[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 136 (Friday, October 2, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9315-H9335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4101, AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND DRUG 
     ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Mr. SOLOMON, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. No. 105-764) on the resolution (H. Res. 567) waiving 
points of order against the conference report to accompany 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, which 
was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 567 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 567

       Resolved, That up adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R.

[[Page H9316]]

     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. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.
       Sec. 2. House Resolution 551 is laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Dayton, 
Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule waives all points of order against the 
agriculture appropriations conference report in order to allow its 
prompt consideration today on the House floor. Today is the second day 
of fiscal year 1999, and it is important to get this conference report 
through Congress and on its way to the White House as soon as possible.
  In order to further expedite the process, this rule provides that the 
conference report will be considered as read.
  Finally the rule lays on the table the old rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 4618, the separate agriculture emergency spending 
bill. The provisions of that bill have been incorporated in this 
conference report and, therefore, the old rule is no longer necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, and 
the very distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), ranking 
minority member, for the long hours that they have put into producing 
this conference report.
  I particularly want to thank them for upholding the 1995 farm bill as 
it concerns milk marketing orders, the lifeblood of every dairy farmer 
in America. This provision will prohibit the Department of Agriculture 
from changing the rules until we have gone through both a legislative 
and an appropriations cycle next year.
  Mr. Speaker, the agricultural appropriations conference agreement 
provides necessary funding for agricultural programs and related 
programs, such as school lunch programs and assistance for Women, 
Infants and Children, the WIC program. It also provides for rural 
development.
  I support the rule and the conference report it will permit this 
House to consider.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) be allowed to manage the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon), for yielding me the time.
  As he explained, this rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 4104, which is the agriculture 
appropriations bill. The bill appropriates funds for agriculture, rural 
development and food and nutrition programs.
  This is one of the most important of the 13 appropriation bills that 
we pass each year. It contains funding to help American farmers, and it 
is the crops they grow which feed the world.
  This bill also funds food and nutrition assistance programs for the 
Nation's poor and hungry, so it is not an exaggeration to say that the 
programs funded by this bill are life sustaining for millions of people 
in America and around the world.
  Unfortunately, this bill does not go far enough. We have had a year 
of droughts and flooding and other natural disasters that has created a 
crisis on our Nation's farms. However, the emergency aid to farmers 
contained in this bill is too little to offset the massive crop loss. 
The conferees rejected a proposal to remove caps from loan rates, and 
this would have enabled farmers to receive an infusion of capital to 
pay bills while waiting for markets to rebound. Although we are blessed 
with a prosperous economy and a declining poverty rate, one out of 
every five American children still live in poverty, and 21 million of 
our citizens face hunger on a regular basis.

                              {time}  1430

  Emergency food needs have risen dramatically over the past 2 years, 
and private donations are not keeping pace with demand at our Nation's 
food banks. It is estimated that more than 15 percent of requests for 
emergency food are being turned down because of insufficient supplies.
  This bill provides hunger relief for the poor through the emergency 
food assistance program known as TEFAP. The conference level for the 
program is $90 million, which represents a cut from the 
administration's request of $100 million. While I would like to have 
seen full funding, this level is better than the Senate bill, which 
appropriated only $80 million.
  I am very grateful to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on 
Appropriations for maintaining the funding at the higher level. He kept 
his word and I appreciate it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.  
Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to vigorously oppose this rule because the 
agriculture appropriations bill continues to punish dairy farmers in 
Wisconsin and, indeed, across the Midwest.
  For years the dairy producers in Wisconsin have been forced to work 
under an outdated dinosaur policy that our government calls the dairy 
policy. It is a policy that has disregarded the advance of time and 
transportation and technology. In spite of all the talk here about a 
global economy, the government has spent more than 60 years rewarding 
dairy farmers with higher prices based on the distance of their farm 
and their cows located from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. As a result, 
Wisconsin farmers who live and work in America's dairyland have 
struggled, and dairy producers elsewhere have thrived.
  This Congress seems to like ripping up the government by the root, 
yet when it comes to dairy pricing, this Congress sticks with the 
status quo, even when the status quo penalizes the dairy farmers in 
Wisconsin and, indeed, in the Midwest.
  Back in 1996, Wisconsin dairy farmers were promised real reform by 
April of 1999. And now, as the reform just nears, Congress backs out of 
the agreement and delays reform for another 6 months. We have waited 
long enough for dairy price reform. The delay has added insult to hard-
working Wisconsin farmers.
  And to make matters worse, the Congress has also agreed to extend the 
Northeast Dairy Compact, a cartel that gives further unfair leverage to 
farmers in the Northeast at the expense of those in the Midwest.
  With our pricing system and this Northeast Compact, this Congress is 
pitting region against region and, unfortunately, farmer against 
farmer. The Senate was right to resist placing riders in the 
appropriations bill, but the House leadership used their back room 
tactics to negotiate an unfair position in this conference that is 
before us.
  This bill represents not a forward movement but, I think, indeed a 
giant leap backward. I have said it before, the Congress wants a return 
to the Stone Ages of dairy policy, and I ask people to oppose this 
rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding 
me this time. I would also like to associate myself with the remarks of 
my colleague from Wisconsin.
  The Minnesota-Wisconsin, or the M-W, price for milk is a price that 
we all know has been the lowest in the country. We have discriminated 
against the heart of America's dairy production for decades. A Congress 
which we thought was going to address these grievances has abandoned 
the principle of equity when it comes to dairy production in America 
and is driving this policy

[[Page H9317]]

backwards. I think the time has come for us to make sure that all of 
our colleagues in the country understand what we are being asked to 
accept here this afternoon.
  I would also like to address another aspect of this bill, and that is 
the emergency or the disaster assistance portion of the legislation. I 
also expect that most of us are now well aware that we have a 
combination of a crop production failure or yield failure, and a price 
collapse that is affecting much of American agriculture. Those crops 
that are hardest hit are wheat, corn, and oilseeds, particularly 
soybeans. Hog prices and cattle prices are also very low.
  It is important that we take responsive measures to deal with this 
price collapse and the yield problems, and this bill does make a good 
start in that direction. However, I am very disappointed that on the 
price side of it we have chosen to put all of our eggs, so to speak, in 
one basket, and that is by inserting an additional AMTA, or transition 
payment, to agriculture.
  These transition payments are the ones established in the '96 farm 
bill that replaced the old crop-specific subsidy programs. The 
disadvantages of using this transitional payment approach at this time 
are four, and I would like to briefly list them.
  First, the amount of money for the typical American family farmer is 
nominal. A farmer in my district came up to me and said, and this 
fellow farms a fair amount of land, ``I won't even be able to fill my 
tractor's tank with gasoline, or diesel fuel, for the amount of money I 
will be receiving.'' This is not an assist. This may well be 
interpreted by many American farmers as an insult. I think we should go 
back to the drawing board and reexamine that portion of the bill.
  Secondly, oilseed production does not benefit at all from this 
approach. The transition payments do not include soybeans as base 
crops. So as a consequence, American soybean farmers are not being 
included, even though the collapse of soybean prices is one of the 
unfortunate conditions that they face. So the second consideration that 
I think counsels against this approach is the problem of not including 
oilseed, or specifically soybeans.
  The third is, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has carefully 
examined the effectiveness of the transition payments in helping 
America's family farmers, especially those that are actually growing 
the crops as opposed to those that may have retired owning land, and 
they have determined that the transition payments have largely 
benefitted land ownership in the form of higher rents and higher land 
prices.
  Query: Do we need to be investing more money for this type of benefit 
when we are trying to respond to our price disaster situation?
  And finally, some ag economists, in looking at where commodity prices 
are headed, have indicated that cotton and rice does not appear to be 
suffering from the same price problems as the feed grains and wheat. If 
this is the case, query: Is this a good investment of the American 
taxpayer dollar, to send money out through the transition payments 
which benefit those crops as well as the ones where assistance is 
needed?
  For these reasons, I submit that this committee ought to be 
reexamining the disaster program that it is bringing to the floor.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to Section 2 of House Resolution 
567, House Resolution 551 is laid on the table.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 567, I call up 
the conference report on 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 567, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), 
and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).


