[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 131 (Friday, October 1, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H9217-H9237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1906, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 317, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1906), making appropriations
for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 317, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Thursday, September 30, 1999, at page H9141.)
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 in which to revise and extend their remarks on
the conference report to accompany H.R. 1906, 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 feel somewhat like Mrs. Custer, and how she would have
felt about Indian relief, after we have gone through this exercise
earlier. But I am pleased to bring before the House today the
conference report on H.R. 1906, providing appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, the Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies.
This bill does a lot of good for important nutrition, research, and
rural development programs and still meets our conference allocations
on discretionary and mandatory spending.
Basic research on agriculture, food safety and nutrition has been
increased by $80 million. The Farm Service Agency budget is also
increased by $80 million, and this will be especially important to
farms affected by the drought, the floods and the low prices.
Loan authorizations for the Rural Housing Service are increased by
$330 million. The program to provide loans and grants for rural schools
and medical facilities, to allow them to access the resources of large
urban institutions, is increased by two-thirds to $20.7 million.
Our feeding and nutrition programs are all increased or maintained at
the 1999 levels. This report has $108 million for the WIC program over
last year, and the direct appropriation for Food and Drug
Administration is $70 million over last year.
We were able to make these increases by cutting administrative and
management costs and by benefiting from lower loan costs in our farm
and rural development programs.
Finally, this bill carries an additional title this year that
provides about $8.7 billion in emergency assistance, including $1.2
billion for farm losses caused by natural disaster.
OMB Director Lew has promised an assessment of Hurricane Floyd damage
[[Page H9218]]
but indicated it may be some time before the assessment is completed. I
expect we will be dealing with additional disaster needs in a future
bill.
Once again I would like to thank all the members of our subcommittee
and their staffs for their hard work and cooperation on this bill,
which began with the budget presentation back in February.
I want to offer special thanks to the ranking member of the Committee
on Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), for his support, and a special thanks also to my good friend,
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, the
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). I know she has strong
concerns regarding the conference report, but I want to make clear to
every Member that she is a strong supporter of rural America and that
she deserves a share of the credit for the good that this bill will do.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that benefits every American every day,
no matter where they live, whether it is FDA protecting the safety of
our foods and medicines, or the nutrition programs for children and the
elderly, or creating economic development in rural America. This bill
is for urban and suburban Americans just as much as it is for the
farmer and the rancher.
And, by the way, I think that everybody, every member of the United
States, is a farmer by acquisition, because everybody I know knows more
about farming than most farmers do.
I know some of our colleagues are concerned for what is not in the
bill, particularly dairy policy and the relaxation of export sanctions
to certain countries.
{time} 1130
But if we all voted on the basis of what is not in a bill, I am not
sure any legislation would ever get passed here. I would say to my
colleagues that this is a good bipartisan bill, and it will benefit
every one of their constituents.
This is the first day of the new fiscal year, and we need to put this
bill to work immediately. Please support the good that is in this bill
today and vote aye on the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
[[Page H9219]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01OC99.006
[[Page H9220]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01OC99.007
[[Page H9221]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01OC99.008
[[Page H9222]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01OC99.009
[[Page H9223]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01OC99.010
[[Page H9224]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01OC99.011
[[Page H9225]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01OC99.012
[[Page H9226]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me commend my colleague, the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for his hard work on this bill, though I cannot
support the bill. I think it is like a two-legged dog being brought to
the floor of the Congress today.
Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my remarks until closing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
the great State of Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), who has fought harder than
any other Member here to try to get the needs of not just his district
but rural America recognized.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to oppose this
conference report. And I do that reluctantly.
I want to commend the chairman. He has been very fair and works hard
on this. But I represent a part of America that has had disasters. Some
of these people have lost their crops 6 years out of the last 7. And
this bill does not address their problems. Frankly, I do not know what
we are going to do if we do not get some help for these people up in
this area.
There is a disaster component in this bill. In my judgment, it is not
enough money to cover all of the things that have gone wrong with this
country. I also do not think that it is structured in a way that is
going to get at what people really need.
Also, we have got a price problem in this country, as everybody
knows, in agriculture. Some of us that oppose Freedom to Farm said that
we thought this was going to happen eventually, and it is here right
now. And we all want to address that. But I do not know how I can go
home and tell the people in Roseau County or Kittson County that it is
more important that we put out money to people that have not been
damaged by disaster, that have had bumper crops year after year after
year and have sold those bumper crops, received the AMPTA payments and
then we are going to give them additional AMPTA payments, and we are
not going to go out and help the people that have lost crops 5 or 6 or
7 years out of the last 7 years.
I do not know how I can go home and tell the people that this is a
good bill, that this is something we should support. I do not know how
my colleagues can do that. I wish they could come up and look in the
eyes of these people and see what they are up against. We are not
dealing with this the way we should. We are spending this money the
wrong way. We are not spending enough money.
I would just implore my colleagues to defeat this bill, give us a
chance to go back to the committee, and address these issues.
As I understand it, this was basically taken away from the
subcommittee, and there was not even a chance for people to debate
these multiple-year problems, to debate these other disaster problems.
Defeat this conference report.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh).
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman, the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for yielding me the time and for the hard work that
he has done on this very important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take the unusual step of opposing my
chairman and also opposing this bill, a bill that I have spent a good
deal of my time on this year trying to resolve some of the real issues
in farm country.
I am very disappointed with the way this bill came out. I am
disappointed with the process. We had assurances all the way along
through subcommittee and full committee and then going into conference
that we would be able to address the dairy issue, but that was denied
us. In fact, the conference never actually concluded its work. We did
not have the opportunity even to offer amendments or to debate these
critical issues. That is very disappointing, and it is very unusual. I
hope we do not see a lot of this in the future.
But more to the point than just the process are the issues. The
absence of dairy legislation in this bill is going to hurt farmers all
over the country. It may benefit two States, but it will definitely
hurt over 40. Dairy farmers who work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, who
never get a break, are going to lose money. It is estimated as much as
$8,000 a family in my State.
And believe me, I do not know a dairy farmer in my State on a regular
size farm that is putting $8,000 in their pocket after a year of dairy
farming. It just is not a cash-flow business.
Disaster relief. My colleagues, I have no envy for what the Midwest
has accomplished in this bill. I praise them. I admire them. I wish we
could have done the same for farmers in the Northeast. But the fact is
Midwestern farmers will receive $7.5 billion in disaster payments
because they did not get the price they wanted for the crops.
Our farmers in the Northeast had no crops. In fact, they have no
topsoil because of drought and now flood. They will get pennies on the
dollar, $1.2 billion for all the Northeast for weather-related
disaster; and the Midwest gets $7.5 billion. That is not fair. It is
not right.
Sanctions reform. My colleagues wanted to open up new markets to the
farmers so that we could sell our crops and get the price that we need.
Would they rather open up and sell food to Iran and Iraq, where people
are starving, or would they rather spend all of our taxpayers' dollars
to give the farmers the price that they want through an artificial
means? Let us open up our markets. But we did not do it.
The dairy compact, which provides price stability, supported by
consumers and farmers in the Northeast, we cannot have that anymore
because this does not allow it to be extended.
Mr. Speaker, the pricing option that the Secretary has promulgated is
a presidential policy, this is the Clinton policy on dairy, helps two
States and it harms 40. I do not get it. I mean, I thought these people
were good politically down at the White House. This makes no sense. It
hurts 40 States to benefit two.
But we do not have to do that. There is another option, Option 1-A,
that holds Minnesota and Wisconsin harmless and it helps the other
States. But that is not available to us, either.
So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I thank the chairman for yielding me
the time to speak against our own bill. I respect him highly. I regret
that I have to oppose this bill, but I can take no other action.
I urge my colleagues to voice their objection to the process and the
policy by voting no on this bill.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the subcommittee, who has worked so
diligently on this bill and, as the rest of the members on our
subcommittee, was actually robbed of his rights as a Member of this
institution because our committee was recessed and never called back to
complete work on this bill.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to express my
appreciation and respect for the chairman of the subcommittee and the
hard work that he has done, the diligent and conscientious work that he
has done to try to put an effective bill together. The gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) is an example for all of us in this House. I
also thank the staff of the subcommittee for the work that they have
done, as well.
For those reasons, I wish I could support the bill. But I cannot. I
cannot support it for the same reasons which were enunciated just a
moment ago by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), my friend and
colleague from the other side of the aisle.
