[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 22230-22261]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 CONSOLIDATION OF MILK MARKETING ORDERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Committee will resume its sitting.
  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), a champion in the milk 
marketing reform debate.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I want to see if I can put this into terms that more Members can 
understand. Last year, I was at the Houston County Fair, and I have 
done this at other fairs, but this was a specific example where I was 
meeting with some dairy farmers and we were talking about dairy prices 
and I asked some of

[[Page 22231]]

them, well, how much was your milk check last month. If you ask the 
farmers themselves, many times they do not know. But if you ask the 
farm wives, they can tell you. They know how much that milk check is 
month to month. What this debate is about is are we going to allow some 
of those people to take some of the bumps out of the road.
  The reason I tell the story is last year and then again this year, we 
have seen prices go from $20 a hundred-weight down to about $12 a 
hundred-weight, and depending on the circumstances, either side of 
those two numbers. They are happy when the price is $20 a hundred-
weight, but they are all hurting when the price is $12. We have seen 
this roller coaster ride.
  What we are talking about is a risk-management tool whereby the dairy 
farmers, and let us talk about those farm wives, the ones who get the 
checks, who pay the bills, they are the ones who really know what is 
happening with the business end of most dairy farms; let us let them 
have that option, whether they go to the co-ops or whether they go to a 
for-profit producer or processor. Let us let them have the option of 
contracting.
  So I rise in opposition to the Stenholm amendment; I rise in support 
of the Dooley language, because all we are saying is whether one sells 
their milk to a co-op or whether one sells their milk to a for-profit, 
they ought to have the option of taking some of those bumps out of the 
road. I say to my colleagues, the co-ops, in my opinion, have done a 
miserable job of advancing this basic notion. I think if people begin 
to understand it is available and if there is a competitive pressure 
out there, both the co-ops and the for-profits are going to move to 
help farmers utilize this risk-management tool.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, once again, I just want to 
touch on a few of the arguments that some of the supporters of this 
amendment have made in terms of it undermining the ability of farmers 
to participate in cooperative efforts.
  I think as a Member of Congress, I probably am a member of more 
agriculture cooperatives than any other member of the 435 in our body. 
I market my cotton through a cooperative. We market a whole host of 
other products through cooperatives. I believe in the cooperative 
system.
  But I also believe very strongly that as a farmer, I should have the 
right to voluntarily enter into a contract to market my product. And 
when we talk about this is undermining the cooperative system, there is 
nothing in the proposal that I am advancing that would undermine that.
  What we are undermining, if we pass the Stenholm-Pombo legislation, 
is we are undermining the right of a farmer; we are undermining the 
right of a farmer to voluntarily enter into a contract in order that 
they may be better able to manage the risks associated with the 
volatility in milk prices.
  Now, that makes so much common sense that I, quite frankly, am 
surprised we are even having a debate on this issue. Why should we 
think that it is the appropriate role of government, once again, to 
deny farmers the right to enter into a contract. Could we imagine going 
into another sector of our industry and saying that we are going to 
deny the producer of orange juice or oranges the ability to enter into 
a forward contract with Sunkist who is a cooperative or Minute Maid and 
say, it is your right to enter into a forward contract if your oranges 
are going to be used for a fruit cocktail mix or something like this, 
but it is against the law for you to enter into a forward contract if 
you are going to sell your oranges for juice that is going to end up in 
the bottle for fluid consumption.
  That is absolutely absurd. But yet, that is what we are trying to do 
with this amendment is that we are going to say that it is all right 
for a farmer to voluntarily contract to sell their milk for cheese or 
butter or powder but if they want to enter into that same contract to 
sell their milk as fluid production to end up in a bottle, we are 
saying it is against the law.
  The Federal Government has no right to intercede in the affairs of a 
private entity and a farmer from entering into voluntarily a contract.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) 
has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, if I could follow along from the 
conversation of my colleague from California was having. Understand 
that under current law, dairy farmers cannot go out and sell their 
milk, because the Federal program, the Federal milk market order system 
says that one can only sell one's milk within a particular region for a 
particular price to a particular buyer. That is the first problem.
  Then, with the amendment that we have on the floor currently we are 
saying that if one wants to have forward contracting, one can have it 
if one has Class II or III milk, but if one has fluid milk, one cannot 
forward contract. So we are forcing dairy farmers into a position where 
they only have one place to sell their milk and that is through their 
co-ops.
  I am a big supporter of co-ops. I think they do an awful lot to help 
farmers of all different types. But we have corn producers, soybean 
producers, vegetable producers all over this country who do what every 
single day? They forward contract with buyers for their commodities.
  Now, if it is good enough for all of these other commodities, why is 
it not good enough to allow dairy farmers the freedom to go out and 
contract on their own?
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would have to agree with the statement that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) just said, but I think it needs to be 
expanded upon a little bit so that all of my colleagues can understand 
the problem that we have.
  Right now, it is not possible for a dairy farmer to go out and 
forward contract their milk with anyone except for their co-op.

                              {time}  1245

  What this amendment is doing is it is saying that two-thirds of the 
milk that is being produced, they will be able to go out and forward 
contract with anyone that they want.
  The debate that we are having, and the Dooley amendment will bring up 
later, is whether or not to make it 100 percent of the milk or two-
thirds of the milk. The problem that we have is that we do have a 60-
odd-year-old law that the dairy farmers have become used to, that they 
have become dependent upon, and a certain amount of dependency has 
grown up around that current law that is on the books, so obviously 
there is a lot of fear when we get into any major change in the way 
milk is marketed.
  If Members truly believe that forward contracting is part of the 
future for marketing milk in this country, then they have to support 
this amendment, because by doing it as a pilot program, by doing it on 
a somewhat limited scale is the only way we are going to be able to use 
this program, prove it works, prove to the dairy farmers that it is a 
tool that they need, that they should use for the future.
  I believe that the only way we are going to see forward contracting 
in the future is if Members support this amendment and if they oppose 
the Dooley amendment later.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me address some of the points my colleague, the 
gentleman from California, just mentioned. The current law we have, 
which has been in

[[Page 22232]]

place for 62 years, has been the primary reason why we have lost 11,000 
dairy farmers in Wisconsin since 1990.
  We have heard a lot over the last few months about giving farmers the 
ability to manage their own risk. Farming is a very volatile industry. 
There are ups and there are downs, and we need to help farmers have the 
ability to manage their own risk, to make sure that they can survive 
from year to year.
  This is what it comes down to. The coops can forward contract, so a 
farmer in a coop has that ability. The coops have a government-
sanctioned competitive advantage over all other processors: They can 
forward contract. If we look at the coop literature, we will see they 
promote forward contracting as a wonderful tool of risk management.
  What the Stenholm-Pombo amendment seeks to achieve is to stop anybody 
else from offering forward contracts. The coops want to keep their 
competitive advantage, so they are the only ones who can give forward 
contracts to the dairy farmer. What we are trying to achieve by 
defeating the Stenholm-Pombo amendment and by passing the Dooley 
amendment is simply this: Let the farmer decide if they want to or who 
they want to forward contract with.
  If for one reason or another a farmer does not join a coop, a right 
they have today, why should we be denying them the ability to forward 
contract, which is the best management tool they have in their arsenal? 
What we are doing if we pass the Stenholm-Pombo amendment and defeat 
the Dooley amendment is basically telling that dairy farmer who for one 
reason or another is not in a coop, you are out of luck. You cannot 
forward contract. Forward contracting, as I think everyone is 
acknowledging here on the floor debate, is an excellent tool of risk 
management.
  The coops are very big and they are getting bigger. I support coops. 
I have many in my district that I represent. However, as we are going 
to discuss in a future amendment, coops are not required to pay the 
minimum price for milk to their producers. So we have a system whereby 
the coops have a competitive advantage, being the only ones who can 
offer forward contracting, but it is also very interesting to note that 
the coops do not have to pay the minimum price of milk to their own 
producers.
  So our farmers are being put into a catch-22. If they want this risk 
management tool, they have to join the coop. If they join the coop, 
they very well will not get the minimum price of milk. They might get 
prices below the minimum prices.
  What we are trying to do is liberalize and give more freedom to the 
dairy farmer, give them the chance to self-contract, forward contract, 
on their own.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin is accurate in one aspect, 
and that is that current dairy policy is responsible for, one, putting 
a lot of dairy farmers out of business, and two, for keeping a lot of 
dairy farmers in business. It is inefficient. It has, I believe, all of 
the bad elements of what happens when government gets involved with 
regulating private business.
  But having said that, I believe that it is extremely important that 
we continue on with the transition between a government-run, regulated 
dairy industry into a free market industry. One of the ways of doing 
that is by allowing forward contracting, by allowing individual dairy 
farmers to go out and contract for the future how much they are going 
to get for their milk.
  I truly believe that the only way that we are going to advance that 
debate further, that we are going to advance the ability for dairy 
farmers to have the chance to forward contract on their milk, is by 
passing this amendment.
  Having said, I ask my colleagues to support the Stenholm-Pombo 
amendment and to oppose the Dooley amendment.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think one key point needs to be made. To all of those 
who oppose my amendment because of the complexities, because of the 
continuation of the Federal Market Order System, to those who also were 
interested in another referendum in the previous vote that we will be 
taking in just a moment, let me remind all of our colleagues, if they 
are concerned about what dairy farmers want us to do today, dairy 
farmers voted 90 percent plus in August to support the Federal Milk 
Marketing Order System, warts and all.
  I repeat, if Members are concerned about what dairy farmers want us 
to do today, they preferred Option 1B with the Federal order system 
versus nothing, which the advocates will have an amendment to eliminate 
all of the dairy program as the last amendment today.
  But the relevant point on this amendment, if Members are concerned 
about what dairy farmers in all regions of the country have already 
spoken loudly and clearly on in a referendum, in a vote, in which every 
dairy farmer, through their cooperative, had a chance to vote, they 
said, we prefer the Federal Market Order System versus nothing. That 
was the choice that was made.
  That point needs to be indelibly in our minds today because a lot of 
the rhetoric we have heard today is talking about something that 
somebody other than dairy farmers would like to see done. That is 
something that I hope we will keep in mind as we support my amendment.
  Personally, I am very nervous about even my amendment, the effect, 
but I am willing to try. That was the deal that I made with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). I was willing to have an 
experiment, time-limited, to see whether or not we could use, in all 
milk other than Class 1, we could use forward contracting to enhance 
producer income.
  I am still willing to try that. I hope my colleagues will join with 
me in support of my amendment, oppose the Dooley amendment, and let us 
get on with passing H.R. 1402, which is the overwhelming opinion of the 
overwhelming majority of dairy farmers in the United States what we 
should do today.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). All time has expired.


Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Dooley of California to Amendment No. 2 
                        Offered by Mr. Stenholm

  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment to 
the amendment.
  The text of the amendment to the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Dooley of California 
     to Part B amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Stenholm:
       On page 2 of the amendment, beginning line 3, strike 
     ``that--'' and all that follows through ``is in'' on line 6 
     and insert ``that is in''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple matter of fairness. The authority in 
the bill reported by the Committee on Agriculture for dairy farmers to 
enter into private contracts with processors is completely voluntary. 
If the farmer decides they want to enter into a contract, it is 
agreeable to both sides, they can do so, completely voluntary.
  According to the experts within the Department of Agriculture, it may 
be impossible to implement a forward contracted program if fluid milk 
is excluded. Therefore, I do support the Dooley amendment to the 
Stenholm-Pombo amendment.
  Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the amendment that was offered by my 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas,

[[Page 22233]]

seeks to make the authority to forward contract a pilot study. I can 
support that. Unfortunately, the amendment also says that unlike the 
farmers who sell their milk for manufactured dairy products, if they 
sell their milk to a bottler, fluid milk bottler, they cannot negotiate 
for a better price.
  If the goal is to establish a pilot, I do not believe that it is wise 
to prohibit the farmer participation based on how that product will be 
sold. The authority for a farmer to contract for the sale of their 
product guarantees their income and ultimately reduces price volatility 
that has plagued this industry and consumers. I do support the Dooley 
amendment, and if it passes, I support the underlying amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe it is responsible for us to give all of the 
possible options of marketing to all of our farmers to best provide 
them the best risk management they can possibly have in times of very 
depressed agricultural conditions.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member seek time in opposition to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley)?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Let me make another point for all of our colleagues here. 
There is nothing in my amendment that precludes any dairy farmer or any 
cooperative from negotiating a better price for fluid milk. Nothing in 
the amendment keeps them from doing that. What they cannot do is 
negotiate a price that is less than, less than the order price. That is 
why I oppose the Dooley amendment.
  I will make a few observations. This is interesting to me, because 
California dairy producers do not vote in Federal referenda because 
they have a much better referendum in California, or at least that is 
what California dairy farmers say. Again, we have a very divided 
industry, and we have been through this for a long time. It is split 
almost fifty-fifty, between dairy farmers in California that have a 
different opinion.
  But it is interesting, when we heard a moment ago that the price of 
milk can be produced for $11 in California, and we talk about 
consumers, well, the consumer price for milk in Los Angeles is $2.99 as 
of September 22, 1999. In Dallas, Texas, it is $2.50. In Minneapolis, 
Minnesota, it is $2.99.
  Again, we have been hearing all about this profit, the pricing, and 
what we can and cannot let dairy farmers do. But the bottom line from 
the consumer standpoint, we cannot make a logical argument that the 
consumer is benefiting from the California price to the dairy farmer, 
but the dairy farmers in California that object to their system because 
they feel like they are being penalized is a valid one.
  Again, let me remind my colleagues that the order and the rules of 
the Federal order that we are discussing were overwhelmingly approved 
in every region of the country. California did not vote because they 
are not a part of the Federal order system.

                              {time}  1300

  But every other region, 90 percent of the dairy farmers agreed that 
the federal order system, as imperfect as most of them believe it is, 
under the bill that we attempt to correct today or the order of the 
USDA recommendation, 96 percent, 98 percent in the southeast, in the 
northeast 90.5 percent, 93.1 percent of the producers all across the 
Nation agree. They agree with the basic tenet of the amendment that I 
offer of a pilot project. As the chairman said, we are willing to try 
this to see whether or not it might work, but to do it in a limiting 
way.
  To the argument of suggesting that this does not make sense, 
separating Class I and other classes, let me again remind my colleagues 
that the purpose of which I offer my amendment and the purpose of which 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) offers his are diabolically 
opposed.
  I feel very strongly that if we allow individuals to contract in 
dairy, which is much different than we have in cotton, and I belong to 
a few cooperatives myself, but in dairy, if one has a large number who 
choose to contract out for another extra nickel, and one has a 
balancing problem in one's region in which suddenly one has milk that 
has to be moved somewhere at a loss, the folks that have made the 
contract benefit from this, and every other dairy farmer within the 
cooperative will be hurt accordingly.
  Now, maybe that is not right. Some would say, and I guess the 
argument of those today and the proponents to my amendment say, that is 
the way it ought to be. But it is a fundamental change. I would submit 
to my colleagues, if they are concerned about dairy farmers, they 
cannot ignore the vote in August in which they said overwhelmingly we 
accept the warts of this because we believe doing without the program 
will do us more harm.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out earlier in this conversation, 
one of the real needs for farmers of all types in the current economic 
environment is better risk-management tools. One of the things we tried 
to do over the last couple of years and we will consider before this 
year is over is an expanded crop insurance package.
  But what we are talking about in this amendment is empowering dairy 
farmers by giving them risk-management tools so that they can better 
manage the risk and the fluctuations in price on their own farm.
  Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) who have the underlying amendment are saying, 
well it is okay if one sells one's milk for cheese or for powder. We 
are going to allow one to forward market and contract that particular 
product. But if one is going to sell one's milk for fluid consumption 
to a bottler, let us say a supermarket down the street, that is not 
okay.
  Now, it defies me to understand why it is okay to have forward 
marketing for cheese and powder but not for fluid milk.
  Now, we happen to be in a situation today where farmers last year, 
the dairy farmers, got probably, overall, the highest prices they ever 
received. This year, they are likely to get the second highest prices 
they have ever received.
  What we are saying with this amendment is, even though we have got 
high prices, and maybe a dairy farmer would like to go out and lock in 
that higher price with his local supermarket, he is unable to do that 
under current law and under the underlying amendment.
  That is why the amendment being offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley) I think makes all the common sense in the 
world. At a time of higher prices, why do we not empower dairy farmers 
themselves to go out and lock in a price for a substantial length of 
time if they want?
  What we are basically saying with the underlying amendment is that 
dairy farmers are not capable of doing this on their own. Well, I think 
they are. They have done a marvelous job in surviving under a complex 
system for 62 years. If we begin to unleash the shackles that the 
Federal Government has put around them, my guess is that dairy farmers 
are going to have a great opportunity to succeed even more.
  So I rise in support of the Dooley amendment and congratulate the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for offering it, along with the 
chairman of the committee, in saying that let us empower farmers, let 
us make this common-sense reform that allows a dairy farmer to go out 
and protect himself and his family and most importantly his farm.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dooley) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) each have 30 
seconds remaining. The gentleman

[[Page 22234]]

from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has the right to close.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the strongest opposition to the Dooley 
amendment. It is basically whether my colleagues are going to vote with 
dairy farmers, as they have already told us by a 90 percent vote that 
they agree with my basic amendment, they oppose the Dooley amendment. I 
hope my colleagues will stick with the dairy farmers of America all 
across this Nation overwhelmingly. Ninety percent say let us stick with 
my amendment. Oppose the Dooley amendment. Support H.R. 1402.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just ask my colleagues just to apply a 
little common sense in their votes on this amendment. All we are asking 
for is to allow dairy farmers the ability and the right to enter into a 
voluntary contract to sell their fluid milk.
  One cannot have a more compelling argument than was put in the 
information that was put out by the Dairy Farmers of America, one of 
our largest co-ops, when they were promoting forward contracting. They 
said, ``For the first time in history, you can manage future price 
risks on your dairy using the same proven tools that have been 
available to other commodities for many years.''
  This amendment, the Dooley amendment, is going to provide those 
tools, those risk-management tools to dairy farmers. Let us give them 
the ability to manage prices in a volatile market.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley) to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, 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 294, further proceedings 
on the amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dooley) to the amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Part B Amendment No. 
1 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), Part B Amendment 
No. 3 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), and Part B 
Amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


           Amendment No. 1 Offered By Mr. Green of Wisconsin

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green) 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 pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 102, 
noes 323, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 430]

                               AYES--102

     Armey
     Baldwin
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Calvert
     Carson
     Chabot
     Cox
     Crane
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Evans
     Ewing
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Goss
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Souder
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Thune
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Weller
     Wu

                               NOES--323

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 22235]]



                             NOT VOTING--8

     Coble
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Fowler
     Ose
     Scarborough
     Tauzin
     Weygand

                              {time}  1331

  Messrs. FARR of California, GEORGE MILLER of California, RILEY, 
QUINN, BUYER, DIXON and CANADY of Florida changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ROGAN, RUSH and EWING changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I was inadvertently detained and was therefore 
not present to vote today for rollcall No. 430. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman will state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make sure because there 
is some confusion. The next vote occurs on the Dooley amendment to the 
Stenholm amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The next vote 
occurring will be a vote on the Dooley amendment to the Stenholm 
amendment.


Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Dooley to Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. 
                                Stenholm

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on Amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley) to Amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 155, 
noes 270, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 431]

                               AYES--155

     Archer
     Armey
     Baldwin
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clement
     Combest
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Evans
     Ewing
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thune
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wilson
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--270

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Norwood
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Coble
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Fowler
     Latham
     Metcalf
     Scarborough
     Tauzin

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. BENTSEN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 431, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Stenholm

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider Amendment 
No. 4 printed in Part B of House Report 106-324.

                              {time}  1345


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Gutknecht:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. __. LIMITATION ON BLENDING OF PROCEEDS FROM THE 
                   COLLECTIVE SALES OR MARKETING OF MILK AND MILK 
                   PRODUCTS.

       Notwithstanding section 8c(5)(F) of the Agricultural 
     Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c(5)(F)), reenacted with 
     amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 
     1937, or the consolidation of Federal milk

[[Page 22236]]

     marketing orders pursuant to section 143 of the Federal 
     Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 
     7253), effective beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall prohibit a 
     cooperative marketing association referred to in such section 
     8c(5)(F) from blending the net proceeds attributable to 
     Federal minimum prices of all sales or marketings of milk and 
     its products in all markets in all use classifications in 
     order to make distributions in accordance with the contract 
     between the association and its producers. The prohibition 
     does not prohibit the blending of market-based premiums.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and a Member opposed to the 
amendment each will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) seek the time in 
opposition?
  Mr. BALDACCI. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maine will be recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The amendment that I am offering, I think the short title we should 
use: The Truth in Milk Marketing Amendment, and I do not think most 
Members, and I know that speaking for myself, I was not aware until 
just a few months ago that in fact, even though we have a milk 
marketing order system, that many dairy farmers around the United 
States, and I have a chart here, and this is a chart provided by the 
USDA; this is not a chart that we made up, but it talks about the 
average 1998 Federal order in the mailbox prices by the Federal milk 
marketing order system, and what it shows is, for example, in places 
like the Southeast and the Southwest, even though the FMMO blended 
price was supposed to be one thing, the actual price, the average 
price, that dairy farmers in those regions was something less.
  Let me just share with my colleagues some of the numbers. For 
example, in the middle Atlantic States, the price was supposed to be an 
average of $15.17, but actually was only $14.90. In Carolina, it was 
supposed to be $16.14, but the price they got in the mailbox was 
$16.08. Go down into the Southeast, and we start to see the real 
differences. For example, in the Southeast the FMMO price was supposed 
to be $16.13, but actually the dairy farmers in that area got an 
average mailbox price of only $15.36.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that that is evidence that there is 
something wrong with the system, and let me explain what is wrong with 
the system. In effect the co-ops are exempt from paying the minimum 
milk marketing order price.
  All I am saying with my amendment is that whether one is a for-profit 
or they are a co-op, they have to pay the minimum blend price, and I 
think this is a consummately fair amendment. In fact, I would say not 
only do most Members not know that this is happening, I suspect that 
most dairy farmers do not know. I think if those of my colleagues are 
from different regions, if they ask their dairy farmers are they 
getting what the milk market order price is, most of them would say, 
well, of course. But in truth in their mailbox they are not actually 
getting it.
  Reblending is not transparent. Producers do not know what happens to 
the money, how it is used, or what costs underlie the reblending 
amount.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment. If my colleagues really 
care about the dairy farmers in our areas, then they ought to at least 
vote for this amendment and say that we are going to have truth in milk 
marketing whether they sell their milk to a co-op or they sell their 
milk to a for-profit processor.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes away the right of farmer-owned 
cooperatives to re-blend net revenues before distributing the proceeds 
of sales to cooperative members.
  Dairy producers who join cooperatives do so in order to have a 
secure, reliable market for their milk 365 days a year. They look to 
the cooperative to market their milk and to build whatever facilities 
are needed to accomplish this, whether it be cheese, butter, or powder 
plants. The facilities either manufacture the farmers' milk into 
products or receive and store the milk for a day then ship to bottlers 
when it is needed. These facilities are part of the total marketing 
plan of cooperatives.
  Mr. Chairman, dairy producers own these cooperatives lock, stock and 
barrel, expect the cooperatives to pay them what is left after the 
marketing and processing costs are covered both monthly and the milk 
check and any profits derived are paid at the end of the year in a 
thirteenth check. This sometimes is called reblending, meaning the 
cooperative may not always pay above the Federal order price in a given 
month but does pay out the dividends after all the marketing costs are 
covered.
  Farmers give the right to reblend their cooperative because they want 
the cooperative to be a financially sound and viable business entity 
that can guarantee that market year round in times of surplus 
production as well in times that are tight. This right of reblending is 
vital to the type of cooperative dairy supply marketing and other 
entities. Mr. Chairman, taking away the right of the cooperatives to 
reblend, which this amendment does, severely restricts and limits the 
ability of the cooperative to assure the members of a secure market for 
their product.
  This amendment interferes with the ability of a cooperative to run 
its business and pay its members. A similar proposal was defeated by a 
three to one ratio in the Committee on Agriculture during the markup of 
1402.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Minge).
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleague on a 
bipartisan basis in supporting this amendment. This amendment 
illustrates one of many very complex, Byzantine features of dairy 
policy in the United States. There is probably no other area of Federal 
agricultural policy which has the flawed fundamental unfair 
characteristics that exist in the dairy programs. It is archaic, it 
flows from economic conditions that existed 65 years ago, it flows from 
problems that we had with refrigeration and transportation 65 years ago 
that do not exist today.
  How can we in America be urging the rest of the world to engage in a 
market-oriented, free trade policy when we fail to recognize this 
policy in the dairy sector in our own country? It is absolutely crazy, 
it is shameless, and we have the same people in this Chamber that have 
been strong advocates and supporters of programs ranging from NAFTA, to 
GATT, to opening up trade with China, normal trade relationships with 
that country, even with Cuba, that are staunchly defending archaic 
dairy policies that are a throwback to almost the last century.
  The time has come that we have to forthrightly address the problems 
of dairy policy in the United States, and when we tried to do that in 
Congress, we were told wait, let us give the administration the chance 
to do this, it would not be as political, we would not be forced to 
vote on the basis of our constituencies.
  So we gave the administration this option, and what has happened? The 
administration has come back with a policy, and now in this bill we are 
trying to defeat that policy.
  Again, it is crazy, and what else is crazy about this? We see Members 
of Congress representing dairy farmers. The gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Gutknecht), myself from Minnesota, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Baldacci) representing dairy farmers; we are squabbling with one 
another. And at the same time, people throughout this country know that 
American agriculture is in deep trouble; and this includes our dairy 
farmers.
  Mr. Chairman, the economics of farming are destructive. They are 
consuming tens of thousands of American

[[Page 22237]]

families every year, and here we are forced to scrap over the scraps.
  If we expect to have a dairy policy and a food policy that serves the 
best interests of this Nation, Mr. Chairman, it is time to get rid of 
this archaic program, it is time to take amendments like that from the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and pass them in this Chamber.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), a member of the committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, things are seldom what they 
seem. I mean everybody talking from both sides of the aisle wants to 
help our dairy farmers. Sometimes we see a difference between different 
areas of the country. That is why we argue about 1A and 1B.
  On this amendment I would like to suggest that it may be well 
intentioned but what it does in effect is to prohibit co-ops from 
subtracting their cost of doing business as a co-op from the proceed of 
total co-op milk sales and then take what is left and distribute it to 
farmers.
  So when the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) suggests we 
should have an amendment that forces every co-op to pay the Federal 
order price, then the question must be asked: How are the co-ops going 
to manage their affairs; how are they going to pay for the expenses of 
that cooperative? The effect on co-ops that do not enjoy an over-order 
price, (those co-ops that have not been able to negotiate a higher 
price than the Federal order price), would be to disallow the co-op 
from paying for their cost of doing business from milk sale receipts.
  So by passing this amendment, we are going to put some co-ops out of 
business or otherwise jeopardize the co-op operation. The way it has 
been working for the last 40 years is to allow these co-ops to subtract 
their cost of doing business, and then divide up what is left to their 
members. It is a reasonable way for these co-ops to continue to operate 
efficiently. I hope we vote down the amendment and keep co-ops strong.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding time.
  In response to the gentleman who spoke just before me, he pleaded 
with Members to keep co-ops strong; I think co-ops are doing just fine. 
I think that has become very clear today.
  My colleagues are hearing a few recurring themes today. One of them 
is they are hearing over and over again through the amendments that are 
being brought forward, they are seeing a distinction between those who 
choose to stand up for family dairy farms and those who choose to stand 
up for large dairy interests.
  Earlier today, we took away from dairy farmers the right to vote on 
this change in milk marketing orders, a right that they have had for 62 
years. Today we took that away.