                              General Leave

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the conference report to accompany 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, 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 am pleased to bring before the House today the 
conference report on H.R. 4101, making appropriations for Agriculture, 
Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
Agencies.
  The House approved our bill on June the 24th by a vote of 373 to 48. 
This conference report has almost $55 million in additional 
discretionary spending which we have put into research, food safety and 
rural development.
  Although the budget situation is extremely tight, we did manage to 
hold the higher House number of $90 million on The Emergency Food 
Assistance Program. WIC is fully funded to meet the expected 
participation levels, with a nearly $200 million carryover for 
emergencies. School lunch and school breakfast and the Child and Adult 
Food Program are all funded at the administration request.
  The Food Safety Initiative is increased by almost $51.9 million over 
last year and the two main food safety agencies in the government, the 
Food and Drug Administration and the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service, have both received substantial increases.
  Research, which is the foundation of our agricultural system, has 
strong support in this bill. The Agricultural Research Service is 
funded at $37 million over last year, and the Cooperative State 
Research, Education and Extension Service has a $61 million increase.
  Many of our rural development programs remain at the same levels as 
the previous years, as requested by the administration. And, frankly, I 
think we need to do better next year. But in this bill we have been 
able to improve some of the most critical programs, such as water and 
sewer and farm labor housing.
  I am sure that every Member is aware of the problems in rural America 
caused by the extreme weather, low prices and loss of important 
overseas markets. This bill also includes approximately $4.2 billion in 
emergency assistance to farmers, ranchers and fishermen for losses due 
to natural disasters and other emergencies.
  And while I have highlighted some of the individual program 
increases, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give the impression that we 
have reversed the course on spending. In fact, we have to deal with 
another very difficult budget situation and the discretionary spending 
level in this bill, $13.65 billion, is $100 million less than last 
year.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues that every one of our 
constituents needs this bill every day of their lives. This bill 
delivers a safe and bountiful food supply. It supports feeding and 
nutrition programs for mothers, infants and senior citizens. And it 
ensures consumers of safe supplies of medicine and medical devices.
  This bill also protects and enhances our soil and water resources, 
which are critical not only to rural areas but to suburban and urban 
areas as well. This bill not only serves farmers and ranchers, indeed, 
they get only a small percentage of the benefits in this bill. This 
bill serves all Americans, no matter where they live.
  I deeply appreciate the help that Members from both sides of the 
aisle have given us in putting this bill together. It has always been a 
bipartisan effort and I want it to stay that way. I ask all to vote 
``aye'' on this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I provide for the Record tabular material regarding H.R. 
4101:

[[Page H9318]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH02OC98.001



[[Page H9319]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH02OC98.002



[[Page H9320]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH02OC98.003



[[Page H9321]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH02OC98.004



[[Page H9322]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH02OC98.005



[[Page H9323]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH02OC98.006



[[Page H9324]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH02OC98.007



[[Page H9325]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH02OC98.008



[[Page H9326]]

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise in support of this conference report on H.R. 4101, which is 
the 1999 appropriations bill for Agriculture and Related Agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased we are today also that our 
fine and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the State of Texas 
(Mr. Henry Gonzalez), is here for this debate, and how very much we 
enjoy working with him on every single issue that comes before the 
Nation.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend our chairman, the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), and as well as all the members of our 
subcommittee, and the committee staff, Tim, Sally, and Bobby, for their 
outstanding leadership in helping us put this bill together.
  Without question, it keeps our Nation at the leading edge for food, 
fiber, fuel, and forest production as well as research, trade, and food 
safety. Really a full plate. Our bill contains this year $55.88 billion 
in total budget authority for the fiscal year 1999, where the clock has 
already begun running, of which $13.65 billion is for discretionary 
programs, with the vast majority, $42.2 billion, for mandatory 
programs.
  Over two-thirds of this bill's spending, in fact, is dedicated to 
mandatory programs, largely the nutrition programs, like the school 
lunch and the school breakfast programs and the food stamp program, 
which comprise nearly 70 percent of all the funding incorporated in 
this measure.
  Now, this is a balanced bill that attempts to address the needs of 
farmers, food and drug safety, rural community development, consumers, 
and those in our population most nutritionally at risk. The chairman 
has fashioned a bill with our committee that is the best possible bill 
within the allocation that we were all dealt.
  I have to say, I appreciate the bipartisanship and sensitivity of the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) to balancing the burden of these 
tight funding levels between various constituencies served by our bill, 
Members who may represent Bronx, New York, all the way to the southern 
third of New Mexico and Arizona. So we have a very diverse committee 
and a very diverse Congress.
  I would be remiss if I did not point out that there remains a veto 
threat on this bill because of the level provided for disaster 
assistance in agriculture. I would hope that there would be another 
opportunity for this Congress to perhaps incorporate additional 
disaster assistance in an omnibus supplemental appropriations bill.
  Funding levels are also still well below the administration's request 
for several of our most critically important programs in this bill. For 
example, in the area of food safety; the Women, Infants, and Children's 
feeding program; our conservation program, so important to today and 
tomorrow; youth tobacco prevention; all of the rural water and sewer 
needs that each of us knows so well from our respective States, and 
certainly The Emergency Feeding and Assistance Program known as TEFAP.
  Without an additional allocation of resources, we continue to betray 
our commitment to American farmers and to all consumers who benefit 
from the bounty that our farmers produce.
  I am going to reference a few of the major points in the bill right 
now, beginning with disaster assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a real crisis facing most American farmers in 
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 repeated crop disease year after year, and 
others have been impacted by very low farm prices, falling farm prices, 
and increasing inability to obtain credit at prices that really work on 
the balance sheet.
  While the rest of the country may be experiencing economic recovery, 
thousands and thousands of farm and ranch families, certainly so many 
of our dairy farmers that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our 
ranking member, has so eloquently represented in these debates, and the 
communities that depend on them have been left behind. The gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) just talked about that a bit earlier 
during the debate on the rule.
  I am pleased that we were able to provide over $4 billion in 
emergency assistance to farmers in this conference report, but I remain 
concerned that this level of funding still remains insufficient to deal 
with the magnitude of the real farm crisis facing this country. We must 
keep in mind that this bill will provide only a 1-year fix and that 
prices are projected to be low again next year.
  In fact, at a meeting earlier today, one of our Ohio members told me 
he had taken his third cutting on hay and alfalfa. That is terrific, 
except it means that prices are going to continue to go down. Farmers 
need a long-term safety net and we may need to look to other options 
for assistance in the future.
  Let me move on to the area of food safety. Each year over 9,000 
Americans die, that is 9,000, die in this country and another 33 
million become ill from food-borne pathogens. Currently less than two-
tenths of 1 percent, less than 1 percent of imported produce is being 
inspected for pathogen contamination.
  This bill provides a $51 million increase for the President's Food 
Safety Initiative, and we thank the administration for that initiative, 
with $20 million targeted to import inspection through our Food and 
Drug Administration. This will go a long way toward bolstering our 
Nation's food safety inspection and research efforts to assure that our 
food and produce are of higher quality.
  I regret, however, that the conferees were unable to adopt country-
of-origin labeling for produce and meat, specifically beef and lamb, 
which we feel is so important for our people to know where their food 
is coming from. Consumers have a right to know where the food that they 
eat originates from.
  Let me move on, finally, to the area of derivatives and say I remain 
concerned about a provision in the bill that places a moratorium on the 
ability of the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation to regulate over-
the-counter derivatives.
  We have all seen in the recent headlines the default and bailout of 
the company called Long-Term Capital Management, which in essence was a 
hedge fund. They play in the area of risk with no assets. Many of the 
Members in this Chamber may already know about this situation. An 
emergency financial rescue of over $3.5 billion was hurriedly put 
together by the Federal Reserve and several New York banks on behalf of 
a very few large financial institutions and wealthy individuals.
  In effect, the largest banks in this country, who lent organizations 
money to invest in these hedge funds, are at risk because their 
fundamental deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, which means the taxpayers of this country, because our 
Nation guarantees bank deposits up to $100,000. That creates the risk 
pool for insurance, and they are going to be faced with drawing on it 
very heavily if they are not able to make whole the people who play in 
those markets.
  This federally backed rescue involved Long-Term Capital Management 
from Connecticut, which was not even regulated by the Federal 
Government. Yet the package put together was a Federal package. In 
essence, the taxpayers of America are becoming the insurance company of 
last resort for a handful of very high risk takers, institutions and 
individuals that are involved in the highest stakes game and are 
completely over-leveraged in the international markets.

