  In short, I support the bill and I think Joe Skeen and Marcy Kaptur 
have done a good job under difficult circumstances. I'll look forward 
to working with them as we see this bill through conference and into 
enactment.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Agriculture Appropriations Act and to commend the good work of the 
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Skeen, and the ranking member, Mrs. 
Kaptur.
  I am especially pleased that the bill includes the legislation 
introduced by Representative Nethercutt and myself to clarify the 
status USDA export credit programs under the Arms Export Control Act. 
Following the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan last month, 
a serious question was raised as to whether the GSM program, which 
provides guaranteed financing for American agriculture exports, would 
have to be suspended for India and Pakistan. The resolution of this 
issue is vitally important to American wheat farmers since Pakistan is 
the third largest wheat market in the world, accounts for 10 percent of 
all U.S. wheat exports, and relies on the GSM program for nearly all of 
its U.S. wheat imports.
  The Nethercutt-Pomeroy bill provides needed statutory clarification 
by specifically excluding USDA export programs from the Arms Export 
Control Act. I commend Mr. Nethercutt for his leadership, and I would 
also like to thank the Administration for endorsing the legislation. 
Just this morning, the President personally expressed his support for 
the Nethercutt bill during the White House signing ceremony of the 
Agriculture Research bill. With all parties firmly behind the 
legislation, I am encouraged that it will be swiftly adopted and that 
market disruption will be held to a minimum.
  Mr. Chairman, farmers on the Upper Great Plains are already 
struggling with miserably low market prices, adverse growing 
conditions, and devastating crop disease. The crisis in farm country 
demands a multi-faceted response from Congress, including improvements 
in crop insurance, an enhanced marketing loan, and an expansion of 
foreign markets. At a minimum, we should not surrender hard-fought and 
hard-won foreign markets through unilateral sanctions. The Nethercutt-
Pomeroy bill ensures that we will not make that mistake.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Agriculture Appropriations Act.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 
4101, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999.
  This Members would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee for their hard work in bringing 
this bill to the Floor.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget 
constraints under which the full Appropriations Committee and the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee operated. In light of these 
constraints, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation 
includes funding for several important projects of interest to the 
State of Nebraska.
  First, this Member is pleased that H.R. 4101 provides $475,000 for 
the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance. The Alliance is an 
association of twelve leading research universities and corporate 
partners. Its purpose is to develop and facilitate the transfer of new 
food manufacturing and processing technologies.
  The Alliance awards grants for research projects on a peer review 
basis. These awards must be supported by an industry partner willing to 
provide matching funds. During its third year of competition, the 
Alliance received 16 proposals requesting $627,968 but it was limited 
to funding 10 proposals for a total of $348,700. Matching funds from 
industry partners totaled $780,052 with an additional $158,869 from in-
kind contributions. These figures convincingly demonstrate how 
successful the Alliance has been in leveraging support from the food 
manufacturing and processing industries.
  Mr. Chairman, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S. 
agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing 
world-wide demands for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good 
exports. In order to meet these changing world-wide demands, 
agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on 
adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food 
Manufacturing Alliance can provide the necessary cooperative link 
between universities and industries for the development of competitive 
food manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn, 
ensure that the United States agricultural industry remains competitive 
in a increasingly competitive global economy.
  This Member is also pleased that this bill includes $200,000 to fund 
a drought mitigation project at the Agricultural Meteorology Department 
at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This level of funding will 
greatly assist in the further development of a national drought 
mitigation center. Such a center is important to Nebraska and all arid 
and semi-arid states. Although drought is one of the most complex and 
least understood of all natural disasters, no centralized source of 
information currently exists on drought assessment, mitigation, 
response, and planning efforts. A national drought mitigation center 
would develop a

[[Page H4991]]

comprehensive program designed to reduce vulnerability to drought by 
promoting the development and implementation of appropriate mitigation 
technologies.
  Another important project funded by this bill is the Alliance for 
Food Protection, a joint project between the University of Nebraska and 
the University of Georgia. The mission of this Alliance is to assist 
the development and modification of food processing and preservation 
technologies. This technology will help ensure that Americans continue 
to receive the safest and highest quality food possible.
  This Member is also pleased that the legislation has agreed to fund 
the following ongoing Cooperative State Research Service (CSRS) 
projects at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln:
  Food Processing Center--$42,000.
  Non-food agricultural products--$64,000.
  Sustainable agricultural systems--$59,000.
  Also, this Member is pleased that H.R. 4101 includes $125 million for 
the new Section 538, the rural rental multi-family housing loan 
guarantee program. The program provides a Federal guarantee on loans 
made to eligible persons by private lenders. Developers will bring ten 
percent of the cost of the project to the table, and private lenders 
will make loans for the balance. The lenders will be given a 100% 
Federal guarantee on the loans they make. Unlike the current Section 
515 direct loan Program, where the full costs are borne by the Federal 
Government, the only costs to the Federal Government under the 538 
Guarantee Program will be for administrative costs and potential 
defaults.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member appreciates the Subcommittee's support for 
the Department of Agriculture's 502 Unsubsidized Loan Guarantee 
Program. The program has been very effective in rural communities by 
guaranteeing loans made by approved lenders to eligible income 
households in small communities of up to 20,000 residents in non-
metropolitan areas and in rural areas. The program provides guarantees 
for 30 year fixed-rate mortgages for the purchase of an existing home 
or the construction of a new home. The loan amount may be up to 100 
percent of a home's market value, with a maximum mortgage amount of 
$86,317.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member supports H.R. 4101 and urges 
his colleagues to approve it.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. The amendment printed in House Report 105-593 
is adopted.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered as read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any proposed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                         AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and not to exceed $75,000 for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, $2,941,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000 
     of this amount, along with any unobligated balances of 
     representation funds in the Foreign Agricultural Service, 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses, not otherwise provided for, as determined by the 
     Secretary: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be 
     used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the 
     Department of Agriculture to carry out section 793(c)(1)(C) 
     of Public Law 104-127: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds made available by this Act may be used to enforce 
     section 793(d) of Public Law 104-127.

                          Executive Operations


                            chief economist

       For necessary expenses of the Chief Economist, including 
     economic analysis, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, 
     and the functions of the World Agricultural Outlook Board, as 
     authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1622g), and including employment pursuant to the 
     second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 
     (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed $5,000 is for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $5,973,000.


                       national appeals division

       For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division, 
     including employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of 
     which not to exceed $25,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, $12,204,000.

                 Office of Budget and Program Analysis

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program 
     Analysis, including employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed $5,000 is for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $6,120,000.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer, including employment pursuant to the 
     second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 
     (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed $10,000 is for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $5,551,000.

                        Chief Financial Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial 
     Officer, including employment pursuant to the second sentence 
     of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     of which not to exceed $10,000 is for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, $4,283,000: Provided, That the Chief Financial 
     Officer shall actively market cross-servicing activities of 
     the National Finance Center.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Administration to carry out the 
     programs funded in this Act, $636,000.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public Law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 1984 
     delegation of authority from the Administrator of General 
     Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 U.S.C. 
     486, for programs and activities of the Department which are 
     included in this Act, and for the operation, maintenance, and 
     repair of Agriculture buildings, $132,184,000: Provided, That 
     in the event an agency within the Department should require 
     modification of space needs, the Secretary of Agriculture may 
     transfer a share of that agency's appropriation made 
     available by this Act to this appropriation, or may transfer 
     a share of this appropriation to that agency's appropriation, 
     but such transfers shall not exceed 5 percent of the funds 
     made available for space rental and related costs to or from 
     this account. In addition, for construction, repair, 
     improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed 
     equipment or facilities as necessary to carry out the 
     programs of the Department, where not otherwise provided, 
     $5,000,000, to remain available until expended; making a 
     total appropriation of $137,184,000.

                       Hazardous Waste Management


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to 
     comply with the requirement of section 107(g) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 6001 of the 
     Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6961, 
     $15,700,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That appropriations and funds available herein to the 
     Department for Hazardous Waste Management may be transferred 
     to any agency of the Department for its use in meeting all 
     requirements pursuant to the above Acts on Federal and non-
     Federal lands.

                      Departmental Administration


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For Departmental Administration, $32,168,000, to provide 
     for necessary expenses for management support services to 
     offices of the Department and for general administration and 
     disaster management of the Department, repairs and 
     alterations, and other miscellaneous supplies and expenses 
     not otherwise provided for and necessary for the practical 
     and efficient work of the Department, including employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed 
     $10,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That 
     this appropriation shall be reimbursed from applicable 
     appropriations in this Act for travel expenses incident to 
     the holding of hearings as required by 5 U.S.C. 551-558.

              Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 2501 of the 
     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 2279), $3,000,000, to remain available until expended.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out 
     the programs funded in this Act, including programs involving 
     intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive 
     branch,

[[Page H4992]]

     $3,668,000: Provided, That no other funds appropriated to the 
     Department by this Act shall be available to the Department 
     for support of activities of congressional relations: 
     Provided further, That not less than $2,241,000 shall be 
     transferred to agencies funded in this Act to maintain 
     personnel at the agency level.

                        Office of Communications

       For necessary expenses to carry out services relating to 
     the coordination of programs involving public affairs, for 
     the dissemination of agricultural information, and the 
     coordination of information, work, and programs authorized by 
     Congress in the Department, $8,138,000, including employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed 
     $10,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, and not to exceed $2,000,000 may be used for farmers' 
     bulletins.

                    Office of the Inspector General


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General, including employment pursuant to the second sentence 
     of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and the Inspector General Act of 1978, $67,178,000, including 
     such sums as may be necessary for contracting and other 
     arrangements with public agencies and private persons 
     pursuant to section 6(a)(9) of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, including a sum not to exceed $50,000 for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109; and including a sum not to exceed 
     $95,000, for certain confidential operational expenses 
     including the payment of informants, to be expended under the 
     direction of the Inspector General pursuant to Public Law 95-
     452 and section 1337 of Public Law 97-98: Provided, That 
     funds transferred to the Office of the Inspector General 
     through forfeiture proceedings or from the Department of 
     Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund or the Department of the 
     Treasury Forfeiture Fund, as a participating agency, as an 
     equitable share from the forfeiture of property in 
     investigations in which the Office of the Inspector General 
     participates, or through the granting of a Petition for 
     Remission or Mitigation, shall be deposited to the credit of 
     this account for law enforcement activities authorized under 
     the Inspector General Act of 1978, to remain available until 
     expended.

                     Office of the General Counsel

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the General 
     Counsel, $30,396,000.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Economic 
     Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics 
     Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the 
     Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
     $560,000.

                       Economic Research Service

       For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in 
     conducting economic research and analysis, as authorized by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) 
     and other laws, $67,282,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225).

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

       For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural 
     Statistics Service in conducting statistical reporting and 
     service work, including crop and livestock estimates, 
     statistical coordination and improvements, marketing surveys, 
     and the Census of Agriculture, as authorized by the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), the 
     Census of Agriculture Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-113), and other 
     laws, $105,082,000, of which up to $23,141,000 shall be 
     available until expended for the Census of Agriculture: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $40,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109.

                     Agricultural Research Service

       For necessary expenses to enable the Agricultural Research 
     Service to perform agricultural research and demonstration 
     relating to production, utilization, marketing, and 
     distribution (not otherwise provided for); home economics or 
     nutrition and consumer use including the acquisition, 
     preservation, and dissemination of agricultural information; 
     and for acquisition of lands by donation, exchange, or 
     purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100, and for land 
     exchanges where the lands exchanged shall be of equal value 
     or shall be equalized by a payment of money to the grantor 
     which shall not exceed 25% of the total value of the land or 
     interests transferred out of Federal ownership, $755,816,000: 
     Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall be available 
     for temporary employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and not to exceed $115,000 shall be available for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That appropriations 
     hereunder shall be available for the operation and 
     maintenance of aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed one 
     for replacement only: Provided further, That appropriations 
     hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for 
     the construction, alteration, and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but unless otherwise provided, the cost of 
     constructing any one building shall not exceed $250,000, 
     except for headhouses or greenhouses which shall each be 
     limited to $1,000,000, and except for ten buildings to be 
     constructed or improved at a cost not to exceed $500,000 
     each, and the cost of altering any one building during the 
     fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the current 
     replacement value of the building or $250,000, whichever is 
     greater: Provided further, That the limitations on 
     alterations contained in this Act shall not apply to 
     modernization or replacement of existing facilities at 
     Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That appropriations 
     hereunder shall be available for granting easements at the 
     Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, including an 
     easement to the University of Maryland to construct the 
     Transgenic Animal Facility which upon completion shall be 
     accepted by the Secretary as a gift: Provided further, That 
     the foregoing limitations shall not apply to replacement of 
     buildings needed to carry out the Act of April 24, 1948 (21 
     U.S.C. 113a): Provided further, That funds may be received 
     from any State, other political subdivision, organization, or 
     individual for the purpose of establishing or operating any 
     research facility or research project of the Agricultural 
     Research Service, as authorized by law. None of the funds in 
     the foregoing paragraph shall be available to carry out 
     research related to the production, processing or marketing 
     of tobacco or tobacco products.
       In fiscal year 1999 the agency is authorized to charge 
     fees, commensurate with the fair market value, for any 
     permit, easement, lease, or other special use authorization 
     for the occupancy or use of land and facilities (including 
     land and facilities at the Beltsville Agricultural Research 
     Center) issued by the agency as authorized by law, and such 
     fees shall be credited to this account, and shall remain 
     available until expended, for authorized purposes.

                        buildings and facilities

       For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
     extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
     facilities as necessary to carry out the agricultural 
     research programs of the Department of Agriculture, where not 
     otherwise provided, $61,380,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That funds may be 
     received from any State, other political subdivision, 
     organization, or individual for the purpose of establishing 
     any research facility of the Agricultural Research Service, 
     as authorized by law.

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

                   research and education activities

       For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for 
     cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and 
     for other expenses, including $168,734,000 to carry into 
     effect the provisions of the Hatch Act (7 U.S.C. 361a-i); 
     $20,497,000 for grants for cooperative forestry research (16 
     U.S.C. 582a-a7); $27,735,000 for payments to the 1890 land-
     grant colleges, including Tuskegee University (7 U.S.C. 
     3222); $49,273,000 for special grants for agricultural 
     research (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)); $15,048,000 for special grants 
     for agricultural research on improved pest control (7 U.S.C. 
     450i(c)); $99,550,000 for competitive research grants (7 
     U.S.C. 450i(b)); $4,775,000 for the support of animal health 
     and disease programs (7 U.S.C. 3195); $700,000 for 
     supplemental and alternative crops and products (7 U.S.C. 
     3319d); $3,000,000 for higher education graduate fellowships 
     grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(6)), to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); $4,350,000 for higher education 
     challenge grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)); $1,000,000 for a 
     higher education multicultural scholars program (7 U.S.C. 
     3152(b)(5)), to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b); $3,000,000 for an education grants program for 
     Hispanic-serving Institutions (7 U.S.C. 3241); $3,880,000 for 
     aquaculture grants (7 U.S.C. 3322); $8,000,000 for 
     sustainable agriculture research and education (7 U.S.C. 
     5811); $9,200,000 for a program of capacity building grants 
     (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to colleges eligible to receive funds 
     under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328), 
     including Tuskegee University, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); $1,450,000 for payments to the 
     1994 Institutions pursuant to section 534(a)(1) of Public Law 
     103-382; $200,000 for teaching grants for public secondary 
     education and 2-year postsecondary education (7 U.S.C. 
     3152(h)), to remain available until expended; and $10,733,000 
     for necessary expenses of Research and Education Activities, 
     of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be for employment under 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; in all, $431,125,000.
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.

              Native American Institutions Endowment Fund

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

                          extension activities

       Payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
     Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and 
     American Samoa: For payments for cooperative

[[Page H4993]]

     extension work under the Smith-Lever Act, to be distributed 
     under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said Act, and under section 
     208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for retirement and employees' 
     compensation costs for extension agents and for costs of 
     penalty mail for cooperative extension agents and State 
     extension directors, $268,493,000; payments for extension 
     work at the 1994 Institutions under the Smith-Lever Act (7 
     U.S.C. 343(b)(3)), $2,000,000; payments for the nutrition and 
     family education program for low-income areas under section 
     3(d) of the Act, $56,147,000; payments for a pesticides 
     applicator training program under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $300,000; payments for the pest management program under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $10,783,000; payments for the farm 
     safety program under section 3(d) of the Act, $3,000,000; 
     payments for the pesticide impact assessment program under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $3,214,000; payments to upgrade 1890 
     land-grant college research, extension, and teaching 
     facilities as authorized by section 1447 of Public Law 95-113 
     (7 U.S.C. 3222b), $8,549,000, to remain available until 
     expended; payments for the rural development centers under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $908,000; payments for a groundwater 
     quality program under section 3(d) of the Act, $10,061,000; 
     payments for youth-at-risk programs under section 3(d) of the 
     Act, $9,000,000; payments for a food safety program under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $3,500,000; payments for carrying 
     out the provisions of the Renewable Resources Extension Act 
     of 1978, $3,192,000; payments for Indian reservation agents 
     under section 3(d) of the Act, $1,672,000; payments for 
     sustainable agriculture programs under section 3(d) of the 
     Act, $3,309,000; payments for cooperative extension work by 
     the colleges receiving the benefits of the second Morrill Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328) and Tuskegee University, 
     $25,090,000; and for Federal administration and coordination 
     including administration of the Smith-Lever Act, and the Act 
     of September 29, 1977 (7 U.S.C. 341-349), and section 1361(c) 
     of the Act of October 3, 1980 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), and to 
     coordinate and provide program leadership for the extension 
     work of the Department and the several States and insular 
     possessions, $7,571,000; in all, $416,789,000: Provided, That 
     funds hereby appropriated pursuant to section 3(c) of the Act 
     of June 26, 1953, and section 506 of the Act of June 23, 
     1972, shall not be paid to any State, the District of 
     Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, 
     Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and American Samoa prior to 
     availability of an equal sum from non-Federal sources for 
     expenditure during the current fiscal year.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to 
     administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress 
     for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the 
     Agricultural Marketing Service, and the Grain Inspection, 
     Packers and Stockyards Administration, $642,000.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

                         salaries and expenses


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, including those 
     pursuant to the Act of February 28, 1947 (21 U.S.C. 114b-c), 
     necessary to prevent, control, and eradicate pests and plant 
     and animal diseases; to carry out inspection, quarantine, and 
     regulatory activities; to discharge the authorities of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture under the Act of March 2, 1931 (46 
     Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C. 426-426b); and to protect the 
     environment, as authorized by law, $424,500,000, of which 
     $4,105,000 shall be available for the control of outbreaks of 
     insects, plant diseases, animal diseases and for control of 
     pest animals and birds to the extent necessary to meet 
     emergency conditions: Provided, That no funds shall be used 
     to formulate or administer a brucellosis eradication program 
     for the current fiscal year that does not require minimum 
     matching by the States of at least 40 percent: Provided 
     further, That this appropriation shall be available for field 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $40,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft and 
     the purchase of not to exceed four, of which two shall be for 
     replacement only: Provided further, That, in addition, in 
     emergencies which threaten any segment of the agricultural 
     production industry of this country, the Secretary may 
     transfer from other appropriations or funds available to the 
     agencies or corporations of the Department such sums as he 
     may deem necessary, to be available only in such emergencies 
     for the arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious 
     disease or pests of animals, poultry, or plants, and for 
     expenses in accordance with the Act of February 28, 1947, and 
     section 102 of the Act of September 21, 1944, and any 
     unexpended balances of funds transferred for such emergency 
     purposes in the next preceding fiscal year shall be merged 
     with such transferred amounts: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to law 
     (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and alteration of leased 
     buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the 
     cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year 
     shall not exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value 
     of the building.
       In fiscal year 1999 the agency is authorized to collect 
     fees to cover the total costs of providing technical 
     assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other 
     political subdivisions, domestic and international 
     organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided 
     that such fees are structured such that any entity's 
     liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical 
     assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the 
     agency, and such fees shall be credited to this account, to 
     remain available until expended, without further 
     appropriation, for providing such assistance, goods, or 
     services.
        Of the total amount available under this heading in fiscal 
     year 1999, $88,000,000 shall be derived from user fees 
     deposited in the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection User Fee 
     Account.

                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance, 
     environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration, 
     and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized 
     by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 428a, $5,200,000, to remain available until expended.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service

                           marketing services

       For necessary expenses to carry out services related to 
     consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution, 
     transportation, and regulatory programs, as authorized by 
     law, and for administration and coordination of payments to 
     States; including field employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $90,000 for employment under 
     5 U.S.C. 3109, $46,567,000, including funds for the wholesale 
     market development program for the design and development of 
     wholesale and farmer market facilities for the major 
     metropolitan areas of the country: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 
     2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the 
     current replacement value of the building.
       Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization 
     activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31 
     U.S.C. 9701).


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $60,730,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative 
     expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or 
     other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this 
     limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the 
     Appropriations Committees.

    Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply (Section 32)


                     (including transfers of funds)

       Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 
     1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c) shall be used only for commodity program 
     expenses as authorized therein, and other related operating 
     expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the Department of 
     Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of August 
     8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in this Act; and 
     (3) not more than $10,998,000 for formulation and 
     administration of marketing agreements and orders pursuant to 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, and the 
     Agricultural Act of 1961.

                   Payments to States and Possessions

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

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     United States Grain Standards Act, for the administration of 
     the Packers and Stockyards Act, for certifying procedures 
     used to protect purchasers of farm products, and the 
     standardization activities related to grain under the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, including field 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $25,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $27,542,000: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall be available pursuant 
     to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of 
     buildings and improvements, but the cost of altering any one 
     building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent 
     of the current replacement value of the building.


         limitation on inspection and weighing service expenses

       Not to exceed $42,557,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for inspection and 
     weighing services: Provided, That if grain export activities 
     require additional supervision and oversight, or other 
     uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded 
     by up to 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations 
     Committees.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary 
     for Food Safety and to carry out services authorized by the 
     Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection 
     Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act, $609,250,000, and 
     in addition,

[[Page H4994]]

     $1,000,000 may be credited to this account from fees 
     collected for the cost of laboratory accreditation as 
     authorized by section 1017 of Public Law 102-237: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall not be available for shell egg 
     surveillance under section 5(d) of the Egg Products 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1034(d)): Provided further, That 
     this appropriation shall be available for field employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $75,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be 
     available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration 
     and repair of buildings and improvements, but the cost of 
     altering any one building during the fiscal year shall not 
     exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value of the 
     building.

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by Congress for the Farm Service 
     Agency, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Risk Management 
     Agency, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, $597,000.

                          FARM SERVICE AGENCY

                         Salaries and Expenses


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration 
     and implementation of programs administered by the Farm 
     Service Agency, $724,499,000, of which not less than 
     $10,000,000 is for purchases of equipment or studies related 
     to the Service Center Initiative Common Computing 
     Environment: Provided, That the Secretary is authorized to 
     use the services, facilities, and authorities (but not the 
     funds) of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make program 
     payments for all programs administered by the Agency: 
     Provided further, That other funds made available to the 
     Agency for authorized activities may be advanced to and 
     merged with this account: Provided further, That these funds 
     shall be available for employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                         State Mediation Grants

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

                        Dairy Indemnity Program


                     (including transfers of funds)

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

           Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928-1929, to 
     be available from funds in the Agricultural Credit Insurance 
     Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans, $500,031,000 of which 
     $425,031,000 shall be for guaranteed loans; operating loans, 
     $1,976,000,000 of which $1,276,000,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans and $200,000,000 shall be for 
     subsidized guaranteed loans; Indian tribe land acquisition 
     loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $1,000,000; for 
     emergency insured loans, $25,000,000 to meet the needs 
     resulting from natural disasters; for boll weevil eradication 
     program loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1989, $100,000,000; 
     and for credit sales of acquired property, $25,000,000.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership 
     loans, $17,986,000 of which $6,758,000 shall be for 
     guaranteed loans; operating loans, $62,630,000 of which 
     $11,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans and 
     $17,480,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans; Indian 
     tribe land acquisition loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, 
     $153,000; for emergency insured loans, $5,900,000 to meet the 
     needs resulting from natural disasters; for boll weevil 
     eradication program loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1989, 
     $1,440,000; and for credit sales of acquired property, 
     $3,260,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $219,861,000 of 
     which $209,861,000 shall be transferred to and merged with 
     the ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses'' account.

                         RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

       For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized by 
     the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 
     U.S.C. 6933), $64,000,000: Provided, That not to exceed $700 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i).

                              Corporations

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

                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

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

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund


                 reimbursement for net realized losses

       For fiscal year 1999, such sums as may be necessary to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized 
     losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed (estimated to 
     be $8,439,000,000 in the President's fiscal year 1999 Budget 
     Request (H. Doc. 105-177)), but not to exceed $8,439,000,000, 
     pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 17, 1961 (15 
     U.S.C. 713a-11).


       operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management

       For fiscal year 1999, the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for expenses to comply 
     with the requirement of section 107(g) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 
     U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 6001 of the Resource Conservation 
     and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6961: Provided, That expenses 
     shall be for operations and maintenance costs only and that 
     other hazardous waste management costs shall be paid for by 
     the USDA Hazardous Waste Management appropriation in this 
     Act.

  Mr. SKEEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill through page 29, line 26 be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE II

                         CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest 
     Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
     $719,000.

                 NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

                        Conservation Operations

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the programs 
     administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
     including the provisions of the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 
     U.S.C. 590a-f) including preparation of conservation plans 
     and establishment of measures to conserve soil and water 
     (including farm irrigation and land drainage and such special 
     measures for soil and water management as may be necessary to 
     prevent floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control 
     agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation 
     plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil; 
     dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water, 
     and interests therein for use in the plant materials program 
     by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to 
     exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 
     428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of 
     permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and 
     maintenance of aircraft, $641,243,000, to remain available 
     until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), of which not less than 
     $5,990,000 is for snow survey and water forecasting and not 
     less than $7,825,000 is for operation and establishment of 
     the plant materials centers: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 
     U.S.C. 2250 for construction and improvement of buildings and 
     public improvements at plant materials centers, except that 
     the cost of alterations and improvements to other buildings 
     and other public improvements shall not exceed $250,000: 
     Provided further, That when buildings or other structures are 
     erected on non-

[[Page H4995]]

     Federal land, that the right to use such land is obtained as 
     provided in 7 U.S.C. 2250a: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for technical assistance and 
     related expenses to carry out programs authorized by section 
     202(c) of title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
     Control Act of 1974 (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)): Provided further, 
     That no part of this appropriation may be expended for soil 
     and water conservation operations under the Act of April 27, 
     1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f) in demonstration projects: Provided 
     further, That this appropriation shall be available for 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225) and not to exceed 
     $25,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109: Provided further, That qualified local engineers may be 
     temporarily employed at per diem rates to perform the 
     technical planning work of the Service (16 U.S.C. 590e-2).