                              {time}  1400

  Just a little while ago, we denied to farmers, with respect to Class 
I fluid milk, the right to forward contract, the risk-management tool 
that so many other businesses have, that nearly every other commodity 
has. We have done that.
  Today, with this amendment, what we are learning is that some co-ops, 
not all by any means, I am a supporter of co-ops, but at least some co-
ops are underpaying family dairy farmers. That is the dirty little 
secret.
  In fact, according to USDA, I am reading from a USDA publication 
here, farmers from New England, southeast Texas, and the Southwest 
plains were paid on average 80 cents less than the minimum milk price 
in their respective regions, solely because their co-ops are not 
required to pay producers the minimum price for their milk.
  So what we are seeing today, at a time when we are all talking about 
how much family dairy farms are hurting, we are seeing that we have an 
opportunity to help them, to protect them.
  Now those who sponsor and support 1402, they say that family farmers 
are in need of protection from food processors. They say that family 
farmers are in need of protection. The supporters of 1402 also say that 
family farmers need protection from the right to vote for themselves, 
but apparently they do not need protection from a few large co-ops 
which by every reasonable measure are underpaying them.
  Mr. Chairman, if there were a movie theme to this vote today, it 
would be the Empire Strikes Back, because a few large interests are 
thwarting the needs, the concerns and the wishes of family dairy farms 
all across America.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Baldacci) has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will just take a few minutes of that 16 minutes and 
basically discuss the value of a cooperative. We have placed market 
forces in the world economy on top of small farmers. We have allowed 
small farmers to group together in terms of being able to get into a 
cooperative where similar farmers can pool their resources to be able 
to add value to their natural resources so that they can come up with 
additional resources so that they can stay on the farms and stay in 
farming. Those are the cooperatives that are giving small farms an 
opportunity to stay in business. Those cooperatives are not the empire 
strikes back. Those cooperatives are small, family independents getting 
together to pool their resources and to try to be able to compete in a 
processing world where they are adding value to those natural 
resources, something that we support.
  We just had a small farms commission report come back and tell us 
that a lot of our policies that have been a part of our Federal 
Government over the years have encouraged farms to get bigger and 
bigger and bigger or get out of business.
  This is one of the few areas in the recommendations, of 146 
recommendations, that they said to work with farmer-owned cooperatives, 
to give them the tools and resources so that they can band together to 
add value to their natural resources, so they are not just dependent on 
fluid milk, so that they can try to process, add value to it; to 
compete in a global world market force and not just to allow individual 
farmers to go out on their own; to be able to negotiate prices with a 
dairy interest and large corporations, in some cases multinational 
corporations; to think that they are somehow going to get a fair deal 
and to purport that the small cooperatives, farmer-owned cooperatives, 
are somehow going to destabilize those market forces is not being 
accurate.
  What we are referring to here is more like a credit union, in the 
international finance world, in allowing them to be able to have at 
least some opportunities to take care of the small farmers and be able 
to allow them to group together. That is what is being attacked today. 
The ability of them to be able to group together, to band together in 
cooperatives, to improve their marketing position is being attacked.
  Milk receipts are the only source of revenue for farmer-owned dairy 
cooperatives; and under the amendment cooperatives would be unable to 
make investments such as milk trucks and milk processing equipment. 
This similar amendment was dealt with in the committee, and I wish that 
the House would concur and vote down this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not seek to 
do anything against the co-ops. It is not an anti-co-op amendment. It 
is a pro-farmer amendment. Since 1995, since we have been reporting 
mailbox prices, the following areas have consistently received less 
than the federal

[[Page 22238]]

order blend price; the Southeast, the Southwest plains, Texas and the 
Great Basin regions. In most cases of these underpayments, they occur 
in an area where there is little competition for milk. In other words, 
there is basically one predominant cooperative. This is especially the 
case in the Southeast, in Texas and the Southwest plains where 
producers have few, if any, alternative markets.
  Now, as cooperatives continue to consolidate there is a greater 
likelihood that dairy producers will receive less than the blended 
price, less than the price at the minimum. Now, this is the case. The 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) is right in saying that sometimes 
farmers do not have any choice but to go to a co-op.
  Well, that monopoly and the ability to pay less the minimum price is 
precisely what is going on at the bottom line of American dairy farmers 
who are in the co-ops. So what we have in place today is a system where 
the beautiful irony of this bill, where we are trying to raise 
differentials for the very farmers in these co-ops, we have the co-ops 
who are paying below the minimum prices. It is because the farmers have 
nowhere else to go but to the co-op.
  All we are saying with this amendment is, make sure the farmer who is 
in the co-op, who has nowhere else to go but the co-op, gets at least 
the minimum price for the milk they produce.
  Now, the co-ops will say they need to pay below minimum prices for 
other needs, for other expenditures. Well, that is a very fuzzy, very 
gray area. We do not know where that money is going. We do know that 
that money is not going to the farmers who are enrolled in these co-
ops.
  The beautiful irony is this: this debate is about trying to fight for 
more money, more differentials, for dairy farmers in the co-ops. Yet we 
are supporting a system today that allows them to get less than the 
minimum price in the co-ops.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for yielding additional time.
  Mr. Chairman, in just a few days, or a week or two, this Congress 
will likely pass a multibillion dollar bill designed to intervene and 
help struggling farmers. Yet, we have right before us, right now, an 
amendment that is a simple way to intervene on behalf of some farmers, 
those who have relatively weak bargaining power with respect to their 
large co-op. This is a simple, easy way to intervene and to make their 
lot better. It does not cost billions. It is not going to grab 
headlines, but it is a way that we can help out, a direct way, a simple 
way.
  Let me also return to a discussion or a focus on the vote itself on 
this amendment. This is one of those amendments, in my view, that dairy 
farmers all across America will be watching closely when they see the 
results, because this is one of those amendments that really 
distinguishes a voting Member on which side they are on.
  This one says whether one is on the side of a small dairy farmer with 
relatively weak bargaining power or whether or not one is on the side 
of a large co-op. In many cases, as my colleague from Wisconsin has 
pointed out, where they essentially have a monopoly, it cannot be both 
ways. My colleagues are for one or for the other, and when this vote is 
cast, dairy farmers will know.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, oftentimes when we get into discussions 
like we have been going through on this amendment, I am reminded of the 
infamous words of Will Rogers when he observed that it ain't people's 
ignorance that bothers me so much. It is them knowing so much that is 
the problem.
  When we start talking about the advantages and disadvantages of 
various dairymen in various regions, the numbers just do not hold up.
  Several times today we have had it pointed out that the problem is 
with the Class I differentials. In the average mailbox price, which is 
what farmers put in their pockets every week, the average mailbox price 
last year for the whole year of 1998, in the upper Midwest, was $15.29 
in the region where the gentlemen who offered this amendment do reside, 
$15.29; in the area of Texas where they object to the system of which 
we have a different advantage, $14.82, 47 cents less.
  Now, there are all kinds of different reasons for this. The 
complexities of the federal order have been discussed and quite 
amusedly because it is very complex, designed to be so because it is 
designed to do one thing and one thing only and that is price milk 
fairly, component by component, so that the farmers and the consumers 
within an order are treated fairly by something that can be repetitive 
week after week, month after month, year after year.
  I am well aware that there will always be some of us farmers that 
will feel like that we are being wronged by our cooperative, and that 
is true. Sometimes cooperative management is like individual farm 
management in which they do not make all the right decisions; but I 
really question, and I guess my opposition to this amendment as to most 
of the amendments today and something that we offer, as the gentleman 
said, when this vote is cast dairy farmers will know and recognize who 
is on their side.
  Most of the dairy farmers in the region in which the gentlemen are 
talking have already spoken loudly and clearly in a referendum that 
they prefer the federal order system, works and all, they prefer 1-B 
over 1-A; but the bottom line is if farmers anywhere, any time, in the 
future, are going to do anything about price, it is going to have to 
come through cooperative effort, in the traditional sense in which 
cooperatives will do a better job of working for our dairy farmers than 
they currently are and in a nontraditional sense in which those of 
corporate America who have opposed parts of this legislation today are 
going to have a change of heart and to realize that cooperative effort 
can also mean them working with dairy farmers in order to see that the 
efficiencies of the marketplace will reward the producers as it does 
the consumers today.
  That is what this is all about. I hope we will oppose this amendment, 
as we did the previous Dooley amendment, and we will continue in the 
quest of passing 1402.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just about basic fairness. If 
everyone has to play by the same rules and the rules are known upfront, 
business practices will change, and everyone will play by the rules. 
The problem with the system as it is today, we have one set of rules 
for the for-profits and another set of rules for co-ops. I do not know 
of any other game in America, baseball, football, pick the game, where 
some of the participants play by one set of rules and other 
participants play by a different set of rules. I think that is just 
unfair.
  I do not care who is right or who is wrong. What I am just simply 
saying is that this is wrong, and I have to say to my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), I do not know how 
anyone can go back to their constituents and say last year the federal 
milk marketing order price that should have been received was $15.61 on 
average; but if milk was sold to a co-op, it was only $14.89. I do not 
know how that is explained. I cannot explain that.
  The same is true in Texas. I would say to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm), last year the average Texas milk producer should have 
received $15.37; but because of a different set of rules, they received 
an average of only $14.72. That is a difference of 65 cents per 
hundred-weight. Now, that may not seem like much to those of us here in 
Washington, D.C.; but I will say if someone is out there milking 60 
cows and getting up every day 365 days a year, 65 cents on average over 
an entire year is a lot of money, and that is the difference.