  Mr. Speaker, where are we, where is this Congress and where is our 
government when it comes to helping out all of the people of this land, 
including our farmers who are strung out, many of them, to their very 
last acre?
  I find it ironic that this conference report includes nearly $4 
billion in emergency assistance for America's farmers, barely much more 
than is being provided to some of America's wealthiest individuals and 
largest institutions connected to long-term capital management. It is 
an interesting ratio to think about.
  Drought and floods and deteriorating world markets are ravaging 
America's farm sector. Our dairy farmers are

[[Page H9327]]

being wiped out one after another, and regularly we see on television 
incidents and acts of God beyond the control of those who are making a 
living, a hard and difficult living, off the land. Thousands and 
thousands of farmers and farm families and ranchers are looking to us 
for this much needed assistance.
  Those who speculate on financial trends, those who take major risks 
and never get their hands dirty, based on which direction currency and 
commodity prices will go, are taken care of in an instant. One could 
say that they are bailed out in less than a New York minute by the New 
York Fed's intervention.
  In closing, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) again for putting together the best bill that we 
could under the circumstances.
  Let me just reiterate my continuing concern that we have not been 
able to provide in this bill country-of-origin labeling on meat, 
especially beef and lamb. Also, our hope to provide some certainty in 
the market, for mandatory price reporting in the livestock area, which 
would be such a simple thing for us to do, it was not included in this 
legislation. Those are shortcomings in this bill that we hope to 
overcome in future years.
  Overall, it is a good bill. It is worthy of the Members' support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to return the bouquet to the lady, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member, and thank her 
for all the service and the help that she has been, and also the rest 
of the members of the committee. They are a great bunch to work with.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Smith), who is chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the ranking member for bringing forth a 
responsible and reasonable package that is in favor of agriculture 
across this country, but especially I want to visit for a moment about 
the disaster relief which is a portion of this program.
  Seldom in our history have we ever had a situation that has occurred 
to us in agriculture as it has in this year, and that simply is drought 
and flood and disaster conditions throughout much of the country, 
especially in the South, and a loss of revenue at the same time which 
was caused by loss of markets.
  The problems that we face with disasters, of course, we cannot 
control, and we have stepped up here today with this program, which 
certainly is not adequate to fulfill all the needs of farmers and 
ranchers but certainly will take care of many, many of the problems in 
disaster as we have been able to identify them around the country.
  The other portion of this bill, which is brand new to us, is the 
restoration of some revenue loss because of market loss. The reason we 
are doing that is simply because it is the government's responsibility, 
we feel, to provide markets for agriculture and for farmers and for 
commodities.
  We passed the 1996 Freedom in Farm bill which said no more 
intervention by the Federal Government in commodities, which gave 
freedom for the farmer to plant and to harvest and to decide his own 
fate and future. As a part of that, we also gave the responsibility to 
the government to provide markets for his products, and that he cannot 
provide markets for, obviously.
  That has been attempted, and we have simply lost that race for the 
moment. We have lost 30 percent of our market in Asia, as we well know. 
Japan, which is a huge market for us, is fumbling in economic, 
questionable situations. South America is combining with their own 
programs, through MERCOUR and others, to trade with themselves. And we 
cannot get any commodities into the European Union. So here we are.
  This is an adequate and important program for revenue redistribution, 
and that is why $1.65 billion has been returned through increased AMTA 
payments to farmers who have lost revenue, who have lost some of their 
crops through loss of revenue. A part of that, of course, is a 
recognition that livestock feed is important, and part of this disaster 
relief goes to emergency feed for livestock people.
  All in all, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this program is fair, it is 
reasonable. It answers farmers' questions, wherever they may be in this 
country, whatever kind of commodities and crops they may grow. And 
beyond that, it is fair to the taxpayer and to the budget.
  I suggest that we pass this bill. It is important to us. It is 
important to farmers and it is essential to this nation.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) the very distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Agriculture, a rancher and farmer himself, 
from the great State of Texas.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference 
report, commend the chairman and the ranking member for their work on 
this very difficult task.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report and I 
thank my colleague for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4101 is an important bill which funds the 
operations of the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the many 
functions of those agencies. The Department of Agriculture is an 
important partner to our nation's farmers and ranchers, and with the 
normal provisions of this bill the conferees have made recommendations 
that carefully balance program priorities.
  I am particularly grateful that the conferees have risen to the 
occasion and provided additional funding to aid our nation's farmers 
and ranchers whose livelihoods are being devastated by natural crises 
and low prices.
  Mr. Speaker, a year ago we were considering the conference report for 
the FY 1998 version of this bill. At that time, the El Nino weather 
pattern was continuing to warm the waters of the Eastern Pacific Ocean, 
the prices of agricultural commodities were displaying considerable 
volatility, and signs were appearing of trouble spots in the world's 
economy. We were well aware of the increasing level of uncertainty 
facing agriculture. With the failure to address IMF and Fast Track, I 
am afraid that we have ensured future uncertainty in agriculture.
  Now, this uncertainty has given way to multiple, compounded 
disasters. Extreme weather patterns have wiped out crops and pastures, 
increasing stocks and plummeting economies in Asia are destroying our 
prices, and it has become clear that the agriculture policies we have 
set in place are not sufficient to help producers secure the stable 
revenues they need to continue in business for the long haul.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report because it addresses the 
short-term impacts of the crisis. However, I am disappointed that we 
were unable to focus on improving the long-term safety net for farmers 
and ranchers. When I look at the projections for next year's crops, I 
see continuing low incomes in our agricultural sector. This year's 
events have made it more clear than ever that we on the Agriculture 
Committee must commit ourselves to making long-term improvements in 
Federal programs and give our producers the tools they need to manage 
adequately production and yield risks.
  Mr. Speaker, we have to move forward with this conference report. Too 
many producers need the assistance that will be provided. 
Unfortunately, we cannot at this time accurately assess the total 
damage inflicted on agriculture this year from natural disaster--
including Hurricane Georges--or from low prices. To the extent that 
this bill fails to address adequately the current agricultural crisis, 
in the days, weeks, and months ahead, we can continue to consider the 
scope of difficulties in rural America and fashion the appropriate 
Federal response.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to disaster spending, H.R. 4101 will provide 
the Agriculture Department with the resources it needs to address the 
challenges facing rural America. Under the bill, funding is provided 
for cooperative efforts in agricultural research--the key to sustained 
economic viability for agriculture. While the bill prohibits funding 
for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems which became 
law earlier this year, I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
ensure that this promising program can be up and running in the not too 
distant future. The bill provides funding for the administration of the 
basic farm programs established under the Farm Bill, and for the 
conservation programs which are an increasingly important focus of

[[Page H9328]]