I would focus my remarks in the brief time that I have on the dairy
issue alone. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) pointed out,
the provisions that fail to appear in this bill would have benefited
the dairy industry in 40 States across this country. They are suffering
so that perhaps two States can benefit, and that is only perhaps.
Because the real beneficiaries of this legislation and the failure to
act in a responsible way with regard to the agriculture dairy industry
in our country, the real beneficiaries are those who seek to
consolidate the dairy industry, those who seek to rob consumers of the
opportunity to buy fresh, wholesome dairy products from local producers
in their own State and the surrounding region.
The real beneficiaries are a handful of people who are seeking
increasingly
[[Page H9227]]
to consolidate the dairy industry in the hands of fewer and fewer
people so that they can control where dairy is produced, where it is
shipped, under what conditions and at what price.
Dairy farmers in New York and New England and New Jersey and
Pennsylvania, the middle Atlantic States, and elsewhere in this country
are suffering because of the failure to put effective dairy provisions
in this legislation, and that failure is due entirely to the fact that
the bill was wrested from the subcommittee by the leadership of this
House which adheres to an ideological imperative which is outdated and
always has been wrong, and that is let the free market system run
agriculture in this country.
It will not work because the free market is run by a handful of
people. They control it, and they will continue to do so. Therefore, we
must defeat this bill.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our subcommittee
(Mr. Skeen) for yielding me the time. He is a fine gentleman and has
been eminently fair with me and I thank every other member of the
subcommittee. I thank him for his dedication to agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, I speak today in support of this bill. I am going to
vote for it. I think it is a good bill. It could be a much better bill,
for the reasons that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) stated and
I think the reasons that other Members may state here today, as well.
My concern has been not only with process but with policy relative to
this particular measure as it relates to me as a member of the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies. I felt for a long time that, in
order to have the Freedom to Farm approach to agriculture policy
succeed, we have to have freedom to market. Our farmers need to market
overseas.
My State of Washington, the east side of the State of Washington,
grows some of the best wheat crops and peas and lentil crops and
potatoes and other commodities, apples and others, to compete with
anybody in the world. But we are restricted, Mr. Speaker, because of an
antique kind of a sanctions policy, unilateral sanctions policy, that
hurts our farmers.
The power to change this policy rests with Congress. And we tried to
do that on this bill, but the process did not allow it. I felt
frustrated, frankly, that we could not have a good vote on this issue
and let the Senate speak, as they have, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Hagel
and others, Senator Brownback, Senator Durbin, Senator Dorgan, who
spoke in favor of this change in policy, as well as people on our side,
like the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Dickey)
and others who feel that that policy is outdated.
It is nonsense, in my judgment, that we should not sell food and
medicine to countries that others can sell to around the world. It
hurts our farmers. It hurts us as a country I believe. And we can open
up dictatorships and open up terrorist regimes, for that matter, if we
can engage them and engage the people.
The measure that was ready to pass the subcommittee and the
conference was no funding for government-to-government assistance.
Absolutely not one dollar would go to the governments of Iran, Iraq,
Cuba, or anyplace else. But there would be a funding option allowed in
order to allow our farmers to get some coverage for the sale of their
product overseas.
I fought the President on this in some respects. This administration
threw up a roadblock with respect to completing the sanction relief
that we had imposed. We want to work with the administration and the
Democrats and the Republicans and our leadership to try to have this
sanctions policy relief become a reality.
So I would urge my colleagues to support this policy in the future.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a distinguished member of the subcommittee
who also was robbed of her rights to offer an amendment, as these
proceedings were recessed.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the agriculture
appropriations conference report.
The process was unprecedented and heavy-handed. But the substance and
the policy and final version reflects the majority leadership's lack of
concern for farmers of America.
The summer's droughts and hurricanes have devastated thousands of
farming families. In my own State of Connecticut, farmers suffered
$41.6 million in losses. The pastures dried up. Fruit dropped. Trees
and bushes and dairy production plummeted.
{time} 1145
Farmers across the country are begging Congress to do something and
we must do something. It is our responsibility. It is why we were
elected. We come here to give voice to the people that we represent.
Our constituents can only conclude from this conference report that we
have been silent on their behalf.
This report includes only $1.2 billion in much needed emergency aid.
But this is a short-term fix to a long-term problem, the lack of
markets promised when the Freedom to Farm bill eliminated the farmers'
safety net.
Committee members on both sides of the aisle were ready to address
this issue with sanction relief, but the opportunity was snatched away.
It is wrong to deny our farmers over $1 billion in new sales abroad,
and it is wrong to punish innocent families, children, in other
countries who suffer under repressive regimes by denying them food and
medicine.
Finally, this report fails to reauthorize the Northeast Dairy
Compact. Without that compact, Connecticut's farmers will lose $4.2
million a year as well as the security of stable prices to guarantee
safe futures.
We are here to help farmers address short-term disasters and the
long-term problems that threaten their survival. The health of our
Nation is directly linked to agriculture's future. We must do more. I
urge my colleagues to oppose the conference report.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Dickey).
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, understanding the immediate need for
assistance that our farmers have, I have signed the conference report,
and I am supporting this bill. However, there were several issues that
were left undecided, and I want to discuss one of them, that is,
sanctions on our agricultural products with other countries.
Let us take Cuba, for example, and in this context, we have to
understand that our Arkansas farmers are the finest and the largest
producers of rice there is in this country. For 37 years, it has been
proven that the embargo on food and medicine in Cuba does not work.
Fidel Castro and the members of his Communist regime have never missed
a meal, but the poor have gone hungry. Those are who the embargo is
affecting.
But the effects of this embargo are not only felt 90 miles off of
Florida's coast, it has had much more of a local effect. An enormous
market for our agricultural products has been deemed off-limits. Our
Arkansas farmers sit facing one of the largest financial crises that we
have ever encountered. They are the best farmers in the world and
produce an excellent crop, but they need more places to market it. The
USDA estimates that Cuba will import 570,000 metric tons of long grain,
rough rice from countries all across the world. Conversely, the United
States has over 630,000 metric tons of this very type of rice from the
1998 harvest still in storage. The USDA anticipates this number to
drastically increase and next year our farmers will have 1.5 million
metric tons of carryover stock from the 1999 harvest, all of which will
bring prices down. The Cuban rice market has an estimated value of $125
million annually. Allowing our rice producers to trade with Cuba would
not only enable them to collect the lion's share of the $125 million
but it would also reduce our yearly carryover stock which would
increase the commodity's market price.
The Congressional Research Service estimates that current economic
sanctions on agricultural goods for sanctioned countries in 1996
reduced farm income by $150 million, overall U.S. economic activity by
$1.2 billion, and U.S. jobs by 7,600. This is an issue that
[[Page H9228]]
America cannot afford to ignore any longer. Even though I am going to
vote for this bill, I want us to be aware of the fact that we must do
something about these sanctions to help our farmers in America.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Boswell) who represents such a major share of U.S. agriculture.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time. First off, let me say that I am supporting this bill. I
think that I have to associate myself with those who made other
comments about the inadequacies. I do not understand why we did not
have an opportunity to have the full discussion. But there is where we
are at.
We have got two economies in our country right now, a robust economy
and an ag economy. The ag economy is in bad, bad shape. We have to
address these things. The farmers are desperate out there. I am
supporting this to get the movement going and get this money to those
producers. They need it now. I would say to the Secretary and anybody
else that is listening that this money needs to go to those producers
that have had losses. They are the ones that need it. I would trust and
hope that we are doing everything we can to get it to them.
I also appreciate the fact that my colleague and friend the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is offering something that will be coming up
I hope very soon, the Supplemental Income Protection Act that will help
all of us put the money where it belongs and help the farmers move
ahead. Support the bill.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the agriculture appropriations
conference agreement. This agreement will keep America's family farms
afloat, fund critical research and protect the environment in some of
our most fragile regions. Furthermore, this legislation includes
language that dramatically improves competition for livestock
producers.
Thanks to the cooperation of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and determined
colleagues in the Senate, in the other body, we were able to include
mandatory price reporting for livestock in this package. This
legislation will contribute to our efforts to revive the current farm
economy. As anyone in Iowa can tell you, the difficulties associated
with low grain prices have been compounded by low livestock prices to a
devastating level last December and January.