                     Watershed Surveys and Planning

       For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation, 
     and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, and 
     for small watershed investigations and planning, in 
     accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 
     Act approved August 4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009), 
     $9,545,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and not to exceed $110,000 shall be available for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

               Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations

       For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures, 
     including but not limited to research, engineering 
     operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of 
     vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in 
     use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and 
     Flood Prevention Act approved August 4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001-
     1005, 1007-1009), the provisions of the Act of April 27, 1935 
     (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and in accordance with the provisions of 
     laws relating to the activities of the Department, 
     $97,850,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b) (of which up to $15,000,000 may be available for the 
     watersheds authorized under the Flood Control Act approved 
     June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701, 16 U.S.C. 1006a)): Provided, 
     That not to exceed $47,000,000 of this appropriation shall be 
     available for technical assistance: Provided further, That 
     this appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant 
     to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act 
     of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $200,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $1,000,000 of this appropriation 
     is available to carry out the purposes of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205), including 
     cooperative efforts as contemplated by that Act to relocate 
     endangered or threatened species to other suitable habitats 
     as may be necessary to expedite project construction.

                 Resource Conservation and Development

       For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out 
     projects for resource conservation and development and for 
     sound land use pursuant to the provisions of section 32(e) of 
     title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1010-1011; 76 Stat. 607), the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 
     U.S.C. 590a-f), and the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16 
     U.S.C. 3451-3461), $35,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That this appropriation 
     shall be available for employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                               TITLE III

           RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Rural Development to administer programs 
     under the laws enacted by the Congress for the Rural Housing 
     Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the 
     Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture, 
     $611,000.

                           Rural Development


                  Rural Community Advancement Program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants, 
     as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1926a, 1926c, and 1932, 
     except for sections 381E-H, 381N, and 381O of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009f), 
     $745,172,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $35,717,000 shall be for rural community programs described 
     in section 381E(d)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act; of which $658,955,000 shall be for the rural 
     utilities programs described in section 381E(d)(2) of such 
     Act; and of which $50,500,000 shall be for the rural business 
     and cooperative development programs described in section 
     381E(d)(3) of such Act: Provided, That of the amount 
     appropriated for rural utilities programs, not to exceed 
     $20,000,000 shall be for water and waste disposal systems to 
     benefit the colonias along the United States/Mexico border, 
     including grants pursuant to section 306C of such Act; not to 
     exceed $15,000,000 shall be for technical assistance grants 
     for rural waste systems pursuant to section 306(a)(14) of 
     such Act; and not to exceed $5,400,000 shall be for 
     contracting with qualified national organizations for a 
     circuit rider program to provide technical assistance for 
     rural water systems: Provided further, That of the total 
     amounts appropriated, not to exceed $20,048,000 shall be 
     available through June 30, 1999, for empowerment zones and 
     enterprise communities, as authorized by Public Law 103-66, 
     of which $1,200,000 shall be for rural community programs 
     described in section 381E(d)(1) of such Act; of which 
     $18,700,000 shall be for the rural utilities programs 
     described in section 381E(d)(2) of such Act; of which 
     $148,000 shall be for the rural business and cooperative 
     development programs described in section 381E(d)(3) of such 
     Act.

                         Rural Housing Service

              rural housing insurance fund program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing 
     Act of 1949, as amended, to be available from funds in the 
     rural housing insurance fund, as follows: $3,930,600,000 for 
     loans to section 502 borrowers, as determined by the 
     Secretary, of which $3,000,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized 
     guaranteed loans; $25,001,000 for section 504 housing repair 
     loans; $125,000,000 for section 538 guaranteed multi-family 
     housing loans; $20,000,000 for section 514 farm labor 
     housing; $100,000,000 for section 515 rental housing; 
     $5,000,000 for section 524 site loans; $25,000,000 for credit 
     sales of acquired property, of which up to $5,001,000 may be 
     for multi-family credit sales; and $5,000,000 for section 523 
     self-help housing land development loans.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: section 502 
     loans, $112,700,000, of which $2,700,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans; section 504 housing repair 
     loans, $8,808,000; section 538 multi-family housing 
     guaranteed loans, $2,900,000; section 514 farm labor housing, 
     $10,406,000; section 515 rental housing, $48,250,000; section 
     524 site loans, $17,000; credit sales of acquired property, 
     $3,492,000, of which up to $2,416,000 may be for multi-family 
     credit sales; and section 523 self-help housing land 
     development loans, $282,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $354,785,000, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Housing Service--Salaries and 
     Expenses''.

                       Rental Assistance Program

       For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed 
     pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or 
     agreements entered into in lieu of debt forgiveness or 
     payments for eligible households as authorized by section 
     502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, 
     $583,397,000; and in addition such sums as may be necessary, 
     as authorized by section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt 
     incurred prior to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the rental 
     assistance program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act: 
     Provided, That of this amount not more than $5,900,000 shall 
     be available for debt forgiveness or payments for eligible 
     households as authorized by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, 
     and not to exceed $10,000 per project for advances to 
     nonprofit organizations or public agencies to cover direct 
     costs (other than purchase price) incurred in purchasing 
     projects pursuant to section 502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: 
     Provided further, That agreements entered into or renewed 
     during fiscal year 1999 shall be funded for a five-year 
     period, although the life of any such agreement may be 
     extended to fully utilize amounts obligated.

                  Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants

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

                    Rural Housing Assistance Grants


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For grants and contracts for housing for domestic farm 
     labor, very low-income housing repair, supervisory and 
     technical assistance, compensation for construction defects, 
     and rural housing preservation made by the Rural Housing 
     Service as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1474, 1479(c), 1486, 
     1490e, and 1490m, $41,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     $1,200,000 shall be for empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities, as authorized by Public Law 103-66: Provided 
     further, That if such funds are not obligated for empowerment 
     zones and enterprise communities by June 30, 1999, they shall 
     remain available for other authorized purposes under this 
     head.

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Rural Housing Service, 
     including administering the programs authorized by the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, title V of the 
     Housing Act of 1949, and cooperative agreements, $57,958,000: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $520,000 may be used for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                  Rural Business--Cooperative Service

              rural development loan fund program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $17,622,000, as authorized by 
     the Rural Development Loan

[[Page H4996]]

     Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)): Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That these funds are available to 
     subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans of $35,000,000: Provided further, That through 
     June 30, 1999, of the total amount appropriated, $3,345,000 
     shall be available for the cost of direct loans for 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as authorized 
     by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993, to subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount 
     of direct loans, $7,246,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan programs, $3,499,000 shall be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Business-
     Cooperative Service--Salaries and Expenses''.

            Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized 
     under section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act, for the 
     purpose of promoting rural economic development and job 
     creation projects, $15,000,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of 
     modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $3,783,000.
       Of the funds derived from interest on the cushion of credit 
     payments in fiscal year 1999, as authorized by section 313 of 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, $3,783,000 shall not 
     be obligated and $3,783,000 are rescinded.

                  Rural Cooperative Development Grants

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

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Rural Business-Cooperative 
     Service, including administering the programs authorized by 
     the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act; section 1323 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985; the Cooperative Marketing 
     Act of 1926; for activities relating to the marketing aspects 
     of cooperatives, including economic research findings, as 
     authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946; for 
     activities with institutions concerning the development and 
     operation of agricultural cooperatives; and for cooperative 
     agreements; $25,680,000: Provided, That this appropriation 
     shall be available for employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $260,000 may be used for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                        Rural Utilities Service

   rural electrification and telecommunications loans program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935), shall 
     be made as follows: 5 percent rural electrification loans, 
     $71,500,000; 5 percent rural telecommunications loans, 
     $75,000,000; cost of money rural telecommunications loans, 
     $300,000,000; municipal rate rural electric loans, 
     $295,000,000; and loans made pursuant to section 306 of that 
     Act, rural electric, $700,000,000 and rural 
     telecommunications, $120,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935 and 936), 
     as follows: cost of direct loans, $16,667,000; cost of 
     municipal rate loans, $25,842,000; cost of money rural 
     telecommunications loans, $810,000: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding section 305(d)(2) of the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, borrower interest rates may 
     exceed 7 percent per year.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $29,982,000, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Utilities Service--Salaries and 
     Expenses''.

                  rural telephone bank program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       The Rural Telephone Bank is hereby authorized to make such 
     expenditures, within the limits of funds available to such 
     corporation in accord with law, and to make such contracts 
     and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as may be necessary in carrying out its authorized 
     programs for the current fiscal year. During fiscal year 1999 
     and within the resources and authority available, gross 
     obligations for the principal amount of direct loans shall be 
     $175,000,000.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct loans authorized by the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935), $4,638,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the loan programs, $3,000,000, which shall be transferred 
     to and merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Utilities 
     Service--Salaries and Expenses''.

               Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program

       For the cost of direct loans and grants, as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 950aaa et seq., $10,180,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to be available for loans and grants for 
     telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas: 
     Provided, That the costs of direct loans shall be as defined 
     in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Rural Utilities Service, 
     including administering the programs authorized by the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, and the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act, and for cooperative agreements, 
     $33,000,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and not to exceed $105,000 may be used for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109.

                                TITLE IV

                         DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

                       Food and Nutrition Service

                        child nutrition programs


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), except section 21, and 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), 
     except sections 17 and 21; $9,218,647,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 2000, of which $4,170,497,000 
     is hereby appropriated and $5,048,150,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from funds available under section 32 of the Act of 
     August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c): Provided, That none of the 
     funds made available under this heading shall be used for 
     studies and evaluations: Provided further, That up to 
     $4,300,000 shall be available for independent verification of 
     school food service claims.

special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children 
                                 (wic)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the special 
     supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), 
     $3,924,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     2000: Provided, That none of the funds made available under 
     this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations: 
     Provided further, That up to $12,000,000 may be used to carry 
     out the farmers' market nutrition program from any funds not 
     needed to maintain current caseload levels: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding sections 17(g), (h), and (i) of such 
     Act, the Secretary shall adjust fiscal year 1999 State 
     allocations to reflect food funds available to the State from 
     fiscal year 1998 under sections 17(i)(3)(A)(ii) and 
     17(i)(3)(D): Provided further, That the Secretary shall 
     allocate funds recovered from fiscal year 1998 first to 
     States to maintain stability funding levels, as defined by 
     regulations promulgated under section 17(g), and then to give 
     first priority for the allocation of any remaining funds to 
     States whose funding is less than their fair share of funds, 
     as defined by regulations promulgated under section 17(g) 
     unless the Secretary has published a revised funding formula 
     regulation prior to the allocation of fiscal year 1999 funds: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available to pay administrative expenses of WIC clinics 
     except those that have an announced policy of prohibiting 
     smoking within the space used to carry out the program: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this 
     account shall be available for the purchase of infant formula 
     except in accordance with the cost containment and 
     competitive bidding requirements specified in section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966: Provided further, That State 
     agencies required to procure infant formula using a 
     competitive bidding system may use funds appropriated by this 
     Act to purchase infant formula under a cost containment 
     contract entered into after September 30, 1996, only if the 
     contract was awarded to the bidder offering the lowest net 
     price, as defined by section 17(b)(20) of the Child Nutrition 
     Act of 1966, unless the State agency demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary that the weighted average 
     retail price for different brands of infant formula in the 
     State does not vary by more than five percent.

              Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico reserves a point of 
order.
  Is the gentleman from Ohio referring to his amendment that was 
printed in the Record?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I am, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment that the gentleman is offering is printed 
on page 13 of the bill. Is there objection to the amendment of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) printed on page 13 being considered at 
this point?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment pending the 
reservation of objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hall of Ohio:
       Page 13, line 14, insert ``(reduced by $8,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar figure.

[[Page H4997]]

       Page 14, line 24, insert ``(reduced by $8,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar figure.
       Page 15, line 18, insert ``(reduced by $9,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar figure.
       Page 17, line 4, insert ``(reduced by $9,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar figure.
       Page 48, line 9, insert ``(increased by $10,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar figure.

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer this 
amendment out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  Mr. SKEEN. I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment which the gentleman from New 
Mexico was very much aware of. I suggested that I would be offering 
this amendment on the floor. I had not realized when I was in my office 
in a meeting that the agriculture bill was being called up and the 
discussion on the bill would go so quickly.
  My amendment was in order. It was printed in the Record. It has been 
in the Record since last night. The problem is that the Reading Clerk 
went beyond the section. Therefore, I had to ask for unanimous consent. 
I would just ask for the gentleman's indulgence and that he would 
accept the amendment so that we could have a colloquy, if we could go 
back and I could offer this out of order.
  It is not because we did not try. It is because the gentleman moved 
so quickly in the whole process here on the floor. This is a very 
important amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's predicament and 
I would offer him this; that we will work with him in conference on 
this particular matter. But at the present time, it is out of order and 
I will maintain that objection.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I will take the time that I have. I 
am sorry that the gentleman does not see fit to accept this amendment. 
I do not know what the threat is.
  The amendment essentially restores $10 million that has been cut from 
the emergency food assistance program, it is called TEFAP, in the 
fiscal year 1999 agriculture appropriations bill. This additional $10 
million is needed to fully fund this critical antihunger program at the 
authorized level of $100 million.

                              {time}  1245

  There is no question that more and more Americans are hungry and they 
are turning to food banks throughout our Nation for help. Study after 
study, Second Harvest, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, my own study 
shows that there has been countless news reports of more and more 
people asking for food. If Members have any doubts, visit the local 
food banks in their own districts.
  I hate to be here cutting good programs, but hungry people ought to 
come first. The United States has the strongest economy in a 
generation, and yet hunger remains a serious problem for many people. 
The cuts that I propose still leave these programs with funding levels 
that have increased over the past year, and they keep funding for food 
banks flat.
  When we cut food stamps by $23 billion to pay for welfare reform, we 
committed to paying $145 million to cover the increased demand on food 
banks. That is nowhere near enough to do the job. But cutting food 
banks even further in a year of increased need is unconscionable.
  Food is the least expensive, most effective ingredient in a 
successful welfare reform. People cannot work on empty stomachs.
  We are blessed in this country. There is no question about it. This 
bill is approximately $55 billion. I realize that the chairman and 
ranking minority member are under a difficult task of trying to find 
money for all these different programs, but if we cannot find an 
additional $10 million out of existing programs, especially programs 
that have been increased, there is something the matter with us.
  If we are considering a $60- to $100 billion tax cut and we cannot 
give $10 million extra to TEFAP, I cannot believe it. I cannot believe 
that the chairman is denying my amendment here when, about as fair as I 
could be, I offered that amendment, told the gentleman I was going to 
offer the amendment. The fact that it went too quickly, that we cannot 
consider this. I have to take the gentleman, though, at his word, since 
he objected to the amendment being offered, that he will try to restore 
this money of $10 million. It is vitally needed. If anybody doubts me 
on this floor, call their food banks and their soup kitchens in this 
country. I guarantee them they will find out there are hundreds of 
thousands of extra people, mostly working poor and senior citizens, 
that are asking for food all over this country.
  It does not seem possible that at a time when this country has a 
balanced budget, tremendous employment, the most wealthy Nation in the 
world, that we have 25 to 30 million people asking for food at soup 
kitchens and food banks. These are not people on welfare. These are 
people that are hurting.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's feelings and 
his fervor for this, because we have had a discussion on this topic. I 
am going to maintain the rule, but I will, as I offered before, work 
with the gentleman in the conference to see if we cannot come to some 
solution on this thing either one way or the other. I take the 
gentleman at his word and I understand how dedicated he is.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) that I do 
not think that there is a Member of this institution on either side of 
the aisle and in either Chamber who is more dedicated and more fervent 
and more committed to serving the needs of hungry people in our country 
and in other countries than is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall).
  We have tried very, very hard and done the best that we could to the 
moment in this bill we are bringing to the floor to deal with the 
emergency needs across this country in our feeding kitchens. We know 
that they are there, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) has made us 
more aware of these needs. I could not let the moment go by without 
recognizing him and his dedication to this cause.
  On the merits, he is absolutely correct. I know that this is the case 
in our State of Ohio, with all of the changes made in welfare reform, 
and I understand the pressures that our chairman was under as we tried 
to mark and cut and trim and do everything we could to produce a bill 
that satisfied across the board.
  I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) that I will work 
very hard, as we move toward conference, with him and with our chairman 
and with the conferees to try to see if we cannot do better than we 
have done to this point.
  One of the changes that we did make in the bill was to provide 
greater administrative flexibility to the States in the administration 
of the $135 million that is in the measure for these programs. This 
should free up some commodities to food banks. It is still not enough, 
but we would hope that the States and the Governors would pay 
particular attention to these changes. That does not solve the 
gentleman's problem, which is the gross amount included for this 
account. I wanted to give the gentleman an opportunity to expand on his 
earlier statements, if he wishes at this point.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
to me and certainly thank her for her very kind words. I want to thank 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) as well.
  I know it seems that we can be lulled asleep in this country thinking 
that everything is going so well. The fact is that we do have a budget 
that is balanced. We have people that are working. We have very low 
unemployment across this country. But at the same time, according to 
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, according to Second Harvest, according 
to a survey that I did with 200 food banks across this country, we have 
somewhere between 15 percent and well over 100 percent in

[[Page H4998]]

some parts of our country of the increase of people asking for food in 
the last six months, and it is staggering. It does not seem possible.
  These people are not people that are on public assistance. These are 
not people that qualify for any help. These are people, somewhere in 
the area of about 25 to 30 million people, that are two or three, 
sometimes four days a month, they go to bed, and their children, 
without food.
  What happens is, after they pay their rent and they pay for the 
utility bills, they run out of money. These are the working poor and, 
in many cases, senior citizens. It is this group of people that find 
themselves going to food banks and soup kitchens. This is up in the 
last six months to the last year, not only at a minimum of 15 percent 
but it is up well over 100 percent increase.
  What is happening at the same time is that a lot of the food chains 
and food markets and groups that give food are getting so much better 
in their estimate of not only food collection but inventories, and what 
is happening is that a lot of the food that they would normally donate 
is not coming into food banks and soup kitchens. So we find ourselves 
in a situation in which last year, under the welfare reform bill, $23 
billion was cut over the next four or five years out of food stamps. So 
money was increased to the tune of about $100 million last year to the 
TEFAP program. But now I find that we are cutting back on the program.
  What my amendment is trying to do is restore $10 million, period. I 
realize that there are so many sections of this bill that are 
important. And when I have to cut one area to give to another, it is 
not a question that the area that is being cut is a bad area or a 
frivolous area, it is a good area. It is question of what is the 
priority.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the conservation programs 
in this bill. But in doing so, I want to express my deep disappointment 
that their funding has been cut. So I guess this might fall under the 
heading of a qualified endorsement.
  Conservation programs were an integral part of the farm bill in 1996, 
and they are crucial to safeguarding our supply of clean water. 
Programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the 
Wildlife Incentives Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program and the 
Consolidated Farm Option help protect our environment by assisting 
farmers.
  These programs help farmers protect water quality by installing 
buffer strips along streams and rivers to prevent soil and pollution 
run off. They help farmers develop innovative waste treatment projects 
to control the growing impact on water quality by animal feedlots. And 
they help farmers restore and protect vital wetlands, continuing the 
goal of no net loss of wetlands first announced by President George 
Bush.
  And what is more, the programs accomplish these goals without the 
threat of regulation. They are completely voluntary. They are 
incentives based, and they have the overwhelming support of the 
Congress, as was demonstrated by the 372-37 vote for the conservation 
title of the 1996 farm bill, probably our single greatest environmental 
achievement in the 104th Congress.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I support this bill, but I want to draw attention 
to the shortfall in these vital programs. The Senate committee has 
taken a somewhat different approach, giving a higher priority to these 
important conservation environment programs. I hope that when all is 
said and done, these programs will emerge from conference with more 
funding than is in the House bill, more like those funds provided in 
the Senate bill.
  It is important for American agriculture. It is important for the 
environment. It is important for America.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I do this 
for purposes of entering into two colloquies with the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the reason for the 
inclusion of report language directing that the cost of providing 
technical assistance to the EQIP program will be fully funded within 
the EQIP, as provided in the Federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 
1996, was to help ensure that other areas of technical assistance, such 
as grazing land improvement and ensuring water quality would not 
suffer.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I tell the gentleman that that is correct. 
The subcommittee is concerned that the NRCS has undertaken and has been 
asked by Congress to carry out a number of functions complicating their 
ability to fulfill their longstanding role of delivering technical 
assistance in the field in partnership with the conservation districts.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for that response.
  The chairman is aware that the Office of Management and Budget has 
directed that the agency will only receive a reimbursement of 10 
percent for carrying out the EQIP program in fiscal year 1999 as 
opposed to the 19 percent level received in 1998. Would the chairman 
agree that the OMB should reexamine this decision?
  I ask this question, particularly in light of the greatly increasing 
work the NRCS is doing with livestock producers and water supply 
districts to protect the quality of our water supply. As the gentleman 
is aware, the Environmental Protection Agency is going to be placing 
increasing regulatory demands on livestock producers. I would hope that 
we could do more to help install the best management practices 
available to stave off enforcement actions that may come about because 
of these proposed regulatory actions.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
gentleman's concerns are not unwarranted. I will work with him to 
ensure that our farmers and ranchers will have the needed assistance to 
meet present and future environmental demands. I would also hope that 
OMB would reexamine the impact of their decision on reimbursement 
levels as we complete the work on this legislation.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for that response. I 
assure him that I will work with him and with OMB to see that they may 
reexamine those decisions.
  Second colloquy, I know the chairman is aware, again, of the 
tremendous regulatory burdens facing many of our Nation's livestock 
producers. In light of these burdens, there is a tremendous need to 
develop innovative, market-based solutions for livestock-related water 
quality concerns.
  A project to do just that has been proposed by a broad coalition of 
dairy producers, local governments and researchers in the Bosque 
watershed of central Texas. This project would facilitate evaluation of 
promising waste utilization technologies and would work to develop 
markets in order to enhance the value of these by-products.

                              {time}  1300

  Unfortunately, because their project necessarily involves both 
research and actual market development, they have found it rather 
complicated to secure funding under either the research or the rural 
development categories.
  I believe this is a worthy project deserving funding from USDA rural 
development and hope the gentleman from New Mexico would look at this 
as we go to conference.
  Mr. SKEEN. I will respond to the gentleman by saying I am aware of 
the project the gentleman is referring to, and I share his concern 
regarding the challenges of such innovative efforts. I would certainly 
encourage the Department to give serious consideration to this project 
when evaluating rural development priorities. In addition, I will 
happily work with the gentleman from Texas should any other appropriate 
research funds become available during this conference.
  Mr. STENHOLM. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for that 
response.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to offer my thanks both to 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the 
subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), ranking 
member, as well as the leadership of the committee, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
on the work that has been done on this bill.
  These days it is not easy to put a bill like this together with all 
of the cuts

[[Page H4999]]

that we are facing in this Congress and throughout our government. So 
when, in fact, we set out to try to help the very people who need help, 
and we move on the road to accomplishing that, it is something that we 
have to be commended for.
  While it is a difficult bill to put together, I think the final 
result, with yet some minor changes, may, in fact, address the needs of 
so many people in this country.
  Most importantly, I would like to thank the leadership on both sides 
for accepting into the rule an amendment that I worked on for many 
months this year and which many people were working on which would deal 
with the issue of African American and minority farmers.
  This action was necessary because the Justice Department had 
determined that the statute of limitations prevents the USDA from 
providing compensatory damages to individuals who allege discrimination 
in USDA programs if those individuals did not file a complaint in 
Federal district court within 2 years of the alleged discrimination, 
even if they had filed a complaint in USDA's administrative process.
  In fact, a Civil Rights Action Team report, issued in February, 1997, 
concluded that USDA had not been effectively resolving civil rights 
complaints from 1993 to 1996. Since then, USDA has new civil rights 
leadership and, with the help of Congress, has rebuilt the civil rights 
investigatory and settlement infrastructure.
  USDA now has in place a process where each case is investigated, 
compensation claims are subjected to independent economic analysis, and 
officials from the office of civil rights and the office of the new 
associate general counsel for civil rights issue written findings of 
investigations and prepare and review settlements.
  But without addressing the issue that is addressed in this bill, USDA 
would not be able to effectively resolve discrimination complaints 
filed against it by a group of farmers who deserve our attention. So it 
is important to understand what we have accomplished here today.
  I think it is also most important to understand that it was done on a 
bipartisan fashion. We have for so many years wanted very much to move 
in the direction of being fair with everyone. These farmers had been 
treated unfairly, and, yet, there was no way to deal with this issue.
  So today I think we have accomplished a lot, and it is a great day. 
We have solved, and we are on the road to a very serious solution of 
this problem. I know that this issue will come up again in conference, 
but I wanted to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and the leadership of the committee 
for allowing this amendment to be part of the final product.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                           food stamp program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $22,591,806,000, of which $100,000,000 
     shall be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts and 
     at such times as may become necessary to carry out program 
     operations: Provided, That funds provided herein shall be 
     expended in accordance with section 16 of the Food Stamp Act: 
     Provided further, That this appropriation shall be subject to 
     any work registration or workfare requirements as may be 
     required by law: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     made available under this heading shall be used for studies 
     and evaluations: Provided further, That funds made available 
     for Employment and Training under this head shall remain 
     available until expended, as authorized by section 16(h)(1) 
     of the Food Stamp Act, as amended.

                      commodity assistance program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the commodity 
     supplemental food program as authorized by section 4(a) of 
     the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 
     612c note) and, the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, 
     $131,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2000: 
     Provided, That none of these funds shall be available to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities 
     donated to the program.

              food donations programs for selected groups

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 4(a) of the 
     Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 
     612c note), and section 311 of the Older Americans Act of 
     1965 (42 U.S.C. 3030a), $141,081,000, to remain available 
     through September 30, 2000.

                      food program administration

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services and 
     of the domestic food programs funded under this Act, 
     $108,311,000, of which $5,000,000 shall be available only for 
     simplifying procedures, reducing overhead costs, tightening 
     regulations, improving food stamp coupon handling, and 
     assistance in the prevention, identification, and prosecution 
     of fraud and other violations of law and of which $2,000,000 
     shall be available for obligation only after promulgation of 
     a final rule to curb vendor related fraud: Provided, That 
     this appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant 
     to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act 
     of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $150,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                                TITLE V

                FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

         Foreign Agricultural Service and General Sales Manager


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service, 
     including carrying out title VI of the Agricultural Act of 
     1954 (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development activities 
     abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to coordinate and 
     integrate activities of the Department in connection with 
     foreign agricultural work, including not to exceed $140,000 
     for representation allowances and for expenses pursuant to 
     section 8 of the Act approved August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), 
     $135,561,000, of which $3,231,000 may be transferred from the 
     Export Loan Program account in this Act, and $1,035,000 may 
     be transferred from the Public Law 480 program account in 
     this Act: Provided, That the Service may utilize advances of 
     funds, or reimburse this appropriation for expenditures made 
     on behalf of Federal agencies, public and private 
     organizations and institutions under agreements executed 
     pursuant to the agricultural food production assistance 
     programs (7 U.S.C. 1736) and the foreign assistance programs 
     of the International Development Cooperation Administration 
     (22 U.S.C. 2392).
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
     products.

               Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise 
     recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including 
     interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1691, 1701-1715, 1721-
     1726, 1727-1727f, and 1731-1736g), as follows: (1) 
     $182,624,000 for Public Law 480 title I credit, including 
     Food for Progress programs; (2) $14,890,000 is hereby 
     appropriated for ocean freight differential costs for the 
     shipment of agricultural commodities pursuant to title I of 
     said Act and the Food for Progress Act of 1985; (3) 
     $837,000,000 is hereby appropriated for commodities supplied 
     in connection with dispositions abroad pursuant to title II 
     of said Act; and (4) $25,000,000 is hereby appropriated for 
     commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
     pursuant to title III of said Act: Provided, That not to 
     exceed 15 percent of the funds made available to carry out 
     any title of said Act may be used to carry out any other 
     title of said Act: Provided further, That such sums shall 
     remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of direct credit agreements 
     as authorized by the Agricultural Trade Development and 
     Assistance Act of 1954, and the Food for Progress Act of 
     1985, including the cost of modifying credit agreements under 
     said Act, $158,499,000.

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), if I might. I had planned to 
offer an amendment to increase funding for the rural community 
advancement program by $10 million in order to fund a national pilot 
program to promote agritourism.
  The purpose of this program is to provide another means of income for 
America's struggling family farmers. I think the plight of the family 
farmer in America is well documented, and I do not need to get into it 
right now. But as I said before, I am impressed with the work done in 
New Mexico with the rural economic development through tourism program.
  I know the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has been very active 
in that program. I think it would be very useful to expand this general 
concept into a national program. I think it is working well in New 
Mexico, and I think it could work well throughout rural America.
  However, I understand that the funding authority for the Subcommittee 
on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 
Related Agencies has decreased significantly

[[Page H5000]]

for fiscal year 1999, and I would, therefore, like to get a commitment 
from the gentleman from New Mexico to work with me in the future to 
fund a pilot national agritourism program for fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentleman that he has 
picked on a good program, because it has been very, very good in its 
operation in New Mexico. I hope that we could extend that. I will 
pledge to the gentleman that I will work with him to help develop this 
program into a nationally recognized program.
  Mr. SANDERS. That is really good. I think farmers, dairy farmers, and 
others need additional sources of income. Agritourism has proved 
successful in New Mexico and other States. I look forward to working 
with the gentleman in the future to consider it a national concept.
  Mr. SKEEN. The gentleman should consider it done.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     Public Law 480 title I credit program, and the Food for 
     Progress Act of 1985, to the extent funds appropriated for 
     Public Law 480 are utilized, $1,850,000.

       Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account


                     (including transfers of funds)

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


                             export credit

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


                     emerging markets export credit

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

                                TITLE VI

           RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                      Food and Drug Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration, 
     including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for 
     rental of special purpose space in the District of Columbia 
     or elsewhere; and for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the 
     Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's 
     certificate, not to exceed $25,000; $1,003,772,000, of which 
     not to exceed $132,273,000 in fees pursuant to section 736 of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act may be credited to 
     this appropriation and remain available until expended; and 
     of which $500,000 shall be available for development of the 
     systems and regulations necessary to implement the program 
     under section 409(h) of such Act: Provided, That fees derived 
     from applications received during fiscal year 1999 shall be 
     subject to the fiscal year 1999 limitation: Provided further, 
     That none of these funds shall be used to develop, establish, 
     or operate any program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 
     9701.
       In addition, fees pursuant to section 354 of the Public 
     Health Service Act may be credited to this account, to remain 
     available until expended.
       In addition, fees pursuant to section 801 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act may be credited to this account, 
     to remain available until expended.

                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of 
     or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not 
     otherwise provided, $11,350,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).

                         rental payments (FDA)


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and 
     Drug Administration which are included in this Act, 
     $88,294,000, including not to exceed $5,428,000 to be 
     transferred to this appropriation from fees collected 
     pursuant to section 736 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act and credited to the Food and Drug Administration 
     Salaries and Expenses appropriation: Provided, That in the 
     event the Food and Drug Administration should require 
     modification of space needs, a share of the salaries and 
     expenses appropriation may be transferred to this 
     appropriation, or a share of this appropriation may be 
     transferred to the salaries and expenses appropriation, but 
     such transfers shall not exceed 5 percent of the funds made 
     available for rental payments (FDA) to or from this account.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                      Financial Management Service

  payments to the farm credit system financial assistance corporation

       For necessary payments to the Farm Credit System Financial 
     Assistance Corporation by the Secretary of the Treasury, as 
     authorized by section 6.28(c) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, 
     for reimbursement of interest expenses incurred by the 
     Financial Assistance Corporation on obligations issued 
     through 1994, as authorized, $2,565,000.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), including the 
     purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; the rental of 
     space (to include multiple year leases) in the District of 
     Columbia and elsewhere; and not to exceed $25,000 for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; $62,140,000, including not to 
     exceed $1,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses: Provided, That the Commission is authorized to 
     charge reasonable fees to attendees of Commission sponsored 
     educational events and symposia to cover the Commission's 
     costs of providing those events and symposia, and 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, said fees shall be credited 
     to this account, to be available without further 
     appropriation.

                       FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

                 Limitation of Administrative Expenses

       Not to exceed $35,800,000 (from assessments collected from 
     farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural 
     Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current 
     fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under 
     12 U.S.C. 2249: Provided, That this limitation shall not 
     apply to expenses associated with receiverships.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law, 
     appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of 
     Agriculture for the fiscal year 1999 under this Act shall be 
     available for the purchase, in addition to those specifically 
     provided for, of not to exceed 440 passenger motor vehicles, 
     of which 437 shall be for replacement only, and for the hire 
     of such vehicles.
       Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of 
     Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances 
     therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 703. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of 
     the Department of Agriculture in this Act for research and 
     service work authorized by the Acts of August 14, 1946, and 
     July 28, 1954 (7 U.S.C. 427, 1621-1629), and by chapter 63 of 
     title 31, United States Code, shall be available for 
     contracting in accordance with said Acts and chapter.
       Sec. 704. The cumulative total of transfers to the Working 
     Capital Fund for the purpose of accumulating growth capital 
     for data services and National Finance Center operations 
     shall not exceed $2,000,000: Provided, That no funds in this 
     Act appropriated to an agency of the Department shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the approval 
     of the agency administrator.
       Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the 
     following appropriation items in this Act shall remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Animal and Plant 
     Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund to meet 
     emergency conditions, fruit fly program, and integrated 
     systems acquisition project; Farm Service Agency, salaries 
     and expenses funds made available to county committees; and 
     Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income country training 
     program.
        New obligational authority for the boll weevil program; up 
     to 10 percent of the screwworm program of the Animal and 
     Plant Health Inspection Service; Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service, field automation and information management project; 
     funds appropriated for rental payments; funds for the Native 
     American Institutions Endowment Fund in the Cooperative State 
     Research, Education, and Extension Service; and funds for the 
     competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)), shall remain 
     available until expended.
       Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations 
     available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall 
     be available to provide appropriate orientation and language 
     training pursuant to Public Law 94-449.
       Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to 
     pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements 
     or similar arrangements between the United States Department 
     of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 
     percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the 
     purpose

[[Page H5001]]

     of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out programs of 
     mutual interest between the two parties. This does not 
     preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on grants and 
     contracts with such institutions when such indirect costs are 
     computed on a similar basis for all agencies for which 
     appropriations are provided in this Act.
       Sec. 709. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     commodities acquired by the Department in connection with 
     Commodity Credit Corporation and section 32 price support 
     operations may be used, as authorized by law (15 U.S.C. 714c 
     and 7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide commodities to individuals in 
     cases of hardship as determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to reimburse the General Services Administration for payment 
     of space rental and related costs in excess of the amounts 
     specified in this Act; nor shall this or any other provision 
     of law require a reduction in the level of rental space or 
     services below that of fiscal year 1998 or prohibit an 
     expansion of rental space or services with the use of funds 
     otherwise appropriated in this Act. Further, no agency of the 
     Department of Agriculture, from funds otherwise available, 
     shall reimburse the General Services Administration for 
     payment of space rental and related costs provided to such 
     agency at a percentage rate which is greater than is 
     available in the case of funds appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 711. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of 
     other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such 
     space will be jointly occupied.
       Sec. 712. With the exception of grants awarded under the 
     Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, Public Law 
     97-219 (15 U.S.C. 638), none of the funds in this Act shall 
     be available to pay indirect costs on research grants awarded 
     competitively by the Cooperative State Research, Education, 
     and Extension Service that exceed 14 percent of total Federal 
     funds provided under each award.
       Sec. 713. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, 
     all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered 
     estimates, not limitations.
       Sec. 714. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture 
     for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in 
     fiscal year 1999 shall remain available until expended to 
     cover obligations made in fiscal year 1999 for the following 
     accounts: the rural development loan fund program account; 
     the Rural Telephone Bank program account; the rural 
     electrification and telecommunications loans program account; 
     and the rural economic development loans program account.
       Sec. 715. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1999 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 716. Notwithstanding the Federal Grant and Cooperative 
     Agreement Act, marketing services of the Agricultural 
     Marketing Service; Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
     Administration; and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service may use cooperative agreements to reflect a 
     relationship between the Agricultural Marketing Service, the 
     Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration or 
     the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and a State or 
     Cooperator to carry out agricultural marketing programs or to 
     carry out programs to protect the Nation's animal and plant 
     resources.
       Sec. 717. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     retire more than 5 percent of the Class A stock of the Rural 
     Telephone Bank or to maintain any account or subaccount 
     within the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank the 
     creation of which has not specifically been authorized by 
     statute: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used to transfer to the Treasury 
     or to the Federal Financing Bank any unobligated balance of 
     the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account which 
     is in excess of current requirements and such balance shall 
     receive interest as set forth for financial accounts in 
     section 505(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
       Sec. 718. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide assistance to, or to pay the salaries of 
     personnel who carry out a market promotion/market access 
     program pursuant to section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act 
     of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) that provides assistance to the 
     United States Mink Export Development Council or any mink 
     industry trade association.
       Sec. 719. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more 
     than $1,400,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of 
     activities related to all advisory committees, panels, 
     commissions, and task forces of the Department of Agriculture 
     except for panels used to comply with negotiated rule makings 
     and panels used to evaluate competitively awarded grants.
       Sec. 720. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to carry out the provisions of section 918 of Public Law 
     104-127, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act.
       Sec. 721. No employee of the Department of Agriculture may 
     be detailed or assigned from an agency or office funded by 
     this Act to any other agency or office of the Department for 
     more than 30 days unless the individual's employing agency or 
     office is fully reimbursed by the receiving agency or office 
     for the salary and expenses of the employee for the period of 
     assignment.
       Sec. 722. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Agriculture shall be used to 
     transmit or otherwise make available to any non-Department of 
     Agriculture employee questions or responses to questions that 
     are a result of information requested for the appropriations 
     hearing process.
       Sec. 723. (a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or 
     provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies 
     funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in fiscal year 1999, or provided from any 
     accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the 
     collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this 
     Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through 
     a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new programs; (2) 
     eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases 
     funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates 
     an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs, or 
     activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions 
     or activities presently performed by Federal employees; 
     unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of 
     Congress are notified fifteen days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
        (b) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by 
     previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this 
     Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in 
     fiscal year 1999, or provided from any accounts in the 
     Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of 
     fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for activities, 
     programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: 
     (1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent 
     as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general 
     savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a 
     change in existing programs, activities, or projects as 
     approved by Congress; unless the Appropriations Committees of 
     both Houses of Congress are notified fifteen days in advance 
     of such reprogramming of funds.
       Sec. 724. Funds made available to the Farm Service Agency, 
     the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Rural 
     Development agencies may be used to support a staff office 
     established to provide common support services, including the 
     common computer system for use by such agencies.
       Sec. 725. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to carry out the provisions of section 
     793 of Public Law 104-127, the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, as amended.
       Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel who carry out a wildlife habitat 
     incentives program authorized by section 387 of Public Law 
     104-127.
       Sec. 727. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel who carry out an environmental quality 
     incentives program authorized by sections 334-341 of Public 
     Law 104-127 in excess of $174,000,000.
       Sec. 728. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to enroll in excess of 
     130,000 acres in the fiscal year 1999 wetlands reserve 
     program as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3837.
       Sec. 729. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel who carry out the emergency food 
     assistance program authorized by section 27(a) of the Food 
     Stamp Act if such program exceeds $90,000,000.
       Sec. 730. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel to carry out the provisions of section 
     401 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education 
     Reform Act of 1998.
       Sec. 731. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     City of Big Spring, Texas shall be eligible to participate in 
     rural housing programs administered by the Rural Housing 
     Service.
       Sec. 732. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Municipality of Carolina, Puerto Rico shall be eligible for 
     grants and loans administered by the Rural Utilities Service.
       Sec. 733. Notwithstanding section 381A of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009), the 
     definitions of rural areas for certain business programs 
     administered by the Rural Business-Cooperative Service and 
     the community facilities programs administered by the Rural 
     Housing Service shall be those provided for in statute and 
     regulations prior to the enactment of Public Law 104-127.
       Sec. 734. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to carry out any 
     commodity purchase program that would prohibit eligibility or 
     participation by farmer-owned cooperatives.
       Sec. 735. Meaning of ``Antibacterial''. Section 
     512(d)(4)(D)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C.

[[Page H5002]]

     360b(d)(4)(D)(iii)) is amended by inserting before the 
     semicolon the following: ``, except that for purposes of this 
     clause, antibacterial ingredient or animal drug does not 
     include the ionophore or arsenical classes of animal drugs''.

  Mr. SKEEN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill through page 67, line 15 be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the gentleman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to the portion of the bill just 
read?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 736. In issuing the final rule to implement the 
     amendments to Federal milk marketing orders required by 
     subsection (a) of section 143 of the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7253), none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available to the Secretary by 
     this Act, any other Act, or any other source may be used to 
     issue the rule other than during the period of February 1, 
     1999, through April 4, 1999, and only if the actual 
     implementation of the amendments as part of Federal milk 
     marketing orders takes effect on October 1, 1999,


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered By Mr. Obey

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Obey:
       Strike out section 736.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this will take a little time because I need 
to go back into some history to explain what is happening here today.
  In 1938, the Congress passed legislation which established a series 
of milk marketing orders which, in essence, had the government setting 
prices for fluid milk based on where that milk was manufactured in the 
country. That made sense in 1938 when we did not have refrigeration, we 
did not have quality highways; it does not make sense today. It simply 
encourages overproduction, and it costs the taxpayer, and it hurts the 
consumers, and it hurts a lot of farmers in a number of regions around 
the country.
  In the 1985 farm bill, Congressman Coehlo was instrumental in making 
a legislative change to that provision in law, first time that the 
Congress had interfered up until that time. Whatever differentials were 
provided for a Class I pricing were provided by administrative decision 
on a neutral basis. But that 1985 law added to the differential, and it 
raised the cost of milk products in a number of sections around the 
country.
  As a result, today a farmer in Florida is required by law to receive 
$3 more per 100 pounds of milk than a farmer from my neck of the 
country is. A farmer from New York for fluid milk is required by law to 
be paid $2 more per 100 pounds on average than farmers in my section of 
the country.
  We tried to change that in the farm bill that passed 2 years ago. Our 
efforts culminated in the amendment being offered that was offered at 
that time by Mr. Gunderson who was, at that time, the Republican chair 
of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, and he tried to 
offer an amendment which would in a wholesale way reform that system.
  He was rebuffed. He was told by the leadership of the House, no, 
there will not be any ability to offer an amendment to change this on 
the House floor. We are going to block you in the Committee on Rules. 
The only remedy that you will have is administrative.
  Proceeding under authority in the farm bill to review the situation, 
Secretary Glickman has reviewed the seven options that he had before 
him for reforming this monstrosity, and he has proposed two for 
consideration by farmers. One is called Option 1-A. The other is called 
Option 1-B. The agency prefers 1-B, which is a tiny modest reform of 
the existing system. The status quo is represented by Option 1-A.
  What is happening is that the very people who told us that we could 
not have a legislative remedy are now saying we cannot have an 
administrative remedy either. What they are saying is they are, in 
essence, delaying the ability of the Secretary to produce a reformed 
recommendation.
  What that means is the Congress is saying, Mr. Secretary, Mr. 
Glickman, do not bother to even think about changing the milk marketing 
order system, because we will override you legislatively. That is why 
they have this delay in allowing the Secretary to propose his 
amendment.
  I think that is illegitimate, and that is why I have a simple motion 
to strike that provision of the bill. Under the normal rules of the 
House, I should have been allowed to simply strike the section on a 
point of order because this section of the bill is clearly legislating 
on an appropriation bill. It is illegal under the rules of the House. 
It is not under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations.
  I should have been allowed to strike that. I was not allowed to do so 
because that illegitimate section was protected by the rule. So now 
this is the only opportunity we have to have any discussion whatsoever 
of this proposal.
  There is one other problem associated with what is in the bill. It 
also, by indirection, extends what is known as the Northeastern Dairy 
Compact. I do not blame representatives from any region of the country 
for trying to get a better deal for their farmers, but it should not 
come at the expense of farmers in other sections of the country, and it 
should not come at the expense of consumers.
  What this provision in the bill provides is that it also allows for 
another 6-month extension of the Northeastern Dairy Compact. That will 
continue to raise prices for consumers in that region. It will continue 
to fence out from that region all dairy products produced in any other 
section of the country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic that some of the same people 
in this House who have lectured us on the need to open trade barriers 
internationally are now saying, oh, but we should proceed to erect 
trade barriers within the Continental United States. That is exactly 
what the continuation of the Northeastern Dairy Compact would do.
  So this amendment is very simple. It simply strikes the provision in 
the bill which extends the existing milk marketing order system and 
prevents the Secretary from offering reforms to it until he has waited 
another 6 months. It would also follow the original intent of the 
Northeastern Dairy Compact and end that compact at the same time.
  If we believe in bringing dairy into a free market system rather than 
having government dictate the price that farmers are paid, we will vote 
for this amendment. It will be fair to consumers. It will be much 
fairer to the farmers in many sections of the country than the existing 
situation is. It will certainly be fairer to my farmers.
  I think if anyone votes against this amendment and claims with a 
straight face to be a free marketer, he has been looking at a different 
dictionary than I have.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see my friend, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, my good friend, suddenly defending the free 
market theory when on so many issues we have stood together and said 
that it is absolutely appropriate to protect working people, to protect 
family farmers against the changes in the free market.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, I have no objection to protecting 
people from the unfair aspects of the free market, provided that you 
protect everybody. But the way this works is you are protecting your 
farmers at the expense of farmers in every other section of the 
country, and I do not regard that as a legitimate way to proceed.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  (Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H5003]]

  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me just rise in the strongest possible 
opposition to the motion to strike this extremely important provision 
in this bill. This provision is vital to the long-term livelihood of 
the dairy farmers throughout this entire country.
  I am about to show my colleagues a chart that shows dairy farmers all 
across America. It does not matter whether you are from the Northeast, 
the Southeast, the Southwest, anywhere except in Wisconsin, they would 
lose and they would lose badly. Our farmers would be out of business. 
There would not be a farm left in Massachusetts, in New York, in New 
England, anywhere in New England, in Vermont if this legislation were 
to be defeated here today.
  Let me take a moment to correctly characterize the dairy provisions 
of the 1996 farm bill as I was the author of those provisions just over 
2 years ago along with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), 
the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations; and also the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  The 1996 farm bill calls for reform in dairy, government purchases of 
product are phased out, eliminating the Federal budget outlays to 
dairy, marketing orders are consolidated and pricing adjustments are to 
be made. However, it was made explicitly clear in the deliberations 
over the 1996 farm bill that the basic pricing structure of the Federal 
dairy program that is so vitally important to the dairy men and women 
across this Nation would be maintained, without question. That is what 
the legislation says.
  Some would argue that the Federal dairy program divides our Nation's 
dairy farmers into regions of haves and have-nots. The facts simply do 
not support that claim, Mr. Chairman. The Class I differentials that 
are such a popular target of the sponsors of this amendment in reality 
do not translate to higher producer pay prices.
  As the USDA mailbox prices indicate, the Upper Midwest consistently 
receives higher farm-gate prices than all other regions with the 
exception of Florida. Over the last three years Wisconsin milk prices 
have averaged $0.39 per hundredweight higher than the prices received 
by my New York dairymen.
  Mr. Chairman, the federal milk marketing order system is the life 
blood of the dairy farmers of this country.
  Taking money out of the pockets of dairy farmers as USDA proposes is 
not the intent of this Congress and it will only accelerate dairy farm 
attrition and reduce local supplies of fresh fluid milk.
  No one--not dairy farmers, not consumers--benefits from depressed 
farm milk prices.
  In February, dairy producers in my district came to me and explained 
how the proposed USDA plan would in one fell swoop annihilate the 
already tight margins challenging their family businesses today.
  Other Members, many other Members, from the many diverse dairy 
producing heard similar messages and we came together to publicly 
criticize the USDA plan regions--238 Members in this House and 61 in 
the Senate.
  The dairy program may be complex and many Members today will claim 
they don't understand it, but please know--your farmers understand very 
well the impacts these policies have on their livelihoods.
  Let's step back and look at this provision for what it truly is. The 
provision provides a 6-month across the board extension to all the 
dairy reform provisions of the Farm Bill to ensure that our nation's 
family dairy farmers are treated fairly under the federal milk 
marketing order reform.
  It ensures that the damaging USDA proposal cannot be implemented 
while Congress is out of town and cannot respond to a rule that levy 
heavy costs on producers around the country to the clear benefit of one 
region.
  Under the proposal, nearly 50 cents is taken away from my New York 
producers when they already receive 40 cents less per hundredweight 
than Wisconsin producers.
  That is what I call unfair.
  Support the extension, support Congressional oversight and oppose the 
Obey amendment to strike.
  Mr. Chairman, in upstate New York in the Hudson Valley, we have 
farmers that have farmed that land for generations. These people have 
probably a net income between the husband, the wife and one child, in 
other words, gross income of about $31,000, if they are lucky, and most 
of them are less than that. How do they get that? If they are lucky, 
under the present milk marketing order system, which is a price 
support, not paid for by the Government, not one nickel paid for by the 
Government, but, in other words, the farmer might make $8,000, with all 
that work that goes into this over the course of a year. In order to 
maintain the farm and to maintain even a standard of living, the wife 
has to go out and she has to work for a catheter firm where she might 
make 12 or $13,000; and the one son who gets up at 4 o'clock in the 
morning when it is 30 below zero up there, the one son gets up, helps 
to milk the cows, then he goes to work in some other area, and in total 
they have an income of $31,000 and they barely are able to pay the 
taxes and keep that farm going. That is why we are losing farms by the 
hundreds, because people from New York City with all their money come 
up and then when they see the farmer no longer can make it, his son 
decides not to be the 16th generation, in other words, to work on that 
farm, and they no longer can make it, then somebody comes up there, 
they buy this farm, they renovate this farmhouse, and these wealthy 
people live happily ever after. But the farm is gone. They are gone by 
the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds.
  Milk price supports, regardless of what the gentleman is going to 
say, simply guarantees that in every part of the country, you are going 
to lose money if we do not maintain those milk price supports. Take a 
look at this chart. Every single State in the union, except Wisconsin, 
loses money. Wisconsin makes money.
  Let me just clarify for the last time what happened in 1996. I had 
just gotten out of a hospital, 30 days, where I had cancer, came on 
this floor and got into an argument with the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Kennedy), which I probably should not have been here, over 
guns; and the next day we took up this bill. The explicit bill said 
that we will maintain milk marketing orders, we will let the Secretary 
of Agriculture shrink those orders from 34 or 35 down to a workable 13 
or 14. That was the order we gave.
  Now, we have over 238 Members of this Congress coming from New York 
City, from the rural areas like the gentleman from Vermont who have 
signed this letter to Mr. Glickman saying, ``You have to live up to the 
law. The law says we will maintain milk marketing orders.''
  The gentlemen from Wisconsin, this gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), they want to abolish it. They want to abolish it because they 
know their farmers will make more money if it is abolished, but all the 
rest of us will lose and lose badly.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Solomon was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, someone I 
respect greatly.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me simply ask the gentleman, outside of the fact that 
his State has 31 Members in this House and our State has 9, is there 
any other reason why his farmers should be required by law to receive 
$2 for every 100 pounds of fluid milk, $2 more for every hundred pounds 
of milk than my farmers are allowed to receive under the law?
  Does the gentleman not believe that the market should determine what 
the price is rather than which State has the most votes on the floor of 
the House?
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is exactly why we need the Northeastern Compact. It 
is why they need a Southeastern Compact. Because what it does, it 
guarantees that 8 million people in New York City and another 10 
million upstate are going to get fresh milk, not coming from Wisconsin 
or someplace else; produced in the Hudson Valley of New York State.
  Now, let us clear it up one more time. There is an overproduction of 
milk in the Northeast. Do you know how much we overproduce? I mean all 
these farmers that we are talking about. Two percent.
  Do you know where the real overproduction comes? It comes from the 
area of the gentleman from Wisconsin

[[Page H5004]]

(Mr. Obey). You know it, the whole country knows it, and you want to 
make even more money for your farmers. I do not begrudge you that, but 
do not put ours out of business. That is what you are doing.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield on that point, let me simply 
ask, does the gentleman really believe that we should be establishing 
internal trade barriers to milk products in this country while we are 
being told that we should abandon trade barriers internationally?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Did the gentleman ever live or work on a dairy farm? I 
grew up on a dairy farm in Okeechobee, Florida.
  Mr. OBEY. You bet I did.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me tell you something. Fresh milk means everything. 
We cannot abolish small dairy farms from across the country and depend 
on 5,000 herd of cattle owned by people that do not even belong in the 
dairy business, these international conglomerates. We do not want to 
depend on them. We want small dairy farmers in America.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman will yield further, the average farm in my 
district is 50 cows. That is already a giant. The gentleman makes the 
best possible argument for the worst case that you have on the merits.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I plead with the gentleman to join us.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I rise in support of the dean of the Wisconsin delegation the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the Federal milk 
marketing order system has been gradually strangling the dairy 
producers of Wisconsin. There is no doubt about it. Before the Federal 
Government got into this business, Wisconsin was known as America's 
dairyland. We were by far number one in dairy production.
  Since the Federal Government got into this in the Depression and then 
it has been extended, what we have seen is the pattern where gradually 
the producers of Wisconsin have been squeezed out of business. I will 
yield to no one in the country in their concern about dairy producers, 
but I would question them being concerned about dairy producers just 
because they happen to be next door rather than across the United 
States. The fact of the matter is the effect of the Northeast Compact 
and of the milk marketing order system has been to put hard-working 
dairy farmers out of business net in the United States.
  The reason really that the impact is disproportionate on Wisconsin is 
due to the different structure of our dairy industry historically from 
many other areas of the country. Most of the areas of the country were 
historically fluid milk producing areas of the country for urban 
consumers. In Wisconsin, 90 percent of our milk on average historically 
has gone into value-added processed products, cheese, butter and the 
like, and then shipped all across the United States.
  Over years as people learned how to manipulate the milk marketing 
order system, what has happened is that they have used the price 
supports to help them produce fluid milk for their local consumers, 
they have used that to subsidize excess production, and then 
manufactured that excess production into butter and cheese and so on, 
driving Wisconsin producers out of business.
  The fact of the matter is we are no longer America's dairyland in 
Wisconsin. We are number two, both in milk production and now, for the 
first time in several generations, in the number of cows, to 
California. That is because, not that Wisconsin farmers do not work 
hard, not that they are relatively inefficient but because of the 
discrimination against the upper Midwest that is inherent in the 
Federal Government milk marketing program. The time has come to end 
that program and not keep it alive.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply observe that all through the debate last 
year, we were told, ``You guys aren't going to get the opportunity to 
offer an amendment on this floor because we're going to prevent you 
from doing that by a special rule in the Rules Committee, so you aren't 
going to get a legislative remedy. You are going to have to rely on the 
USDA to come up with an objective reevaluation through their 
analysis.''
  Now that USDA has done so and the Secretary of Agriculture has 
indicated clearly that this system needs some reform, even though the 
reform he has proposed is the most minimal of the options offered 
outside of the status quo, we are now being told, ``No, sorry, guys, 
don't bother. Mr. Secretary, don't bother, because if you try to adjust 
it, we're going to hammer you down legislatively.''
  That is what that provision is about in the bill. We are offering 
this amendment so that we finally get an opportunity to deal with this 
issue the way we should have been allowed to get an opportunity when 
the bill was originally before us.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Wisconsin knows very 
well, this is June Dairy Month back in Wisconsin. We have got 72 dairy 
breakfasts going on. Twenty-four thousand family farms are celebrating 
June Dairy Month right now. Since 1980 alone, because of this 
antiquated Depression-era Federal milk marketing order system, we have 
suffered half, half of the family farms that have gone out of business 
in the last 18 years. Roughly five or six family farms a day are going 
out of business because of this price differential that is pitting 
region against region.
  This is a golden opportunity for this Congress to finally come 
together, bring the competing regions together, finally hammer out one 
coherent national dairy policy that will get rid of these trade 
barriers that are now existing from region to region and start 
positioning our dairy producers for the 21st century so we can compete 
internationally. Rather than subsidizing inefficient dairy operations 
at home, we should be looking beyond our borders in how we can gain 
access to these opening markets overseas. We are not going to do that 
as long as we perpetuate this discriminatory form of dairy policy that 
works by and large to the disadvantage of farmers in Wisconsin. I have 
got 9,000 of those family farms in my district alone.
  Eau Claire, the city, has been the epicenter of this discriminatory 
policy. That is what has to change. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin. Indeed I feel a little bit like an exhibit in 
an SAT question, ``What doesn't belong in this sequence?'' because I 
find myself in among all the Wisconsinites, and I am not motivated 
similarly to them. I bid them all a happy June Dairy Month. I was 
previously unaware of its existence and I probably will not celebrate 
it other than today. I am speaking for the consumers in favor of the 
amendment. Let me address the free market question.

