[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7700-H7708]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 4101, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1999
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table 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 a Senate amendment thereto, disagree
to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the
Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered By Ms. Kaptur
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Kaptur moves that in resolving the differences between
the House and Senate, the managers on the part of the House
at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the bill H.R. 4101, be instructed to agree with the
provisions of the Senate amendment which provide funding for
agricultural disaster assistance and reserve inventories,
including the designation of such funds as an emergency
requirement under section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and with no
offsetting reductions as provided in the Senate amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) each will be recognized for
30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my motion to instruct conferees on
this agricultural appropriations bill, and fundamentally this motion
would require the conferees on H.R. 4101, which is the 1999
appropriations bill for agriculture and related agencies, to agree to
the language in the Senate bill which provides funding for agricultural
disaster assistance, including reserve inventories, and designates that
assistance as emergency spending without offsets.
Mr. Speaker, there is a real crisis facing most American farmers and
rural communities today, and many have been unduly affected by the
drought and other extreme and unusual weather conditions. Some are
suffering the impact of crop disease, and others have been impacted by
falling farm prices and an increasing inability to obtain credit. While
the rest of the country may be experiencing economic recovery,
thousands of farm and ranch families and the communities that depend on
them have been left behind.
But the current farm crisis is one that will eventually touch every
American, rural and urban, if we do not address this problem and this
set of circumstances immediately.
The Senate agriculture appropriation bill provides a total of $521
million in emergency spending to begin to assist farmers in addressing
this crisis. My motion does not address the adequacy of the funding
level. That provision was added in July before the true extent of the
summer drought and its impact on crops and livestock could be known.
The appropriate funding level is something that we on the Committee on
Appropriations will be discussing with the administration, with the
authorizing committee and the Members most impacted by this crisis as
we move to completion of this appropriations conference.
But my motion does address the designation of the funding provided to
assist farmers in crisis as emergency spending, as defined under the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, with no
offsetting reductions in other areas. This has symmetry with the Senate
bill.
I know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will
argue that the Congress has been offsetting emergency spending since
1994 and that this emergency should be treated no differently than the
other supplemental spending bills we have passed. Well, it seems to us
that we have found a way to bend these self-imposed rules on offsets in
selected emergencies. We have done so in the supplemental appropriation
bill passed last year. We offset only domestic emergency spending, not
the defense-related emergency spending included in that bill. Surely
our Nation's farmers are as deserving of emergency assistance and
designation, particularly this year, as have been our military forces
in prior years, and the offsets used for the earlier domestic
supplemental bills were primarily funds from the HUD section 8 housing
program, funding which we will eventually need to pay back in that
program to ensure adequate low-income housing for low-income citizens,
particularly the elderly who need this program.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to rob Peter to pay Paul when it
comes to addressing funding for natural disasters and other
emergencies. It is time to abandon the so-called budget shell games and
face our responsibilities and address the real emergencies facing our
country today.
Mr. Speaker, this farm emergency is real. Several of my colleagues
who are here on the floor have districts more directly impacted by this
crisis, and I will be pleased to yield to them so that they can discuss
the severity of this crisis and the immediate impact on their
constituents. I ask that the House support this motion to instruct
conferees and send a message to America's farmers that we recognize the
impact of this farm crisis, that we recognize the contributions that
farmers and ranchers make to this country's economic success and the
well-being of our families and that we are going to act in a
responsible way to assure that they get the assistance they need to get
beyond this crisis and continue to ensure the productivity of this
Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
motion to instruct and that I may include tabular and extraneous
material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), bringing this
matter before the House. We all know about the desperate situation in
agriculture and the problems caused by flood and drought. These are the
kinds of problems that we have solved together in a bipartisan fashion
in the past, and I look forward to working in that same fashion again
in conference to help our farmers and ranchers.
There already is a $500 million emergency spending provision accepted
by the other body. It is what we call a plug or a marker, and I refer
my colleagues to the debate in the other body on the bill in which it
was understood that the amount and scope of any emergency disaster plan
for agriculture would have to wait for the administration to submit a
detailed package. It is
[[Page H7701]]
now 2 months after the bill passed in the other body and much longer
since bad weather and other problems hit our farmers and ranchers, and
the Administration has yet to come up with a plan.
Now we heard that the USDA has a draft plan that will cost in the
neighborhood of $1 billion, and then there is another plan or package
in the other body that is estimated to cost $5 billion, and that plan
was offered as an amendment yesterday, and it was tabled, but I
understand the Administration supports or does not oppose it, and I
expect we will see it again before the end of our conference.
So all Members should know at this point that we have several
agriculture emergency spending proposals costing anywhere from $500
million to 6 billion, but we still do not know what, if anything, the
Administration wants in the way of money, new programs or authorities.
I had hoped that the Administration would have put something together
sooner, but for whatever reason that did not happen, and yesterday was
the most recent day by which the Administration promised us a plan, but
nothing has been sent down to us.
{time} 1045
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my distinguished colleague that
she may also want to consider some kind of instruction to the
Administration which says that there are some serious problems out
there in rural America, and it should not take this look to come up
with at least an outline of what needs to be done.
The Department of Agriculture has several thousand people here in
Washington and throughout the country, and that is their job. If, for
any reason, the Administration cannot or will not draw up a plan, they
ought to say so now, because time is wasting and Congress will have to
step in and do the Administration's work.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who has worked as hard as any Member,
harder than most Members in this Congress on this particular issue.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I thank her very much for her leadership by bringing
this motion to instruct.
I have the greatest respect for the chairman and appreciate the
comments he just made. What is before the body, however, is what we can
do right now, and what this body can do right now is pass this motion
to instruct our conferees to go ahead and accept the Senate disaster
provision into the conference report for the agriculture appropriations
bill.
Mr. Speaker, we have an unprecedented disaster facing farm country,
and working together, Republicans and Democrats, we have to respond. It
is estimated that we could lose up to one-third of the farmers in the
State I represent if we do not do something meaningful. This is urgent.
