[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 85 (Thursday, June 29, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5552-H5598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Kaptur
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 14 offered by Ms. Kaptur:
Page 21, after line 4, insert the following new paragraph:
For an additional amount to prevent, control, and eradicate
pests and plant and animal diseases, $53,100,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the entire amount
under this paragraph shall be available only to the extent
that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount,
that includes designation of the entire amount of the request
as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided
further, That the entire amount under this paragraph is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the amendment we are proposing today would
provide an additional $53.1 million in emergency appropriations to the
Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
to deal with emergency situations we have been talking about today
dealing with pests and diseases.
The additional amounts would bring total funding up to what the
President's 2001 budget request had asked for in four critical lines
within what we call APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, budget. These include emerging plant pests, invasive species,
fruitfly exclusion and detection, and the contingency fund itself.
The bill, as reported by the subcommittee, provides $57.1 million
less than requested for the first items listed and very partially
offsets this shortfall by providing $4 million more than requested for
the contingency fund. Our amendment eliminates the $53.1 million
shortfall in this very, very important account.
Now, these budget items are used by the Department of Agriculture to
combat serious outbreaks of pests and diseases. People should think
about their communities and some of the little green and yellow boxes
that are put up on trees to detect what is happening across this
country. We have just heard from two very distinguished Members from
Illinois and from New York on the Asian longhorned beetle infestation
[[Page H5553]]
which started in New York City and Chicago, Illinois.
We have heard other Members this morning, including the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Boyd), a member of our committee from Florida,
talking about citrus canker and the removal of entire groves of limes
and of orange trees in Florida.
We heard from the Members of the Pennsylvania delegation about plum
pox in Pennsylvania and the impact on fruit trees and the spread of
that pox across the fruit regions of our country.
Members from California have spoken with us about Pierce's disease,
which affects grapes in California and threatens our entire wine
industry. Though these creatures may be small and we can hold them in
our hands and some of the viruses and cankers we cannot even see but
under a microscope, their economic devastation is gigantic, mounting to
billions and billions of dollars annually.
In the State of Michigan, the unfortunate incidence of bovine
tuberculosis which can spread across that State and has spread to where
now animals cannot leave that State unless inspected also would be
covered by these accounts.
Mediterranean fruitflies that threaten agriculture in wide sections
of the South.
These truly are emergencies. The report references the fact that
these are situations that create havoc across the country. We believe
they are important enough in a multibillion-dollar bill that we should
restore the full account to the $53.1 million net additional dollars
needed to truly meet the national need.
Now the subcommittee's report acknowledges that the administration,
by using its powers under the Commodity Credit Corporation, might be
able to deal with some of these emergencies. But the administration
maintains that the use of these powers is not appropriate for the kind
of ongoing remediation that these difficulties cause.
So this amendment simply provides the emergency funding that everyone
agrees is necessary, and we should certainly restore these dollars in
the bill as will be finally reported out of the House, hopefully today.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the membership for a favorable vote on this. I
would hope that the objection might be withdrawn and that we could
include these dollars that are so much, very much needed to help
preserve our production and our ecosystems across our Nation coast to
coast.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) insist
on his point of order?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kaptur amendment. This
language will increase the funding for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, otherwise known as APHIS, by $53 million.
I believe the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member,
has been extremely eloquent on why we need these funds and why they
should be designated as emergency funds.
This Congress repeatedly spends billions of taxpayer dollars overseas
and abroad to foreign nations and certifies those expenditures as
emergencies so that no offsets are needed to be found to fund those
expenditures. But whenever we have a real crisis here in the U.S., we
always need to find offsets. This Congress can never seem to find the
resources we need to help Americans when Americans need that help.
We have a crisis evolving with invasive species. These are real
emergencies. The Citrus Canker is destroying the Florida orange crop.
The Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter is ruining our domestic wine stocks. And
the Asian longhorned beetle is downing thousands of hardwood trees
throughout New York City, Chicago, and now in Vermont.
Let us help Americans today and provide these emergency funds to
APHIS to eradicate these invasive species in our country. This is an
emergency, and this Congress should recognize it as such.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for all her
efforts on behalf of this emergency funding.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to again compliment my friend, the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) in the way that he handles the
committee. He and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking
member, do a wonderful job of trying to address the issues and deal
with the priorities that the Federal Government and this specific
subcommittee should deal with.
I want the Members, Mr. Chairman, to understand where our priorities
should be in terms of the work of this subcommittee.
The people of this Nation and the businesses of this Nation,
specifically the agriculture business, expect the Federal Government to
protect its borders. That is a basic criteria or basic function of the
Federal Government, to protect its borders.
These invasive species that we have been talking about this morning,
we need to understand they are called invasive species because they
come from other places, they are not indigenous to this country. They
come into this country through the ports. They might be brought in in a
commercial business transaction, or they might be brought in by a
tourist that is visiting from another country or somebody who has left
this country to go and then comes back.
The species that we have heard about, the Asian longhorned beetle,
the Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter, plum pox, Citrus Canker, the African
hard-water tick all have come from other countries through our borders,
through our ports. It is the obligation, the responsibility, of this
Federal Government to protect those borders; and we are not doing a
very good job of it right now. That is what the amendment of the
gentlewoman attempts to do is to find more money so we could do a
better job.
We just dealt with the research side. We know that we have to
continue to do the research to find preventive measures or cures for
these problems. But right now we are working on the APHIS part, the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
So I would encourage the body to let us find this additional money. I
know it is not the wish of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen),
the kind chairman, that we do not have more money here. It was not his
decision. But that was the allocation that he was given, and so he is
having to work with what he has. But I think this body can express its
will and come up with more money to protect its borders, and that is
very important.
Again, Mr. Chairman, the American people and its businesses,
particularly the agricultural industry, we expect a good and clean and
safe food supply; and it is under attack right now.
I know more about the Citrus Canker issue than I do about any others.
We have an $8 billion industry in Florida that is being threatened. It
just so happens that the lime industry has already been wiped out,
3,000 acres of limes in Florida. There is a very small number of lime
trees in California. But if we eat a lime or use a lime wedge in our
martini from now on, we will get it from some other country because the
lime industry in this country has been wiped out by Citrus Canker. And
we have allowed that to happen because we have not protected our
borders.
That is what the amendment of the gentlewoman is trying to do,
provide the funds and resources to protect our borders. I would
encourage the body, this House of Representatives, to recognize that
and find the money to do what she is trying to do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) insist
on his point of order?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, in the past week, USDA has announced the release of
more than $70 million in CCC funds to combat plant and pest
infestations.
OMB had tried to shift funding for these large programs into
appropriated accounts this year. But given the dimensions of the
problem, there is no
[[Page H5554]]
way that we can afford to use the appropriated dollars.
I believe OMB has finally come to its senses with the release of the
CCC funds this past week. This is how it should be done.
I would ask the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to withdraw her
amendment. And if she cannot, I regret I must insist on my point of
order.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that as we move toward
conference we might try to find an accommodation. I hesitate to
withdraw the amendment because I think it speaks for itself. But I
respect the opinion of the gentleman and would hope that as we move
forward we might be able to meet these needs across our country.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kaptur
amendment and would like to thank her for offering this language today.
This language will increase funding for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) by $53 million.
Congresswoman Kaptur was very eloquent in her remarks on our nation's
need for these funds and the importance of designating them as an
emergency appropriation.
Time and time again, this Congress has sent billions of taxpayer
dollars abroad and certifies it as emergency spending, requiring no
offsets for these expenditures.
But whenever we have a real crisis in America, Congress always
demands the need to find offsets--this Congress can never seem to find
the resources to help Americans when we need it.
We have a crisis involving invasive species and it is a real
emergency.
The citrus canker is destroying the Florida orange and lime crop; the
glassy-winged sharp-shooter is ruining our domestic wine stocks and the
Asian Longhorned Beetle is downing thousands of hardwood trees
throughout NYC, Chicago and threatening the maple syrup industry in
Vermont.
Let us help Americans today and provide these emergency funds to
APHIS to eradicate these invasive species in our country.
This is an emergency and this Congress should recognize it.
I thank the Gentle Lady from Ohio for her steadfast dedication to the
people of this country who are concerned about plant and pest diseases.
You are a true leader and a representative for all of the people.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) ask
unanimous consent to withdraw her amendment?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I did not ask unanimous consent to withdraw
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) insist
on his point of order?
Point of Order
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of
Rule XXI.
The Rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law. . .''
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) wish to be
heard on the point of order?
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would like to be heard.
Mr. Chairman, I point out again how our country is currently dealing
with a number of very serious new or resurgent agricultural pest and
disease problems that threaten crops and trees and animals in many
different parts of our country. We seem to be able to find funds to do
many things in this legislation, as well as in the supplement, to fund
counternarcotics programs in Colombia. Well, I would very much like to
be able to fund needs in our country, especially those that threaten so
very much damage.
Just to summarize, in Florida, Citrus Canker is threatening Florida
citrus groves. In Chicago and New York and in those States of New York
and Illinois the Asian longhorned beetle, with no known predator.
Bovine tuberculosis, which was thought to be eradicated in our country
but is now spreading in Michigan, imposing heavy costs on that State's
dairy and cattle industries.
{time} 1430
Plum pox, a disease of peaches and plums and cherries and other stone
fruits normally found only in Europe and Asia first detected in
Pennsylvania last year and now threatening fruit growers in that State
and likely to spread. Mediterranean fruit flies which appear only
sporadically in our country but when they do they cause great damage;
and should that infestation reach the southern United States, we would
experience disastrous losses to fruit and vegetable industries.
Now, I think that the appropriate way to handle this is to directly
place the dollars in the account, not expect that an ongoing
eradication program should be done through the Commodity Credit
Corporation, which is generally used for emergencies only.
So I would just say that it is vital we stop these pests and disease
outbreaks from spreading and failure to do so is extremely costly. I do
not think we should be burdening USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation
authority with having these ongoing responsibilities.
I think it is far more reasonable to provide the resources needed to
stop these pests, and I would urge the membership to pay attention to
this particular debate.
I am sorry that the gentleman has to exercise his point of order.
I would be pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Maloney) if she seeks time on the issue.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order and
would ask that the comments be directed toward the question of whether
or not this amendment is in order.
Ms. KAPTUR. Would I be able to yield time to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney) on the point of order?
The CHAIRMAN. Not on the point of order.
Does the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I really feel that there is not a point of
order to this because it really is an incredibly important crisis in
our country, and I would like to have the opportunity to compliment the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her leadership and for bringing
this to the floor. The increase for the animal and plant and health
inspection service is absolutely critical. With trade has come an
influx of many invasive species that if we do not adequately control
them can literally destroy forests, as they have in my district in New
York with the Asian Longhorn beetle, for which there is no known way to
stop it except to chop down the tree and everything else around the
vicinity.
I feel that this is an incredibly important appropriations she is
talking about, and I really support it completely, and that it is
important to the health and safety and well-being of Americans and of
our vegetable life and our plant life and our other areas that she
mentioned.
So I am here strongly in support of her amendment and strongly
suggest that the rule of order not be put in place because this is so
critical, really, to the concerns of this Nation.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to appeal to the Chair and ask
unanimous consent of the membership for an additional minute and a
half, if I might, in addressing the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would request that the Members confine their
arguments to whether or not this amendment is in order.
The Members may strike the last word at an appropriate time and
debate and make comments about this particular amendment, but at this
point the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order, unless there
is further arguments as to whether or not this amendment is in order.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for an
additional minute and a half to address the point of order issue.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot entertain a unanimous consent request
at this point because the point of order is pending.
Are there further arguments on whether this amendment is in order?
At this time, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that the
amendment includes an emergency designation under Section 251(b)(2)(A)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The
amendment therefore constitutes legislation
[[Page H5555]]
in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained
and the amendment is not in order.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, in regard to the proposal on the amendment dealing with
the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, I just wanted to read into
the Record a statement of policy that I think is important to be
appended to this debate today, and it comes in the form of a letter
from the Office of Management and Budget dated June 29, 2000, from the
Executive Office of the President concerning plant pests and diseases.
It says: ``The administration places a high priority on fighting
plant pests and diseases, especially when there are invasive species
that may be eradicated before becoming an established threat. To combat
sudden outbreaks of invasive species, the administration has used
emergency transfers through the Commodity Credit Corporation at a level
that is much higher than the two previous administrations combined, and
we continue to support the use of Commodity Credit Corporation funds in
cases of unforeseen emergencies. However, where eradication efforts
extend over several seasons, costs are predictable and should be
incorporated into the discretionary appropriations process. Therefore,
to address ongoing plant pest and disease outbreaks, the administration
has proposed substantial appropriations in the 2001 budget. The
Committee bill has not provided these appropriations, thereby requiring
a corresponding increase in emergency spending from the CCC for
activities that can no longer be considered unforeseen.''
The issue of proper compensation to producers for losses due to
invasive plant pests and disease has grown more complex recently as the
variety and complexity of outbreaks have increased. Legislative and
administrative actions to provide compensation for invasive species
losses would be better guided by a policy that distinguishes between
compensation as part of eradication efforts and compensation as
reimbursement for natural disaster losses due to infestations rather
than through event-specific supplementals.
The administration believes there should be a more systematic
approach to making these decisions and will be sending to Congress a
set of recommendations that it hopes can be used as a framework for
discussion with Congress on this issue.
I reiterate, in the President's cover letter it says he would
recommend that this bill be vetoed if it were presented to him in its
current form.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the committee.
As the gentleman knows, in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Congress
enacted a 3-year income averaging provision to protect farmers and
ranchers from excessive tax rates in profitable years. Unfortunately, a
ruling by the Internal Revenue Service late last year could potentially
cost farmers and ranchers thousands more in taxes each year and is
inconsistent with the intent of Congress.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Last October, the IRS proposed final
regulations for income averaging failed to clarify that taxable income
in the income averaging formula could in fact include a negative
number. Current instructions that accompany schedule J of Form 1040
require that taxable income cannot be less than zero. Earlier this
year, I introduced H.R. 4381 to address this unfortunate situation.
This legislation simply amends the Internal Revenue Service code of
1986 by permanently taking into account negative taxable income during
the base 3-year period.
I believe this legislation, once passed, will codify Congress'
original intent and ensure that farmers and ranchers receive the
protection they deserve. Unfortunately, I understand that introducing
H.R. 4381 as an amendment to this appropriations bill would violate
House rules that prohibit legislating on an appropriations bill.
As a result, I would ask for the gentleman's assistance and the
assistance of the committee in working with me to present this
legislation to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) for his
efforts on this subject. I know the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen) and I also believe the IRS's interpretation needs to be changed
and regret that it cannot be done at this time.
I have also seen the rapid and dramatic price fluctuations that
farmers and ranchers are so often subject to. The goal of the Taxpayer
Relief Act of 1997 was to help reduce the tax effect of these large
fluctuations. I agree with the gentleman that the IRS's interpretation
will dramatically impair the effectiveness of this legislation. I look
forward to working with the gentleman on this important matter, as does
the chairman.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman and the chairman for
their help and their attention to this matter.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Buildings and Facilities
For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance,
environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration,
and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized
by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7
U.S.C. 428a, $5,200,000, to remain available until expended.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Marketing Services
For necessary expenses to carry on services related to
consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution,
transportation, and regulatory programs, as authorized by
law, and for administration and coordination of payments to
States, including field employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225) and not to exceed $90,000 for employment under 5
U.S.C. 3109, $56,326,000, including funds for the wholesale
market development program for the design and development of
wholesale and farmer market facilities for the major
metropolitan areas of the country: Provided, That this
appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C.
2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and
improvements, but the cost of altering any one building
during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the
current replacement value of the building: Provided further,
That, only after promulgation of a final rule on a National
Organic Standards Program, $639,000 of this amount shall be
available for the Expenses and Refunds, Inspection and
Grading of Farm Products fund account for the cost of the
National Organic Standards Program and such funds shall
remain available until expended.
Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization
activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31
U.S.C. 9701).
limitation on administrative expenses level
Not to exceed $60,730,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative
expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or
other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this
limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the
Appropriations Committees.
Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply (Section 32)
(including transfers of funds)
Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24,
1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c) shall be used only for commodity program
expenses as authorized therein, and other related operating
expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the Department of
Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of August
8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in this Act; and
(3) not more than $13,438,000 for formulation and
administration of marketing agreements and orders pursuant to
the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and the
Agricultural Act of 1961.
Payments to States and Possessions
For payments to departments of agriculture, bureaus and
departments of markets, and similar agencies for marketing
activities under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), $1,500,000.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
United States Grain Standards Act, for the administration of
the Packers and Stockyards Act, for certifying procedures
used to protect purchasers of farm products, and the
standardization activities related to grain under the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, including field
employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a)
of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed
$25,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $27,801,000:
Provided, That this appropriation shall be available pursuant
to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of
buildings and improvements, but the cost of altering any one
[[Page H5556]]
building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent
of the current replacement value of the building.
limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses
Not to exceed $42,557,000 (from fees collected) shall be
obligated during the current fiscal year for inspection and
weighing services: Provided, That if grain export activities
require additional supervision and oversight, or other
uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded
by up to 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations
Committees.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food Safety to administer the laws
enacted by the Congress for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, $446,000.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
For necessary expenses to carry out services authorized by
the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products
Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act,
$673,790,000, of which no less than $585,258,000 shall be
available for Federal food inspection, and in addition,
$1,000,000 may be credited to this account from fees
collected for the cost of laboratory accreditation as
authorized by section 1017 of Public Law 102-237: Provided,
That this appropriation shall be available for field
employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a)
of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed
$75,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C.
3109: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be
available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration
and repair of buildings and improvements, but the cost of
altering any one building during the fiscal year shall not
exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value of the
building: Provided further, That the Food Safety and
Inspection Service may expend funds appropriated for, or
otherwise made available during fiscal year 2001 to liquidate
overobligations and overexpenditures incurred in fiscal years
1997 and 1998.
Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services to
administer the laws enacted by Congress for the Farm Service
Agency, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Risk Management
Agency, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, $572,000.
Farm Service Agency
Salaries and Expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration
and implementation of programs administered by the Farm
Service Agency, $828,385,000: Provided, That the Secretary is
authorized to use the services, facilities, and authorities
(but not the funds) of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
make program payments for all programs administered by the
Agency: Provided further, That other funds made available to
the Agency for authorized activities may be advanced to and
merged with this account: Provided further, That these funds
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.
State Mediation Grants
For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural
Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106),
$3,000,000.
Dairy Indemnity Program
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity
payments to dairy farmers for milk or cows producing such
milk and manufacturers of dairy products who have been
directed to remove their milk or dairy products from
commercial markets because it contained residues of chemicals
registered and approved for use by the Federal Government,
and in making indemnity payments for milk, or cows producing
such milk, at a fair market value to any dairy farmer who is
directed to remove his milk from commercial markets because
of: (1) the presence of products of nuclear radiation or
fallout if such contamination is not due to the fault of the
farmer; or (2) residues of chemicals or toxic substances not
included under the first sentence of the Act of August 13,
1968 (7 U.S.C. 450j), if such chemicals or toxic substances
were not used in a manner contrary to applicable regulations
or labeling instructions provided at the time of use and the
contamination is not due to the fault of the farmer,
$450,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C.
2209b): Provided, That none of the funds contained in this
Act shall be used to make indemnity payments to any farmer
whose milk was removed from commercial markets as a result of
the farmer's willful failure to follow procedures prescribed
by the Federal Government: Provided further, That this amount
shall be transferred to the Commodity Credit Corporation:
Provided further, That the Secretary is authorized to utilize
the services, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity
Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity
disbursements.
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account
(including transfers of funds)
For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928-1929, to
be available from funds in the Agricultural Credit Insurance
Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans, $1,128,000,000, of
which $1,000,000,000 shall be for guaranteed loans; operating
loans, $3,177,868,000, of which $2,000,000,000 shall be for
unsubsidized guaranteed loans and $477,868,000 shall be for
subsidized guaranteed loans; Indian tribe land acquisition
loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $2,006,000; for
emergency insured loans, $150,064,000 to meet the needs
resulting from natural disasters; and for boll weevil
eradication program loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1989,
$100,000,000.
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership
loans, $18,886,000, of which $5,100,000, shall be for
guaranteed loans; operating loans, $129,534,000, of which
$27,400,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans and
$38,994,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans; Indian
tribe land acquisition loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488,
$323,000; and for emergency insured loans, $36,811,000 to
meet the needs resulting from natural disasters.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $269,454,000, of
which $265,315,000 shall be transferred to and merged with
the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and
Expenses''.
Funds appropriated by this Act to the Agricultural Credit
Insurance Program Account for farm ownership and operating
direct loans and guaranteed loans may be transferred among
these programs with the prior approval of the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Risk Management Agency
For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized by
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7
U.S.C. 6933), $67,700,000: Provided, That not to exceed $700
shall be available for official reception and representation
expenses, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i).
Corporations
The following corporations and agencies are hereby
authorized to make expenditures, within the limits of funds
and borrowing authority available to each such corporation or
agency and in accord with law, and to make contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act as may be necessary in carrying out the programs set
forth in the budget for the current fiscal year for such
corporation or agency, except as hereinafter provided.
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund
For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal
Crop Insurance Act, such sums as may be necessary, to remain
available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).
Commodity Credit Corporation Fund
reimbursement for net realized losses
For fiscal year 2001, such sums as may be necessary to
reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized
losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed (estimated to
be $27,771,007,000 in the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget
Request (H. Doc. 106-162)), but not to exceed
$27,771,007,000, pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August
17, 1961 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11).
operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management
For fiscal year 2001, the Commodity Credit Corporation
shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for site investigation
and cleanup expenses, and operations and maintenance expenses
to comply with the requirement of section 107(g) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section
6001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6961.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hayes
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hayes:
Page 31, after line 5, insert the following:
Administrative Provision
Any limitation established in this title on funds to carry
out research related to the production, processing, or
marketing of tobacco or tobacco products shall not apply to
research on the medical, biotechnological, food, and
industrial uses of tobacco.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which is about
existing benefits resulting from research. It is also about badly
needed health breakthroughs which are dependent on future research
using the tobacco plant.
Recently I, along with the senior Senator from North Carolina and the
senior Senator from Indiana, sponsored an appropriation for $3 million
for North Carolina State University and Georgetown University Medical
School to conduct cervical cancer research using the tobacco plant.
There are high hopes and optimism that a preventive vaccine and
ultimately a cure can soon be produced.
[[Page H5557]]
These institutions have written letters outlining the goal of this
research, which is to develop a preventive vaccine for this terrible
cancer.
In addition, other institutions, such as Virginia Tech, are
conducting similar health and pharmaceutical-related research on such
diseases as Parkinson's, Gaucher's disease, providing clot dissolving
drugs and even preventing tooth decay, all uses from tobacco plants.
{time} 1445
The potential benefits to medicine, health and industry are
limitless.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask that letters from these institutions,
as well as a letter of support from the North Carolina Farm Bureau, a
press statement from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, who are
supporting this type of research, be placed into the Record at the
appropriate time.
We are on the verge of a number of critical breakthroughs which are
so vital to our Nation's health. There is language in the present bill
that prohibits money from being spent on tobacco research. Although
possibly well-intentioned, this language prevents medical,
agricultural, and industrial research that is vital to our Nation's
health and the economic health of our farm families.
I want to make clear the types of research that I am speaking of are
new breakthroughs. Research that can affect the lives of millions of
Americans and provide life-saving vaccines and countless other medical,
scientific, and economic benefits.
The tobacco plant has unique characteristics which allow it to
produce large volumes of high-quality proteins which are vital to
medical, pharmaceutical and scientific research.
The potential for new pharmaceuticals is unlimited. The ability to
reduce the costs of new and existing drugs is also unlimited. It is
this type of research I seek to preserve and expand with this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Hayes) for yielding to me and thank the gentleman for introducing
the amendment.
I want to join in support of this and say this is an opportunity to
see how we can use tobacco for something other than for recreational
use. It also is an excellent opportunity for medicinal and production
goods, for enhancing the protein content for feeding of livestock, and
I think it has potential economic advantage for the farmers in our
areas who are really trying to find a quality value for tobacco other
than being challenged as they have been about the health issues.
I think this is a worthwhile issue, and I urge my colleagues not to
apply any predisposition to this and see this in a very positive way
and to support the amendment.
Mr. HAYES. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for her very thoughtful comments. I
also have supporting comments from the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), which I will ask
them to insert in the Record later.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support.
Georgetown University
Medical Center,
Washington, DC, June 27, 2000.
Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Young: I am writing in support of Congressman
Hayes' amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill that
would allow money to be spent on research for alternative
uses for tobacco. Your support of this amendment will allow
funding for an alternative use of a genetically modified
version of the tobacco plant capable of producing a vaccine
for the potentially prevention and cure cervical cancer.
Cervical cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related
death among women worldwide. Every year in the United States,
approximately 15,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer
and 5,000 women die of this disease. Worldwide, cervical
cancer affects 500,000 women annually, and, after breast
cancer, it is the second most common malignancy found in
women.
Clinical studies have confirmed that the human
papillomavirus, or HPV, is the primary cause of cervical
cancer. In order to develop a vaccine, large quantities of
HPV fragments are required. Unfortunately, this virus does
not grow under normal laboratory conditions. The tobacco
plant, however, shows tremendous promise to serve as a vessel
in which an HPV fragment could be cultivated.
Recently, it has become feasible to biologically engineer
tobacco to produce high-value foreign proteins, including a
potential vaccine for the papillomavirus. Once developed,
this detoxified version of HPV fragments can then be injected
into the human body. These genetically engineered proteins
would trigger our natural immunization defense system and
create a resistance to the harmful strain of HPV. This
treatment could also serve as a cure for existing HPV.
We greatly appreciate the recent appropriation of $3
million funding for this study that will permit North
Carolina State University (NCSU) and Georgetown to explore
this promising new vaccine. While this appropriation was not
included in the FY '01 agriculture appropriations, we
appreciate your attention to this matter and appreciate your
support. Your support is critical for finding a cure to
cervical cancer. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kenneth L. Dretchen, Ph.D.
____
NC State University,
Raleigh, NC, June 29, 2000.
Hon. Bill Young,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Young, thank you for your leadership in
supporting the research of scientists at North Carolina State
University and Georgetown University Medical Center in their
quest to develop a vaccine against cervical cancer. Working
together, our researchers aim to grow the vaccine in tobacco.
However, a critical obstacle must be overcome in order for
our important work to proceed: the research project needs
Congressional authorization to grow the vaccine in tobacco.
To this end we urge you to support Congressman Robin Hayes'
amendment to the agricultural appropriations bill to allow
this valuable research to proceed.
Our researchers propose to engineer tobacco plants so that
the plants produce a vaccine that can be used to immunize
women against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). We hope you agree
that research using genetically engineered tobacco to produce
vaccines and other valuable products is inherently different
from earlier work intended to produced improved tobacco
varieties for the benefit of growers. Therefore, this type of
work should be exempt from any regulations that seek to limit
federal support for tobacco research. Indeed, it is in the
best interest of the country as a whole to foster such
efforts wherever possible, both to produce valuable and
desperately needed commodities, and to develop wholly new
market opportunities for American farmers.
This joint North Carolina State University-Georgetown
University Medical Center is an excellent example of this
type of research. Genetic engineering of tobacco can result
in production of the HPV vaccine. Currently there is no
economical method for producing this vaccine. Tobacco was
chosen for this work because it is relatively easy to
engineer so that it will produce the vaccine. Further,
tobacco products more green biomass per acre than any other
crop, thus containing input costs and reducing the ultimate
cost of the vaccine.
Developing a cost-effective means to reduce the incidence
of MPV infection is critically important because this virus
causes virtually all cervical cancers. Cervical cancer is the
leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women worldwide.
The disease typically manifests during a time of life when
women are rearing their children, thus putting at risk both
the women who succumb to the disease and the children they
leave behind.
A peripheral goal of the research is to identify other
potentially useful products that can be derived from green
biomass, and develop efficient methods for their
purification. Already several compounds have been identified
that have potential use in formulating both medical and
consumer products. Recovery of such compounds will generate
additional product streams that could be derived from the
same plants that are making the HPV vaccine. Each of these
products represents a potential new market that could help to
keep farming profitable during this difficult time of
transition and competition in the global marketplace.
I strongly urge you to support this amendment to encourage
these valuable research efforts.
Sincerely,
Marye Anne Fox,
Chancellor.
____
Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA, June 29, 2000.
Hon. Rick Boucher,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Rick: Virginia Tech is a leader in the development of
technology that uses tobacco plants for the purpose of
producing human pharmaceutical products. Two years ago, a
team of Virginia Tech scientists demonstrated the feasibility
of producing human therapeutic proteins in genetically
engineered ``transgenic'' tobacco plants. The Virginia
General Assembly has provided significant funding to the
University for transgenic biotech research involving the
tobacco plant
[[Page H5558]]
and Tech's scientists are hard at work to exploit new
biomedical uses of this plant.
As you know, a team of Virginia Tech scientists, working
with CropTech of Blacksburg, has introduced segments of human
DNA into the genes of tobacco. Those segments instruct the
plant to produce human protein, which can then be extracted
from the leaves and used to create drugs. Among their
achievements so far are tobacco plants that produce a human
protein that is part of blood clotting/anticlotting
chemistry. This protein is presently extracted from human
blood plasma for testing by hospitals.
Just last month another team of our scientists announced
the discovery of a compound found in the tobacco plant that
inhibits the growth of an enzyme that may be a significant
causative factor in Parkinson's Disease in humans.
I understand that an amendment may be offered to the
Agriculture Appropriations bill (HR. 4461) that would remove
existing limitations on the use of funds that restrict the
use of agricultural research funding for research on medical,
biotechnical, and other uses of tobacco. Such a modification
in existing agricultural research policy appears to be
appropriate in order to encourage the many promising uses of
tobacco that are being developed at Virginia Tech and
elsewhere.
I ask that you give such an amendment every appropriate
consideration.
Sincerely,
Charles W. Steger,
President.
____
North Carolina
Farm Bureau Federation,
Raleigh, NC, June 29, 2000.
Hon. Bill Young,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Young, the North Carolina Farm Bureau
supports the effort to include legislative language in the FY
2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill providing enhanced
research alternatives to produce a vaccine that could
potentially prevent and cure the human papillomavirus, or
HPV, a primary cause of cervical cancer.
Recently, it has become feasible to biologically engineer
tobacco to produce high-value foreign proteins, including a
potential vaccine for the papillomavirus. Once developed,
this detoxified version of these HPV protein fragments can
then be injected into the human body. These genetically
engineered proteins would trigger our natural immunization
defense system and create a resistance to the harmful strain
of HPV. This treatment could also serve as a cure for
existing HPV.
Cervical cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related
death among women worldwide. Every year in the United States,
approximately 15,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer
and 5,000 women die of this disease. Worldwide, cervical
cancer affects 500,000 women annually, and, after breast
cancer, it is second most common malignancy found in women.
Again, we applaud your efforts in supporting the use of
tobacco plants in genetic research benefiting many Americans.
Sincerely,
Larry B. Wooten,
President.
____
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
statement of the campaign for tobacco-free kids concerning research on
genetically modified tobacco for nonharmful purposes
In the last several years and because of advances in the
area of biotechnology, some researchers believe that it may
be possible that the tobacco plant, long known to cause
serious disease and addiction, may be genetically altered to
produce medicines that may be beneficial. These developments
may present new opportunities for public health as well as
for tobacco producing communities.
The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids encourages continued
research into the use of genetically modified tobacco for
nonharmful and non-traditional uses, in particular uses that
may help treat disease rather than causing it.
We wish to emphasize that these products like all products
that contain tobacco, whether used for smoking purposes,
chewing purposes, or in this case pharmaceutical purposes,
should be fully regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration.
____
[From the Virginia Tech Spectrum, June 9, 2000]
Castagnoli's Discovery May Protect Against Parkinson's Disease
(By Sally Harris)
In a discovery that opens an important direction in the
study of Parkinson's disease, Virginia Tech scientists have
identified a compound in tobacco that inhibits an enzyme that
breaks down key brain chemicals.
Parkinson's disease, a central-nervous-system disorder,
causes the gradual deterioration of neurons in the section of
the brain that controls movement. The brains of patients with
Parkinson's disease typically have less of a neurotransmitter
called dopamine. Studies have shown that smokers are 50
percent less likely to get Parkinson's than non-smokers, but
no one has isolated a particular substance in tobacco that
may be responsible for that phenomenon.
Neal Castagnoli, director, and Kay Castagnoli, senior
research associate, at Virginia Tech's Harvey W. Peters
Center in the chemistry department, located in the College of
Arts and Sciences, conducted research that has led to the
isolation of a compound in tobacco that protects against the
loss of dopamine in mice and thereby may protect against the
development of Parkinson's Disease.
``Joanna Fowler, a scientist at Brookhaven National
Laboratory in New York, found by positron emission tomography
(PET) imaging that smokers' brains have 30 to 40 percent
lower levels of monoamine oxidase (MAO),'' Kay Castagnoli
said. MAO normally breaks down neurotransmitters such as
dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. Since the
Castagnolis had already been conducting research involving
MAO and neuro-protection, ``We thought about the
connection,'' Castagnoli said.
They decided to examine if there was a substance in tobacco
that inhibits MAO. Ashraf Khalil, a post-doctoral fellow in
the group, was able to separate and characterize a compound
called 2,3,6-trimethyl-1,4-napthoquinone, or TMN, which was
also known to be present in tobacco smoke and proved to be an
inhibitor of MAO.