                              {time}  1330

  I have generally believed that we should, when we are dealing with 
production, rely on the powerful pro-production, pro-efficiency 
mechanism of the free market. I differ with some of my colleagues here 
in believing that the government then has some responsibility to 
provide safety nets. So I want to see these dairy farmers who are not 
doing well get the benefit of health care. I differ from some of my 
colleagues maybe in that. I do think, however, we make a distinction. 
The free market is the best way to govern production. Then the 
government intervenes to deal with people who may not be doing well.
  What I am struck by are the number of my colleagues who are 
ordinarily supporters of the free market who trash it in this regard. 
My friend from New York, who I had always thought of as a great 
conservative, says that there are people who do not belong in the dairy 
business. Apparently we have a new function now. We in the Congress 
will decide who belongs in the dairy business and who does not belong 
in

[[Page H5005]]

the dairy business. I do not think we belong in the business of 
deciding who belongs in the dairy business, and therefore we ought to 
get to this amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, no, I did not mean that at all. What I 
meant was, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, we went through 
an S&L crisis, as my colleagues know, a number of years ago. And I 
know, and I will get the gentleman from Massachusetts some more time; 
okay?
  But as my colleagues know, what happened was when we changed the 
guaranteed deposits, as my colleagues know, everybody got into the 
banking business. My colleagues and I decided we were going to be 
bankers, and we jumped in because it was all going to be federally 
guaranteed. Now we have got the same kind of people jumping into the 
dairy business.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, let me say I apologize for 
responding to what the gentleman said rather than what he meant, but my 
psychic powers are not as strong today as they have been.
  I differ with the analogy. In the S&L business we did try very hard 
to put the S&L owners out of business. Those who were, in fact, 
culpable, we protected the depositors but not the owners.
  But this is the issue, and I have all these free market people on the 
other side. I mean, maybe I am a sloppy reader. I thought I was 
familiar generally with the works of Milton Friedman, Friedrich Von 
Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises and Daffy Von Duck and whoever else the 
gentleman is citing. I must have missed the footnote that said none of 
this applies to farming. Somehow apparently in this whole body of 
intellectual activity that the friends of the free mark, there is an 
exception for farming.
  What are we told? There is overproduction, my friend from New York 
says. Too many people are producing, there are people who can barely 
make it. And what is the solution? It is that the government step in 
and protect that overproduction, let us have government rules that 
guarantee that people can continue to overproduce.
  It is the role of the market to deal with this in a fair way. If 
there are people who will then suffer, I am for health care for them, I 
am for better education programs for their children, and I am for 
trying to protect them. What this does is artificially keep prices high 
in the parts of the country so that poor consumers have to pay higher 
milk prices.
  Let us also understand that there is no magical source of money here. 
If we are going to pay some farmers more money than they would 
otherwise get because of government rules and it is not coming from the 
taxpayer, it must be coming from the consumers. And indeed I am, I 
guess, in the minority in my region in opposing the dairy compact 
because that is another example of mercantilism to protect a small 
number of people who apparently would not make it in a free market 
system. We require others to subsidize them.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield again to the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. As my colleagues know, I just do not quite understand 
this because I have got some strange allies, too. The Liberal Party in 
the State of New York; we have a Republican, a Democrat, a Liberal, a 
Conservative Party; the Liberal Party of the State of New York, which 
are consumer-oriented, support my position.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me say 
two things to the gentleman.
  First of all, I am somewhat familiar with the political history of 
New York, and there is less justification for the continued existence 
of that Liberal Party, which is a vestige, as the gentleman knows, than 
there is for some of these dairy farms that cannot make it on their 
own. The Liberal Party in New York is a patronage farm, and my 
colleague wants to subsidize them. But beyond that, what the gentleman 
is saying is that the consumer should be willing to subsidize this 
because the consumer will get fresh milk.
  Mr. Chairman, I think I will let the consumer make that decision. I 
do not think the United States House of Representatives has to say to 
the consumer, ``Look, we're going to make this choice for you. We will 
set rules that make you pay higher because you'll be getting fresh 
milk.''
  Consumers are capable of making that decision. If in fact people are 
not willing to pay enough of a premium to buy the extra milk, then we 
will not have it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts was allowed to 
proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield first to the gentleman from 
Vermont.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Why does the gentleman not yield to me first?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield first to the gentleman from 
Vermont because I have not yielded to him yet at all. It is the same 
side, it is equity. They are both against the free market. We are 
talking about socialist economics, one versus the other. That is okay. 
I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. What we are talking about is six States, among other 
things, and the legislatures and the Governors of six States and the 
people of six States coming together and saying, yes, it is terribly 
important that we save family farmers today and in the future.
  In terms of consumers, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank), let me suggest this: that family farms in the weeds around this 
country go out of business, and if dairy is controlled by a handful of 
multinational agribusiness corporations, if my colleagues think the 
consumers are going to get a good deal, they are wrong.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, excuse me, I am taking back 
my time. I only have 2 minutes.
  No, I do disagree with the gentleman on exactly that. It is always 
the argument on behalf of the people who are less efficient that 
efficiency will lead to price increases. I understand there are people 
who do not believe the market works. I disagree with that. In the first 
place there is no danger, in my view, of the milk production business 
being dominated by three or four or five entities. There will continue 
to be competition.
  Secondly, as for preserving the family farms, I would like to try to 
preserve family farms, but I would like to preserve family plumbers, 
family small grocery stores. One of the problems we have here is that 
we are singling out one occupation, small farming, which is not well 
served apparently by current economics and saying, ``We'll preserve you 
with subsidies and with extra consumer funds and not anyone else.''
  As far as the sick States are concerned, yes, I know all States have 
voted for that. I have seen times in my life which States have voted 
incorrectly. I believe, as a representative of one of those States, 
that in fact the people I represent are poorly served by a mechanism 
which increases the price because we make the choice for them if they 
pay more.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I will yield once more to the gentleman 
from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I also am concerned about consumer prices, 
and the question we have to ask is, in the last 20 years, at least in 
my State, the real price that farmers have gotten for milk has declined 
in real price by 50 percent.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Sanders, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Frank of 
Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the issue 
here to think about, if we are concerned about consumers, is why, if 
the real price that family farmers have received has gone down by 50 
percent and farmers all over this country are being driven off of the 
land, why in the supermarkets the prices have gone up.

[[Page H5006]]

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me respond. I would say to the 
gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that the price paid to the farmer is not the 
only price. There are processing costs, there are trucking costs, there 
are costs in having the store, and I know the gentleman is much more 
critical of the market than I. I would point out to many of my 
colleagues on the other side that the view of the market he is taking, 
he is being consistent, is not one they usually take. They are the ones 
that are making a very blatant exception for this one favored 
profession. I differ with the gentleman from Vermont about this. I 
understand that is his view. I do believe the market generally works, 
but the price paid to the producer is by far the only element.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to point out the problem 
with the gentleman from Vermont's argument. It is that he intervenes 
only in support of some of the farmers in this country. Many other 
farmers are driven out of business by the very action that is being 
defended on this House floor today.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, now that the entertainment is over, we ought to be 
talking about the issue that is before us and the amendment before us, 
and having survived these dairy wars in the past, I thought it was 
possible that we might get by one more time, but of course that did not 
happen.
  Frankly, I became involved because I believed that this was not the 
time or the place to debate again the finality of what is going to 
happen to dairy. It was my understanding that my colleagues in 1996 
passed a bill called the Freedom to Farm bill which ends subsidies, and 
I thought that was the process that we were going through.
  But that did not occur, and in an effort to assist the people in the 
Midwest I offered a program to merely extend for 6 months the existing 
issue, all in a manner to keep the peace. Well, obviously the people in 
the Midwest are now suggesting that that is not enough, but it was a 
compromise, and it was agreed to by the gentleman on this side and 
ladies and gentlemen on that side. We thought it was a agreement.
  Now what is wrong with allowing the authorizers and the appropriators 
another session, since this is late in this one and since, thank God, I 
will not be here to have to enlist in this argument again, what is 
wrong with allowing the next Congress, authorizers and appropriators, 
to deliberate and debate this issue in depth? I thought I was offering 
a reasonable amendment. I was congratulated, by the way, by some 
Members on their side and my side on reaching a reasonable agreement.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, just from a personal point of view, one of 
the concerns I have is even if this amendment fails and we get the 6-
month extension, we are merely delaying the inevitable. We have been in 
touch with the Department of Agriculture. They have been having 
hearings, they have been receiving public comment. They propose two 
options right now. They are ready to move forward on issuing a rule 
this fall and implementing that rule early next year, just as the 
Freedom to Farm bill authorized them to do just 2 short years ago.
  Let us get on with it right now. We do not want to have another big 
dairy fight on this House floor now.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand 
the gentleman's point. My point is simply this. We have reached an 
agreement and a compromise, I thought. Now keep it. Vote this amendment 
down.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me just clarify one thing because, as my colleagues 
know, we are trying to have some comity here, but, as my colleagues 
know, this gentleman now who is retiring, he is chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, has gone, bent over backwards to try to 
compromise so that we could work this issue out over the next 6 months 
or so. I will not be here either. But let me tell my colleagues what he 
did.
  I went out and got 250 signatures in support of ramming through an 
order on the Secretary of Agriculture to implement 1-A. We could have 
done that. We could have rubbed their noses in it. The gentleman from 
Oregon came to me and said, ``You shouldn't be doing that.'' He came to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and said, ``You shouldn't 
be doing that.''
  Incidentally, we already had 61 Senators. As my colleagues know, that 
is more than we even need to force something on the floor over there in 
support of our position.
  So we all backed off and we all sat down because of the chairman of 
the Committee on Agriculture and said, ``All right, if you want a 6-
month extension, we'll agree to it.'' It is part of an agreement that 
we all made, and that is why we should not even be going through this 
debate right now. We should have gone perhaps the other way and settled 
it once and for all.
  But I for one commend the gentleman because he was acting in good 
faith, and we all went along with him.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert).
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment and in support of the gentleman's enlightened position.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
  The amendment would eliminate the extension of the current milk 
marketing rules and the Northeast Dairy Compact by an additional 6 
months, from April 1999 to October 1999. This extension is necessary to 
ensure that Congress is able to fully understand and properly oversee 
the Department of Agriculture's efforts to reform the federal milk 
marketing rules.
  Why is this necessary? Because when Agriculture Secretary Dan 
Glickman announced the proposed rule for the reform of the federal milk 
marketing order system, he outlined a ``preferred'' plan, known as 
``Option 1-B'', which would dramatically reduce dairy farm income in 
almost all regions of the country. Option 1-B will reduce annual dairy 
farm income by approximately $365 million nation-wide at a time when 
many dairy farmers are barely able to hold on to their farms and their 
way of life. I think it is fair to expect that Option 1-B would put 
many farmers out of business.
  In response, 238 Members of this body sent Secretary Glickman a 
letter criticizing the Secretary's ``preferred'' option and voicing 
strong bipartisan support for the other option outlined in the proposed 
rule--a fair and equitable option, known as ``Option 1-A.''
  Despite the overwhelming support for Option 1-A, USDA appears to be 
moving forward with efforts to implement its preferred plan, Option 1-
B, early next year.
  This is why the next Congress, the 106th Congress, must have adequate 
time to review and act on USDA's final rule. The extension provision in 
the bill does not mandate any specific reform of the federal milk 
marketing rules. It merely ensures that Congress will have the 
opportunity to properly oversee USDA's rulemaking on behalf of the 
American people and dairy farmers, in particular.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and any other 
amendment which would delete or weaken the extension provision.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I just wondered why, when extending for 6 
months the Secretary's marketing order determination, they include in 
the extension for 6 months the New England Dairy Compact, since the two 
are not related.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has an amendment in 
which we will have plenty of time to discuss that, and I will be happy 
to. I think it was to extend the total program compacts that were 
involved. That is the reason, and frankly it was not debated at length. 
We will debate the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that has been 
offered, that would eliminate this extension as

[[Page H5007]]

it was negotiated by the chairman of the committee, and I commend the 
chairman of the committee and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for being able to come to some reasonable judgment 
in terms of how this should continue on for an additional 6 months 
until the department and the affiliated groups can come to some 
resolution of this.

                              {time}  1345

  The extension applies to all the provisions of dairy reform and would 
ensure that Congress will have that time to review and respond to a 
rule that would not hurt the dairy farmers around the country.
  I ask my colleagues not to be misled by the extravagant claims of the 
industrial cartel organized in opposition to the compact of dairy 
farmers. I think it is important to clarify some points. I think the 
most important thing that all of us recognize is the importance of 
small family farms, small dairy farms, not only in terms of economic 
dollars and sense, but what they provide to communities, whether it is 
the participation in the 4-H program, and there are 35,000 young people 
in our State of Maine that are part of those 4-H programs, or whether 
it is part of Future Farmers of America program.
  A lot of the agricultural policies that have been established have 
benefitted large agri-businesses and forced a lot of the small farmers 
to get into larger businesses. We want to preserve this heritage and 
this culture in the compact, and the issues that are being dealt with 
by the department is a compact between the consumer and the farmers 
because of the importance of both.
  I believe today, when we are talking about the values and we are 
talking about culture and passing it on from one generation to the 
next, I think it is very important to maintain at least this glue which 
holds communities together.
  When you are talking about surpluses and the fact that it is felt 
that maybe in the Northeast they have contributed to that surplus, the 
facts do not bear that out. In fact, it was the West and Midwest that 
produced 99.8 percent of all the surplus purchased this year; it was 
not the Northeast.
  The compact has not increased the cost to the government for 
nutritional programs. In fact, WIC and the school nutrition programs 
have been exempted from increases associated with that compact. The 
compact does not cost the USDA any money, and the compact commission 
contracts with the market administrator and pays for the services 
provided.
  So I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment that is being offered 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin, which eliminates this extension and 
would allow for a true debate to continue on.
  In my first session on the Committee on Agriculture there was an 
attempt to basically turn dairy policy on its head, because at that 
time the chairman of the subcommittee happened to be from the part of 
Wisconsin that is under discussion today. What came out of that 
discussion was that all regions of the country have the same interests. 
I would submit to Members here, what is happening in the Northeast is 
happening in the Southeast, is going to happen in the West and all 
over, because of the same very underlying issues that are impacting in 
the Northeast.
  So I ask my colleagues to both oppose this amendment and the 
additional amendment that is being offered in this session.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate that we have heard thus far points out fairly 
clearly the issues that are at stake. There was a lot of discussion 
regarding the dairy compact. That is not the issue here. The issue here 
is an extension of all existing dairy legislation under this 
appropriations bill for 6 more months. It treats everyone equally. It 
treats the States involved in the compact, it treats the State of 
California, and it treats Wisconsin all equally. This is merely an 
extension of the existing law.
  As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) pointed out, there are 
250 Members of this House who are on record in support of Option 1-A. 
There are 61 Senators who are on record in support of Option 1-A.
  We believe that we have the votes to win this. We still believe that. 
But out of deference to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, 
he said ``Let's compromise on this, this is not an authorizing bill, 
this is an appropriations bill, we will merely extend the law,'' that 
is what we propose to do here.
  Now, fairly clearly, you have seen members of the State of 
Wisconsin's delegation standing up doing their level best to protect 
their farmers as they see it. The reason is because they believe that 
Option 1-A hurts their farmers and helps the rest of the country at the 
expense of their farmers. All the economic data shows Wisconsin farmers 
are not harmed by this legislation; they just do not do as well as they 
would under Option 1-B.
  The problem with that is Option 1-B does harm our farmers, the rest 
of the country's farmers. So what we are asking is that we extend this 
law further so that Secretary Glickman can get a better read on what 
exactly is going out there in the country. The professional people on 
his staff recommended Option 1-A, the law that we believe that the rest 
of the country believes would be good for the dairy industry.
  The political appointees and Secretary's staff recommended Option 1-
B, I am sure out of deference to the very distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on Appropriations who hails from the State of 
Wisconsin. He has done a very good job in protecting his farmers.
  But, it is very clear, the lines are drawn. There is Wisconsin and 
Minnesota, and then there is the rest of the country. But we are not 
even choosing here between the upper Midwest and the rest of the 
country. We are merely saying give us the opportunity to let this law 
extend out over a period of another 6 months from when it is scheduled 
to finish up, and give us, the Members of Congress, an opportunity to 
work with the Secretary, and we hope to help him to see the light that 
Option 1-A is the best direction to travel in. But this treats the 
compact States, the upper Midwestern States, the State of California 
and the rest of the country, equally, by merely extending the law.
  So I would urge strong rejection of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment basically just asks this Congress to 
stick to its original deal, the deal that was made here a couple of 
years ago, and that is why I vigorously rise today to support this 
amendment.
  What it does is just restore order to the underlying bill, that 
continues to punish not just the dairy farmers in Wisconsin, but a lot 
of them in the Midwest.
  If we put the situation in perspective, we are working under what I 
think most people agree is an outdated dinosaur that we call our dairy 
policy. It disregards the advance of time, the advance of 
transportation and technology, and, as was referenced here earlier 
today, in spite of all the talk about the global economy and competing 
in the rest of the world, we continue to want to put up artificial 
barriers within our country.
  We have spent 60 years rewarding dairy farmers with higher prices 
based on the distance that the cows are located from Eau Claire, 
Wisconsin. As a result, just some farmers, and it has been pointed out 
they are in Eau Claire, but that is how the original dairy policy is 
based, in Wisconsin, on the distance from Eau Claire. So the farmers 
who live there and work in America's dairyland have struggled, while 
dairy producers elsewhere have thrived.
  That was not punishment enough. Two years ago Congress made a deal 
and gave the freedom to farm to farmers who produce commodities other 
than dairy, giving those producers new opportunities. Meanwhile, they 
delayed the freedom to farm and reform for dairy farmers until April of 
1999. If that was not punishment enough, Congress in the same bill 
created the Northeast Dairy Compact, the subject of some of the debate 
today.
  What happened as a result? It cost taxpayers money. We produced 
surplus milk at twice the rate of the rest of the Nation. It cost 
consumers money in the grocery store, raising the price of milk in that 
area, and it gives unfair leverage to farmers in the Northeast at the 
expense of the Midwest.

[[Page H5008]]

  It further divides the country. It pits region against region, farmer 
against farmer, and what we are trying to do here is have a level 
playing field. What we asked for in other countries, we are asking for 
that in our country.
  Today what we have before us, as was pointed out, this is an 
appropriations bill. It is supposed to be absent of legislative 
language. Now it would further delay the implementation of what has 
been called for 2 years ago, reform in the dairy pricing policy. It 
would further extend the harmful Northeast Dairy Compact.
  Now Congress wants to tell Midwest farmers to wait longer for 
freedom. We have wandered for 60 years under a policy that still 
relates to the distance the cows are located from Eau Claire, 
Wisconsin. We do not want to wait any longer.
  In speaking of agreements, this bill is a giant leap backwards. It is 
a return to the stone age of dairy policy. Congress 2 years ago put a 
process in place that would reform dairy prices, and that was the deal 
by April of 1999. It may not be perfect, but it was a deal. Now, today, 
we want to turn our back on our deal.
  I think that is an outrage. Everybody in this House who talks about 
the free market system ought to be outraged. Everybody in the House who 
champions less government interference ought to be outraged. Everybody 
who praises less government spending also ought to be outraged.
  I urge my colleagues to join in support of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), to support this amendment that is before us, to 
reject the back door legislative tricks and support the fairness and 
dairy price reform.
  I know we will have a further amendment from the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), 
but I think this amendment is one that will serve us well, that will 
stick to the original deal that we had to change and really reform the 
dairy policy, and yet let the USDA do it by April of 1999.
  We said let USDA make the decision. Let us let them make the decision 
on the schedule that was originally intended. I support and ask for 
support for this amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my friend a question. The 
gentleman represents the Eighth District of the northeastern part of 
Wisconsin. As the gentleman is traveling around his district, meeting 
with family farmers and dairy farmers in his area, is the gentleman 
hearing from them that they are looking for any special handout or 
privilege as producers of dairy products, as compared to the rest of 
the Nation?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, our 
farmers are not looking for a special deal. They are concerned about 
dairy farmers all across the country. The problem is we do not want to 
have artificial barriers, more compacts created all across the country. 
We need this amendment to move on with the process of dairy reform.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take this debate from where it is, with a 
bunch of people out here in ties and suits, and bring this discussion 
back home to what it really means back in Wisconsin.
  My first job was on a dairy farm. I used to get to that farm at 7 
o'clock in the morning. I was a teenager at the time. By the time I got 
to that dairy farm, the farmer had already milked the cows and was 
headed in to breakfast.
  Dairy farmers are hardworking individuals in this country. My wife's 
family had dairy cows, and I would like the authors of this amendment 
to hear these words, because they are very real. There are no cows on 
that farm where my first job was. My wife's family, dairy farmers for 
years, for generations, there are no cows on that dairy farm any more.
  There is a good reason that the dairy farmers in Wisconsin are going 
out of business. It is the advantage, the unfair advantage, that is 
being given people around this country, because people out here in this 
Congress wearing suits are taking away the opportunity for our people 
to compete on a level playing field.
  Where are all the free-traders? Where are all the people that say we 
should have a fair marketplace to produce our products and to market 
our products? Where are all those people in this debate?
  Then I hear we are protecting the Wisconsin farmers. Come on, we are 
not protecting the Wisconsin farmers. We are asking that those farmers 
be given a fair shake across this country, and they are not being given 
that right now. I personally think it is a tad unfair when the 
government steps into the picture and credits $3 per hundredweight in 
one part of the country, and then goes to Wisconsin and says if you 
happen to live close to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, you are not eligible for 
that $3 per hundredweight.
  What happened to all of those people that I hear on the floor of the 
House regularly saying we want a fair level playing field on the world 
marketplace? What about the United States of America? Why do we not get 
a fair level playing field for our dairy farmers here?
  Then I hear, well, we ought to just extend this thing for 6 months. 
Shoot, I am beginning to think we are treating this like the notch 
problem, and every time I bring up the notch victim problem in this 
country, everybody laughs and says it is going to go away. Well, that 
problem is not going to go away either, and those people are being 
mistreated too.
  But the point is we are now starting to treat the dairy issue in the 
same way as we are treating the notch problem. If you wait long enough, 
I am convinced there are Members in this Congress that believe our 
dairy farmers in the Midwest are all going to be out of business, and 
shoot, if you think about it, if you have got a $3 per hundredweight 
advantage in one part of the country, it is likely to put them out of 
business.
  I think they believe if they wait long enough and we stall this issue 
off far enough, that it is going to put enough farmers out of business 
that we will no longer have to deal with the problem.