This is a crisis.
Our region, the Upper Great Plains, has been swamped by a 5-year wet
cycle that has left 1.4 million acres inundated, under water, not able
to be productive. In addition to that, the same wet cycle has produced
a disease called Scab, which has devastated production, and for crop we
are able to get that is afflicted with this Scab, we get steeply
discounted prices. Just when we thought nothing could possibly get
worse, we have a collapse in Asia markets and the price of wheat and
barley is literally at a 50-year low.
Mr. Speaker, this situation is so dire that according to the
Department of Commerce, farm income in North Dakota declined by an
astounding 98 percent, a 98 percent decline in net farm income between
1996 to 1997.
Now, our pain, and our pain could not be greater, is spreading. We do
not take joy in having company in our plight, but we do acknowledge
that the drought which wiped out the 1998 cotton crop in Texas created
dire circumstances for farmers in the southern plains; hurricanes have
hit the Carolinas; commodity prices have been hurt from Maine to
California. We have a disaster of national dimension and we must
respond to it.
Now, the motion to instruct calls upon House conferees to take the
action by delivering immediate assistance to America's farmers and to
acknowledge the flat reality that this is an emergency. This is an
emergency. Our response to it needs to be afforded the emergency status
provided for in our budget rules and not be offset, but be funded under
the emergency basis. That is the action the Senate took, and it will be
key to our being able to make a meaningful response to the dimensions
of this plight.
The motion to instruct conferees to accept the Senate provisions in
light of the mounting farm losses will probably need to be plussed up.
We are going to need more money than the $500 million in the Senate
bill. I think that this motion, however, directs us exactly in the way
we need to go. We have an emergency, we have to respond to it.
Republicans, Democrats, farm country, urban legislatures, please unite
to pass this motion.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
place in the Record communications that have been sent to this House
from the President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, Mr. Dean
Kleckner, where the federation met with the task force representing 10
different State Farm Bureau Presidents to consider the situation that
is facing rural America.
I would like to include their report in the Record, but I just wanted
to quote one section here, which indicates that net farm income is
projected to fall by over $7 billion this year, and the level of a $500
million disaster allocation will not begin to address this shortfall.
They are asking Congress to focus on immediate remedies to redress
producers, and given the magnitude of the agricultural economic
problem, emergency supplemental funding of several billion dollars is
justified.
I think in view of the Farm Bureau's position over past years, this
is quite a significant statement, and we appreciate their hard work in
helping us resolve this situation for our producers across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the correspondence just
referred to in my statement.
American Farm Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC, September 11, 1998.
Hon. Newt Gingrich,
The Speaker, House of Representatives, Capitol Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: I recently appointed a task force of 10
state Farm Bureau presidents to consider the economic
situation facing agriculture and to make recommendations
regarding legislative and administrative changes necessary to
increase farm income. The task force filed its report, and
the leadership of the American Farm Bureau Federation
wholeheartedly approved those recommendations. The attached
report outlines the priorities that Farm Bureau believes need
to be implemented to increase farm income and agricultural
exports.
When producers agreed to support the FAIR Act in 1996,
Congress assured them that its passage would be accompanied
by regulatory reform, tax changes, private property
protection, and trade policies designed to improve our global
competitiveness. These commitments have not been met, thus
exacerbating the current farm crisis.
I urge you to take immediate action to help alleviate the
crisis currently facing farmers and ranchers.
Sincerely,
Dean Kleckner,
President.
Report of the Committee on the Farm Economy, September 11, 1998, Bob
Stallman, Chairman
When producers agreed to support the FAIR Act in 1996, they
were assured by Congress that its passage would be
accompanied by regulatory reform, tax changes, private
property protection and trade policies designed to improve
global competitiveness and increase foreign markets. These
commitments have not been met thus exacerbating the current
farm crisis.
Farm Bureau has long been a proponent of balancing the
budget and the ``pay as you go'' concept of offsetting
increased spending with reductions elsewhere in the budget.
However, the failure of Congress to fulfill its commitments
necessitates immediate restitution by requesting emergency
supplemental funding to assist producers facing depressed
prices and/or weather-related disasters.
Farm Bureau firmly believes that current low price are not
due to the failure of the FAIR Act. Instead, they are
reflective of the failure to compete aggressively in foreign
markets due to government restrictions and the inability or
unwillingness of the Administration and Congress to fulfill
their promise to open foreign markets for U.S. producers.
With 96 percent of the customers living outside U.S. borders,
these failures cannot be allowed to continue.
In the limited time prior to adjournment, Congress must
focus on the agricultural
[[Page H7702]]
issues which will immediately aid producers suffering through
disasters and low prices, as well as trade issues where the
impact may not be immediate--but if ignored until the next
Congress--will adversely affect the agricultural economy for
years to come.
The problems facing agriculture are diverse--low commodity
prices, crop disaster losses, livestock feed losses, and
export market barriers that have reduced overseas markets. A
``one size solution won't fit all.'' Therefore, the proposed
solutions address each of the problems individually.
Giving that background, Congress and the Administration
must focus on the following agricultural priorities:
Short Term needs
Supplemental crop insurance payments
A crop disaster assistance program must be implemented. The
$500 million in emergency funding included in the Senate
agricultural appropriations bill is insufficient. It is
imperative that any disaster assistance be implemented in
a way that maintains the integrity of the crop insurance
program. We must avoid sending a signal to producers that
discourages them from further participation in the
program.
The crop insurance program is so inflexible it cannot be
adjusted to unique situations. It is incapable of responding
to multi-year disasters and leaves producers unable to insure
crops at a reasonable level. Supplemental crop insurance
payments must be made for those suffering from disasters.
Payments should not be limited to those suffering from multi-
year disasters.
