[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.

                          ____________________