[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.
____________________