Today, America's farmers want to know if they are receiving fair
compensation for their hard work. With this agreement, we have made the
first step in assuring that they can. It is important that accurate
information be available to the livestock industry in order for
competitive markets to function properly. Without this pricing
information, we risk supporting a business environment that gives too
much control to a few. We cannot allow our Nation's farmers to be left
without the tools they can use to make sure they receive the best
possible price for their livestock.
It is important to note that mandatory price reporting language
included is the result of significant negotiations and represents a
concerted effort to find consensus. Title 9 of the bill is identical to
legislation that was ordered reported by the Senate Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on July 29, 1999. The intent of
these provisions and their attendant legislative history are explained
in detail in that committee's report on the reported bill, S. 1672, and
Senate Report 106-168.
Much of the language in this report was also the subject of
painstaking negotiations and represents the consensus of a number of
parties interested in mandatory price reporting legislation. I join all
of these interested parties in directing the Department of Agriculture
and the administration generally to this document for use in the
correct interpretation and administration of this important law.
Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important provision, and this bill
does truly address as best we can under the budget constraints that we
have the real problem we have in agriculture today, trying to get in a
very timely manner dollars in the hands of farmers who so desperately
need it. I just want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of
the subcommittee, the chairman and ranking member of the full Committee
on Appropriations, the staff on the subcommittee and my personal staff
for doing an outstanding job. There are problems obviously, but a lot
of the issues that were not addressed should never be on this bill to
start with.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the able gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden) who has worked so hard with us to try to make
sure that the producers of Pennsylvania and the drought affected areas
of this country are treated fairly in this measure.
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. There is
not a Member from either side of the aisle from the mid-Atlantic or
northeastern States that can go home and look their farmers in the eye
and say that this is a fair piece of legislation. It simply is not.
$1.2 billion for all weather-related disasters simply does not add up
to meet the needs of our farmers throughout the country. We have
experienced a 100-year drought in the Northeast. In Pennsylvania alone,
$700 million of damage; New York, $370 million; Maine, $31 million;
Ohio, $600 million. Combined in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern part
of the country, $2.5 billion of losses from drought. Then we look at
the terrible situation in North Carolina, what they are facing in
flooding and how we need to help our friends and colleagues from North
Carolina; early on in the year, the flooding in the upper Midwest.
Mr. Speaker, we were not trying to be greedy in this bill, we were
just trying to ask for what our friends in other parts of the country
received before in other emergency appropriation bills. We wanted 42
percent of our losses that were uninsured to be paid for with cash
assistance and livestock assistance. $1.2 billion, Mr. Speaker, simply
does not get there. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference
report and give us the opportunity to do what is fair for the mid-
Atlantic and northeastern States.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member
of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1906. Let me say
I am grateful to the conferees for their recognition of the economic
plight of American agriculture and I commend the chairman and the
ranking member for their efforts. I cannot, however, feel good about
the way in which we are helping our farmers and ranchers. For the
second year in a row, we are using emergency spending to compensate
producers for low prices. This fact is a stark admission that our basic
farm program is not working. Our Nation deserves a long-term reliable
farm policy. Taxpayers have a right to know what the Nation's
agriculture programs will cost and agriculture producers should be able
to know up-front what kind of assistance they can expect and what the
rules will be for distributing it. I wonder how much longer we can go
on like this, how much more our government will spend on ad hoc,
supplemental AMTA payments before we realize that a more rational,
predictable policy needs to be in force.
Mr. Speaker, last year we waited until the last hour to debate the
omnibus appropriation bill and the emergency agricultural spending it
contained. Many of us spoke at that time about the need to prepare for
this year. Instead of preparing, however, we waited, and today we
respond with off-budget spending to address a problem that was entirely
foreseeable. I would like to once again thank the appropriators for
delivering a bill that recognizes many of the needs. The deficiencies
contained in the bill are a result of a lack of coherent agricultural
policy which is impossible to address in one year's spending.
Let me say to my friend from Pennsylvania who spoke a moment ago, his
request is reasonable. We should treat
[[Page H9229]]
the northeastern States no different than any other States were
treated last year, and it is my belief that in a supplemental we will
do so. Dairy policy, I agree, but we passed a bill here. It is now up
to the Senate to deal with it in the regular legislative process.
Sanctions, we ought to be doing more, but we cannot do it all on an
appropriations bill. We need to do most of this in the regular
legislative process. I am dedicated to working with my colleagues on
that.
I am very grateful that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has
announced that we start full committee hearings early next year to
address this problem so we do not find ourselves back in the same
position next year at the same time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for
his extraordinarily good work in very, very unordinary circumstances on
this bill. As everyone has said, our farmers are facing the worst
financial crisis in decades because of low prices, because of weather-
related disasters, and unfortunately our current farm law does not
provide a safety net for our producers. And so we will lose a lot of
them this year, causing the very fabric, the very essence of our rural
way of life to be at risk.
And so with reluctance I say yes, we must pass this bill today. But I
also want to say, as my colleagues have, as an ag conferee, the last 2
weeks have been gut wrenching, they have been heart wrenching, as our
rights to write this bill were stolen from us. That makes me angry. I
am deeply disappointed that we were not allowed to vote on lifting food
and medicine embargoes against six foreign countries. We should have
learned the lesson from the Soviet grain embargo that food should not
be used as a tool of foreign policy, that our farmers in America are
the only losers in this battle. And we could not vote on fixing a
problem for our dairy producers even though the vast majority of this
body supports that fix.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am greatly disappointed, but the bill does have
many good things in it for America's producers, for our ranchers and
our farmers. They need our help today. They need financial assistance
today. And so I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill. I can only say in
closing that we will continue the fight to lift embargoes and
sanctions, we will continue the fight for our dairy farmers, because
that fight, Mr. Speaker, has only just begun.
{time} 1200
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price) who has been such an advocate for the needs
of farmers in his State as well as around our Nation.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time, and I commend her for her hard work to focus
attention and action on disaster relief in the bill. I think everyone
in this body is aware of the disaster that has befallen our farmers,
our citizens in North Carolina and other States up and down the Eastern
Seaboard with Hurricane Dennis and Hurricane Floyd. Our communities
have been severely damaged, our infrastructure, our farms.
Mr. Speaker, it is already estimated that the overall damages in
North Carolina for this hurricane will exceed the 6 billion in damages
we experienced with Hurricane Fran, which was our historical high point
up to this year. Too many North Carolinians are still in shelters, and
many have returned home or will return home to find out they have lost
everything. Estimates from the United States Department of Agriculture
and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture now are approaching 2
billion in agricultural losses alone for North Carolina alone, $2
billion.
Now, consider the amount of disaster relief in this bill. When we
look at that, Mr. Speaker, we realize how pitifully inadequate it is.
It is $1.2 billion, and it is supposed to meet the needs of both
drought and flood relief.
The State Departments of Agriculture in the Southeastern and Eastern
States, drought States, have estimated that the need for drought
assistance alone is $2.5 billion. That is before anyone had ever heard
of Hurricane Floyd. And unlike aid to homeowners and businesses, direct
aid cannot go to farmers unless we appropriate it in this or a
comparable bill.
Farmers need immediate assistance, and we ought to give it to them,
yet there was never any real opportunity for the conference to consider
disaster assistance. Before the conference had sufficient opportunity
to take up this issue, the bill was taken by the majority leadership
from the hands of the conferees. So, Mr. Speaker, we are forced to ask,
what are we going to do? How are we going to get this assistance to the
people who so desperately need it?
Yesterday I offered, and the Committee on Appropriations approved, an
amendment to the Labor HHS appropriations bill to provide 508 million
for direct assistance to farmers in all the states affected by
Hurricane Floyd for crop and livestock losses. The Labor-HHS bill is
not the normal vehicle for agriculture disaster assistance, but
fortunately, Appropriations Committee leaders, Mr. Young and Mr.
Porter, as well as Mr. Obey, accommodated us, and we got this done.
That is not the way this process is supposed to work, but it was made
necessary by the inadequacy of this agriculture appropriations bill.
Farmers in North Carolina and the other states affected by natural
disasters need our help now, and that need is greater than what is
provided in this bill.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me, and I certainly rise in support of the
conference report. And I want to thank my colleagues on the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee for their
very hard work. This bill, especially the emergency provisions, is very
badly needed by our farmers and ranchers.
Mr. Speaker, we have got a unique problem in agriculture. It is a
cash flow crisis, and this conference report will help ease that
situation by providing farmers with the financial resources to close
out this year's growing season and prepare for the next.