the mission of USDA. The bill also funds important programs that will 
help rural communities address the substantial economic challenges they 
face.
  Mr. Speaker, again I wish to thank and congratulate my colleagues who 
worked so hard to develop this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to 
vote for its passage.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to enter into the record, because the staff 
gets so little recognition and just reading their names does not seem 
to be enough, but I do have to say we have the best staff in the 
Congress on this subcommittee. To Tim Sanders, our hat is off to him, 
to Sally Chadbourne, to Bobbi Jeanquart, to John Ziolkowski, to Martin 
Delgado and Jim Richards. I thank them very much for helping America 
help our people.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations. There is 
no harder fighter in our country for the needs of farmers and ranchers, 
including dairy farmers in his own state.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it is getting a little deep in here. Let me 
simply say that I want to express my affection for the gentleman from 
New Mexico and my great respect for the gentlewoman from Ohio, and I 
regret that I have to oppose their bill, but I want to explain why I am 
doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there are four very good reasons to vote ``no'' 
on this bill. First of all, this bill blocks the ability of Secretary 
of Agriculture Glickman to propose even the smallest reform of the 
ancient, outmoded and disgracefully discriminatory milk marketing order 
system. I do not think it ought to do that, and that is one reason I am 
voting against it.
  Secondly, this bill is a very expensive admission that the Freedom to 
Farm bill is a spectacular failure and it has in fact become the 
freedom-to-fail-at-farming bill.
  Last year, the farm bill provided some $36 billion in transition 
payments to farmers who are moving their way into the wonderful new 
world of no safety net. Despite that fact, this bill now recognizes the 
need to add billions more, because the bottom has dropped out of the 
market. That is a confession of failure. I think people ought to 
recognize that.
  The problem, however, is that while those grain farmers are getting 
multibillion dollar payments from the government for the next number of 
years, when I asked the conferees to provide transition payments for 
dairy farmers that were only 4 percent as large as those transition 
payments for grain farmers, we were turned down flat by unanimous vote 
of the Republican House conferees. If that had been provided, dairy 
farmers would have gotten an extra 50 cents per hundred weight this 
year, a small amount, but certainly it would have been welcome.
  Thirdly, the conferees then threw beef farmers overboard. There are 
three companies who control 80 percent of the market in the meat 
packing industry. They know with perfect understanding what the prices 
are that they are offering the farmers. But farmers are dispersed and 
they do not know what the real price is that they can get in the 
marketplace. We tried to get that corrected by having mandatory price 
reporting. Again, the House Republican conferees turned that down 
unanimously, even though it had been supported on a bipartisan basis in 
the Senate.
  Then look at the fact that this bill turned its back on consumers in 
two ways. First of all, the Senate, again on a bipartisan basis, 
proposed country-of-origin food labeling on beef because of concerns 
about problems such as E. coli. Again, the Republican House conferees 
unanimously turned that down.
  We then tried to pass the Senate bipartisan proposal to provide 
country-of-origin food labeling for fruits and vegetables because we 
had a cyclosporia outbreak with raspberries from Guatemala and we had 
hepatitis outbreak because of strawberries from Mexico. Again, 
Republican House conferees unanimously blocked that bipartisan 
initiative in the Senate. Given the fact that we only inspect 2 percent 
of the fruits and vegetables that come into this country for pathogens, 
it seems to me that is the least that Congress could have done, but 
they chose not to do it.
  Therefore, I am simply going to urge a no vote on this bill. There 
are many good provisions in the bill, but there are also many cases 
where the conferees simply gave in to the processors or continued 
grossly discriminatory pricing practices, and they certainly walked 
away from the consumer protection actions that they should have taken 
on these country-of-origin provisions. So I am going to vote no, and I 
would urge others to do likewise.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield four minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham) a real farmer.
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much, and I want 
to express my appreciation to him for working very hard through a very 
tough bill, and the ranking member for being so very, very helpful and 
accommodating.
  Let me just say, first of all, the gentleman just talked about the 
Freedom to Farm bill, calling it the freedom-to-fail bill. I think what 
this bill points out is the fact that the administration has totally 
abandoned and failed our farmers, when you look at the fact over the 
last three years we have had $1.5 billion available for this 
administration to use to market our grains overseas in the form of 
Export Enhancement Program funds, and only when the European Union 
dumped 30,000 metric tons of feed grain barley in California did they 
finally use about $7 million of this.
  Let us look at what the administration's response has been to the 
plight of the American farmer. In their budget proposal from the other 
side that they brought forward they had $573 million of new taxes on 
livestock producers, and these are people who are in dire straits 
today. But they have got $573 million of new taxes on beef and pork 
producers in their budget. They cut $35 million out of the Food for 
Peace program. And when we have a safety net in the farm bill as far as 
revenue assurance, what is the administration's response in their 
budget proposal? It is to cut funds out of insurance for farmers to the 
point where they were going to decimate the entire program for farmers 
to actually cover their risk out here as far as price and yield.
  This is the response of an administration who pretends to be 
concerned about farmers? The problem is the administration has failed 
in enacting a good bill which finally gives farmers the freedom to make 
decisions for themselves.
  There are people here who want to roll back the clock and go back to 
government control on everything, which they have never controlled 
price except exacerbated a real problem when we have surpluses, and 
that is what they want to do again.
  This is a good bill which actually helps farmers. Being a farmer 
myself who lives on a farm and operates a farm and understands a little 
bit about agriculture, I hope, I hope people will support this bill.
  The emergency funds in here actually go to help farmers who have need 
today. The alternative was to put money into a program which, if you 
did not have a crop this year, would give you no help at all. To raise 
loan caps when you do not have any grain to put under loan, does not 
help you.
  I would also say by extending the period of the loans, let us think 
about this for a second, shall we? If you do not have a crop to put 
under loan, how does extending the loan help you? How does raising the 
caps on the loans help you, when you have nothing to put under loan? 
All their program does is give more money to people who have good crops 
and take money away from people who have had natural disasters. Does 
that make any sense at all? No, it makes no sense at all.
  We have a good bill that is going to help farmers who have disasters, 
who need financial assistance because of the administration's policy, 
which has caused the low prices that we have in agriculture today. Let 
us support this bill. I would ask everyone to join together in making 
this work, because it is critical for agriculture and it is critical 
for this country.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the very able and 
dedicated gentlewoman from Connecticut

[[Page H9329]]

(Ms. DeLauro), who works harder than any other Member of this chamber 
on most days.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, let me say thank you to my good friend and 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for yielding me time 
and for the wonderfully high compliment. I am much appreciative. I also 
would like to recognize the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) 
and our ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for 
their outstanding work to bring this conference report to the floor.
  I am pleased to rise in support of the conference report. The report 
omits dangerous language which would have had the chilling effect of 
slowing or stopping research on drugs to treat cancer, ulcers, 
hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis and many other serious illnesses. 
Science, not politics, should dictate whether drugs are approved and 
made available to the patients whose lives depend on them. I am pleased 
that this conference report reaffirms that important principle.
  The conference report also provides $4.2 billion in critical 
emergency aid to help agricultural families across this country recover 
from the terrible losses suffered due to disease, El Nino and other 
natural disasters, and from the Asian financial crisis and the loss of 
export markets. I voted in conference to increase these funds.
  Farm communities are facing the worst agricultural crisis in a 
decade, and I believe that additional funds will be needed to address 
this crisis. However, I am pleased that the conference report takes an 
important step in the right direction to get aid to our farmers. 
Despite my desire for higher funding for disaster relief, WIC 
nutritional assistance, food safety and the FDA tobacco initiative, I 
would like to say thank you to the chairman and the ranking member for 
their hard work in putting this package together. I would also like to 
extend my thanks to the staff who have helped to make this possible. 
They make it possible for us to do our work.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Fazio). This is his last conference bill. I can 
honestly say this is a man that has worked so hard for America, for 
California and on our committee. We will miss his brilliance and his 
leadership. We hope he will come back and visit us many, many times, 
and we thank him for his service to America.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for yielding me this 
time and for those very generous remarks.
  I want to thank the ranking member, along with the chairman, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for the outstanding work they 
have done on this bill. I rise in support of it, and want to express my 
deep thanks for the way in which the people I represent in agriculture 
in California have been treated in this bill and in prior bills. I have 
enjoyed greatly my opportunity to serve on this committee, and this 
bill reflects the impact that the very important agricultural State of 
California has on our national economy, and this bill at the same time 
responds well to that.
  I thank all of my colleagues for the time I have been able to spend 
with them on this subject.
  I rise in support of the conference report.
  Each appropriation bill is an amalgam of agencies and issues, but I 
believe our bill--even though it is confined primarily to one 
department--is one of the most challenging to balance adequately. We 
provide funding for farm programs, for rural development and housing, 
for food safety and operations of the Food and Drug Administration, to 
promote foreign trade, for research and support for our land-grant 
colleges, and for human nutrition programs for our school children, for 
pregnant women and young children, and for others in need.
  The House-Senate conference committee was a reflection of the many 
issues that can be raised in this bill. Although everyone may not be 
completely happy, I believe we resolved a number of difficult issues in 
as satisfactory a manner as can be expected under the circumstances.
  I want to focus my remarks on one of the issues I raised at 
conference--methyl bromide. My amendment was agreed to without 
objection by House and Senate conferees.
  Methyl bromide is the most important and widely used agricultural 
fumigant in use in the United States today and in international 
agricultural commerce. Despite its importance, methyl bromide is a 
dangerous chemical, and it is believed to deplete the ozone, so the 
United States and other countries have made a decision to phase out its 
use and have worked together in negotiating the Montreal Protocol 
Treaty.
  As many of my colleagues know, based on the requirements of the Clean 
Air Act, the U.S. has been under a self-imposed methyl bromide phase-
out of 2001 for many years. As 2001 has grown closer, our farmers and 
others who depend upon methyl bromide have experienced considerable 
anxiety--both because of the phase-out but, more importantly, because 
of the competitive disadvantage that would be imposed on them if it 
continues to be available to other countries.
  In anticipation of this phase-out, we have provided funding in our 
bill for many years to the Agricultural Research Service for research 
into alternatives to methyl bromide. Although there is increased 
attention on research into alternatives for some users, there is little 
evidence that we are close to an all-purpose methyl bromide 
alternative. If cost-effectiveness is taken into account, the situation 
becomes even less promising.
  For those who think this is an issue just related to farming, I want 
to point out many uses of methyl bromide that we all depend upon. 
Although much of methyl bromide is used for crop fumigation--especially 
pre-planting preparation of fields--there are many other important uses 
that touch home for all of us. Methyl bromide is used for funmigation 
of many agricultural commodities before they are shipped overseas, in 
fact, countries such as Japan require methyl bromide certification 
before accepting our U.S. agricultural commodities. On the receiving 
end, methyl bromide is used in U.S. ports to fumigate a variety of 
shipments being received from other countries--not just agricultural 
commodities, but essentially any pallet of goods that may be infested 
with unseen parasites that would cause catastrophe if released into our 
agriculture. In addition, methyl bromide is used for fumigating 
bakeries, rice mills, grain silos, and food processing plants, so it is 
an essential tool for federal, state and local sanitation requirements 
that contribute to a safe food system.
  The Administration's negotiating team has attempted over several 
international meetings to conform the Montreal Protocol to our self-
imposed 2001 phase-out under the Clean Air Act. However, they were 
unsuccessful, and at a September meeting just last year, a 2005 phase-
out for developed countries was negotiated.
  The amendment I offered at our conference and that is included in 
this conference report is a relatively simple conformance for the U.S. 
to the Montreal Protocol. it would amend the Clean Air Act in order for 
the U.S. to conform to the schedule that has been negotiated by the 
Administration--a negotiating team headed by officials from the Council 
on Environmental Quality and EPA. The language of each of its 
provisions--including a sanitation exemption and a critical uses 
provision--is specifically conditioned to be consistent with the 
Montreal Protocol.
  Some opposition has been raised to my amendment and that is to be 
expected for a provision of this importance. I can tell you that 
farmers would have preferred far more--many of my farmers are competing 
not with developed countries but with Chile or Argentina or Mexico, who 
will continue to enjoy a 10-year advantage in using methyl bromide. I 
can tell you that some environmentalists would prefer we do nothing at 
all--that we adhere to the self-imposed 2001 phase-out despite its 
possible devastating effect on our farm economy.
  But I believe there has been a recognition by this Administration and 
by this Congress for many years that this is an issue we need to 
address. President Clinton told California farmers in 1995 that he 
would help them resolve this issue, and Kathleen McGinty, chair of the 
Council on Environmental Quality has written the Commerce Committee on 
two occasions to indicate the Administration's willingness to work with 
it, yet the Administration has never taken the next step by suggesting 
how we might move ahead.
  The Commerce Committee, for understandable reasons, has been hesitant 
to move ahead despite the compelling case for conforming to the rest of 
the world, because of the protracted fight between farmers and 
environmentalists that would probably have resulted.
  So, with an Administration which has chosen to remain silent and a 
Commerce Committee that has chosen not to act, it was left to a 
retiring congressman who didn't have to face the voters again--namely 
me--to suggest the approach that is embodied in this conference report 
today.
  While I suspect both the Administration and the Commerce Committee do 
not think my amendment is perfect, I urge both to support it as a 
common-sense solution to this problem, and I believe they will.