[[Page 22239]]



                              {time}  1415

  It gets even worse. In some parts of the country, the difference is 
as much as $1.07 per hundred-weight of milk. Now, maybe people can go 
home and explain that. Maybe we can go home and say well, I know you 
are getting less for your milk than you should be under the milk 
marketing order system, but maybe one day you will get even, maybe one 
day you will get fair.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, it is the marketplace that makes the 
difference between Texas and the upper Midwest. It is the marketplace. 
It is not the Federal order that does that.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we are not talking 
about the difference between Texas and the upper Midwest. That is the 
big issue. We are talking about what the milk marketing order price is 
supposed to be in Texas as opposed to what actually farmers got in 
their mailbox.
  The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) made the comment, well, we 
are talking about small, farmer-owned co-ops. I just want to disabuse 
people of that notion. We are talking about very large co-ops. We are 
talking about co-ops with 40,000 plus members, co-ops that have assets 
of billions and billions of dollars. So we are not talking about small 
little creameries operating in the Midwest, we are talking about big 
businesses, and they are not paying the farmers the price that they are 
supposed to.
  Mr. Chairman, the co-ops today control 82 percent of all of the milk 
processed in America today. This is not small business, this is big 
business.
  This is really about fairness. It is about truth. It is about truth 
in milk marketing; and if we really believe in the milk marketing order 
system, I cannot understand why one could not vote for this amendment 
to make certain that every farmer, whether one lives in Texas or Maine 
or Minnesota, whether one sells their milk to a for-profit processor or 
whether one sells their milk to a co-op, one is going to get at least 
the minimum milk marketing order price.
  It is basic fairness. It is saying the rules are going to be the same 
and that everybody is going to play by the same set of rules.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope people will support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just to go over the points that were made earlier in the debate, a 
cooperative is farmers banding together so that they have a place in 
the marketplace. Farmers individually do not have the strength that 
they do collectively. If farmers are going to be able to stay on their 
farmland and continue to do what they are going to be doing, all of the 
research shows us that we have to encourage farmer-owned opportunities 
of value-added in processing their products for a world marketplace. 
And we have to encourage farmers to band together and form 
cooperatives, so that they have an opportunity very similar to a credit 
union. The strength of the cooperatives is in the individual members.
  This amendment seeks to destabilize that relationship and allow each 
member to fractionalize and go off on their own, and they are 
destabilizing the cooperative relationships and the financial soundness 
of that cooperative. We want to strengthen cooperatives. They are not 
forcing farmers to join them. Farmers do not have to join them if they 
do not want to join them. It only seeks to weaken the cooperatives, and 
this is the one opportunity that farmers have to stay on the farm and 
be able to raise their families in a quality of life that is second to 
none. This is something that farmers want to be able to do. This 
amendment seeks to weaken that.
  I would encourage the membership in this body to vote down this 
amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Gutknecht) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 5 printed in Part B of 
House report 106-324.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Kind

  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Part B Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Kind:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. _. NATIONAL POOLING OF CLASS I RECEIPTS UNDER FEDERAL 
                   MILK MARKETING ORDERS.

       Notwithstanding the terms of Federal milk marketing orders 
     issued under section 8c of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 
     U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall provide for the national pooling of receipts from fluid 
     or Class I milk.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment that is very common sense 
and straightforward. None of us here today relishes having a debate 
where we have to pit region against region in this country, farmer 
against farmer, family against family. It should not be that way.
  My amendment would establish a different way of approaching our 
national dairy policy, recognizing that there is going to be a need for 
support for small family farmers because of the volatility of the 
current marketplace. But it also recognizes there is no economic 
justification for a price differential based on any location of the 
country, and also based on what the milk is used for.
  So what I am proposing in my amendment is a national pooling of the 
Class 1 differentials, what farmers receive for the milk they produce 
for consumption purposes. Class I differentials would be pooled and 
then equitably and fairly distributed to all of the producers, 
regardless of what region of the country they happen to be producing 
in. That would eliminate the need for this regional conflict, the 
constant struggle that we face perennially here in this Congress, of 
pitting farmer against farmer, and I think it is probably the fairest 
and most practical approach.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand why the system was created during the 
Great Depression in 1937, to deal with milk shortages in other regions, 
but now with the interstate transportation system and refrigerated 
cars, we can transport milk across the country with relative ease so 
there is no further economic justification to continue the depression-
era, government-controlled policy.
  So, in an attempt to try to eliminate this regional conflict as it 
exists today and to treat all producers equitably and fairly, I am 
offering this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which 
would do even further damage to farmers across the Nation than the 
Option 1-B does. It ignores one of the most important benefits of the 
milk marketing order program, and that is to ensure a stable supply of 
locally produced milk.

[[Page 22240]]

This is an important aspect of dairy policy since milk is very 
difficult to preserve over long periods of time, to ship over long 
distances, so the idea is to incent farmers in areas throughout the 
country where there is a need for Class I fresh fluid milk. Milk is 
very bulky, very expensive to ship long distances. Shipping milk over 
1,000 miles would add approximately 30 cents a gallon to the cost, 25 
percent of the average raw milk cost.
  Also, it is important to note that regions of the country with the 
lowest Class I milk differentials like the upper Midwest have the 
highest farm milk prices, so that while, when we look at the price that 
the farmer receives throughout the country, on paper, it looks like the 
Northeast, Southeast receive higher differentials, and they do. The 
actual mailbox price that the farmer receives is highest in the 
Midwest. So this would further skew the payment to the farmer and to 
the detriment of farmers throughout the country.
  So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, to stay with 
the base bill. It is a good approach to this issue. It has been 
demonstrated with the other amendments and the other votes we have had 
earlier today, there is strong support for H.R. 1402, and I would urge 
my colleagues to reject this amendment, stay with the main bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer to the comments of 
my colleague from New York just a few moments ago. I agree with 
virtually every point he made except the last one, and I do want to 
make a slight correction there. Let me also say at the outset, it is 
unfortunate that at the time when we really need dairy farmers working 
together to find new markets, new opportunities and more revenue, at 
the very time we should be working together, we have region pitted 
against region.
  I just want to point out, the gentleman made mention of the fact that 
the average mailbox price in the upper Midwest is the highest in the 
country. That is not exactly correct. Our average price last year in 
the mailbox in the upper Midwest was $15.27. In some areas, for example 
in Florida, the average mailbox price was $17.43.
  So there are differences. But here is what we are talking about, and 
this gets very complicated, and I am not sure I completely understand 
it. But we have 4 different classifications for milk. Class I milk is 
fluid milk that goes into bottles or containers that is milk for 
drinking. Class II is spoonable milk. That goes into ice cream and 
yogurt. Class III is cheese, and Class IV is powdered milk.
  Now, we talked earlier today about why many of us think the system is 
unfair because it still is based on how far it comes from Eau Claire, 
Wisconsin. I mean we can argue about that, but when we look at the 
chart, that is basically the way that the various categories come out. 
Worse than that, it is also priced on what it goes into. Now, because 
85 percent of the milk we produce in the upper Midwest ultimately goes 
into Class III or cheese, we get a lower price. So we are closer to Eau 
Claire, Wisconsin and it goes into cheese, so we are punished twice.
  Now, we are very efficient and the demand in the competition is 
higher in the upper Midwest, so in terms of mailbox we come out a 
little better than we would under the milk marketing order price 
system. But this is really about saying whether one's milk goes into 
cheese or whether it goes into yogurt or whether it goes into fluid 
milk, one ought to reblend those prices nationwide so that everybody 
gets the benefit of being next to a large market and the fluid market.
  I think this is a fair amendment. I think it is reasonable, and I 
hope that we will adopt it.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), a member of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, here again, it is important that we stay 
focused on the bill. When we talk about one basing point, Eau Claire, 
Wisconsin, in the bill in both 1-A and 1-B, we change that, for the 
reasons of which the gentleman has accurately expressed that it no 
longer is applicable. That is done. That is what the Secretary 
recommended. We are changing the basing point to 3 in order that the 
Federal order and the manner in which it, as the gentleman has just 
accurately described, Class I, II, III, IV milk is priced fairly 
region-to-region, with some consideration being given to distances in 
order that the market system may work fairly for each of our 50 States. 
That is what this is all about.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin is another what we call 
a gutting amendment, because it attempts to undo that. It attempts to 
say that we are going to have one giant, big order, and for those that 
believe that that is the way it ought to be, I respect that. It is a 
very logical feeling from those that somehow believe that they are 
being unfairly treated with the current system.
  But I would encourage the dairy farmers in the upper Midwest to 
listen carefully to their leadership, to look carefully as to whether 
or not if they should win, would they truly be better off? I think the 
answer is a clear no, a clear no. But, those who offer the amendment 
believe that it is a clear yes, and that is why we have votes on this 
floor.
  I remind my colleagues again, particularly those from the upper 
Midwest, your dairy farmers voted 96.1 percent to accept the Federal 
order. Now, many of them perhaps prefer 1-B over 1-A, and that is a 
perfectly logical position for some to have in that region, given what 
they think they believe. But I will submit to you that there is very 
little proof anywhere that individual dairy farmers anywhere in the 
United States will do better if we vote this system out or particularly 
if we support this amendment.