Sanctions Indemnity Program
Unilateral trade sanctions are costing American farmers
access to critical markets. Those lost markets have caused
poor market prices and reduced sales volume. Program and
minor crop producers must be compensated for those lost
markets via direct funding. Sanctions Indemnity Payments
should not be restricted by any payment limitations.
Unilateral sanctions have become the weapons of the moment
to address actions by our trading partners when the U.S.
disagrees with some action they take. There is no record of
unilateral sanctions producing anything favorable from either
an economic or political standpoint. They simply shut U.S.
producers out of needed markets. Our competitors are only too
happy to sell in these markets. The U.S. earns the reputation
as a unreliable supplier when sanctions are imposed.
There currently are about 120 unilateral trade sanctions in
place. Over half of those have been implemented during the
last four years. It is estimated that over 11 percent of the
world's wheat market lies outside the reach of U.S.
producers.
Changes to the FAIR Act
Congress must avoid abandoning the market-based policies of
the FAIR Act. Producers are reallocating their resources in a
more efficient manner than the government could ever dictate.
The loan program is intended as a method to lessen pressure
to sell at harvest time and spread sales throughout the
marketing year. It is a marketing tool for producers, not an
income support program.
Raising commodity loan rates or extending the loan period
should be discouraged. Such action would be a clear signal to
our competitors that once again we are willing to forego our
markets and guarantee sales to them. It is a short term fix
that has grave longer term economic implications. Any
possible short term gains will be obliterated by storage
cost, lower prices when the loans ultimately come due and the
loss of world market share. Both farm producers and taxpayers
would lose.
Disaster Feed Assistance Program
Funding is needed for some type of assistance to livestock
producers suffering weather related disasters. Congress
should fund a Disaster Reserve Assistance Program or
Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Program to reimburse
those producers who have experienced disaster related losses
for a substantial portion of the cost of purchasing feed.
PL 480
Several foreign economies are near economic and political
collapse. Now is an excellent time for the United States to
donate products to these countries. We support enhanced
funding for the PL 480 program. Enormous opportunities exist
for humanitarian and public relations benefits, in addition
to an opportunity to impact market prices. It is important to
provide relief to our long term customers who are at risk of
liquidating their livestock sectors. These markets must be
supported as they are future long-term customers for U.S.
products. The PL 480 program should not only be used to help
move product to traditional customers, but increased to
include customers who may not currently qualify for GSM
credits.
Credit relief
A change in current law to allow producers more flexibility
in obtaining Farm Service Agency (FSA) guaranteed farm
ownership and operating loans is necessary. Under current
law, FSA can guarantee operating loans up to $400,000 and
ownership loans up to $300,000. The caps should be combined
to allow producers to borrow up to $700,000 from one or both
programs.
The FSA guaranteed loan program should be expanded,
particularly to assist young farmers and ranchers.
Current law generally requires FSA operating loans to be
repaid within seven years. While Farm Bureau has long called
for discontinuance of FSA lending to anyone unable to build
up enough equity to get financing elsewhere after 10 years,
the eligibility period for current borrowers should be
extended for producers affected by disasters. Farmers should,
at least, get the same treatment as other small businesses
and homeowners do when floods, hurricanes, and other natural
disasters occur.
Congress should oversee FSA's administration of the
emergency loan procedures to ensure that application approval
is expedited, paperwork is streamlined, and the process is
more user-friendly.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
There are currently 30 million acres under contract to CRP.
Adequate funding should be provided to allow USDA to
accomplish full enrollment at the authorized 36.4 million
acres cap.
The announcement for the 18th CRP sign-up will be made this
month. However, land accepted during that sign-up will not
enter the program until October 1999. Entrance must be
accelerated to early 1999.
In addition to the land traditionally accepted into the
CRP, Congress should urge the Administration to target some
of the newly-enrolled land towards mitigating emerging
disease and pest situations such as wheat scab, potato blight
and Karnal bunt.
Extended assistance
Since projections indicate that 1999 crop prices will not
improve significantly, Congress should consider a two-year
assistance program to help producers cope with current low
prices expected to extend into the next crop year.
long term needs
Trade issues
Fast-Track
Fast-track negotiating authority must be passed. Continuing
to delay the implementation of fast-track is reducing
critical time needed to define and advance U.S. negotiating
objectives for the next round of multilateral negotiations,
and the opportunity to realize meaningful gains in increasing
market access. Discussions have already begun for the Free
Trade Area of the Americas. Our trading competitors are not
waiting for the U.S. to step forward as the leader but are
moving forward to create agreements that we can only hope
will not disadvantage the U.S.
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
Congress should act quickly to provide the full $17.9
billion requested for the IMF. The IMF was created to help
stabilize national monetary systems in times of fiscal
instability. Countries must be determined to be creditworthy
to be eligible to participate in the GSM guaranteed loan
programs. These programs make possible the sale of U.S.
products into critical markets, and help maintain market
share and product visibility. The IMF must have the necessary
funding to address financial market instability as it occurs
around the world. In order to break the Congressional
stalemate, we favor basic reforms to IMF policies.
Sanctions Reform
Food and agricultural products should not be used as a
foreign policy tool.
In just four years the U.S. has imposed 61 unilateral
economic sanctions on 35 countries. These countries contain
about 40 percent of the world's population, and thus, a large
lost market for U.S. farm output.
Congress should pass legislation that would help prevent
future useless embargoes or sanctions by requiring a
reasonable evaluation of the consequences of imposing
unilateral sanctions before they are imposed.
Market Access and Development Programs
Congress should fully fund the Market Access Program to the
$210 million authorized and provide necessary funding for the
Foreign Market Development Program. These programs need the
expertise provided by a fully supported Foreign Agricultural
Service that is expanded to cover all existing and potential
market posts.
Tax issues
The next tax bill should include the Farm and Ranch Risk
Management Accounts (FARRM). This would encourage farmers and
ranchers to save for a ``rainy day'' by allowing them to
deposit up to 20 percent of pre-tax net farm income into an
interest-bearing account. Funds could be withdrawn and taxed
over the subsequent five-year period.