I specifically want to commend the conferees for maintaining the AMTA
payment mechanism. This will allow producers to receive payments in
possibly less than 2 weeks after it is enacted, and I charge the
Department of Agriculture to meet this goal.
I strongly encourage the President to sign the bill. Our producers do
not have the time for political games as they are making decisions
today which will affect their families for many years to come. We have
got the right bill, and now is the right time to sign it.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is critical that the House agree to this
conference report, and I urge an aye vote.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) who has been such an active
participant in these negotiations.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) for yielding this time to me, and I appreciate her hard work
along with the hard work of all the other people that have worked on
this bill, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, our farmers need the assistance in this bill, and they
need a lot more. The funding in this bill is just simply not enough.
The other side of the aisle comes to the well over and over to
criticize the lack of action on trade issues, yet when they have the
opportunity, they fail to lift the sanctions on Cuba and other
countries for food and medicine for only political reasons. Mr.
Speaker, this is shameful.
This bill is inadequate. I will vote for it, but once again we are
forcing America's farmers to pay for the political and foreign policy
failures. The majority leadership should be ashamed of this bill
because they did not accomplish what they should have for America's
farmers.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Combest).
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot this morning about,
obviously, the wants and desires of Members in regards to the process,
in regards to things that were in the bill,
[[Page H9230]]
that were not in the bill, and if we spent, made all of those
decisions, based upon that and those Beltway issues, we would probably
never pass anything. Let me just mention a few of the people that are
out there that this bill has tried to intend to help that support it:
The Southwest Peanut Growers Association of Virginia, North Carolina
Peanut Growers Association, the American sheep industry, the American
Farm Bureau, the National Cotton Council, the American Soybean
Association, the U.S. Rice Federation, the National Grain and Sorghum
Association, the United States Sugar Beet Association, the American
Sugar Beet Growers, the Hawaiian Sugar Growers, the Florida Sugar
League, the Rio Grande Valley Sugar Growers, the National Corn Growers
Association are the ones that have just come in since we started
debating this bill.
Mr. Speaker, let me mention one other thing, if I might, as well. I
agree with those people who have said that this is probably inadequate
in terms of disaster money. We do not know how much that is. In fact,
in some instances and in some cases the waters have not even receded
enough to know what the damage is.
But I will tell my colleagues that as this bill started off at $500
million, we had a hearing in the Committee on Agriculture, and we asked
the administration and the Secretary how much would they need, and they
said they had no idea. But they guessed, and they would estimate at
this time between 800 million and 1.2 billion.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has 1.2 billion. It is at the top end of what
the administration suggested that they would need. If that is not
enough, then at some point in the process I think we should come back
and revisit that issue. But I will tell my colleagues that the farmers
of America see the opportunity in a very short order to begin to get
some very needed assistance in their hands. This is the way to do it,
and I would encourage Members on both sides to give strong support to
this bill. I think the American farmers deserve it, and I think they
anticipate it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) who has done such a tremendous job as a
member of the authorizing committee.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for
yielding the time, and I want to thank her for her leadership and her
strong advocacy for rural America and for her due process, and I want
to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chair of the
subcommittee, for his fairness and his advocacy for rural America and
for agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, this bill does have things that many of our farmers are
advocating. I, too, have received the notice from my peanut farmers,
said they would like to have this bill passed. But I also have received
notice from people who need disaster relief saying: Is that all the
disaster relief they have? I have my farm bureau, which I am very
strongly supported by, call and say, yes, this is insufficient, but
vote for it.
Here we have a bill. Not only did we have an opportunity to respond
to the disaster, but we refused to. I heard the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Combest) say $1.2 billion was the up side of what USDA suggests,
but that was before we had Hurricane Floyd. Now we have had such
disaster in large proportions. We have lost in North Carolina alone the
agriculture has estimated to be over $3 billion. Over 120,000 hogs have
died, 2.5 million chickens have died; that is just agriculture, and all
of the crop has gone.
One third of agriculture production is said to be lost in North
Carolina, and we have $1.2 billion both for the drought and for
Hurricane Floyd from the Northeast and to the Midwest.
How can we even think that is indeed sufficient response? We had a
unique opportunity to respond. That is almost an insult, Mr. Speaker,
to suggest that that is sufficient.
Now do I find that there are things in this bill that my farmers
want? I would be less than honest to say yes, they do. The process
really is important. Process in a democracy is important. Even when we
lose, we would like to think that people have had an opportunity to
have a full discussion. I am amazed that we have refused to have the
opportunity to talk about the disaster that we so desperately need.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
Mr. LUCAS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong
support for H.R. 1906, the agriculture appropriations conference
report. Let us pass this bill today and show our unwavering commitment
to all agricultural producers across this country.
I am extremely proud of this legislation, of what it does, and what
it provides for Oklahoma agricultural producers. The 100-percent bump-
up on the 1999 AMTA payment is desperately needed by our producers who
have faced some unbelievable challenges this past year including Mother
Nature, low commodity prices, and the worldwide financial situation. I
am proud that this Congress has decided to take the necessary steps to
combat these obstacles.
I am also pleased to see funding for the Cotton Step 2 program and
the inclusion of much needed livestock price reporting language. We
have worked with producers over the past several months to ensure that
these items were included in the conference report. This is just one
more indication that this Congress is listening and responding to the
needs of our producers.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Congress expects the USDA to allow
producers to collect a payment equal to their LDP on their wheat crop.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) who has just been vigilant throughout this
process to be fair to all segments of the United States.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this
time to me.
I strongly oppose this legislation, and I urge all of my Democratic
and Republican Members and friends to oppose it.
This bill should be opposed from both a process point of view and a
policy point of view.
In terms of process, there is no disagreement that this bill, as a
Republican member, the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), just
told my colleagues a few moments ago was quote, unquote, stolen away
from the committee by the Republican leadership. That is what she said,
and what the Republican leadership then did is went behind closed
doors, where, heavily influenced by special interests, they wrote the
bill. We received the bill this morning, hundreds of pages, and now we
are supposed to support it.
This process is undemocratic, it is an outrage, and no Member should
vote for this bill on that ground alone. But we should also oppose this
bill because of its content.
Last week we had an all-day debate upon the crisis of dairy farming
in this country. There were six or seven amendments, and we went on and
on, and at the end of the day, by a 285 to 140 vote, the Members of
this body, Republicans and Democrats, said we need to reform the milk
market order system in order to protect family farmers all over this
country; 285 Members voted for it. When that issue came to the
conference committee, they did not spend 1 minute discussing that
issue. We spent all day; we voted for it; they did not spend 1 minute.
{time} 1215
How can you support legislation which ignores an attempt to address
the crisis facing dairy farmers? Please vote ``no.''
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for
whom I have the highest respect, the chairman of our committee, I know
that no member of our committee could be proud of the bill that is on
the floor today. Many have referenced that in their remarks.
I would urge the membership to recommit this bill back to our
subcommittee where it belongs to fix its flaws.
In the years that I have been here in the Congress, I have never seen
a conference report that comes to the floor where over one-third of our
members do not even sign it. There was pressure put on a number of
these people who
[[Page H9231]]
did sign. This is not the way that one of the bills out of
appropriations ought to come to the floor.
I want to say a word about how this overall legislation is
structured. Our concern does not necessarily go to the fundamental
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture that are in the bill
for the Year 2000. Our problem goes to the heart of the emergency
package, the disaster assistance package, which is so fundamentally
unfair.
I would beg my colleagues to listen. I am going to spend a few
minutes here and lay out some numbers.
There are two parts to that portion of the legislation. There is $7.5
billion that goes out in economic assistance. That basically means low
prices--trying to help people, as one of the gentlemen here said, the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), meet cash flow problems in rural
America. Of that $7.5 billion, $5.5 billion of it goes out under the
AMTA formula. But, remember, AMTA is based on the planting of program
crops in the years 1991 to 1995. It is not tied at all to what was
planted this year, to what is planted now, prices received, or economic
loss. In fact, there is no requirement to have planted a crop at all in
order to get these dollars!
In fact, there is nothing in that section of the bill for fruits and
vegetables. Many of our Members are coming up here and saying we want a
fair bill. There are provisions that are in there for sugar, for
cotton, for peanuts, for tobacco, for oil seeds, for honey, for mohair.
But there are no provisions for vegetables, for fruits, for
revegetation.