Using mice, the Castagnolis first administered TMN and then
a potent neurotoxin, MPTP, a contaminant that had been
discovered in a street drug sold in the early 1980s. The drug
was meant to mimic the effects of heroin, but addicts who
took large doses of the synthetic heroin suffered severe
Parkinsonian symptoms. Neal Castagnoli, then working at the
University of California at San Francisco, was one of the
scientists who determined what caused the brain to turn the
contaminant into a toxin that caused many of its users to
develop the Parkinsonian symptoms.
In the recent tobacco study, the Castagnolis discovered
that TMN, found in tobacco smoke as well as leaves, did in
fact interfere with MAO and protected the rodents against the
toxic effects of the synthetic-herion contaminant.
Although this discovery opens up the possibility of new
avenues of research, ``No one should start smoking based on
these results,'' Kay Castagnoli said, ``and people should
continue to stop smoking. There's no evidence that the
benefits of smoking will ever outweigh the risks.''
``The finding that smoking decreases the risk for
Parkinson's disease raises the question of identifying the
actual neuro-protective agent among the hundreds of compounds
present in cigarette smoke,'' said Donato Di Monte, director
of Basic Research at the Parkinson's Institute in Sunnyvale,
Cal. The discovery in the Castagnolis' lab, he said,
``provides a critical clue for the development of drugs that
may directly reproduce the neuro-protective action of smoking
without exposing people to its other harmful health
effects.''
The results of the Castagnolis' research, which has
included a second study of mice that confirmed their initial
findings, is an important step in the study of Parkinson's
disease, he said. ``This compound may be the one involved in
neuro-protection, but there may be others that, by acting on
the enzyme, may have neuro-protective effects.'' Also, Kay
Castagnoli said, it could be possible, in pharmaceutical
industries, that this basic structure could be used as a
template for the development of neuro-protective compounds.
This summer, the Castagnolis, along with Ashraf Khalil,
will look for other neuro-protective agents in tobacco.
____
Castagnolis Discover Compound in Tobacco May Protect Against
Parkinson's Disease
Blacksburg, May 15, 2000.--In a discovery that opens an
important direction in the study of Parkinson's disease,
Virginia Tech scientists have identified a compound in
tobacco that inhibits an enzyme that breaks down key brain
chemicals.
Parkinson's disease, a central nervous system disorder,
causes the gradual deterioration of neurons in the section of
the brain that controls movement. The brains of patients with
Parkinson's disease typically have less of a neurotransmitter
called dopamine. Studies have shown that smokers are 50
percent less likely to get Parkinson's than non-smokers, but
no one has isolated a particular substance in tobacco that
may be responsible for that phenomenon.
Neal Castagnoli, director, and Kay Castagnoli, senior
research associate, at Virginia Tech's Harvey W. Peters
Center in the chemistry department, located in the College of
Arts and Sciences, conducted research that has led to the
isolation of a compound in tobacco that protects against the
loss of dopamine in mice and thereby may protect against the
development of Parkinson's Disease.
``Joanna Fowler, a scientist at Brookhaven National
Laboratory in New York, found by positron emission tomography
(PET) imaging that smokers' brains have 30 to 40 percent
lower levels of monoamine oxidase (MAO),'' Kay Castagnoli
said. MAO normally breaks down neurotransmitters such as
dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. Since the
Castagnolis had already been conducting research involving
MAO and neuroprotection, ``We thought about the connection,
'' Castagnoli said.
They decided to examine if there was a substance in tobacco
that inhibits MAO. Ashraf Khalil, a postdoctoral fellow in
the group, was able to separate and characterize a compound
called 2,3,6-trimethyl-1,4-napthoquinone, or TMN, which was
also
[[Page H5559]]
known to be present in tobacco smoke and proved to be an
inhibitor of MAO.
Using mice, the Castagnolis first administered TMN and then
a potent neurotoxin, MPTP, a contaminant that had been
discovered in a street drug sold in the early 1980s. The drug
was meant to mimic the effects of heroin, but addicts who
took large doses of the synthetic heroin suffered severe
Parkinsonian symptoms. Neal Castagnoli, then working at the
University of California at San Francisco, was one of the
scientists who determined what caused the brain to turn the
contaminant into a toxin that caused many of its users to
develop the Parkinsonian symptoms.
In the recent tobacco study, the Castagnolis' discovered
that TMN, found in tobacco smoke as well as leaves, did in
fact interfere with MAO and protected the rodents against the
toxic effects of the synthetic-heroin contaminant.
Although this discovery opens up the possibility of new
avenues of research, ``No one should start smoking based on
these results,'' Kay Castagnoli said, ``and people should
continue to stop smoking. There's no evidence that the
benefits of smoking will ever outweigh the risks.''
``The finding that smoking decreases the risk for
Parkinson's disease raises the question of identifying the
actual neuroprotective agent among the hundreds of compounds
present in cigarette smoke,'' said Donato Di Monte, director
of Basic Research at the Parkinson's Institute in Sunnyvale,
Cal. The discovery in the Castagnolis' lab, he said,
``provides a critical clue for the development of drugs that
may directly reproduce the neuroprotective action of smoking
without exposing people to its other harmful health
effects.''
The results of the Castagnolis' research, which has
included a second study of mice that confirmed their initial
findings, is an important step in the study of Parkinson's
disease, he said. ``This compound may be the one involved in
neuroprotection, but there may be others that, by acting on
the enzyme, may have neuroprotective effects.'' Also, Kay
Castagnoli said, it could be possible, in pharmaceutical
industries, that this basic structure could be used as a
template for the development of neuroprotective compounds.
This summer, the Castagnolis, along with Ashraf Khalil,
will look for other neuroprotective agents in tobacco.
____
Commercial Scale Cultivation of Pharmaceutical-Producing Tobacco
Possible, Virginia Tech Scientists Find
Blacksburg, Nov. 11, 1998.--The results from a summer of
research show that pharmaceutical-producing tobacco can be
grown on a commercial scale, according to Virginia Tech
scientists.
Carole Cramer, professor of plant pathology, physiology and
weed science, said additional field trials next summer are
expected to confirm and extend the findings from this year.
Jim Jones, an agronomist and director of Virginia Tech's
Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center
in Blackstone, said the summer's field tests produced
encouraging data as well as experience in managing tobacco
grown for medical uses.
``We're not looking at growing tobacco in the way its been
grown in the past,'' Jones said. ``In fact, what we've got is
really a new crop.''
Jones said the field research included increasing the
population of tobacco plants from about 6,000 plants per acre
in traditional tobacco growing practices to as much as
100,000 plants per acre.
The growing pattern of tobacco to produce leaf for tobacco
companies is well established, he said. What Cramer is
looking for, however, is the optimum cultural practices to
produce protein. With that in mind, the transgenic tobacco
was harvested multiple times during the summer at a point far
earlier than tobacco is harvested for traditional uses.
In 1995, a team consisting of Cramer and her associates at
Virginia Tech and CropTech, a biotechnology company located
in Blacksburg, was the first to induce a plant to express a
human protein with enzymatic activity. That achievement has
opened the possibility of using plants as factories to
produce human proteins that can be used in pharmaceuticals.
The tobacco planted at Virginia Tech's agricultural
research and extension centers in Blackstone and in Glade
Spring last summer used a ``marker'' gene rather than the
human genes. The marker gene allowed scientists to evaluate
that ability of tobacco grown in different densities to
produce a target protein, Cramer said.
So successful have been the results that Cramer hopes that
next summer's field trials will include limited quantities of
plants with target proteins that CropTech hopes eventually to
convert into pharmaceuticals on a commercial scale.
CropTech has genetically engineered tobacco plants so far
grown only in greenhouses. The genes inserted into the
tobacco DNA orders the production of human enzymes, which can
be extracted, purified and used to develop pharmaceuticals.
The gene that produces the protein cannot be ``turned on''
until scientists give it a specific signal or inducer. Thus,
the process can be controlled so that drugs will be made only
after the leaves have been harvested and taken to a regulated
a manufacturing facility, Cramer said.
Some tobacco plants have been modified to produce an enzyme
that can be used to treat Gaucher Diseases, a rare and often
fatal condition. Other plants have been modified to produce
human Protein C, which is used to prevent blood clots. Both
tobacco-based products are still in development and have not
undergone clinical trials.
Cramer said tobacco has the potential to serve as the host
for many other pharmaceutical proteins as well. Tobacco is
exceptionally suited for use in producing pharmaceuticals
because it is one of the most productive crops in growing
leaf biomass quickly and efficiently, she said. It is also
one of the easiest plants to genetically modify. As a very
prolific seed producer, it will allow production to be scaled
up very rapidly.
The field trials indicated that flue-cured tobacco is the
best variety for producing the target proteins in the
quantities needed for commercial production. However, both
burley and oriental varieties of tobacco also performed well
in protein production.
``That means it looks as though we have great flexibility
in regard to varieties,'' she said, ``That, in turn, means
that we won't necessarily be limited to any particular
growing region in Virginia. The results have shown that we
can grow this tobacco at very high densities. In fact, the
higher the density the better, from the viewpoint of
extracting proteins.''
With the support of state Sen. William Wampler Jr. of
Bristol, former Gov. George Allen and Gov. Jim Gilmore
included $554,000 in the state budget over the biennium for
transgenic medicinal-tobacco research. During the 1998
legislative session Wampler sponsored an amendment which
earmarked an additional $2000,000 specifically for the field
trials. That funding was in part provided to help develop a
new, high-value use to hundreds of acres of tobacco land
statewide.
____
Virginia Tech Begins Field Trials of Genetically Engineered Tobacco
Plants Producing Pharmaceuticals
GENERAL ASSEMBLY INVESTS IN NEW INDUSTRY FOR VIRGINIA
Blacksburg, June 22, 1998.--Virginia Tech will soon begin
the first phase of a $754,000 state-funded research project
that could lead to a tobacco-based industry for growing human
pharmaceuticals in fields across Virginia.
A team of Virginia Tech scientists has demonstrated the
feasibility of producing human therapeutic proteins in
genetically engineered ``transgenic'' tobacco plants. Now,
researchers will develop the special methods required to grow
the transgenic tobacco that could bring new, high-value use
to hundreds of acres of tobacco land statewide. ``This
investment in biotech research will help lay the foundation
for a whole new tobacco-based industry for Virginia,'' said
Carole Cramer, project director and professor of plant
pathology and physiology at the Fralin Biotechnology Center
of Virginia Tech.
Planning began in early May for the first phase of a multi-
year field trial. Researchers will eventually plant tens of
thousands of transgenic tobacco seedlings in fields at the
university's agricultural research stations at Blackstone and
Glade Springs. These studies will also include greenhouse
experiments and laboratory analyses at the Virginia Tech
campus in Blacksburg.
With the support of state Sen. William Wampler Jr. of
Bristol, Governors Allen and Gilmore included $554,000 over
the biennium for transgenic medicinal tobacco research.
During the recent legislative session Wampler sponsored an
amendment which earmarked additional funds specifically for
the field trials.
``The General Assembly was pleased to add an additional
$200,000 to assist in the expansion of research in the
pharmaceutical uses of tobacco,'' said Wampler. ``We look
forward to reviewing the results of the practical application
of transgenic tobacco research, and we are hopeful that this
research will result in new, viable economic opportunities
for growing tobacco in our region.''
Cooperating in the studies are scientists at Crop Tech
Corporation, a plant biotechnology company located in
Blacksburg. CropTech will contribute its proprietary know-how
and transgenic tobacco lines, as well as laboratory
facilities and financial resources from federal and private
sources.
CropTech recently won a multi-year $8.8 million contract
from the Advanced Technology Program of the U.S. Department
of Commerce. That contract will allow CropTech to further
develop technologies to support commercialization of
transgenic tobacco for bioproduction of pharmaceutics. A
portion of the contract funds will support research at
Virginia Tech and will match the support from the
legislature.
Cramer pointed out that the tobacco biotechnology being
developed at Virginia Tech is uniquely suited for
pharmaceutical production. The plants are modified to contain
a human gene--a tiny piece of human DNA with the information
to build a human protein--but the gene cannot be ``turned
on'' until the scientists give it a specific signal or
inducer. Thus, the process can be controlled so that drugs
will be made only after the leaves have been harvested and
taken to a regulated manufacturing facility.
This summer's field tests are designed to begin designing
methods farmers will eventually use to grow the transgenic
pharmaceutical tobacco plants for commercial sale.
[[Page H5560]]
Among the issues being investigated are optimal plant
density, planting and harvest methods and timing, nutritional
requirements and pest protection, Cramer said. Also being
studied are conditions that could help maximize
pharmaceutical production and maximize the extraction of the
target compounds from the leaves of the plant.
Cramer said tobacco is exceptionally suited for use in
producing pharmaceuticals because it is one of the most
productive crops in growing leaf biomass quickly and
efficiently. It is also one of the easiest plants to
genetically modify. As a very prolific seed producer, it will
allow production to be scaled up very rapidly.
Although greenhouse studies during this year will include
drug-producing plants, the field tests for these lines will
not begin until next year, Cramer said. This year's field
tests will incorporate a ``reporter gene'' to enable
scientists to rapidly assess the performance of transgenic
tobacco under various growing conditions.
The trials will also explore the potential of using
floating-bed greenhouse systems for producing transgenic
tobacco.
``This technology has tremendous potential as a win-win
situation for both tobacco producers and drug companies,''
Cramer said. ``People will surprised at how fast this new
industry will be growing and the impact that it will have.''
____
[From the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Sept. 24, 1997]
In This Case, Tobacco Could Be a Lifesaver
(By A.J. Hostetler)
Washington.--Tobacco may serve as a source of a new
medicine for a rare and life-threatening genetic disease
under patents being awarded this week for research at
Virginia Tech.
The patents cover the processes involved in setting up a
new biochemical Trojan horse: a bacterium which carries a
human gene into a tobacco plant, from which scientists later
extract a human enzyme. The tobacco-produced enzyme could
eventually be turned into a drug.
``It's an incredibly effective delivery system,'' said
Virginia Tech plant physiologist Carole Cramer.
She conducted the tobacco experiments at Virginia Tech and
at Croptech Development Corp., a private biotech company she
started with her husband, David Radin, a former Tech plant
cell geneticist.
One patent for the genetic engineering was awarded
yesterday and another will be awarded tomorrow, according to
Radin. Both patents go to Virginia Tech and are licensed to
CropTech. A third patent, which awaits federal approval, will
be awarded to CropTech, with a small share of the patents,
and any resulting profits, awarded to Virginia Tech, Radin
said.
The research was financed by grants from the National
Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense.
At a biology conference yesterday in Washington, Cramer
described the research and how it could lead to a cheaper
treatment for Gaucher disease.
Gaucher patients have a defective enzyme, called human
glucocerebrosidase or hGC, which prevents them from
processing fatting substances called complex lipids. The
lipids accumulate in the body to toxic levels, causing bone
deformities, liver and spleen problems and other
complications that can lead to death at an early age.
Gaucher disease strikes mostly Jews, but others are also at
risk. About one in every 40,000 people in the United States
has the disease, according to one estimate, but that jumps to
one out of every 450 to 600 among Jews of Eastern European
descent.
There are only two drugs approved in this country to treat
Gaucher disease. Both attempt to replace the missing enzyme.
Patients typically take a single dose of Ceredase, or its
cousin, Cerezyme, every two weeks for their entire lives. The
average annual cost of either drug is about $160,000,
according to Cramer. A single dose of Ceredase is made from
as many as 2,000 human placentas, Cerezyme, made from hamster
ovaries, is similarly difficult and expensive to make, Cramer
said. But a single tobacco plant can be genetically
engineered to produce the same amount of enzyme far more
cheaply and easily.
The Virginia research could offer Gaucher patients another
alternative if a drug produced from transgenic tobacco works,
said Rhonda Buyers, executive director of the National
Gaucher Foundation.
The scientist who pioneered enzyme replacement therapy for
the disease, Dr. Roscoe Brady, says he regrets the high cost
of the current treatment and ``fervently'' hopes Cramer's
work succeeds.
``I want this to happen,'' said Brady, now chief of the
Developmental and Metabolic Neurology Branch at the National
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes.
``I'd like everybody who needs it to get it. Even if (hGC)
comes from a tobacco plant, it's not going to be cheap.''
Researchers are also developing gene therapy treatments
that could ``teach'' the human body to make the enzyme. But
that process is several years from general use. In the
meantime, CropTech's work is ``a good step forward'' for
patients with the crippling disease, Brady says.
Cramer began her research on genetically engineered tobacco
in 1992 as she sought to understand how plants protect
themselves from disease. After learning how to transfer genes
from tomatoes into tobacco plants, she sought a more
challenging--and show-stopping--project.
As the Clinton administration held hearings on health care
in the early 1990s, Cramer and her team heard about Ceredase,
which was being touted as one of the world's most expensive
drugs.
Cramer said the researchers chose to study ways to produce
the Gaucher enzyme after wondering, ``What could we do that
would make a big splash'' in the scientific community?
``We wanted a dramatic example,'' she explained.
____
[From the Virginia Tech Edge, January 1999]
Remote Sensing Center Established
NASA will provide $419,256 to establish the Virginia Tech
Center for Environmental Applications of Remote Sensing
(CEARS). The center will provide maps and spatial data at all
levels--land and water, above ground and underground,
including such details as soil types, watersheds, and
wildlife habitats--to help place major developments with the
least impact, for instance. The center will be able to offer
better-detailed geographic information than currently
available, as well as data on the broad landscapes and inter-
relationships.
Spearheading CEARS is Randy Wynne of forestry, who
specialized in applying small satellite technology to natural
resources, and James Campbell of geography. ``CEARS will
focus on the environmental applications of remote sensing,''
Wynne says.
A remote sensing laboratory will be equipped with 25
networked (100 Mbs) Windows NT workstations, an NT server,
printers, and image processing and associated software (e.g.,
compilers, spatial statistical packages, and GIS).
``We intend to augment our capability for measuring and
integrating data with a Sun photometer and PAR sensor, a
field spectroradiometer, and a roving GPS base station, and
will build an electric, remotely piloted vehicle capable of
carrying small sensor payloads.''
Additional laboratories located in the geography department
and the Fish and Wildlife Information Exchange will support
the project.
For more information, see the entire proposal for the
center or contact Dr. Wynn at 540-231-7811.
Tobacco Produces Human Pharmaceuticals
Scientists at Virginia Tech and CropTech Corporation of
Blacksburg, VA, are using tobacco to produce human proteins.
Carole Cramer, professor of plant pathology and physiology,
and colleagues have introduced snippets of human DNA into the
genes of tobacco. Those snippets instruct the plant to
produce human protein, which can then be extracted from the
leaves and used to create drugs.
Among their achievements so far are tobacco plants that
produce:
Human Protein C, part of blood clotting/
anticlotting chemistry. This protein is presently extracted
from human blood plasma for use by hospitals. Human Protein C
from tobacco has yet to be tested on humans.
Glucocerebrosidase, a human lysosomal enzyme that
may eventually be used to treat a rare, life-threatening
genetic disease affecting the body's ability to break down
fats. This enzyme is now purified from human placenta.
Contact: Dr. Cramer at 540-231-6757.
Sorting the Building Blocks of Life
A university DNA sequencing facility has been established
in the Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary
Medicine's Center for Molecular Medicine and Infectious
Diseases.
Funded by Virginia Tech Research and Graduate Studies, the
college, and the Fralin Biotechnology Center, the laboratory
is staffed and equipped to provide reliable and prompt DNA
sequencing services for researchers, according to Stephen
Boyle, professor in biomedical sciences and pathobiology.
To develop genetically engineered improvements in
everything from food products to medicine, scientists must
first acquire an accurate profile of a substance's molecular
structure. The new lab allows them to do precisely that,
Boyle says. Plus, the laboratory offers cost-effective, high-
throughput services.
The laboratory includes twin Pharmacia Biotech ALFexpress
sequencers. A computer-based control runs each unit
independently. Laboratory manager Lee Weigt has 10 years of
experience managing DNA sequencing facilities for the
Smithsonian's Tropical Research Institute in Panama and the
Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and has been
specially trained by Pharmacia on the equipment.
Gaucher disease results when the body's enzyme storage
system goes awry. Plants have a similar storage process, and
Cramer thought she could prod a tobacco plant to grow hGC.
She did it by inserting the human gene for hGC into a
common tobacco bacterium and allows it to infect a piece of
leaf.
When the bacterium infects the leaf, it carries along with
it the human gene. It transfers the gene into the plant and
then dies, felled by antibiotics given to the tobacco plant.
Cramer has dozens of these genetically altered tobacco
plants in various pots and petri dishes in her laboratory.
The green leaves look like any normal tobacco plant.
[[Page H5561]]
While the plants grow, they show no signs of the human
gene. The tobacco cells know how to make the enzyme, but
don't do anything about it until they are activated by the
researchers in a secret process that is part of the patent
application. That helps control the quality of the enzyme
produced because weather conditions and the timing of the
harvest can affect the amount of hGC in the plant, Cramer
said.
The harvested leaves are incubated for about a day before
they are ground up and the enzyme is extracted.
The tobacco-produced hGC functions just like the human
enzyme, she said, giving CropTech hope that federal approval
for clinical trials may come in three to five years. When
CropTech wins that approval, it would work with a drug
manufacturer to produce the tobacco and enzyme in mass
quantities, Cramer said.
[From the New York Times, May 14, 2000]
New Ventures Aim to Put Farms in Vanguard of Drug Production--Altering
Gene Structure to ``Grow'' Medicines in Common Crops
(By Andrew Pollack)
Joe Williams, a Virginia tobacco farmer, has been forced to
cut his production nearly in half over the last three years
as people have kicked the smoking habit. But he is hoping
that a small experimental plot he just planted will hold the
key to his staying on the farm. That tobacco has been
genetically engineered to produce not cigarettes but
pharmaceuticals.
Plants containing drugs could, indeed, represent a new
high-priced crop. ``If we can actually find a medical use for
tobacco that saves lives, what a turnaround for the much-
maligned tobacco plant,'' said Christopher Cook, chief
executive of ToBio, a company recently formed by Virginia
tobacco farmers like Mr. Williams to grow drugs in
cooperation with the CropTech Corporation of Blacksburg, Va.
The production of drugs in genetically altered plants--
called molecular farming or biopharming--seems poised to
represent the next waive in agricultural biotechnology. Until
now, efforts have mainly been directed at protecting crops
from pests and improving the taste and nutrition of food.
But just as the production of bio-engineered foods has been
controversial, molecular farming is already raising some
safety and environmental concerns. Chief among them is that
drugs might end up in the general food supply, either because
crops or seeds are misrouted during processing or because
pollen from a drug-containing crop in an open field
fertilizes a nearby food crop. What if insects eat the drug-
containing plants or if the drug leaks into the soil from the
roots?
About 20 companies worldwide are working on producing
pharmaceuticals in plants, according to the Bow-ditch Group,
a Boston consulting firm. A handful of such drugs are already
being tested in human clinical trials, including vaccines for
hepatitis B and an antibody to prevent tooth decay.
There have been dozens of field tests like the one on Mr.
Williams's farm, aimed at seeing if products ranging from
hemoglobin to urokilnase, a clot-dissolving drug, can be
grown in crops like corn, tobacco or rice. In a closely
related effort, companies are also trying to use plants to
produce industrial chemicals.
Proponents say that farming for pharmaceutical proteins
would be far cheaper than the current practice of producing
these drugs in genetically modified mammalian cells grown in
vats. That could lower the price of drugs produced by
biotechnology, some of which now cost tens or even hundreds
of thousands of dollars a year per patient.
In some cases, the drugs would not even have to be
extracted from the plant. Scientists are testing edible
vaccines in which people would be protected from diseases by
eating genetically engineered foods.
As these crops get closer to market, regulators are trying
to figure out how to ensure their safety. Last month, the
Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department
held a public meeting in Ames, Iowa, to discuss the issue.
The regulators say some safeguards are already in place. To
minimize environmental risks, all field tests of drug-
producing plants must receive government permits, while some
field tests of other modified crops require only that the
government be notified, said Michael Schechtman,
biotechnology coordinator for the Agriculture Department. In
addition, the distance by which the drug-bearing plants must
be isolated from other plants to prevent cross-pollination is
double the usual distance used by seed companies to assure
purity of their seeds, he said. And although genetically
modified food crops are often deregulated after the product
becomes commercial, he added, the planting of drug containing
crops is likely to be regulated forever.
But Norman C. Ellstand, a professor of genetics at the
University of California at Riverside and an expert on pollen
flow, said that long-distance pollen flow is poorly
understood and that the appropriate isolation distance for
drug-producing plants would depend on the particular crop and
drug. ``It's just not clear that setting a double distance is
going to solve everything,'' he said.
Indeed, biopharming lies on the border of medical
biotechnology, which has been largely free of controversy,
and food biotechnology, which has been beset by protests.
Some executives in the fledgling industry say that because
medicines clearly help people, their activity is not
generating this same kind of resistance as the production of
genetically modified food crops. In addition, they say, drugs
are tested and regulated far more stringently than biofoods.
``It's being received entirely differently,'' said William S.
White, president of Integrated Protein Technologies, a unit
of the Monsanto Company that is trying to grow drugs in corn.
But critics of agricultural biotechnology say that such
companies, which underestimated the public reaction to
bioengineered foods, are repeating the mistake. Michael
Hansen of Consumers Union, for one, said the public had no
idea about the work being done to produce drugs in plants.
``Once they have an idea, the thought of putting drugs in
plants, is not going to go over well,'' he said.
Some companies producing drugs in plants are already being
hit. Axis Genetics of Britain went out of business a few
months ago, saying the protests over bioengineered food had
scared off investors. Groupe Limagrain, a French seed
company, says it has been conducting its field tests in the
United States because the dispute over modified crops is
greater in Europe. And Planet Biotechnology Inc. of Mountain
View, Calif., keeps the location of its greenhouses secret to
prevent vandalism by protesters, as has happened to companies
growing modified food products.
Companies are considering various techniques to keep drug-
producing crops from accidentally entering the food supply,
including the implanting of a gene to turn drug-producing
crops a different color from other crops.
Techniques are also being developed to prevent cross-
pollination. CropTech, for instance, said its tobacco would
be harvested before sexual maturity. Some drugs needed in
small quantities might be grown only in greenhouses, rather
than open fields.
Just as with food, biocrops should be able to produce large
quantities of drugs at low cost, advocates say. The newest
factories now used to produce pharmaceutical proteins in
genetically modified mammalian cells can cost $100 million or
more and can produce a few hundred kilograms a year at most.
Drugs made in such factories can cost thousands of dollars
per gram to produce.
For many biotechnology drugs already on the market, this is
not a problem because prices are high and only minuscule
amounts are needed. But some drugs under development, like an
antibody-containing cream for herpes, are likely to require
much larger quantities and not be able to command high
prices.
``They cannot make these drugs using the old
technologies,'' said Mr. White of Monsanto's Integrated
Protein Technologies. ``It's just not going to be cost
effective to do so.'' Mr. White said his company could
produce 300 kilograms of a purified drug for a $10 million
capital investment and a cost of $200 a gram.
Planet Biotechnology is in clinical trials of an antibody,
produced in genetically altered tobacco, that blocks the
bacteria that cause tooth decay. Elliott L. Fineman, the
chief executive, said it would be impossible to use mammalian
cells to produce the 600 kilograms a year that might be
needed in a cost-effective way. But the entire supply could
be affordably produced on a single large tobacco farm.
Still, the companies wanting to grow drugs have found the
going somewhat rough. The Large Scale Biology Corporation,
formerly Bio-source Technologies, did the first field test of
a drug produced by a plant in 1991 but still does not have a
drug in clinical trials.
Drug companies are hesitant to depart from existing
technology. And some industry experts are not convinced that
plants would be cheaper when the cost of extracting the drug
from the plant is considered. ``With respect to purifying it
and isolating it, a plant can pose challenges,'' said Norbert
G. Riedel, president of the Baxter Healthcare Corporation's
recombinant DNA business.
Moreover, the production of drugs in plants faces
competition from production in the milk of genetically
modified animals. This also offers potentially high volumes
at low costs, and the animal milk companies are closer to
bringing products to market. Some already have deals signed
with major drug companies.
The plant-drug companies say their technique is safe
because mammalian cells and animal milk can introduce harmful
viruses into the drug, while plant viruses are not known to
infect people.
There could be other problems, however, including
contamination by pesticides and plant chemicals like
nicotine. The F.D.A., which is preparing draft guidelines for
production of such drugs, is considering such issues as
assuring that the pharmaceutical protein does not change form
during plant growth, harvesting and storage.
Yet another issue is that the sugars attached to proteins
by plants are different from those attached by animals. This
could prevent the plant-derived drug from working and could
cause allergies, said Dr. Gary A. Bannon, professor of
biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of
Arkansas medical school.
Molecular farming might not prove to be the salvation of
vast numbers of farmers since the acreage needed will
probably be small. Mr. White of Monsanto said even a drug
needed in large quantities could be produced on a few
thousand acres of corn, a mere blip compared with the roughly
77 million acres of corn grown in the United States.
[[Page H5562]]
But Brandon J. Price, chief executive officer of CropTech,
which is working with the Virginia farmers, said 45,000 acres
would be needed to satisfy the entire worldwide demand for
human serum albumin, a blood product that his company wants
to produce in tobacco.
Said Mr. Williams, the Virginia farmer, ``we're looking at
thousands and thousands of acres it takes off and goes.''
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Miller of Florida
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 43 offered by Mr. Miller of Florida:
Page 31, after line 5, insert the following:
purchases of raw or refined sugar
For fiscal year 2001, the Commodity Credit Corporation
shall not expend more than $54,000,000 for purchases of raw
or refined sugar from sugarcane or sugar beets.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple.
It is to say let us stop wasting taxpayers' dollars on the sugar
program.
Last month, the Secretary of Agriculture bought $54 million worth of
sugar and does not know what to do with it. We have too much sugar in
this country. We cannot even give it away around the world, but we
bought $54 million worth of sugar. We cannot use it for the ethynyl
program. What are we going to do?
We are going to store it, and the media reports saying we are going
to have another $500 million worth of sugar in the next 90 days, and we
do not now have any use for it.
This is a waste, and it is an embarrassment to this Congress that we
allow this program to be authorized in the farm bill back in 1996. In
fact, during the past month, national television has been making fun of
us, The Fleecing of America on NBC news made fun of Congress for
wasting money on this program.
It's Your Money on ABC did the same, because it is a program that
makes no sense. It hurts consumers. It hurts the environment. It hurts
the jobs, and it is just bad simple economics.
Let me briefly describe what the program is. We have a Federal
Government program through a loan program and limits on imports to prop
up the price of sugar at about three times the world price. That is
right, here in the United States, we pay three times the price of sugar
as they pay in Canada or Mexico or Australia. What does that mean? It
means our consumers get hurt.
In fact, the General Accounting Office, which is a nonpartisan
organization that supports Congress, it is not supported by the
agriculture or the business sector, it is nonpartisan, nonbias, their
most recent study last month said $1.9 billion that it costs us. The
taxpayers are being hit, $54 million last month alone and it can go as
much as $500 million.
The environment, I come from Florida, and the Florida Everglades is a
real national treasure, and what are we doing is, because of the high
price of sugar, we are overproducing sugar, which has all that runoff
that flows into the Everglades down into Florida Bay and the Florida
Keys, and it is causing environmental damage. That is the reason we get
strong support from the environmental community on this issue.
And when we get to trade, it is amazing. How can we go to Seattle and
talk about trade issues and say we will talk about everything but
sugar, because we do not want to talk about sugar. It makes it
difficult for us to be advocating free trade when we have to protect
sugar.
Finally on jobs, we can go program after program, where the jobs are
impacted in this country. We are losing jobs.
Let me give my colleagues an illustration. Bobs Candies in Georgia
makes candy canes. They use a lot of sugar in candy canes. It is a
third generation company. What is happening is in Canada where the
sugar is only a third of the price or in the Caribbean where they get
sugar for a third of the price, they can shift their production. Why
would they want to manufacture in the United States to pay that high
price for sugar?
This makes zero economic sense. It has zero economic sense, because
it has all negatives. The only people supporting the program are the
sugar growers, and the sugar growers love it.
In fact, they love it so much they increased the production of sugar
by 25 percent in the last 3 years because they are just making a
killing off of sugar. Next year, they are predicting even more sugar
protection and instead of buying $500 million worth of sugar, we can
see a billion dollar a year cost.
We were told back there 1996 oh, no, it does not cost us anything. It
does not cost anything. In fact, they told us back in 1996, sugar is
going to pay a support program part of this, like $40 million. Well,
they got rid of that a couple of years ago. Now, we do not even make
money on the sugar program, we just spend money. We just waste money.
For my colleagues, I hope they will support me as we get rid of this
program. If my colleagues are conservative, this is bad big government.
If my colleagues are pro consumer. If my colleagues are concerned about
the lower-income people that spend so much money on their income on
food, my colleagues should support this. If my colleagues are an
environmentalist, this is definitely one to support, because we want to
protect the Everglades.
It is just a bad big government program, and I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham)
continue to reserve a point of order?
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for Iowa (Mr. Latham) for his
indulgence; and I want to express my admiration for the diligent
crusade the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has been conducting on
behalf of consumers, taxpayers, and other farmers.
In support of the gentleman from Florida's amendment, I want to
address its negative impact on other hard-working honest unsubsidized
farmers. I agree with what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has
said about the taxpayers and about the consumers.
I represent a large number of people who are in the cranberry
business. They grow cranberries. Cranberries have been a non-program
crop, that is, unsubsidized.