Congressional efforts should also be focused on addressing
farmers' cash flow problems this fall and winter. Tax
legislation should include lengthening of the net operating
loss rules so that net operating losses could be carried back
more than two years and acceleration of the health insurance
tax deduction for self-employed individuals.
Crop insurance
The crop insurance program must be fixed. Congress and the
Administration must take a hard look at this program to
determine how to make it a more viable risk management tool.
For several years, we have attempted to ``tinker'' with the
program. We will ``tinker'' again this fall due to the
inadequacies and lack of flexibility in the program. With an
increasing number of producers relying on crop insurance as
their primary risk management tool, Congress must
[[Page H7703]]
commit to spend the time, effort and money to overhaul it.
This obviously cannot be done prior to adjournment. However,
a commitment by the House and Senate leadership to schedule
floor consideration of major program changes early next
spring would send a very positive signal that it does not
intend to let the inadequacies linger.
Funding
Net farm income is projected to fall by $7.4 billion in
crop year 1998. A $500 million disaster allocation will not
begin to address this shortfall. Because the agenda to which
Congress committed is woefully incomplete, Congress must
focus on immediate remedies to redress producers. Given the
magnitude of the agricultural economic problem, emergency
supplemental funding of several billion dollars is justified.
The AFBF Committee on the Farm Economy urges Congress to
adopt the above recommendations to insure the future
viability and competitiveness of U.S. agricultural producers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, as we wrap up our work on the fiscal year
1999 agriculture appropriations conference report, I want to reiterate
the importance of emergency-designated funding to assist farmers,
ranchers, and producers.
During my August break, I met with over 450 farmers and ranchers in
my congressional district, together with FSA administrator Keith Kelly,
and we heard about the emergency crisis that they are facing. I am
particularly concerned about the agriculture sector in drought-stricken
regions such as my home State of Texas.
There is no question that more funds are needed. At the minimum, the
amount contained in the Senate-passed version of this bill is what
needs to be adopted. This $500 million is to be but a starting point.
Personally, I feel this amount should be increased to $2.5 billion.
Under the emergency situations that we face, that is what we should be
looking at to help them out.
My concern is that no matter what action is taken today, it may be
too little too late. There are a large number of farm products
producers; yes, hard-working agricultural producers who meet our
Nation's food needs. We have to make their concerns our top priority,
and I respectfully request that my colleagues join me in supporting
this motion today.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa). I know that the pain and
suffering that is being borne by farm families in that region of the
country is particularly acute, and we want to commend the gentleman
from Texas for his leadership and for his willingness to come down here
today and help us on that measure.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished ranking
member of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this emergency declaration motion
to instruct conferees in the conference on the agriculture
appropriation bill. I wish there were other ways in which we could deal
with this. I would hope that the House Committee on Agriculture would
soon come together and begin to address this question from the
perspective of our committee.
This problem is much bigger than the Senate anticipated. I think, as
others have said, that it is very clear that $500 million will not
begin to address the devastation that is occurring in farm country. We
have the natural disaster which we are addressing here. On top of the
natural disaster, we have an economic disaster of low prices that I
think a lot of people perhaps cannot fully appreciate. A lot of concern
has been expressed about a 20 percent drop in the stock market. If it
goes to 20, we are in a recession.
Well, corn prices are 30 percent below the average of the past 5
years. Think about this as I recount some of these numbers. If one
thinks of any other part of our economy, or very few parts of our
economy in which the last 5-year average of prices and/or salaries that
this year would be projected 30 percent below that, and then looking
ahead to 1999 is getting no better, I think one can begin to appreciate
the full economic problems facing American farmers and ranchers. Wheat
prices, 28 percent below. Cattle prices, 17 percent below. Net cash
farm income, 43 percent below the average of the last 5 years.
This is what we are dealing with, and the frustration that I have
today is nobody seems to be concerned about it from the standpoint of
doing what we should normally do, and that is address it through the
committee system, working with the Secretary of Agriculture.
I heard previous speakers talking about the blame game and the
fingerpointing to the administration. Perhaps there is some of that
that is due, but there is also a blame game, and I was reminded of this
when we start pointing fingers, I was reminded that when one points a
finger, be careful, there are usually 3 pointing back at you.
This should not be a partisan argument. This ought to be today the
beginning of an honest and sincere effort to address a very serious
economic situation that is facing those who produce food and fiber in
the United States. At home, we are talking no longer about farmers and
ranchers going out of business, we are talking implement dealers, we
are talking the support groups, we are talking the small towns and
communities. One cannot take 30 percent of the economy out of the rural
community and not have devastation. That is what we ought to be talking
about today, and that is why I commend the gentlewoman for this motion
to instruct.
I think it should be clear, though, that there are so many other
areas that need to be addressed. There is so little time remaining, 18,
17, legislative days. Mr. Speaker, let us not waste them in talking
about other activities; let us go to work, roll up our sleeves and deal
with it.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the Committee on
Appropriations as a member of the House Committee on Agriculture. I see
my chairman is here, and I would hope, and I know that the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Smith) is very concerned about this and is doing what
I am about to say already. But the problem is that we need somebody
else to listen to us, and the leadership of the House to say, let us
seriously and sincerely begin to address this. Certainly our side of
the aisle will reach out and work with my chairman and the members of
the House Committee on Agriculture and the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Skeen), and I know where his heart is on this, and the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The bottom line is, as of today, we feel like that there is not very
much being done, other than what the Senate has done. They have made a
good step forward. We need to join in that and begin to build upon that
to avoid a terrifically serious problem becoming even worse if we
choose to do, through inaction, what we otherwise should do.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
I have worked for the last few months with the gentleman from Texas
and others interested in agriculture to try to reach agreements which
would benefit the agriculture community in this Nation on a basis of
trust and mutual respect, and to attempt to keep this question, which
is so likely to slip into partisan politics, out of that arena. So I
must remind Members that we have already taken action, and this
leadership, by the way, has taken action to support agriculture in this
country, and the gentleman from Texas will remember, with the Square
Deal for Agriculture, which included lifting sanctions in Indonesia,
which included normal relations with China, and that I join him and he
joins me in the effort to pass funding for IMF and for fast track.