                              {time}  1430

  So I would encourage a ``no'' vote on this amendment. The base bill 
takes into consideration most of what is being discussed and desired by 
this amendment, but not all. I would urge a no vote.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a freshman Member of this House and someone 
who has distinguished herself as a real champion of family farmers.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, the Kind amendment could end the regional 
fighting that we have endured for too long in dairy pricing. It would 
help every dairy farmer in every region of the country equally.
  The amendment is simple. It would take all of the different prices 
that dairy farmers receive for their milk, depending on how far away 
they are from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, and combine those different prices 
into a pool. That pool would then be divided in equal parts and 
provided to each dairy farmer who participates in milk marketing 
orders.
  Debate on this underlying bill has been painful. Every Member is 
trying to do what is right for the dairy farmers that they represent. I 
certainly respect that. We are pitted region against region in what 
could be called a dairy Civil War.
  I sympathize with my colleagues whose States have seen their dairy 
farmers go out of business. My farmers are no different. In Wisconsin, 
we have lost 7,000 dairy farms in the last 6 years.
  I have strong interest in assisting those from the Northeast, those 
in the South, fighting for the survival of the family dairy farm, but 
this underlying bill helps their farmers and harms mine, and that is 
simply wrong. The Kind amendment would end the unfairness of the 
underlying bill, allowing all dairy farmers, no matter where they live, 
to benefit equally in the Federal milk market order program.
  We are the United States. We should not be the divided States when it 
comes to dairy policy. I urge support of the Kind amendment.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 22241]]

  Mr. Chairman, I listened closely to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Stenholm), who I had the pleasure of serving with on the Committee on 
Agriculture when he chaired the Subcommittee on Livestock and 
Horticulture. He understands this issue as well as anyone does.
  He is right, the underlying bill does not benefit the rest of the 
country at the expense of the upper Midwest. This is basically a status 
quo bill that allows each section of the country to continue to garner 
the price for milk that they are receiving.
  I do not understand how we got to this point, quite frankly. 
Regionalism has always been an aspect of dairy policy, because the cost 
of making milk in one part of the country is different from the other, 
so we try to overlay a Federal policy, and the same policy affects 
everyone differently, so this regionalism has always been there.
  But what we have been reduced to this time around is that we have 48 
States or at least 40 States being harmed to the benefit of two, if we 
do not accept the underlying bill. It makes no sense. It makes no sense 
at all. We have been interested in perhaps allowing compacts to be 
created. Thus far we have the Northeast compact, and no States have 
been allowed to join. The Southeast would like to form a compact, but 
that is not law.
  We hear this cry of cartels, that they are collaborating to fix 
prices and harm the consumer. That is not true. The idea is to keep the 
price down in those areas with the consumers involved making the 
decisions, as opposed to two or three or four large processing 
companies setting the price of milk in a region. The idea is to provide 
that there is a fresh supply of fluid milk so that all areas of the 
country can grow their own, produce their own, and have it available on 
a fresh basis.
  For years, for years the Northeast and the Southeast and West and 
Southwest suffered under a policy that allowed a small group, I refer 
to them as the Green Bay cabal, a small group of cheesemakers, to set 
the price. Every year we would get or every month we would get our farm 
report, and we would have to look to see what the MW price is to 
determine what the price of milk was going to be.
  I asked somebody, this MW price, how is it created? Well, it was 
created when a group of five or six cheese manufacturers got together 
for coffee and doughnuts in Green Bay, Wisconsin, once a month, and set 
the price. How fair is that? So the idea here is to make sure that each 
area of the country has their own supply of milk. I do not think this 
amendment helps it.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill and reject 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I think it is altogether appropriate that I 
yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Green 
Bay, Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, with reference to the cheese exchange, the interesting 
thing is, guess what, we did away with the cheese exchange, something 
that the supporters of H.R. 1402 will not do. We agree with them, that 
system was unfair. We ended it. I challenge the supporters of H.R. 1402 
to do the same today, to join us in reforming this system.
  This place is locked in a time warp. This place is using a milk 
marketing order system that was created in the era of the manual 
typewriter. This place is voting on a system that ignores any modern 
technology since then: the interstate highway system, refrigerated 
trucks, for Lords' sakes. Times have changed out in the marketplace, 
except with respect to dairy policy.
  Nowhere in this country are dairy farmers hurting more than in 
Wisconsin and in Minnesota. But what we recognize is the system that 
pits farmer against farmer, State against State, region against region, 
cannot be the answer ever to America's challenges, America's problems. 
Those who seek to turn back the clock to 1937 belong to the Flat Earth 
Society. They fear the marketplace. They are afraid of the marketplace. 
They are afraid of competition. They are afraid of breaking down the 
Soviet-style pricing system.
  Members are right, we did have a cheese exchange. We ended the cheese 
exchange. I would say here today that the supporters of H.R. 1402 
should do the same thing, end this outdated system. Let the marketplace 
rule. We in Wisconsin do not fear it, we welcome the marketplace.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment accurately reflects the position 
that the dairy farmers in the upper Midwest have on this whole issue. 
They are not looking for any special advantage. They are not looking 
for any competitive advantage over the rest of the country. They 
certainly do not want to visit any additional hardship on family farms, 
regardless of what region they happen to be living and working, 
breathing, and dying in.
  But they have not heard to this day any economic justification for 
maintaining this Depression era policy which, as this map shows, is 
based solely on geography and distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, 
which is a beautiful city located in the heart of my congressional 
district. With today's modern transportation system, we can ship fluid 
milk around the country with relative ease.
  That is what this amendment is meant to do, to end the regional 
fighting, to end the constant struggle where we pit farmer against 
farmer and family against family in this country, when it does not have 
to be that way.
  We should support this amendment and have a national pooling 
mechanism in which the Class 1 differentials will be pooled and then 
distributed fairly and equally to each producer in the country, 
regardless of where they happen to be living and producing the milk. 
That is why I brought this amendment forward, Mr. Chairman. I think it 
really gets to the crux of the whole debate that we have been having 
here. It certainly speaks to our producers' position back home, where 
they are not looking for an advantage anywhere, just the level playing 
field and the ability to compete fairly in our own domestic market 
without these artificial trade barriers prohibiting a free flow of 
goods within our own border.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 6 printed in Part B of House Report 106-324.


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC.   . MAXIMUM CLASS I MILK PRICE DIFFERENTIAL.

       Notwithstanding the consolidation and reform of Federal 
     milk marketing orders issued under section 8c of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with 
     amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 
     1937, effective October 1, 1999, the Class I milk price 
     differential for all Federal milk marketing orders may not 
     exceed $2.27 per hundredweight.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for saying this is 
a status quo bill. That is exactly right, this is a status quo bill. I 
would like to briefly explain what my amendment seeks to accomplish.

[[Page 22242]]