As my colleagues know, this Chamber is full of people who are the
world's most ardent advocates of free enterprise, of standing on your
own two feet, of not having the government get involved, except it
turns out that in all of the great conservative economic texts, there
is a footnote that is written that says, except agriculture. Members
have to come from a farm State to be able to read it. It is in
invisible ink and one has to apply certain substances garnered on farms
to be able to bring out that footnote so we can read it, because the
part of the American economy which is the most heavily subsidized, the
most heavily regulated, the most anti free market is, in fact,
agriculture.
I represent some people who are in agriculture without much of that.
The cranberry growers do a very good job of producing a very important
crop, until recently, without any kind of government entanglement. They
are trying to continue that. But they find themselves in a great
dilemma. Cranberries are very tart. They are nourishing. They are
tasty, but they require sugar in many of the forms in which they are
prepared.
If Members want to come by my office, we have some very good dried
cranberries, a very healthy snack, but they have a high percentage of
sugar. The problem is that because of the sugar program, American
cranberry growers and processors are at a significant competitive
disadvantage vis-a-vis Canada.
Thanks to NAFTA, we now have one market embracing both Canada and the
United States for cranberries. Cranberries are grown in both places.
American processors are significantly disadvantaged because of the
price of the
[[Page H5563]]
sugar they must use to deal with their cranberry products is so much
higher than the price that our Canadian competitors pay.
This is a case where the unsubsidized farmers and the cranberries
farmers are seeking some help. They are seeking the one thing that I
most support, a government purchase of surplus cranberries for use in
various programs; but their dilemma has been exacerbated by the sugar
program.
The cranberry growers come to the government for help, because the
government has helped cause their problem; and it has helped cause
their problem by putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage
in some respects because of the high price of sugar they have to pay
compared to the price of sugar paid by the Canadians.
I have, I guess, a very novel question, maybe it is naivete on my
part. If we can, in fact, rely on a free market in oil, and we are told
that the oil prices go up, well, that is tough, that is the free
market. If we can have a free market in the most sophisticated
telecommunications equipment, if we can have a free market in
automobiles, in legal services, in shoe repair, in virtually every
other commodity, what is it about the growing of sugar that repels the
free market ethic?
What is it about sugar growing that makes it entitled to be an
exception from the free market principles to which so many of my
colleagues, especially on that side of the aisle, profess allegiance?
Is sugar some alien substance that repels the concepts of demand and
supply?
Are the people who grow sugar somehow mutants who are not subject to
the same economic incentives and disincentives as others. So the sugar
program is, of course, one of the great violations of principle that
many on the other side profess, but we get used to a little principle
slippage particularly late in the year when election time is coming up.
But it hurts consumers, and sugar is consumed by lower-income people.
It hurts the taxpayer considerably, the millions that we spent on sugar
could well be used for other purposes; and, in particular, thought I
want to stress here, it even hurts other parts of agriculture. That is
one of the things about the free market, once we begin to tinker with
it in such a substantial form, the effects of that tinkering cannot be
confined, and the aid that is given by the taxpayers at the expense of
consumers to sugar growers redounds to the significant disadvantage of
people who grow cranberries.
I would hope that we would adopt the gentleman's amendment and
proceed in the earliest time frame next year to abolish the program and
bring that radical subversive unknown doctrine known as free enterprise
into another area of the American economy.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) continue to
reserve his point of order?
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I think the new GAO report says it all, the GAO report
is entitled ``supporting sugar prices has increased users costs, while
benefiting producers.''
According to this new report by our Federal Government, the sugar
program costs consumers $1.9 billion each year in higher costs.
Secretary Glickman has announced that the Department of Agriculture
would spend $54 million of taxpayers' money to purchase 130,000 tons of
surplus sugar to prop up domestic prices. Every time an American goes
to a vending machine to buy a candy bar or goes to the supermarket to
buy ice cream, it can cost more because of the sugar program. Every
time he tries to buy cranberry juice, it costs more, because of this
program.
The sugar program acts as nearly a $2 billion hidden tax to our
consumers, but this tax does not go to the government to pay for the
national defense or for some other program. It goes into the pockets of
the big sugar lobby.
The Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 began to phase out income supports
for nearly every agricultural commodity, and tried to set them down the
path toward free market competition, tried to set them towards free
enterprise; however, the government continues to subsidize sugar
producers by maintaining high sugar prices.
{time} 1500
Well, this amendment will limit the Commodity Credit Corporation from
extending any more than the $54 million, the amount they have already
purchased this year, on the purchase of additional sugar with
taxpayers' dollars during fiscal year 2001. And to let the Commodity
Credit Corporation continue to bail out sugar producers only continues
the cycle of welfare to sugar producers and higher prices for
consumers.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows, I am sure, that sugar
prices are at an all-time low; they have not been this low in years.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know that the sugar
prices are low, and I also know that the Federal Government, in its GAO
report, has extrapolated the costs to consumers at $1.9 billion a year.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
understand that is what the GAO report said; but sugar prices are low,
and I have not, and I just wonder if the gentleman has, seen any
reduction in candy bars or soda pop or any other commodity that the
gentleman claims will be such a windfall to American consumers. Has the
gentleman seen any?
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, we have not
repealed the laws of supply and demand, and to the extent that we have
these types of programs that force higher prices on the consumer, yes,
that is ultimately reflected in pricing. I believe that the market
works.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will again continue to
yield, with all due respect to the gentleman's opinion on this, I think
it is faulty, because prices are low, and nothing is happening to the
cost of the products with sugar in them.
Mr. Chairman, when I look at this amendment, I recall the failed
amendments that have been offered in the past on the Agricultural
Appropriations bills. Regardless of how exactly the language reads, it
all boils down to this: my colleague wants to eliminate the sugar
program.
Each time sugar opponents have offered such an amendment on the Ag
Appropriations bill, the House has rejected their efforts. This in
itself says a great deal. The House has stood by its agreement made
with farmers in the 1996 Farm Bill.
In the Farm Bill, Congress agreed to a sugar program that would stay
intact for seven years. My colleague wishes to break this contract with
farmers.
My colleague has made reference to a recently-released GAO report on
the sugar program. There are a number of problems with this report,
which both USDA and the sugar industry have highlighted. USDA, the
agency that administers the federal sugar program, concluded: ``GAO has
not attempted to realistically model the U.S. sugar industry. The
validity of the results are, therefore, suspect and should not be
quoted authoritatively.''
By agreeing to purchase sugar, USDA made an economic decision within
the parameters of the program for the benefit of the taxpayer. In early
June, USDA bought 132,000 short tons of refined sugar in an effort to
avoid forfeitures of sugar under loan and to reduce the potential cost
to the taxpayer. According to USDA, this purchase serves as a $6
million cost savings compared to potential forfeiture costs of the same
tonnage.
To kill or impede the program today, nearly a year before we begin to
authorize a new farm bill, especially without review by the authorizing
committee, would be very unwise. The mechanics, operations, and success
of the sugar program over the past five years should be evaluated more
closely and carefully before a hasty vote on an appropriations bill
hinders the current operations.
Join me in supporting the taxpayer, the American farmer and the
contract made in the 1996 Farm Bill. Vote No on this amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois is
talking about how low the prices are. The price of sugar in the United
States is about three times the world price. Look in today's Wall
Street Journal; look in the financial pages. We see two prices: one for
the United States, one for the rest of the world. And it is three times
the world price.
[[Page H5564]]
So what are we supposed to be feeling sorry for when we are paying
three times the price that Australia pays for sugar and Canada pays for
sugar. And, yes, anybody who has had economics 101 knows that cost
influences prices. So yes, it does have a direct effect. That is the
reason the GAO did the study. That is the reason we have a nonpartisan,
unbiased source that did the study; and that is the reason we need to
trust that $1.9 billion. That is real money that costs real consumers
real dollars.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We go through
this debate every year, and sugar becomes the culprit for all that is
bad and all that is evil.
We hear about the world's sugar price being so much less everywhere
else. It is interesting that when we travel abroad, candy is very, very
expensive. Maybe they access the world market, but their prices are the
same. Sugar is the lowest it has been in years; candy bars are higher
than ever. Some Members say it is for the big sugar lobby. Well, what
about the big candy lobby? Only the bad actors are on the other side of
the amendments. Yesterday, it was the big pharmaceutical lobby when we
talked about prescription drugs. Today, it is the big sugar lobby.
Nobody comes down to Clewiston and sees the small family farmers. And
yes, there are some big farmers; we acknowledge that. Like everywhere
else in America, there are small farmers and big farmers. But once
again, we kick farmers when they are down. Some of the most difficult
times we are experiencing in this Nation in farming are occurring
today, and people always complain about programs done by the Department
of Agriculture, and then they rush off out of this Chamber and have a
big meal; and they eat a lot of food, and they fill up their bellies
and think how wonderful it is that I had this delectable meal. Then
they rush right back, full, their appetites satiated; and they
immediately begin to attack farmers and the farm programs and the
Agricultural Department and this runaway program that is being
sponsored by Congress.
I say, if we complain about farmers, do not do so with our mouths
full. This program has been reformed; it has been changed.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would
just point out to my colleagues, they refer to this GAO report, which I
have seen thoroughly, and there are a number of problems with this
report. Both the USDA and the sugar industry have highlighted: ``USDA,
the agency that administers the Federal sugar program, concluded,'' and
this is important, ``the GAO has not attempted to realistically model
the U.S. sugar industry. The validity of the results are, therefore,
suspect and should not be quoted authoritatively.''
So the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) is using it incorrectly.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) knows that they talk about the
sugar price, but what is the sugar price, the world dump price?
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the sugar price, as the
gentleman well knows, it is 125,000 metric tons, so nobody runs out to
the Publix and buys 125,000 tons. In addition to that, it is left-over
excess capacity. It is not first-run sugar; it is floating around there
looking for a buyer. It is like the end-of-the-year car sales when
people are trying to get the cars off their lots. This is sugar that is
sitting, waiting, looking for a purchaser; it is not first-run sugar.
So they misrepresent.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield once again,
most of that sugar comes from programs around the world that are
subsidized much higher than we do in this country. They cannot use it;
they cannot keep sugar. They dump it on the world market and take
pennies on the dollar.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from
Massachusetts made a big thing about the free market system. Well, I
think we are spending about $14 billion on the big dig in Massachusetts
for a tunnel. So all I will say to the gentleman is that we are
spending money on projects throughout the country, and we are trying to
help the farmers in America. We are trying to keep domestic production,
and I think it is vitally important.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first, I would say that 25
years ago I was opposed to that highway construction project. I thought
it was not a good use of money.
Secondly, I would say this. Even at my most critical, I have never
suggested that we should have the free market build a highway. If we
are going to build a highway, then the Government has to do it. But I
would say that I was against building the highway.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much. Reclaiming
my time, the Government, once again, did build a highway; and it is $14
billion, probably about $8 billion overspending.
All I can say is listen to the amendment; look at what is occurring.
Defeat the amendment. I support the gentleman as he reserves his point
of order against the amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the gentlemen from Florida and California to reduce funding
for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation
by $54 million--the amount of money made available last year for sugar
producers.
Mr. Chairman, there is virtually no disagreement that the nation's
sugar programs are flawed. In fact, an article which appeared last
month in the Palm Beach Post quoted two sugar growers who admitted that
the program has problems, and as one said, ``some new policy is going
to have to be developed.''
Until then, we should not continue to pour taxpayer dollars into the
sugar sinkhole. The sugar market is glutted, yet producers continue to
grow more sugar, and as a result, grow fat off these sweet Federal
subsidies.
While sugar producers get all the treats, the taxpayers wind up
picking up the tab for all these tricks. Consumers are stuck paying
higher prices for foods made with sugar, after already being forced to
contribute tax dollars to pay for these subsidies. That doesn't sound
like a sweet deal to me!
Frankly, the USDA's sugar policies have left a bitter taste in my
mouth. We should stop subsidizing sugar growers, and instead start
spending that money on more deserving programs, such as child nutrition
programs, WIC, and agricultural research.
Mr. Chairman, let's get the sugar industry's hands out of the Federal
cookie jar, and stop subsidizing Big Sugar. Support the Miller/Miller
Amendment.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment
to the Agriculture Appropriations bill. This amendment limits
expenditures by the Department of Agriculture for the purchase of
sugar.
During consideration of my legislation, H.R. 3221, the Corporate
Welfare Reform Commission Act, the Budget Committee heard testimony
from members of Congress and budget experts about rooting out wasteful
spending. The sugar program is high on the list of corporate welfare
items that private groups and fiscal watchdogs have targeted for
elimination.
The sugar program guarantees domestic cane and beet sugar producers a
minimum price for sugar. It does this by offering loans to sugar
processors at a rate which is written into law. This program has an
unusual feature of allowing sugar processors to forfeit their sugar to
the federal government instead of paying back their loans. In order to
avoid the result of a direct expenditure from the federal government,
the program restricts the amount of sugar that can be imported under a
low tariff rate.
It's not surprising that producers are all eagerly seeking to
participate in this program. The amount of sugar under government loan
has nearly doubled since 1997.
It's also not surprising that there is currently a problem of sugar
overproduction and now the sugar industry is not content with the
government's subsidies in the form of restrictions on imports and
direct payouts. They now are going directly to the Agriculture
Department and selling their sugar that no one else wants to buy. The
Department of Agriculture recently purchased 150 tons of sugar which
cost American taxpayers more than $60 million.
This is the height of absurdity. We encourage overproduction of sugar
through subsidies and trade restrictions and then when sugar is
overproduced, we buy it and then give it away to a third country for
free. This amendment puts an end to these purchases.
[[Page H5565]]
Proponents of this subsidy argue that the program does not cost the
taxpayer anything. This argument is especially hollow considering the
recent government purchases. But even putting those purchases aside,
GAO has estimated that the cost of this program to consumers is nearly
$2 billion a year. Every American that drinks a soda, eats a cookie or
bakes a cake pays more than they should at the checkout line.
This ``tax'' to pay for the sugar program doesn't go toward some
public purpose. It goes into the pockets of a few large corporate
farmers with an average farm size of 2,800 acres. According to a Time
magazine article, one family which Time dubbed ``the first family of
corporate welfare'' received $65 million in federally subsidized
revenues from the sugar program.
Mr. Chairman it is time we put an end to this shell game which always
ends with the taxpayers losing. I urge my colleagues to support Mr.
Miller's amendment.
Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, Sugar Producers have been helping pay down
our deficit for many years now.
In fact the Congressional Budget Office estimates that sugar
producers will have actually paid $288 million into the federal
treasury by the end of 2002.
So the recent $54 million sugar purchase by the USDA represents only
a fraction of what sugar producers have already given to the
government.
As lawmakers, when we committed ourselves to helping farmers, we
committed ourselves to helping all farmers.
That's why I oppose the Miller amendment--because it singles out
2,880 farmers and more than 23,000 beet-sugar related jobs in Michigan
alone. But Michigan is not alone--the whole country profits from the
sugar industry. Sugar related employment represents 420,000 jobs in 40
states and over $26 billion in economic activity.
Sugar farmers and workers need our help. Please don't abandon them in
their time of need. This amendment has already been struck down on a
point of order, but I urge my colleagues to vote no in the future on
any anti-farmer amendment like this one.
Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
this amendment.
I can understand some of the criticism of the sugar program,
especially from those that are true free traders. I, too, wish we had
an open market for sugar. But what I don't understand is the continual,
thinly veiled attack against U.S. sugar growers.
This program protects American sugar growers, including the 23,000
growers and sugar industry employees in my district, from a truly
unfair, highly subsidized, and distorted world sugar market. American
sugarbeet growers are the most efficient--the best--in the world. They
wouldn't need our help, except that their competitors are foreign
governments trying to prop up much less than the best.
Also, please hold the arguments that the sugar program has hurt
consumers. Wholesale sugar prices have fallen nearly 26 percent since
1996, while consumer prices have risen. Cereal prices are up by more
than six percent. Ice cream is up more than nine percent. Candy prices
have risen nearly eight percent. If producer prices are down, but
consumer prices are up, who is benefiting? You know the answer.
Unilateral disarmament is not a fair or reasonable policy for
American sugar growers. And an appropriations bill is not the place to
even be discussing it. Reject this broadside against U.S. sugar. Oppose
this amendment.
Point of Order
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, while not everyone has said it yet, I think
everything that needs to be said on the subject has been said. So at
this point I will make a point of order against the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Florida.
The amendment violates clause 2, section C of rule XXI of the House
in that it proposes the inclusion of legislative or authorizing
language on an appropriation bill.
Specifically, the amendment proposes to limit certain expenditures
made by the Commodity Credit Corporation where no such limitation
exists in current law, instead of confining the amendment's proposed
limitation to the scope of funds made available under this act.
Additionally, the amendment of the gentleman from Florida contains
``shall not'' language that, on its face, imposes a legislative
directive.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has stated a point of order. Does the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on
Appropriations, I feel very disappointed that we are cutting off debate
like this. My cosponsor of the Miller and Miller amendment is not even
allowed to speak on this bill. This is not the way we should treat our
colleagues, to have the cosponsor being cut off from speaking.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. LATHAM. Certainly, after the chairman has ruled, any Member has
the opportunity to strike the last word.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the Members to
do so, because there are a lot of people on the floor that want to talk
to this issue.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the point of order, we were told back
in 1996 when the sugar program was developed and we authorized it that
it was a no net-cost program; it will not cost the Government anything.
We have already spent $54 million last month, and we are getting ready
to spend $500 million more, so we were kind of misled in 1996 to have
been told that it was a no net-cost program; so because of the change
is the reason I think we should not have a point of order raised.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order on the question of whether or not this amendment is in
order?
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I might, in response to
reserving the point of order, if I could speak through the Chair to the
gentleman that made the point of order, might it not be possible, if
the gentleman insists upon his point of order, and I know we have the
right to strike the last word later, but might it not be possible to
ask unanimous consent so that at least our written statements could
appear in the Record at this point so it is part of this joint debate?
The CHAIRMAN. Unanimous consent has already been authorized for that
purpose for all Members.
Mr. MILLER of California. To be put into the Record at this point in
the debate?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct, yes.
Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members that wish to speak on the
point of order?
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller) includes language limiting the Commodity Credit
Corporation purchasing authority; and, therefore, the amendment
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and the
point of order is, therefore, sustained.
The amendment is not in order.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of
misstatements today about the sugar program, not only today, but in the
discussions that have been held over the years. I think it is really
unfortunate that so much of this comes from a theoretical discussion,
which is purported to be a government report called the GAO Study.
I think that it is important when we look at these studies to look at
the response the Department made with respect to each one of the
assumptions that were propounded by the GAO report. The most
significant of it is this use of the words, ``world price.'' Anyone who
has studied this particular issue will know that the world price is
nothing more than a dump price. There is no such thing as buying sugar
at 8 cents or 9 cents a pound. It is only where the excesses, the
surpluses of all of these government programs all over the world have
no internal domestic source to sell, then they go out to the world
market and they dump it. It is absolutely unfair to talk about our
sugar program and relate it to the world dump price.
If we are talking about the cost of sugar to an ordinary family in
the United States, let us look at the chart here. Let us look and see
what the world price is for sugar in the developed countries. We see
all of these countries here, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Italy,
Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, France, all of these other countries, and
way down at the bottom here, the United States, retail price at
[[Page H5566]]
43 cents. At the top here, 86 cents. That is what we are talking about
when we talk about the cranberry production and the cranberry juice
that we were supposed to feel sympathetic about in an earlier
discussion.
Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a retail price in the United
States which is significantly lower than what the price is in other
countries throughout the world. Mr. Chairman, 8 cent, 9 cent sugar is
unreal in terms of our own domestic market.
What are we talking about? We are talking about killing an industry.
I cannot think of anybody interested in fairness and support of our
farmers, in support of agriculture, wanting to kill a whole industry in
order to somehow fall prey to this mythological idea that they could
buy 8 cent sugar in the world dump market. It is just not happening.
I think the real way to look at this situation is what is happening
to the sugar prices today. We who have sugar production in our
districts know that the price has catapulted from about half of what
they were perhaps 10 or 15 years ago. Our farmers are struggling. They
are in despair. I have one sugar company on the island of Kauai that is
about to close if we do not find a resolution to this problem.
None of the Hawaii sugar is in this commodity market. I am not here
because we are in that market where we are going to benefit 1 penny
from any loan. We are restricted from that program. But I am here
talking about sugar as fundamental industry in this country that has a
right to exist, to be a part of our economy as any other farm product
in this the United States. Why kill off this industry on a myth? Prices
have gone down over the last year to maybe 18 cents for the people who
are producing it, but what happens to all of the other products that
are using sugar, the cakes and the cookies and the Cokes? All the
prices have gone up 15, 20 percent. There is no economist worth his
salt or her salt that can argue that the price of sugar being low is a
good thing for America because it is going to lower the prices of the
commodities. It has not.
{time} 1515
The prices of all of these commodities have gone up, So the argument
that the GAO makes that the consumers are paying through their nose
because sugar is such an expensive item has absolutely no substance in
terms of the rationale for their argument.
If their argument were true, then the prices for all of these
commodities, cakes, cookies, and whatever, would have gone down. There
is not one item that we can find on the shelf today in the grocery
stores where the prices have gone down that uses sugar as a substance
for their production.
So it seems to me that we have to be together in this discussion
about agriculture. We cannot pick out one particular farmer. We do not
have any multibillionaire sugar producers in my State. They are all
small hard-working farmers who are just making a living.
So let us stand for the agricultural industry in this country and not
kill sugar because somebody does not like the law that we passed in
1996 that was designed to benefit all commodities.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of misinformation today about the
U.S. sugar program. I want to present a few facts.
During the 1990s, wholesale refined sugar prices fell 11 percent.
During the same period, the retail price of refined sugar increased by
1 percent and the prices of manufactured food products with sugar as a
major ingredient--candy, baked goods, cereal, and ice cream--rose by 23
to 32 percent. Since the start of the 1996 Farm Bill, wholesale refined
sugar prices are down 26 percent, but retail sugar prices have not
dropped at all and sweetened products prices are up 7 to 9 percent. It
is clear that it someone is making a killing, it is not the sugar
farmers.
American sugar farmers are in crisis. In my state of Hawaii, only
three sugar companies are still operating. In 1986, 13 operating
factories were operating and sugar was grown on all of the four major
islands. Today, sugar is produced only on the islands of Maui and
Kauai--and the survival of these companies and the fragile rural
economies of these islands are severely threatened by historically low
prices. This year, Hawaii sugar farmers are receiving the lowest prices
in 18 years for their sugar.
Those who would like to kill the U.S. sugar program cite the so-
called ``world price'' of sugar of 8 cents a pound. No one--not even
countries that use child labor--produces raw sugar for 8 cents a pound.
This ``world price'' is in fact a dump price for excess sugar that
bears no relationship to the actual cost of producing sugar. The dump
market represents the subsidized surpluses that countries dump on the
world market for whatever price that surplus sugar will bring.
A study by LMC International estimated the weighted world average
cost of producing sugar during the 11-year period of 1983/84 through
1994/95 to be 18.04 cents a pound. The actual level is almost certainly
higher now because of inflation since that time. Even though U.S. sugar
growers are among the most efficient in the world, they cannot survive
when they receive prices on the order of 17 cents to 19 cents a pound.
Two-thirds of the world's sugar is produced at a higher cost than in
the United States, even though American producers adhere to the world's
highest government standards and costs for labor and environmental
protections. U.S. beet sugar producers are the most efficient beet
sugar producers in the world, and American cane producers rank 28th
lowest cost among 62 countries--almost all of which are developing
countries with deplorable labor and environmental practices.
U.S. consumers pay 20 percent less for sugar than the average for
developed countries. Our average retail price for a pound of sugar--
43 cents--is far below the more than 80 cents paid by consumers in
Norway, Japan, and Finland. The average price paid by consumers in the
European Union is 52 cents. Of course, U.S. prices would be even lower
if the retailers and manufacturers did not absorb all of the benefit of
the lower prices producers have been receiving over the past three
years.
Is the price of sugar a problem for the average American family? I
don't think so. Sugar is so cheap that you can pick up packages of it
in restaurants and no one cares. The average American works 2.3 minutes
to purchase a pound of sugar. Are the opponents of the U.S. sugar
program responding to concerns of consumers? Clearly not. They are
responding to pressure from big businesses that want to increase their
profits further still at the expense of American farmers. The Dan
Miller amendments use consumer cost as an issue to mask the primary
motive, which is allow cheap foreign sugar into the U.S. market so that
the mega food-conglomerates can make more money.
The U.S. sugar and corn sweetener producing industry accounts,
directly and indirectly, for an estimated 420,000 American jobs in 42
states an for more than $26 billion per year in economic activity.
Defeat the Miller amendments that seek to destroy the U.S. sugar
industry.
I also wan tot respond specifically to the contention by Mr. Miller
that the U.S. sugar program costs consumers $1.9 billion per year.
First, the deeply flawed study by the GAO has been thoroughly
discredited by the USDA. Economists at the USDA have ``serious
concerns'' about the GAO report, which ``suffers in a numbers of
regards relative to both the analytical approach and . . . the
resulting conclusions.'' USDA concluded: ``GAO has not attempted to
realistically model the U.S. sugar industry. The validity of the
results are, therefore, suspect and should not be quoted
authoritatively.'' As with the 1993 version of this report, the GAO
assumes that food retailers and manufacturers would pass every cent of
savings along to consumers--we have convincing evidence that this will
not happen.
Mr. Miller is also very critical of the moves by the USDA to remove
excess sugar from the domestic market in order to stabilize the price
of sugar and thereby avoid very expensive forfeitures. Several factors
account for the excess of sugar on the market: good yields due to
favorable weather, increased imports, and schemes that undercut the
foundation of the sugar import quota such as importation of stuffed
molasses (a product with a high sugar content, which is made into
refined sugar) and importation of dumped sugar via Mexico under the
reduced NAFTA tariffs. The Miller amendments to prevent the USDA from
making purchases to reduce the supply of sugar and to avoid forfeitures
will cost the government money, Purchases cost less per ton and will
avoid a much larger volume of forfeited sugar. Purchases instead of
forfeitures for the 132,000 tons the government purchased this year
will save taxpayers $6 million in avoided forfeitures.
Sugar farmers--like other farmers--are suffering. Prices for most
crops are at or near all-time lows. The government has stepped in to
avert a disaster in rural America by providing over $70 billion in
payments to other farmers since 1996--but no assistance has been given
to sugar farmers. Moreover, sugar farmers have contributed $288 million
in marketing assessments to reduce the deficit and, prior to the recent
sugar purchase, the sugar program has operated at no cost to the U.S.
Treasury.
It angers me to hear Members talk about the sugar program benefitting
only a few wealthy sugar barons. I can tell you that the
[[Page H5567]]
small growers who supplied the now defunct Hilo Coast Processing
Company were not and are not sugar barons. Now many are not even
farmers--they are unemployed. And the thousands of people who work for
or whose jobs depend on the remaining sugar companies in Hawaii are not
rich. They work hard at their jobs and have to pay their mortgages and
save to send their children to college.
In Hawaii, we have over 6,000 jobs dependent on the sugar industry.
These are good jobs that pay a living wage, include health benefits,
retirement and other benefits. U.S. sugar producers are providing these
jobs while complying with U.S. labor and environmental law.
Mr. Chairman, U.S. consumers benefit from the U.S. sugar program.
They benefit from the stability it ensures, and the access it provides
to quality sugar produced by U.S. companies. A strong domestic sugar
industry contributes to our economy by producing jobs.
The demise of the U.S. sugar industry would mean the loss of these
jobs to sugar producers overseas that do not have labor or
environmental protections and in documented cases use child labor to
produce cheap sugar.
Are we willing to forsake our own sugar producers so that the
international food cartels can buy cheap sugar produced by twelve year-
olds in Brazil or Guatemala? I hope not.
In Hawaii, the decline in sugar prices has been ruinous. These prices
threaten the survival of our remaining sugar companies and the
livelihood of workers in our rural areas. Sugar production ended on the
island of Hawaii several years ago. Nothing has replaced sugar as a
viable agricultural crop and the former cane lands remain idle.
Unemployment is high and drug problems have increased as have the
social costs of dealing with these issues. The islands of Maui and
Kauai--where the sugar industry is a major source of employment--will
face the same devastating consequences if we do not give sugar farmers
a fair price.
I urge my colleagues to reject the false consumer cost argument based
on the GAO report, and vote today for a U.S. sugar industry that will
continue to provide jobs here in America. Defeat the Miller amendments.
Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to carry on the debate and discussion about the
issue of sugar.
I made note when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) was on the
floor. He said when the agreement was reached in 1996, taxpayers were
promised that this would not cost the taxpayers any money. I want to
remind the people in this room that this program has not cost the
taxpayers any money.
Some people will point to the recent purchase of sugar that the
administration has concluded for about $200 million. But I want to
remind the Members in this Chamber that as part of this agreement in
1996, that the sugar producers agreed to pay over $288 million towards
deficit reduction during the 7-year life of this program. So the
taxpayers, even with the purchase of sugar, even if that sugar is never
resold, still will be beneficiaries to the extent of $288 million.
The people who are advocating the change in the sugar program mostly
come from districts where there are candy manufacturers. They come to
the floor and argue that consumers have been hurt by this sugar
program.
Let me tell the Members, sugar cane prices have gone down 17 percent
since this program went into place, and sugar beet has gone down 26
percent. During that period of time, while the producers' share of the
dollar has gone dramatically, the price of refined sugar has gone up
1.1 percent.
Guess what, the price of candy, cookies, and ice cream have gone up
27 percent. So somebody is taking money from the pockets of consumers.
It is not the sugar producers that are taking it out of the pockets of
consumers, it is the candy manufacturers.
If we kill this program, who will benefit? The candy manufacturers,
among the wealthiest, most successful companies in the world. Who is
going to get hurt? Family farmers and family ranchers who are out here
struggling, trying to make a living.
I want to also address, Mr. Chairman, this issue of the world price
of sugar. People suggest that U.S. consumers are paying more for sugar
because they compare our domestic sugar price with the world price. But
there is not a world price. There are not two prices, as it has been
represented. There are multiple prices. Every country has its own price
based upon its own market.
All the sugar that is on the world market is excess production. It
comes from subsidized producers. What happens is our competitor nations
subsidize their producers. They have quotas that they have to produce
to. In order to get their subsidized price, which is way above our U.S.
price, they have to overproduce. If they do not meet their quota of
production, their quota gets cut back.
What do they do? They overproduce and dump that sugar on the market.
If they had to give it away, they would not care. It does not come
close to covering the cost of production because it is excess
production. It is a relatively small market. To suggest to U.S.
consumers that the price of sugar in this country would go down if we
started buying sugar on the world market is a manifest
misrepresentation of the situation.
Mr. Chairman, this has been a good program. It has helped in our
area, given people alternative crops at a time when they very much need
it. This is the first time this program has been triggered. In order
for the program to be triggered, we have to have imports that exceed
the quotas and we have to have a price that falls below the market
price and the cost of production.
We need to keep this program. The amendment of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller) is really misguided and misdirected. I do not
think that we should be further hurting our farmers, particularly at
times when they are struggling so much.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller), for introducing this amendment. I rise in support
of this amendment, unfortunately, it was struck on a point of order, to
limit the purchases of sugar to $54 million.
The U.S. sugar program represents Congress at its worst. It takes
precious resources held by the U.S. taxpayer and funnels them to
private businessmen who are multimillionaires. The sugar program is
nothing but corporate welfare that has survived solely due to the
generous financial contributions from a very narrow interest groups.
My colleague knows the sugar program props up the price of sugar by
restricting imports and guaranteeing the repayment of sugar loans if
the price falls too low. But the sugar program is a failure. Prices
keep falling. The government is spending our money in a desperate
attempt to salvage its own mess. Taxpayers should not be asked to
support this.
Twice taxpayers were robbed under the sugar program. First the
program inflates the price of sugar. That means consumers pay more. In
fact, the Government Accounting Office has been reported here as paying
almost $2 billion more than they would otherwise.
Then, because the price support actually creates an incentive to grow
too much sugar, the price of sugar goes down from oversupply, and the
taxpayers pay directly to buy up sugar stored in an effort to prop up
the price again. I think the average American understands the program
quite well and they do not like it.
My office got a call the other day from a man down in Donaldsonville,
Louisiana, an area where they grow a lot of sugar. The man says he owns
a small dry cleaning business. He said, ``Wouldn't it be nice if the
government guaranteed me a steady price during slow times? With sugar,
the richest farmers in this country are getting bailed out by the
government. It just isn't right.''
That man in Donaldsonville, Louisiana, understands sugar. He does not
need a GAO report or USDA analysis. He lives in sugar country. He sees
how it works.
Who benefits from the sugar program? The GAO has said that only two
industries benefit, sugar beet growers and sugar cane growers. But the
benefit handsomely is tuned to $1 billion in additional profits, $1
billion extra, thanks to the program.
Consider some of these allegedly needy farmers. One of the largest
beneficiaries is the sugar family of the Fanjuls, estimated to be worth
hundreds of millions of dollars, and who own extensive properties in
Florida and the Dominican Republic. They also contribute vast sums to
both political parties to ensure that this program stays alive.
[[Page H5568]]
The Fanjul family Members and business executives alone have
contributed over $2 million in the past three election cycles, but they
have figured out how this program works. They have figured out how it
works twice. First, they grow sugar in Florida and sell it at inflated
prices guaranteed by the government. They earn an additional $50 to $65
million per year from the sugar production of Florida, thanks to this
program.
Next, on top of that, they also grow sugar in the Dominican Republic,
one of the countries with a guaranteed contract to export sugar to the
United States, because of a treaty obligation. But the import comes to
the U.S. at inflated U.S. prices, not at the lower prices on the world.