                              {time}  1400

  I think it is time Congress gets out of the way. I think it is time 
we return to a competitive atmosphere, so that dairy farmers in this 
country can compete not only with each other, but can compete in the 
world markets.
  The government cannot step into these pictures and control the price 
of these products around the country, giving unfair advantages to 
certain parts of this country, if we wish to restore this.
  I just conclude my remarks by saying the concept of pricing a product 
based on how far you happen to have your herd of cows located from Eau 
Claire, Wisconsin, is a situation that I have yet to hear anyone in 
this city reasonably explain to me why we would come up with that kind 
of a solution in the first place, much less why we would let it stay in 
place for this large number of years.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Obey amendment. It is time we 
make a decision and create a level playing field in this country for 
our dairy farmers, and it is something that should be done sooner 
rather than later. The right idea is not to stall off the decision.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Holden).
  (Mr. HOLDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say here that there is no one 
in this room, whether they are on one side or the other side of this 
issue, who can claim that the family dairy farmers in dairy farms in 
their part of the country are somehow prospering under the present 
system of milk marketing orders that we are using, not if they happen 
to live in upper New York State, where the gentleman who chairs the 
Committee on Rules comes from; not if they happen to live in Wisconsin, 
where the ranking member comes from; not if they happen to be the

[[Page H5009]]

chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, coming from Louisiana; or 
the gentleman from Vermont, in an exporter State; or myself, in an 
importer State, in Massachusetts.
  Mr. Chairman, in the agriculture authorization bill in 1997, we 
authorized a limited set of changes. After looking at a number of 
different options, the Secretary of Agriculture has come up with two 
favorite options, two options, really, 1(a) and 1(b); under 1(a), which 
is the more moderate of these, a small number of changes, nearly the 
status quo; and 1(b), which is a pretty radical change, at least as 
viewed by farmers, as viewed by farmer cooperatives all over the 
country.
  More than a majority of Members of both the House and Senate, more 
than a majority of both parties in both branches have written to the 
Secretary of Agriculture asking him to choose option 1(a), there is no 
question, from all parts of this country, except, by the way, from the 
area within a couple of hundred miles from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, which 
somehow is the center of the universe as far as milk is concerned.
  From other parts of this country, that is where that majority comes 
from, from States all over this country. They do that because they 
believe that it will slow, at least slow if not prevent, because I do 
not think it will be prevented, the move to milk monopolies. They 
believe that it protects the capacity to have consumers have access to 
a fresh and local supply of milk. They believe that option 1(b) would 
accelerate the loss of family dairy farms in places all over the 
country except for those within a short distance from Eau Claire. It is 
no wonder the Members from Wisconsin are getting up, given that option 
1(b) clearly changes the playing field.
  Who is to know in this arcane system whether we have a level playing 
field or not, if it may be slightly tilted; but this amendment, as it 
has been offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, would tilt that whole 
system very heavily in the direction of accelerating the loss of family 
dairy farms in other parts of this country; also because the majority 
believes it is unfair to then impose a system which clearly then has 
relative beneficial effects for one portion of this country at the 
expense of every other portion of this country.
  So this is a carefully crafted proposal to extend by 6 months, so 
that the appropriators and the authorizers can see exactly what it is 
that is put forward as a milk marketing system by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, and so they can respond within the fiscal year that that 
goes into effect. That is what this extension is about.
  I think the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Smith) said it quite well, that that is what this is 
about, making certain that the appropriators and authorizers for all of 
these issues can look at it within that fiscal year that we would be 
in.
  I certainly hope that the amendment will not be adopted.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out one thing. The 
gentleman indicated that what we were trying to do is to tilt the 
system in favor of our region of this country.
  I would point out that right now the law requires farmers in the 
gentleman's region of the country to be paid several dollars per 
hundred pounds of milk more than ours. The option favored by the 
Secretary simply eliminates 25 percent or less of that unfair 
advantage.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of talk this afternoon 
about free markets. There has been a great deal of talk about one 
region over another region having a benefit. That certainly is a 
discussion that we need to have.
  I think the House floor at this point is not the place to discuss 
whether the Northeast Dairy Compact has an advantage over the Wisconsin 
or Midwest dairy farmers. We are going to disagree on it. I strongly 
urge a no vote on this amendment. This can be taken up. We can extend 
it for 6 months. This is a discussion we need to have.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not be discussing ending a program that is 
unfair to one part of this country and then transfer that problem to 
another part of this country. That is going to be the result of this 
vote if it passes.
  I would like to take this to a slightly different perspective. This 
country was founded on four things, and that is why we are very 
successful: democracy, which is what we see here; character, which for 
the most part is what we see here; an abundance of natural resources; 
and an endless frontier.
  Our endless frontier is virtually gone. Our open space is becoming 
gobbled up by a lot of things, including development. Our natural 
resources are diminishing quickly. So what we have left to keep this 
country going, to keep the prosperity and the quality of life that 
people want for generations to come, is our ability to discuss in an 
intellectual fashion how we manage what we have left for future 
generations.
  The idea of a free market is what this country is founded upon, for 
the most part. General Motors prospers, Westinghouse prospers, industry 
prospers, but agriculture is different in some ways. General Motors can 
still work if it rains. Westinghouse can still work if there is a 
drought. If there is a severe drought in certain parts of this country, 
they prosper, and agriculture suffers and sometimes becomes eliminated.
  So unless we understand the mechanism of agriculture, and I know the 
gentleman from Massachusetts may not be here, but he talked about a 
free market system. A free market system is fine if we had an endless 
frontier, because we would have thousands and thousands and thousands 
and thousands of acres in excess. But what we have is thousands and 
thousands and thousands of acres being developed every single year. 
Millions of acres are lost from agriculture to development in one form 
or another.
  So the idea that this country must continue to manage, yes, and the 
Congress needs to be engaged in that process, about how we can make it 
fair across the board.
  I think a 6-month extension is the right thing to do. I think 
Wisconsin and the Northeast Dairy Compact, the people in California, 
need to continue to debate and discuss over that period of time what 
they can do to ensure that the family farm, which is another issue of 
discussion here, and the family farm is different than the export farm 
by a long shot.
  The corporate farm turns farmers into employees. It does not take 
farmers and continue to allow them to be farmers, it turns them into 
employees. We can see that in the poultry industry. A poultry grower, 
for the most part, in this country, is not a farmer. He or she is an 
employee. We want to reverse that, if we can. We want to make sure that 
that does not happen in the dairy industry.
  One last comment. This is a complicated issue. People are talking 
about, let the prices take care of it. Let free markets take care of 
it. The price of a bushel of corn today is the same as it was, given 
the season, 40 years ago. The price of a bushel of corn that the farmer 
grows to feed his cow is the same as it was 40 years ago. The price of 
a combine that harvested that corn 40 years ago was about $25,000. 
Today it is well in excess of $100,000, and it is closing in on 
$200,000, so the small family farm is being squeezed.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin was talking about that, that the 
Wisconsin farmers are having a difficult time, but so are the farmers 
in Maryland and New York and Massachusetts and all over this country.
  We have to stop arguing bitterly with each other and make sure that 
we understand that the foundation upon the food source of this country 
is not corporate agriculture that will get out of it as soon as the 
profits are gone, but those who love the culture, those who love 
farming. That is the family farm.
  So I would urge a no vote on the amendment, with all due respect to 
the people from the Midwest and Wisconsin, and let us get together as 
soon as we can this summer, with those who represent the small family 
farms from all across this country, and discuss this problem.
  Mr. SANDERS. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. 
Chairman.
  I would like to pick up on some of the points the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) made, because in

[[Page H5010]]

truth, this is a very sad debate. I will not forget several years ago 
when farm families from Wisconsin and Minnesota came to my office. They 
were here for some national meeting. They knew that I was concerned 
about the preservation of the family farm. I will not forget the women 
farmers weeping in my office as they fought desperately to keep their 
farms going in Wisconsin and in Minnesota.
  The family farmers in Wisconsin and in Minnesota are being hurt, that 
is true, but I want the Members to understand that the farmers in 
Vermont are also being driven off the land. Some of the best people in 
our State who have worked year after year, they love the land, they 
want to produce a good, healthy product, they want their kids on the 
land, they are also being driven off the land.
  It is a sad State of affairs that we have to fight against each 
other. We should be working together. We talk about the issue of 
preserving the family farm, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest) pointed out. This is an issue of food security. If anyone 
believes that it is a good thing for this country that thousands of 
farmers in Wisconsin, in Vermont, and all over this country who produce 
what we eat get driven off of the land, and that we are reduced to 
dependency on imports from abroad, or we are reduced to being dependent 
on a handful of large corporations to charge us any price they want, if 
people think that is a good idea, they are dead wrong. It is not a good 
idea.
  As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) pointed out, 
preserving the family farm is not just about food, it is protecting our 
environment. Do we really want to see our open space in rural America 
converted into malls and parking lots? I do not think so. It is about 
preserving our rural economy and our way of life, in part.
  The free market does some things very well, but it does not do 
everything very well. I think there should be a commitment to 
preserving the family farm all over this country.
  As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has pointed out and 
others have pointed out, there is a letter that has been circulated 
that has over 250 Members of the House in support of that. Let me just 
briefly quote some of the sections from that letter relevant to this 
debate.
  I quote from the letter:
  ``Option 1(b) would further reduce the price of milk received by 
farmers in almost all regions of the country. It will be reducing local 
supplies of fresh, fluid milk, and increasing costs for consumers.''
  I continue: ``According to USDA's own analysis, option 1(b) would 
reduce dairy farmer income. It will be accelerating the already 
disturbing trend of American dairy farms being forced out of business. 
Many of the farms affected will be small family farms.''
  The point we are making here is that, as the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest) indicated, we need to come together to preserve dairy 
farms in the Northeast, in the Midwest, and in the West Coast. One of 
the things we have done in New England that people throughout the 
country are beginning to look at is the concept of the dairy compact.
  If some people think we are going to be able to preserve family farms 
who are struggling too hard to exist through the market economy, when 
we can import cheap milk from Mexico or New Zealand, I beg to differ. I 
think it is appropriate to say that in our democratic society, for 
those of us who believe in dairy farming, in family farming, that it is 
appropriate for the government to intervene with the support of the 
people.
  I would reiterate that in New England six States have come together, 
six State legislatures have come together, Democrat, Republican, 
Independents, in Maine; six Governors with different philosophical 
leanings have come together. This idea is spreading around the country.

                              {time}  1415

  I would hope that perhaps the Midwest might think of the idea of a 
compact. I think if it does end up costing the consumer a few cents 
more on the gallon, consumers all over this country know how important 
it is to preserve the family farm. I would love to work with my friends 
from Wisconsin in protecting the family farms in that region of the 
country as well.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with a single thing that 
the gentleman has said. I would simply make the point that despite his 
best intentions, and mine, we are now operating under a set of laws 
which in essence, as far as trade is concerned, is a pretty good deal 
for grain farmers but is a disaster for dairy farmers, because Canada 
has not been required to live under the same rules that we are required 
to live under. And so we have been told, ``Sorry, boys, you're on your 
own.''
  It just seems to me that if we in fact are going to be abandoning 
dairy farmers to the marketplace, then that marketplace----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Sanders was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, then it seems to me that that market ought to 
at least be a real market. Despite everything that has been said here 
today, no one can tell me yet why it is fair, why it is in the 
tradition of equal treatment under the law, for the law to require 
farmers in one section of the country, in Florida, for instance, to pay 
farmers $2 more or $3 more per hundred pounds of milk than they get in 
our region. That is just not fair.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are 250 signers 
to a letter in support of 1-A. There are 60 supporters in the Senate on 
the same concept. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Obey amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been said that if one appreciates law or good 
sausage, he should watch neither being made. And today maybe we ought 
to add cheese to that description, because this is really kind of an 
ugly display of region against region.
  Several years ago we all cheered when the Berlin Wall came down. And 
not too long after that the flag over the Kremlin came down for the 
last time. And when it did, one of the business newspapers ran an 
editorial. I thought it was the Wall Street Journal, but it was not. 
They ran an editorial and the headline said, ``Markets are more 
powerful than armies.''
  If we look at the Soviet experiment, for 70 years what they tried to 
do was hold back markets. What they found was it cannot be done. It 
will not work. And it is true of milk. It is true of our commodities.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), I agreed with much of 
what he said. But let us just examine. He said what the dairy farmers, 
and what the farmers in his area or the farmers around the country 
today, what they are paying for a combine is enormously different from 
what they were paying 20 years ago. And what they receive for their 
commodities, whether it is corn or soybeans or wheat or milk or 
whatever they produce, is different today than it was 20 years ago.
  In many respects, farming is a tougher business today than it has 
ever been. If we talk to our farmers, and I have as well, they will 
tell us that. What they will also tell us is that the price of corn is 
the same whether it is grown in Iowa or Minnesota or Vermont or 
anywhere else. We do not have different price for corn. We do not have 
different prices for soybeans. It is the same, whether it is grown in 
one area of the country or another.
  The entire milk marketing order system is Byzantine. It is 
antimarket. It may have made some sense back in 1935, but it makes no 
sense today in the day of the interstate transportation network, in the 
day of advanced refrigeration so that the milk can be produced on a 
farm in Minnesota or Wisconsin one day and literally be in a bottling 
plant in Washington, D.C. the next.
  Mr. Chairman, the whole idea of this one region against the other is 
anti-American. One of the reasons that the colonists came together and 
organized this country was so that we would not have States setting up 
barriers against

[[Page H5011]]

other States. The idea of a dairy compact is un-American.
  It really is not just about dairy; it is about if we really care 
about free trade. We will probably have several debates here in the 
next several months about free trade and opening up markets, whether it 
is in Asia or the European Union. Many of us want to have fast track so 
that we can negotiate more trade agreements with our trading partners.
  Would it not be great if we had fast track between Minnesota and 
Vermont so that dairy products could move back and forth across State 
borders? This whole concept is crazy.
  Let me just finish with this. For people to stand on the House floor 
with a straight face and say that we must defend to the end this dairy 
policy, which incidentally has cost us 152,000 dairy farmers over the 
last 10 years. Let me say that again. The system we have today that 
many are up on the floor of the House today defending has cost us 
152,000 dairy farmers. It is an abysmal failure. It is Byzantine. It is 
anti-American. It is what the colonies came together to fight against 
and it should be stopped.
  One of the reasons we are so aggressive today in fighting the 
extension is because we have fought it so long. This fight has been 
going on for 60 years and now they are saying is all we want is another 
6-month extension. We fear, and I think we have reason to fear, that 
then there will be another 6-month extension.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the differences that we have 
in the Northeast Dairy Compact, but it is really not appropriate to 
call it un-American. In fact, it is the essence of what America is 
about.
  Six States at the grassroots level, people came together and they 
went to their legislatures and they went to their governors and they 
came forward to do what they thought was best for the people in their 
own State.
  So I understand the gentleman's differences, but he should not refer 
to it as un-American. It is democracy at work.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the commerce clause 
of the Constitution, and in fact we ought to have some debate within 
the Committee on the Judiciary, I think the gentleman from Illinois 
(Chairman Hyde) has a much different view of what this is all about. 
For States to come together and put up trade barriers around those 
States in my opinion, and I stick with my term, is un-American and it 
is unconstitutional in my view. But worse than that, it is bad 
economics. It makes no sense.
  Let me close with this. Some may know that I am also an auctioneer. 
And this is one thing I understand about auctions. Markets are much 
more powerful than anything we can do. We can suspend the law of supply 
and demand only so long, but we cannot repeal it. Ultimately, the 
markets will prevail. They will prevail over the Northeast Dairy 
Compact and any other compacts that ultimately are created.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I would be interested in the gentleman's 
description of the Northeast Dairy Compact that apparently leads him to 
believe----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Gutknecht) has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Solomon, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gutknecht 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
think this is an important question that creates some differences in 
this debate and it should be resolved. But I would be interested to 
hear what leads the gentleman to believe that the Northeast Dairy 
Compact as currently construed, number one, puts trade barriers that 
prohibits the importation of milk, whether it comes from his State or 
any other, into the region; and, number two, on its face apparently 
leads him to believe that it is unconstitutional, assuming that 
unconstitutionality is consistent with being un-American.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, first of all let me 
say I am not a Supreme Court Justice. I only have one opinion. But in 
my opinion, any time that States come together to try and create trade 
barriers, and I might just yield back to the gentleman to ask what is 
the purpose of the dairy compact if it is not to keep out other dairy 
products from other parts of the country?
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, there it is absolutely no prohibition, 
implied or explicit, in this or any other compact that, by the way are 
constitutionally authorized, that prices the importation of product. 
What it affects is the price of that product paid by the developers and 
paid by the processing plants once the milk is there. It has nothing to 
do with the importation of the milk from the farm gate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the compact acts as a tariff barrier because 
processors have to pay the higher price to any farmer, whether that 
farmer lives in the New England region or not. That means if a 
Minnesota farmer or Wisconsin farmer can produce the product for less 
price, they have to add to their price before they can sell in that 
region. That is why it serves as a trade barrier.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again yield, what 
the gentleman just said by his very words proves the points. He said it 
treats all producers equally. That is absolutely correct, and I 
appreciate the gentleman clarifying that for me, because I think there 
is a lot of misunderstanding here.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it requires one to ignore price.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said about this 
``Byzantine'' procedure, as described by my friend who preceded me. The 
fact is we are dealing with an arcane set of laws that go back to the 
1930's. They may have had great wisdom and sense back then in a 
different age, and perhaps they have lost their rationale since all of 
that time has gone under the bridge.
  The fact is, as I understand the original intent, Wisconsin was the 
center of the universe. Eau Claire was the primary designated place for 
the production and pricing of milk. And, for whatever reason back in 
those days, they decided that the farther we get away from Eau Claire, 
pronouncing it correctly this time, the more could be added on to the 
price of milk for transportation.
  So obviously the objective was to get fresh and clean and safe milk 
in the hands of the consumers all over America. If the center of 
production was in Wisconsin, by the time it got to Florida the price of 
milk was substantially higher. By the time it got to New York, it was 
substantially higher. By the time it got to California, perhaps it was 
substantially higher.
  That trend is represented in this particular chart, presented 
according to figures of the USDA. At any rate, there is no real 
consensus that can be drawn from this chart except to show that at 
Wisconsin begins the trend, and as we get farther and farther away, the 
prices through 1996 when the farm bill took place went up as we got 
away from Wisconsin.
  So the farm bill came along and they said, look, make some sense out 
of this program. We in the Congress told the Secretary of Agriculture 
come up with a plan that simplifies it, that hopefully reforms the 
program, that moves towards the goals of a freer market. Come up with a 
plan that provides some continuity for the milk farmer.
  Now, bear in mind, whether the dairy farmer is in Wisconsin or 
Minnesota or in New York or in Maryland or in Louisiana, where I used 
to have 500 dairy farms and now have about 370 because they were forced 
to go out of business, the dairy farmer is probably one of the hardest 
working people on earth. He gets up early in the morning; goes out to 
milk his cows; goes about the rest of his chores. By the end of the 
day, goes 

[[Page H5012]]

out to milk his cows and goes to bed, because there is no time left in 
the rest of the day. And come hell or high water, rain or storm, 
freezing or heat, he has got to milk those cows. His family chips in, 
his wife, his children. And they participate in trying to make a 
living, a very meager living, whether it is in Wisconsin or otherwise.
  In Wisconsin and Minnesota, 80 percent of what they produce goes to 
hard products which is not fluid milk, butter fat or to powdered milk 
or cheese. But this argument is about fluid milk. Wisconsin and 
Minnesota only put less than 20 percent of their product in fluid milk.
  But these are farmers in New York and Maryland and the Southeast and 
Louisiana. Most of their product goes to fluid milk. They are getting 
squeezed. They are getting squeezed to the point that they cannot meet 
the costs of production and they are getting thrown out of office, or 
rather thrown out of work. Excuse me. That is us that get thrown out of 
office. They get thrown out of work. They lose their farms. We can find 
another job, but they can only find one farm.
  So, the Secretary of Agriculture was given the responsibility of 
coming up with a plan that would simplify this procedure. Well, 
according to the milk marketing order reform proposed rule, again the 
USDA's own figures, this is an analysis of the option 1-B plan that 
Secretary Glickman was coming up with.

                              {time}  1430

  In case Members want to find waves and continuity here, I do not 
think they will be able to do it. Numbers all over the lot.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Livingston was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, that looks to me to be one of the most 
complex charts available known to man. That is supposed to simplify the 
situation. In effect, what it does is create a situation described by 
my friend from New York in his chart. The only people that survive 
under Secretary Glickman's proposal are the people in Minnesota and 
Wisconsin. Everybody else loses money and ultimately goes out of 
business.
  If you have the 1-A section, it is somewhat more simple than this, 
but at least there is reform. What we propose here and what the 
gentleman from Wisconsin proposes to strike is language which does not 
say that this (option 1-B) is impossible, although it looks impossible 
to me. It does not say that 1-A is impossible. It does not say that 
dairy compacts in the Northeast or the Southwest or anywhere else are 
automatic.
  It simply puts a moratorium on it from April 4 to October 1 of 1999 
so that any rule that the Secretary of Agriculture comes up with can be 
reviewed by Congress and, yes, can be reviewed by the State 
legislatures in order to determine that if it is too dictatorial. And 
if it does not make sense like this, it can be reversed legislatively 
and we can go back to a plan that makes sense. Is that too much to ask?
  Evidently it is, because my friend from Wisconsin has offered up a 
motion that would strike this provision, strike this simple one-case-
serves-all moratorium, prevent an illogical plan from being put into 
place for 6 months, put a hold on existing law until we can study it a 
little bit further. I do not think that is well taken.
  For that reason, I urge the rejection of the motion by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, rejection of this amendment, maintenance of the status 
quo for 6 simple months.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston) has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey , and by unanimous consent, Mr. Livingston 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply put that chart in context. That 
chart represents as far as the Secretary is allowed to go under the law 
in simplifying milk marketing orders. What we wanted to do in our 
region legislatively, and we were denied that opportunity by the House 
leadership, we wanted to create a situation under which, under the 
Gunderson amendment, the colors on that entire map would be the same 
because there would be only one milk marketing order. You are attacking 
us for the limits which you yourself have imposed on the agreement. 
That is the fallaciousness of the argument.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Livingston) has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Livingston was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, the chart depicts 1-B that Secretary 
Glickman intended to move us toward. This chart, which I withheld for 
no particular reason except that I do not understand it either, but it 
is a heck of a lot easier than the other one, this is 1-A. It looks 
better.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
gentleman needs to understand that within both options there are 
variations within the State which neither of those charts demonstrate. 
The existing system is far worse than you show on either one of those 
charts.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I would suggest that before we leap into the fire 
from the frying pan, let us maintain the existing system, keep it 
simple and come up with a better plan than option 1-B.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak, but I just think it needs to 
be pointed out that a lot of this debate is centered on something that 
really is not at the heart of the problem. Everything we are talking 
about here today basically has to do with fluid milk.
  Fluid milk is only 40 percent of the milk that is produced and 
consumed in this country. So this debate really does not get at the 
heart of the problem that we have with dairy. I think it just needs to 
be pointed out.
  Up in the Northeast where they have the compact, as I understand it, 
60 percent of the milk up there goes into fluid and 40 percent goes 
into manufacturing. And I further understand that they are right now 
taking comments up in the Northeast Compact to talk about exporting 
their excess milk that has been created by this compact because it is 
hurting the premiums that they are getting for their manufactured milk. 
That points out the whole fallacy of this whole situation, where we are 
trying to somehow or another legislate dairy policy by impacting fluid 
milk.
  I think the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) made a good 
point when he said that we cannot really repeal economics.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, the point the gentleman just made about 
exporting in the Northeast, I am assuming he is speaking of the entire 
Northeast dairy production region. I have heard this mentioned before. 
I would be interested where the statistics are that show that the 
Northeast region is a producer of surplus. I have heard that several 
times and, quite honestly, as someone who has been involved in dairy 
policy at the State and Federal level for 20 years, I have never seen 
it.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I said manufacturing milk that goes into 
cheese and powder and manufacturing purposes. One of the reasons that 
we have a problem with the compact and why we are into this 1-A, 1-B 
debate is that in Minnesota, 86 percent of our milk goes into 
manufacturing. Only 14 percent goes into fluid. A compact does not help 
us. We do not have enough fluid milk to make any difference in material 
effect for our farmers.
  The Northeast Compact, if you took Boston out of the Northeast 
Compact, it would not work. The only reason it works is you have jacked 
up the price in Boston where you have a big market, and you are 
shipping the money out to Vermont. And it works because you have got a 
way that you can artificially set this price.
  The only thing that I am saying about this, what we are concerned 
about is, if you artificially jack up the

[[Page H5013]]

price of fluid milk over and above the class 1 differentials, which you 
are doing with these compacts, what you are going to do is you are 
going to invariably create more milk that is going to have to go into 
manufacturing. What that does in the end is, it reduces the prices in 
Minnesota and in Wisconsin.
  That is why we are concerned about this. If you would keep all of 
your milk up there in the Northeast and if you would not impact the 
rest of our market, we would not care what you did. The problem is that 
you are right now taking comments in the Northeast to figure out how to 
get that extra milk that would go into manufacturing, that is lowering 
your manufacturing prices into other parts of the country, and that is 
why we have a concern about it.
  I just wanted Members to understand that to have a debate about fluid 
milk misses the whole point. The problem in this country is the way we 
price manufacturing milk. We have not had a debate about that up to 
this point.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
do not disagree with everything the gentleman said, particularly the 
very, I think, succinct point that this debate does not get to the 
heart of the challenges facing dairy policy in this country across the 
board. The gentleman, my friend, and I have had discussions about this. 
I know that his heart is in the same place mine is, and that is trying 
to do something that affects the benefit of every dairy farmer.
  But a couple of points of clarification. First of all, I want the 
gentleman to understand that when he says ``you in the Northeast,'' New 
York State that I represent is not in the dairy compact. Darn it. I 
wish we were, but that is another story.
  The second is, traditionally, currently New York State, and it is not 
just the gentleman's comments that caught my ear but others have said 
today, the Northeast is a deficit region, has been, is now and is 
likely to be. He speaks about his concerns of the future. If I could 
tell the future, I would be at OTB right now. The gentleman may join 
me.
  The fact of the matter is, we can paint any kind of terrorist 
scenario. The reality is that the compact has not been the force that 
has produced excess milk. The Northeast is still a deficit region. And 
honestly, I do not see when you are creating a compact where you can 
take the largest municipality out of it and say, ``if that were not 
there.'' It is there. And as much as I love the Yankees over the Red 
Sox, I hope Boston is going to be there for a long time.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Obey motion to strike this 
language. I came to the floor with a somewhat open mind, not having 
been active on this particular provision, but being concerned about it, 
as we moved through the appropriations process. I underline 
``appropriations process.''
  I think about some of the other authorizing language on this 
appropriations bill and how we have arrived at that language. For 
example, when the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) brought up 
the proposal that is now incorporated in the bill that dealt with 
lifting agriculture from the sanctions mandate in Pakistan, there was 
give-and-take on the committee. Members did not agree, but ultimately, 
by the time we got to the floor, we were able to work out our concerns 
on that authorizing language on this bill.
  The same is true with the civil rights provisions in this bill. We 
technically should not have those provisions in this bill. We 
recognized a national need. There were differences of opinion. We had 
problems finding the money, shifting accounts, but we did it together 
on a bipartisan basis.
  What is troubling to me, in a bill that is very, very broadly 
acceptable in this Chamber, is we now have a provision that was 
incorporated as authorizing language dealing with a very, very 
important subject where thousands and thousands and thousands of 
livelihoods are at stake. And a Member like myself, who comes from the 
State of Ohio, where many of our dairy farmers have already been wiped 
out, so in a sense we are more neutral than other places because we are 
not as impacted directly as some of the others that are still 
struggling in their regions, but what troubles me is, when I see charts 
by our chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Livingston), who has some piece of the truth, and someone else has 
a piece of the dream over here from Wisconsin and maybe another one 
from Massachusetts, that we are really not doing our best legislatively 
to present a bill here that has accommodated the differences in 
bringing it to the floor.
  So though I like some of what I hear in the way that the compact 
works to the advantage to preserve farming in the northeastern part of 
the country, this is really, thus far, the only part of the bill that 
has come before us here where there is this kind of major disagreement. 
It makes me concerned about the manner in which this particular 
provision was put into this appropriations bill. That is not how we 
work.
  We had a couple amendments offered in the committee at the 
subcommittee level. But truly, we did not have the working relationship 
that we did on the other issues. I just wanted to put that on the 
record because it is too important to ignore.
  Frankly, it should come through the authorizing committee, not the 
Committee on Appropriations, because this thing is extremely 
complicated and delicate. And no matter what we do, if we are not 
careful here, somebody, lots of somebodies are going to be hurt, 
whether it is directly farm families, whether it is consumers. And I 
guess I feel, as ranking member on this subcommittee, extremely 
uncomfortable that we could not have handled this particular measure in 
the same way as we did the other authorizing language that has been put 
on our bill where differences were worked out.
  This is extremely controversial. And because of it, because I am 
sensing that a major set of interests around our country feel that they 
have not been properly accommodated, I will support the Obey amendment.
  I would beg of the chairman of the full committee, in view of what he 
has said here, and the chairman of the Committee on Rules, to exercise 
their will in the same way as was done on some of the other issues that 
are in this bill, because no part of this country, no set of working 
people, no farmers, no consumers should be harmed by what we do here.
  I have grave doubts as I have listened. And therefore, I will support 
the Obey amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentlewoman from Ohio, 
for whom I have the greatest respect, as she knows, she and I have 
worked on many issues together, this is a part of a compromise. If we 
go back to the grain sales that were involved with India and Pakistan, 
we worked out a compromise when we came to the floor.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Solomon, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Kaptur was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. SOLOMON. When it came to the disadvantaged farmers, we worked 
with the administration. The administration wanted the monies paid for 
out of school lunches. We objected to that. So we worked out a 
compromise. We brought it to this floor. Everybody was satisfied.
  On this issue, the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture stood his 
ground and worked with everybody to try to get a compromise that we 
could live with by delaying this for 6 months, giving us the ability 
for the authorizers to act, the appropriators next year to act. That 
was all a part of a compromise, I say to the gentlewoman from Ohio. 
That is really why we are here.
  We could have gone about it the other way and been one-way about it. 
That was not the right way to do it. We were all trying to work 
together, and we did.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that statement, 
but it appears by this 2 hours of debate now that certain people must 
not have been