In fact, in that section of the bill, if we look at livestock, hog
farmers, an industry that is on its knees, it only gets a chance to
compete for up to $200 million nationally. Other claimants in that fund
are livestock producers, including those suffering from natural
disasters. So their ability to be made ``whole,'' or to even be helped
to be made ``half'' or even ``40 percent,'' is almost nothing when you
look at the losses that are out there.
I will submit for the Record from the Governors of over a dozen
States what they believe the losses to be in their areas. Or look at a
State like Ohio, my own State, where over $600 million of losses is
documented, with a letter from our Governor. Dollars in the bill for
livestock amount to almost nothing as we try to keep some family
farmers whole as they try to transition in this difficult rural
economy.
September 10, 1999.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Thomas A. Daschle,
Minority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard A. Gephardt,
Minority Leader,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Lott and Daschle and Representatives Hastert
and Gephardt: On behalf of farmers and agricultural
communities in more than 12 states, we request your help in
obtaining immediate federal emergency grant assistance to
address the economic losses caused by this year's severe
drought. Farmers and rural communities along the eastern
seaboard--from Rhode Island to South Carolina and west to
Ohio--are experiencing the worst drought in decades. The
drought of 1999 is compounded by the farm crisis caused by
low agriculture commodity prices. This combination is placing
tremendous financial stress on farmers throughout the region.
Initial estimates indicate that these states will
experience agricultural losses in excess of $1.64 billion
because of the severe and extended drought conditions. This
will have a ripple effect on the economy. The USDA Disaster
Declarations which have been issued for our states enable
farmers to apply for emergency low interest loans; however,
loan assistance programs do not adequately respond to this
year's unexpected economic impact on the farm communities.
Many farmers are simply not in the financial position to
assume more debt when they have lost their income. We urge
you to act quickly to include direct payment assistance to
those producers impacted by the drought.
The recently passed Senate Agriculture Appropriations bill
provides assistance for the commodity price disaster, but
does not address the natural disaster impacting our farmers.
We request that the final aid package be augmented to provide
adequate funding for USDA disaster assistance programs such
as the Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program, the Non-insured
Crop Disaster Assistance Program, the Livestock Assistance
and the Emergency Conservation Programs. These programs can
provide the rapid response we are looking for and the
agricultural community deserves. We further request that this
disaster funding be earmarked for drought-impacted states.
We appreciate your assistance in helping our farmers in
this time of crisis.
Sincerely,
Bob Taft, Parris N. Glendening, Jim Hodges, Cecil H.
Underwood, James S. Gilmore III, Lincoln C. Almond,
George E. Pataki, Jim Hunt, John G. Rowland, Tom
Carper, Tom Ridge, Christine T. Whitman.
____
memorandum
Re: Latest Estimates of Agriculture losses in 13 State
Drought Region (revised 9/21/99 4:30 pm).
Date: September 21, 1999.
To: Agriculture Appropriations Conferees.
From: DC Offices of Drought-Affected States.
Following, you will find our most recent estimates of
agriculture losses in our states due to the recent drought.
You will note these estimates reflect increases from our
August numbers due to the inclusion of specialty crops,
livestock, aquaculture and dairy that had not been accounted
for in our previous estimates. Some states were unable to
provide specific estimates per commodity at this time. The
recent Hurricane has caused constraints on staff resources.
Our states believe these numbers are conservative estimates
of what is expected to be the eventual effect of this
devastating drought, but represent the best information we
can provide at this date.
We also request the following programs be activated to
deliver immediate and direct emergency assistance to our
agriculture communities:
(1) Crop Loss Disaster Assistance
(2) Emergency Livestock Feed Program
(3) Emergency Conservation Program
(4) Dairy Loss Assistance Program
(5) Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program
(6) Tree Assistance Program
The Secretary should be directed to release funds to our
farmers and producers in need within a reasonable, but
expedited timeframe, based on estimated crop losses. We
suggest 30-90 days.
In millions
State Losses:
Connecticut.....................................................$41
Delaware.........................................................30
Maryland.........................................................78
Maine............................................................31
New Jersey.......................................................80
New York........................................................370
North Carolina...................................................53
Ohio............................................................600
Pennsylvania....................................................700
Rhode Island.....................................................10
South Carolina..................................................150
Virginia........................................................200
West Virginia...................................................200
2,543otal............................................................
____
State of Ohio, Washington Office,
Washington, DC, September 21, 1999.
Hon. Marcy Kaptur,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Kaptur: On behalf of Ohio's farm
families, I am writing to request your help in contacting
House leadership to secure federal emergency assistance to
overcome drought losses. This summer's drought not only has
devastated crops, but has caused corresponding economic loss
of livestock and dairy producers.
In the past month I have notified you of the State of
Ohio's response to the drought emergency and expressed my
hope that additional appropriations might be made available
to provide the help that Ohio farmers badly need. Ohio's
drought losses already are approaching a projected $600
million and will continue to grow (see attached Ohio Drought
Impact Fact Sheet and memo to the Agriculture Appropriations
conferees for estimated crop loss breakout).
I understand that Agriculture Appropriations conferees will
soon meet to discuss a final bill and will consider providing
meaningful drought assistance to states such as Ohio where it
is sorely needed. I hope that you can support this effort and
work with your House colleagues and the leadership to ensure
that this happens.
As you know, the USDA has made available low interest loans
to disaster designated areas. However, loan assistance
programs do not adequately respond to this year's unexpected
economic impact on the farm communities of the Drought
affected states. Rather, producers impacted by drought
require dedicated direct payment assistance. A farm aid
package should provide adequate funding for USDA disaster
assistance programs, such as the Crop Loss Disaster
Assistance Program, the Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance
Program, the Livestock Assistance Program and the Emergency
Conservation Program. Further, this disaster funding should
be earmarked for drought-impacted states.
In addition, I hope you will agree that in order for our
farmers to receive the help they need, Congress should
include emergency grant assistance for drought disaster in
the FY 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Bill.
I appreciate your efforts with this important issue.
Sincerely,
Bob Taft.
____
Fact Sheet: Impact of 1999 Drought on Ohio Crop and Livestock farms,
September 21, 1999
Drought Loss--Governors' recent estimate for 12
northeastern states: $2.5 billion.
[[Page H9232]]
Natural Disaster Loss--National Assn. Of State Departments
of Agriculture (U.S.) estimate for all affected states: $3.56
billion.
Drought loss--Projected estimate for Ohio: $600 million
(While harvest has just begun, there are projections that
Ohio's losses could be in the range of $600 million of
agricultural products. This represents about 10 to 15 percent
of the nearly $4.7 billion of Ohio agricultural products sold
in 1997. The FSA's July estimate was $422 million.)
Estimated direct USDA assistance payments
Drought Assistance--Estimated direct USDA assistance
payments for which Ohio producers would be eligible: $164.8
million.
Breakdown of potential USDA funding to program assistance
grants:
Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program (CLDAP) and Noninsured
Assistance Program (NAP), $80.6 million;
Livestock Assistance Program (LAP), $82.3 million;
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), $1.9 million.
According to the Palmer Drought Severity Index, the long-
term forecasting tool used by the NOAA's Climate Prediction
Center, all of Ohio is now in either severe or extreme
drought. Rainfall needed to end the drought, according to the
Index, ranges regionally from about 6 to 10 inches. Topsoil
moisture in Ohio is now 78 percent short to very short,
compared to the five-year average of 41 percent short to very
short. (See Palmer Index map.)
Eighty-seven Ohio counties have been designated natural
disaster areas by U.S. Agriculture Secretary Glickman,
enabling qualified farmers in those counties to apply for
federal disaster assistance loans. Of those, 66 counties were
designated primary natural disaster areas.
Hay Shortage: There is a significant shortage of hay in
southern Ohio (estimated need is 325,000 tons).
____
memorandum
Re: Latest Estimates of Agriculture losses in 12 State
Drought Region.
Date: September 17, 1999.
To: Agriculture Appropriations Conferees.
From: DC Offices of Drought-Affected States.
Following, you will find our most recent estimates of
agriculture losses in our states due to the recent drought.
You will note these estimates reflect increases from our
August numbers due to the inclusion of specialty crops,
livestock, aquaculture and dairy that had not been accounted
for in our previous estimates. Some states were unable to
provide specific estimates per commodity at this time. The
recent Hurricane has caused constraints on staff resources.
Our states believe these numbers are conservative estimates
of what is expected to be the eventual effect of this
devastating drought, but represent the best information we
can provide at this date.