Therefore, the Fanjuls, the biggest growers of Dominican Republic
sugar, sell the sugar to the U.S. under the import quota and are
estimated to earn an additional $80 million than they would otherwise
earn because of the inflated prices under this program.
It is very smart business for them and it could only happen because
of the U.S. Government and the Congress' complacency in this program.
Mr. Chairman, the sugar program is making a number of sugar growers
very rich, but it is a failure as a policy. That is why the USDA had to
take an unprecedented step earlier this year for the direct purchase of
130,000 tons of sugar this spring for $54 million, 130,000 tons of
sugar they do not know what to do with. They cannot put it on the
market, sell it overseas, they cannot give it away. It is just $54
million that is sitting in a dark warehouse somewhere, taxpayer
dollars, taxpayer dollars to buy sugar that nobody wants and nobody can
let them put on the market, because if they put it on the market, the
price would go lower and we would have to buy more sugar. If we put
that on the market, the price would go lower and we would have to buy
more sugar.
Do Members see why this is important? The $54 million was just the
opening bid for sugar in this country. But if we have the U.S.
taxpayers' purse, if we have open access to that, we can put down
another $54 million in a couple of months, and then when the Mexicans
import 250,000 tons of sugar, we can put another $54 million.
Do Members get the idea? Do Members get the idea that maybe the U.S.
taxpayer is being robbed to prop up the sugar industry that is failing?
It is failing because of this support program. Refiners are going out
of business, farmers are going out of business. Yet, we are keeping a
very narrow band of these farmers in business.
We ought to stop this program now. My colleague, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller), is quite right in offering this amendment.
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as I heard this debate, I felt the need to come down to
the floor and participate because I think the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from California
(Mr. Miller), which unfortunately we will not be considering today,
addresses an issue that we are going to have to address as part of our
trade policy, whether we enjoy doing it or not.
The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the sugar program has harmed U.S. trade
policy. The United States has had a goal and policy of knocking down
barriers to fair and open trade, such as tariffs, quotas, and
subsidies. This policy clearly benefits domestic agriculture and
domestic manufacturing.
Our trade representatives have taken a message to the world that
subsidies and tariffs are bad, and we need to allow free trade to work
and we need to allow markets to be opened up.
The U.S. economy is essentially free of subsidies and high tariffs,
yet, despite that high ground, when our trade representatives go forth
and meet with their counterparts, our trade representatives are forced
to passionately defend the sugar subsidy and tariff, defend the
indefensible.
Sugar protectionism in America harms our efforts to open up world
markets to more important U.S. commodities and sell U.S. corn, wheat,
livestock, cotton, rice, and other products overseas. It also hurts the
competitiveness of American food products that are made with sugar.
We have heard some speeches on the floor about candy manufacturers,
but they are not given a subsidy. They are invited to compete in a free
market.
Mr. Chairman, during the recent Seattle round our trade negotiator in
the agriculture discussions was trying to lower foreign protections of
corn, grain, and cattle. This job was made all the more difficult
because other nations could point to our absurdly generous support of
sugar and call us hypocritical.
We cannot allow the sugar program to continue to be a black eye on
our efforts at knocking down trade barriers for our most important
products. The U.S. Trade Representative's testimony to the Subcommittee
on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary conceded the trade
negotiations relating to sugar are some of the most contentious she has
had to deal with, despite sugar's relatively small share of our
economy.
Because of her concession, that appropriations bill contains report
language for the USTR to prepare a report on how sugar complicates U.S.
efforts to discuss trade policy with other countries.
I have heard the world price of sugar described as the dump price,
but the fact remains, we have in place antidumping laws to provide
protection for our markets against those kinds of practices. That is
the appropriate remedy, not sugar protectionism. Our trade policy
should be to open up markets overseas first, not defend outdated,
environmentally unsound corporate welfare benefiting a very small
segment of our economy, the domestic sugar industry.
To elaborate on this, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me correct a few statements
made earlier. The gentleman from Montana talked about the fact that
with sugar, we were told in 1996 there was going to be an assessment of
about $40 million a year for sugar, generating $280 million over the 7
years.
Guess what? They got rid of it in an appropriation bill 2 years ago.
We are not collecting that money anymore, so there is no income for
deficit reduction in the sugar program.
This GAO report that everybody wants to discredit, remember, the GAO
is an agency for Congress, a nonpartisan, unbiased agency. This is a
very complex issue. As I met with the GAO people, they brought in four
distinguished academicians who specialize in agricultural economics to
review this program to come up with the best type of report.
When we talk about the world trade, the world market, he is right, we
have antidumping. So if France subsidizes their sugar, they cannot come
in the United States. Australia, the largest grower of sugar, does not
subsidize. There are growers around the world that sell at the world
price that are not subsidized.
Some talk about jobs. Look at all the jobs we are losing in this
country. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) talked about the
cranberry growers. They cannot compete with Canadian cranberry growers.
There are jobs in this country in the candy business that are moving
offshore because they cannot buy candy cheaper, in Canada or the
Caribbean. That is unfair competition and it is destroying jobs.
So I think this report is fully justifiable to defend the full $1.9
billion cost of the program.
{time} 1530
I know the Agriculture Department and the sugar people will hire
their own economists and try to dispute that, but that is the reason we
have a GAO, nonpartisan, unbiased.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I find it somewhat ironic that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English) would stand up and say there is something
wrong about supporting domestic production and that the cheapest
foreign price is the thing that we should pay attention to. I have
heard the same individual speak eloquently in an exactly opposite way
when it comes to steel. When it comes to steel, he is all about
protecting domestic capacity and resisting dumped steel subsidized by
foreign governments.
Mr. Chairman, I think he is right on steel, but he is dead wrong on
sugar. He ought to be a little consistent. The
[[Page H5569]]
same problem with exposing our domestic production to dumped subsidized
exports apply in sugar just like they do in steel.
Let us just talk for a moment about what is happening in the farm
economy. We all know that our farmers are facing very serious distress.
In North Dakota, the value of wheat has dropped 33 percent, 33 percent.
Barley, 30 percent. Sugar prices are at a 20-year low. So it is a bit
depressing to have to come and fight for the area where our farmers
have at least some price protection, when everything else about family
farming is so under stress.
Some have suggested that this is about Big Sugar lobbyists and Big
Sugar refineries. In the situation in North Dakota, it is about family
farmers struggling to hang on.
Here is the deal with sugar: it is one product where domestic
consumption exceeds production. For the most part, we grow more than we
possibly could eat, and we have to fight for exports and the
competition has driven down prices. Sugar, we actually consume more
than we produce.
Now, much of the world wants access to this market and the
governments are prepared to subsidize their exports to get it. And if
it was allowed just to go without any restriction, without protection
of the sugar program, we would not have a domestic sugar industry in
this country. We would not have any significant domestic sugar capacity
in this country. It would all be foreign sugar.
Sugar is linked directly to the pricing of food. If we would be
completely dependent on foreign sugar, our food prices, grocery store
prices in this country would swing very dramatically depending on where
the world price for sugar has been. So we have had a sugar program for
many years now and have struck a bargain. Farmers have a price that
gives them some reasonable return; consumers have food price stability
and some of the lowest-priced sugar in the industrialized world.
The result is stable food pricing. The consequence of this amendment
would be great volatility in grocery store prices. We have seen what
has happened with gasoline just over the last year, the howls we are
hearing from consumers at the gas pump this year. Last year, there was
an unbelievable bargain at the pump. Unfortunately, what we have come
to realize is the greatest disservice to the consuming price is
volatility. Very low prices one day; extraordinarily high prices the
next day, destroying household budgets, never leaving anyone knowing
where they are at.
We want the price of groceries for American families to have price
stability, and that is what the sugar program is all about.
Now, let us not think for a moment that the only Federal resources
expended in this country is to help support sugar. Just weeks ago, my
colleagues joined me in passing about $7.5 billion in economic relief
to farmers because prices have collapsed, and under Freedom to Farm
there is no price support protecting our farmers in these times of
price collapse. Compared to commodity support, the support offered for
sugar, with the much-maligned sugar purchase discussed on the floor, is
very modest and, in fact, very modest indeed.
Let me give a couple of reasons why our domestic farmers growing
sugar beets or sugar cane are under such threat. Number one, Canada is
cheating. Canada is stuffing molasses supersaturated, full of sugar,
and shipping it into our market for manufacturers who are pulling the
sugar out of the molasses and getting around the ban on Canadian sugar
imports in that fashion. In an absolutely ludicrous court ruling, the
judge held that that was okay. It is under appeal, and I believe it is
a flat violation of the Canadian trade commitments to us.
We are about to see, thanks to NAFTA, something I voted against, a
very significant increase in Mexican sugar as well. It is vital to our
farmers we keep the sugar program in place.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because I think it
makes a whole lot of common sense. I would say that for a couple of
different reasons. I would say this amendment is important first and
primarily because I think that this present program in its present
configuration is just plain evil. I would go so far as to say that I
think this program is the equivalent of a crack cocaine of corporate
welfare, because we have been talking about family farms. What we do
not see with this program are family farms.
Mr. Chairman, 42 percent of all the benefits that come as a result of
this program go to 150 sugar producers in the United States. That is to
say if we take about these two sets of chairs over there, and every
person in each of those chairs would get about $6 million per chair.
That is not a family farm.
Then we look at some of the egregious examples: the Fanjul family
living down in Palm Beach are not exactly family farmers. Are they a
family farm if they have a Gulfstream jet, which is a $35 million jet?
Are they a family farmer if they have a yacht, which they happen to
have? Are they a family farmer if they own their own resort in the
Dominican Republic called Casa de Campo? Are they a family farmer if
they have a mansion in Palm Beach? I don't think so.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think this debate is about family farmers,
which is to a degree what we have been talking about.
I would say secondly, that this amendment is about simply the idea of
watching out for the taxpayer, as the author of this amendment has
pointed out. Mr. Chairman, $54 million of taxpayer money will go to buy
sugar that will be used for nothing. Does that make common sense? In
fact, if we look at the overall cost to the consumer based on the GAO
reports, based on a number of different studies, $1.9 billion is the
aggregate cost to American consumers in this program. That comes to
about $15 per family in America that go to the likes of the Fanjul
family who lives the lifestyle of the rich and famous down in Palm
Beach. That, too, does not make common sense to me.
Thirdly, I would mention that this amendment makes sense because we
have to ask a larger philosophical question. This is especially the
case for Republicans. That is: Why are we here? I heard conversations
about ``dump price.'' We do not want to see the dump price. Every time
I turn on the television back home there is talk about we are moving to
2001 models with Ford or Chevrolet or other cars and we are dumping
them down at the local car lot. ``Come on and get yourself a bargain.''
Nobody complains about those ads.
So I look at other products out there, whether we are talking about
cars, whether we are talking about homes, whether we are talking about
computers or shoe repair or dry cleaning. The dump price is the market
price, and so it seems to me that none of that is complained about.
Mr. Chairman, all we are talking about is the market price. I live on
the coast of South Carolina; and if we look at the, quote, ``dump
price'' with watermelons, with cucumbers, with tomatoes, all of those
are similar. Whatever the market will bear, that is what the consumer
pays for. That, to me, seems to be a very Republican idea of standing
on one's own two feet and working through markets.
So I think that this amendment makes a whole lot of sense for a
number of different reasons.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller), the author of the amendment.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Sanford) for yielding me this time. He was here in 1996,
as most of the people who are participating in this debate, where we
debated the issue under the authorization bill. We were told back then
by Member after Member, no net cost. It will not cost the taxpayers a
penny.
Last month, the reason we have this amendment, $54 million worth of
sugar was purchased by the Department of Agriculture. $54 million worth
of sugar, and there is no use for it. We cannot give it away around the
world. Nobody wants it. They will not let us use it for ethanol. What
are we going to do with it? We will find a warehouse and the Federal
Government will pay money to the warehouse to store it.
Mr. Chairman, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We are on a
slippery slope, because we have had the price of sugar so high. More
and more people are
[[Page H5570]]
growing sugar. Production is up 20 percent and will be higher next
year, and we will buy more and more sugar. Media reports say it could
have been as much as $500 million worth of sugar in the next 90 days
alone. There is going to be a problem finding enough warehouses in this
country to store all the sugar from the overproduction.
We have created ourselves a mess in 1996; and we need to get a handle
on it, because it is taxpayers' dollars. The $54 million, plus all of
that storage, plus hundreds of millions more worth of sugar that we are
stuck into buying and again having to store. This is real dollars for
real consumers, and I hope we can get rid of this program in a hurry.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we are having a rather bizarre debate this afternoon.
It is on a subject which has already been ruled out of order; and as a
consequence, it is hard to understand why we need to continue to
consume time here on the floor.
But I think in terms of trying to bring closure to this, it is
probably useful to observe that the U.S. Trade Representative has not
done a good job by the American sugar farmers in the sense that we have
stuffed molasses coming into this country. I looked in my cupboard at
home at the molasses and wondered how do you stuff this stuff? I
learned that there are tremendous quantities of foreign sugar coming in
in the form of molasses, and it is refined and the sucrose is extracted
and there it is as granular sugar. This product is then sent back up to
Canada.
Mr. Chairman, we had a hearing this morning in the Committee on
Agriculture, and we had the chemical companies explaining to us why
they charge less in Canada and Australia for farm chemicals than they
do in the United States and saying that we ought to feel blessed that
we can purchase these chemicals at a higher price.
We talk about fair trade. We talk about international markets and
open markets. The fact of the matter is that we do not have fair trade
in this world. We have all different types of devices that exist out
there to protect discrete sectors of the economy. I looked at the
appropriation bill this afternoon. I noticed that we have a humble
amount in there for GIPSA, the Grain Inspectors, Packers and Stockyards
Administration, to try to ensure America's farmers raising livestock
that we indeed have a competitive marketplace when it comes to the sale
of their livestock. They are very suspicious that we do not and, as a
consequence, they would like to see stronger enforcement. We learned
that we just have a very small staff for a national program.
We are not devoting our resources to ensure competition in the
American marketplace. Far more, we are limiting the resources that
would assure us of that. And then we sit on the floor, and we talk
about whether America's farmers, who are being forced out of business,
many of them, including those raising sugar beets and sugar cane, ought
to receive even less.
The American consumers are paying billions of dollars for petroleum
products this spring and summer. We have seen the world price of oil,
the per-barrel price, go from $8 to $33, $34 a barrel. We have a world
market in oil and look at the consequences. Tremendous volatility.
Tremendous dislocation. Look at sugar, and we have a stable price in
the United States. We do not have this tremendous volatility.
The claim that the American consumer is being fleeced, it is
certainly not by the sugar producer. The prices of refined sugar have
gone up 1.1 percent during the period of time since 1996, in the last 4
years. Compare that to the price of crude oil. During the period of
time in the 1990s, the price of products made out of sugar have gone up
27 percent. The problems that we are experiencing I think are very
unfairly being laid at the feet of the farmers and a program which has,
at least over the years, usually worked for the farmers.
{time} 1545
It is not appropriate.
I submit that the time has come to move on with our deliberations on
this bill. Hopefully we could have put more money into GIPSA to assure
that we had adequate enforcement of that program.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to give my
colleagues an example of what will happen if we get rid of this
program. The truth of the matter is this world market is a dump market.
The Europeans are the biggest people that dump into the world market.
I had a chance to go to Romania last year where they had a huge sugar
beet industry, 12,000 farmers, 36 plants. What happened, they needed
some money from the World Bank, so they forced them to give up their
tariffs, which they did. The Europeans came in and destroyed their
industry by dumping into their market. They now have no sugar beet
farmers left in Romania. They only have 11 of the 36 plants that are
operating, and they are owned by the West Europeans.
If we get rid of this sugar program under the current way that we are
operating in the world, we will have the West Europeans owning the
United States sugar industry in this country exactly as they have done
in Romania, because we are not on a fair playing field. We have got
this dump market.
We are there subsidizing higher than my colleagues claim that we are,
and then they are taking their excess production, using their $10
billion of export subsidies, and dumping it into the world market. This
is not a free market. It is not a fair market. My colleagues that are
trying to take this apart really do not understand how this works.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Minge) will yield, I agree, we should not have a dump price.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. In summary, I urge that
we move on to other portions of this bill and recognize that the sugar
program has been authorized by Congress. It is a program that is
scheduled to continue to the year 2003.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, We are going to start rewriting the farm bill next
year, and we have already started hearings. Sugar review is going to be
part of that effort.
Some of the gentlemen that favor this amendment make a point about a
lot of the money and benefits going to a few producers. Maybe we should
restructure to assure that the distribution of benefits is equitable. I
will research the possibility of an allocation that benefits individual
producers, with possible payment limits, like we do on other commodity
producers.
It would be possible for the non-recourse loan benefits to go to all
producers. It may be possible to prorate the loan and limit the
payments.
But here is the situation that we are faced with, not only in sugar,
but in almost all farm commodities. We have other countries, for
example Europe, that are subsidizing five times as much as we subsidize
in this country. Again they are subsidizing their farmers up to five
times the amount we subsidize in this country, and then, as has been
suggested, they overproduce and their extra production, is dumped into
what otherwise might be our markets or the world market.
Consumers and this body have to face a decision of whether we want
parts of our agricultural industry to diminish or if we want to
establish the kind of farm policy with support and help that will allow
producers in this country to survive. Produced in this country where we
can examine how they are grown, and assure the safety of those
products.
If we don't support agriculture, here is what is going to happen. If
we ruin some of our farm industries, we are going to be more dependent
on imports. Eventually those imports and those people selling that
product, like OPEC, will start charging whatever price they think they
can get and we will be forced to accept the quality available.
I think it is in our long-term interest, for our and our farmers that
we maintain our agricultural production, including sugar. As we start
rewriting our 5-year farm bill next year, we do not dismantle current
programs with these kinds of amendments in an appropriation.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
[[Page H5571]]
Mr. Chairman, obviously there have not been enough words stricken on
this issue, and we need to continue talking about it.
This debate comes up every year. It is really a debate between those
who support the candy industry and the soft drink industry who would
like to have lower sugar prices, they buy a lot of sugar, and those of
us that support agriculture. We hear, well, there is a different policy
here for sugar than there is for anything else, which is not true. This
is not part of the AMTA payments. We do not pay the farmers directly.
What we do in America is we limit the number of imports, and we give
preference to countries that we are trying to help, particularly in the
Caribbean Basin and Central America, allow their sugar products to come
in, mostly cane sugar. What do we do? We pay the price that we get for
sugar in America, which is a better price than they get on the world
market. So it is really part of our foreign policy, this program.
Also my colleagues make it sound like we do not do anything for any
other agriculture. In the last year, we have had the largest wheat
purchase ever in the United States. We made another wheat purchase last
April right after that for another $93 million. Then we assisted, went
and purchased small hog operators, we helped them out. We assisted
dairy farmers who were suffering low prices. Then in May of last year,
we did the disaster assistance funds for farmers.
In June, we put $70 million into livestock assistance. In July, we
put another $100 to hog farmers. In December, we assisted tobacco
farmers. In January, we assisted sheep and lamb farmers. In January, we
also assisted other dairy farmers; in February, the cotton farmers;
also in February, the oil seed farmers; in March, the livestock
production; in March, the cheese production; in March of this year,
another $231 million for drought relief. Then we have done crop
disaster payments totally $1.9 billion.
So America does help its farmer, and we ought to. We ought to make
sure that they have a market that they can sell their product. For
after all, if this all goes away, we all come here talking about what
happens with urban sprawl and what is happening to rural America, I
mean, rural America is our history, our culture. What we are really
about is a people and where still our number one industry in this
country is agriculture.
We have got to be here as representatives of districts of
agriculture, supporting agriculture. This program does it without
spending taxpayer dollars. I urge that we continue to support the sugar
program in the United States.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is inappropriate to suggest that this is a
debate between soft drink manufacturers and even sugar growers for that
matter. This is a question of taxpayer interests. I think there is no
question, this program just does not serve the interests of the
taxpayer and the interests of the consumer.
I have heard two particular points made in the recent debate that I
would like to address. One is the argument that, well, this is really
about fair trade and that somehow, because other countries are
penalizing their consumers or subsidizing their farmers to the
disadvantage of taxpayers, that it is all right for us to do the same.
I do not think that argument ever holds water.
Just because another country is engaged in a policy that makes no
economic sense or that penalizes consumers or that distorts markets
does not mean that the United States should engage in that same
foolhardy policy.
Fair trade is about lowering barriers to imports and exports. We do
that in order to benefit our own consumers, American consumers that
should have every right and opportunity to purchase products on the
world market that improve their quality of life, that enable them to be
healthy, to be successful and to live the kind of existence they want
for themselves and their families.
The second argument that was made suggests that this is somehow
protecting one class versus another. I think that that is wrong as
well.
There was a suggestion that this is about price volatility. The
importance of the program is to maintain price stability. How is it
ever in the interests of any American to maintain prices at an
artificially high level and to then go back to the consumer and say,
you see, we are protecting you from changes in price by keeping it
really high so that you are penalized every time you go to the
supermarket, every time you buy a product, but you are penalized at a
very consistent level. I think that is a foolish argument to make and
one that most Americans are going to see through.
We accept the fact that prices are going to go up at times; they are
going to go down at times. But the key to true economic productivity is
a fair and open competitive market, and that is what America is known
for. That is at the heart and soul of the strength of our economy.
$1.9 billion in overpayments that consumers are being forced to
handle every year, that is bad for the consumer. $100 million or more
in direct taxpayer subsidies this year alone.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has suggested that may go as
high as $500 million in direct taxpayer payments, the bulk of which are
going to very large, very successful, very profitable agricultural
concerns.
I do not think the sponsors of this amendment bear those concerns any
ill will. This is not about penalizing an industry. It is about being
fair to taxpayers and consumers.
Last, but certainly not least, our environment. Do we really want to
perpetuate a program that does such tremendous damage to the
environment? Whether it is the Everglades in Florida or sensitive
environmental lands in Hawaii or anywhere else in this country, we
certainly should not engage in policies that damage the environment all
the while distorting markets and taking money from both consumers and
taxpayers.
I applaud the work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
Hampshire for speaking in opposition to the sugar program.
One of the strange things of the sugar program is the way they
control the prices. They control imports. What they have is a quota to
different countries.
People talk about this world price. Well, I agree we should have
antidumping laws. I think it is wrong if France subsidizes their sugar,
they should not be allowed to sell their sugar in the United States. We
have laws to protect that. I fully support those.
But places like Australia have a free market. They do not get
subsidized. New Zealand does not get subsidized. They sell their sugar
on the world market every day at about a third of the price of the
United States. So there is a world price for sugar.
One of the other strange things about this corporate welfare issue is
this foreign aid corporate welfare. Now, Australia sells their sugar
around the world for 9 cents a pound, whatever the world price is. But
what do we do in the United States when we buy sugar from Australia. We
do not pay the same world price, we pay the high U.S. price of 27-some
cents a pound. That is amazing.
Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, you name the country, the Dominican
Republic, they sell it around the world for the world price; but the
United States pays this high price to these countries. Now justify that
one.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time just to be clear, that
is a direct transfer of money from the American consumers to foreign
corporations.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to say things that have not been said to this
point. I think it is very important, we hear all the crocodile tears
for consumers. I am speaking as someone from Hawaii associated in
people's minds, people who are listening to us and people back in their
offices, associated in people's minds with sugar.
Well, the policies that we have pursued in this country supposedly
about fair and impartial and open trade have destroyed sugar in Hawaii.
My colleagues will not have to worry about it.
[[Page H5572]]
The gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) has already come down here and
said that we are not going to be affected by this. I am here to say the
same thing.
Sugar is effectively destroyed in Hawaii. I hope everybody is happy
with that. Because what we have all around the world is wage slavery
and child labor producing the sugar. Now, if that is determined to be
and defined as free and open markets and free markets seeking their
profit level as well as their price, then one can define it that way,
but I do not.
If one wants to define it as having other countries environment be
degraded while ours is somehow upraised in the process and call that
fair, one can do that.
The fact of the matter is that child labor, what amounts in my mind
to slavery, is used all over the world to produce its sugar. Yes, there
are subsidies and oligarchy existing in the rest of the world where
sugar is concerned that ought to make us weep with shame to think that
we would import that sugar and say that that is some net advantage to
the consumer.
It has been said already, and I want to emphasize that, that none of
this imported sugar, where there are no health standards, where there
are no environmental standards, where there are no labor standards,
none of that sugar that is imported at that price is going to be
reflected in any product that is sold in this country that will be
taken as profit.
{time} 1600
Maybe people will applaud that. If my colleagues feel that it is a
good idea to make a lot of money off of other people's pain and
suffering, then I suppose that that is something that my colleagues
would welcome. I do not. I think we set standards.
The great irony, Mr. Chairman, for me, coming from Hawaii, is that
the people who would lose their jobs, not these rich people in Florida,
if my colleagues do not like these rich people in Florida or they
disapprove of the way they live, then find a way to tax them or put
them out of business or do whatever; but do not tell me that somebody
working on a plantation in Kauai with his or her hands, working in the
fields all their lives by the sweat of their brow, is on the same plane
and should be treated the same as someone who my colleagues think is
getting undeserved riches from what happens with a program that we
passed.
Fix the program. Do not attack the people who are the victims of my
colleagues' self-righteousness. If my colleagues want to come down on
this floor and attack sugar, then they are attacking people who are
working for a living and who came from countries who are now being
subsidized, who are dumping sugar into this country, whose ancestors
came here looking for just an opportunity for justice, looking for just
an opportunity for equity, looking for just an opportunity to earn a
decent and fair living. Those people are being put out of business.
Those people are losing their jobs because of the programs that my
colleagues support to import wage slave sugar in this country.
As long as I am on this floor, and as long as I am in this country,
and I am in this Congress, believe me, I am going to be standing up for
working people against those who would take advantage of them.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that
they are here as the guests of the House and that any manifestation of
approval or disapproval of the proceedings and other audible
conversation is in violation of the rules.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I will not be as passionate as the previous speaker. I was just
sitting here listening to that speech and the other speeches thinking
about what a wonderful place this is, because last night, I should not
even say last night, earlier this morning the gentleman from Florida
and I were here on this floor, and we were on the same side of an
issue.
We do not grow a single sugar beet in my district in Minnesota, but
we do grow a lot of sugar beets in Minnesota. In fact, in Minnesota it
is a $2 billion industry. It is a very important industry, and
particularly in northwestern Minnesota, again, very nonpartisan areas
represented on both sides of the Red River by Democrats.
I want to talk about the sugar program just briefly, if I can, both
from the perspective of agriculture policy and for budget policy,
because I think it is interesting how people of good will, people who
may agree or disagree on different issues, can look at the same set of
facts and come to such incredibly different conclusions on them. Let me
just share with my colleagues my conclusion.
If we look at the sugar title in the farm bill, it does not cost the
American taxpayer a penny. We make money on the sugar title. I would
invite any of my colleagues to come to my office, and we will go
through that with them.
Another thing that has been said is that American consumers are
paying more. In the first 3 years of the 1996 farm bill, and I have a
small chart here which we did not have time to make into a big chart,
but if we look at these red bars here, the price paid to the farmers
for raw cane sugar and wholesale refined sugar dropped by 23 percent.
But what happened for the consumer? Well, the retail price of sugar did
go up, 1.2 percent; the price of candy went up 4.6 percent; and the
price of cereal went up 5.8 percent. So a lot of the things we are
talking about here today, the farmer is getting less for his sugar; but
we are paying more for candy and some of the things sugar goes into.
Let me just say that this really gets at the very core of why we have
farm policy at all. Why do we have a farm policy at the Federal level?
I think the reason we have a farm policy is to ensure that Americans
have an adequate supply of safe food, and we have a farm policy to act
as a shock absorber for some of the ups and downs in the market and
some of the things that happen in terms of Mother Nature and floods and
pestilence, and all the other things that can affect agriculture and
farmers.
And if we look at the sugar title, I think it really is the example
we ought to use for all of our farm programs, because we do not
subsidize sugar, although it is supply management to a certain degree;
but at the end of the day what we have done is guaranteed an adequate
supply of a very basic commodity for American consumers at very
reasonable prices.
I do not think that is too much to ask. I think it is a good program.
And, frankly, I respect the gentlemen who are bringing this; but again
I have to say that we look at the same set of facts and come to
completely different conclusions.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. There has been a change since the program was
approved back in 1996. In 1996, we were told no net cost, and there was
going to be this assessment of about $40 million a year that would flow
into the Government.
First of all, that assessment has been done away with in an
appropriation bill, I think, 2 years ago. The other thing is that
because we are trying to keep that price high enough, we are having to
buy sugar. Last month, in May, for the very first time since 1985, we
bought $54 million worth of sugar in order to prop up the price, and we
have no use for that sugar. And according to media reports, between now
and the end of September, we could buy another $500 million worth of
sugar.
That is where it is going to start costing us money. We have $54
million worth of sugar now, and we have nothing to do but to put it in
storage. No one will take it around the world. So things have changed
in the past 45 days.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman is generally
correct in that. Right now no one would buy it. But when is the best
time to buy a commodity? When the price is low. We should be buying
sugar right now, and we should sell it when the price starts to go back
up. That makes sense. That is supply management.
At the end of the day, this program will cost the taxpayers nothing.
It will save future taxpayers and consumers a great deal. We need a
strong sugar industry in this country, and they are forced to compete
every day against heavily subsidized sugar from around the rest of the
world. I support open
[[Page H5573]]
and free trade. We had that debate last night. But we do not have free
trade, we do not have fair trade in the sugar industry, and, frankly, I
think I would have to rise in opposition to the motion that the
gentleman is trying to propose.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. I want to address the point that somehow the new farm
policy is to buy and sell to manipulate the price of the commodity
sugar in the market. I think that is a very dangerous precedent to set.
We should not be manipulating prices in the sugar market or candy or
grain or beef or oil for that matter. Price controls do not work.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, it is about this time of year that I think about my
colleague from Florida, who I am certain, along with a lot of Members
of this House, find former President Reagan to be one of their heroes.
Now, most of my colleagues know that I was not the biggest fan of the
former President; but he sure did know how to turn a phrase, and one
that keeps coming to my mind, and that we use often here on the floor
is, ``There you go again.''
It is summertime and we are debating the agriculture appropriations
bill and the opponents of this Nation's hard-working sugar farmers are
at it again. It seems each year at about this same time, we have to
have this vote. It is a waste of time and of this body's attention. Let
me explain why, Mr. Chairman, in a very simple way.
Let us look at the real issue here. The price of sugar in the United
States is at a 20-year low, 30 percent lower than when we passed the
farm bill. Yet all the things that have sugar in them in the
supermarket have increased in price. Why is it, Mr. Chairman, sugar
prices are down for growers and up for consumers?
What we really should be doing here is taking a hard look at the big
food companies who, in the final analysis, cause this amendment to come
before us. The real truth is they just want sugar cheaper so they can
pad their already fat pockets.
Now, I ask the Members of this House if they have, in the last week,
received in their offices e-mails and calls regarding the price of oil?
My bet is that they have. As yesterday and on into the night last night
we discussed the price of medicine, have my colleagues received e-mails
and calls from their constituents around this great country of ours
regarding that? I am certain that every man and woman in this House has
received such a call. I ask any of my colleagues to tell me if they
have received a call because sugar prices are too high.
Now then, I would like to address specifically my colleague, my good
friend, the gentleman from the west coast of Florida (Mr. Miller), who
earlier in his comments made the statement that the price of sugar
elsewhere around the world is cheaper. Well, I just want to use two
countries, and I got this price today before coming to the floor, in
Winn-Dixie and Publix, major supermarkets in my district and the
district of my colleague in the State of Florida, the cost of a pound
of sugar today is 32 cents. In England, it is 50 cents. In Germany, it
is 50 cents. I have difficulty understanding how it is that we are
going to gain this particular cheapness that I hear the proponents of
this amendment offer.
Now, I would like to say something else for purposes of the
edification of the body. The United States Agriculture Department,
USDA, has denounced the GAO report that has been continuously paraded
here. I have also heard talk about who these farmers are. Let me say
proudly that I represent many of the sugar farmers, along with my
colleague across the aisle, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley). We
represent in this country 75 percent of all the sugar cane grown in the
United States of America. And that includes the much-maligned Fanjul
family, who have done a considerable amount of good that has not been
paid attention to in that area, and that includes United States sugar
industry representatives as well.
What I believe my colleague does know is that there is a United
States cooperative that has 54 family farmers involved in the
production and farming of sugar. Those farmers help in our State alone
to produce good jobs. I am not talking about jobs for the average kind
of wage that we think of when we think of the stoop labor that used to
be directly involved in cane sugar growing. I am talking about jobs for
machinists that start at $60,000 a year, I am talking about jobs for
people who drive trucks, black and white people, that make $40,000 and
$50,000 and $60,000 a year. We are talking about good jobs.
So when we put a human face on this thing, if my colleagues come with
me to Clewiston and to Belle Glade, and to Pahokee, they would see
people who are working in this industry. And while it was one thing for
my colleagues to offer $50 billion phased in for estate taxes, somehow
or another they find it difficult to find $54 million for growth in
jobs.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate over the course of the
last hour with great interest. I think it is an example of how we have
a tremendous capacity on the floor of this Chamber to talk past one
another. It is an example here of one of many items where people get
involved in a vicious cycle of subsidization that ends up savaging the
markets, disadvantaging consumers, and posing great risks to the
environment.
We could have had this same conversation about what happens with
products in the fisheries industry. Estimates have been made that it
costs about $1.33 in total cost and government subsidies to deliver $1
of product that is harvested from our oceans.
There is no doubt in my mind that the sugar industry around the world
is subsidized in many areas and produces distorting effects. But I do
not think that the answer here is for us to step back and try to
somehow imagine away the distorting effects in our country.