[[Page H5014]]

talked to, and we should not have been presenting a bill like this 
which has such a controversial provision in it.
  I would hope that, in listening to what has happened here, that 
perhaps some of these other interests could be accommodated and 
listened to down the road. But this is atypical of the rest of the 
bill.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOLOMON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman not speak?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has not been recognized on 
his own time.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks 
of the gentlewoman of Ohio. I do not think there was a meeting of the 
minds as far as the compromise that is being discussed right now on the 
House floor; otherwise, we would not be having this debate for over 2 
hours.
  I appreciate what the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture was 
attempting to do. I also appreciate the comments of the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) about this is not the proper place to have the 
debate. If not now, when?
  Of course we need to have this debate. We need to have this 
discussion in front of the American people because this is very serious 
legislation that we are talking about.
  I am deeply troubled by the fact that this authorizing language is 
coming into the appropriations bill. This is something that, again, all 
the regions of the country and the representatives and the interests 
that are being affected by this legislation should come together at the 
same table and try to hammer out one coherent national dairy policy.
  That is not what is being done. Instead, we are going to go back to 
this old antiquated Federal order system that pits region against 
region. We are going to perpetuate that who knows when. There is a 6-
month extension right now, but who knows what is going to come when 
that 6 months is concluded. This is an opportunity for us really to 
come together.
  I think we can all stipulate that farming and being a dairy family is 
a very noble, very honorable occupation. All of us could stand on the 
House floor and tell story after story of the plight of dairy farmers 
throughout the country. There is no question about it. But what this 
really comes down to is a question of fundamental fairness.
  Just a little history. Sixty years ago, back in 1935 when the old 
order system was established, there were some supply problems in 
various parts of the region. In order to encourage getting the 
production of dairy products to those regions, this Federal order 
system was established.
  Anyone who has had a business understands that not only do we need to 
produce the product, but we have to get that product to market. Perhaps 
60 years ago there was difficulty in doing that, but the circumstances 
have changed. The market has changed.
  As my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) pointed out, we have got 
an interstate highway system right now, refrigeration means, in order 
to transport fluid milk around the country. That is not the problem.
  What we need to do right now is be thinking forward on this issue, 
thinking creatively on how we are going to be able to avert a crisis 
that is impending in the dairy industry, not region against region but 
internationally. Because other dairy industries in other countries are 
now starting to position themselves to start taking advantage of market 
opportunities as they open up overseas.
  We are still having the 60-year-old debate today talking about 
removing the trade barriers within our own borders. What we should be 
talking about is how do we position the dairy farmers today in order to 
compete tomorrow in the international market. Until we are able to get 
to that issue, we are going to leave our dairy farmers at a distinct 
disadvantage starting early next century.
  By this prop-up price differential system that we have right now, 
that discriminates against producers the closer they are to a city in 
my district, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, what we are going to end up doing 
is encouraging inefficient dairy operations to continue to exist, and 
we are going to encourage other operations outside our borders to start 
moving their product into the United States at an unfair competitive 
advantage to our dairy farmers because of this old system that we 
refuse to come to grips with. That is the discussion that we really 
should be having today.
  Everyone is going to stand up and defend their interests and their 
regions, and good representatives, they will do that. I never thought I 
would be on the House floor hearing my good friend, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Solomon), associate himself with the liberal economic 
interests in the upper Northeast, but that is in fact what he did 
today.
  We need to be thinking more creatively than what we are doing right 
now. This discussion should go on. This debate should go on. But so 
should the process that was put in place just a couple of short years 
ago under the Freedom to Farm bill where the Department of Agriculture 
was given the authority to take a look at the Federal order system and 
to come up with some options of where we go from here.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIND. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask a question. Can 
we treat an industry like agriculture or the dairy industry in the same 
way we treat an industry such as General Motors, Westinghouse, Wal-
Mart, in the same frame of understanding as we refer to as a free 
market system? Can we treat both those industries the same?
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think we can. I think 
we have to. I mean, really, is there any philosophical difference 
between the dairy family who wakes up in the morning to go milk the 
cows as compared to the family on Main Street with a small business 
trying to make that business survive and be very competitive in an 
international market that they are expected to be able to compete in? 
That is really what it comes down to. It comes down to basic economic 
principles.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. KIND. Sure. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Is it the same? Wal-Mart or General Motors can operate 
if they have 11 or 15 or 20 days of rain, but if you have 11 or 15 or 
20 days of rain during the haying season, you lose a large crop, or you 
cannot plant our corn.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time because I have just spent a good part 
of the past weekend in dairy country in east central Minnesota in my 
district talking with dairy farmers who were beginning to have some 
hope that their lot might be improved, that the Department of 
Agriculture is moving along in its study, as directed by the Congress, 
to complete the analysis of the milk marketing orders. USDA might come 
up with some proposal that would establish fairness and fair treatment 
for these true family dairy farmers who average 50 cows, like the 
gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned a moment ago, a few that have 100 
milking cows.
  In the course of that discussion, I recalled a study completed about 
a year ago by the University of Minnesota Ag Extension Service which 
documented that there were more dairy cows and more dairy farmers 2 
years before Minnesota became a State than there are today in that 
region of Minnesota, thanks to the whole herd buyout program and thanks 
in part to the Freedom to Fail at Farming Act of 1996. They are fed up 
with it.
  There are some tragedies out there in rural America. I listened 
painfully to Harold Eklund, whom I consider one of the best dairy 
farmers I have ever known, runs the farm himself, has a few hired 
hands, tell the tragedy of a neighbor who had some health problems--a 
dairy farmer--the milk check

[[Page H5015]]

is not big enough to pay the bills. He came home from the hospital, 
went out to the shed, put some blasting caps on his body, set them off, 
and blew the top half of his body off.
  He is a victim, too, of this policy that favors one region of the 
country over another, a failed policy that looked good and was good at 
the time that it was implemented in the 1930s, but today has gone way 
out of control.
  That milk marketing order policy says that the farther away you farm 
from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, the more you get for your milk. If you 
really believe in freedom to farm, then let us abolish the milk 
marketing orders, let us remove the domestic barriers to trade as we 
did with foreign trade in NAFTA, as we did in trade with Canada. Let us 
remove the barriers among the States and let the Minnesota--Wisconsin 
milkshed farmers sell their milk wherever they can, as far away as they 
can. Let us see how well they compete with those 5,000 cow farms in the 
southeastern United States, in the southwestern United States, in the 
desert area where God never intended farming to happen or He would have 
made it rain there.
  Let us not artificially impede the Department of Agriculture from 
proceeding with the rulemaking that is on track, on milk marketing 
orders, and which, hopefully, may provide some opportunity, some 
encouragement for not only the older, established farmers but also for 
the younger ones who are working their way into farming, who want a 
future in farming, who are the heart and soul and fiber and fabric of 
rural America and small town America. Let us vote for the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
dairy provision in this bill which delays the implementation of the 
federal milk marketing order reforms and perpetuates the Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact.
  I believe that the current federal milk marketing program is the most 
egregious and unfair aspect of federal dairy policy. The current 
federal milk marketing orders were created in the 1930s and were 
designed to ensure that all regions of the country were adequately 
supplied with fresh milk. This is obviously not the 1930s and fresh 
milk is available nationwide. Federal orders need to change to reflect 
the numerous changes that have taken place through technological 
advances at every level of dairying--from production to processing; 
distribution to transportation.
  When Congress wrote the 1996 Farm Bill, we look at the rapidly 
changing agricultural landscape and realized that the old practices of 
government intervention were no longer working and mandated the USDA 
reform the program. With the 1996 Farm bill we set a course for greater 
market orientation in dairy policy, including the phaseout of the dairy 
price support system. The process for reform is underway. Secretary 
Glickman has indicated his support of steps toward a more market-
oriented milk pricing system. We should not rescind our commitment to 
reform the federal dairy program by delaying the implementation of this 
much-needed reform.
  Furthermore, the existence of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact 
is a completely discriminatory aspect of the current federal dairy 
policy. Last year I introduced legislation, H.R. 438, to rescind the 
consent of Congress to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. To date, 
there are twenty-six cosponsors. I oppose such compacts because they 
run counter to the intent and spirit of the U.S. Constitution for free 
trade between the states. The legal authority for the Northeast Dairy 
compact was never considered by the House of Representatives but was 
slipped into the conference report to the 1996 Federal Agriculture 
Improvement Act, even after failing in the Senate. This is one of the 
main reasons I voted against this conference report. Nonetheless, one 
of the conditions of the existing law is that the Northeast Interstate 
Dairy Compact would terminate concurrent with the Secretary of 
Agriculture's implementation of the federal milk marketing order 
consolidation and reforms, currently set at no latter than April 4, 
1999. Any simple extension of this implementation date would also 
prolong the existing Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.
  The Compact is detrimental to consumers because the higher milk 
prices paid to farmers under the compact have been passed on to milk 
purchasers at the retail level. The Compact is also reducing milk 
consumption in the region while milk production in New England is 
increasing, raising the specter of a return to the days of dairy 
purchases at taxpayer expense. Let the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
Compact sunset.
  I will support the amendments to be offered today by my colleagues 
Mr. Obey and Mr. Petri to remove the provision which delays dairy 
reforms and perpetuates the anti-competitive dairy pricing cartel, 
known as the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The amendment was rejected.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered By Mr. Petri

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

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Petri:
       At the end of section 736 (page 68, line 2), add the 
     following new sentence: ``Notwithstanding section 147(3) of 
     the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7256(3)), 
     congressional consent for the Northeast Interstate Dairy 
     Compact shall terminate on April 4, 1999.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the Petri 
amendment.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment removes a provision in the 
bill that extends the Northeast Dairy Compact for 6 months. The 
amendment thus takes us back to current law and allows the compact to 
sunset as originally intended on April 4 of next year.
  This compact, as we know from the legislative history, was inserted 
in the 1996 farm bill in conference and has never been reviewed by the 
Committee on the Judiciary or stood for a vote on the floor of the 
House.
  This unprecedented use of the interstate compact provisions of the 
U.S. Constitution should not be extended, at least without careful 
review by the Committee on the Judiciary; but even with such review, in 
my opinion, should not be extended.
  The compact established a cartel to raise milk prices in New England, 
and it has done so. Retail fluid milk prices were raised about 8 
percent in Boston. Guess what? Farmers have raised production by three 
times the national average in Vermont, consumers have lowered their 
consumption, and mounting surpluses are being turned into milk powder 
and sold to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  Calculated properly, the cost of these surplus purchases is actually 
more than the farmers gained from higher prices. If the farmers 
actually pay these costs as they are supposed to under the terms of the 
compact, even they will be net losers from this price-fixing scheme.
  If, through some kind of political manipulation, they do not pay for 
the surplus, the taxpayers will get stuck with the bill. Meanwhile, the 
existence of this surplus depresses manufactured milk prices and 
ultimately all milk prices in the rest of the United States.
  Seventy years of experience in the Soviet Union should have taught 
the world that this kind of central planning and market manipulation is 
doomed to failure. It must be allowed to sunset as intended.
  This amendment is supported by over 400 organizations spanning the 
complete political spectrum, including the National Taxpayers Union, 
Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, Citizens Against Government 
Waste, Consumer Alert, the International Dairy Foods Association, 
Farmers Union Milk Marketing Cooperative, the Milk Industry Foundation, 
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Foremost Farms USA Cooperative, 
Citizens for a Sound Economy, and many, many others.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for sensible market-oriented 
policy and to remove an onerous special milk tax from poor consumers by 
supporting this amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I will not bother to get into a debate. We 
have already debated my good friend and classmate's amendment, so I 
will not get into that now.
  But I would make a point of order at this time against the amendment 
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation 
in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. 
The rules states, in pertinent part, ``no amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall be in order if changing existing law.'' This 
amendment does, and I press my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is legislating on an appropriation 
bill and

[[Page H5016]]

changes existing law. My amendment would not change existing law. It 
would change the bill before us to protect and maintain existing law, 
and, therefore, I feel that it is certainly in order. The only reason 
that this is necessary is that legislating on appropriations was 
protected by the rule of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin may be heard on the point 
of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to make the following 
point. I understand the gentleman from New York is objecting to the 
amendment being offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) 
under clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits legislation on an 
appropriation bill.

                              {time}  1500

  I would point out that that is exactly what the bill itself does. If 
the Committee on Rules had not pushed through a special rule, I would 
have been able to lodge exactly the same point of order against the 
underlying bill that the gentleman is now lodging against the gentleman 
from Wisconsin for his amendment. It seems to me highly unfair to use 
the rules in one place to enforce the status quo and to use the rules 
in another place to attack the status quo. It would seem to me that if 
the chairman of the Committee on Rules, who himself reported out the 
rule under which I was precluded from offering my amendment, is going 
to support a rule like that, he would, in the interest of fairness, owe 
it to the gentleman from Wisconsin to allow the same principle to be 
applied to his amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I am just trying to live up to our agreements.
  I press my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) 
explicitly supersedes a provision of the Agricultural Market Transition 
Act. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of 
rule XXI. The amendment adds legislation to the bill, and is not merely 
perfecting. The waiver in House Resolution 482 only covers provisions 
in the bill. The point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 737. Section 102(b)(2)(D) of the Arms Export Control 
     Act (22 U.S.C. 2799aa-1(b)(2)(D)) is amended--
       (a) in clause (i) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (b) in clause (ii) by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``, or''; and
       (c) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
       ``(iii) to any credit, credit guarantee, or other financial 
     assistance provided by the Department of Agriculture for the 
     purchase or other provision of food or other agricultural 
     commodities.''.
       (d) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this 
     section shall apply to any credit, credit guarantee, or other 
     financial assistance provided by the Department of 
     Agriculture before, on, or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act through September 30, 1999.
       Sec. 738. Whenever the Secretary of Agriculture announces 
     the basic formula price for milk for purposes of Federal milk 
     marketing orders issued under section 8c of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with amendments by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, the 
     Secretary shall include in the announcement an estimate, 
     stated on a per hundredweight basis, of the costs incurred by 
     milk producers, including transportation and marketing costs, 
     to produce milk in the different regions of the United 
     States.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Bereuter

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Bereuter:
       At the end of the title relating to ``GENERAL PROVISIONS'', 
     insert the following new section:
       Sec.   . Section 538(f) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 
     U.S.C. 1490p-2(f)) is amended by adding after and below 
     paragraph (5) the following:
     ``The Secretary may not deny a guarantee under this section 
     on the basis that the interest on the loan, or on an 
     obligation supporting the loan, for which the guarantee is 
     sought is exempt from inclusion in gross income for purposes 
     of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to request approval of this 
floor amendment and that it be accepted by the Agriculture 
appropriations subcommittee. It would allow tax-exempt financing to be 
used in conjunction with the Section 538 housing program of the USDA. 
The floor amendment is necessary because of an unfortunate OMB ruling 
whereby tax-exempt financing could not be used in conjunction with the 
Section 538 housing program of the USDA Rural Housing Service. It is 
supported by the USDA.
  I am prepared and, in fact, do give arguments for it and, in fact, 
arguments against the decision by OMB. But I understand that the 
Agriculture appropriations subcommittee chairman and ranking member 
have seen it.
  While, this Member believes that the OMB ruling was an incorrect 
decision, as will be explained, without the change offered in this 
Member's amendment, the future success of the Section 538 program and 
as a result the future of rural housing will be harmed.
  This Member introduced the Section 538 Multi-family Loan Guarantee 
Program legislation which was passed into law as a two-year 
demonstration project in 1996. The Section 538 legislation was 
introduced to ensure that the housing needs of rural families could be 
adequately met by the creation of additional rental units in rural 
areas (cities with population of 20,000 or less). Under the Section 538 
program, a Federal guarantee is provided for loans made to eligible for 
profit or nonprofit applicants by private lenders.
  The single biggest reason why the Section 538 program is such an 
important and needed innovation in rural housing is due to its 
privatization focus. In the Section 538 program, the USDA guarantees 
the loan for these multi-family housing projects. As a result, the U.S. 
Government is not directly lending the money to the borrower, instead 
private lenders in the free market serve borrowers with the full faith 
and credit of the U.S. Government standing behind the loans. Guaranteed 
loan programs can save the Federal Government an enormous amount of 
money and at the same time allow the free market to construct 
affordable housing for rural residents.
  The Floor amendment that this Member is offering today, which would 
allow tax exempt bonds to be used in conjunction with the Section 538 
program, is imperative for the two following reasons:
  1. First, tax exempt bonds decrease the cost of borrowing money which 
is essential to keep the rents affordable for low and moderate income 
persons.
  2. Second, lenders are more likely to lend money if tax exempt 
financing is involved. This is because lenders finance these loans in 
many different ways, but one very attractive means for such financing 
is for the lender to sell tax exempt bonds on the secondary market. 
Since bonds have a higher demand in the secondary market if they are 
tax exempt, this increased demand in turn results in more money for 
financial institutions to lend to individuals who want to build 
multifamily units.
  The Section 538 program was deemed a worthy project by the U.S. 
Congress in 1996 when it was enacted into law as a two-year 
demonstration project in 1997. Since its enactment, the Section 538 
program in 1997 has guaranteed $28.1 million for 16 loans in 12 states 
to build a total of 813 new rental units. (These statistics are 
provided by the USDA). The success of the Section 538 program has been 
recognized by the House Appropriations Committee as the bill before us 
today provides $125 million in funding for the Section 538 program for 
fiscal year 1999.
  The Section 538 program has come too far to have the foundation of 
the rural affordable housing progam washed away through a tax exempt 
financing ruling by an anonymous person in the Office of Management and 
Budget. Tax exempt bonds are essential to the success of this program. 
This program deserves an opportunity to thrive and give rural residents 
affordable, and adquate housing, and that is what the amendment this 
Member is offering today will ensure--an even more successful Section 
538 program that can work in conjunction with tax exempt bonds.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, according to the most recent census data, 
2.7 million rural families continue to live in substandard housing. The 
Section 538 program, by utilizing the private market, and if used in 
conjunction with tax exempt bonds as allowed by this Member's amendment 
will do much toward reducing the number of rural families living in 
substandard housing. Therefore, this Member encourages his colleagues 
to vote for this Member's Floor amendment, which will allow the use of 
tax exempt bonds in conjunction with the Section 538 program.


          questions on cbo analysis on tax exempt bond issue:

  While the Member is pleased to answer any questions from his 
colleagues regarding this

[[Page H5017]]

amendment, there is one question that this Member needs to respond to 
directly--that of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost assessment 
on the issue of tax exempt financing. This Member believes that the CBO 
cost assessment over a five-year period (i.e., $14 million) is grossly 
incorrect as there should be either no cost or a very minimal cost to 
the use of tax exempt financing in conjunction with the Section 538 
program. The four following reasons support this analysis:
  1. First, when CBO conducted theire calculations, they used a 
questionable $150 million amount for the yearly funding for the Section 
538 program as a beginning point. The $150 million amount was the 
amount requested by the USDA to the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees for Section 538 funding. However, the House Appropriations 
Committee, in the bill before us today, provides $125 million in 
funding while the Senate Appropriations Committee provides $75 million 
in funding for the Section 538 program. Using the House and Senate 
funding amounts, a more reasonable assumption could be made that a 
conference compromise in the amount of $100 million in funding for the 
Section 538 program will result. The $100 million figure would have 
been more suitable to use as a basis point for a calculation as 
compared to the $150 million dollar figure that CBO used. It has been 
estimated that this flaw in the CBO calculation would reduce the CBO 
estimate by one-third (Note: The calcuilation correction fact of ``one-
third'' is provided by the Council for Rural and Afforadable Housing.)
  2. Secondly, the initial CBO assumption that this provision would 
leverage new investment financial by additional tax exempt debt is in 
question. CBO used the assumption that 50% of the bonds used in this 
program will be tax exempt. This Member believes that this percentage 
is far too high. This Member is not aware of any USDA program that has 
come anywhere close to this 50 percent tax exempt bond usage rate. For 
example, during the first pilot program under Section 538 OMB initially 
permitted tax exempt bonds to be used, only two out of 50 proposals 
involved tax exempt financing and both of these two were selected among 
the 10 successful applicants. Based on this information, this Member 
believes that 25% is a more suitable percentage for a tax exempt bond 
usage rate. In fact, this 25% figure was suggested by the USDA. This 
Member estimates that the use of the 25% estimate for tax exempt bond 
usage would reduce the CBO analysis by another one-third (Note: The 
calculation correction factor of this additional ``one-third'' is 
provided by the Council for Rural and Affordable Housing.)

  3. Third, the full use of state volume caps by CBO in its calculation 
is in question as CBO refuses to reveal the volume cap model it used. 
Without such information from CBO, it is simply impossible for this 
Member to determine whether CBO in fact used these volume caps 
adequately.
  4. Finally, CBO's calculation is questionable in that it 
progressively increases revenue loss by $1 million for each year of the 
five scored years culminating in a $5 million score for the year 2003. 
Due to the speculative nature of this scoring, especially with the 
volume cap questions, this Member believes that CBO scoring gets more 
and more questionable throughout the five-year scoring period.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this Member believes that the above 
reasons will substantially reduce if not eliminate the C.B.O. scoring 
of this tax exempt bond usage for the Section 538 program as a revenue 
loss. Therefore, this Member would again encourage his colleagues to 
vote for the Floor amendment which would allow tax exempt bonds to be 
used with the Section 538 program. If anyone has any further questions, 
I will be more than pleased to answer them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico if he has any 
comments to make at this point.
  Mr. SKEEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has been a strong supporter of rural 
housing programs. He deserves great credit for his work on the new 
Section 538 program. The USDA advises us that they would like this 
provision in the bill and we are prepared to accept it on our side.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the 
ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, we have no objections to this section and it is 
acceptable to us.
  Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Mr. Chairman, I have had good support, extraordinary support, as a 
matter of fact, from the Agricultural appropriations subcommittee on 
trying to move ahead with single-family and multi-unit housing. I 
appreciate that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Dooley of California

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Dooley of California:
       Add after the final section the following new section:
       Sec. ____. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for the 
     Department of Agriculture for special grants for agricultural 
     research under the heading ``research and education 
     activities-Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
     Extension Service'' and providing an additional amount for 
     the Department of Agriculture (consisting of $49,273,000 for 
     section 401 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
     Education Act of 1998 notwithstanding section 730), both in 
     the amount of $49,273,000.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, and that the 
time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dooley) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) each will control 
10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this morning the President signed into law the 
Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act, which was 
passed by the House earlier this month by a vote of 364-50. This was an 
exciting event for myself and my colleagues on the Committee on 
Agriculture who have worked for over a year to develop a comprehensive 
agricultural research system. One of the most important provisions of 
this new law is the initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. 
This new program is intended to provide Federal research dollars to be 
awarded on a competitive basis to address emerging issues, including 
agricultural genome, food safety, food technology and human nutrition, 
new and alternative uses and production of agricultural commodities and 
products, agriculture biotechnology and farm efficiency and 
profitability, and natural resource management.
  Unfortunately, even before the President had a chance to sign this 
new law, the Subcommittee on Agriculture zeroed out the new program and 
used the savings to pay for other programs within its jurisdiction. I 
certainly recognize the difficulties the chairman had in providing 
funding to all of the important programs under his jurisdiction. 
However, I believe that zeroing out of all of the funding in the 
initiative was misguided.
  I am offering an amendment today that would partially restore funding 
for the initiative for future agriculture and food systems. The 
amendment is simple. It would delete funding provided under the special 
grant authority for earmarked projects and use that savings to fund the 
initiative. In S. 1150, the Congress sent a strong message that 
earmarked projects should be a thing of the past and that competitive 
research grants were the model for the future. This philosophy was 
repeated throughout our bill. In section 406 of the bill, we 
established a generic authorization for high-priority research 
projects. In the past, these projects would have been earmarks, but we 
were able to establish a system whereby all funds would be awarded on a 
competitive basis and matching funds would be required. In section 
after section, we repeated the pattern of requiring competition for 
research money. Now, before the program can even get under way, the 
bill before us today eliminates funding for this program and resorts to 
business as usual.
  Support for the initiative as a part of S. 1150 was overwhelming. It 
was supported by all the agricultural organizations, the land grant and 
nonland grant universities and others. Unfortunately, now they are 
placed in a difficult position, a position not unlike those of us

[[Page H5018]]

in Congress. They would be asked to choose between funding for the 
initiative and funding for other important agricultural programs. It is 
unfortunate that we are all in this position, but I believe that 
redirecting research funding in the form of special grants back to the 
new competitive program is the right approach.
  I understand that many of the projects included in this section of 
the bill are important, but I believe that the goals of these projects 
could be reached through a competitive process. The interest of 
agriculture and the taxpayers would be better served through the 
competitive awarding of money. We need to ask ourselves whether we 
should be spending Federal dollars on research that would not be able 
to withstand a competitive process. We have scarce Federal dollars. No 
one knows that better than our colleagues who serve on the Committee on 
Appropriations. But I believe that it is irresponsible for this 
Congress to earmark funds for programs that are unauthorized.
  I know that this is a difficult fight. I ask my colleagues to support 
my amendment that will allow us to go down the path we voted on just a 
few weeks ago that ended the earmarking of research projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had these special grants we have developed all 
through the years. The system has worked very well and been very 
productive. I do not think at this time that we want to see us to lose 
that system or the way that we have been handling it. Therefore, I 
strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in regard to the comments made by the gentleman from 
New Mexico, I think that what I am simply proposing is that all the 
programs that have been earmarked are programs that could well have 
merit. But I contend that in order to do the best job in meeting the 
priorities of agriculture and the priorities of farmers in this country 
and at the same time ensuring that the taxpayers are getting the 
greatest return on the investment of their dollars that we should be 
funding agricultural research programs based on a competitive basis, 
and that many of the programs that are earmarked in the appropriations 
bill will receive funding on a competitive basis. But why should they 
not be required to compete with other agricultural research priorities? 
Why should we identify a set of programs to be funded at the expense of 
funding other programs when they have not gone through a competitive 
process?
  I am one of the strongest supporters of agricultural research. I 
think there are some great projects that are funded in the earmarks 
section of it. But why do we not do justice to the farmers of this 
country and justice to the taxpayers of this country to ensuring that 
the tax dollars that we invest in agricultural research will be done in 
a matter which ensure that they are meeting the highest priorities of 
the farmers of this country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman in his opposition 
to this particular amendment. I think every single account in 
agriculture, whether it is research, whether it is conservation, 
whether it deals with emergency feeding, whether it is WIC, school 
lunch, we can go down the list, every single account needs more money 
and wants more money. I think we have been very fair. In the research 
accounts, I think that we accommodate various interests around the 
country. We just do not favor one set of perhaps powerful interests 
that would want to do research. On behalf of the United States of 
America, I think we have produced a good bill. A lot of this research 
is continuing research.
  It is unfortunate that when additional research dollars were sought 
and they attempted to make them mandatory, of course, there were no 
funds, user fees or other sources of revenue that could help us pay for 
those research projects. I think it would be unfair to try to rearrange 
the order that we have set now within the bill. I think we have been 
very fair to the research accounts. Unfortunately if people want more 
dollars for research, they are going to have to come up with revenue 
sources to pay for them. I support the chairman in his opposition to 
this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
would like to remind the gentleman, too, that we have a tremendous 
amount of competition on the basis of these grants that we are granting 
now. Because of the lack of funding for all the programs, they are 
intensely, I think, interrogated as far as how valid they are and how 
much they will yield to the system. I do not think that this is the way 
to go. I am still constrained to oppose it. I do not think we need to 
have a competition board or something like that. We do that every 
session that we work these over, and we go back and review them as 
well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Neumann

  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Neumann:
       Add after the final section the following new section:
       Sec. --. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to make available or 
     administer, or to pay the salaries of personnel of the 
     Department of Agriculture who make available or administer, a 
     nonrecourse loan to a producer of quota peanuts during fiscal 
     year 1999 under section 155 of the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7271) at a national average loan 
     rate in excess of $550 per ton for quota peanuts.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes, and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to start this debate by just reading a 
couple of lines out of a Washington Times article of July 7, 1997. It 
says:

       Congress is doing something really nutty. It is making 
     Americans pay 33 cents for every jar of peanuts we buy as 
     part of a continuing effort to help farmers who have been 
     dead for half a century.