{time} 1100
To some, those are long-term kinds of solutions. However, certainly
lifting the sanctions and the immediate purchase of wheat by Pakistan
was not a long-term program.
Since that time, we have searched to find ways to put cash in the
hands of agriculturalists in this Nation without distorting world
prices for commodities. We have done that by moving the transfer
payments, as the gentleman well knows, and he was a part of that, to
place in farmers' hands some $5 billion by the 1st of October, which
were
[[Page H7704]]
transfer payments under the AMTA program, in their hands for their
discretionary use.
Now, beyond that, there have been identifications of disaster in the
gentleman's portion of America as well as continuing problems in the
upper northern States of North and South Dakota and Minnesota where
they have had, not 1 year, but 6 or 7 or 5 years of loss due to Scab
and other problems in that area.
I have been dedicated to try to find an answer to assist in disaster
as well as those ongoing problems in the upper northern States as well
as trying to address the horrible revenue reduction which Agriculture
has sustained as identified by the gentleman.
So we have had an unfortunate set of circumstances likely, and not
having occurred in the recent past, and that is simply a disaster on
the one hand in agriculture coupled with and together with a huge
reduction in income to farmers.
This does not take and should not take a motion to instruct to get my
attention or anybody else's attention. I disagree with what the Senate
did. This sounds like we are going to agree with the Senate. The Senate
is inadequate, $500 million does not touch this problem. If I thought
it did, I would throw my arms about this amendment and say here we have
done it. Congratulations. We have solved the agriculture problem. That
is silly, and I am not going to do that.
But I am going to suggest this, that while we are putting together a
program which must pass this House and the Senate, we ought to be
cautious to work together on a program that makes sense and that is
judgmental and that addresses each of these issues, disaster, loss of
revenue in agricultural country. That is what I am up to. That is what
I am about.
So I suggest to my colleagues this is not the way to legislate this
issue. This may be a well-meaning amendment. It does not even address
the minimum problems we have in agriculture. Vote this down. Give us a
chance, hopefully, to work together, because if we do not, we do not
answer the question. Let us let farmers make up their choices, but let
us do the best job we can.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the remaining
time on both sides, please.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 22 minutes remaining.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to note again that the motion to instruct
does not set a dollar level. There was a reference by the prior speaker
of $521 million. The motion to instruct does not address the adequacy
of the funding level. All it does is says that this assistance should
be in the form of emergency spending as in past supplemental bills that
have dealt with defense, for example. So it does not set a level.
Let me also place on the record if I might some of the figures that
have been given to us from various States in the union. For example, in
the State of Georgia, where the farmers and ranchers have been
subjected to freezes, floods, and now drought through much of last year
and this year, farmgate losses there are estimated to be three-quarters
of a billion dollars, over $767 million as estimated by the University
of Georgia extension economists.
The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) talked a lot about the
losses in North Dakota. I know that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Peterson) will shortly be addressing the Minnesota situation and the
Red River Valley in general.
But the amount of flooded acres are at historic levels over several
years with the compounding factor of wheat Scab there and of course
record low prices that are even putting a further downdraft on farm
income and productivity in all of these places.
If we look across the country, USDA, as well as private forecasters,
are not expecting price conditions to do any better for the near future
due to freezes, floods, droughts, hurricanes, fires and for sure the
Asian financial crisis which is affecting our markets and our ability
to sell.
We know that up to a quarter of the farmers in many States will not
get financing to put in a crop this fall or next spring and bankers are
calling in and asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide
assistance.
So this is not a problem that is diminishing. This is a problem that
appears to be growing as we move through 1998. Texas losses already are
at over $2 billion as our esteemed colleagues, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) have
reminded us.
We have drought currently spreading from the southwest up to parts of
Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas; in the southeast all the way to Virginia
where over 400,000 acres are affected by drought. We have fires in
Florida. We have seen those on television and even floods in my own
home State in Ohio as well as Michigan. So this is a national problem
that demands a national solution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge). I thank the gentleman so very
much for coming down and for his leadership throughout this past year
on these issues of concern to our farmers and ranchers.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I also would like to express my appreciation to the
chairman of the subcommittee for his leadership on behalf of
agriculture. It is very important that, in this time of agricultural
crisis, that we pull together, that we work on a bipartisan basis, and
we try to make sure that the necessary legislative response comes
before we adjourn in October.
We do not have many opportunities to take this up. Uniquely, this
agricultural appropriations bill is one of those opportunities, if not
the only opportunity.
So in that context, I would like to express what I have heard from
the bankers, the farm equipment dealers, the farmers, and others in my
area as to what we have to do.
I would like to preface this by saying that, as all of us recognize,
the agricultural economy is in an economic free-fall. If we do not act,
we face the prospect of farming as we have known it in much of America
being transformed, not for the better, but for the worse within a
period of about 18 months.
First, with respect to administration, I have heard that the Farm
Service Agency at the local level is suffering every bit the problems
that the Defense Department is suffering from, and the gentleman from
Florida has spoken about it so eloquently.
If we are going to take up the Defense Department's needs, I submit
that we must take up the needs of the Farm Service Agency so it can
deliver and administer these programs at the local level.
I have received calls from people I know in church and otherwise on
their own time that work at the Farm Service Agency saying we do not
know what to do. We have mountains of paperwork that are building up in
our offices. We must respond to this.
Secondly, we have loan guarantee, direct loan, and interest buy-down
programs. These programs have worked well over the past several years.
They have served agriculture well. They have been supported on both
sides of the aisle.