We have heard on this floor that there is a disproportionately few
number of people who benefit from this. If people want to step back and
provide benefits for small family farms, I will be the first to look at
ways that we can, in fact, do that in a cooperative fashion. But this
program does not do that. It is not targeted. And, sadly, that is the
case with many of our other agricultural subsidies that we spend
billions of dollars on. Precious little gets to the small family farm,
and they continue to go out of business each and every year.
{time} 1615
I think we have had people back away from the myth that somehow this
is paid for by magic, that there is no risk to the consumer or to the
taxpayer. And I thank my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Miller) for talking about that; and, if time permits, I would like to
discuss it further with him.
The notion somehow that prices here are too low, well, what is
happening in the face of prices being too low and a worldwide glut, the
evidence is that every year since 1996 production has increased in
terms of the acreage in the United States, every year since 1996; and
the estimation for the year 2000, with the terrible prices, the threat
of world dumping, all of the things that we have heard, the estimates
are that we are going to plant at least as much as we did last year.
But my particular interest has to do with the vicious cycle we are in
in terms of the environment. We heard our colleague the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) talk about the cycle that we are in in
terms of subsidization, more imports at lower prices, having to
subsidize and purchase more, stockpiling sugar, at least at this point
that we do not need and we have no market for.
But I am concerned with the cycle that we are involved with in terms
of the Everglades this Congress is involved with, and I commend the
effort to try and repair decades of damage to that fragile ecosystem.
It is a situation in south Florida where people are going to end up
having to desalinate water in the foreseeable future, a product that is
going to cost them more than petroleum and that is going to taste about
as good.
Yet, what are we doing in this Congress to deal with the serious
problems that are associated with it? The sugar program is clearly
harmful to the environment in south Florida. The subsidized production
of sugar in Florida
[[Page H5574]]
results in this phosphorus-laden agricultural runoff flowing into the
Everglades, contributing to the destruction of the ecosystem. And we do
not have enough money to fix that.
But, amazingly, the Government continues to support the sugar program
in south Florida even as we are asking to put up more money to repair
the destruction. And, in fact, according to the information I have
received, the production in Florida for cane sugar has gone up every
year since 1996 and this last year was an estimated 10,000 more acres,
compounding the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Miller), to see if I understand correctly the dilemma that we are
facing in this Congress.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I thank the gentleman for his support for the Everglades.
The Everglades is a national treasure, just like the Grand Canyon is,
the Everglades National Park down there. My colleague has been to the
Everglades, I know, and is very supportive.
The Senate recently passed a bill that is going to cost $8 billion to
restore the Everglades. Because of Government problems, we lost land in
the Everglades. Half the Everglades is gone, and sugar is causing even
more destruction.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about sugar beet farmers in Michigan
and Minnesota and North Dakota in the area of the country that I come
from. And the question that they must be asking now is, why on Earth,
when we are providing billions and billions in emergency support for
family farmers, would we want say to the SDA that they cannot buy
surplus sugar from a group of growers who have been among the hardest
hit in the country?
The message that we send these families and these farmers is that
their sweat and their toil and their hard work is not worth a dime,
that their labor is not valued, and that their product should just be
thrown to the wind.
This amendment, if offered, would have driven a number of beet and
cane growers out of the business, ensuring that sugar loan forfeitures
actually occur at great cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
Let me put some perspective on this issue. We heard this debate rage
on now for a while on the floor. And as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer) has just said, other nations provide huge subsidies to
their sugar growers and then they try to flood our market with cheap
foreign sugar.
Yet, how do some people in this institution respond to that? They
want the USDA to turn their backs on our growers and even purchase the
excess sugar for the established food programs that we already have.
Now, that is not a level playing field. It is a slippery slope toward
eliminating that part of the agricultural sector of our economy.
On top of all of this, to make matters worse, when we passed the
North American Free Trade Agreement back in 1993, it had a provision in
there, and we warned people about this, and it said that Mexico will be
able to increase their export sugar to the United States from 25,000
metric tons to 250,000 metric tons later this year, a ten-fold
increase.
So now we are having not only domestic problems, we are going to have
a surge coming in as a result of this treaty from Mexico. We are not to
be surprised by this because, of course, when we did that very same
treaty, we, basically, put those people in our country who produced
tomatoes out of business.
If my colleagues go to south Florida, the State of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller) that had just spoken, or if they go to the Eastern
Shore of Maryland today, they do not grow the tomatoes anymore. The
reason they do not grow them is because that treaty provided provisions
where a child of 10, 11, and 12 could pick the tomatoes, they could
have pesticides sprayed on those tomatoes that are not allowed here,
and they are undercut and forced those workers and those farms out of
business.
So, in an era of budget surpluses, Mr. Chairman, one can only
conclude that this is a concerted attempt to drive these farmers out of
business. And it needs to be stopped, because they are not only the
backbone of their communities, but they provide a valuable commodity to
the people of this country.
I hope that this amendment will indeed not be offered and that the
people that toil on our Earth to provide us with the food at such a
reasonable cost will be provided with the opportunity to provide a
living for themselves and their families.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest
Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
$693,000.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Berry
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Berry:
On page 31, line 14, strike ``693,000'' and insert $0; and
on page 36, line 13, strike ``41,015,000'' and replace with
``41,708,000''.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment cuts $693,000 out of the
salaries and expenses of the office of the Undersecretary for Natural
Resources and the Environment at the Department of Agriculture. It puts
this money in the Resource Conservation and Development Account.
My intent is to point out that farmers are tired of being abused by
the bureaucracy. This money would be much better used to assist our
producers in the field.
Enough is enough. It is time to draw the line.
Just yesterday, in the Committee on Agriculture, we had a hearing on
EPA's proposed rules on total maximum daily load. This rule would
devastate farmers by requiring permits for normal, everyday farming
practices.
Sadly enough, it was quite clear by the performance of the gentleman
from EPA and USDA that their interest is in regulating, let us just
regulate.
EPA has overstepped its bounds with this rule and many other rules
that they have proposed. We might as well not have an Undersecretary
for Natural Resources and the Environment. This money would be better
spent, as I have said, in technical assistance for our farmers in the
field.
We can no longer stand by and allow more and more regulations to be
placed on America's farmers that benefit no one or nothing.
One concrete example is a survey that I have here with me that is
proposed by the Administrator of EPA which would go to every
aquaculture producer in this country. This survey would require
farmers, under penalty of law, to turn over their income statements and
balance sheets.
What does confidential financial information have to do with water
quality? Nothing.
The USDA should stand up for America's farmers and prevent such
misdirected Government regulation from going forward. This has not
happened. This is part of the job of the Undersecretary for Natural
Resources and the Environment.
In the past 9 months, the administration has proposed at least 10 new
regulations to be imposed on agriculture. Most of these regulations
have come from EPA. With each regulation, EPA has failed to follow a
transparent process and use good science in an effort to show the need
for what they are trying to do.
This problem has not been the goal to clean the environment. The
problem has been with the process and principles used to make
regulatory decisions and the collusion between the Natural Resources
and Environment Agency and EPA.
The USDA must stand up to these bureaucratic, unscientific, and
impractical efforts of EPA. Our farmers are faced daily with
overwhelming bureaucratic rules that they can no longer tolerate. The
USDA should be representing this viewpoint. They have not, as I have
said. This includes the regulations on total maximum daily load
proposals.
Let me be clear. Farmers need an advocate in the decision-making
process.
[[Page H5575]]
We must have an advocate at USDA, and they should be fulfilling this
role. I hope that in the future the USDA will stand up for agriculture
in this process.
My amendment is intended to highlight the need for an advocate.
Producers must be represented as these decisions are being made. I
would hope that this amendment would bring attention not only from USDA
and EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Services and all the other Federal
agencies that seem determined to tell every farmer and landowner in
this country exactly what they can do and how they can do it.
Agriculture deserves to have a voice and especially when regulations
are being developed.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Congress to stand up for America's farmers
and approve this amendment.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and commend
my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for offering
this.
On the Subcommittee on Appropriations, as well, we have had great
difficulty in dealing with the specific item that the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry) has mentioned.
This office is, quite frankly, a loose cannon. It is not standing up
for the rights of farmers. The USDA is supposed to look after the
interests of American agriculture; and in this particular case, with
this particular office, it is not.
The issue of the total daily maximum load that would impose onerous
regulations on American agriculture is out there, and this office is
supposed to be looking after the interests of agriculture and rejecting
these costly, onerous regulations that are pending out there for
American farmers.
Also, this office has been audited by the Inspector General, who
discovered that $21 million in this budget that is overseen by this
office was not used appropriately. These are dollars that could go to
American farmers and ranchers who are interested in conservation
programs. And instead, throughout the years, it has spent money,
misappropriated money, misspent money on crazy ideas like wall murals
and civil lawsuits and are working on an agenda that is out there that
no one even knows for sure what they are doing.
This is the United States Department of Agriculture. Again, it is
supposed to be looking after the interests of our farmers and ranchers.
Money contributed directly to the Sierra Club. It does not matter what
interest group is out there advocating or fighting for whatever the
cause that they are interested in, this office should not be giving
this money away when farmers and ranchers are in desperate need of it,
and for field trips for some of these groups for goodness sake. That is
not what the American taxpayers should be spending.
I questioned the head of this office, as well as the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry) did in the authorizing committee yesterday,
questioned him extensively on why is all of this going on. What is
this, a rogue operation out there, a mission that no one is authorizing
or interested in pushing? And somehow someone has given this office the
authority to work on these interests that, again, have nothing to do
with the well-being of American agriculture.
{time} 1630
So I commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for offering
this amendment, will strongly support it. We have to put a stop and
rein this loose cannon in.
Mr STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I must say that it saddens me somewhat to have to rise
in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
However, I have been tremendously disappointed with the leadership
shown, or lack of leadership shown, by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture during the entire process that has led up to the publishing
of the TMDL rule, the Total Maximum Daily Load.
During the entire process, there has been much, much to be faulted.
There are serious questions about the science and financial analysis
underlying these new water quality regulations proposed by EPA. Recent
reports by the General Accounting Office, the Society of American
Foresters, and other respected experts have questioned the wisdom of
EPA's proposed rules.
Our colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
have called on the EPA to withdraw this rule, as have a number of
agricultural and environmental groups.
Even USDA, in their own testimony before the Committee on
Appropriations, took strong exception to some of what EPA proposed in
their TMDL rule, although they seem to have tempered that concern
somewhat.
This House has already spoken on this issue with a provision passed
by the House in the VA-HUD appropriation bill that does not allow EPA
to implement the proposed rule in FY 2001.
Now, USDA has the technical and scientific expertise to review the
actions of EPA and help guide them toward a reasonable solution that
might actually work in the field, and that is why the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry) offers this amendment today and why it is very
pertinent to the discussion today.
If the Department of Agriculture is not willing to use their
resources to stand up to EPA for the benefit of farmers and ranchers
and the environment, then we should spend their money helping those
same landowners that are already trying to preserve their soil and
protect water quality. That is the simplistics of this amendment.
Now I find it very frustrating, because I happen to have been
chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight,
Nutrition, and Forestry when we reorganized USDA in 1992 and one of the
things we agreed to in this Congress and with the administration was
that we wanted to improve the ability of USDA to be a coequal with
other branches of government when it comes to dealing with
environmental and food safety issues.
The problem is that we do not have a coequal when one part of the
coequal does not stand up for that which is in their own testimony and
also in which they have said we agree. So the purpose of this amendment
today is pretty simple. It is delivering what we hope will be a very
strong message to both EPA and to USDA that common sense must apply,
and to all of those groups that keep pounding on EPA to do things that
do not make common sense, to require our farmers and ranchers to spend
unlimited amounts of money fixing a problem that may not be fixable
with any amount of money.
If we could just come back, just come back to a common sense approach
in which we recognize that farmers and ranchers want to solve the TMDL
problem, I certainly in my district have some very serious problems in
which all farmers and ranchers are willing to work with reasonable
people to come up with a reasonable solution that will solve the
problem.
Therefore, I am not here today saying we should do nothing, but many
times doing something is very, very detrimental to the very cause in
which we are talking and today it is clean water.
When there is someone within a bureaucracy that so believes they are
right, that they are completely, completely willing to ignore all
common sense and forge ahead with requiring paperwork burdens and
things that absolutely will not solve the problem in the opinion of
everybody but them, there is a problem.
So this amendment is very serious. Let us put the money where there
is an indication that we will have a willingness to solve the problem.
Hopefully, though, we will have the kind of common sense approach to
this question that will lead us to a solution that can be embraced by
all. Certainly that is the desire of farmers and ranchers that I
represent in my district, in my State and the other 49 States.
To those out there in EPA land, listen carefully. We want to work
with them. We do not agree with those of them who believe that the only
solution is theirs and they want to do it in the quiet of the night. We
want to work with them. Let us work with them. Quit demanding that it
be done only their way.
Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
[[Page H5576]]
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), and I recognize and understand the
frustration that has driven the gentleman to this fairly serious
amendment.
As I am sure it is in the district of the gentleman and all of the
districts of the other Members, it is not the common sense regulation
approach of the Federal Government that concerns people. It is the
approach and the regulations that simply do not pass the logic of the
stupid test. This subject is one that has gained the attention of
agriculture all across this country, and it has gained their attention
in a very negative way.
As the gentleman from Texas, my colleague, mentioned, we felt
somewhat excited about the fact that the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the agency that we look to to speak in behalf of the
American farmers, not as a rubber stamp but those who understand the
problems of agriculture, as well as any other agency of government, was
going to have a more equal role in making the decisions that were going
to affect farmers, with other agencies of government.
When the total maximum daily load issue arose sometime back, we felt
that USDA would be there to explain what the benefits or what the costs
would be to agriculture, in fact, felt quite heartened by a letter that
was written that talked about the hundreds of millions, even possibly
billions of dollars of expense that this was going to impose upon
agriculture, and without having the scientific basis on which to base
these regulations that are proposed, whether or not it would even
accomplish the good that EPA was trying to accomplish.
Well, subsequent to that time, I will describe the actions of USDA as
we would back in Texas. They have basically tucked tail and run and now
have become almost a rubber stamp for the EPA. Well, this concerns us a
great deal because this is moving forward in an area that we do not
believe is scientifically based. It is moving forward in an area that
we believe is going to be extremely detrimental, and it is moving
forward in an area that we do not believe is going to do the most good.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I and 92 of our
colleagues have introduced a bill that would stop the implementation of
the regulations. There are several other bills in both the House and
the Senate, and totally there is almost half of the Congress that is
supporting at least one or a variety of these bills.
I think that if nothing else that this should send a strong signal to
USDA and hopefully to EPA as well that they have in the past run
roughshod over the American farmer. We do not intend to let them run
roughshod over the U.S. Congress.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Agriculture
is the number one industry in our great country, always has been and it
always will be, because our folks depend on a good quality supply of
food to feed themselves and their family, and we are very blessed and
we are very lucky here.
Agriculture all across the United States today is in some very, very
difficult times. Particularly from a commodity price standpoint and
from a weather standpoint, we have been through some tough years; but
we have survived, and we have survived in part because we have had some
policies in part that have been adopted here and some policies that
have been carried out of USDA that have been beneficial to agriculture.
There is a current mindset at USDA that in my opinion is anti-
agriculture, and that mindset has been no more appropriately displayed
than has been the case with the issuance of the TMDL ruling and the
failure on the part of the United States Department of Agriculture to
stand up for farmers and forestry landowners in opposition to this
unfair, capricious, and arbitrary rule that was promulgated by EPA.
This amendment strikes at the heart of establishing common sense at
USDA because what it does is remove some people at USDA who very
honestly do not have common sense. I do not care whether one talks to
them in a hearing setting that we had yesterday or whether one talks to
them just standing on the side of the road discussing agriculture with
them. This amendment, in my opinion, is a very important amendment; and
it does more than send a message. This amendment helps to establish the
fact that we in Congress are going to continue to work to establish
common sense in this town, and the folks in the various agencies around
better get the message because we are going to do it.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to acknowledge that this is a real issue in
my part of the country because indeed those people who are affected
feel that the system has not worked simply because the bureaucracy has
not understood nor taken the time to find all the information based on
science.
I just feel that they have not been fair in listening to both sides
of the issue. I for one stand as a person who believes in the
environment, so I do not take shortcuts. I embrace this issue as an
issue that we should wait imprudently for economic development. I take
as a part of my faith that actually the environment is God's creation
and we should do everything to preserve it and certainly, as we move
into this area of trying to balance and have clean water, it is equally
important that we are fair in that.
The tree farmers and those affected, they also honor the land not
only because that is where they get their livelihood, but they love the
land. To find that they are put in this kind of situation of having to
determine that they are not polluters or they are not doing all they
want to do to preserve the land is grossly unfair, and it is not based
on science.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for yielding to me.
Just to make sure that our colleagues understand this amendment, what
we are saying is there is a process in which most folks in USDA and EPA
have agreed to from time to time, and that is to allow the
participation of all interests in this case, those groups concerned
solely with conservation, but also not only those individual groups but
also producers. There is a mistaken belief among some that farmers and
ranchers are always on the opposite or other side of conservation,
clean water and clean air; and nothing could be further from the truth.
What we are saying and have been trying to say and have been almost
totally ignored thus far by EPA is that we want to be included. We want
to have them decide and discuss sound science and the rationale behind
their proposal in this rulemaking and do it in the sunshine so everyone
can see their rationale and can hear those who disagree, and then
reasonable people can come together and can come up with a solution
that accomplishes what we all want to accomplish.
That has not been followed. That is the frustration that we have had
not only on this issue but also on the Food Quality Protection Act. We
are simply saying very strongly, as we know how, USDA, if they choose
not to exercise their authority, as they stated to the Committee on
Appropriations when they said in a letter that they take strong
exception to what EPA is doing, if they took strong exception to what
USDA is doing, why have they now decided to go along with what EPA is
doing?
{time} 1645
That is the message today, and I urge my colleagues to support the
Berry amendment.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of points. I guess, first
of all, as a farmer myself and someone who grew up on a family farm now
and in the fifth generation over 110 years, the idea that somehow
farmers are not concerned about the environment, about maintaining the
land and the quality of their environment is simply outrageous, and to
me is very, very offensive.
[[Page H5577]]
We are the ones who, in my family, drink out of the well where the
water, where the runoff is going to go. We are the ones who have to
live in this environment, and it is the most important. It is our
biggest asset as farmers to maintain the quality and the land itself
and the clean environment.
It is very personal and very real to anyone who lives on a farm like
I do. I will also tell my colleagues as someone who strongly believes
in trying to preserve the family farm that these new regulations are
not going to harm the big mega hog lot producers, the big mega cattle
producers, chicken producers, those folks are already in compliance
with every new regulation that is being proposed. It is not going to
cost them one more dime to comply with these regulations.
What it is going to do, Mr. Chairman, is bust the small family farmer
out there who cannot afford to comply with these regulations. We talk
about concentration in agriculture, about doing away with the family
farm, then we have bureaucrats here in Washington who want to put
regulations who are only going to hurt the little guy.
Let us not forget about what this is about. The big mega hog lots are
already in compliance with these regulations. It is not going to hurt
them a bit, but it is going to kill the family farmer out there. That
is what is so outrageous about this whole idea and about the USDA
basically backing off and saying okay, you go ahead, put mandates on
small family farmers, let the other folks go as they are.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, in light of the June 27, 2000
hearing on water pollution and the impact of EPA's proposed Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) rules on agriculture and silviculture, I
would like to express my disappointment with the EPA approach to this
problem and voice my support for Representative Berry's amendment to
cut funding from the office of the Undersecretary for Natural Resources
and the Environment. In recent years, public concerns about surface
water contamination by nutrients, in particular nitrogen and
phosphorus, has intensified as agricultural practices have been
identified as a significant contributor to non-point source pollution.
While we have made great progress in the past 30 years at cleaning up
our waterways through addressing both point and non-point source
pollution, much room for improvement still remains. The EPA idea of
Total Maximum Daily Loading was introduced to address these problems
directly, but unfortunately calls for unreasonable and unrealistic
changes in our current pollution prevention programs.
Though I have long recognized the importance of managing agricultural
nutrients in a manner that both sustains agricultural profitability
while protecting the environment, I am strongly opposed to EPA's TMDL
plan, and equally disappointed with the extreme lack of communication,
consistency, and straightforwardness by the Department of Agriculture
on behalf of American farmers. It has become evident that the EPA
overstepped their bounds in the development of their TMDL proposal,
avoiding communication with farm groups and Congress, picking and
choosing data to support their own regulatory agenda, and
underestimating the cost of this program to our states and farmers.
Though I am thoroughly disappointed by the EPA's actions, I am even
more disappointed that our own Department of Agriculture has stood
behind this questionable proposal and turned its back on our farmers.
For these reasons I applaud Mr. Berry for his amendment transferring
$693,000 to the Department of Resource Conservation and Development so
farmers can be assured that the USDA is in fact working for them, not
against them.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Berry).
So the amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Conservation Operations
For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of
the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f ), including
preparation of conservation plans and establishment of
measures to conserve soil and water (including farm
irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for
soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent
floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control
agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation
plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil;
dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water,
and interests therein for use in the plant materials program
by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to
exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C.
428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of
permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and
maintenance of aircraft, $676,812,000, to remain available
until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), of which not less than
$5,990,000 is for snow survey and water forecasting and not
less than $9,125,000 is for operation and establishment of
the plant materials centers: Provided, That appropriations
hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for
construction and improvement of buildings and public
improvements at plant materials centers, except that the cost
of alterations and improvements to other buildings and other
public improvements shall not exceed $250,000: Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act shall be used to carry out any
activity related to urban resources partnership or the
American heritage rivers initiative: Provided further, That
when buildings or other structures are erected on non-Federal
land, that the right to use such land is obtained as provided
in 7 U.S.C. 2250a: Provided further, That this appropriation
shall be available for technical assistance and related
expenses to carry out programs authorized by section 202(c)
of title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
of 1974 (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)): Provided further, That this
appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to
the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of
1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $25,000 shall be
available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided
further, That qualified local engineers may be temporarily
employed at per diem rates to perform the technical planning
work of the Service (16 U.S.C. 590e-2).
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Kelly
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mrs. Kelly:
Page 32, line 20, strike ``or'' through ``the American
heritage rivers initiatve'' on line 21.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer today an amendment to strike
language from this bill which prohibits funding from being used for the
American Heritage Rivers Initiative. I feel this prohibition is
inappropriate, as it imposes a serious detriment to river communities
in 25 States, which have chosen to be a part of this initiative.
American Heritage Rivers Initiative began in 1997, the purpose behind
it being to refocus and improve our efforts to preserve the cultural,
economic and historic values of rivers throughout the country. Since
then, the initiative has served as an effective tool in supporting
voluntary community efforts to restore rivers and revitalize river
fronts.
Despite the potential it holds for some of our Nation's treasured
resources, the communities which have accepted designations under this
initiative have been subjected to repeated efforts to undermine their
intentions, primarily through the placement of funding restrictions on
various agencies involved in this enterprise.
The bill being considered today continues this effort by prohibiting
funding for the National Resource Conservation Service from being used
for purposes under the initiative.
I realize that these restrictions have been spawned in part by an
undercurrent of concern among those who feel the initiative represents
some sort of Federal intrusion into local matters.
To this point, let me say this is simply not the case. Throughout the
process, proponents of the initiative have gone to great lengths to
ensure that local control is not circumvented. In fact, it should be
argued that local control is not only preserved, but enhanced by an
increased awareness of the options that are available through already
existing programs.
It should be made clear that the American Heritage Rivers Initiative
involves no new mandates. It involves no new money, and it is entirely
voluntary. Those communities which are on designated rivers but choose
not to be involved are under no obligation to do so. Those which do
choose to be involved are subject to no new regulations.
I further understand that some object to this initiative because of
its origins, and because of the way in which the administration has
worked with and responded to Congress in their effort to implement it.
When it comes to reports of opposite-minded and uncooperative officials
in the administration, I am not without sympathy for my colleagues.
Nevertheless, I rise today with this proposal for the simple fact
that the restriction in this bill affects stubborn actions not nearly
so much as it does
[[Page H5578]]
the river communities in 25 States across the country which made a
conscious choice to be a part of the initiative. I should emphasize
that I am not on the floor today with some proposal to force this
initiative on communities that do not wish to be a part of it. Nor do I
come here today with a proposal to take away a Member's right to
preclude communities in their district from being eligible for the
initiative.
I am here because I object to the practice of placing these
restrictions on communities which have made a choice to be a part of
the initiative. Members representing those communities should not be
forced to go from bill to bill to bill to ferret out these kinds of
restrictions simply so they can try to protect their constituents from
being penalized for their decision to be a part of this initiative.
If there are objections to the American Heritage Rivers Initiatives,
I believe there are more appropriate and reasonable approaches than to
simply tack restrictions onto a spending bill.
I believe that Members of this House who represent communities which
have chosen to benefit from the American Heritage Rivers Initiative and
Members who believe that these communities should not be penalized for
making this decision ought not to sit idly by to watch its gradual
deconstruction through appropriations processes.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), which would eliminate
language in the Agriculture Appropriations bill that would prohibit
funds in the bill from being used on activities related to the American
Heritage River Initiative.
The language currently in the bill would bar most USDA funds from
being used to support and coordinate the American Heritage River
Initiative. This broad language could be interpreted to prohibit most
USDA agencies from undertaking community-oriented service or
environmental projects related to the American Heritage Rivers. This
could selectively put at a disadvantage 25 States that contain all or
portions of the current 14 American Heritage Rivers.
I would like to compliment my colleague from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
who at the full committee was successful in having language inserted in
the bill. The bill language would not affect the Hudson River, which
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) represents, and the
Susquehanna River which I represent, but it would still not remove the
bar and the effect on the other 12 Heritage Rivers in the country.
The fact of the matter is that this initiative, although sometimes
attacked, sometimes understood and sometimes misunderstood by some of
our colleagues is not a threat of the American government to the
American people. It is, in fact, reinventing government at its best. It
says basically that each community along the river or groups of
communities have and are encouraged to put together comprehensive
programs to celebrate the historical significance of their community to
protect that, to add and think about the economic development elements
that their river affects in their community and to provide for
historical preservation.
Mr. Chairman, the essence of the success of this program was really
set out when the initial applications were made when 126 rivers across
America competed for designation as an American Heritage River in the
first round, and that competition was some of the stiffest competition
I have seen since I am a Member of Congress.
There were 14 that won the initial round, 14 rivers. I think to use
the appropriation process to bar Federal funds to move to this program
would be wrong from this standpoint. This is a creature of reinventing
government.
Some of the very basic problems in our governmental structure is that
funds flow down through the departments and agencies of government in a
very narrow focused way. What this initiative calls for across
government is to come together in an agreement and agencies and
departments and bureaus of the Federal Government to cooperate with
those communities that have set out a comprehensive plan, that plan has
been reviewed and thought to have great merit and then these agencies
to cooperate in this comprehensive effort to be more efficient and
effective in expending Federal funds to further the plans of those
local communities.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of anything that is more American, more
supportive of community activity and that should not be inhibited,
either in the appropriation processes here or by the nature in which
this program was originally established.
I want to compliment my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Hinchey) for the process itself, protecting the Hudson and Susquehanna
Rivers, but I want to compliment the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Kelly) to carry that protection to all 14 rivers of the American
Heritage River Designation and Initiative.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I wish to urge all my colleagues on the
Democratic side, together with my colleagues on the Republican side,
that this is indeed good policy. It is something that is starting to
show areas of success, and we should not prohibit or inhibit the
American communities from participating in honoring and preserving and
forwarding the success and effort of the American Heritage Initiative.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Kelly). I was very lucky when this competition began,
because I have two of those 14 rivers designated in my congressional
district as American Heritage Rivers. I think it is important to recall
what the objectives were as we began down this course. First, natural
resource and environmental protection, something we certainly can all
rally to. Second, the question of tasteful growth and economic
revitalization. Third, and perhaps the most important, historic and
culture preservation.
This initiative involves the coordination of a number of agencies, as
well as the cooperation of local leaders, but the main initiative here
is to help people who live near these rivers effectively coordinate
their efforts to preserve, protect and revitalize the watershed areas.
What is significant about the Blackstone River, where much of our
industrial heritage grew from or certainly the Connecticut River, which
is New England's mightiest river, is that virtually everything that
occurred in the Pioneer Valley began because of the Connecticut River.
There are few words in American history or, for that matter, world
history, that are more powerful than the word river. The success of
these initiatives not only are underway but the navigators have been
put in place. The catalyst that these rivers offer I think for further
tasteful growth and development are very important to all of us.
Let me, if I can, take one moment to congratulate the late Senator
John Chafee, who was a great champion of this initiative and, indeed,
much of the growth in the Blackstone Valley and the success that we
have had with that proposal stems from the commitment of former Senator
Chafee, the navigators have been entrusted with the revitalization of
these two rivers and they have done a tremendous job in a very, very
short period of time.
These proposals represent no threat to local property owners, indeed,
if anything, they have enhanced the property values of those who live
along these waterways. Let us not deny the hard-working residents and
business leaders of the river valleys of the Connecticut and Blackstone
our support.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I know that we have had a lot of time
spent on this, so that we can proceed, I urge a vote on the amendment.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the American Heritage
Rivers Initiative is a popular, effective and completely voluntary
program.
Claims that the program somehow violates property rights have been
rejected by this Congress, the courts and the communities who
participate in the Initiative.
Having failed to abolish this program outright, the anti-river forces
are now attempting to starve the program to death through a series of
small funding cuts.
[[Page H5579]]
These attacks are unwarranted, unwise and should be defeated.
background
The American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI) was first proposed
during President Clinton's 1997 State of the Union Address.
The program was actually established in September, 1997 through
Executive Order, after an extensive notice and comment period. The
notice and comment period included a series of public meetings held
around the country.
One hundred and twenty-six rivers in 46 states were nominated for
designation and, in 1998, President Clinton selected 14 of those
rivers, running through portions of 25 states, for designation.
The rivers selected in the first round include some of the most vital
waterways in America including the Hudson, Mississippi, Rio Grande, and
Potomac Rivers.
Contrary to the claims of opponents of the program, AHRI remains
extremely popular. Nearly 200 Members of Congress, more than 500
mayors, and 21 Governors have expressed support for the AHRI. CEQ
receives new nominations, in addition to the 126 received in the first
round, regularly.
what ahri does
The program allows local communities to voluntarily nominate a river
in their area for designation as an American Heritage River.
For those rivers selected, a ``River Navigator'' is appointed to help
coordinate federal, state and local efforts to protect the qualities
which made the river eligible for designation in the first place.
Anyone who has attempted to navigate the sea of federal, state and
local grant and technical assistance programs understands why a river
navigator working on behalf of each of these rivers is necessary.
AHRI is designed to identify some of the most important waterways in
this nation and make certain that any and all efforts to protect those
rivers are as targeted and well coordinated as possible.
The program is about achieving managerial efficiency and using
federal resources to leverage private funds.
what AHRI does not do
The American Heritage Rivers Program is in no way a federal ``land
grab.'' The program involves no land acquisition or condemnation
authority.
AHRI is not an attempt to limit the use of private property. The
program involves no new regulatory authority of any kind.
The AHRI does not waste a single tax dollar. The program does not
involve the expenditure of any new funds. Rather, the program takes
money that likely would have been spent on general water quality
programs or other environmental protection efforts and attempts to
focus and leverage those funds more effectively.
The program has no international component. Claims that this
initiative is somehow part of a U.N. conspiracy to control America, a
claim which has been made regarding this program, simply have no basis
in fact.
effects of the limitation in the base bill
Language inserted in the base bill would prohibit any funds in the
bill from being used to carry out the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative.
Specifically, this would prohibit the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) within the Department of Agriculture from participating
in the program.
The effect would be two-fold. First, the NRCS is the conservation
assistance arm of the Agriculture Department. This limitation would
prohibit NRCS experts from working with local communities, which have
requested assistance, to improve water quality, prevent soil erosion,
re-vegetate eroded areas, restore habitat and wetlands and help create
economic development opportunities.
The limitation leaves the AHRI program standing but robs the program,
and the 14 rivers and 25 states included in the program, of expertise
critical to achieving the goals of the program.
A second effect is even more devastating. A representative of the
NRCS happens to be co-chair of the Interagency Task Force which
coordinates the AHRI. If the language stays in the bill, it would
cripple the entire initiative by removing one of its current leaders.
Rather than address the program on its merits, this funding
limitation, another like it in at least we other appropriations bills,
seeks to weaken the program by robbing it of crucial know-how and
manpower.
conclusion
Attempts to abolish the American Heritage Rivers Initiative are based
on misunderstanding of the program and, in some cases, purposeful
mischaracterizations.
Legislation to end the program never made it to the floor and a
lawsuit challenging the program failed.
AHRI is fiscally and environmentally responsible, which is why it is
so popular. This attempt to strip the program of the tools it needs to
continue succeeding should be defeated.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, my community has been working hard to
restore the water quality in the Willamette River. We recognized that
the American Heritage River program would make the federal government a
better partner in this effort and spent years working to get the
Willamette River so designated.
The Heritage River program has funded a river navigator who works
full-time on behalf of our local governments and watershed groups. The
River Navigator provides an important link between the river
communities and the appropriate federal agencies and programs to clean
the river. The local Heritage river communities have already dedicated
an enormous amount of time and effort to this program without any
additional funding, and we are committed to seeing this program develop
to its full potential.