  Here is what is going on in the peanut program. It was developed back 
in the 1930s much like the dairy debate that we heard earlier here 
today, a program that was developed in the 1930s for specific purposes. 
What they did is they limited the amount of peanuts that could be sold 
here in the United States. They issued a quota as to how many pounds 
could be sold here under a certain price structure. The program was 
designed originally to be temporary. And as with many programs out here 
in this Congress, the temporary program is still going on. It was 
developed in 1934 and it is still going on here in 1998.

                              {time}  1500

  I have to say that in the building business when we built a company 
that provided 250 job opportunities, we could not get by on technology 
and systems that were in existence in 1986 by 1990 when I left the 
company, much less looking at programs that worked in 1934 and would 
still be in use today, and that is the case with the peanut program.
  Here is how it works:
  There is a limited number of quotas that are owned by individuals. 
Now, if we have this quota, we can market peanuts for consumption here 
in United States of America. Of course they get $650 per ton for the 
peanuts that they

[[Page H5019]]

market here in the United States of America. Now, if they market 
peanuts or grow peanuts outside the quotas, they can still sell them in 
the world markets. In the world markets the price of peanuts is about 
$350 a ton, instead of $650 that we are marketing for here in the 
United States.
  So what does that really translate into? The consumer here in the 
United States of America is being asked to pay a subsidy from $350, 
which is the market price in the world market, to $650 a ton, so the 
consumers here in America are forced to pay this additional price.
  What has happened over the years, of course, is that the farmers that 
were originally intended to benefit from this back in the Depression 
era, those farmers are now deceased. They are not here any more, so 
they do not exist. So what they did is, they passed their quota on as 
part of an inheritance, so it went through generation after generation 
after generation, and as might be expected, the person that inherited 
the quota no longer is doing the farming. So we are now in a situation 
where 68 percent of all quota owners no longer do the farming.
  So what we really have, and up until very recently these quotas were 
owned by people in foreign countries like France and Germany and so on, 
and what would happen is a farmer here in the United States would buy 
the right to sell peanuts at this subsidized price at $650 a ton. They 
would buy the right to sell the peanuts here in the United States of 
America at this escalated price, and the quota owner would simply get a 
check at the end of each year.
  This whole program is just plain senseless in today's markets. We 
should allow the peanuts to be sold at market prices here in the United 
States of America just like they are anywhere else in the world.
  Now I should clarify just for the record that quotas are no longer 
owned by people in foreign countries, but they are now owned by doctors 
and lawyers and attorneys and wealthy people in general in the United 
States of America.
  So what happens? A farmer goes to this person owning a quota here in 
the United States of America. They ask the farmer if they will sell 
them the right to market peanuts here in the United States of America 
at this subsidized or at this higher price. So the farmer then goes to 
work, puts in all the effort, all the time, raises the peanut crop and 
then sells it at the $650 a ton, but the farmer does not get to keep 
the $650 a ton. The person who owns the quota gets the money for it, 
and of course the consumer pays the additional price.
  I strongly urge that we at last end this 1930's program and bring the 
United States of America and all the free traders in this country and 
all the people that say they want a fair and even playing field, let us 
bring the peanut program and the peanut farmers into the 1990's, just 
like we are trying to do with the dairy products. It is time we end 
this program, and that is the purpose of this amendment.
  I would add one more thing under this amendment. We did not try to 
bring the price all the way down to $350 a ton. We simply said we are 
going to take it the next step and bring it to $550, with the hopes 
that in future years we can get to an actual free market system. So all 
the amendment does is bring it closer to market price. It does not even 
bring it all the way to market price.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) the chairman of the subcommittee of 
jurisdiction.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an argument that we seem to go through every 
year, unfortunately, and I think it is too bad that we constantly 
attack farmers regardless of what their crop may be. This is indeed an 
attack on peanut farmers and the peanut economy in this country. It is 
not the place that we should be reforming the peanut program, on the ag 
appropriation bill. No hearings, no discussions, just come in here and 
we will slash this program.
  The sponsor of the bill, I think, is misinformed or uninformed when 
he talks about the world price of peanuts. The world price of peanuts 
is really not the value of peanuts. It is the value of peanuts that are 
dumped on the world market, a big difference, and the program that we 
have in effect, a no-cost program to the Federal Government, is there 
to protect the American peanut farmer from imports of cheap peanuts 
which are subsidized by the governments of those producers.
  My colleagues, this is not a good way to make farm policy. I suggest 
that we do as we have in the past, that we turn back this amendment and 
that we live up to our contract with America's peanut farmers.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Neumann amendment to the farm 
bill which puts a price support level of $550 per ton on peanuts. This 
amendment represents a modest step in the direction of reform. It does 
not end their program or pull the rug out from under peanut farmers. 
However, it does send a message to the peanut, confectionery and bakery 
industries in districts and States like mine, Illinois, that they need 
not continue to pay an inflated price for peanuts as they operate in 
more than 50 locations, employ over 15,000 people and generate more 
than $600 million in annual payroll compensation to workers.
  It is difficult to find anything unique or in the national interest 
which demands that peanuts get special preferential treatment over 
other commodities such as wheat, corn, grains, sorghum, barley, oats, 
soybeans, rice and cotton, all of which have been transitioned to the 
free market.
  Mr. Chairman, the area that I come from, Chicago, is the hub of 
confectionery and peanut product manufacturing. I urge that this 
amendment be supported. It is good for business, it is good for 
America.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for purposes of control.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield that 7\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) to control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Clayton) will control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues very much for allowing me to 
control this time, and I tell my colleagues that this is an old 
argument, an old story, but it is an unfortunate one and it is an 
appropriate one. Here we go again trying to really make scapegoats of 
farmers and the rural communities, and here we go again also trying to 
equate the world market to the lowest common denominator to make sure 
that our farmers indeed lose.
  This is a regional crop. I can tell my colleagues rural communities 
will be devastated if indeed this amendment is passed.
  Mr. Chairman, I note my ranking member from the Committee on 
Agriculture has come.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this 
time to me, and as someone else said a moment ago, here we go again. It 
seems like every year at this time the manufacturers are never 
satisfied until the peanut program is eliminated.
  But I just did a fascinating amount of research right here in this 
body. I have in my hand M&M peanuts, which I like both products very 
well. One has peanuts, one does not. I went into the Democratic 
cloakroom, and I asked how much are these, and they said 60 cents each, 
and I said I will take two. Now my colleagues can go out in the store 
and buy it for 55 cents, but roughly that is the same amount that we 
were paying for these products last year.
  What was fascinating, though, is when I went over into the Republican 
cloakroom and I said I would like to buy the same M&M peanuts, well, I 
hate to tell my colleagues on this side of the aisle, but they need to 
start buying their products over on this side because it costs you 75 
cents for the same

[[Page H5020]]

two M&M peanut packages. So I think we are going to have a run on 
business over on our side.
  But this just proves the point. With all due respect to my colleagues 
who are offering this amendment again, this has nothing to do with what 
consumers are going to pay for peanut products, even the peanut butter 
argument. It is fascinating. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) 
made the argument on peanut butter. The best bargain prices for peanut 
butter in the world are in the United States, and yet some people, and 
we can go anywhere in the world and we will pay more for our peanut 
butter. We can go to Mexico and we will pay $2.55. Here in the United 
States it is $2.10.
  What they are trying to do with this amendment today is once again 
destroy peanut farmers in America. That is what they are trying to do, 
and they are using philosophical arguments that have no standing 
whatsoever with fact. When we can take these two products here and see 
the differences, we should not kid ourselves that we are going to do 
the consumer any favor by adopting this amendment. We will not.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Smith) the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  (Mr. SMITH of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, unfortunately we have this exercise it seems every 
appropriation period where we attack the contract that was entered into 
in 1996 between Members of Congress and farmers in America. This is 
another attack to violate the agreement reached when we said at that 
time, passing legislation at that time, that we would continue the 
subsidy program until 2002 where it would all end.
  Now farmers understand that process, the bankers that farmers do 
business with understand that process, and plans have been made for 
that purpose. Now to turn our backs, turn this Congress' back on the 
contract that was agreed to in 1996, is wrong. It should not happen, 
and it will not happen, and we will not let it happen.
  Now for all the tobacco and peanut farmers in the Northwest, I am 
asking my colleagues, and there are not any by the way, in the name of 
good sense and common sense and agreement I am asking my colleagues to 
vote down this amendment. The point is and was made, there are 
shellers, there are manufacturers, there are farmers. Everybody is 
coming at this from another angle. This is a no net cost to taxpayers. 
Vote down this amendment.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I just like to put this argument back in proper perspective. This is 
about the United States Government stepping into a situation and 
dictating that the consumer pay more than market price for a product. 
That is what this argument is about. It is not about whether it costs 
30 cents or 60 or 75.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to register an objection.
  I am a guy who loves peanut butter, and I have discovered, my 
research, it cost me 33 cents more for a 18 ounce jar, and I think that 
the Members on the other side of the aisle should get together and vote 
me a subsidy of 33 cents for every jar of peanut butter I consume a 
year because, after all, why should I not be entitled to be subsidized 
as the peanut farmer is?
  This argument is really an argument. It is bipartisan in nature. 
There are those on both sides of the aisle that want to support the 
peanut farmer. If we talk about the peanut farmer, my heart goes out to 
him, too, except when we look at the reality of the situation, 22 
percent of the peanut farmers are deriving 80 percent of the profits 
from these quotas.
  Seventy-five percent or two-thirds of the licensees of these peanut 
support systems are not farmers. They are owners of land and owners of 
licenses. Some of them inherit them as a matter of inheritance from 
father and grandfather, and we are saying here that we are fighting for 
these poor farmers.
  A lot of them live on Wall Street, the holders of these licenses, 
because this is a negotiated saleable item, a commodity that is sold in 
this country, and it is just time that, if we are talking about free 
markets and we are talking about competition, we are not suggesting to 
go straight to a free market. We are suggesting a simple 10 percent 
reduction in support costs.
  And I just want to remind all the Members how many people would be 
screaming aloud here if we guaranteed the price of steel that would 
have to be consumed by auto manufacturers or other users of steel in 
this country.

                              {time}  1530

  What if we said oh, these people have made their investment and 
always produced steel, they have got to get a fair guaranteed price by 
the Congress of the United States. What happened to our Congress, our 
supposedly free marketeers? This is not asking for a free market; it is 
asking for something nearer to a fairer market. If it does not happen, 
the hypocrisy we will express in doing this, and when I hear our 
friends talk about it is going to end in 2002, well, I am not a 
gambler, but if anyone would want to step to the back of the Chamber, I 
would make a wager that in 2002 there is going to be an excuse to 
continue to subsidize licensee holders on Wall Street, New York, with 
the payment from American consumers to protect the markets of the 
license holders of peanuts. You will not be wrong. It is going to 
happen. We know it is going to happen.
  All we are saying is maybe let us just give the indication to the 
American people that we are going to reduce this hard support system 
for peanut farmers by just 10 percent now. Let us see what the effect 
is on the marketplace. Let us see how competitive it makes our candy 
business. Let us not run the risk of encouraging our candy 
manufacturers to move to Mexico, right across the Texas line, and buy 
peanuts $300 cheaper from Texas than they can today.
  I urge my friends to support this amendment.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this repetitive, redundant 
amendment. It seems that we have got to face this every year. But 2 
years ago we forged an agreement between the government and our 
farmers, and investment decisions have been made based on a 7-year farm 
bill. Now, after 2 years, we are threatening to renege on that 
commitment.
  I think that is absolutely awful. We have made a contract with our 
farmers. They have relied, to their detriment, on that; and here we 
come now as a Congress and want to pull the rug out from under them. It 
is not fair, it is not right, it is un-American, and we just not ought 
to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe we ought to vote this amendment down today, 
just as we voted it down last year and just as we voted it down the 
year before that. This is a bad amendment, it does not reflect good 
policy.
  The statistics that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) 
cited are based on obsolete information. We have a no-net-cost peanut 
program now. It does not cost the government a thing. What we are 
trying to do is protect American farmers and make sure they have a 
level playing field with producers in other parts of the world with 
whom they have to compete.
  This is a bad amendment. It rejects and reneges on the contract we 
have made with our farmers and it sets bad precedent. We ought to stand 
up to our agreements and live out this farm bill in a way that our 
farmers will know that when the Congress speaks, that we can be counted 
on to keep our word.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the rejection of this amendment, and urge us to 
pass this bill and get on with the business of this House.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, the peanut program is nuts, just a shell 
game. It is a hidden tax. It is a hidden tax on American consumers, 
adding hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of peanuts.
  We have not repealed the law of economics. A jar of peanut butter 
costs 33

[[Page H5021]]

cents more because of the peanut program. These higher prices affect 
all consumers, but particularly low-income Americans, who often 
substitute peanuts for higher priced sources of protein. Even the 
Federal Government is feeling the pinch of higher peanut prices. It has 
cut its purchases of peanut butter for feeding programs such as school 
lunches.
  In the 1996 farm bill we were promised real reform. However, in my 
view, this never was realized. We still have a program of fixed peanut 
prices, government-sponsored peanut shortages, and it is still illegal 
to grow peanuts without a license.
  This amendment is a step in the right direction. It caps the peanut 
price support at $550 per ton. This is only a 10-percent reduction in 
the support price. I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman just got up here and said 
this is simply a reduction of 10 percent. You know, we reduced the 
support price on peanuts 10 percent in 1996. You know what happened to 
the price of that jar of peanut butter you just referred to? The price 
went up. Explain that to me. Explain that to the farmer down there who 
gets less than 33 cents out of that jar of peanut butter for the 
peanuts that go into that jar of peanut butter.
  This whole thing makes absolutely no sense at all. The gentleman from 
Texas walked in here with M&M's that contain peanuts and M&M's that do 
not; M&M's bought on one side of the aisle and others bought on the 
other side of the aisle at different prices. Let the market control 
that, and that is what happens.
  The cost of peanuts is so minimal in the manufacturing industry that 
it is absolutely ridiculous to be standing up here arguing about this. 
But the real point is, this is not a 1934 program, as my friend from 
Wisconsin said. The current peanut program is a 1996 program. Real 
reforms were made in the program in 1996. It became more market-
oriented, it became a no-net-cost program. There was a 10 percent 
reduction in the support price in 1996. Most of all, as the gentleman 
said, it eliminated these quota holders that do not live in the United 
States. That simply is no longer an argument on this issue.
  Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, when you step up here to vote on this 
particular amendment, you are voting on whether or not you want to live 
up to a commitment that was made to the farmers in this country in 
1996. A vote for this amendment is a vote to jerk that commitment out 
from under them. A vote against this amendment is a vote to support 
what we told the peanut farmers in this country in 1996 we would do, 
and that is that if they would agree to making real reforms in this 
program, we would agree to continue this program for 7 years, at $610 
not $650 a ton.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  (Mr. RODRIGUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, the peanut farmers are family farmers. 
The average peanut farm is 98 acres, based on the census. It is not a 
big farm, it is a small farm. I have the luxury of representing some of 
them, and they are having a great deal of difficulty.
  One of the things we need to recognize is that in 1996 we had an 
agreement, and we brought that price down from $678 to $610. I ask you, 
did you see a price cut on the peanut butter and the candies out there? 
No, and you are not going to see it either.
  The main thing is that we need to begin to support our farmers in 
order for them to be able to get a good price for their product. 
Consumers have yet to see any cost savings from those cuts that were 
made in the previous time. Now they want to cut again, arguing much 
more that the consumers deserve the savings. In fact, just like before, 
there are no savings.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that Members vote against this amendment.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), a coauthor of the amendment.
  (Mr. HUTCHINSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment 
establishes a loan rate that will bring our prices closer to the world 
market level. This is simply a step towards preventing the government 
from artificially raising the price of peanuts through production 
quotas. In the 1996 farm bill, and Members have referred to this, the 
peanut subsidy was essentially left out, so we must address it now.
  This policy that has been adopted is unfair to, first of all, the 
consumers, the consumers who are affected by the increase in price, the 
subsidized price of the peanuts. If it is not the consumers, it is the 
peanut industry. Someone has to absorb a price whenever the price is 
artificially increased, so it is either consumers are or the industry 
itself.
  But it is also, and I come from an agricultural State, it is also 
unfair to those farmers who would like to grow for the U.S. market but 
do not have a license. I think we need to eliminate that.
  Fourthly, it is unfair to the rest of American agriculture, who is so 
dependent upon exports. In Arkansas, my State, rice and soybeans, we 
export those worldwide. When you are trying to build an agricultural 
economy worldwide, we have to defend against the accusation that, well, 
look at your own country; you are subsidizing, engaging in unfair trade 
practices. So we need to eliminate those barriers across the board, so 
that we can increase our exports and so it is fair to all of our 
agricultural communities.
  So I think it is very important that we start reducing this trade 
barrier, but we also start putting back the free market system into 
peanut production.
  In 1934 the Great Depression led Congress to establish the Federal 
peanut program to protect the peanut producers and to control the 
domestic supply. Well, the peanut program is now 64 years old. That is 
64 years of price controls, it is 64 years of higher prices for 
consumers and 64 years of centrally planned economics. It was not 
remedied in the 1996 farm bill.
  Please vote for our amendment today, and end this government program.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Neumann amendment. This 
amendment attempts to keep our promise to the American people, 
consumers all, to reform the peanut program, one of a number of 
inappropriate and outdated subsidies.
  While the Farm Act gave farmers of agricultural commodities greatly 
expanded flexibility, removed the heavy hand of government and reduced 
government payments to farmers, the peanut program continues to waste 
taxpayer dollars.
  This amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) follows 
through with our commitment to reform the peanut program. It will 
ensure that the Secretary of Agriculture provides the small measure of 
reform that was promised in the farm bill. It deserves our support.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Everett).
  (Mr. EVERETT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based on false 
information, it is poor from a policy standpoint, and it is unworkable 
from a practical standpoint. How strange it is that while the author of 
this amendment just a few hours ago on this floor fought for family 
farms in Wisconsin, he now offers an amendment that would destroy 
family farms that he has no interest in.
  Opponents continue to claim that this peanut program costs families 
additional money. That simply is not true. The report that they quote 
identifies the consumer as corporations,

[[Page H5022]]

not families. Since the price farmers receive for their peanuts was 
slashed over 2 years ago, the price of a candy bar has gone up. Not one 
penny of that money taken from farmers has gone to families, not one 
penny.
  This bill takes money from working farmers and puts it into the hands 
of greedy corporations.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back what common sense is left in this place.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to my 
good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am asked often in my fourth year here in the House, 
what surprises you the most? I must say what surprises me the most, 
without question, is that my party, the Republican Party, took a 
majority in this institution for the first time in 40 years, yet 
agriculture somehow escaped the reforms. It is unbelievable to me that 
we are still, in the name of reform, slow-walking reform, smiling at 
the American people, and saying we reformed agriculture.
  My goodness, we are so deep in the agriculture business, it survives 
whatever winds blow through this city. They are so institutionally 
prominent. Whether it is peanuts, sugar, tobacco, whatever, price 
supports, subsidies, quotas, they make no sense in the free market. The 
government should not be this involved in the farm business.
  Mr. Chairman, I come from a deep farm history in the Sequatchie 
Valley of east Tennessee and in northeast Alabama, and the farmers in 
my part of the world want to be left alone. They want to farm all by 
themselves, without figuring out what the government is doing next.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment 
on peanuts. There are several reasons why this amendment is 
appropriate. Perhaps one of the most important reasons comes from a 
government policy perspective.
  The U.S. peanut program stands out as a glaring example of 
inconsistency with well-established agricultural trade policy and 
principles supporting fair and free trade. In a new era of U.S. 
agriculture, where almost every food commodity is produced and exported 
competitively in the world market, the peanut program especially stands 
out as completely contrary to the objectives of the rest of 
agriculture.
  In fact, a 1996 NAFTA case involving, dairy, poultry and eggs 
illustrates the problems the U.S. peanut program creates for other 
American commodities. In its pleadings before the domestic peanut 
market. The Canadians even threatened retaliation in the form of a 
trade case against the peanut program, had there been an adverse panel 
decision against Canada in the dairy, poultry and egg case.
  With exports of U.S. agricultural commodities totalling approximately 
$60 billion annually, and many more billions of dollars of export 
potential, it is difficult to understand why both-makers and growers of 
other commodities would jeopardize this export trade in the interests 
of a relatively small group of peanut quota holders who refuse to 
compete in world markets. In fact, peanuts represent only one-half of 
one percent of the total value of all U.S. agriculture commodities.
  Almost all U.S. commodity programs stepped up to the plate during the 
1996 Farm Bill and agreed to remove restrictions on production. At the 
same time, peanut quota holders clung to the past and ignored market 
realities.
  The many sectors of agriculture that compete in world markets should 
no longer allow the peanut program to impair their export 
opportunities. The future of U.S. agriculture lies in exporting 
commodities where we have a competitive advantage.
  While this amendment does not eliminate the peanut quota program, it 
begins to move the U.S. peanut quota price support toward the world 
market price. However, if we want to begin the process of making the 
peanut program more market-oriented, we should support this amendment.

                              {time}  1545

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. It is amazing to me 
to listen to people up here who do not farm tell us how farmers make 
money. It is amazing to me to listen to people who do not have dirt 
under their fingernails to tell us how we ought to change programs. It 
is absurd. It is obvious to me they do not really know what it is all 
about. They have been listening to someone with a textbook. They really 
ought to go talk to the farmers who are out there right today, in 95-
degree weather praying for rain, who have had too much rain, and the 
peanuts get soggy.
  Three years ago this Congress decided it would have a 7-year program. 
If there is any integrity left in this body, we ought to live up to our 
commitment and keep this program in place and defeat this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just listened to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), speak a moment ago about subsidies for 
agriculture, and agriculture never changes. I want to dispel everybody 
of that notion. This is silly.
  I do not know whether the gentleman from Tennessee voted for the farm 
bill or not, but if he did not, or if he did, and a majority of this 
House did, it made an agreement with people in wheat and peanuts and 
sugar and the rest to change this system gradually. There is nothing 
wrong with that. The commitment is to the farmer.
  It is easy to say, let us cut everybody off tomorrow. That is fine. I 
am not one for great subsidies, either. But in the farm bill, we said 
we were going to gradually make an agreement to eliminate any 
assistance over a period of years. We did it with peanuts, we did it 
with wheat, we did it with sugar. We should stick with it.
  My argument to anybody who wants to object and wants to change the 
agreement we made in the farm bill that the majority of this House 
voted upon, and the President signed into law, is stick with the 
commitment. Stick with the commitment to gradually adjust our thinking 
in this country relative to agriculture. That does not mean change 
peanuts or change sugar or change wheat overnight. It is stick with the 
agreement.
  That is what I object to on this amendment is that we are suddenly 
saying, let us get more pure, and we are going to change this 
overnight. A commitment is a commitment with the farmers of this 
country. We ought to stay with it. I urge a no vote on this amendment.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things to set the record 
straight. There are no licenses required to grow peanuts. Anyone can 
grow peanuts. In fact, 120,000 tons of non-quota peanuts found itself 
into the domestic market over each of the last 2 years.
  Here is a list I will put in the record of 10 reforms that were put 
into the peanut program in the 1996 farm bill, just as the previous 
speaker was talking about, that have had the result of reducing peanut 
farmer income by as much as 30 percent.
  But that is not enough for our colleagues today on the floor. All 
commodities have a loan. All commodities have a loan. That is what we 
are talking about for peanuts today, the loan price for peanuts.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the list of 10 points related 
to the peanut program.
  The material referred to is as follows:

                  The Peanut Program Has Been Reformed

       As a result of changes made to the peanut program in the 
     Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 
     peanut producers have experienced income reductions as much 
     as 30%. Any efforts to further limit the marketing ability of 
     peanut producers will have a devastating effect on peanut 
     production in the United States.
       Reforms made to the peanut program:
       1. The Peanut program is a no-net-cost program. All 
     taxpayer cost has been eliminated. This represents a 7 year 
     savings of $378 million.
       2. The support price has been reduced by 10%. Grower income 
     has been reduced with no effect on the cost of operating the 
     program.
       3. The support price has been frozen for the life of the 
     Bill. Producers will not be protected from increases in the 
     cost of production.