Unfortunately, we have spending caps that we have had to impose on
these programs. But the bankers are telling me that, if we do not have
these interest buy-down, loan guarantee, and direct loan programs that
we are not going to be getting the crop in in 1999.
We have to expand these programs so it is not just having them but it
is expanding them. I submit that we ought to double the loan guarantee
authority that we have, given the interest buy-down and the direct
loan. This, again, is an appropriations problem.
I would like to emphasize that we are all searching for a way to deal
with the question of prices.
The question of prices, how do we respond to this? There are many
choices, there are many opportunities, but I would submit that the
easiest is to take something we are all familiar with, the loan
marketing program, or the marketing loan program, uncap the loan rate,
move it up to 85 percent. We can use the loan deficiency payment
approach; we can use the forfeiture approach, whatever is going to
work, but
[[Page H7705]]
that is a program that is in place that the farmers are familiar with,
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture is familiar with and we can
implement immediately.
I submit that we ought to do that. We ought to move on it.
There are many other items I would like to address but I would just
like to leave this thought with you in closing: The bank examiners, in
a sense, haunt the process. They have to make sure that our banking
system is operated with integrity. Unfortunately, when cash flow
statements do not make any sense, the bank examiners say to the banks,
those are not going to be performing loans. Those are criticized loans.
We have to make sure that the lenders in the farm economy are able to
do cash flows with their farmers that show a prospect for repayment of
the loans and that these are not criticized loans. If we do not act in
a way that I have outlined, it cannot happen.
I submit that the motion to instruct is at least a positive
development to move this along.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
(Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that our agricultural
community is in danger. One out of three farmers in Oklahoma this year
is at risk, one out of three ranchers, but what this proposal portends
to do is to take money that we do not have and take it off the balance
sheet and say, children, you pay for this later. Social Security, we
will take it out of you again.
What we have to do is to recognize that we have a need in the
agricultural community. That need does not obviate our need to be
fiscally responsible in other areas of our government budget.
I am going to support lots of things to help our farmers and
additional monies, but it is incumbent upon us to pay for it, to not
just say, here is money, we are going to just add it to the debt, our
children are going to pay it back, or, better yet, the money that is
there we are going to steal from the Social Security surplus that is
coming right now, because that is what this instructs our conferees to
do, to take the money away from our children or away from the seniors.
My question is: Is there not some place in the Federal grandiose
budget that we can say we can cut so we can help our farmers? The
question is not about whether or not we can help our farmers, and the
question is not whether or not we should.
The question is: Who are we going to hurt to help our farmers? The
assumption is if we cannot do that, if it is not possible for us to do
that, then what we are saying is this government is running
efficiently, there is no waste, there are no areas that we should be
able to rescind to be able to pay to help our farmers.
I think that the vast majority of the farmers in this country, the
farmers and cattle ranchers in this country, want us to find it
somewhere else. They do not want to put this money off on their
children because that is exactly where it would go. The American public
should know that declaring it an emergency means we do not have to pay
for it. The hard work of being a Member of this body to find out the
most efficient way to run this government is thrown out the door, and
we just add it to the debt.
So we have two problems. One is, our farmers and ranchers are in
trouble. We need to help them. The second problem is, we do not help
them at all in the future by taking the money from our children or from
the Social Security trust fund. That is exactly where this money will
come from.
Let us find it. Let us do the hard job that we are paid to do to find
the money to solve the problem for our farmers. We can do it. We can do
it in a bipartisan manner. We can find this money and we can serve our
farmers and ranchers well.
I will be asking for a recorded vote on the previous question in
order to enable that we can offer a way to offset these funds.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the dilemma that the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has posed. I certainly join with him in a
commitment to balance the budget, but first let me point out we do not
even have a budget resolution we are operating under. Who knows what
the budget is for agriculture? Until we get a budget resolution, I
submit, we do not have the leadership on the majority side on this
vital matter.
Secondly, we are going to be treated to a request that this body
approve $80 billion in various taxes.
{time} 1115
Where is that money coming from? From Social Security? If we have
that amount of money, I submit we ought to also be considering what can
we do for America's farmers. We must do something for this sector of
our economy.
Finally, we are going to be considering supplemental appropriations
in many other areas, the Defense Department for one. If we cannot
consider this for the American farmers, I think we have abdicated our
role in Congress.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that I agree with the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), that there should not be the
first tax cut until we have secured our children and the seniors in
this country and what has been promised to them.
But there also should not be the first penny left in Washington for
us to spend that does not go towards those two goals. So, I will agree
with the gentleman and he will find my vote lining right up there. But
that does not say that we should not do the right thing now. Because
somebody else is going to do the wrong thing does not mean that we
should follow them down that road. Mr. Speaker, we should, without a
doubt, pay for any supplemental spending to help our farmers and
ranchers.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to time
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen) has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), who has been such a leader on trying to get
assistance to our farmers and ranchers.
(Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn),
I sympathize with a lot of what he is saying. But I would like to point
out again that we do not have a budget at this point, and that is
frankly one of the problems.
Mr. Speaker, I come from an area, and I just spent last weekend out
talking to farmers again, where they are telling me up in the north
part of my district that 70 percent of the producers are not going to
be able to get money to get in the field next year.
We are in an absolute crisis situation. I think all of us would like
to pay for all of these additional appropriations, and I hope that we
could find some way to pay for this. But my concern is that we might
get into a situation where we cannot find the money and then nothing
happens.
We have an absolute desperate situation because of things beyond our
control, because of disease problems, to some extent because of weather
problems, but mostly disease problems. We need some kind of an
immediate response. Should have been one 2 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, while the rest of the country has been experiencing
pretty good crops in most of the areas, and the prices have been a lot
better than they are now, we were experiencing a situation where we did
not have anything to sell. During the time when the prices for wheat
and corn were considerably higher than they are now back in 1996, we
did not have a crop because it was wiped out by scab and Vomitoxin and
floods.