I am concerned, however, that the bill as written undermines our
efforts. The bill's restrictions on heritage funding do not represent
the type of support that was promised when the Willamette River and her
sister rivers were designated. Since current federal participation in
water resource management is poorly coordinated, we should not be
stepping back from this commitment. I urge my colleagues to join with
me in supporting the Kelly/Kanjorski amendment.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kelly-Kanjorski
amendment and ask that the House support its adoption. This amendment
recognizes that inclusion of language to prohibit funding for the
American Rivers Heritage Initiative into the Agriculture Appropriations
Act is short-sighted and ignores the tremendous benefits of this
important program.
Since its inception, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative has been
extremely popular with communities and local government officials.
Currently, there are over 50 communities that are included in the Upper
Mississippi River American Heritage River Initiative. Four (4) river
communities within my district participate in this program.
``River towns'' are some of our nation's oldest and have rich
cultural, social and natural histories. In the past, many of these
towns were forced to turn their backs on the river because the costs
associated with redevelopment were too large and the planning process
too cumbersome. Today, however, as a result of this initiative, people
are returning to the river and seeking to integrate it into their daily
lives. The communities in my district are working to invest in
riverfront development projects that share the story of their
communities' pasts while also stimulating much-needed economic
development.
With help from the ``River Navigator,'' these communities are better
able to identify and utilize Federal programs and services that assist
them in meeting the objectives of natural resources and environmental
protection, economic revitalization, and historic and cultural
preservation.
Mr. Chairman, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is a successful
program and should not be eliminated as a result of the short-
sightedness, misinformation, and false allegations by those who seek
the initiative's demise.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kelly/Kanjorski
amendment to strike language in the Agriculture Appropriations bill
which prohibits conservation funds included in the bill from being used
for purposes related to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
The Initiative was created to insure that all local efforts to
protect rivers were coordinated and targeted. No new federal funds were
obligated, no new regulatory authority was created, and there was no
provision for federal land acquisition. When President Clinton created
this Initiative, forty-six states voluntarily took part by submitting
applications for 126 rivers to be designated as a Heritage River.
Fourteen were selected including the Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna River
in PA.
Even though the Initiative is completely voluntary, there have been
detractors which continue to attack it. Efforts to abolish it have
failed and a lawsuit designed to eliminate it has been dismissed. In
this legislation there is another effort to disable this very
successful program.
The Agriculture Appropriations bill contains an anti-environmental
rider which prohibits any conservation funds under the bill from being
used for the Heritage Rivers Initiative. This would prevent the USDA
from sharing information with other agencies to benefit all river
communities. While there is a partial exemption for the Upper
Susquehanna, other river communities are denied the benefits of this
initiative.
Today, the Schuylkill River is a key focal point for Southeastern
Pennsylvania. A major community and economic development project is
underway in Montgomery County bringing new attention and energy to the
river and its surrounding communities.
There will be hiking, biking, and equestrian trails as well as other
recreational paths in a
[[Page H5580]]
linear park along the riverbank. There will be a water trail for canoe
paddlers, kayakers, fisherman and other boaters. There will be a fish
ladder constructed at flat Rock Dam to make the river passable for fish
with the hope of restoring the once plentiful American Shad to the
waters upstream.
While the Schuylkill River is not a designated Heritage River, the
river has benefited from this initiative. The Council on Environmental
Quality disseminates information to local communities like those in
Southeastern Pennsylvania on how to coordinate efforts and where to
look for federal resources.
There are the benefits that the America Heritage River program can
offer to all communities across the country not just the fourteen
designated rivers. The American River Heritage Initiative is a program
that deserves our support. Vote to strike this unfortunate anti-
environmental rider by supporting the Kelly/Kanjorski amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment, which would remove an unnecessary and counter-productive
spending limitation from the bill.
The spending limitation is an attempt to cripple the American
Heritage Rivers program. Yet the benefits of this program are visible
and real, the alleged problems are unproven and imaginary.
The American Heritage Rivers program is voluntary, communities apply
to win the designation. And the competition for the program is intense.
Communities of all sizes from all regions of the country have been
applying to the program. So unless all these communities are
delusional, there must be a real benefit to the program.
And there is. The program helps communities to focus on economic
development programs along the rivers and gives them greater access to
a wider and better coordinate assortment of federal agencies for help.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
What this program does not do is impose any additional regulatory
burdens or coerce anyone into participating.
So why would we shut down a program that localities want, that
improves the targeting and coordination of federal programs, and that
comes with no federal mandates? I can't think of any reason. And indeed
there is no reason unless one believes that paranoia should prevail
over common sense and that imaginary fears should triumph over proven,
practical benefits.
Let's show that common sense can prevail. Vote for the Kelly
amendment and help communities around the country redevelop their
riverfronts.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment which would strike the restrictive language in the
Agriculture Appropriations bill that prevents any funds from being used
for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI).
This initiative has received and continues to receive unprecedented
support from the residents in my district; including residents of the
Connecticut River Valley, business owners, Chambers of Commerce,
environmental leaders and local-elected officials. This initiative is
not being forced on the American people by their government. It is and
has always been a voluntary initiative. The community involvement is
voluntary and they can terminate their participation at anytime.
The people who live along the Connecticut Rivers and other Heritage
Rivers realize the value of these great natural resources. They have
come together with a deep resolve to not only clean up their rivers,
but to promote economic revitalization in their communities. The
partnership created by the residents, environmentalists and business
owners will create a clean, healthy environment while boosting a
thriving tourism industry.
There has also been tremendous bipartisan support for this initiative
within Congress. Over 200 Senators and Representatives wrote letters of
support for one or more Heritage River applications. There should be no
opposition to this program simply because it does not create any new
rules or regulations for state and local governments. Furthermore, it
does not create additional costs because funding comes from programs
authorized for river restoration.
The detestable language used to prevent the use of funds on any of
the 14 Heritage Rivers is just another attack on the environment. It is
another effort by so-called private property advocates to derail local
initiatives.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in support of the Kelly/
Kanjorski amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill (H.R. 4661).
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Watershed Surveys and Planning
For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation,
and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, and
for small watershed investigations and planning, in
accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act approved August 4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009),
$10,868,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall be
available for employment pursuant to the second sentence of
section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225),
and not to exceed $110,000 shall be available for employment
under 5 U.S.C. 3109.
{time} 1700
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to say a word with regard to the amendment that just passed.
The American Heritage Rivers program is one of the proud initiatives
of the Clinton administration. I think that as the years go by, it will
be increasingly recognized as such. A decade from now, indeed, 100
years from now, people will recognize that the American Heritage Rivers
initiative coming from the Clinton administration was one of the
important environmental initiatives, among many, that the Clinton
administration has been responsible for. I am very proud to be a
supporter of that initiative, and I am also very proud that New York
contains two of the rivers that have been designated in this
initiative, the Hudson River and the Upper Susquehanna, Lackawanna
Rivers.
I want to say also with regard to the amendment that just passed,
although it is an amendment that does absolutely no harm, it is also an
amendment that was, in fact, unnecessary, because as a result of the
cooperation of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations,
we were able to place language in the bill which removed any ambiguity
whatsoever with regard to the Department of Agriculture's ability to
fund the Upper Susquehanna and Lackawanna River and the Hudson River
American Heritage Rivers. It is a fact that these are the only two
rivers that are funded in any way by the Department of Agriculture. The
other American Heritage Rivers are funded through other appropriations
bills and are under the auspices of other agencies.
So with the cooperation of our chairman, the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), we were able to take care of any problem that may
have been foreseen to have existed with regard to these heritage
rivers; and the language in the bill makes it clear that the Department
of Agriculture may, in fact, and will, in fact, continue to fund the
Hudson River navigators and the Susquehanna, Upper Susquehanna/
Lackawanna Rivers and other aspects that relate to the American
Heritage Rivers program of these two rivers, these two rivers being the
only two rivers that, in the American Heritage Rivers initiative, are
funded through the Department of Agriculture and, therefore, under the
jurisdiction of this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures,
including but not limited to research, engineering
operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of
vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in
use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act approved August 4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001-
1005 and 1007-1009), the provisions of the Act of April 27,
1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f ), and in accordance with the
provisions of laws relating to the activities of the
Department, $83,423,000, to remain available until expended
(7 U.S.C. 2209b) (of which up to $12,000,000 may be available
for the watersheds authorized under the Flood Control Act
approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701 and 16 U.S.C. 1006a)):
Provided, That not to exceed $44,423,000 of this
appropriation shall be available for technical assistance:
Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available
for employment pursuant to the second sentence of section
706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to
exceed $200,000 shall be available for employment under 5
U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That not to exceed $1,000,000
of this appropriation is available to carry out the purposes
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205),
including cooperative efforts as contemplated by that Act to
relocate endangered or threatened species to other suitable
habitats as may be necessary to expedite project
construction: Provided further, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law, of the funds available for Emergency
Watershed Protection activities, $1,045,000 shall be
available for DuPage County, Illinois for financial and
technical assistance: Provided further, That up to $4,170,000
is
[[Page H5581]]
for the costs of loans, as authorized by the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1006a), for
rehabilitation of small, upstream dams built under the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. et
seq.), section 13 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (Public Law
78-534, 58 Stat. 905), and the pilot watershed program
authorized under the heading ``Flood Prevention'' of the
Department of Agriculture Appropriations Act, 1954 (Public
Law 83-156, 67 Stat. 214): Provided further, That such costs,
including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as
defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974: Provided further, That none of the costs for such
rehabilitation activities (including any technical assistance
costs such as planning, design, and engineering costs) shall
be borne by the Department of Agriculture: Provided further,
That the Department may provide technical assistance for such
rehabilitation projects to the extent that the costs of such
assistance shall be reimbursed by the borrower, and such
reimbursements shall be deposited into the accounts that
incurred such costs and shall be available until expended
without further appropriation. In addition, for expenses
necessary to administer the loans, such sums as may be
necessary shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and
Expenses''.
Resource Conservation and Development
For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out
projects for resource conservation and development and for
sound land use pursuant to the provisions of section 32(e) of
title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C.
1010-1011; 76 Stat. 607), the Act of April 27, 1935 (16
U.S.C. 590a-f ), and the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16
U.S.C. 3451-3461), $41,015,000, to remain available until
expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That this appropriation
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.
TITLE III
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Rural Development to administer programs
under the laws enacted by the Congress for the Rural Housing
Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the
Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture,
$588,000.
Rural Community Advancement Program
(including transfers of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants,
as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1926a, 1926c, 1926d, and
1932, except for sections 381E-H, 381N, and 381O of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009f
), $775,837,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$33,150,000, shall be for rural community programs described
in section 381E(d)(1) of such Act; of which $668,988,000,
shall be for the rural utilities programs described in
sections 381E(d)(2), 306C(a)(2), and 306D of such Act; and of
which $73,699,000, shall be for the rural business and
cooperative development programs described in sections
381E(d)(3) and 310B(f) of such Act: Provided, That of the
total amount appropriated in this account, $12,000,000 shall
be for loans and grants to benefit Federally Recognized
Native American Tribes: Provided further, That of the total
amount appropriated for Federally Recognized Native American
Tribes, $250,000 shall be set aside and made available for a
grant to a qualified national organization to provide
technical assistance for rural transportation in order to
promote economic development for federally recognized tribes:
Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated in
the Rural Community Advancement Program account, $2,000,000
shall be for an agri-tourism program: Provided further, That
of the amount appropriated for rural community programs,
$6,000,000 shall be available for a Rural Community
Development Initiative: Provided further, That such funds
shall be used solely to develop the capacity and ability of
private, nonprofit community-based housing and community
development organizations, and low-income rural communities
to undertake projects to improve housing, community
facilities, community and economic development projects in
rural areas: Provided further, That such funds shall be made
available to qualified private and public (including tribal)
intermediary organizations proposing to carry out a program
of technical assistance: Provided further, That such
intermediary organizations shall provide matching funds from
other sources in an amount not less than funds provided:
Provided further, That of the amount appropriated for rural
community programs not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be for
hazardous weather early warning systems: Provided further,
That of the amount appropriated for the rural business and
cooperative development programs, not to exceed $500,000
shall be made available for a grant to a qualified national
organization to provide technical assistance for rural
transportation in order to promote economic development;
$5,000,000 shall be for rural partnership technical
assistance grants; $2,000,000 shall be for grants to
Mississippi Delta Region counties; and not to exceed
$2,000,000 may be for loans to firms that market and process
biobased products: Provided further, That of the amount
appropriated for rural utilities programs, not to exceed
$20,000,000 shall be for water and waste disposal systems to
benefit the Colonias along the United States/Mexico borders,
including grants pursuant to section 306C of such Act; not to
exceed $20,000,000 shall be for water and waste disposal
systems for rural and native villages in Alaska pursuant to
section 306D of such Act, of which one percent may be
transferred to and merged with ``Rural Development, Salaries
and Expenses'' to administer the program; not to exceed
$18,515,000 shall be for technical assistance grants for
rural waste systems pursuant to section 306(a)(14) of such
Act; and not to exceed $9,500,000 shall be for contracting
with qualified national organizations for a circuit rider
program to provide technical assistance for rural water
systems: Provided further, That of the total amount
appropriated, not to exceed $42,574,650 shall be available
through June 30, 2001, for authorized empowerment zones and
enterprise communities and communities designated by the
Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership
Zones; of which $30,000,000 shall be for the rural utilities
programs described in section 381E(d)(2) of such Act; and of
which $8,435,000 shall be for the rural business and
cooperative development programs described in section
381E(d)(3) of such Act.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hefley:
Page 37, line 10, insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)'' before
``, to remain available''.
Page 37, line 11, insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)'' before
``, shall be for''.
Page 38, line 3, insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)'' before
``shall''.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts what I think is
questionable government spending by $2 million. The money was dedicated
to agritourism in the Rural Community Advancement Program.
Now, on the television program ``20/20'' John Stossel has a segment
at the end every time that is called ``Give Me a Break.'' I guess I
would say to this program, give me a break. Agritourism. This program
just does not meet the laugh test, it seems to me.
Congress should provide real solutions for America's embattled
farmers instead of creating wasteful spending programs. The number of
small farms in America has fallen from over 300,000 in 1978 to 170,000
today. Last year, 260,000 American farmers were hit by natural
disasters, claiming $1.3 billion in damages. The number of farmers has
dropped from 6 million in 1933 to less than 2 million today. We all
know of the terrible drought conditions being faced this year by
farmers in the Southeast.
Agritourism is not a bad idea, because look what some of the examples
are: cut your own Christmas tree, pick a pumpkin out of a pumpkin
patch, roadside produce stands where people can meet the farmers who
grow their food, pick and process grapes in a vineyard. All of these
programs are a great way for American farmers to raise money. But all
of these programs are for profit. Farmers make money on these programs.
Why should the Federal Government subsidize them?
Congress should not create wasteful programs that will only benefit a
few. We need real solutions, real progress, real programs in Congress
to help our farmers. This amendment is a good way for Congressmen to
stand up against government waste in the agriculture appropriation
bill, which is often known as a vehicle for pork barrel spending.
Mr. Chairman, I would encourage support of this agritourism
amendment.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the committee, I think we can all agree
that people in rural America are going through some very hard times.
The purpose of the agritourism program is to offer our rural
communities another way of developing their economic potential. This
bill supports a number of economic development programs in rural
America. It offers loans and grants for cooperatives and small
businesses, and it supports basic infrastructure that rural communities
need to survive. The money for agritourism is just one more part of
that effort.
Mr. Chairman, this program has strong bipartisan support on the
committee. It does not earmark the money
[[Page H5582]]
for any particular State or community. All rural areas are eligible for
the funding.
I ask my colleagues for their support for economic opportunity for
rural America and to vote no on this amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to identify with the remarks of
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), because this is a very modest
amount to invest in some hope and some opportunity in an area of the
country where people are really hurting, rural America. Family farms
are struggling to make ends meet; and constantly, we in Washington say,
do not come to Washington and expect us to write a blank check for all
sorts of subsidies and everything, we are reducing those. We want you
to diversify and come up with new opportunities so you can stay on the
farm and yet make a decent, livable income.
So a lot of farms are just trying to do something like this, and I
think it makes so much sense. It is an innovative program, and I want
to compliment the committee for addressing this program in such a
prudent, responsible manner.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from New York. I would really like to associate myself with his remarks
and remember that we are trying to encourage our farmers to diversify,
to find new crops, new ways of generating income in rural America; and
also, I will tell my colleagues as a member of the Commerce-Justice-
State subcommittee, I find it interesting that we give microloans all
over the world; and yet we will not help our local rural communities to
develop small businesses just like we do all across the world.
So I would hope that while I understand the gentleman's concern from
Colorado, I would certainly hope that this very small program, which I
think does some good and will do some good, would be able to continue.
I urge a no vote.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and support the
Vermont agritourism initiative. I do so because first of all, the
committee and the House have approved this initiative. I want to
commend the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for his leadership on
this. We all know what is happening to farms, especially small and
medium-sized farms across our country.
The name of this subcommittee is Agriculture and Rural Development,
and this is one of those activities that falls in the area of rural
development. For all of the other Members here who have supported this
in the past, it is very interesting to think about some of the articles
we read in the newspapers today, about people getting shot on the
freeways in California. Just the stress of being on those roads every
day and to have to commute hours a day. People are looking for relief
from the stress of modern society. Then we read other articles about a
place like Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which is known to have a number of
people of Amish heritage and which also has benefited from agritourism
over the years. There are so many visitors to Lancaster county, 7
million visitors. It is one of the most key destinations in
Pennsylvania for tourists. They cannot even handle it.
The American people and visitors from abroad are looking for the
experience that rural America can provide. We do not really have a very
well-coordinated set of initiatives across this country to help people
move through the rural countryside. I remember when I was traveling in
Europe years ago and they had a whole system of bed and breakfasts, one
could go to the main tourist bureau in the town and they would give you
a list of where to stay. America is beginning to catch up. But we are
far from where other countries in the world are in this regard. There
are a few tour books. I know in Michigan I picked up one in a bookstore
about some of the places one could visit in the State of Michigan.
Mr. Chairman, as rural incomes decline and prices decline in terms of
commodities, and we are going through this extremely difficult period
in rural America right now, people in rural America are looking for
ways to enhance their income. They are not asking for a handout, they
are asking to use the assets they have, which include their farmland,
their barns, their communities, their community activities, in order to
bring in people from the outside who have extra dollars to spend and
invest.
So I really think agritourism is a vital element for economic growth.
It is one of the answers for us in terms of restoring vitality to rural
America. Really, we need to celebrate the natural wonders and
educational opportunities that rural areas and the people there offer
to all of us.
Perhaps the gentleman has a good intention of trying to be fiscally
responsible; but I think that this is not a forward-looking amendment,
because many parts of the country, including Vermont which does not
have the highest income in the country, that is for sure, sagging
incomes and a very precarious rural situation, this is really part of
the answer for the future for Vermont as well as many other places.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to commend the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders). I apologize if I have not listed all of the cosponsors
of this proposal. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman any
remaining time that I might have in order to further discuss the
gentleman's opposition to this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentlewoman.
Let me just associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from
Iowa and thank him for his support, and I thank the gentleman from New
York and the gentlewoman from Ohio. I also want to thank the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his support of the concept of
agritourism.
The gentleman is aware that agritourism has worked very, very well in
New Mexico and in many other parts of this country; and we should all
be clear that what we are talking about now is a national program.
Vermont is experimenting, getting into it, New Mexico is in it, Ohio is
in it, Massachusetts, New York. But this is a national program which
will accept competitive applications from people all over this country.
I should say that as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has
already indicated, there is strong bipartisan support for the concept
of agritourism and an understanding that it would really be very unfair
to family farmers all over this country who, as the gentleman from Iowa
pointed out, are looking for alternative sources of revenue.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has
expired.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The point here is that as commodity prices decline, and that is true
for dairy, it is true for many other commodities, family farmers are
looking for alternative sources of revenue. One of the sources of
alternative revenue that they are looking at is agritourism. What we
are looking at here is a $2 million program that would help family
farmers all across this country.
{time} 1715
The key issue here, which is an interesting concept, is that, as the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) just said, people from cities all
over the country go to rural areas in order to enjoy the peace and
beauty that exists in rural areas.
One of the reasons that the rural landscape is beautiful is because
our family farmers keep that land open. It seems to me what we have to
try to do is make sure that family farmers get a fair shake, get a fair
return in terms of the agritourism money that is spent in their States;
that it is not just the ski areas, that it is not just the fancy
hotels, but that some of that money goes out into the rural countryside
and helps the family farmers who need it the most.
Let me just give a few examples of what farmers in Vermont and
throughout this country are doing, and why we need additional help for
family farmers to get involved in what is a growing national concept.
Family farmers throughout this country are converting their guest
[[Page H5583]]
rooms into small bed and breakfast operations. That means that on the
weekend and maybe a few days a week they have a room available for a
tourist to stay in.
But in order to do that, in many instances, they might need a loan to
convert the guest room into a bed and breakfast. They might need some
help in learning how they can market what they are developing. It is
not so easy for farmers suddenly to get on the Internet and to know how
to bring guests into their home.
Farmers are now encouraging tour buses to stop by and learn what
family agriculture is about. But in order to be successful, they might
need a loan or a small grant to build a restroom. If you are going to
have a busload of people coming by, you might need a restroom there,
improved parking facilities.
Farmers might want to build snowmobile trails through their fields
and woods so people can come and use the snowmobiles. It might cost a
little money in order to maintain those trails and in order to
advertise what they have available.
In some instances, people who own apple orchards might want to do
some value-added work. I know of an instance where somebody, instead of
just doing apple picking in the fall, what they are doing is baking
apple pies, selling them to tourists. They might need a few bucks to
build or buy a new oven, a commercial-sized oven, and to deal with the
health regulations in order to do it.
The list goes on and on and on. And the gentleman from Iowa made a
good point about we give out these microloans all over the world, and
they are good loans, they are successful, but a few thousand, a few
hundred dollars to a family farmer could literally make the difference,
if that money is converted into $5,000 in additional revenue stream. It
is the difference between whether that farm stays up or goes under.
I happen to think that we are going to see is that agritourism is
going to be spreading all over. It is good for the urban folks who want
to get out and have the kids see what farming is about.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his remarks.
Mr. Chairman, there is an environmental aspect to this because urban
sprawl is a concept that concerns us all. One of the reasons we have
urban sprawl is that so many family farms are so hard-pressed that they
have no choice but to sell their land for development. That is not good
for them, that is not good for us. It just adds to urban sprawl.
If we have something like this, the microenterprise, small assistance
package, we can help them and help increase the family farm income.
That is an objective worthy of our best effort. I thank my colleague
for yielding.
Mr. SANDERS. Just in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, there is no argument
that family farmers all over the country are losing their farms. This
is a national tragedy.
I do not claim that this $2 million is going to save the world, but I
think what it will do is add energy to a growing concept by which
farmers can gain the greater share of the tourist dollar that they
deserve. Tourists come to their areas because they keep the land open.
I would urge strong opposition to the Hefley amendment.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Most of the things that have been said I agree with. It is great to
have farms there. That is good for the environment, there is no
question about that. It is a matter of whether this program makes any
difference or makes any sense. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
said this program is doing well. Great, let it do well, but why does
the Federal government have to participate in it?
When we talk about building bed and breakfasts, people build small
businesses every single day without a special program like this. If
they need help for it, if they need small business loans, we have a
Small Business Administration. We have a small business loan program
for that. If they need guidance in how to make a small business thrive,
then they have small business guidance programs to train them in how to
make a small business thrive.
If they need to build a restroom, by gosh, the lumberyard on the
corner that gets started, it does not have a farm loan to build its
restroom. It figures out how to build a restroom as part of its small
business.
To me, Mr. Chairman, this seems to me to be the perfect example of
the classic farming of the Federal government, rather than farming of
the land. It just makes no sense to me at all. If people want to go
watch people milk cows, watch corn grow, I think that is great. I think
it is great. You have a tourism industry to do that. I do not know why
the taxpayers of the whole Nation need to subsidize that.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, let me close by commenting on the remarks
of our colleague, the gentleman from Colorado.
As the cochairman of the Rural Caucus with my very dear friend, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), I am a little taken
aback. It strikes me as something that is very important to say,
because everywhere I go in rural America, it does not matter, in my
district, which is 26 counties of very, very rural and somewhat remote
areas, the economic prosperity that seems to be pervasive in the
suburbs and in some of the cities is nowhere to be found.
The Federal government reimburses our hospitals for Medicare at a
fraction of what the cities get. We have hospitals closing right and
left. We have folks in my district who cannot get local TV, who cannot
get cable TV, who have no means by which to find out what happens in an
emergency. Education funds are lacking, infrastructure funds are
lacking.
Everything that we want to do to preserve our heritage, to preserve
the very heart and soul of the country, is what my colleagues are all
talking about.
I would ask our colleagues to please make sure that we defeat the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a word about the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Colorado, because I think that it is important that
the full dimensions of the effect of his amendment be more clearly
understood by the Members of the House.
One of the strengths of American agriculture is its diversity. We
grow enormous amounts of food and fiber in this country. We do it in
very diverse ways under very diverse circumstances. I suppose that some
people living on the edge of the Great Plains may not have an
appreciation for the small farms that exist in other parts of the
country.
The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) told us quite a bit about
the circumstances of family farming in Vermont. Those circumstances are
very similar to those that exist in New York and other places in New
England and in the central States, as well; I think on the West Coast,
in many instances, also, as well as many parts of the South. As we have
heard from some of our colleagues, that occurs in the Midwest, also.
In many areas, particularly in areas where farmers are trying to
survive on the edge of metropolitan centers, there is great pressure
coming out of those metropolitan centers for the land on which
agriculture now is carried out.
We have a great interest in this country, I think, in keeping that
land in agriculture and supporting those farmers who live near
metropolitan centers and doing everything we can to help them continue
in agriculture. That is, first of all, because the products that they
produce are important to us. The food and fiber that comes out of those
farms is important to those metropolitan areas and to other places all
across the country. So we have an interest in keeping those farms
viable, successful, economically strong, allowing those family farms to
make a living and helping them to do so.
[[Page H5584]]
We perform in a variety of ways here in this Congress to support
agriculture. Just earlier this year we provided $5.5 billion, $5.5
billion in supplemental crop payments for farmers who needed assistance
in the Great Plains and elsewhere.
I live far away from the Great Plains, but I understand the problems
of agriculture in the Great Plains. I supported that $5.5 billion of
supplemental payments and crop insurance in that bill. I did so because
I have an appreciation for the problems that those farmers are facing
out in the Great Plains and elsewhere who would benefit from that kind
of support from the Federal government.
The Federal government has a strong and long history of providing
support for agriculture here in the United States. That I think is
appropriate, and we should continue to do so.
What we are asking for here today, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders) and myself and the others who sponsor this small amount of
money in the agriculture appropriations bill, is simply this, a
recognition of the kind of circumstances under which agriculture on
small farms, in orchards, in vegetable farms, in vineyards and other
similar circumstances around the country, have to operate in order to
survive.
Agricultural tourism is increasingly becoming a very important part
of that, a very important part of their economics, the economics that
allows them to continue operating their farms, feeding their families,
providing the produce from those farms that are so highly valued by the
other Americans who consume them.
This is an important program. Yes, it is relatively new, but it is
very important. I hope that the vast majority of the Members of this
House will join all of the rest of us who have spoken on this bill this
afternoon in showing that we appreciate agriculture in its great
diversity. We appreciate the small vegetable farms, we appreciate the
orchards that grow apples and other fruits. We appreciate the vineyards
that grow vines for the production of wine and other agricultural
products from those vines.
We want to do what we can to sustain those farmers in agriculture;
keep that land out of other less appropriate, less environmentally
sound, less ecologically healthy development, keep it in agriculture.
The way to do that in large measure, Mr. Chairman, is by supporting
agricultural tourism and this small amount of money that is asked for
in this appropriations bill.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the concept of the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) in the bill. I think the idea of agritourism is
essential to a changing agricultural landscape in my State.
When people think of New York State, they do not necessarily think of
agriculture. I remember when I first came down here as a candidate, I
went to see Frank Horton, who was then the dean of the New York
delegation. I sat down and we talked. He said, if you get elected, what
committee do you want to be on? I said, I want to be on Agriculture. He
said, Well, we will do the best we can, but it is a very competitive
situation. The first thing you have to do is get elected. So I was
elected. Little did I know that he was just dying to get somebody from
New York on Agriculture.
Again, New York State's number one industry is agriculture, but it is
a changing scene. The dairy farms that are spread across New York, as
they are across most of the northern tier of the country, are
relatively small: a lot of woodlots and streams and rivers and gullies.
A lot of it is not suitable to large-scale agriculture, so dairy farms
are what have been what populates it.
But what the farmers are doing, because the prices are difficult in
dairy, they are trying to diversify. They want to stay on the land.
They want their children to stay on the land, so they try to find other
ideas.
There is one farmer in my district in upstate New York near Syracuse
who turned a corn lot into a maze; planted the corn according to a map
and planted it in the form of a maze, and advertised. He made ten times
as much money on that small plot, several acres, ten times as much
money on that acreage as he did prior when he was just planting corn.
{time} 1730
There are vegetable farms and truck farms, fruit farms all around
central New York that encourage the city dwellers to come out from
Syracuse, Albany, even the folks who come from New York City. And you
can always tell them. They have a dress shirt on opened at the top with
a T-shirt, black pants and black shoes. We love to see them come; they
usually have lots of money in their wallet. And they love to come
upstate and see us rubes, and we like to take their money.
One of the ways we can do that is by supporting agritourism. It is an
opportunity for our small family farmers to stay on the land, to make
some money, and improve their lot. And nobody husbands that land better
than those farmers; nobody takes care of that land better than those
farmers. They are protecting the environment. They are keeping the
streams clean. They are rotating their crops properly. They are working
the wood lots. But they need this extra incentive to provide them the
ability, the cash income. Think of it as a new cash crop to sustain
their livelihood.
So I strongly support the gentleman's idea. I hope we would reject
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). I
know he feels strongly about rural development, but I would say to the
gentleman we have a lot of rural areas in upstate New York. But this is
true rural development for us.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley amendment
that eliminates the bill's funding for USDA's Agri-Tourism program.
In the last twenty years, my state of Wisconsin has lost over one
half of its dairy farms--decreasing from 46,000 in 1980 to less than
21,000 today. At the same time, the average age of the Wisconsin dairy
farm has increased to 58 years. The family dairy farm is struggling
with many pressures; unstable commodity pricing, unpredictable trade
policies, and the growing pressures of sprawl.
Adapting to change and taking advantage of emerging traveler
interests in agriculture and rural places is a wonderful opportunity
for Wisconsin's farms and rural communities. Wisconsin's natural
scenery of rolling hills, bluffs, coulees, valleys, lakes, and rivers
are tourist destinations for many outside visitors. In addition, it is
often times important to families that they are able see cows, pigs,
goats, and sheep in their natural settings instead of in picture books
and on television. Many visitors have never been on a farm and seek bed
and breakfasts that are in rural farming communities. Unfortunately,
there currently is little effort to link our family farmers with
tourists.
For these reason, programs such as USDA's Agri-Tourism provide
important steps in linking tourists with farming communities. In
addition to providing important recreational opportunities for
tourists, agri-tourism can provide needed financial assistance to our
farm families. It would be short-sighted for Congress to eliminate this
important program.
I urge my opponents to oppose this misguided amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538 further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) will
be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Rural Housing Service
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account
(including transfers of funds)
For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct
and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing
Act of 1949, to be available from funds in the rural housing
insurance fund, as follows: $4,800,000,000 for loans to
section 502 borrowers, as determined by the Secretary, of
which $3,700,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed
loans; $32,396,000 for section 504 housing repair loans;
$100,000,000 for section 538 guaranteed multi-family housing
loans; $114,321,000 for section 515 rental housing;
$5,000,000 for section 524 site loans; $16,780,000 for credit
sales of acquired property, of
[[Page H5585]]
which up to $1,780,000 may be for multi-family credit sales;
and $5,000,000 for section 523 self-help housing land
development loans.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Clayton
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Clayton:
Page 40, line 23, before the period insert the following:
: Provided, That of the total amount made available for
loans to section 502 borrowers, up to $5,400,000 shall be
available for use under a demonstration program to be carried
out by the Secretary of Agriculture in North Carolina to
determine the timeliness, quality, suitability, efficiency,
and cost of utilizing modular housing to re-house low- and
very low-income elderly families who (1) have lost their
housing because of a major disaster (as so declared by the
President pursuant to The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act), and (2)(A) do not have
homeowner's insurance, or (B) can not repay a direct loan
that is provided under section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949
with the maximum subsidy allowed for such loans: Provided
further, That, of the amounts made available for such
demonstration program, $5,000,000 shall be for grants and
$400,000 shall be for the cost (as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) of loans, for such
families to acquire modular housing.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not require any new
spending, but it can provide new hope. More than 8 months ago,
Hurricane Floyd struck eastern North Carolina and left a path of death
and destruction that was unprecedented in the history of our State.
Millions of our citizens were affected; 60,000 homes were left in
disrepair; 11,000 homes were completely destroyed.
Since that time, thousands have been left in a state of virtual
homelessness. Many have moved in with their relatives and friends;
others have been placed in temporary housing.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues may recall The Washington Post article
which described the typical day of these families who have found
themselves without a home. They may recall that there was a young girl
living in a trailer park near Tarboro, North Carolina, who was forced
to do her homework outside in the snow because a trailer housing six
family members was too crowded and stuffy.
Many of those families are still in trailers, trailers that did not
provide sufficient warmth in the winter, trailers that must be
unbearable as we face drought-producing heat this summer.
Imagine, Mr. Chairman, having to do without those things that we take
for granted: the ease of transportation, the pleasure of recreation,
the convenience of communication. For many of the flood victims in
North Carolina, those things are incidental to us, but they are a
luxury to them. That is because they have no permanent place to live;
no expectation of a permanent place to live in the future.