[[Page H5023]]

       4. Minimum legislated production floor is eliminated. 
     Growers will plant based on marketplace demands rather than a 
     legislated minimum.
       5. Undermarketings are eliminated. Producers will no longer 
     be able to carry-forward produced quota resulting from 
     natural disasters.
       6. Regulatory rest frictions are eliminated. Many 
     restrictions on the lease and transfer of peanuts across 
     county lines are eliminated.
       7 The peanut program is opened to new producers. Access to 
     the program has been made easier for producers desiring to 
     produce peanuts.
       8. More production will shift to family farms. Public 
     entities and out-of-state non-producers will be ineligible 
     for participation in the program.
       9. Severe penalties for producers who do not market their 
     peanuts commercially have been put in place. Growers who 
     abuse the program and refuse to sell their peanuts on the 
     commercial market will be barred from the peanut program for 
     one year. No other commodity marketing loan program has such 
     a severe penalty.
       10. Safety-net provisions protecting against the production 
     of lesser quality peanuts has been reduced. The use of this 
     provision has led to a substantial improvement in the quality 
     of peanuts in the edible market by ensuring that damaged 
     peanuts and peanuts contaminated with aflatoxin are not used 
     for domestic edible consumption.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of being a good sport, it 
is my privilege to yield 30 seconds to my opponent on this particular 
amendment, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).
  (Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding time to me. I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Neumann) giving me this few seconds to say that I hope he has seen a 
peanut plant since last year, because last year he had never seen one.
  Since then, since the gentleman has tried to give the children of 
Georgia powdered milk today, now they want us to buy Chinese peanuts. 
They are talking about 16,000 farmers in this country who are God-
fearing, church-going, hard-working, taxpaying people and he needs to 
get off their backs and not be so greedy for the candy manufacturers.
  Mr. Chairman, if people like strawberries from Mexico, they are going 
to love Chinese peanuts.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not quite as it was just explained. This is 
really about whether or not the United States government is going to 
interfere and mandate higher prices than the market would bear for 
peanuts. The price those farmers are farming and selling those peanuts, 
who are not under the quota, is $350 a ton. Why is it that our American 
people should pay $650 a ton when the going price in the world market 
is $350?
  This program is bad. The United States government should not be in 
the business of forcing higher prices. We should have free trade as it 
relates to peanuts, as we should in many other areas in this country. I 
would hope all the people that consistently come to the floor of this 
House and support free and fair trade would come to the floor and 
support ending peanut subsidies in the United States of America, once 
and for all.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this amendment to 
ensure that we will achieve the reforms to the peanut program promised 
in the 1996 Farm Bill. The Neumann amendment would push the peanut 
industry toward free market policies, and help taxpayers and consumers 
save millions of dollars. This amendment simply requires the Department 
of Agriculture to be fair to consumers in establishing the loan level 
for quota peanuts. The USDA will be required to administer the floor 
price for quota peanuts at no more than $550 per ton.
  The Federal Agricultural and Improvement Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 
provided ``freedom to farm'' for just about every agricultural 
commodity, such as corn, soybeans, and wheat. Peanuts are one of two 
exceptions. Although freedom to farm peanuts was denied by Congress, 
advocates of the new farm bill did promise a 10 percent reduction in 
the loan rate to $610 per ton.
  Unfortunately, even this minor reform in the federal peanut program 
has been undercut by the Secretary of Agriculture's administration of 
the program. By setting an extremely low national production level for 
quota peanuts, he has effectively restricted peanut supplies so that 
the actual market price for quota peanuts has averaged about $650 per 
ton. This is hardly the support level envisioned by Congress. We have 
not moved the price support for peanuts toward the international market 
price of approximately $350 per ton.
  This amendment would make sure that the Secretary of Agriculture 
implements the price support intended by Congress and moves the peanut 
program towards the world price. Although this is a modest step, it 
will provide some much-needed relief to American consumers and the U.S. 
peanut industry.
  I urge by colleagues to support this amendment to help protect 
consumers from the government price-fixing peanut program. The exiting 
quota and price support program for peanuts is anti-consumer, anti-
competitive, and inefficient. It needs to be changed. If you are 
concerned about good government, consumers, and the future of the U.S. 
peanut industry, I encourage you to vote for this peanut program 
amendment.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my colleagues Mark Neumann, Paul Kanjorski, and Asa Hutchinson, 
which would provide much needed reform for an out-dated and 
anachronistic peanut program.
  I have long been an opponent of unnecessary agriculture subsidies 
such as the peanut, sugar, and honey programs. When the House of 
Representatives considered the 1994 Agriculture Appropriations bill, I 
offered an amendment to eliminate the notoriously wasteful USDA subsidy 
to honey producers. By the overwhelming vote of 344-60, the House 
adopted my amendment, which subsequently became law.
  Today Mr. Chairman, we once again have the opportunity to reform an 
anti-consumer, anti-market program by reducing the price support level 
in the peanut program from $610 per ton to $550 per ton. This 
incremental, common sense amendment will move the peanut support price 
closer to the world market price, benefiting the U.S. taxpayer and 
consumer.
  The current peanut program, which keeps domestic peanut prices 
artificially high, makes the growing and selling of domestically grown 
peanuts in the United States illegal without a federal license. That's 
correct, an American farmer can not grow or sell peanuts without a 
license, or quota, issued by the United States Department of 
Agriculture.
  Moreover, American peanut users pay nearly double the international 
price for domestically-grown peanuts as a result of this antiquated 
depression-era policy. Why are foreign consumers of U.S. peanuts and 
peanut products paying less than American consumers Mr. Chairman? 
Because the U.S. Department of Agriculture is keeping peanut prices 
artificially high by limiting peanut production.
  Mr. Chairman, this government subsidy program must be reformed. I see 
no reason why a handful of quota owners should benefit at the expense 
of the American consumer. Do not be fooled by the rhetoric of those who 
contend that the peanut program was reformed in the 1996 ``Freedom to 
Farm'' bill: It was not. We still experience a peanut program which is 
anti-market, anti-consumer, and anti-common sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support passage of the 
Neumann-Kanjorski-Hutchinson amendment which will reform this 
antiquated government subsidy program.
  Ms. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which 
implements the first step in the Shays-Lowey peanut program elimination 
bill.
  The peanut program epitomizes wasteful, inefficient government 
spending. It supports peanut quota holders at the expense of 250 
million American consumers and taxpayers.
  This outdated program is based on a system reminiscent of feudal 
society. Quotas to sell peanuts are handed down from generation to 
generation, and two-thirds of the quota owners don't even grow peanuts 
themselves.
  The GAO has estimated that this program passes on $500 million per 
year in higher peanut prices to consumers.
  And what does this mean to average American families?
  Well, as a mom who sent her three kids to school with peanut butter 
and jelly sandwiches for years, I find it unacceptable that this 
program forces American families to pay an average of 33 cents more for 
an 18 ounce jar of peanut butter. That's not peanuts!
  This amendment is also good for American jobs. Because the price of 
peanuts in the U.S. is so high, peanut butter and candy bar 
manufacturers are leaving the U.S. to open up plants in Canada and 
Mexico. The peanuts can be purchased there at the world market price--
half the U.S. price--and the finished product can be brought into the 
U.S. and sold here. We must lower the artificially high price of 
domestic peanuts to save these manufacturing jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for American consumers and support 
this amendment. It is good fiscal and consumer policy.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.

[[Page H5024]]

  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEUMANN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 482, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bass

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Bass:
       Insert before the short title the following new section:
       Sec. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--Not more than 
     $18,800,000 of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used for the Wildlife Services Program under the heading 
     ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.''
       (b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for salaries and expenses under the 
     heading ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'' is 
     hereby reduced by $10,000,000.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes, and that 
the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), for purposes of control, pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the Wildlife Service's 
western livestock protection budget from $28.8 million to $18.8 
million, a $10 million reduction.
  Basically, this is a program that has been funded for the last 4 or 5 
years at approximately $26 to $28 million, always a little bit higher 
than that requested by the administration. It is a program that 
benefits a relatively few number of cattle and sheep ranchers in the 
West, and it gives them matching funds, half of which are put up by the 
State, essentially to shoot animals that may be considered predatory to 
livestock.
  Between 1983 and 1993, quite a bit longer period of time, wildlife 
services increased by 71 percent. That is adjusted for inflation. The 
number of coyotes killed was increased by 30 percent. They also 
succeeded in killing black bears, mountain lions, badgers, and others. 
Let me just describe, Mr. Chairman, how this goes about.
  In 1996, there were 28,575 coyotes killed. The preferred method of 
killing was the so-called aerial method. The aerial method is basically 
a means by which you get up in an airplane and you scatter shot on 
these poor, innocent animals. The other method was cyanide, poisoning 
these animals with cyanide.
  Yet, over the same period of time, there has been no decrease in 
livestock lost to these predators. Livestock Services report livestock 
losses in 1996 were 5.8 million, while spending on the program was $9.6 
million, not exactly a great rate of return.
  Mr. Chairman, we ask ourselves, traditionally in the United States, 
wildlife protection has been designated to the States. Yet, we have 
this very strange Federal program that gives approximately $10 million 
to ranchers to shoot coyotes and other animals that is matched by the 
State, but goes beyond the way wildlife has traditionally been managed.
  Is this really the right level of government to have this program 
controlled by? Is this really, Mr. Chairman, the best use for Federal 
tax dollars, to subsidize a few sheep and cattle ranchers? I think not. 
Does this program work, when we spend almost $10 million to save $6 
million in livestock losses?
  Let me suggest that the losses among cattle and sheep and other 
livestock are far greater from other diseases, respiratory and so 
forth. Perhaps the money would be better spent in other areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, 
what we have heard is an exaggeration of the issue, exactly. All these 
predation problems are controlled either by the Oregon Fish and 
Wildlife Service or the National Fish and Wildlife, and they are only 
implemented when absolutely essential.
  Let me suggest it is far beyond just protecting livestock. Timber 
resources are sometimes protected against bear and beaver damage; crops 
such as grass seed production, which is huge in the Willamette Valley 
in the State of Oregon, from Canada goose damage, and, of course, 
predation from livestock; protecting the public safety of the Portland 
International Airport. All of these are issues that this money goes to 
protect.
  Mr. Chairman, to say that a horrible thing is to kill coyotes is from 
somebody who has never been in coyote country. Let me tell the Members 
that if they want to make the choice, they either take coyotes or deer 
and antelope. Which do Members like?
  The management of predators is about protecting wildlife, as well, so 
we cannot say that we are here in the great name of the coyote, while 
at the same time saying, but we have to protect deer and antelope. 
Wrong. Therefore, let the professionals determine how this money is to 
be spent, as they do today. Let them use it in Oregon and around the 
country when the predators are too numerous for the other animals that 
are there.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members not to support this amendment, and to 
vote against this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, in disagreeing with my colleague, the gentleman from 
Oregon, first, public health and safety is fully protected under this 
amendment. Crop protection could go forward. What we are targeting is 
ineffective, lethal, indiscriminate predator control by what is now 
called the Wildlife Service, and it used to be called Animal Damage 
Control.
  After 50 years, more than 50 years of their activity, there are more 
coyotes now than there were 50 years ago, because they are doing the 
wrong thing with their indiscriminate attack. We also have problems 
with rodents and ground squirrels and mice and all the other things 
that coyotes would predate upon, preferably to the larger livestock.
  We should follow the example of Kansas. Kansas is not sucking up $1 
million of Federal money, like a lot of our other Midwestern and 
western States. They have instituted a State program which uses non-
lethal methods, education, uses guard dogs, uses a whole bunch of other 
methods, much more effectively than their neighboring State of 
Oklahoma, which has a big coyote problem, or Wyoming, which has only 
half the density of coyotes, but again, much more predation. Kansas is 
leading the Nation in this, and they are doing it without a large 
Federal subsidy. This is a subsidy. It is welfare.
  In my own State of Oregon, $403,000 comes from the Federal 
Government, $270,00 from the State, and not a penny from the 
beneficiaries. Not one cent is spent on this predator control program 
by the beneficiaries. Who should be paying? Should the general fund 
taxpayers of the United States, should the general fund taxpayers of 
Oregon, or should those who benefit from the activities?
  We are not saying they cannot conduct these activities when they have 
a problem at their own expense, on their own property. We are saying it 
should not be indiscriminate, it should not be broadcast all across the 
West, and it should not be done by Federal agents with a subsidy.
  This has become a codependent welfare subsidy where Animal Damage 
Control, by the Wildlife Service, is forwarding their own jobs and 
their own prospects by inefficiently controlling the problem and not 
following the path which has been laid out by the Congress, which is in 
the past to say, look

[[Page H5025]]

at nonlethal alternatives, look at more effective alternatives, because 
you are losing your so-called war on predators here.
  This is a taxpayer issue, it is an environmental issue. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to rise in opposition to this amendment, though 
I think it has some very good intentions, and it will no doubt cause 
discussion inside the Wildlife Service offices across this country.
  Nonetheless, it is the only Federal program that we have to control 
damage by wild animals, not just to farm property but to individuals.

                              {time}  1600

  I can think in my own State of Ohio, for example, this program, in 
cooperation with our State and local agencies, has been involved in 
establishing a rabies-free barrier to stop the western migration of 
raccoons infected with rabies.
  We have seen this program operate hand in hand with the Centers for 
Disease Control and State health departments in control of other 
disease such as Lyme disease and other wildlife-borne disease. I know I 
am amazed myself sometimes, I live in a city, to watch city dwellers 
try to encourage deer to come up to their back doors, wild animals. 
Lyme disease all through our part of the country, and yet they do not 
see a connection between their behavior and the feeding that they are 
doing of wild animals.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important program. According to 
Utah State University, their Institute for Wildlife Biology, overall in 
our country losses from wildlife damage approach $3 billion annually 
and fully one-third of that is estimated by the Federal Aviation 
Administration to be lost by the airline industry from birds.
  Today, this particular amendment I think, though it is well-
intentioned, would have the net effect of cutting by almost one-quarter 
the amount of funds we have to spend on animal damage control of our 
crops and of our populations.
  If we take a look at the impact of this program, more than two-thirds 
of our Nation's farms receive some type of wildlife damage each year. 
Commodity crops absorb staggering losses from wildlife. These include 
corn, rice, sunflower, carrots, wheat, sorghum and other seed grain 
crops.
  If we look at ducks and geese who trample, eat, and soil seed and 
grain crops, young growing crops such as carrots, rice and corn. Deer 
and smaller mammals eat corn, wheat, decorative shrubbery, sorghum, and 
garden vegetables.
  Black bears damage timber resources by clawing the bark of young 
trees and disrupting the flow of nutrients necessary for proper growth. 
And fish-eating birds such as the great blue heron, cormorants, 
pelicans, and the black-crowned night heron cause aquaculturists, 
especially catfish and trout farmers, heavy losses each year.
  There is not pure right on either side of this equation. But there is 
a balance which we are trying to strike here. I think that wildlife 
services very often provides the only viable assistance in minimizing 
these losses both to plant life, to other animal life, and to human 
life.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) are very wise in trying 
to encourage modern practices at the Wildlife Service. If there are 
better ways to deal with these wildlife populations, we certainly 
should be taking the best research and information into account.
  I think the message has been heard loud and clear and we hope that 
that message will continue. But I do think that these predator control 
programs are very, very important. Especially living in an area that is 
both urban and rural, we see this all the time.
  So I would object to this particular amendment and would share the 
view of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) that it is important 
that we keep the funding in the base bill and that we act responsibly 
to try to maintain levels for a balanced wildlife services program in 
our country.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the points that have been brought forward 
by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). I would only point out that 
all of the good points that she makes are portions of the program that 
would be totally unaffected by this amendment.
  She is talking about the human health issue, about the property 
issue, about crop issue, about natural resources, forest range, and 
aquaculture. Those are all portions of the program that are separate 
from the livestock protection program.
  What the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and I are trying to do 
is cut the part that has to do with predator control on western ranches 
for cattle and sheep farmers. It is a $10 million subsidy to this part 
of the country for this handful of individuals, matched by the State. 
It is a large program.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out that I live on a farm in New 
Hampshire. We have coyotes all over the place. I lost two or three 
chickens last year to coyotes and nobody gave me a dime to try to get 
rid of them. These problems happen all over the country and we do not 
need a Federal subsidy to help bail us out.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to object to this amendment because it is going 
to have a negative impact on the Wildlife Services Research Center and 
the mission of the wildlife services in my State and other Western 
States.
  Let me just explain to my colleagues that reading from a story that 
appeared on June 22, Monday, in USA Today, it headlines, ``Arson Fires 
Ruin Two Agriculture Department Research Stations.'' The fires occurred 
in my State over on the west side of the State near Olympia, 
Washington. They were reported to cause $400,000 worth of damage to 
these two research facilities that are used for animal damage control. 
They are in the animal damage control buildings.
  The buildings were gutted. This are clearly arson and the 
investigators are looking into the possibility that animal rights or 
other protest groups were involved.
  So my suggestion is that this amendment sort of feeds into that idea 
that any research that is conducted at the Federal level that looks at 
animal pest control or animal predatory control is bad money expended. 
I reject that argument.
  About a dozen State and Federal employees out of these two wildlife 
research centers develop repellents to keep animals such as deer, elk 
and beaver away from timber in the early stages of growth. So this 
whole idea that somehow wildlife services are bad or somehow a subsidy 
for the control of these kinds of problems is just wrong. I urge the 
rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman, I support the nonlethal 
research that was going on at that facility. That is good research. The 
gentleman's State does not draw hardly any funds from the lethal 
predator control program. In fact, out of the $10 million spent in the 
western United States, his State only took $106,000. So Washington is 
being progressive.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the nonlethal, but that is not what this 
debate is about. The gentleman is off the point. This debate is about 
$10 million for ineffective, subsidized, indiscriminate lethal predator 
control, first response by Federal employees on private ranches for 
private profit. I do not know how to say it any more plainly than that.
  It is not about developing alternatives. There is plenty of money 
left in the budget to develop alternatives. There is plenty of money 
left to develop the programs that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) reported. What we cut is $10 million, the subsidized funds, 
used for lethal predator control.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Brown).

[[Page H5026]]

  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I have historically supported 
this kind of amendment because I feel that the program is not 
effective, that it is a subsidy, that it does not do the kinds of 
adequate research that are necessary, and that it uses nonhumane 
methods. I have said this over and over again.
  I am a taxpayer. I contribute to the funding of this program. I will 
tell my colleagues that I have coyotes, raccoons, badgers in my 
backyard. To say nothing of the gophers and the squirrels. And I also 
have raids from egrets and herons that eat up my fish and I do not like 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not get any Federal aid to control that, so it is 
not fair right there. If it was fair, I would be getting my full share 
of the funds available for the control of these animals, but it is not.
  I think this $10 million cut proposed by the Bass-DeFazio amendment 
would be a salutary message to the program that they should begin to 
think in terms of being more fair or equitable, more humane, more 
scientific in what they were doing and they would end up being more 
effective.
  I rise in strong support of the Bass-DeFazio amendment that cuts $10 
million from the FY 99 budget for Animal Damage Control program 
operations. This $10 million is the amount that would be spent on 
direct predator control.
  The amendment would not require the reduction of any ADC operations 
affecting human health and safety, nor will it reduce the budget for 
research toward more effective animal damage prevention and management.
  Furthermore, this amendment doesn't even take away the authority of 
ADC to carry out predator control, but rather it shifts the burden from 
the taxpayer to the private ranchers who are reaping the benefits of 
this program.
  This amendment even allows other agencies such as Wildlife Services, 
the Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service to cover the 
costs of ADC's predator control work on problems under the jurisdiction 
of those agencies.
  The Animal Damage Control program was established in 1931 and has 
never had to undergo the scrutiny of reauthorization. It is obsolete, 
ineffective, and a perfect example of wasteful government spending.
  Besides being economically wasteful, ADC is also contradicting the 
will of Congress in the way in which it carries out its operations. To 
this I am referring to ADC's extensive use of lethal controls, such as 
traps, snares, poisons, and aerial hunting. In 1994, several members of 
Congress, including myself, requested a GAO study of the ADC program. 
The GAO report found that ADC used lethal methods in essentially all 
instances despite the Department's written policies and procedures 
which call for preference to be given to non-lethal methods.
  In addition, ADC's lethal controls are non-selective, killing 
thousands of non-target animals annually, including rare, threatened, 
and endangered species.
  Even when ADC controls are successful in reducing local levels of 
coyotes and other large predators, the resulting rise in prey species 
such as mice and rabbits causes millions of dollars of damage to crops 
and rangelands, and the increase in mid-sized predator species (earlier 
held in check by large predator species) harms waterfowl and migratory 
bird populations.
  Some of ADC's activities are valuable, such as controlling bird 
populations near airports to reduce the risk of collision damage with 
air planes, and working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 
minimize landowner conflicts in states with recovering wolf 
populations. These activities would not be affected by this amendment.
  However, most of ADC's operations amount to nothing more than federal 
subsidies for the western livestock industry. We spend millions of 
dollars every year to indiscriminately kill predators for western 
ranchers. This subsidy is received by livestock producers who are 
already receiving other substantial federal subsidies, such as reduced 
grazing fees on public lands.
  Since ADC's costs are borne primarily by taxpayers, not the 
recipients of these services, there is little incentive for ranchers to 
improve their husbandry techniques or deter predation.
  ADC official policy is to seek cost-sharing whenever possible. ADC 
also has the authority to levy fees for services. However, these 
options have not been exercised as they should be and the federal funds 
are always fully exhausted.
  This amendment will demand that there be a more equitable 
distribution of costs and that these costs be covered by the users, not 
the American taxpayer.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, looking at this amendment, I know that 
the drafters of the amendment have been arguing against lethal control. 
But if we carefully examine their amendment, we will see that they are 
going to cut 53 percent, or a total of $21 million from the Animal, 
Plant, and Health Inspection Service for the wildlife services program.
  All of this talk about the lethal methods is really immaterial to 
what this amendment will do. They are going to destroy the opportunity 
of the Fish and Wildlife Service to control predatory animal problems 
in almost each of our 50 States if we allow this amendment to pass. We 
can make arguments about the different amount of control all day. But 
the fact is that there are various damages to the tune of estimated up 
to $3 billion annually that occur and this is going to continue to 
grow.
  We as a society will continue to encroach on wildlife. We as a 
society will continue to have to promote and support wildlife 
conservation and we will continue to have to learn to allow the 
wildlife to live with humans and vice versa. That costs money and it 
costs money from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, what we are talking about here is plain 
and simple. A $10 million subsidy to private western ranching 
interests, some in my own district, so I am not cutting something in 
someone else's district. And to the gentleman from Texas, this is a 30 
percent cut in the overall budget and it is only the funds identified 
by Animal Damage Control Wildlife Services as being used for the 
ineffective, subsidized, government-agent-run lethal predator control 
program in the western United States which has given us more coyotes 
today than when they started spending the money 60 years ago.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), to close debate.
  (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. If we support this amendment we are not supporting the 
safety of children in this country. This would limit our ability to use 
the wildlife services to protect Americans, specifically children, from 
predators, to lessen the risk to aviation and lessen the livestock 
losses sustained by American ranchers.
  But more specifically, let us look at some cases where children would 
be hurt if this money was cut. There have been eight fatal alligator 
attacks in the last 50 years and three of them have occurred in the 
last 4 years, including the killing of a 3-year-old. A short while ago, 
an 18-year-old high school senior was killed by a cougar while out 
jogging.
  Recently in Montana, the Department of Fish and Wildlife captured a 
cougar on a campus stroll at the University of Montana. And last year, 
a 4-year-old was mauled by a mountain lion in Colorado.
  We have countless cases. Children traveling on aircraft, for example, 
would be put at risk if animal damage control were not allowed to deal 
with wildlife that puts aviation at risk near many of the airports in 
this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to think seriously about what they 
are voting for here. A vote for this amendment is voting against the 
safety of children in this country.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this amendment. It cuts funding for the animal damage control portion 
of USDA's ``Wildlife Services'' Program. These are nice names for an 
ugly business that needlessly and painfully slaughters wildlife, 
excusing ranchers and farmers from the responsibility to seek more 
humane and creative ways to limit damage to crops and livestock from 
wildlife.
  Today, there are a variety of low-cost, humane approaches to 
controlling wildlife. The trend all across the country is to try to 
find ways to live with wildlife, on both public and private lands. Yet 
USDA continues to use leghold traps, poison, and aerial gunning to kill 
bears, mountain lions, coyotes, and other wildlife. In addition, 
leghold traps and poisons are

[[Page H5027]]

indiscriminate methods that end up killing non-target species, 
including threatened and endangered species.
  It is high time for Congress to stop forcing taxpayers to subsidize 
this senseless slaughter. This program is a throwback to a happily 
bygone era when we ``managed'' bison, wolves, grizzly bears, and other 
species by nearly extirpating them from the landscape. Shouldn't we 
clean house before the beginning of the 21st century and repeal this 
program? I urge the House to support the amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Bass-
DeFazio amendment. In past Agriculture Appropriations bills I myself 
have led the fight to curtail funds for this wasteful and abusive 
program. Wildlife Services, formerly known as Animal Damage Control, is 
an anachronism. It was created in 1931 and except for a cosmetic name 
change the law hasn't been changed or reformed since. This program is 
based on poor science, and has virtually no accountability to Congress 
or the general public. The program focuses excessively on lethal 
control, despite numerous Congressional attempts and GAO investigations 
to curb this practice. This program wastes taxpayer dollars and is an 
unnecessary and ineffective government subsidy.
  Consider these facts: In every western state in FY 95, ADC spent more 
money controlling predators than the value of the livestock allegedly 
lost to predators by ADC beneficiaries.
  Western livestock ranchers and ranching associations contribute less 
than 14 percent annually to the costs of the program. This subsidy puts 
livestock producers in other areas of the country at a competitive 
disadvantage.
  Between 1983 and 1993, Federal appropriations to ADC increased 71 
percent while the number of coyotes killed increased 30 percent but the 
number of livestock losses to predators did not decline.
  From 1990-1994, ADC killed at least 7.8 million animals. This 
includes non-target species such as bald eagles and ferrets killed by 
non-selective ADC methods like poisoning, leghold traps and snares.
  This amendment will not touch ADC funding to protect human health and 
safety or endangered species. What it will do is free taxpayers from 
having to foot the bill for predator control activities that benefit 
private ranching operations in the West--these interests are free to 
contract with ADC and pay for those services themselves.
  This amendment is supported by taxpayer, conservation, and humane 
groups which object to public land subsidies that undercut the 
competitiveness of livestock producers in other regions of the country. 
Please join us in ending this inappropriate and inhumane taxpayer 
subsidy. Vote in favor of the Bass-DeFazio amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) will 
be postponed.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
further consideration of H.R. 4101 in the Committee of the Whole, that 
debate on the Miller amendment related to sugar, if offered, and all 
amendments thereto, be limited to 60 minutes allocated as follows: 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), 15 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Mexico, (Mr. Skeen), and 15 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), or her designee.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Mexico?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Neumann

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate this amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This vote will be followed by a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181, 
noes 244, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 258]

                               AYES--181

     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Collins
     Cook
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kind (WI)
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     White
     Wolf
     Yates

                               NOES--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H5028]]



                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cannon
     Clyburn
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     Payne
     Schaefer, Dan
     Thompson
     Torres

                              {time}  1635

  Mr. JOHN and Mr. DAVIS of Virginia changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington and Messrs. KLUG, JACKSON of Illinois, 
MORAN of Virginia, STARK, NEY, DICKEY, DEUTSCH, SMITH of New Jersey, 
HYDE, GEKAS, COYNE, and COOK changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 258 I accidentally 
pressed the wrong button and voted ``nay.'' My intent was to vote 
``aye.'' I fully support Mr. Neumann's amendment, and believe that the 
peanut program is well overdue for real reform. I request that the 
Record show that on rollcall vote No. 258, my intent was to vote 
``aye.''


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bass

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229, 
noes 193, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 259]

                               AYES--229

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Northup
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--193

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Foley
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogers
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Walsh
     Watts (OK)
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cannon
     Clyburn
     Gonzalez
     Hilliard
     Payne
     Schaefer, Dan
     Slaughter
     Tauzin
     Thompson
     Torres
     Watkins

                              {time}  1644

  Mrs. CUBIN and Messrs. STEARNS, MCINTOSH and ARCHER changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. CLAYTON changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I missed rollcall No. 259. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Everett) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4101) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________