So now this year we have a fairly decent crop in some of the areas,
but it is not worth anything. What has happened is the farmers have
lost their equity. Next year, the situation does not
[[Page H7706]]
cash flow because of the prices that we got. We need some kind of
response if we are going to keep these folks in business.
Mr. Speaker, if this is not an emergency, I do not know what is. I
think that I am going to support this motion because it is a step in
the right direction, but I do not think it is enough money to deal with
the problem. I think that we need to look at solutions such as the
administration is working on right now, as I understand it. They are
looking at a proposal where if farmers had a crop insurance loss 3
years out of 5, that they would pay 25 percent of the crop insurance
that farmers receive during that time as a direct payment. That would
be a step in the right direction.
I also would encourage the Members in this body and the
administration to look at a proposal that has been put forward by some
folks in our area where we could set up a land diversion program where
we would turn this land black for 3 years and try to get this disease
out of the system. That would be something that would be very helpful
to us.
Again, there would be some cost to that proposal. But, again to
reemphasize, we have gone through a situation where we have some
farmers that have not had a crop for 5 or 6 years, have not had a thing
to sell, and have eaten up their equity. If we are going to keep the
fabric of that part of the country together, we have to have some kind
of a response.
Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to support us in coming up with
something yet before we adjourn this session, so that we can go back to
those people with some kind of hope that they can farm next year.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out, one of the previous speakers
expressed some concerns about the budget. I just want to say that of
all the subcommittees in this House, this Subcommittee on Agriculture
has taken more cuts, has laid off more people, over 10,000 at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, has consolidated more offices at the local
level, has had to cap research dollars below levels at which we would
prefer to fund them. We have had to cut back on our trade promotion
programs at a time when we are having trouble with exports.
If we look at the choices that we have had to make, there has been no
more responsible committee or subcommittee in this Congress than this
Subcommittee on Agriculture. If one is concerned about attempting to
deal with balancing the budget, we have done more than our fair share.
I would hope that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), in trying
to find a true answer to this, could look across accounts, including to
some of the accounts that are outside the jurisdiction of this
committee.
This is an issue that the Committee on the Budget should have dealt
with. We do not have a budget resolution this year. Why should the
farmers and ranchers of this country be asked to pay the price of the
Committee on the Budget inside this Congress that did not do its job?
It just seems to me that we have taken the hits, substantial hits in
this committee at a time when rural America is crying out to us for
attention. It would be a travesty not to meet our public obligations to
the people who are producing the real wealth of this country simply
because some procedural group inside this Congress, not this
subcommittee, and not this full committee, did not do their job.
So, I think we have a higher calling here today with this motion to
instruct. We welcome the gentleman's support and ideas as we move
forward here. But, please, understand what is going on on this budget
situation. It is not the work of this subcommittee, nor the full
committee, nor in fact the Committee on Agriculture of this Congress,
but other problems that we are facing in other venues here. There is no
reason we could penalize the farmers and ranchers of this country
because of the inaction of some elements of this institution and the
other body.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) for yielding me this time, and I associate myself with her
remarks concerning the work of this subcommittee, the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and
their fellow members. The problem we face is not their fault. In fact,
they have done an admirable job in dealing in a very, very judicial and
positive way with a very tight budget.
But I want to speak to the question that the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn) brought up just a moment ago, because he is right on
target with one major exception. That is if we are truly to work out
the expenditure cuts in order to fund this particular need of an
emergency, that must be done supporting a budget that can get 218
votes.
If the gentleman will remember, and just for the body's recollection,
those of us who had a slightly different opinion of what this budget
ought to look like this year, those of us so-called Blue Dogs, were
denied the opportunity even to debate our ideas on this floor when we
had the opportunity to talk about this issue. The leadership of the
House chose not to even let the free exchange of ideas occur on the
floor of the House as some of us would like to have talked about this.
So, it is important for this body to understand those of us who bring
this resolution today, admitting it is inadequate, admitting that it is
muddying the water, but unless the water is muddied, some of us believe
that nothing is going to happen because we will never be able to get
the perfect plan.
Later this week we are going to debate an $80 billion tax cut with
Social Security trust funds. I agree with the gentleman, any dollars
that are spent for any purposes are coming out of the Social Security
trust fund. Therefore, I am going to be very judicial with how many of
these dollars, and I will reach out and work with the gentleman from
Oklahoma and anyone else that can help us find those dollars.
But I believe someone has already spoken to the fact that we have got
a potential growing emergency in the defense areas of this country that
I am very concerned about also. And, therefore, perhaps it is time for
reasonable heads to get together and start working on a plan that can
be supported by 218 votes that meets the needs of this country.
Mr. Speaker, today we talk about agriculture. We made that argument.
But I think it is going to be ``fess up'' time and ``honest up'' time
for a lot of us. The concern I have, and why I asked to speak again, is
I am afraid that we are going to pursue a process in which we have all
kinds of ideas, but no one ever gets 218 votes and we end up pointing
the finger of blame. Rural America cannot stand that.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the Members to please support our
motion to instruct in order to assure that the farmers and the ranchers
of this country in many cases are allowed to plant a crop, to move
their livestock, to keep this country whole in its economy and moving
forward.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this motion to instruct
conferees because of the grave drought situation affecting the farmers
of south Texas and the difficulties they are facing with the Crop
Insurance Program's coverage of their crop loss.
My office has heard from farmers, bankers, and those in the farming
industry who have experienced their fifth straight year of weather
related crop losses. Assistance under the emergency status designation
for Texas agriculture producers is definitely needed.
I am here to voice the concerns of these farmers in Washington and
urge that disaster assistance alleviating this situation be made
available.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, over the last month, donated hay has come
to Texas from Missouri, Kansas, Illinois, and other states across the
country. The free hay is a near miraculous sight for many East Texas
ranchers and a wonderful tribute to the generosity of the human spirit.