This amendment will not require any new spending, but it will provide
new hope. It does not require any new spending because it makes use of
the funds already available through the Department of Agriculture for
housing. It provides new hope because, through a pilot demonstration
program, it will provide the use of modular housing to rehouse low- and
very low-income elderly families who have lost their homes because of a
major disaster.
Mr. Chairman, what is modular housing? Modular housing is no
different from site-built housing. Modular housing is highly
engineered; however, it is built offsite and then moved on-site. In the
end, a modular house looks no different than a site-built home. Modular
housing can be constructed very quickly and affordably. Modular housing
can be constructed in less than a month in some times. Site-built homes
take at least 3 months.
The reasonable cost of a modular house is as low as $45,000. On the
other hand, a reasonable cost for a comparable site-built house would
be at least $100,000 or more. Modular housing is of equal and sometimes
even better quality than site-built housing.
At the end of this demonstration project, we will be able to
determine the timeliness, the quality, the suitability, the efficiency,
and the cost of utilizing modular housing in disaster-affected areas.
In April, this House passed H.R. 1776 by a vote of 417 to 8. Title XI
of that bill contains the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act. Under
that act, every State is required to have a comprehensive installation
program within 5 years.
Mr. Chairman, modular housing is the wave of the future. But for the
flood victims in eastern North Carolina, it is a hope for the present.
Eastern North Carolina is in crisis. The destruction has been enormous.
The needs are great. The situation is urgent.
This amendment will not solve every problem for all in North Carolina
as a result of the flooding, but it will help to normalize the housing
situation for some of our elderly citizens. More importantly, it
provides hope and it will indeed provide the housing that thousands of
our citizens need. I urge the acceptance of this amendment.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her
interest in rural housing and her continued strong support for rural
development programs. And on behalf of the gentleman from New Mexico
(Chairman Skeen), our side will accept this amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Latham) and the majority, along with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen), chairman of the subcommittee, for accepting this very worthy
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Clayton).
I cannot think of another Member who comes up to me as much as the
gentlewoman from North Carolina does to carry the plight of those from
North Carolina who have been suffering from this hurricane, from
floods, from low prices. We need more Members like the gentlewoman in
this Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the people of North Carolina who sent
her here, they have really gotten their money's worth. This woman works
every day, 24 hours a day for her constituents and for this country.
And this particular initiative to try to provide modular housing to
people who have been very damaged by disasters in North Carolina is but
another example of the kind of work that she does here.
So my compliments to the gentlewoman for her leadership and her
absolute devotion to her State and to her people. And I think that this
amendment offers an innovative way to help people who have lost their
homes through no fault of their own. And without question, it is the
responsibility of the people of the United States to help our fellow
brothers and sisters around this country who are trying to live under
the weight of natural disasters over which they have had no control.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for her real leadership
coming to this committee, both sides of the aisle, and crafting a very
worthy amendment like this. She obviously has the support of both sides
of the aisle. I extend to her my congratulations.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because, as my
colleagues are probably aware, last fall Hurricane Floyd left a
devastating path of destruction in my State of North Carolina. In the
days and the months afterwards, thousands of families spent endless
nights in temporary shelters.
The sad reality is that many of these families are still living in
those same temporary shelters, and they have no reason to believe that
they are ever going to get a permanent home. Unfortunately, the elderly
are more likely to never leave these temporary homes which tend to be
dirty, overcrowded and insufficient. These unbearable conditions harm
seniors' well-being and health, and there is very little they can do to
change their situation.
But, Mr. Chairman, this amendment could change all of that. It is
aimed at helping those low-income elderly families in North Carolina
who are facing this crisis; and it will allow, through this pilot
program, the use of modular housing for these low-income seniors who
lost their homes and their livelihoods during Hurricane Floyd.
The good news is the modular homes can be assembled quickly and they
are extremely low cost, compared to building a regular site-built home.
And further, the amendment requires no new
[[Page H5586]]
spending, but will go extremely far in helping these victims of this
natural disaster.
This amendment is going to be a good first step toward the goal of
helping all low-income seniors nationwide who are left homeless after
any major natural disaster. I urge support of this amendment in order
to help this urgent situation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
The amendment was agreed to.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my good friend and a friend of rural America
who does a wonderful job.
The Rural Development section of this bill includes language
concerning a region of importance not only to the State, but certainly
to the county of Tillamook County. In 1996, floods wiped out the rail
link from Tillamook County to the largest population center in
Portland, which is 75 miles away.
Last year, Congress provided $5 million from Rural Development to
reimburse the port for money that they already spent for the 1996
floods, as well as to make improvements to the rail right-of-way that
also serves as Alaska's fiber optic corridor to the lower 48 States.
I am currently working with USDA to ensure that the entire $5 million
is released to the port. Next year, a diverse route will be constructed
from Nedonna Beach terminal along 20 miles of railroad right-of-way
south of Tillamook, and then east along Highway 6 to Portland.
This section of rail bed was not included in the portion repaired
following the 1996 floods and needs immediate upgrades to reduce the
risk of service interruption for all users.
The Port of Tillamook Bay needs $3 million from Rural Development to
upgrade the railroad infrastructure and protect the fiber optic
telecommunication network. Now, not only does this corridor serve
Alaska, but it also serves as a landing for MCI WorldCom's Southern
Cross that crosses the Pacific from Australia. There will be two more
cable landings next year. Within a short time, Tillamook's
communication corridor has become a strategic location for the
telecommunication world.
Mr. Chairman, we need to create a diverse route, a redundant loop, to
make sure that we guarantee connectivity; and I ask for the committee's
assistance in securing this badly needed funding from USDA.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this
important economic project to our attention. The committee in our
report identified this project as one that should be given special
consideration by the Department, and I am certainly willing and
prepared to work with the gentlewoman to be certain the Department is
supportive of this very worthy project.
{time} 1745
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her
leadership and her commitment to Tillamook County.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the committee for accepting the
amendment pertaining to the American Heritage River Initiative. I want
to add my support because it is very important initiative. It is an
initiative that put decision making in the hands of local officials. It
is an initiative that requires no new funding and no new mandate. This
is the kind of partnership that we should encourage, not discourage.
The St. Johns River is an American Heritage River because of the
grassroots efforts of Republican and Democratic mayors, city council
people, and other people throughout the river community. From
Jacksonville to Orlando, there is overwhelming support for this
designation. This initiative is a great example of how government
should work.
We should encourage our Federal agencies to work together and target
the kinds of resources available to these river communities.
Florida's St. Johns River runs through the middle of Jacksonville and
spans 325 miles of the third district. Republican Mayors John Delaney
of Jacksonville and Glenda Hood of Orlando supported this designation
and have formed advisory committees to set priorities for the river.
Later today I plan to submit a newspaper article to the Record that
ran in the Daytona Beach News-Journal last week. In this article, the
reporter talks about how the local officials in Volusia County want the
politicians in Washington to stop interfering with their plans.
``This is a real grassroots, community-driven program that is working
to bring awareness to the designated rivers,'' said Pat Northey,
Volusia Council member and chair of the river task force for Orange,
Seminole, and Volusia County.
She says that the river has already benefited from this designation
by giving a small grant to mark the historical elements. This is just
one of the many benefits. In Jacksonville, the community has come
together behind a plan called the Preservation Project, which would
help preserve the sensitive ecosystem in north Florida.
In a letter from Jacksonville Mayor John Delaney, he says ``This
program has enabled cities and counties in the St. Johns River Basin to
identify priority projects and align the projects with existing Federal
funding sources. Because of this designation, local governments along
the river have worked cooperatively toward the goal of restoring the
river and improving their communities.''
Mayor Delaney said that, with restricted language, the City of
Jacksonville may be limited from obtaining these funds on a competitive
basis because Federal agencies would be reluctant to fund any project,
regardless of the merit, that could be associated with the Heritage
River designation.
He goes on to say that the effect of these riders would punish areas
like north Florida for trying to improve the river and surrounding
communities.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment was supported by all of the local
mayors, city council members, and I am very happy that this committee
uses common sense in supporting this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the
cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: section 502
loans, $184,160,000 of which $7,400,000 shall be for
unsubsidized guaranteed loans; section 504 housing repair
loans, $11,481,000; section 538 multi-family housing
guaranteed loans, $1,520,000; section 515 rental housing,
$56,326,000; multi-family credit sales of acquired property,
$874,000; and section 523 self-help housing land development
loans, $279,000: Provided, That of the total amount
appropriated in this paragraph, $11,180,000 shall be
available through June 30, 2001, for authorized empowerment
zones and enterprise communities and communities designated
by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area
Partnership Zones.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $375,879,000,
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and
Expenses''.
Rental Assistance Program
For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed
pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or
agreements entered into in lieu of debt forgiveness or
payments for eligible households as authorized by section
502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, $655,900,000; and,
in addition, such sums as may be necessary, as authorized by
section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt incurred prior
to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the rental assistance
program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act: Provided, That of
this amount, not more than $5,900,000 shall be available for
debt forgiveness or payments for eligible households as
authorized by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, and not to
exceed $10,000 per project for advances to nonprofit
organizations or public agencies to cover direct costs (other
than purchase price) incurred in purchasing projects pursuant
to section 502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: Provided further, That
agreements entered into or renewed during the current fiscal
year shall be funded for a 5-year period, although the life
of any such agreement may be extended to fully utilize
amounts obligated.
Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants
For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A)
of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $28,000,000, to
remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b) of which
[[Page H5587]]
$1,000,000 shall be available through June 30, 2001, for
authorized empowerment zones and enterprise communities and
communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as
Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.
Rural Housing Assistance Grants
For grants and contracts for very low-income housing
repair, supervisory and technical assistance, compensation
for construction defects, and rural housing preservation made
by the Rural Housing Service, as authorized by 42 U.S.C.
1474, 1479(c), 1490e, and 1490m, $39,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of the total amount
appropriated, $1,200,000 shall be available through June 30,
2001, for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise
communities and communities designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.
Farm Labor Program Account
For the cost of direct loans, grants, and contracts, as
authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1484 and 1486, $27,000,000, to remain
available until expended for direct farm labor housing loans
and domestic farm labor housing grants and contracts. In
addition, for grants to assist low-income migrant and
seasonal farmworkers, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 5177a,
$3,000,000, to remain available until expended.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Salaries and Expenses
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of administering Rural Development
programs authorized by the Rural Electrification Act of 1936;
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act; title V of
the Housing Act of 1949; section 1323 of the Food Security
Act of 1985; the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926; for
activities related to marketing aspects of cooperatives,
including economic research findings, authorized by the
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946; for activities with
institutions concerning the development and operation of
agricultural cooperatives: $120,270,000: Provided, That this
appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to
the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of
1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $1,000,000 may be
used for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further,
That not more than $10,000 may be expended to provide modest
nonmonetary awards to non-USDA employees: Provided further,
That any balances available for the Rural Utilities Service,
the Rural Housing Service, and the Rural Business-Cooperative
Service salaries and expenses accounts shall be transferred
to and merged with this account.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account
(including transfers of funds)
For the cost of direct loans, $19,476,000, as authorized by
the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)):
Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying
such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans of $38,256,000: Provided
further, That of the total amount appropriated, $3,216,000
shall be available through June 30, 2001, for the cost of
direct loans for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise
communities and communities designated by the Secretary of
Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct loan programs, $3,337,000 shall be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Development,
Salaries and Expenses''.
Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account
(including rescission of funds)
For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized
under section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act, for the
purpose of promoting rural economic development and job
creation projects, $15,000,000.
For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of
modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $3,911,000.
Of the funds derived from interest on the cushion of credit
payments in fiscal year 2001, as authorized by section 313 of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, $3,911,000 shall not
be obligated and $3,911,000 are rescinded.
Rural Cooperative Development Grants
For rural cooperative development grants authorized under
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932), $6,500,000, of which
$2,000,000 shall be available for cooperative agreements for
the appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program.
National Sheep Industry Improvement Center Revolving Fund
For the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center
Revolving Fund authorized under section 375 of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (7
U.S.C. 2008j), $5,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
Rural Utilities Service
Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account
(including transfers of funds)
Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935) shall be
made as follows: 5 percent rural electrification loans,
$50,000,000; 5 percent rural telecommunications loans,
$75,000,000; cost of money rural telecommunications loans,
$300,000,000; municipal rate rural electric loans,
$295,000,000; and loans made pursuant to section 306 of that
Act, rural electric, $1,200,000,000 and rural
telecommunications, $120,000,000.
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of
modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by
the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935 and 936),
as follows: cost of rural electric loans, $25,500,000, and
the cost of telecommunication loans, $7,770,000: Provided,
That notwithstanding section 305(d)(2) of the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936, borrower interest rates may
exceed 7 percent per year.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $31,046,000,
which shall be transferred to and merged with the
appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and
Expenses''.
Rural Telephone Bank Program Account
(including transfers of funds)
The Rural Telephone Bank is hereby authorized to make such
expenditures, within the limits of funds available to such
corporation in accord with law, and to make such contracts
and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act, as may be necessary in carrying out its authorized
programs. During fiscal year 2001 and within the resources
and authority available, gross obligations for the principal
amount of direct loans shall be $175,000,000.
For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of
modifying loans, of direct loans authorized by the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935), $2,590,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses, including audits,
necessary to carry out the loan programs, $3,000,000, which
shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
``Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses''.
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program
For the cost of direct loans and grants, as authorized by 7
U.S.C. 950aaa et seq., $18,100,000, to remain available until
expended, to be available for loans and grants for
telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas;
in addition, for the cost of direct loans and grants, for a
pilot program to finance broadband transmission and local
dial-up Internet service $1,400,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That the definition of ``rural
area'' contained in section 203(b) of the Rural
Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 924(b)) shall be applicable in
carrying out this pilot program: Provided further, That the
cost of direct loans shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
TITLE IV
DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS
Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services
For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the
Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services to
administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and
Nutrition Service, $554,000.
Food and Nutrition Service
Child Nutrition Programs
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out the National School
Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), except section 21, and
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.),
except sections 17 and 21; $9,535,039,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2002, of which $4,407,460,000
is hereby appropriated and $5,127,579,000 shall be derived by
transfer from funds available under section 32 of the Act of
August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c): Provided, That, except as
specifically provided under this heading, none of the funds
made available under this heading shall be used for studies
and evaluations: Provided further, That of any funds made
available under this heading by transfer from the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC), up to $6,000,000 shall be for school
breakfast pilot projects, including the evaluation required
under section 18(e) of the National School Lunch Act:
Provided further, That up to $4,511,000 shall be available
for independent verification of school food service claims.
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC)
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out the special
supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786),
$4,067,000,000, to remain available through September 30,
2001: Provided, That none of the funds made available under
this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations:
Provided further, That of the total amount available, the
Secretary shall obligate $10,000,000 for the farmers' market
nutrition program within 45 days of the enactment of this
Act, and an additional $5,000,000 for the farmers' market
nutrition program from any funds not needed to maintain
current caseload levels: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 17(h)(10)(A) of such Act, up to
$14,000,000 shall
[[Page H5588]]
be available for the purposes specified in section
17(h)(10)(B), no less than $6,000,000 of which shall be used
for the development of electronic benefit transfer systems:
Provided further, That once the amount for fiscal year 2000
carryover funds has been determined by the Secretary, any
funds in excess of $100,000,000 may be transferred and made
available as follows: $6,000,000 to programs under the
heading ``child nutrition programs'', $5,000,000 to programs
under the heading ``commodity assistance program'', and
$10,000,000 to programs under the heading ``food donations
program'': Provided further, That none of the funds in this
Act shall be available to pay administrative expenses of WIC
clinics except those that have an announced policy of
prohibiting smoking within the space used to carry out the
program: Provided further, That none of the funds provided in
this account shall be available for the purchase of infant
formula except in accordance with the cost containment and
competitive bidding requirements specified in section 17 of
such Act: Provided further, That none of the funds provided
shall be available for activities that are not fully
reimbursed by other Federal Government departments or
agencies unless authorized by section 17 of such Act.
Food Stamp Program
For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7
U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $21,231,993,000, of which $100,000,000
shall be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts and
at such times as may become necessary to carry out program
operations: Provided, That none of the funds made available
under this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations:
Provided further, That funds provided herein shall be
expended in accordance with section 16 of the Food Stamp Act:
Provided further, That this appropriation shall be subject to
any work registration or workfare requirements as may be
required by law: Provided further, That not more than
$194,000,000 may be reserved by the Secretary,
notwithstanding section 16(h)(1)(A)(vi) of the Food Stamp Act
of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(1)(A)(vi)), for allocation to State
agencies under section 16(h)(1) of such Act to carry out
Employment and Training programs: Provided further, That
funds made available for Employment and Training under this
heading shall remain available until expended, as authorized
by section 16(h)(1) of the Food Stamp Act.
Commodity Assistance Program
For necessary expenses to carry out the commodity
supplemental food program as authorized by section 4(a) of
the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C.
612c note) and the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983,
$138,300,000, to remain available through September 30, 2002:
Provided, That none of these funds shall be available to
reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities
donated to the program: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 5(a)(2) of the Agriculture and
Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-86; 7 U.S.C.
612c note), $20,781,000 of this amount shall be available for
administrative expenses of the commodity supplemental food
program.
Food Donations Programs
For necessary expenses to carry out section 4(a) of the
Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973; special
assistance for the nuclear affected islands as authorized by
section 103(h)(2) of the Compacts of Free Association Act of
1985, as amended; and section 311 of the Older Americans Act
of 1965, $141,081,000, to remain available through September
30, 2002.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Stupak
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Stupak:
Page 53, line 9, insert ``(increased by $20,000,000)''
after the dollar amount.
Page 56, line 13, insert ``(reduced by $30,000,000)'' after
the dollar amount.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this important
bipartisan amendment with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Our amendment adds $20 million to the USDA's nutrition programs for the
elderly meal reimbursement programs; in other words, senior center
meals and Meals on Wheels, and offsets this additional spending by
reducing international commodity aid. I wish there were some other
offset that we could look to, but this was the most logical offset.
Our amendment has the support of the Meals on Wheels Association of
America, the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services
Programs, the TREA Senior Citizens League, the National Council of
Senior Citizens, and the National Association of State Units on Aging.
I am sure that all the Members have met and spoken with seniors in
their districts, and they have told my colleagues how much they depend
on the senior meal assistance that they receive, be it Meals on Wheels
or meals at the senior centers.
Senior meal providers receive funding for the meals through three
avenues, private donations, Department of Health and Human Services,
and USDA meal reimbursements.
Let me explain why the funding increase to the USDA reimbursements is
so necessary. Unlike funding from HHS, which is channeled to the States
and local providers based on certain formulas, our amendment here
through the USDA reimbursements go directly to every senior meal
provider for every meal that they prepare.
This amendment is the best way and it is the only way to ensure that
there is direct and immediate aid to senior meal providers and the
seniors they serve.
Every senior, every meal provider in every district in every city, in
every town will get their money, whether they are up in Calumet in the
Keewanaw Peninsula or in Traverse City or Alpena in the Lower
Peninsula, which makes up my district.
Why do we need this money? Why does this amendment go above the
President's request.
The funding for USDA reimbursements has remained fairly constant
since 1992. But look at what has happened since 1992 as this chart
demonstrates. The amounts, when translated into today's dollars, have
steadily been dropping due to inflation. For example, in fiscal year
2000, we allocated $140 million. In fiscal year 1992, we allocated $151
million. But in real dollars, what has happened since 1992, it has gone
down. We have lost $40 million from this program in real dollars. It
used to be 62 cents they would get for every meal. It is now down to 54
cents. Funding has stayed constant, but the rate of inflation and
everything else to prepare those meals have gone up. I do not know how
they can do it, but they manage to get by right now at 54 cents per
meal.
It is for this reason that the senior meals across the country are
suffering, from 62 cents to 54 cents. Pennies per meal but, nationwide,
it has effects of millions of millions of meals. If we pass the Stupak-
Boehlert amendment, we will go from 54 cents up to 57 cents. We can
stop this downhill spiral that we have been on.
Our amendment will allow reimbursements to finally increase. It may
only be 3 cents, but it means a lot to our seniors. I offer this
amendment because, like all of my colleagues, I go to senior centers, I
talk to my seniors, I talk to my senior meal providers.
Bill Dubord and Sally Kidd of the Community Action Agency in
Excanaba, Michigan, they told me their agency is having a tougher and
tougher time just trying to keep their head above water to provide
their seniors meals. I am sure many of my colleagues have heard the
same stories and hardships when they go home.
The bottom line is this, our senior meal providers need more money to
provide senior meals. An increase in USDA reimbursements will give them
more money, from 54 cents to 57 cents. They will be able to provide
more meals. More meals mean more help for the seniors. It is really
that simple.
Now, again, to pay for this amendment, we have taken less than 3
percent from an $800 million program, the international commodity aid.
I fully recognize the legitimate need for these funds by people of
other nations, but before we provide to needy persons in other
countries, let us ensure that our own seniors are provided for and
protected.
When my colleagues are casting their vote, I hope all the Members
will think of the seniors they have met back home, the senior meal
providers they have spoken with. Cast a vote for them and support the
Stupak-Boehlert amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
I am sure that the amendment was offered with good intentions, but,
Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, not a single additional meal
would be served to anyone. Allow me to explain why.
The USDA role in this program is to supplement the Department of
Health and Human Services with cash and commodities on a per-meal basis
for each meal served to an elderly person.
[[Page H5589]]
The amount reimbursed at the current year level is about 54 cents per
meal for 259 million meals. There was an increase of $10 million in the
budget request for an additional 20 million meals to be served.
This bill contains language that allows the Department of Agriculture
to transfer $10 million out of excess WIC carryover funds, that is
money that the WIC program cannot spend, and to allow the reimbursement
of 54 cents to be maintained in fiscal year 2001. If we add $20 million
to this account, as this amendment seeks to do, all we will be doing is
increasing the reimbursement per meal from 54 cents to about 57 cents.
But HHS will still serve the same number of meals. Furthermore, the
corresponding budget request from HHS did not request an increase in
their budget.
Now, the gentleman's amendment seeks to cut $30 million out of the
P.L. 480, Title II program. Some may take this amendment to mean that
the choice we are being asked to make is between a domestic feeding
program versus an international feeding program. Just for the
information of my colleagues, the commodities shipped abroad through
the P.L. 480 program are grown all across America, such as wheat from
Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, Washington, Iowa, and Texas; rice from
Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi and California; dried beans and peas
and lentils from Michigan, Montana, and Idaho; and other commodities
like feed grains, vegetable oil and corn and soy meal. This amendment
would cut funds to purchase these commodities and would hurt farmers
who are already financially strapped.
{time} 1800
In addition, this cut would reduce the amount of funds to private
voluntary organizations that help to oversee this program to ensure
that food gets to where it is needed most, and this amendment would
also cut funds to shipping companies that transport these commodities.
Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman's intent is, but this
amendment does not do what the gentleman intends, and I oppose the
amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very reluctant opposition to this amendment,
mainly because of the offset and not because of the worthiness of the
gentleman's objective here in trying to lessen the burden on seniors
who participate in our elderly feeding programs.
I have to say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) that I have
the highest regard for him and for his trying to be a voice here so
ably for all the seniors of our country and their nutrition needs. But
for the record I do want to point out that our subcommittee, under
great strain, was able to meet the administration's request for all
feeding programs, including the elderly feeding program. And, in fact,
because we were able to transfer funds, $10 million from other
accounts, we were able to increase the amount of funds available in
this account from $141 million that is being spent this year to $151
million next year. So that is an increase, and that would help tick up
the amount of funds available across our country.
Since 1993, the program that the gentleman wants to take the money
from, the PL-480 program, has been cut by nearly half, and for this
coming fiscal year, even in the bill we are presenting today, we are
$37 million below the administration's request in an account that has
been reduced by 42 percent over the decade of the 1990s. So I would beg
of the gentleman to find another offset.
I think I sort of feel he is doing half right and half wrong here.
Because with the crisis we have in rural America, one of the ways that
we are able to help is to use the PL-480 program, as underfunded as it
is, to move these commodities around the world. We are certainly moving
commodities around our country to our feeding kitchens, to our pantries
around the Nation, and through our humanitarian programs; but to take
the money from this account really is almost like taking the money from
programs that feed starving people and putting it into programs for
those who are participating in nutrition programs here in our country
that will be funded at the administration's request.
So I am very torn by the gentleman's amendment. I would only
encourage him to, as we move toward conference, to work with us on the
subcommittee to see if we cannot find other offsets for the gentleman's
very worthy request. I would also mention that his amendment might
result in increasing the reimbursement rates for senior meals from 54
cents to 57 cents. While local program operators might have legitimate
expenses, I guess one could question the real value of this amendment
in terms of actual dollars that would be available at the various
feeding sites.
So, please, recognize our objection to this is stated very
reluctantly only because of the account that it is being taken from,
which is not only underfunded for this next year, and does not meet the
administration request, but which has been cut by 42 percent since
1993. I would just encourage the author to seriously look at other
offsets.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from
Michigan, and like the gentleman was talking about, I, too, visit a lot
of senior citizen centers. And also one complicating factor is that my
mother attends these on a regular basis, so it becomes quite personal.
But I would really like to associate myself with the words of the
gentlewoman from Ohio, and her point is exactly right.
In the bill this year we do have the flexibility to increase funding
for this program by $10 million, which fully funds the President's
request for this program. And I think everyone in the House is in full
agreement that we need to fund the seniors' feeding programs to the
full amount. I think we have done that in the bill. And like the
gentlewoman from Ohio, my big problem is that we are taking funds out
of an account that is already reduced by $37 million this year. So to
cut another $30 million out of this would be extremely harmful, I
believe.
When we look at PL-480 and the benefits it gives around the world to
people who are starving to death, I think it is very, very important.
And I think if we talked to most senior citizens, if it meant the
difference between 2 or 3 cents a meal, they would also say that people
who are dying of starvation probably need as much help as possible, and
they would be willing to possibly even forfeit the 2 or 3 cents a meal
to make sure that does not happen.
Also, I think it is very important that the Members are aware of the
people who stand in opposition to this amendment, like The Coalition
for Food Aid, and groups such as Catholic Relief Services, Save the
Children, World Vision, and CARE. All very much oppose this amendment
because of the devastating effect it would have as far as their feeding
programs around the world.
So, Mr. Chairman, while I have great empathy and concern for the
seniors' feeding programs, I think with the facts as they are, that we
are fully funding the feeding program at the request of the
administration for this program, and the detrimental effect this
amendment will have as far as our PL-480 programs, food for peace
around the world, I must strongly oppose this amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stupak-Boehlert
amendment to increase funding for the USDA's nutrition program for the
elderly by $20 million. This vital program helps provide over 3 million
senior citizens with nutritionally-sound meals in their homes through
the Meals-on-Wheels program, or the senior centers, churches, and fire
halls, through the congregate meals program. These programs are facing
financial hardships, and a smaller percentage of needy seniors are
being fed.
Quite frankly, the President's request is not adequate. This program
has been flat funded since 1997. With the number of seniors growing,
the demand for Meals-on-Wheels funding has continued to increase. The
National Association of Nutrition and Aging Service programs recently
testified before the subcommittee that 34 percent of their member
programs indicate they have a waiting list for home-delivered meals. It
is only sensible that if
[[Page H5590]]
they have more money, they are going to be able to serve more seniors.
The increase provided by this amendment is long overdue, and the need
for this program is quite real. Participants in this program are
disproportionately poor. Thirty-three percent of congregate meal
participants and 50 percent of home-delivered meal participants have
incomes below the poverty level. A majority of Meals-on-Wheels
participants live alone and have twice as many physical impairments as
the average elderly person.
The nutrition program not only feeds seniors in need, but also allows
these seniors to remain connected to their communities. Congregate meal
sites give participating seniors the opportunity to socialize with
members of the community, and Meals-on-Wheels volunteers deliver meals
to frail and sick and home-bound seniors who are in greatest need of
assistance.
This amendment offsets the urgently needed seniors meal program by
reducing funding for a foreign assistance program. I do not doubt the
need for these funds by people of other countries, but I want to ensure
that our seniors are given the highest priority. The fact of the matter
is that the foreign assistance program would still receive $770 million
after our amendment passes.
But I have a deal. I agree with the distinguished gentlewoman from
Ohio, who was rather eloquent in stating that she likes this program,
the congregate meals program, the Meals-on-Wheels program, but she also
likes the foreign assistance program. We have great confidence in the
good judgment of our distinguished chairman and our ranking minority
member. There is flexibility as they go into conference. So I would
suggest that we pass this amendment, give them the flexibility, and
they know better than we do, so maybe they can find some other offset.
The Stupak-Boehlert amendment is endorsed by the National Council of
Senior Citizens, the Meals-on-Wheels Association of America, the Senior
Citizens League, the National Association of Nutrition and Aging
Services Programs, and the National Association of State Units on
Aging. This amendment represents a small investment in a program that
helps to fight the malnutrition and isolation far too many of our
seniors face.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
With regard to some of the concerns about our amendment, and I have
the utmost respect for the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), but this program here, after
being flat for so many years and actually losing money in real dollar
amounts, we cannot just turn our backs and continue to pretend it is
not happening.
To put the issue in proper perspective, the Meals-on-Wheels
Association has endorsed our legislation, the Stupak-Boehlert
amendment, and they have said, ``Because America's elderly population
continues to be the fastest growing segment of the population, demands
on nutrition programs for the elderly are increasing.'' So what are we
doing? Our funding is staying flat and actually losing in real dollar
amounts every year.
The most comprehensive national studies to be conducted in recent
years found that 41 percent of home-delivered meals had waiting lists.
The relatively small investment, and as they said, what would three
pennies mean, three pennies in meal programs that our amendment would
provide would pay substantial dividends in helping to target
malnutrition and isolation in the elderly, improving their nutritional
and health status, and enabling many seniors to be able to stay in
their home because they got a good meal.
While I appreciate the increase of $10 million that the
administration has put in, that only puts us even with last year. Throw
in inflation, and we are behind the 8-ball again. Let us pass the
Boehlert-Stupak amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan and the
gentleman from New York for this amendment, and I rise in support of
the Meals-on-Wheels amendment to counter skyrocketing gas prices.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is right, when we look at
this chart, at how our senior citizens really are beginning to suffer
from the gradual decrease in constant dollars that are spent for this
important program. Currently, Meals-on-Wheels reimbursements have been
steadily dwindling to the current rate of about 50 cents per meal.
Consequently, Meals-on-Wheels is suffering from a severe loss of food
purchasing power and funds to cover mileage reimbursements.
Our Nation's elderly are lifetime taxpayers, and it is our duty to
provide our elderly citizens the basic human services which they are
entitled to. However, high gasoline prices are straining the budgets of
the Meals-on-Wheels program and destroying the volunteer delivery
networks the program depends on.
People in the Midwest are very familiar with this, because last week
we had gas prices over $2 a gallon and now it is over $1.80 a gallon.
We are now in a condition where many people who would deliver the
Meals-on-Wheels are finding that they cannot afford to do it. Now,
think about what that means. We have this great program, and yet people
are finding they cannot participate in it.
In light of the recent increases in gas prices, volunteers cannot
afford to provide their services and meals cannot be delivered. The
Meals-on-Wheels program is in danger of losing both its volunteer and
paid labor base.
Now, this is not a hypothetical situation. Again, back to the
Cleveland area and a city called Westlake, which is in my district. I
received a letter from the director for the Department of Senior and
Community Services for the City of Westlake. Here is what she has told
me in part.
{time} 1815
``As you know, many of the volunteers for Meals on Wheels are
themselves older adults on fixed incomes. One such couple travels
almost 100 miles in a rural area to deliver meals. They are considering
resigning because they cannot afford to volunteer.''
Think of what that means. People who want to help their fellow human
beings who get a good feeling out of delivering meals to the elderly
and suddenly, because of these high costs of fuel, gasoline, they are
suddenly in danger of not being able to afford to do it.
Now, this amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak) would offset, under Title III of the Older Americans Act,
monetary donations made to the program to cover increasingly high fuel
costs by providing more food purchasing power and mileage reimbursement
funds.
In increasing the program's reimbursements, the amendment will
alleviate the enormous burden faced by many volunteers who are
increasingly unavailable to aid in the delivery of meals to millions of
senior citizens through the high fuel cost.
If funding through the USDA adequately covers the Meals on Wheels
program, then their food purchasing power will be strengthened and
their labor base will be secured.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) would like
to comment in the time that remains, I would be happy to yield to him
because I know the work that he is doing on this is so important. I
know the elderly in my district are very concerned about what is going
to happen to the Meals on Wheels program.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, again, this is a good discussion we are having because
we have got valuable programs here that we are trying to save. But as
the chart clearly shows, in real dollars we keep going backwards; and
while we may have put $10 million in, that just made us even with last
year.
Throw in the rate of inflation. Throw in the point that my colleague
made about the increase of gas for Meals on Wheels just to deliver and
we are going further and further behind.
With the largest increasing part of our population being senior
citizens, they cannot stay even, they cannot regress. We have to move
forward with this funding.
[[Page H5591]]
Again, we are taking 3 percent from a $800 million program. There is
still $770 million left in that program, and we are at $140 million for
senior meals. We are saying just give us a little extra.
Now, they say bring up all their offsets. The gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), myself, the
authors of this amendment, we will sit on the Committee on
Appropriations. If they want to turn over the power to us and make the
offsets, we will be happy to. We would love to.