[[Page H9330]]

  A provision in an appropriations bill is probably not the best way to 
handle an issue of this magnitude. The Appropriations Committee is 
approached time and time again by both authorizers who are unable to 
work issues through their own committees, and by constituents who are 
unable to get the normal processes to respond. For those who dislike 
Appropriations Committee intervention in major issues, I say: show us 
that you can make the regular process work.
  This increasing desire to politicize many issues spills over to ones 
like this where we should have reached consensus long ago. We need to 
work harder to identify common ground and put together bipartisan 
coalitions that can speak with authority to our various constituencies 
whose nature is always to ask for more. In pushing too hard for the 
impossible, we too often lose sight of the possible, and we are left 
with nothing.
  My amendment is a common-sense proposal that means that American 
farmers will not be put at a competitive disadvantage while farmers in 
every other country are on a different phase-out schedule. it makes 
sense for the American farmer, it makes sense for our international 
trade, and it makes sense for all Americans.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Solomon).
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak, except that I do just want to 
commend both the chairman of the committee, my good friend, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), and the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur), because they have brought an excellent bill to this 
floor.
  I do not have to tell Members that in New York State, everyone thinks 
of it as the money capital of the world, and you would not believe that 
in a small area like mine, it is the 20th largest dairy producing 
district in America, not to mention the apples and other produce. But 
agriculture is the mainstay of industry in New York State, and this 
bill goes a long way to preserving especially the dairy industry, but 
all of the agricultural industry.
  So I wanted to take a minute just to commend both of you, and 
particularly your staffs. You have some of the best staff in this 
entire Congress. I salute you and them and urge support of and passage 
of the bill.

                              {time}  1515

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who really helped our committee a great deal in 
enlightening us on some of the civil rights damage suits pending before 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and who worked so closely with us, 
as did the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). Without question, this is a 
better bill, a much better bill because of their leadership.
  (Mr. BISHOP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the conference report on 
H.R. 4101, the fiscal year 1999 agricultural appropriations bill, which 
includes disaster and market loss assistance to cover losses incurred 
by farmers this year.
  The total farmgate losses in Georgia have been estimated by the 
University of Georgia to be in excess of three-quarters of a billion 
dollars. In light of this, the $4.6 billion provided in the bill for 
all agricultural disasters throughout the United States might prove to 
be inadequate.
  Indeed, many of the details of this bill's implementation will be 
entrusted to the Department of Agriculture, so I do not know that any 
of us is confident that every producer in our districts who has 
suffered a loss through acts of God or record low prices will be 
indemnified. However, this is a bird in the hand and I must support the 
bird that we have in hand.
  In addition, I am pleased to say that the conferees have seen fit to 
respond to the Department of Agriculture and the minority farmers in 
this Nation in providing appropriations and report language which will 
assist in a long-term problem there. I am pleased to say the conferees, 
in addition to the overall relief provisions, have included at least 
three other items of importance to me, two of which I authored after 
listening to producers throughout South Georgia.
  One provision will adjust the Conservation Reserve Program contracts 
to avoid a further decline in low timber prices throughout the 
Southeast, and the other will ensure that the Secretary makes available 
guaranteed loans for the purpose of irrigation installation.
  The third, which I am pleased to support, offered by my friend, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), will provide for indemnity 
payments to compensate a number of cotton producers who, through no 
fault of their own, were left holding the bag when a licensed 
warehouseman went bankrupt earlier this year.
  I urge adoption of the conference report, and it is a good bill.
  The current market condition for the sale of harvested timber 
throughout the Southeast is poor, due in part to the increased 
harvesting activity in the aftermath of the fires which scorched, but 
did not completely destroy thousands of acres of commercial pine trees 
in Florida. Many farms which contain land subject to contract under the 
Conservation Reserve Program require thinning of pine stands in 1998 or 
in 1999, as a condition of continued participation in the program. 
Farmers with land under contract were concerned that the current market 
condition for timber throughout the Southeast is such that this 
required thinning activity could exacerbate the oversupply which has 
resulted in record low prices for harvested trees. I asked for and the 
conferees agreed to report language that a delay in this requirement is 
warranted, in order to give the market a chance to absorb the current 
glut, and for prices to rebound. Therefore, the conferees have directed 
that the Secretary authorize no less than a two-year extension period 
on the requirement that owners of land under Conservation Reserve 
Program contracts should prune, thin or conduct stand improvement 
activities otherwise required to be completed in 1998 or 1999.
  Many of the crop losses suffered through the country during 1998 were 
due to drought conditions, sustained by dryland farming operations. 
Many of the dryland farmers report that they could minimize their 
losses due to drought conditions in future years if they had access to 
loan financing for installation of irrigation systems, including 
retention ponds. I believe that the policy of the Congress in 
responding to disasters should include measures which would serve to 
mitigate losses from future disasters of the same nature, which are 
certain to occur again. I asked and the conferees have directed the 
Secretary to provide loans to borrowers who farm in areas subject to a 
past Secretarial Declaration of Disaster, due to drought conditions.
  In view of the widespread drought conditions this bill is attempting 
to relieve, directing the Secretary to place a priority on irrigation-
related lending is vital.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the remaining time on 
this side, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) has 9 minutes remaining.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) who has worked so hard with us 
on the sanctions portion of the bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member from 
Ohio for yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of the conference report, and I want to thank the 
conferees for including a provision that would give the President 
authority to waive sanctions that were imposed on both India and 
Pakistan as a result of the nuclear tests that those countries 
conducted earlier this year.
  The sanctions imposed after the nuclear tests have disrupted a 
variety of bilateral assistance programs, including technical support 
for the very market reforms that we would like to see India and other 
developing countries adopt. These reforms offer short- and long-term 
opportunities for U.S. companies, large and small, to gain entry into 
India's vast consumer market and to help meet India's significant 
infrastructure improvement needs. Under the unilateral sanctions, we 
stand to lose many of these economic opportunities.
  Mr. Speaker, the sanctions have not achieved the desired result; 
namely, gaining India's support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 
However, several rounds of negotiations between both sides have shown 
significant progress, and at this time of significant progress in south 
Asia, giving the President the authority to waive sanctions in exchange 
for significant agreements from India and Pakistan will help to move 
the process forward.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H9331]]

