[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.
____________________