  What my amendment does, it would simply limit the amount of disparity 
between the highest and the lowest-paid producers in this country. This 
legislation would say that no producers would be entitled to a 
differential of more than $2.27 per hundred-weight Class 1 fluid milk. 
This amendment would try to restore some of the fairness and equity of 
the USDA's proposed reforms. The $2.27 is a simple average differential 
in the final rule proposed by the others, which is supposed to become 
effective October 1, 1999.
  Now, while I cannot support forcing dairy farmers in my State and 
nationwide to live with the status quo, as H.R. 1402 would do, I 
believe that this amendment would make an inequitable system more 
livable for the dairy farmers of the upper Midwest.
  The farmers in the State of Wisconsin and the Midwest have lived far 
too long under a system that rewards inefficiency in low productive 
regions and discourages production in regions that are best-equipped to 
produce dairy products. It is a nonsensical system that served a 
purpose during the Depression era, when we had the horse and buggy, but 
does not work in today's era, when we actually have a car.
  If we are going to ask farmers in my State and other upper Midwest 
States to continue living with this antiquated system, we have to give 
them some glimmer of hope that their hard work that went into reforming 
this system is not all for naught. These dedicated individuals should 
not be told that the work of the farmers in other parts of the country 
matters more than the work that they do.
  Wisconsin has seen the departure of 11,000 dairy farms between 1990 
and 1998. I was talking to a colleague of mine just at the last vote 
who was from New York who was complaining that over the last 8 years 
that person lost 20 dairy farmers. Well, Mr. Chairman, in Wisconsin we 
lost 20 dairy farmers in the last 5 days. Family farms are at stake 
here more than ever in Wisconsin and Minnesota.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment sends basically a strong message. It 
sends the message that farmers throughout this country should be 
rewarded with reasonable, equitable differentials. Currently, producers 
in Florida are rewarded with the differential payments that are twice 
as much as producers, say, in Minnesota are being paid.
  How can this kind of a system be justified? A farmer in, say, south 
Florida, outside of Miami, is going to get twice the differential that 
a farmer doing the same job, having the same kind of herd, is doing in 
Minnesota?
  If we really believe that in Florida it costs twice as much to milk a 
cow than it does in Minnesota, we owe it to the consumers of America to 
explain why this Congress would support paying a farmer in Florida 
twice as much to stay in business. This makes about as much sense as it 
would paying farmers in my district four times as much as the Florida 
orange growers to raise oranges. But we do not grow oranges in 
Wisconsin because we know we have tough winters, and it would not be a 
good idea. It makes about as much sense as paying Wisconsin farmers $3 
extra per pound over the growers in Georgia for peanuts.
  Out of fairness and equity, I would ask my colleagues to support my 
amendment. It does not completely throw out the order system, it simply 
provides reasonable limits for differential payments set at the average 
differential of $2.27, so there will be differences. There will be more 
in some regions, versus in others. It is just not an incredible amount.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Does the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Riley) seek to claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, here we go again. We have debated this same proposal 
over and over and over again today. I do not know that anyone is going 
to add anything new and exciting to this debate. But this debate 
literally comes down to, last year, in the upper Midwest, farmers got 
in their mailbox a price of $15.38 cents per hundred-weight for their 
milk. In Alabama, they got $15.34. Under this proposal, we would take a 
43 cent per hundred-weight reduction in addition to a 98 cent 
reduction.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want to tell all of the Southeastern producers, 
all of the Texas producers that we are literally going to put them out 
of business, that this amendment would cause all of the farmers in the 
Southeast over the next year or so to die a very slow and agonizing 
death, then it would be much more simple just to say we are going to 
produce all of the milk in the upper Midwest and ship it all over the 
country. That is essentially what this legislation is trying to do.
  I appreciate the attempt of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) to help their dairy 
farmers in their State, but they are doing it at the expense of every 
other dairy farmer in the United States.
  My next-door neighbor is in the dairy business. I cannot go home and 
tell this man that we are going to reduce his price and allow the 
people in the upper Midwest to have an increase in price even though 
his cost is almost 30 to 40 percent more than theirs. It makes no 
sense.
  I appreciate the gentlemen's attempt, but this amendment is a poison 
pill. We need to concentrate again on the base bill. This would destroy 
that bill. It makes no sense to do it.
  Of everything that I have dealt with since I have been in Congress, I 
do not know of a single issue where regions are pitted against each 
other to the point that we are going to tell a full region of the 
country that we are going to put them out of business; and that is 
essentially what this amendment does.
  So I would urge all my colleagues to concentrate on the base bill and 
reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, first, in response to the 
previous speaker, he complains that Secretary Glickman's reform might 
put some farmers out of business. Again, we have heard it over and over 
again: by this time tomorrow, five farmers in Wisconsin will be put out 
of business by the system that this legislation would reimpose.
  He says it would be a terrible thing if one region of the Nation 
might produce most of the milk. I hope he will support me in my 
legislation to create a mandated government-supported citrus industry 
in northern Wisconsin. After all, we should not have citrus all coming 
from one or two regions.
  Let me boil things down here. I am not going to tell my colleagues 
that this bill or the Secretary's reforms are going to make a huge 
difference to the dairy farmers in any region of the Nation because 
they will not, and those who would suggest that I think are probably 
misreading this.
  Our farmers are not expecting favoritism. They are hard working. They 
have an uphill battle. They face Wisconsin winters. They face losing 
football seasons. They are a tough lot, absolutely. They are not 
looking for favoritism.
  But my farmers look at this; and they say that, if they cannot get 
the very, very modest reforms that are shown by Secretary Glickman, 
then perhaps they will lose all hope. Maybe that is why the Ag 
commissioner from Minnesota, when testifying before the Committee on 
Agriculture, said recently that people of Minnesota have given up hope 
on Congress. They have said that they actually have considered trying 
to physically relocate the city of Eau Claire to the West Coast, 
because it might be easier to do than to get a reform done here in 
Congress. Well, we will see today. They may well be right.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.

[[Page 22243]]

Green), the last speaker, and again I appreciate his concern, but 50 
percent of the dairy farmers in Alabama have already gone broke. This 
will reduce the remaining 50 percent to zero. I think that applies all 
across this country in different regions.
  We cannot destroy an industry to benefit a few States. Let me give an 
example of what happens. Dairy farmers in the Southeast will lose $42 
million, States like Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, 
Louisiana, and Arkansas; $23 million to the dairy farmers in Texas; $22 
million will be lost by the dairy producers in North Carolina and South 
Carolina; $24 million in New York, New Jersey, and Delaware; $22 
million with all of the New England States; $16 million a year loss in 
Maryland, Virginia, and in eastern Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, this is bad policy, and this amendment fully guts the 
underlying bill. This is not something that I think most of the 
proponents of small farms that are throughout this country could begin 
to attempt to support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to just add a correction to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Riley). The Southeast mailbox price is higher than 
the upper Midwest mailbox price. The Southeast mailbox price is $15.36, 
and the Midwest mailbox price is $15.27. Also, with due respect to the 
farmers in Alabama, we have already lost 50 percent of our farmers in 
Wisconsin. This has already gone.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
(Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Ryan 
amendment. This amendment would cap milk market differentials at $2.27. 
That means that the maximum that any dairy farmer in any region of the 
country could receive under market orders would be $2.27 above the 
basic formula price for milk.
  This amendment may not increase the differential for the upper 
Midwest dairy farmers who receive the lowest price for their milk 
compared to every other region of the country. But the amendment would 
bring more fairness to a very unfair bill.
  For example, under current milk marketing orders, dairy farmers near 
Miami, Florida receive $4.18 per hundred-weight of milk above the basic 
formula price. In comparison, the dairy farmers I represent in 
Wisconsin only receive $1.20 per hundred-weight of milk above the basic 
formula price. That means, for every 8 gallons of milk, my dairy 
farmers receive nearly $3 less than dairy farmers near Miami, Florida.
  The Ryan amendment would make this foolish system a little less 
foolish. Instead of giving dairy farmers that live the farthest away 
from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, the most money for their milk, the 
amendment would take the average of all differing orders, milk 
marketing orders, $2.27, and cap the maximum at that. Although this 
would still allow some differences in regional milk prices, it would 
greatly improve a very flawed system.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that my dairy farmers do not want to hurt other 
dairy farmers in this country. But for over 60 years they have been 
receiving less for their milk than any other farmers in the Nation. 
They just want fairness, and this amendment brings us one step closer 
to fairness.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), the other cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, a lot of numbers are getting 
tossed around here today. I have something very interesting that we 
just got. These are the USDA figures just released for the month of 
October. This is what they use to send out paychecks to farmers.
  What it says is the loss here, if this goes forward, is 57 cents 
nationwide. The gloom and doom that my colleague and friend puts 
forward is just not borne out by the numbers. Again, changes that we 
are pushing for are extremely modest. H.R. 1402, contrary to what it 
said, we will lose. Farmers everywhere will lose.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Riley) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just in response to the last two speakers, in 1998, 
Chicago had a mailbox price of $15.38 cents. Alabama had $15.34. Under 
option 1-B, Alabama would be reduced by 38 cents. Chicago's mailbox 
prices would go up by 60 cents. That is 98 cents per hundred-weight.
  Now, if that is not disproportionate, I do not know what would be. 
Under this amendment, we would take another further reduction of 43 
cents per hundred-weight.
  There has been testimony brought forward time and time again today 
about the efficiencies of the upper Midwest. I agree. They do produce 
milk much cheaper than we can in the Southeast. But it makes absolutely 
no sense when one looks at it logically for a national program, this is 
not to remove the program, this is to adjust the program, that we are 
going to take the high-cost areas and reduce their price to increase 
the price in low-cost production areas.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief since I have 1 minute. The States 
that will not be affected by this amendment which fall at or below the 
$2.27 differential are California, Colorado, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, 
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, 
North Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, much of New York, Ohio, 
Oregon, much of Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, 
Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
  Now, the point is this, Mr. Chairman: what this amendment seeks to do 
is get a little bit of fairness in the system. If H.R. 1402 is going to 
pass, it will perpetuate the status quo, a system based on horse-and-
buggy 1937 economics. We are simply saying let us at least put a little 
limit on the damage because one lives far away from Eau Claire, 
Wisconsin, one is going to get a higher price. One is still going to 
get a higher price the farther away from Wisconsin under my amendment; 
it is just going to cap it at the national average of the differential.
  The USDA said the national average under the USDA's plan will be 
$2.27. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve. Differences will 
still exist; they just will be limited.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member on the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, in understandable efforts to simplify a 
complex issue, many continue to characterize Option 1-B, the option 
chosen by the Department, as reform and Option 1-A as the status quo. 
This characterization is simply incorrect. Option 1-A is not the status 
quo.
  For many years, it was the goal of the upper Midwest dairy 
organizations to encourage a consolidation of milk marketing orders, so 
much so that the farm bills requirements for consolidation was that 
region's main accomplishment in the dairy section of that bill.
  Option 1-A would accomplish that goal to the same degree as Option 1-
B. Under the old rhetoric, then, even with Option 1-A, the final 
decision would be a significant accomplishment.
  But apparently the debate has shifted, and we are faced with a new 
measure of success. It was a goal of the upper Midwest to bring an end 
to the accepted notion that each orders Class I differential is related 
to its distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
  Option 1-A recognizes three surplus zones as the basis for 
determining

[[Page 22244]]

Class I prices. In Texas, this result itself means a significant 
lowering of the differential and, therefore, prices received by 
producers. Option 1-A will reduce income from Texas producers as well 
as producers in many other parts of the Nation.