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time. I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for 
their support in bringing the bill before the House.
  This bill has many provisions that are good. It has been noted for 
things that are lacking, but when we balance it all, it has more good 
than bad. Obviously, we judge good by what things are hurting us back 
home, and our farmers back home are in some disarray there and they are 
in disarray for many reasons; not only because the prices are low, but 
some farmers who have been discriminated against for years are really 
looking forward to this bill coming, to getting some legal relief from 
the statute of limitations. Many farmers who have had 17 years of 
complaints, now this bill will at least allow them to have the legal 
opportunity to remove the statute of limitations.
  I am also pleased about the credit provisions that are in the bill. 
The credit provisions amend some of the harshness of the 1996 farm 
bill, where it allows a person who might have defaulted or had problems 
with their loan to have a second chance. It does not do it as far as I 
would like, but I must say it is a step in the right direction.
  It provides also some relief for emergency loans, if persons have had 
emergency loans, and again, that is in the right direction. There is 
not enough money for research, but through the conferees there was some 
restoration of some funds for research and some expansion for extension 
programs.
  All of those go to make the agricultural community, not only the 1990 
colleges, but the university for research, appreciative that the bill 
will mean that the agriculture community can go forward.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who has worked so hard on this measure.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of America's farmers. I think it is time for us not 
to try to find someone to blame this crisis on that our farmers are 
facing. It is clearly from natural disasters, global oversupply, 
diminished overseas demand, and low prices, and the last time I 
checked, droughts are caused by lack of rainfall and floods are caused 
by too much rainfall.
  Now is the time for us to take appropriate action. We should not have 
delayed the passage of this bill even one day. The partisan fights over 
unrelated issues should not be allowed to impede the much-needed 
assistance that this bill will provide for thousands of farmers, not 
only in the First Congressional District of Arkansas but across this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, we must recognize this as a true emergency when our 
agriculture base is in danger of collapsing. Since this bill will 
deliver funding and serve as an investment in our future security for 
this country and our prosperity, it is essential that it be delivered 
without delay.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the fighter for justice.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in support of this legislation because it provides important 
benefits for dairy farmers in Vermont and farmers throughout the 
country. Specifically for our region, it expands the Northeast Dairy 
Compact for another year, which is terribly important for farmers in my 
State who are fighting to keep their heads above water.
  This legislation provides some disaster relief for farmers all over 
this country, including New England, which is vitally needed. It also 
gives us more time to address the Federal Milk Marketing Order formula, 
a very, very important issue, and I want to thank the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Solomon) for his leadership role in that fight.
  Having said that, we still have a long way to go. Family farmers are 
what this country is supposed to be about. We believe in decentralized 
agriculture. We need to significantly improve Federal policy for dairy 
farmers, family farmers, or else we are going to continue to lose them, 
and that will be a tragedy not only for New England but for every State 
in this country.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  (Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who has fought harder than anyone I know 
for the needs of the farmers in the Great Plains States due to the 
disasters that have been ravaging that part of the country. The Dakotas 
are lucky to have him here.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time.
  I want to commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Agriculture of 
the Committee on Appropriations, and the chairman of the agriculture 
authorizing committee, as well as the ranking members, the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. Speaker, I like these individuals a lot; they have put real hard 
work into this bill. However, I must rise and oppose this conference 
report. It is not my style, as the Members will note, to oppose 
agriculture appropriations bills, much less ask for a motion to 
recommit late on a Friday afternoon. But that is precisely what I am 
doing today, because the amount of relief in this bill is simply 
nowhere near adequate to meet the magnitude of the catastrophe 
unfolding in farm country.
  We have had a collapse of commodity prices. Wheat is down $1.66 a 
bushel in the last 2 years. That is a 36 percent drop. The relief 
provided under the AMTA increase in this bill would amount to 13 cents 
a bushel. Mr. Speaker, corn is down $2.37 a bushel; that is a 57 
percent drop in market price. The relief in this bill would amount to 2 
cents a bushel. Soybeans, $1.90 a bushel drop from 2 years ago, a 27 
percent fall. The relief in this bill amounts to 2 cents a bushel.
  Mr. Speaker, the worst thing we can do is hold forth to the public 
some agriculture disaster response and then go home and let the farmers 
realize that it amounts to pennies on the dollar, compared to what 
their problems are. There is a difference as we look at what we face 
this fall, and the difference is, we no longer have a farm program that 
automatically triggers in relief when market prices collapse.
  Market prices have collapsed. There has been a start made in the bill 
to give farmers relief for both disaster assistance and market price 
collapse. The disaster assistance goes a lot further to meeting the 
need than the market price collapse. It is a good start, but we have to 
do more.
  The President has held out a veto threat on this bill. Let us not run 
this down Pennsylvania Avenue, have it vetoed, have it come back. Let 
us get it right the first time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to be making a motion to recommit. My motion 
is going to provide that within the scope of the conference we recommit 
to increase the assistance available to family farmers suffering 
economic loss as a result of record low prices, deteriorating market 
conditions, and/or natural disasters.
  The fact of the matter is we have not done an adequate job in this 
bill. We need more relief. We will lose thousands and thousands of 
farmers across the country, and if it was not just so darn desperate, 
there is no way in the world I would try and make this motion on this 
bill at this time, but we have to do more. Please support the motion to 
recommit.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).
  (Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support 
of the conference report on H.R. 4101.

[[Page H9332]]

  Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report on H.R. 4101. I want to 
thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and the House Leadership for their 
efforts to address the problems in the agriculture economy, through 
this bill.
  There's no question there's trouble in agriculture today. We've had 
disastrous drought and flooding, which my state was fortunate to escape 
this year. Exports are down and farm-gate prices are extremely low, and 
my producers haven't escaped that devastation.
  With the 1996 farm bill, we hoped for a smooth transition from 
government-controlled to market-oriented agriculture. Unfortunately, 
the problems in Asia and incredibly abundant production worldwide, have 
made the transition rough going.
  This bill addresses the situation in the right way. We maintain our 
commitment to freedom in agriculture, but we provide assistance to 
producers facing weather-related disasters, and every producer coping 
with low prices and decreased exports.
  I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, who are also good 
friends of agriculture, that I understand your arguments for reverting 
to old farm polices, and for raising loan rates. That may seem like the 
best, quick fix, but in the long run will do more harm than good. I 
understand the demand for more money. But please don't vote to put 
agriculture back in the hands of government, or vote to lose this piece 
of pie just because it's not a big enough slice.
  Let's stay the course on the 1996 farm bill, but respond to the 
current problems. Please support this bill. This is must-pass, must-be-
signed legislation for rural America.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest).
  (Mr. COMBEST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4101.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference to H.R. 4101, 
the FY 1999 Agriculture Appropriations Act. Among other important 
provisions, this conference report provides emergency assistance for 
farmers and ranchers across the country who are facing income losses 
this year due to lost export markets, and devastating weather. Rural 
America has an extreme need for assistance right now, and I appreciate 
the opportunity we have today to meet that need.
  Mr. Speaker, American farmers and ranchers are the most efficient in 
the world--it's a fact, and it benefits our nation more than we can 
know. But even the most insightful and efficient agricultural producers 
cannot predict, nor plan for the economic devastation that can occur 
when prices fall, or when drastic weather wipes out a year's work. In 
my home of West Texas this year, we are facing both sides of this 
crisis. Severe heat and drought have left many producers without a 
crop. For those who did manage to hang on, low prices and higher input 
costs have robbed their profitability.
  The emergency assistance provided in this conference report 
represents the most even-handed way to infuse a substantial amount of 
needed capital into the cash poor rural economy. For producers of the 
traditional row-crops who are suffering excessively low prices, this 
bill provides supplemental market loss payments equal to 29 percent of 
their FY 1998 AMTA payment. For farmers who have suffered additional 
losses because of natural disasters, it gives the Secretary of 
Agriculture the ability and resources needed to provide cash 
indemnities. In addition, for soybean farmers, the package establishes 
a market for the value-added biodiesel product which should aide the 
industry for years to come. And lastly, for ranchers, the bill funds a 
livestock feed program that will reimburse a portion of any additional 
feed costs incurred this year.
  However, let us be clear: no amount of assistance we provide this 
year will make producers whole. But when combined with additional 
support provided through the Emergency Farm and Financial Relief Act--
which allows farmers to collect the full amount of their FY 1999 AMTA 
payments this month--and the tax package which this body passed last 
Saturday, the provisions of this agricultural relief package will go 
far in helping farmers and ranchers recover a portion of their losses. 
What's more, this cash assistance will roll over several times in our 
rural communities--bringing life to their ailing economies.
  Mr. Speaker, looking beyond today, I believe the current state of our 
farm sector commands further attention by this Congress--particularly 
in the committees of jurisdiction. But I believe we are acting 
prudently today to only consider a disaster relief package which works 
within the framework of our current farm bill. In 1996, we sought to 
empower the American farmer to be more competitive, and to capture a 
larger share of the growing world market by doing away with artificial 
price supports and planting restrictions. To renege on these goals now, 
or to make hasty reforms to this policy without having full knowledge 
of all the costs or ramifications involved would be reckless.
  Again, I want to express my strong support for this balanced disaster 
relief package. America's farmers and ranchers need our support. I urge 
the passage of this conference report.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. LaFalce), from the Buffalo area, one of the hardest 
working Members of this Chamber.
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased, and I congratulate the conferees on 
the agriculture appropriations bill for providing crop disaster relief 
that is so desperately needed by the apple growers in my district and 
throughout western New York, most especially Orleans County and Niagara 
County.
  Our apple industry in New York State was devastated recently by 
tornado force winds on Labor Day. It could not have come at a worse 
time. The latest weather-related damage estimates to this year's apple 
crop is 41.4 million, fully 28 percent of the total crop value.
  The hardest hit area was in Orleans County, in my district. The Labor 
Day storm there caused more than a $5 million loss to my county's apple 
crop. Yields are down by as much as 70 percent on over 6,000 acres in 
my county, and thousands of trees were destroyed.
  I applaud this $1.5 billion new disaster grant program that is so 
crucial to restoring the financial health of New York apple growers. I 
applaud the conferees for the tremendous work they have done in 
inserting and including this $1.5 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that conferees on the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill agreed to provide crop disaster relief that is so 
desperately needed by the apple growers in my district and throughout 
Western New York.
  New York's apple industry has been both physically and financially 
devastated by a series of unusual weather events this past year--from 
last frosts in the spring to an intense hail and wind storm on Labor 
Day.
  The tornado force winds on Labor Day could not have come at a worse 
time. They completely destroyed five million bushels just prior to 
harvest--more than 20 percent of the entire New York apple crop. The 
latest weather-related damage estimates to this year's apple crop is 
$41.4 million--fully 28 percent of the total crop value.
  One of the hardest hit areas was Orleans County in my district. The 
Labor Day storm caused more than a $5 million loss to that county's 
apple crop. Yields are down by as much as 70 percent on 6,000 acres in 
the county. And thousands of trees were destroyed.
  This appropriations bill will help those farmers by providing $1.5 
billion in emergency assistance for 1998 crop losses due to disasters, 
and an additional $675 million for farmers who have suffered multiyear 
losses. I am very grateful that this critical funding has been 
included.
  This new disaster grant program is crucial to restore the financial 
health of New York apple growers. Most of them are carrying huge debt 
loads. They simply cannot afford emergency disaster loans, no matter 
how low the interest rate. Without these direct payments, many of them 
would not be able to survive the devastating losses they have suffered 
this year.
  I want to thank the Chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico, and the 
ranking Democrat, the gentlelady from Ohio, for the excellent work 
they've done in responding to this apple crop disaster in New York 
State, and to the farm crisis nationwide. I also commend the gentleman 
from New York, Mr. Walsh, for leading the effort on the conference 
committee to provide this essential disaster relief. And I thank all my 
New York colleagues who joined Mr. Walsh and me in urging conferees to 
provide this grant assistance.
  I look forward to working with Mr. Walsh and with Secretary Glickman 
to ensure that the emergency grant assistance program is developed and 
implemented in a way that will most effectively help New York apple 
growers and other fruit producers recover from this year's weather 
disasters and continue producing for year to come.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing that, again, we urge our 
colleagues

[[Page H9333]]