But, in all seriousness, we tried to work on this one. And amongst
friends there has to be disagreements. We feel we have to take care of
our senior citizens here at home first and make sure that their
nutrition needs are met so there is not the malnutrition we see with
senior citizens, especially in rural areas, the inner city areas, and
the isolation of seniors, bring them to the senior centers and bring
that meal in to them.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stupak-Boehlert
amendment to H.R. 4461, because I believe the Congregate and Meals on
Wheels programs are in need of additional funds.
There are few communities within the country where a senior nutrition
program does not exist, and the demands on nutrition programs for the
elderly is increasing.
Few programs can boast the importance to the elderly and overwhelming
success as the senior nutrition programs.
I became deeply involved in this issue last November, when I became
aware that the Agency on Aging in my district began cutting back the
Congregate Meals program after having exhausted their reserve funds.
In the face of a potential crisis, the State of Connecticut and local
governments agreed to make up the financial shortfall for this year.
The additional State and local funds are allowing the Agency to
temporarily overcome the financial shortfall and enabling providers to
serve the same number of meals this year as were served in 1999.
While this financial contribution is significant and speaks volumes
about the importance of the Congregate Meal program to seniors in
Connecticut, it does nothing to prevent similar funding shortfall from
occurring next year and the year after that.
This body has an obligation to ensure that senior nutrition programs
are adequately funded. I hope we can all recognize that Congregate and
home delivered meals programs need assistance, and that this House has
the good sense to act favorably on this amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stupak-Boehlert bill to
add $20 million to the Meals on Wheels Program.
This amendment adds much needed funds to a program that truly plays
such a vital role in communities across this country. Meals on Wheels
improves the physical and the mental health of seniors in our
communities. It provides them with a balanced, nutritious, and
appealing diet.
Last year the program brought over 1.9 million meals to almost 10,000
seniors and the disabled in Connecticut alone.
The West Haven center in my district distributed 1,000 meals a day to
homebound citizens of 15 towns throughout south central Connecticut,
200,000 per year.
I might add that Mayor Borer, the mayor of West Haven, Connecticut,
and myself last year went on the Meals on Wheels truck, went place by
place and helped to deliver the meals. And it was amazing. This program
is a lifeline for people. It is one of the most remarkable experiences
that I have had in being a Member of this House.
Meals on Wheels helps those elderly who find themselves homebound,
unable to go out and shop for their own food. It allows seniors who
would have been forced into a nursing home to stay in their home and
maintain their dignity and their independence. It helps to lower health
care costs while allowing seniors to retain that independence.
It also fills an important need in the community for the preservation
of ties with our elders. By providing seniors with essential food every
day of the week, sometimes, I might add, the only hot meal an elderly
citizen receives, it builds important links and relationships between
the men and women who deliver the meals and the seniors who take
advantage of the program. In some cases, these people are the only
visitors that seniors get all day.
Meals on Wheels is truly an example of neighbors helping neighbors.
I call on my colleagues, support the Stupak-Boehlert amendment,
support a program that provides an essential safety net to millions of
seniors and strengthens the community ties between generations.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the gentlewoman speaking for an
additional 5 minutes?
There was no objection.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I probably will not take the full 5
minutes. But I did want to commend our colleagues, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert)
for bringing that chart to the floor that shows the discretionary cuts
that have affected all programs, including elderly feeding programs,
across this country.
As we look at the revenues that the Government of the United States
is receiving now and the work of all of our committees, without
question, every single American sacrificed in order to put the accounts
of this Nation in order. These programs got hurt just as much as many
other programs in our country. So these decisions to move us toward a
surplus position have not been easy decisions.
We are now at the point where we can more openly look at ways to
expand worthy programs. And this certainly is one that has gotten the
attention of the subcommittee. And believe me, I give my word to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Boehlert), who have worked so diligently to bring this to the
attention of the membership, that, but for the offset, I certainly
would be one Member who would be working 150 percent of my energy in
trying to help them find a way to expand these worthy programs for
feeding our senior citizens.
I thank the gentlemen for their respective leadership on this.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Food Program Administration
For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic food
programs funded under this Act, $116,392,000, of which
$5,000,000 shall be available only for simplifying
procedures, reducing overhead costs, tightening regulations,
improving food stamp benefit delivery, and assisting in the
prevention, identification, and prosecution of fraud and
other violations of law and of which not less than $3,000,000
shall be available to improve integrity in the Food Stamp and
Child Nutrition programs: Provided, That this appropriation
shall be available for employment pursuant to the second
sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7
U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $150,000 shall be available
for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That
none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by
this Act or any other Act shall be available to carry out a
Colonias initiative without the prior approval of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Reyes
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 62 offered by Mr. Reyes:
Page 53, beginning line 25, strike ``: Provided further,
That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act or any other Act shall be available to
carry out a Colonias initiative without the prior approval of
the Committee on Appropriations''.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to bring much needed
assistance to some of the poorest communities in our Nation. My
amendment will strike the provision in the bill that prohibits funding
in the bill or any other bill from being available to carry out a
colonias initiative without prior approval of the Committee on
Appropriations.
``Colonia'' is a Spanish term for ``community.'' Along our Southwest
[[Page H5592]]
border, it is the name for U.S. communities that lack basic water and
sewer systems, power, paved roads, safe and sanitary housing, health
care, and adequate educational, recreational, and employment
opportunities.
There are more than 1,500 of these third-world-like communities in
our Nation, with more than half a million people in California, Texas,
New Mexico, and Arizona. These communities sprung up because of a lack
of affordable housing, unscrupulous land development, and neglect of
our border region.
Because of a lack of basic service, poverty is extreme in our
colonias. Fifty percent of the residents are below the poverty level,
with average family income of about $12,675. Moreover, 40 percent of
colonia residents have less than a ninth grade education and
unemployment exceeds 40 percent.
The health of these citizens is terrible due to contaminated wells,
poorly constructed septic tanks, and the difficulty in buying water
from private vendors.
This situation is a tragedy that has never been properly addressed.
Eight-five percent of colonia residents, Mr. Chairman, are United
States citizens, and 40 percent of those residing in our colonias are
children. Devastating diseases are prevalent in the colonias, with
hepatitis and tuberculosis at rates of between 30 and 50 percent.
Colonia residents are part of our Nation, and we have a moral
obligation to give them the basic essentials we expect for all of
America's children.
The need to allow USDA to implement programs and initiatives to help
address the severe problems of colonia residents is very critical.
One such program is the Partnership for Change-Colonias Initiative,
which was a pilot program which began in Texas bringing together
Federal, State and local governmental entities and nonprofit groups to
create a unified colonia strategy.
This strategy called ``Partnership for Change'' addresses the
multitude of colonias issues including housing, health, nutrition, and
employment issues. The ``Partnership for Change'' uses innovative
approaches to ensure that food and nutrition services reach colonia
residents. Because colonias are remotely located without proper roads,
colonia residents are simply unable to retain these kinds of services.
In response, the ``Partnership for Change'' built an additional seven
WIC clinics directly in the colonias serving an additional 5,200
residents. It has also purchased vans to transport clients to
assistance centers and coordinated traveling food pantries.
My amendment will allow strategies such as this to go forward without
the continuous need to obtain committee approval.
If the committee has problems with the way programs like this are
administered, the proper approach is to have the committee discuss the
various aspects with the USDA rather than continually require this
prohibitive requirement before colonia initiatives can go forward.
Every American family, regardless of where they live, should have the
basic essentials of water, roads, housing, and a health environment.
Otherwise, we allow a cycle of poverty and disease to continue despite
having the resources to make an enormous difference.
While the rest of our Nation is reaping the benefits of a booming
economy and budget surpluses, colonia residents are struggling barely
to survive. This is unacceptable, and we can do much better as
Americans.
I, therefore, ask all Members to support my amendment and to show
their commitment to our fellow Americans who are having to overcome
unbelievable obstacles and to give the USDA flexibility to use
innovative approaches to provide additional outreach and coordinated
efforts to colonia residents.
I ask all Members to vote yes on my amendment.
{time} 1830
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment. I have always
enjoyed working with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), my compadre,
and will continue to do so on this important issue.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I appreciate the
hard work. We have always worked together, and I appreciate the
opportunity to work through this very critical issue. I thank the
gentleman, as well as the rest of us who understand the necessities
that Colonias have, and I really appreciate the gentleman working with
us on this.
Mr. SKEEN. We have done a whole lot of hard work on it, particularly
under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), and I am
glad to work with him.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take 5 minutes. I just want to thank
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) on his efforts and all the
congressmen, the representatives from California, New Mexico, Arizona,
and Texas. I want to just emphasize the importance of the amendment
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) had, and I want to put it in
perspective in terms of an analogy.
The particular language that it would prohibit the Colonias
initiatives unless the appropriations funded it, I want the gentlemen
to think about the way it was, and I am real pleased that it has been
eliminated because if that same kind of language was there, say, that
was in the Department of Commerce, and a chamber of commerce or a
particular corporation was prohibited, it would be said that it was
discriminatory. If that same kind of language was in the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, and it would be said that funding would be
prohibited from the veterans to go to specific veterans, it would be
said that that was discriminatory.
If that same kind of language was in the Department of Transportation
and it said that particular resources would not be able to be spent in
a specific community, it would said that that was discriminatory.
So I want to thank the gentleman for agreeing and being able to
remove that language from there because there is no doubt that the
Colonias need a lot of help, and I know everyone on the border
recognizes the importance of providing resources and access just like
anyone would have those opportunities.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for his sympathy to this
proposal in support of the Colonias initiative. I wanted to also thank
very deeply the members of the Hispanic Caucus, and Shirley Watkins at
Food and Nutrition Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture for
really helping us to begin to carve out a new initiative that would
reach some of the most forgotten people in America.
I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez)
for their strong leadership on this proposal and to say that we look
forward to working with them as we move toward conference to really
make sure that this Colonias initiative is not forgotten.
Some of the aspects of this proposal involve such initiatives as
piloting breakfast and after-school snack programs right on the bus, as
children are being driven to and from school because it is so difficult
sometimes to reach many of the children who live in these areas, and
also taking a look at how we could use traveling food pantries to reach
some of the more isolated individuals of all ages who live in the
Colonias.
The proposals also take a look at organizing farmers markets, which
is a real strong interest of my own, to make sure that good, fresh
produce and farm-grown products from the State of Texas or New Mexico
or wherever the Colonias are located are organized near where the
people live; and to make sure that locally grown produce, some of it
perhaps raised by local farmers, would be able to be used in the school
programs in those areas responding to some of the ethnic preferences
for food that may differ in different parts of the
[[Page H5593]]
country, depending on people's preferences; and working with USDA to
look at an interactive Web site to link various partners and Colonias
advocates and others to share success stories and communicate
accomplishments of the existing projects in Texas.
So there are so many aspects to this, and we are at the very
beginning of it; but I think it is such a wonderful proposal and one
that we are going to take step by step and really try to reach among
some of the lowest-income people in America. I never like to say
poorest because there is a richness of heritage there and a richness of
hope in every community in America, but if we can help people have
better nutrition for their children, where their children can learn and
they can have a better way of life, food is one of the most basic
needs, and certainly contribute to better health.
This is such an exceptional opportunity to reach many of these
families. The proposals for refrigerated trucks, for example, even
finding trucks that have been used perhaps in business and are not
brand new but even used trucks, almost like we put book mobiles in some
of the underserved rural areas of America before, to do this in the
Colonias is just so practical and so achievable.
We want to thank Shirley Watkins from the Department of Agriculture
for working with our Hispanic Caucus, with the Congressmen and women
who have supported this here.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here joining my good friend in
support of the second amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes)
on Colonias, and delighted to see that our good friend, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), has been so supportive of the work that we
are all trying to do to improve life in Las Colonias.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to bring awareness to a very important
issue to my district in south Texas and all along the United States-
Mexico border. The continuing plight of Colonias is what I wish to
speak on. As my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes),
noted, Colonias are substandard housing developments in America, with
many homes which have no water, sewer or utility hook-ups. United
States citizens are forced to buy property without these essential
services because of chronic housing shortages in high-poverty areas.
For example, in the fifteenth district of Texas, my own district, we
have the third fastest growing metropolitan statistical area in the
Nation. We also have the third highest rate of poverty.
This unique situation creates a hardship on the children and families
that live in Colonias.
A group in Texas called the Las Colonias Project has worked to bring
national awareness to this vital issue but more, much, much more must
be done.
If we will look at this chart, we will see the numbers that are
staggering. There are more than 1,500 Colonias along the United States
border with Mexico with more than 400,000 residents. All these facts is
the type of national awareness that we are trying to bring to the House
floor today and in a bipartisan way be able to bring resources to be
able to correct the deficiencies that exist in these Colonias.
While I cannot support getting money for this program at the expense
of the USDA Wildlife Services program, an absolutely worthwhile
program, I do urge Members to support funding for the serious problem
of Colonias.
I know we can find both a way and the money to do this.
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Reyes) for bringing this issue not only to the floor today but before,
when he was able to bring some young children from Colonias to testify
before Members of Congress. I would like to also thank my good friend,
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for doing a great job, him
and his staff; the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), from our class
of 1983; and the staff, thank them for being able to understand the
seriousness of the problem that we have.
I do not want to continue to belabor the issue, but it is a very,
very serious issue along the border.
These children have tremendous potential. With all the obstacles and
pitfalls that they face on a daily basis, some of them make the
national honor roll. They make the Boy Scout troops, with all these
obstacles.
So we do have tremendous potential if we can help them by providing
all these services so that they will never lose sight of the fact that
they can become productive citizens. Again, I would like to thank my
colleagues, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), members of his
staff, my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for all
they have done in bringing this issue to the floor.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE V
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Foreign Agricultural Service
For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service,
including carrying out title VI of the Agricultural Act of
1954 (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development activities
abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to coordinate and
integrate activities of the Department in connection with
foreign agricultural work, including not to exceed $150,000
for representation allowances and for expenses pursuant to
section 8 of the Act approved August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766),
$109,186,000: Provided, That the Service may utilize advances
of funds, or reimburse this appropriation for expenditures
made on behalf of Federal agencies, public and private
organizations and institutions under agreements executed
pursuant to the agricultural food production assistance
programs (7 U.S.C. 1737) and the foreign assistance programs
of the United States Agency for International Development.
None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be
available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco
products.
Public Law 480 Program Account
(including transfers of funds)
For the cost as defined in section 502 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, of agreements under the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, and
the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as amended, including the
cost of modifying credit arrangements under said Acts,
$114,186,000, to remain available until expended.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
credit program of title I, Public Law 83-480, and the Food
for Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to the extent funds
appropriated for Public Law 83-480 are utilized, $1,850,000,
of which not to exceed $1,035,000 may be transferred to and
merged with ``Salaries and Expenses'', Foreign Agricultural
Service, and of which not to exceed $815,000 may be
transferred to and merged with ``Salaries and Expenses'',
Farm Service Agency.
Public Law 480 Title I Ocean Freight Differential Grants
For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise
recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including
interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, $20,322,000, to
remain available until expended, for ocean freight
differential costs for the shipment of agricultural
commodities under title I of said Act: Provided, That funds
made available for the cost of title I agreements and for
title I ocean freight differential may be used
interchangeably between the two accounts.
Public Law 480 Grants--Titles II and III
For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise
recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including
interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development
and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, $800,000,000, to
remain available until expended, for commodities supplied in
connection with dispositions abroad under title II of said
Act, of which up to 15 percent may be used for commodities
supplied in connection with dispositions abroad under title
III of said Act.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
Page 56, line 17, insert before the period the following:
``, and of which $1,850,000 may be used for administrative
expenses of the United States Agency for International
Development, including expenses incurred to employ personal
services contractors, to carry out title II of such Act (and
this amount is in addition to amounts otherwise available for
such purposes)''.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment which has to
do with the way in which our Food for Peace commodities are delivered
in other countries. Essentially, what this does is it allows the U.S.
Agency for
[[Page H5594]]
International Development, which is a part of the Department of State,
to hire contractors in-country for this work on PL-480, title II
commodities, just as the U.S. Department of Agriculture does.
During hearings on these important humanitarian programs, it became
very clear to us on the committee that the U.S. Agency for
International Development does not have the same ability to hire
contractors in-country to work on the Food for Peace program that USDA
has.
I know this sounds like kind of a technical bureaucratic problem but,
in fact, it is; and we worked with AID and the chairman to identify the
best way to correct this problem.
I want to thank the chairman deeply for his support. We want to make
sure that when wheat or soy meal or any product is delivered to a very
needy country that the private voluntary organizations that are there
and AID contractors are able to find the most efficient way to get food
into the villages, to the people, maybe refugees, living very far from
the point where the food actually comes to port.
AID is having particular problems with this, we think simply because
the legislation was written in a way that AID and USDA are under
different committees here in the House.
Truly, with many of the private voluntary organizations doing this
work in-country, which is one of the most risky jobs in the world,
because they go into areas sometimes that are war torn, deep in-
country. It is not easy work. We have had plane crashes around the
world where many of these volunteers are going. All we are trying to do
is to find a more efficient way to help them do the job that all of us
want to do and that is to bring food to hungry people.
{time} 1845
No bureaucratic snafu should prevent that kind of person-to-person
assistance from occurring. We still want to find a way to allow greater
authority for the Department of Agriculture, to use administrative
funds in countries to provide and monitor food assistance in needy
areas of the world. Essentially, this would provide additional
contracting latitude to the U.S. Agency for International Development,
so it parallels what USDA is able to do in moving these commodities to
people that truly need them.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen) very, very much for his cooperation and participation in this.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will help provide more effective and
more efficient administration of our food aid programs overseas. I
thank the gentlewoman for taking this initiative and recommend to the
House that it be accepted.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen) will yield, I thank him truly on behalf of all the people that
this will help.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure doing business with the
gentlewoman from Ohio.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account
(including transfers of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity
Credit Corporation's export guarantee program, GSM 102 and
GSM 103, $3,820,000; to cover common overhead expenses as
permitted by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation
Charter Act and in conformity with the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990, of which $3,231,000 may be transferred to and
merged with the appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural
Service'' and $589,000 may be transferred to and merged with
the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and
Expenses''.
TITLE VI
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
salaries and expenses
(including rescission)
For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration,
including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for
payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to Public
Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and Drug
Administration which are included in this Act; for rental of
special purpose space in the District of Columbia or
elsewhere; and for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of
enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the
Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's
certificate, not to exceed $25,000; $1,267,178,000, of which
not to exceed $149,273,000 in prescription drug user fees
authorized by 21 U.S.C. 379(h) may be credited to this
appropriation and remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $104,954,000 shall be for payments to the
General Services Administration for rent and related costs:
Provided further, That of the funds appropriated for ``Food
and Drug Administration Salaries and Expenses'' under Public
Law 106-78, $27,000,000 is hereby rescinded upon enactment of
this Act.
Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 42 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Page 58, line 4, insert after the colon the following:
``Provided further, That $500,000 is available for the
purpose of drafting guidance for industry on how to assess
genetically engineered food products for allergenicity until
a predictive testing methodology is developed, and reporting
to the Congress on the status of the guidance by September 1,
2001; for the purpose of making it a high agency priority to
develop a predictive testing methodology for potential food
allergens in genetically engineered foods; and for the
purpose of reporting to the Congress by April 30, 2001, on
research being conducted by the Food and Drug Administration
and other Federal agencies concerning both the basic science
of food allergy and testing methodology for food allergens,
including a prioritized description of research needed to
develop a predictive testing methodology for the
allergenicity of proteins added to foods via genetic
engineering and what steps the Food and Drug Administration
is taking or plans to take to address these needs:''.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, food allergies are a serious health
concern, 2.5 to 5 million Americans have food allergies. Common food
allergies include milk, eggs, fish, seafood, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts,
soybeans.
The health impacts of a food allergy range from itching to
potentially fatal anaphylactic shock. We all know people who have food
allergies. People learn about their food allergies by way of the trial
and error method. If they eat a food a few times and react to it, each
time they know they are allergic to it.
Now, with respect to genetically-engineered foods and known
allergens, things get much trickier with foods that have been
genetically engineered.
Scientists at the University of Nebraska inserted a Brazilian nut
gene into a soybean. The study showed that people allergic to Brazil
nuts, which is a common allergy, are also allergic to soybeans that
have been modified by the Brazilian nut gene.
The scientists concluded that allergens from one food can pass to
another and harm anyone with that allergy who unsuspectingly eats
genetically-engineered foods.
Genetically-engineered foods have this problem with unknown
allergens. The problem is very complicated. Most biotech crops on the
market today were inserted with genes from things we have never
digested before. Now, here is a picture of bacteria.
Most crops engineered today are engineered with genes from bacteria.
Are we allergic to this? Scientists do not know. Are we allergic to
these new foods? The huge genetic pool of possibilities to engineer in
the world have not been tested for allergies.
As a matter of fact, it may surprise my colleagues to know that over
a 100 million acres of crops last year in the United States were
genetically engineered.
There are huge challenges with allergy testing. Allergy testing for
unknown allergens is difficult if not impossible. Here is a report from
the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Sciences states in this report, allergenicity
is difficult to test. They go on to say that tests for possible
allergenicity either are indirect, do not involve adverse effects, or
are otherwise problematic for testing of novel proteins that have not
previously been components of the food supply.
[[Page H5595]]
Researchers from the Clinical Immunology and Allergy Section of
Tulane University Medical Center state, and I quote, ``The most
difficult issue regarding transgenic food allergenicity is the effect
of transfer of proteins of unknown allergenicity.''
In other words, if we are allergic to Brazil nuts, the Brazil nuts
gene is in soybeans, we respond to the soybean; and we do not even know
that it has a Brazil gene in it. The challenge is to determine whether
these proteins are allergenic as there is no generally accepted,
established, definitive procedure to define or predict a protein's
allergenicity.
We all know that old saying, what you do not know cannot hurt you. We
have all heard that. What we do not know cannot hurt you. But in this
case, what you do not know can, what you do not know can hurt you.
The FDA is unfortunately failing to protect Americans. Unfortunately,
the Food and Drug Administration admittedly having taken a pro-biotech
position have completely dropped the ball on the serious issue of
unknown and untestable allergens.
In my hand, this is a 700-page transcript of an FDA conference on
this very topic from 1994. The document clearly acknowledges that
unknown allergens are difficult to test for. My amendment instructs the
FDA to continue the scientific research on this topic and draft
guidance from the industry on how to assess genetically engineered food
products for allergenicity until a predictive testing methodology is
developed and report to Congress on the status of this issue.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico reserve his point of
order?
Mr. SKEEN. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to call to the body's attention and
to the attention of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) that the
Brazil nut gene within that soybean and its potential danger was
discovered through premarket testing meeting the requirements of FDA
and USDA. The product never got to market.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment, because the mandate of
food labeling which is part of the sponsor's goal, would send dangerous
signals. Let me review a little bit of what we did in our Subcommittee
on Basic Research.
On April 13, I issued a chairman's report on plant genomics and
agricultural biotechnology. This report was a culmination of three
hearings that we held in Washington and meetings throughout the United
States with scientists.
The Subcommittee on Basic Research had some of the Nation's leading
scientists testify, one of the issues that we dealt with in some detail
in the report was the mandatory labeling provision. What we found is
that there is no scientific justification for labeling food based on
the method by which they are produced. Labeling of agricultural
biotechnology products would, as suggested by the industry and by some
of the scientists, confuse, not inform, consumers and send a misleading
message on safety.
The Food and Drug Administration has more than 15 years of experience
in evaluating food-based products of biotechnology, more than 20 years
of experience with medical products of biotechnology. FDA's decision
not to require labeling is consistent both with the law and with FDA's
``statement of policy'' More to the point, consumers have a lifetime of
direct personal experience with foods genetically modified through
hybridization and cross breeding should have the same regulations
scrutiny as those modified by the new technology.
FDA bases labeling decisions on whether there are material
differences between the new plant-based food and its traditional
counterpart. These material differences include changes in the new
plant that are significant enough that the common or usual name of the
plant no longer applies or if the safety or use at issue exists that
warrants consumer notification.
Despite this sensible policy, biotechnology's critics including the
sponsor of this amendment, continue to argue that foods created using
recombinant DNA techniques should bear a label revealing that fact.
This view is based, in large part, on the faulty supposition that the
potential for unintended and undetected differences between these foods
and those produced through conventional means is cause for a label
based solely on the method of production of the plant.
I would urge our three regulatory agencies that are overlooking, not
only the biotech, but all products produced through traditional cross
breeding, to thoroughly evaluate, all plants and seeds regardless of
the process of development.
Mr. Chairman, I mean we have had products developed through cross
breeding that ended up poisonous. So the regulatory bodies that we have
with USDA, Food and Drug, as well as EPA is the best in the world right
now. They are doing a good job.
What I am concerned with, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich), because of emotion, and miss information, labeling is going
to be like putting a skull and cross bones on the food product. If we
were to define a biotech-produced food the way Food and Drug defines a
biotech-produced food, then it would require labeling of everything
except a few brands of fish. Essentially all food today has been
genetically modified.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, although this specific amendment does not
speak to our labeling bill directly, I would like to say that the
labeling bill that the gentleman is speaking of serves to give the
public the right to know what is in the food they are eating, that is
really the basic concept.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as well as the
sponsors goal of mandatory labels would be extremely confusing, and of
little relevance, or service to consumers. FDA's current policy on
labeling has been scientifically and legally sound and should be
maintained. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Ohio, which would mandate labeling of foods derived
from biotechnology.
Mr. Chairman, the risks for potentially unintended effects of
agricultural biotechnology on the safety of new plant-based foods are
conceptually no different than the risks for those plants derived from
conventional breeding. As described in FDA's Statement of Policy, ``The
agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by
these new methods differ from other food in any meaningful or uniform
way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present
any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by
traditional plant breeding.'' This view was echoed by the research
scientists who testified before the Subcommittee on the subject.
Indeed, there is a genuine fear that labeling biotech foods based on
their method of production would be the equivalent of a ``skull and
crossbones''--that the very presence of a label would indicate to the
average consumer that safety risks exist, when the scientific evidence
shows that they do not. Labeling advocates who argue otherwise are
being disingenuous. The United Kingdom's new mandatory labeling law,
for example, was put forward ostensibly to enhance consumer choice.
Instead, it has prompted British food producers and retailers to remove
all recombinant DNA constituents from the products they sell to avoid
labeling.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and
rise in support of the Kucinich amendment, and I believe it is a
forward thinking measure that deserves this Chamber's full support. If
passed, the amendment would earmark $500,000 in the FDA portion of the
budget to study guidelines for industry on how to assess genetically-
engineered food products for allergenicity or for the potential food
allergens and report back to Congress by the end of fiscal year 2001.
If all that the prior speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith),
says is true, it seems the gentleman would be supportive of the
Kucinich amendment because everything that FDA has done in support of
these issues would be met by a study.
As was previously stated, it is estimated that 2.5 million to 5
million Americans are allergic to foods such as milk, eggs, fish,
seafood, tree nuts, wheat, peanut and soybean, and of all the millions
already diagnosed, there
[[Page H5596]]
are still countless others who do not know they are allergic to foods
until they have a reaction which sometimes can be deadly.
{time} 1900
We must act now to ensure that we understand not only what we eat,
but what effect the food we eat has upon us.
Again, I rise in support of my colleague's amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs.
Jones), my colleague. The gentlewoman and I both represent the people
of the Cleveland area.
Mr. Chairman, we have to remember what this amendment is about: it is
to get $500,000 for the purpose of drafting guidance for the industry
on how to assess genetically engineered food products for
allergenicity. We are not voting on a labeling bill here. Some day we
hope to bring such a bill to the floor so that the people of America
will have a right to know what is in the food they are eating.
But with respect to this and the comments of the previous speaker,
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), Brazil nuts are a known
allergen. What we are speaking about here is testing for unknown
allergens. I want everyone here to know that I am pleased to report
that the FDA just informed me that they support the concepts within
this amendment. I have pledged to work with them to find a compromise
that all the parties can support.
So I want to let the chairman and the ranking member know that I am
going to withdraw this amendment with an understanding that the
chairman, the ranking member, the Food and Drug Administration, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), and other Members of the Congress
who are working on this, that we could all work together to include
acceptable language in a conference report.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Skeen) if that would be acceptable if the gentleman, that is, if I
withdraw this amendment, could the gentleman give me some help with the
FDA in encouraging them to go ahead and work to find a compromise so
that the concepts in this amendment could be supported.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I am sure I will do my best to give the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) that kind of help.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I again yield to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and I want to
thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his indulgence, and
I also want to say that this issue of genetically engineered food is an
issue all over this world. People in Europe are demanding labeling all
throughout the European Union. People in Japan, people in Australia,
people in New Zealand, demanding labeling. Why? Because people want to
know what is in the food they eat. People have a right to know that.
That is why years ago the Food and Drug Administration passed a regime
so people could learn the ingredients on the food that they buy.
Imagine today if we did not even know the ingredients on the food
that we were eating. Suppose someone did not want too much fat content
or one was concerned about their protein intake. That is why Americans
have become more sophisticated on dietary matters because of that law.
Americans are going to have the opportunity in the future, hopefully,
to be able to know what is in the food they are eating. If it is
genetically engineered, it will have to be labeled.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, it is very important that we
move ahead, that we give the assurance of safety. It has to be done. We
cannot go ahead like Europe has gone ahead, based on unscientific
evidence.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Kucinich's
efforts to secure funding for more study on the allergenic effects of
genetically modified foods. I believe that bioengineered foods hold the
potential for great benefit to the consumer. However, studies indicate
that allergens from one food may pass to another through genetic
engineering, and more research is required before families can be
comfortable buying them at the grocery store.
Americans need to be able to make informed decisions about the food
they buy. I understand that funding for an FDA study is not included in
the bill we are debating today, but I hope that it can be inserted in
conference.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: amendment No. 18 by Mr. Ney of Ohio; amendment
No. 1 by Mr. Hefley of Colorado; and amendment No. 2 by Mr. Hefley of
Colorado.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Ney
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 18 offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 94,
noes 326, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 359]
AYES--94
Aderholt
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Campbell
Chabot
Collins
Crane
DeLay
DeMint
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Fattah
Foley
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Hall (OH)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Isakson
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaTourette
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Mollohan
Nethercutt
Ney
Oxley
Peterson (PA)
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Regula
Riley
Ros-Lehtinen
Sawyer
Scarborough
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Stearns
Strickland
Sununu
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Wamp
Weller
Whitfield
Wise
NOES--326
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
[[Page H5597]]
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Larson
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Reynolds
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Saxton
Schaffer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shows
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Weygand
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Bishop
Clay
Cook
Filner
Goodling
Klink
Lazio
Lofgren
Markey
McIntosh
McNulty
Vento
Wynn
Young (AK)
{time} 1925
Messrs. ROTHMAN, RADANOVICH, SHAYS, BATEMAN, RYAN of Wisconsin,
CUNNINGHAM, and CONYERS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. STRICKLAND, SHAW, HILLEARY, ADERHOLT, and SAWYER changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, the Chair announces
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hefley
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 132,
noes 287, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 360]
AYES--132
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berkley
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Callahan
Campbell
Cannon
Chabot
Coble
Coburn
Costello
Cox
Crane
Davis (VA)
DeGette
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehrlich
English
Ewing
Forbes
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gilchrest
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hilleary
Hobson
Horn
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Inslee
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Largent
Leach
Linder
LoBiondo
Luther
Manzullo
Martinez
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McInnis
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moore
Morella
Myrick
Oxley
Pascrell
Paul
Pickering
Porter
Portman
Ramstad
Rogan
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shows
Sisisky
Smith (NJ)
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Wamp
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wilson
NOES--287
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Ford
Fowler
Frost
Gallegly
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Bishop
Clay
Cook
Cubin
Filner
Goodling
Klink
Lazio
Lofgren
Markey
McIntosh
McNulty
Vento
Wynn
Young (AK)
{time} 1934
Mr. WISE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. ROUKEMA and Messrs. INSLEE, COX and MINGE changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H5598]]
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hefley
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Hefley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 94,
noes 319, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 361]
AYES--94
Archer
Armey
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barton
Berkley
Bilbray
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Campbell
Cannon
Chabot
Coburn
Cox
Crane
Davis (VA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Ewing
Fossella
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Ganske
Gibbons
Goss
Hansen
Hayworth
Hefley
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Inslee
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kingston
Largent
Leach
Linder
LoBiondo
McInnis
Meehan
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Paul
Petri
Pickering
Portman
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shows
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Tierney
Toomey
Traficant
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Wamp
NOES--319
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Phelps
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--21
Bishop
Bonilla
Clay
Cook
Coyne
Filner
Goodling
Hastings (WA)
Klink
Lazio
Lipinski
Lofgren
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McIntosh
McNulty
Vento
Weygand
Wynn
Young (AK)
{time} 1942
Mr. ENGLISH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 361, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
{time} 1945
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I just would like to wish the gentleman from New Mexico
(Chairman Skeen), a happy birthday. Tomorrow is his birthday, and I
wish him a happy birthday.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my colleagues make me
feel a lot younger, and I thank all of my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Happy birthday.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I had
intended to offer an amendment that would have added $5 million to the
Food and Nutrition Service for a program that would target outreach to
expand the feeding programs in the colonia areas of the Southwest.
I will not offer the amendment, but I would like to request a
commitment from the chairman that, as the agriculture bill moves to
conference committee, that he will do what he can to secure the funds
for this much-needed targeted assistance in the colonias.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Texas for his involvement in this issue. The plight of the people
living in the colonias is serious. The USDA spends about $350 million
per year on this type of outreach. I commit to the gentleman that I
will work in conference to direct that adequate funds be targeted to
this program in the southwest.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank
the chairman. I also want to thank the staff for helping us work out
this commitment. I look forward to working with him.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Nussle, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4461) making
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________