However, in all but a few cases, the hay will provide only a stopgap
measure until the cattle producers can find another way to purchase
hay.
Most of the state's pasture land is still rated as poor or very poor,
and my district in East Texas is one of the driest regions in the
state. For months, parched fields have forced Texas ranchers to
purchase feed or hay to feed their herds. The dry conditions and the
increased demand, however, have made hay scarce and expensive. Texas
ranchers are spending an
[[Page H7707]]
average of $3.5 million a day in extra feed costs to support their
herds.
All agricultural producers in Texas, not just the ranchers, are
suffering through the second severe drought to hit Texas in three
years. Total farm and ranch losses from the drought are now estimated
to reach $2.1 billion statewide, with an overall impact to the state
economy estimated at $5.8 billion. Other factors, such as a glut of
foreign cotton and bumper crops of grain in the Midwest are driving
down commodity prices and compounding an already disastrous year for
Texas farmers.
I return home to East Texas every weekend, and every time I do, I
hear from another farmer who doesn't think he will make it to next
year. Mr. Speaker, these are families who have been farming and feeding
the country for generations. These farmers are highly skilled and very
efficient, but no farmer, no matter how competent, could get through
this year unscathed. And it is not just the farmer who suffers--every
time East loses a farming family, the ripple effect is felt throughout
the local economy.
Mr. Speaker, we absolutely must take this opportunity to address the
crisis in the Texas farming community. We have to provide emergency
funds to give the USDA the flexibility to address the needs of Texas
farmers and ranchers. With emergency funding, Secretary Glickman can
fund the Disaster Reserve Assistance Program to provide feed assistance
to ranchers and provide increased flexibility for indemnity payments to
producers who have lost their crops. It is only an initial step, Mr.
Speaker, but it is a step we must take as soon as possible.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to
instruct conferees to agree with the Senate amendments to the
Agriculture Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1999 providing
emergency funds for agricultural disaster assistance. Our nation's
farmers and ranchers, especially those in Texas, have faced extremely
difficult financial times due to brutal natural disasters and very low
commodity prices over the past five years. They need these emergency
funds, and they need them now.
Texas farmers have suffered extraordinary losses. This summer's
extreme heat and drought conditions have resulted in near total crop
losses for every county I represent. The drought has forced many Texas
ranchers, who cannot afford to feed cattle any longer, to liquidate
their herds. The crisis has cost the state nearly $2 billion in
economic losses.
Our nation cannot sustain this type of loss. Farmers and ranchers in
Texas and other states deserve our assistance in this time of extreme
need. They feed us and clothe us providing high quality agriculture
products throughout the year. Supporting the Senate amendment for
emergency funding is an essential step in the right direction.
We cannot afford to put anymore farmers and ranchers at risk.
Although the Senate increase is minimal, it is necessary insurance for
our nation's farmers and ranchers who risk losing their livelihood.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, after experiencing one weather-related
disaster after another, including this year's drought, the future of
production agriculture and family farming in middle and south Georgia
faces a threat of almost unprecedented proportions.
This is not a sudden, overnight crisis. Farmers, bankers, and
communities dependent on production agriculture have been in a crisis
mode for some time.
Our farmers have faced a threatening situation that has now become
even more severe.
Over the past few weeks, I have visited farms to meet with farmers
all across the Second District and to see first-hand the destruction
that has been wrought by the droughts and other disasters which have
struck our area. Indeed, as mentioned by Ms. Kaptur, the University of
Georgia has estimated farmgate value lost this year at over $767
million.
Farmers want indemnification payments that will give them the same
kind of safety-net our government offers to other nations in Asia, such
as South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and the Phillippines--to bail them
out in their time of crisis.
Farmers want relief from high production costs and low commodity
prices.
I promised I would carry that message back to Washington and work
with my colleagues in Congress and the Administration to get some
relief.
I am pleased to join my colleagues in supporting this motion to
instruct the Ag Appropriators to designate disaster spending as
``Emergency Spending'' under our current Budget Rules.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the
motion to instruct.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 331,
nays 66, not voting 37, as follows:
[Roll No. 430]
YEAS--331
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Gordon
Granger
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hefner
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Yates
Young (FL)
NAYS--66
Archer
Barr
Bartlett
Brady (TX)
Burr
Campbell
Cannon
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Cox
Cubin
[[Page H7708]]
Doolittle
Duncan
Ensign
Ewing
Fox
Frelinghuysen
Goodlatte
Goodling
Greenwood
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Klug
Largent
Latham
Leach
LoBiondo
Manzullo
McIntosh
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Neumann
Nussle
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Petri
Pitts
Pombo
Radanovich
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Snowbarger
Stearns
Sununu
Taylor (NC)
Tiahrt
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
NOT VOTING--37
Clayton
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Gonzalez
Goss
Graham
Green
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Jefferson
Kennedy (MA)
Lewis (GA)
Manton
McGovern
McIntyre
Meeks (NY)
Mink
Morella
Nadler
Oberstar
Owens
Pelosi
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Riggs
Rohrabacher
Schumer
Smith, Linda
Stabenow
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Weygand
Wynn
Young (AK)
{time} 1149
Mrs. CUBIN and Messrs. SENSENBRENNER, GOODLATTE, COX of California,
WELDON of Florida, PAXON, WAMP, GREENWOOD, TAYLOR of North Carolina,
FOX of Pennsylvania, and COBLE changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. SCOTT, BACHUS and LEVIN changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 430, I intended to vote
``no'' and inadvertently instead voted ``yea'' and did not realize my
error until the vote was announced.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the motion to
instruct offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The motion to instruct was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the
following conferees:
Messrs. Skeen, Walsh, Dickey, Kingston, Nethercutt, Bonilla, Latham,
Livingston, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Fazio of California, Mr. Serrano, Ms.
DeLauro, and Mr. Obey.
There was no objection.
____________________