to vote for this bill. For those who are anxious to catch their planes 
to go home, let me say that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), 
the chairman and I, did not select this period in which to debate our 
bill. We were given this time.
  We feel that it is an important bill. We apologize to the Members who 
missed their 4 o'clock flights. It was not our choice to go up before 
the Committee on Rules this afternoon. I can say this, and the 
gentleman cannot. We ask for the Members' support of our bill.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, the farmers and ranchers need 
this bill now. American consumers need this bill now. Do not make them 
wait any longer. Vote no on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Skeen and Ranking Member 
Kaptur for the skill and hard work they have put into crafting this 
conference report. I also want to recognize the efforts of Agriculture 
Committee Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Stenholm. They have all 
shown great sensitivity to and understanding of the needs of our 
Nation's farmers, and for that I thank them. I rise in strong support 
of this conference report and urge all my colleagues to vote for it.
  For months, parched fields forced Texas ranchers to purchase feed or 
hay for their herds. The dry conditions and the increased demand, 
however, have made hay scarce and expensive. Texas ranchers are 
spending an average of $3.5 million a day in extra feed costs to 
support their herds. Now, many of the remaining hayfields in East Texas 
are being ravaged by army worms. I commend the committee for raising 
emergency funding for the livestock feed assistance program from the 
original $75 million to $175 million. Ranchers in east Texas are cash 
starved after having to purchase hay all summer, and this cash infusion 
is sorely needed.
  All agricultural producers in Texas, not just the ranchers, are 
suffering through the second severe drought to hit Texas in 3 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, the depressed demand from foreign markets, and bumper crops of 
grain in the Midwest are driving down commodity prices and compounding 
an already disastrous year for Texas farmers.
  Forest landowners have not escaped the devastation this year. The 
Texas Forestry Service estimates that 65 percent of the pine seedlings 
planted this year on 150,000 acres have died, at a total cost to 
private landowners of $16.6 million. I especially appreciate the 
committee working with me to direct the forest service to use disaster 
relief funds for the Forestry Incentives Program in east Texas. East 
Texas timber producers have tremendous losses this year, and the work 
of this committee will aid in replanting efforts for years to come.
  Mr. Speaker, the one thing I can count on hearing every time I return 
home is that our farmers need help this year. Our farming families put 
everything they have on the line every year to feed America. This year, 
every farmer and rancher in Texas was dealt a hand with no rain and no 
demand for their products. The disaster relief package in this 
conference report is a vital step in returning strength to our 
agricultural producers and agriculture communities.
  The President wants more funding in disaster relief for our farmers 
and I support his efforts. However, this relief is too badly needed by 
too many farmers in east Texas right now for me to consider opposing 
this bill. Any further disaster relief that is needed will have to come 
in an omnibus bill or a supplemental package. Texas agricultural 
producers need this money now.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, rural America is in a crisis. Farmers 
across this country are struggling to survive natural disasters and 
commodity prices that are at a two-decade low. Driven down by the 
economic slide in Asia, farmers are being forced to sell crops at 
prices that don't even cover production costs. They need our help.
  When hedge-funds ran into trouble because of the impact of a global 
economic tidal wave, our government took strong action. We need to take 
the same kind of immediate steps to shore up the farm economy, which is 
as important to our economy and our national standard of living as the 
health and stability of the financial markets.
  America's farmers have never failed us. But too often we have taken 
their hard work for granted. America has the best in quantity and 
quality of food products--produced at low prices and with an efficiency 
that is a model for the world. Agriculture is vital to the economic 
success of this country. It is one of our export leaders.
  But in 1996, when we passed the Republican farm bill, we cut the 
safety net out from under our farmers. Now, we are reaping the effects 
of that misguided effort.
  Thanks to the Republican Freedom to Farm bill, the only freedom 
farmers still have is the freedom to fail. They face hardship and even 
ruin because of a financial crisis not of their making and a 1996 
Republican farm bill which still makes no sense.
  For months we having been begging with the majority to listen to 
farmers--to help farmers. Farm income is projected to drop between $7.5 
and $9 billion this year alone. It has been obvious that we needed to 
take immediate action to save family farmers. But Republicans were too 
busy doing nothing to respond. It was only a few short weeks ago that 
the Republican leadership reluctantly acknowledged that farm families 
can't pay 1990's mortgages on 1970's crop prices.
  It's too little and too late. We are long past Band-Aid cures. There 
is only $1.65 billion in economic assistance in this bill when the loss 
in farm income is five to six times higher. The Republic message to 
farmers is: Be happy with the crumbs off our table.
  Farmers put more than crumbs on our table. We owe them the same. We 
must reject the Republican half-measure and take strong action to shore 
up prices.
  We need to lift the caps Republicans put on marketing loans in 1996 
so we can raise bushel prices for corn and soybeans more than 30 
cents--so we can raise prices on wheat more than 60 cents. And we need 
to direct aid to producers who have actually suffered losses, instead 
of using the outdated formula in this bill that will give out 
assistance based on historic production dating back years.
  We must do better for the people who have worked so long and labored 
so hard to feed Americans and the world. They don't ask for more than 
their due; they only request a stable, decent return on their 
investment of time and capital.
  I urge my colleagues to give America's farmers what they have always 
given us. Give them a decent, fair bill that helps farm families. Vote 
``yes'' on the motion to recommit. Vote ``no'' on this conference 
report.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this conference 
report. Although this legislation doesn't contain the level of 
emergency funding the President requested, I believe it is critical 
that we provide some level of emergency assistance for farmers. As we 
all know, farmers throughout this nation are suffering from low prices, 
globalization and bad weather. The Mid-South region is no different. In 
my own State of Tennessee, corn farmers have been hurt by the aflatoxin 
fungus and drought and low prices in the Mississippi Delta have 
adversely affected cotton farmers.
  Equally important, Mr. Speaker, this measure includes $26 million to 
spur economic growth in the Lower Mississippi Delta region. The delta 
encompasses 219 counties in 7 States, and taken together, it is one of 
the poorest regions in the nation, with poverty rates exceeding 20 
percent. This initiative will result in expanded agricultural exports, 
better schools and a modern infrastructure in the delta region.
  The Ninth Congressional District of Tennessee is the hub of the 
delta, and as such stands to benefit greatly from this funding. I would 
like to thank the chairmen and ranking Democrats of both the full 
committee and the agriculture appropriations subcommittee and also my 
colleague, Mr. Berry from Arkansas and Senator Bumpers, from the other 
body, who were also instrumental in ensuring these funds were included 
in the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Mr. GILMAN. I am pleased to rise in support of the conference report 
to H.R. 4101, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
1999.
  I especially want to thank the hard work of the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman, Joe Skeen, the distinguished committee chairman, 
Bob Smith, and my friend and colleague from New York, Jim Walsh for all 
of their diligent work in crafting a much needed emergency assistance 
fund for our Nation's farmers and ranchers.
  Mr. Speaker, on June 13 a severe storm passed through my 
congressional district in Orange County, NY, severely damaging our 
farms throughout the Wallkill Valley. This storm included hail and high 
winds damaging over 5,000 acres of onions and a few thousand acres of 
other vegetables. In addition, excessive rainfall and additional hail 
passed through the Walker Valley since the initial storm, wiping out 
any hope of salvaging a decent crop.
  Many of the growers are currently uncertain about the ultimate fate 
not only of their crop, but of their farms.
  Marketing challenges have already arisen due to storm damages. 
Grocery store chains

[[Page H9334]]

are balking at the Orange County product. Many growers are already 
seeking alternative employment. Migrant labor has either been laid off 
and/or hiring has ceased, which also has a negative impact on our local 
economy.
  This is nothing new to the farming community in Orange County. In 
fact, in the last 3 years the Walkin Valley has seen 116 farm and farm 
families go out of business.
  It is projected that unless emergency USDA assistance is offered, 
another 12 farms will soon be in jeopardy of being lost forever.
  Under the current USDA crop insurance program for onions, growers 
anticipate losing approximately $988 to $1,147 per acre or a total of 
$38,000 to $44,725 each. This means more of our farms will go out of 
business and many more will be on the brink.
  Accordingly, I wholeheartedly support the efforts of the conferees in 
crafting a necessary emergency assistance fund which includes our onion 
farmers in Orange County.
  In addition, I look forward to working with our Agriculture Committee 
chairman during the 106th Congress, to craft a workable onion crop 
insurance program, which will act as initially intended--a safety net. 
It has become clear that there are serious problems with portions of 
the current crop insurance program as it relates to onion crops.
  Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to support this conference 
report.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to report that 
tucked away in this conference report is language that could actually 
increase the Government subsidies provided to Big Sugar.
  Big Sugar claims this is simply ``clarifying'' language. They claim 
Congress never intended the one-cent loan forfeiture penalty contained 
in the farm bill to be considered an effective reduction of sugar loan 
rates. But Congress did.
  In fact, during debate on the 1996 farm bill, some members of the 
House Agriculture Committee told this body that the support level for 
sugar would effectively be reduced by one-cent per pound because of the 
forfeiture penalty. Sugar producers know very well this was the express 
intent of Congress in 1996.
  Why? Because in more recent debates, defenders of the sugar program 
have pointed to the one-cent forfeiture penalty as evidence that 
Congress had reformed the sugar program in 1996, and therefore the 
program should not be changed further. Big Sugar keeps wanting to 
change the rules for their own benefit.
  I am pleased that the conferees wisely opted to include this change 
as report language and not bill language. Nevertheless, the language in 
this report is simply an attempt to reinterpret the legislative history 
of the farm bill to prompt the Agriculture Department to raise the 
price of sugar. The USDA should pay no attention to it.
  USDA should continue to consider the forfeiture penalties as having 
caused an effective reduction in the loan rates for sugar, just as 
Congress intended in 1996.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the 
conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Pomeroy

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit this 
conference report, with instructions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. POMEROY. I am opposed to the conference report in its present 
form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Pomeroy moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill 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 (H.R. 4101) to the committee of 
     conference with instructions to the managers on the part of 
     the House to the extent possible within the scope of 
     conference to increase the assistance available to family 
     farmers suffering economic loss as a result of record low 
     prices, deteriorating market conditions and/or natural 
     disasters, to take into account the almost 50% drop in real 
     income that has occurred in some farming sectors since 1980; 
     and to limit such assistance to individuals actively engaged 
     in farming.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POMEROY. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 156, 
nays 236, not voting 42, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 478]

                               YEAS--156

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--236

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence

[[Page H9335]]


     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--42

     Armey
     Barton
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Callahan
     Clay
     Costello
     Cunningham
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Fattah
     Fowler
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Harman
     Hefley
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Klug
     Lipinski
     Martinez
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Moakley
     Parker
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Salmon
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tauzin
     Torres
     Wise

                              {time}  1551

  Messrs. LUCAS of Oklahoma, SAXTON, GILCHREST, JOHN, McINNIS, ROTHMAN, 
HALL of Texas and SHADEGG changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. KUCINICH, CRAMER, LAMPSON, HILLIARD and GEJDENSON changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The question is on the 
conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 333, 
nays 53, not voting 48, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 479]

                               YEAS--333

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fox
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--53

     Andrews
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Campbell
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cox
     Crane
     Doggett
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lofgren
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Pappas
     Paul
     Payne
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Royce
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Stark
     Stearns
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Vento
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--48

     Barton
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Callahan
     Clay
     Costello
     Cunningham
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Fattah
     Fowler
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Goss
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Houghton
     Hyde
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Klug
     Lipinski
     Martinez
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Moakley
     Owens
     Parker
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Salmon
     Shuster
     Smith, Adam
     Snowbarger
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tauzin
     Torres
     Whitfield
     Wise

                              {time}  1609

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________