We also request the following programs be activated to
deliver immediate and direct emergency assistance to our
agriculture communities:
(1) Crop Loss Disaster Assistance
(2) Emergency Livestock Feed Program
(3) Emergency Conservation Program
(4) Dairy Loss Assistance Program
(5) Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program
(6) Tree Assistance Program
The Secretary should be directed to release funds to our
farmers and producers in need within a reasonable, but
expedited timeframe, based on estimated crop losses. We
suggest 30-90 days.
In millions
State Losses:
Connecticut.....................................................$41
Delaware.........................................................30
Maryland.........................................................78
New Jersey.......................................................80
New York........................................................370
North Carolina...................................................53
Ohio............................................................600
Pennsylvania....................................................700
Rhode Island.....................................................10
South Carolina..................................................150
Virginia........................................................200
West Virginia...................................................200
________
2,512otal............................................................
____
NET EXPENDITURES OF THE COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity
programs
Total (incl. Other
AMTA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1990..................................... 6.5 4.5 2.0
FY 1991..................................... 10.1 7.8 2.3
FY 1992..................................... 9.7 6.9 2.8
FY 1993..................................... 16.0 11.9 4.1
FY 1994..................................... 10.3 6.1 4.2
FY 1995..................................... 6.0 4.1 2.0
FY 1996..................................... 4.6 4.5 0.1
FY 1997..................................... 7.3 5.3 2.0
FY 1998..................................... 10.1 8.0 2.2
FY 1999 est................................. 18.4 13.2 5.2
FY 2000:
Budget estimate......................... 14.1 10.1 4.0
Emergency package....................... 7.3 .......... ......
---------------------------
Total................................. 21.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 and FY 2000 estimates are from the OMB mid-session review.
Figures for FY 2000 emergency package is CBO estimate of outlays
resulting from the package (which is $8.7 billion in budget
authority).
``Other'' includes export programs (EEP, MAP, export credit, etc.),
conservation programs (CRP, etc.), various disaster assistance
programs, among other items.
Then if you look at the natural or weather-related disaster portion
of the emergency bill, there is only $1.2 billion in that, $1.2
billion. And these estimates are pre-hurricane Floyd. As Members have
verified these numbers were put in the draft bill before North Carolina
happened. So the natural disaster section is woefully inadequate. These
are weather-related losses, and the funds are seriously short of what
would be needed to assist those faced with disasters this year.
Why should producers in the Northeast and the middle Atlantic States
that have had droughts this year not get some attention in this bill,
as have producers in Texas who had droughts last year? If you look at
the way the formulas work, there is not fair treatment for these
States. Had our conference not been suspended, we would have offered
amendments that would have attempted to fix these formulas and
constructs that give such unequal treatment.
We know what this will mean are more bankruptcies and more loss of
equity, which is so unfair. This bill should be targeted at people who
are suffering hardship, not just some formula that was cooked up 3 or 4
years ago that does not meet current needs.
I wanted to put this on the Record and beg my colleagues, it would
not take us long to go back to subcommittee to try to fix this, to make
sure that we meet fairly the current needs of our country, and also
help to position ourselves for the long term because of the fundamental
inadequacy of Freedom to Farm alone to deal with the volatility that we
have experienced with the downturn in the markets and what has happened
with our lack of access to overseas markets.
There are longer-term solutions here that we are not being given the
opportunity to address in this bill. Please do not do this. Please do
not do this. Next year we are going to be back here again with more
requests for supplemental credit, as we were this year.
This is not the way to deal with this problem. This is important
enough and the gun is at our head, that if the Members of this Congress
recommit this bill, we can do it right. Just do not bar us from the
opportunity to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I cannot get two pennies to help
disadvantaged children in the area of education, but we can put $7
million into this bill to make sure your children, my children, and
every other child of a Member of Congress, can have a free breakfast.
That really makes a lot of sense.
They will tell you well, it has been authorized. It has been on the
books, yes, but it has never been funded. Why? Because we have done
something a darn sight better. What we have done is said that any
school district that feeds a lot of free and reduced-price children in
lunch can also serve free breakfast, and we know that 85 percent of all
children eating free and reduced-priced meals at noontime are now
eating breakfast.
Others will tell you, oh, well, the rich and those almost rich do not
have time to give their children breakfast. What a sorry state that is;
the Government should do it.
Give the money to the farmers who are caught in drought problems.
Give the money to those of us who are trying to educate those who are
disadvantaged. But, for goodness' sake, don't give $7 million to feed
your children or my children free breakfast.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Chair for doing a beautiful
job of allowing equal time during this debate, which is something we
were not allowed by the leadership of this institution in subcommittee.
I would like to know how much time we have remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). There are 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining on either side at this moment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I am from North
Carolina. We have a serious problem, a huge problem; but this bill
helps our farmers now. We can do more for them later,
[[Page H9233]]
and we will. But, please, support this conference report. It helps
North Carolina farmers and it helps them now.
I come to the floor today along with my fellow colleagues from North
Carolina to educate Congress on the state of dire emergency in North
Carolina. I support this conference report. As you know, Mr. Speaker,
North Carolina has experienced the most destructive natural disaster
ever to hit our State, It is already estimated that damages from
Hurricane Floyd will exceed $2 billion in agricultural losses alone,
not to mention loss of homes, businesses, roads, schools and other
services.
The extent of damage is currently still being assessed and will not
be known for sure until the water recedes. It is for that reason that I
implore this body, as Representatives of the United States, to work
with us from North Carolina, as well as with those suffering in New
Jersey, New York and other States from the destruction of Hurricane
Floyd, when we came back to you in the upcoming weeks and ask for your
assistance in passing a package which will accurately address the needs
of these people who have literally lost everything.
In light of the fact we do not have a clear idea of how much money
will be needed to aid these hurricane victims, I believe it is wise for
us to press forward with the emergency farm assistance package we are
voting on today. Farmers from North Carolina, as well as farmers from
all the nation, will greatly benefit from this bill. We need to pass
this bill and pass it quickly so that farmers can begin receiving
assistance as soon as possible.
I urge you to vote in favor of this conference report.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the
chairman of this committee, a man with his roots deep in agriculture,
and he has worked long and hard on this bill with his committee. But
there are some fundamental problems if you are from the Northeast or
mid-Atlantic. This does not address our drought relief. I wish the
people that could have decided to shortchange us could have been to
Bradford County, Pennsylvania, with me and looked at the corn this high
and the barns empty of forage.
This bill is bad for us for three reasons: it does not address the
drought; it does not address option 1-A, which means we are going to
allow Secretary Glickman's mistake to put our farmers out of business,
and it does not address the compacts.
Mr. Speaker, the only thing that this bill is good for in the
Northeast is the auctioneers. I hate to go home and see the hammer fall
on another Northeastern dairy farm.
I ask Members to oppose this bill.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Becerra), who has been such an outspoken advocate for
fairness to all people.
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we should be doing something and
doing it quickly for our farmers in America, because they are in
distress. At times of economic prosperity, we go to some of our
agriculture regions in this country, and we find that farmers are
having to close down their shop, and there are fewer and fewer farmers
independently farming in this country, and that has to stop.
But this bill, unfortunately, is very troubling for someone like me
who comes from California, where right now, with a State prospering so
much, and you find unemployment rates have plummeted in a State that
for the longest time was suffering higher unemployment rates than the
rest of the Nation, right now, while we are doing well in California,
if you walk into the agricultural regions of California, you will find
unemployment rates above 10 percent, up to 15 to 20 percent in some of
our rural areas where there are farm workers desperate to work. Yet in
this particular conference report we have a particular provision that
was added with regard to guest worker programs where we get to import
workers to do work here in America.
This provision would allow us to go out and seek people from other
countries to do the work that Americans can do today by simply saying
that for 3 to 4, maybe up to 8 days, we searched for someone to do the
job out there in the fields.
That is unfortunate, because those unemployment rates for farm
workers still exist. They are very high. Yet right now this bill would
say rather than give those American workers a chance to work in those
fields, to earn a decent living, even if sometimes it may be a low
wage, no, instead we are going to allow some of these mega-corporations
to go out and say we tried for 3 days to find an American worker to
work that crop, but we could not find anyone, so now let us go abroad
and hire the cheap labor to come in here and do the work for us.
How can we do that right now, when not just farmers, but farm workers
are hurting, to say we are going to cut the throats of agriculture?
This is not the way to do it.
