[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 137 (Monday, October 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9502-H9503]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            EXPORT APPLE ACT

  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 4148) to amend the Export Apple and Pear Act to limit the 
applicability of the Act to apples.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4148

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SCOPE OF EXPORT APPLE AND PEAR ACT.

       (a) Short Title.--The Act of June 10, 1933 (7 U.S.C. 581 et 
     seq.; commonly known as the Export Apple and Pear Act), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:
       ``Sec. 11. This Act may be cited as the `Export Apple 
     Act'.''.
       (b) Definition of Apples.--Section 9 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 
     589) is amended by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(4) The term `apples' means fresh whole apples, whether 
     or not the apples have been in storage.''.
       (c) Elimination of References to Pears.--Such Act is 
     further amended--
       (1) by striking ``and/or pears'' each place it appears in 
     the first section and sections 5 and 6; and
       (2) by striking ``or pears'' each place it appears in the 
     first section and sections 2, 3, and 4.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Ewing) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing).
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4148, a bill that amends the 
Export Apple and Pear Act to exclude pears from this act. This is being 
done because farmers producing pears for export advise us that this 
action will benefit the industry's effort to increase exports of pears.
  Additionally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture advised the 
Committee on Agriculture that mandatory Federal quality standards are 
no longer needed to assure the high quality of exported pears. USDA 
believes that the U.S.

[[Page H9503]]

pear industry needs greater flexibility than the act currently allows 
in order to respond to international markets. This bill will help the 
pear industry achieve increased exports and essential goals for all 
farmers in the U.S.
  Mr. Speaker, this 65 year old law was originally intended to protect 
the reputation of U.S. apples and pears in foreign markets by requiring 
inspection and certification prior to export. Now, however, pear 
exporters find that the act is more of a hinderance than an asset for 
their exports. They wish to be able to export to all the markets 
willing to purchase U.S. pears. H.R. 4148 will allow U.S. farmers to 
increase pear exports.
  Mr. Speaker, USDA supports enactment of H.R. 4148 and advises the 
committee that enactment of H.R. 4148 would not result in increased 
outlays. CBO estimates that there are no costs to H.R. 4148.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4148.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4148 which updates the Apple 
and Pear Export Act. For many years, as the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Ewing) has explained, the act has served the very beneficial use 
for the two industries, but tonight the pear industry asked to be 
relieved from coming under that bill. The effect is to eliminate an 
outdated requirement for a law that worked well for many years but is 
now hindering further development for markets for U.S. pears.
  The pear industry now believes that market opportunities will be 
enhanced by greater flexibility. For example, last year the sale of 
200,000 cartons of pears to Russia was made possible by a January 1997 
amendment to the act that allowed for the shipment of a more 
competitive grade of pears to that country. This bill gives greater 
control to the pear industry just as the Russian government has begun 
to privatize its economy.
  Our farmers are increasingly dependent on foreign markets. It is, 
therefore, essential that the regulations they operate under are 
designed to help them compete in these markets.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this regulatory 
improvement which will provide our pear producers with much greater 
flexibility.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4148, a 
bill to amend the Export Apple and Pear Act. The Export Apple and Pear 
Act, enacted on June 10, 1933, requires that apples and pears meet 
certain standards prior to export in order to ensure only high quality 
U.S. fruit moves in foreign commerce.
  Pears exported from the United States are grown almost exclusively in 
Oregon, California and Washington and the pear organizations in these 
states support this bill. U.S. pear producers and shippers recommended 
that pears should be dropped from the Act so that they can increase the 
volume of pear exports.
  H.R. 4148 eliminates pears from the Act, thereby allowing U.S. 
exporters greater flexibility in the changing international marketplace 
and the opportunity to increase exports. The U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) believes that mandatory federal quality standards 
for pears are no longer needed to assure the high quality of exported 
pears.
  USDA supports enactment of H.R. 4148 and advises the Committee that 
enactment of H.R. 4148 would not result in increased outlays.
  CBO estimates there is no cost to H.R. 4148.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4148.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I, too, yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 4148.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________