This is a good bill with many good features to it, but why we had to
go about doing it this way I do not know. It makes it very difficult
for someone who, by the way, has not a piece of farmland in his
congressional district, to get up here and say this; but I think we may
have to oppose this bill.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have, I simply want to say this: I
have spent the last several weeks working with the committee and
working with the members of the committee to impress upon them the
needs of the dairy farmers of the northeastern part of our State.
To my colleagues who will come to this floor to vote on this bill, I
want to make this very clear: because we have been threatened by a veto
and because we have followed a misguided path set for us by the
Secretary of Agriculture on option 1-A and because we have decided to
ignore the fact that the Northeast Dairy Compact, which provides for
minimum supports for farmers in the Northeast so that they can maintain
their process, we have decided to put forward a bill today that
promotes the worst kind of regional divisions in this body. We have
decided to put forth a bill today that promotes and benefits singular
Members, singular states, at the expense of others.
So, with that, I would urge all of my colleagues to strongly oppose
this bill and let us make sure we come back and do the right thing for
all of our farmers.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York for
his remarks and again plead with my colleagues, as we move to a motion
to recommit, to support the motion to recommit and go back to
subcommittee where it belongs and fix this bill.
As you have listened to the speakers today, you have heard Members
like the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson). We look at the
farmers in the Red River Valley. We can do better for them. They have
had no crops. Just because some areas of the country have been
benefited by this current conference report before us, simply because
of who was in the room writing it, does not mean that other parts of
America that have been deeply hurt by drought and by crop loss do not
also deserve the attention of this broader membership. We need to fix
what was done improperly by those who took the bill away from our
committee where it rightfully belonged.
How can you turn down someone like the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
Baldacci), an area of the country in the Northeast that really has not
had a lot of losses in years past.
{time} 1230
Yet if we look at the specialty crop area, it is given almost no
consideration in this legislation. Speaking for our region of the
country, the heart of the midwest, for those people who are literally
going bankrupt in the pork industry, why should they not be treated
similarly to those who are in the row crop business?
These are good Americans, too. They deserve the attention of this
Congress. It is not going to take a Ph.D. or 6 years of education for
us to go back into committee and fix this. All we need is people who
are sensitive to the differing needs across this country to do a good
job.
I want to say to our chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
[[Page H9234]]
Skeen), no chairman could have treated his committee members more
fairly than he has. To the staff who has worked with us throughout,
they have my highest admiration on both sides of the aisle.
However, what was done to us is unforgivable, and it is the reason
that we have a two-legged dog bill before us today. Give us the
opportunity next week to go back and do what is right for America, for
those who are hurting today and to help position this marketplace for
the future.
No less is expected of us as leaders who know more about these
subjects, frankly, than anyone else in the United States. So to produce
a bill that is half baked just does not do credit to this institution.
I beg my colleagues who are listening today, to those who are with us
here on the floor, to support our motion to recommit. Let us go back
and fix this thing and bring it back next week. America deserves better
than we are able to produce today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen),
the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, is recognized to close.
He has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to restate the points that I have made
earlier. This is a bill that benefits every American every day, no
matter where they live. Whether it is FDA protecting the safety and
foods and medicines or the nutrition programs for children and the
elderly or creating economic development in rural America, this bill is
for urban and suburban America just as much as if it were for the
farmer or the rancher.
I know that some colleagues are concerned for what is not in the
bill, particularly dairy policy and the relaxation of export sanctions
to certain countries, but if we all voted on the basis of what is not
in a bill then I am not sure that any legislation could get passed
here.
I would like to say to my colleagues that this is a good, bipartisan
bill. It will benefit every one of our constituents. I have letters
from a number of farm groups supporting this conference report: The
American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cotton Council, USA Rice
Federation, National Grain Sorghum Producers, and the National Corn
Growers Association.
Mr. Speaker, there has been talk of a motion to recommit. I think
that recommitting this bill to conference would be a serious mistake.
There is $8.7 billion in assistance to rural America in this bill.
Sending this bill back to conference for weeks or months of more
haggling would deny any money at all to the people that we are trying
to help.
A motion to recommit, in effect, says we want more money for farm
assistance so we will send no money at all, farmers and ranchers will
just have to wait while we talk.
I would say to my colleagues, some folks cannot wait. They need
assistance now. They do not need more talking from Congress. They need
the help that is in this bill, and they need it now. Vote no on any
motion to recommit.
This is the first day of the first fiscal year, and we need to put
this bill to work immediately. Please support the good that is in the
bill today and vote aye on the conference report, and hopefully, Mr.
Speaker, this will finally come to an end.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Agriculture
Appropriations conference report. I am especially concerned about the
Senate rider, not included in the House version of the bill, which
would deny jobs to United States farmworkers by allowing agricultural
employers to secure vulnerable foreign guest workers without any
meaningful recruitment of U.S. farmworkers. This rider makes a mockery
of the obligation of employers to show a labor shortage before gaining
access to temporary foreign agricultural workers.
The General Accounting Office has reviewed the unemployment rates in
America's counties where there are major populations of migrant
farmworkers and found that in most, there were double-digit
unemployment rates. From this, one would expect that agricultural
employers would develop new methods of recruiting this readily
available pool of unemployed and underemployed farmworkers.
But that is not what has happened.
Instead, they have sought this legislation to permit employers to
escape the requirement that they recruit U.S. workers before gaining
access to vulnerable foreign workers. This proposal, offered by Senator
McConnell of Kentucky, (where many tobacco growers use the H-2A guest
worker program), would drastically shorten the time period for
recruitment of U.S. workers before the Department of Labor must decide
whether the growers actually faces a labor shortage.
Agricultural employers, under this provision, will apply for guest
workers 45 days before the first day of work. The Department of Labor
then will have 7 days to make sure that the wages and working
conditions meet applicable standards. If they do meet applicable
standards, then the employer begins recruitment inside the state and in
other states where migrant workers reside. That leaves just 38 days
before the season begins. But the Department of Labor must decide
whether recruitment was successful no more than 30 days before the
season begins. So in reality, employers have just 8 days to recruit
U.S. farmworkers.
This would be bad enough, but there are even more problems: Often,
the employer offers wages and working conditions that do not meet DOL
standards. The Department must then give such an employer 5 additional
days to correct the job terms. Recruitment does not begin until that
approval is granted, at about 33 days before the season begins. But DOL
is still bound to decide whether a labor shortage exists no more than
30 days before the season begins. This leaves only three days to
recruit U.S. workers--a scenario utterly designed for failure.
In the meantime, many agricultural employers have elaborate
recruitment networks that have been seeking foreign guestworkers for
months.
I recognize that the H-2A law contains job preference requirements
for U.S. workers. But there exist great economic incentives for H-2A
program employers to hire foreign guest workers rather than domestic
farmworkers. Guestworkers are far more docile and compliant than U.S.
workers who have legal protections. Also, employers save money because
guestworkers' wages are not subject to unemployment taxes or Social
Security contributions. Once DOL has give approval to hire foreign
guestworkers, U.S. farmworkers know that they usually won't be welcome
at those jobs.
The General Accounting Office report on the H-2A program made
recommendations about the very issues the McConnell rider addresses,
and the McConnell amendment is inconsistent with the GAO
recommendations. The GAO recommended shortening the H-2A progress,
which the Department of Labor recently did through regulation changes.
But the GAO warned that recruitment of U.S. workers should not be
reduced and that is precisely what the McConnell amendment does.
I am firmly opposed to the conference committee report because this
appropriations bill contains the McConnell amendment that unjustifiably
denies jobs to the poorest of the working poor, America's farmworkers.
Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
1906, the Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report. If everyone in
Congress is serious about locking away Social Security, we simply can
not afford to pass this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to exercise
fiscal responsibility, and vote ``no'' on this conference report.
This agreement is a perfect example of the type of legislation that
pushes us down the path towards raiding the Social Security trust fund.
The Agriculture Conference agreement provides $69 billion for the
Department of Agriculture and related programs--including $8.7 billion
in ``emergency'' funds for disaster relief.
Emergency funding aside, the conference report is approximately $100
million over its allocation. That increase will be paid for through the
projected surplus.
Indeed, since the emergency relief funds do not count against the
1997 spending caps, those, to, will be paid for with the surplus. In
fact, the emergency funds alone consume more than half of the expected
non-Social Security surplus for fiscal year 2000.
If we continue to chip away at the surplus, beginning with H.R. 1906,
Congress will begin to dip into Social Security. As someone who is
committed to locking away Social Security and living within the budget
caps, I urge all of you to vote No on this and every bill that leads us
down a fiscally irresponsible path.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1906 the
agriculture Appropriations Bill for FY2000.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns of my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle who have concerns about this bill. Farmers truly are
facing a crisis in his country. From the drought of the Northeast to
the recent flooding in North Carolina, more federal funding is needed
to insure the livelihood of the American family farmer.
But there is also an agriculture crisis in our cities. This bill
funds important agriculture programs which help provide more greenery
in
[[Page H9235]]
our cities, trees to fight pollution and make the air cleaner and
Federal research monies against plant and tree pests.
I am supporting this bill because it addresses the needs in urban
areas, and New York City in particular, which have been severely
impacted by the Asian Long Horned Beetle. This predator, which is a
non-native species came to New York and other areas through packaging
materials in shipping crates. This infestation has led to the
destruction of thousands of trees in Queens, New York and most recently
was found in Central Park in Manhattan.
I thank Chairman Skeen, Ranking Member Kaptur, and the House and
Senate Conferees for including $2.1 million for the Animal Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) for eradication of the Asian Long Horned
Beetle in New York City. This money is an important step to stop this
pest which left unchecked will destroy the trees of New York City which
provide my constituents with much needed shade and greenery.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman I rise in support of this
Conference Report for the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal
year 2000. We members of the subcommittee were charged with developing
an appropriations bill, not a bill to address every agriculture
authorization issue pending before Congress.
There are several very important agriculture issues that call for
attention. They should be addressed, and considered on the House floor.
But these are not issues that should hold up a badly needed
appropriations bill. In fact, I do not recall over the last two weeks
hearing any complaints regarding the regular appropriations bill.
There are some very good provisions in this appropriation. Each one
of us would probably like to change some part of this bill, but we have
to remember this bill provides for $8.7 billion in emergency assistance
for agriculture producers.
I have had calls streaming into my office from producers, and I am
talking the producers, not the Washington lobbyists, asking me to
support the bill. They know that the items in the disaster package are
too important to lose.
In this bill there is $5.5 billion in direct emergency financial
assistance. There is help for cotton's step 2 program, help for
livestock producers and $1.2 billion for disaster funding.
No, this bill may not be perfect, and there are things that may not
be in the bill that we would like to have seen in the bill, but I do
not believe we can turn our backs on $8.7 billion in financial
assistance and our producers.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express great disappointment on
behalf of our farmers throughout the State of New York and the entire
northeast region.
In my home State of New York, agriculture is the largest industry.
With abundant rainfall, productive soil, and proximity to the Nation's
largest markets, the outlook for the future of New York's dairy farmers
is of great potential. However, as a result of the recent drought,
natural disasters, and fluctuating market prices, New York farmers are
in dire need of assistance; which is not provided in this legislation.
Apple and onion producers in New York State have suffered severe
weather conditions in three out of the last four years, including this
year's drought. Nevertheless, the USDA has been ineffective in
providing needed, equitable crop loss disaster assistance for onion and
apple producers.
Due to 1998 onion and apple losses in New York State, repeated and
intense communications transpired between producers, Congress and the
USDA. Over the past few months, communications with the Secretary of
the USDA, Dan Glickman, have failed to address most of our producers
concerns.
Our agricultural producers have received sympathy from the Department
of Agriculture, but USDA has stated that they do not have a clear
direction from Congress on how to proceed with the complicated,
untraditional questions which are unique to these nonprogram crops.
In 1999, estimates of drought losses to onions and apples in New York
are again substantial. In fact, the loss in yield at $12CWT for onions
on the 5,000 acres in Orange County, New York will translate into an
approximate $15 million loss.
The $15 million loss in 1999, coupled with the $15 million dollar
loss in 1998 for onion producers in Orange County, will prove
devastating not only for the Hudson Valley's family farms, but also for
those businesses dependent upon the onion and vegetable $100 million
industry in New York.
Furthermore, New York's dairy farmers, which make up 60% of our
agricultural base in my home State, have been cut out of this
legislation. Producers and their organizations have been concerned
about the viability of the dairy industry in the northeastern states
for several years.
Declining herd and cattle numbers, combined with drought and
fluctuating market prices, have led to loss of infrastructure and
revenue for our New York dairy farmers. Our farmers are facing the
implementation of option 1B milk pricing, a plan that reduces farm
income in 45 states and will force New York producers to lose at least
$200 million annually. Our dairy farmers are relying on their inclusion
in the Northeast Dairy Compact, to provide them with stability in
pricing. However, that measure is not only missing from this
legislation, it was not even permitted to be discussed. Time and time
again, our Nation's dairy farmers have had to face the challenges of
nature and an unstable market.
In response to these challenges, these distressed farmers looked to
the Congress to provide them with a crucial milk price safety net, by
extending the Northeast Dairy Compact, and offering the preferred milk
pricing structure, option 1A.
Accordingly, along with my colleagues from New York and throughout
the region, I anticipated the opportunity to respond to our farmers by
negotiating for the inclusion of favorable dairy language in this
legislation. However, in an effort to force this legislation through,
this opportunity was not afforded to us.
Therefore, on behalf of farmers throughout our Nation, I cannot
support this legislation and, in the name of the thousands of farmers
forgotten today, I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, agriculture is Pennsylvania's number one
industry and Pennsylvania has one of the largest rural populations in
the nation. There are 45,000 farms in the state and Pennsylvania is
second in the nation in the number of acres of farmland preserved for
agricultural use. We all depend on the food that these hard working
citizens produce for our tables.
As we all know, 1999 has been a bad year for farmers. Month after
month brought no rain. September brought hurricane rains.
There is a small dairy farmer in my district who raises fresh market
sweet corn to sell from a roadside stand. His normal production is
about 28,000 ears. This year, his production was 500 ears. This farmer
has already purchased hay from out of state for his dairy herd and will
do so repeatedly through the winter. This is one small example of the
effect of the devastating 100-year drought in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania farmers have lost $700 million. This bill provides an
anemic $58 million for our farmers. Our farmers need a combination of
direct assistance, emergency livestock feed assistance and low interest
disaster loans. Unfortunately, this bill does not adequately meet these
needs.
This conference report provides only $1.2 billion for crop losses due
to all natural disasters in the 1999 crop year. This includes the
damages due to Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd, natural disasters in Texas
and the Northern Plains in addition to the 13 states affected by the
drought.
This bill leaves our northeastern farmers without enough help, and I
will therefore vote against this conference report.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Kaptur
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the conference
report?
Ms. KAPTUR. We are, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Ms. Kaptur moves to recommit the conference report on the
bill H.R. 1906 to the committee of conference.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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
offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. KAPTUR. 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 187,
nays 228, not voting 18, as follows:
[[Page H9236]]
[Roll No. 468]
YEAS--187
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Barcia
Bartlett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Moakley
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norwood
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Shuster
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
NAYS--228
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Capuano
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Obey
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rodriguez
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sandlin
Sanford
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Stabenow
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Berman
Boucher
Carson
Chenoweth
Clay
Ford
Hinojosa
Hooley
Jefferson
Levin
Meeks (NY)
Rush
Scarborough
Stupak
Taylor (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Wu
{time} 1257
Messrs. MILLER of Florida, HAYES, BONILLA, BARRETT of Wisconsin,
PITTS, EHLERS, and HOUGHTON changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. MURTHA, DOYLE, NADLER, LAMPSON, BENTSEN and GOODLING changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
Mr. WALSH changed his vote from ``present'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. SWEENEY, SAXTON and KING changed their vote from ``present''
to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the
conference report.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays
are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240,
nays 175, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 469]
YEAS--240
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Chambliss
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Horn
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Lampson
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pastor
Pease
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sandlin
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (NM)
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--175
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Collins
Conyers
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodling
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hefley
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
[[Page H9237]]
Inslee
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, George
Moakley
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norwood
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Quinn
Rangel
Reynolds
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Stearns
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walsh
Waters
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weygand
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--18
Berman
Boucher
Carson
Chenoweth
Clay
Ford
Hinojosa
Hooley
Jefferson
Levin
Meeks (NY)
Rush
Scarborough
Stupak
Taylor (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Wu
{time} 1315
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD and Mrs. MALONEY of New York changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
Stated against:
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast a vote on the
Agriculture Appropriations Conference Report due to a family emergency.
However, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________