                              {time}  1500

  So, again, under the old rhetoric and the old standards of success 
for the upper Midwest, Option 1-A represents a significant victory and 
a change from the status quo.
  Now, the gentleman from Alabama is totally correct. The intent of 
this amendment is, for some reason, the folks in the upper Midwest 
continue to believe that it will help them to take away something from 
producers in the South or other regions of the country. I do not 
understand the logic of that because it will not work that way. Even if 
they should be successful, the marketplace will not allow that to 
happen.
  So I would encourage our colleagues to vote down this amendment, 
another amendment, well-intentioned, and the representatives from the 
upper Midwest are doing an excellent job of representing that 
particular interest. The rest of the dairy industry in the whole United 
States happens to differ and disagree with them, but that is what this 
floor is for. That is what we are here for. That is what the Committee 
on Agriculture did, we debated this amendment and we defeated it 
overwhelmingly in the Committee on Agriculture.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, here is some fresh data we have 
from the USDA. Looking at the entire country, on average, if the USDA 
reforms go through, comparing the USDA reforms to the current status 
quo, they gain 57 cents, so the country, on average, not just the upper 
Midwest.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the 
gentleman who gains?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Almost all regions in this country gain. On 
average, in this country, according to the fresh data we just got 15 
minutes ago, we gain as a Nation.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do not know how much more can be said in this debate that has not 
already been said, but let me just close by saying we have farmers who 
have invested a lifetime of work that are struggling every day 
throughout this country just to keep their heads above water. If we are 
going to do anything that will push their heads under and hold them 
under, this amendment will do it.
  This body has already spoken today and said that we want to go back 
to Option 1-A. I think that is a clear mandate of this Congress. This 
amendment would gut that. This is a poison pill amendment, and I would 
encourage all of my colleagues to vote against it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Ryan) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 7 printed in Part B of 
House Report 106-324.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Manzullo

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. __. CONDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF ACT.

       (a) Effective Date; Role of United States Trade 
     Representative.--This Act and the amendments made by this Act 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     except that the Secretary of Agriculture may not carry out 
     this Act or implement any amendment made by this Act unless 
     and until the United States Trade Representative notifies the 
     Secretary that this Act and the amendments made by this Act 
     present no risk of interference with any international trade 
     negotiation to which the United States is currently a party 
     or with the achievement of the trade policy objectives of the 
     United States.
       (b) Continuing Assessment of Effect on Trade.--If this Act 
     and the amendments made by this Act are implemented as 
     provided in subsection (a), the United States Trade 
     Representative shall periodically assess the effect of the 
     implementation of this Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act on international trade negotiations to which the United 
     States is a party and the trade policy objectives of the 
     United States.
       (c) Termination.--If, as a result of an assessment under 
     subsection (b), the United States Trade Representative 
     determines that this Act or any amendment made by this Act 
     presents a risk of interference with any international trade 
     negotiation to which the United States is a party or with the 
     achievement of the trade policy objectives of the United 
     States, the United States Trade Representative shall notify 
     the Secretary of Agriculture of the determination. Upon 
     receipt of the notification, the Secretary shall cease to 
     carry out this Act and amendments made by this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and a Member opposed each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have filed an amendment to this bill for the purpose 
of trying to infuse the free trade system into this incredible archaic 
system of dairy marketing orders. The Manzullo-Dooley amendment has as 
its goal that when we leave the House of Representatives and the bill 
passes the Senate and is signed by the President that the USTR, the 
United States Trade Representative, would have the ability to review 
the language and pass upon whether or not it complies with our ability 
to compete internationally and meet the requirements of Nunn subsidies 
and the relief thereof in the WTO.
  This is important. It is extremely important for the following 
reasons. We cannot have it both ways. Either we support free trade for 
our farmers or we do not. Every agricultural interest group has come to 
my office saying that they want to thank me for my votes on free trade. 
And it is extremely important in the new rounds that are coming up in 
Seattle that when we are there as a representative of Congress, which I 
will be, along with several other Members from this body and the other 
body, that we are going to be pressing the issue of making sure that 
overseas subsidies and Nunn tariff barriers are taken away so that our 
farmers can be on a more even playing field and, thus, be more able to 
export our agricultural commodities.
  Illinois exports about 47 percent of its agricultural commodities. 
The entire farming industry nationwide is in trouble; and one of the 
ways to bring it out of this incredible recession, if not depression, 
is to bust open the foreign markets to make it easier for us to sell 
the fruit of the labor of the American farmer overseas.
  It is amazing. The American Farm Bureau Federation says technical 
trade barriers hold up $5 billion worth of U.S. commodity sales to 63 
countries. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that free farm 
trade would mean about 25 to 30 percent higher commodity prices for 
U.S. farmers and ranchers, and some speculate it could go as high as 50 
percent. Yet I see where the American Farm Bureau is part of a 
coalition opposing the Manzullo-Dooley amendment which would ensure 
free trade for our farmers.
  That is what this amendment is about. It is very simple.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) 
claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. COMBEST. I rise to claim the time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I

[[Page 22245]]

would like to join those many others who thanked the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) for his votes on free trade, however, I do rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  The Manzullo amendment would prevent the Secretary of Agriculture 
from carrying out the provisions of H.R. 1402 and thereby the United 
States dairy policy once it was approved by Congress and signed into 
law. The amendment says that the Secretary of Agriculture may not 
implement the law passed by Congress unless the U.S. Trade 
Representative says that this law does not present a risk of 
interference with international trade agreements or trade policy 
objectives of the United States. If this amendment is adopted, the 
House of Representatives will be allowing the USTR to set U.S. dairy 
policy.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) sets no 
time frame for consideration by the USTR, which could delay 
indefinitely its determination of the dairy policy compliance with 
trade agreements. The USTR evaluation of H.R. 1402 could take years, 
and U.S. dairy farmers will suffer while other countries continue their 
subsidies unchecked.
  Additionally, the Manzullo amendment requires the USTR to evaluate 
U.S. dairy policy to determine whether there is a risk of interference 
with international trade agreements or with the trade policy objectives 
of the United States which has no force of law. The risk that should be 
evaluated is whether the European Union or the Canadian dairy policy is 
in accord with international trade rules.
  Right now, the European Union spends over $40 billion in domestic 
support to subsidize its farmers. That is eight times as much as is 
spent by the United States for its farmers. On top of that, the 
European Union spends $8 billion on export subsidies, keeping the U.S. 
agriculture out of many markets around the world. And that is a 
representation that is 16 times as much as is spent by the United 
States on export subsidies.
  I would urge Members to oppose the Manzullo amendment. The Congress 
should determine dairy policy with the concurrence of the President. 
Unchecked bureaucrats should not determine what U.S. dairy policy is.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding me this time.
  This amendment points to, I think, a broader question, and I ask this 
question only somewhat seriously. Do not Members of this institution 
feel at least a little hypocritical here today? At the very time that 
we are urging, no, insisting that nations around the world open up 
their economies and tear down trade barriers, at the very time we do 
that, we seek to reimpose and reinforce those very trade barriers 
between the States in this country.
  We are holding press conferences, special orders, we are even holding 
strikes when nations try to do precisely what 1402 seeks to do. We send 
trade missions all around the world. We send representatives from the 
IMF, from the World Bank, all over as missionaries of trade and 
capitalism, yet in this House we practice a very different religion. 
Maybe we should put together a letter directing the U.S. Trade 
Representative to come back home, to come to Congress, the flat Earth 
society, to come back here and try to preach the gospel of capitalism 
and trade.
  Some time ago, I reluctantly voted for NTR for China. I was very 
reluctant; had some misgivings about it. But I voted for it, because I 
believed at the very time that we are trying to tell our farmers to 
move to market-based, to management-style policies that we cannot deny 
them potentially the largest market in the world. Yet, I am ashamed to 
say that today a majority is going to go one step further and close off 
some markets here at home. Today, much of the logic behind NTR comes 
crashing down as far as I am concerned.
  Let me plead with my colleagues from around the Nation. Do not be 
afraid to compete. Do not be afraid to compete with the dairy farmers 
of the upper Midwest or anywhere. Do not be afraid to compete. Do not 
reerect trade barriers because of the large co-ops and trade 
organizations. Do not.
  This is a defining moment. We are either going to be a pro-trade 
Congress or we are not. Up to now, I thought we were a pro-trade 
Congress. I was wrong. At least I believe that I will be shown wrong 
later on today.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo), the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I believe that it does what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Manzullo) wants it to in terms of the way it is drafted, but I believe 
it does a whole lot more than quite simply making this abide by current 
international trade agreements.
  If we read the actual amendment, it says the U.S. Trade 
Representative has to notify the Secretary that the act and amendments 
made by the act present no risk of interference with any international 
trade negotiation to which the United States is current a party or the 
achievement of trade policy objectives.
  So not only do we have to agree with international agreements but any 
trade negotiation that we are currently negotiating with anyone or that 
we achieve someone's trade policy objectives. And the U.S. Trade 
Representative's office has the ability to look at this and decide 
whether or not it meets these, what I believe are very fuzzy goals, and 
has the ability to stop this legislation from being implemented.
  Now, we have already, as a Congress, many times, abdicated our 
responsibility when it comes to trade agreements, but this goes even 
one step further than that. We are now going to abdicate our 
responsibility in terms of dairy policy. We are now going to give that 
to the U.S. Trade Representative.
  And I would like to ask the sponsor of the amendment or either of the 
sponsors of the amendment a question. If the United States Trade 
Representative's office decides this is somehow not with the 
achievement of the trade policy objectives of the United States, and 
this does not become law, what then becomes the law in terms of dairy 
policy in this country? Do we go back to the 1937 generic act, do we go 
back to the 1995 act, or do we go back to the 1985 act?
  Exactly what becomes law in this country if the new secretary of 
agriculture at the U.S. Trade Representative's office decides that this 
does not meet somebody's objectives?
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. MANZULLO. It would be 1-A modified that would go into effect on 
October.
  Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would have to say that 
I believe the gentleman is inaccurate to say it would be 1-A modified. 
Because after this has passed and become the law, what the gentleman is 
doing is going back to whatever was the law underneath the generic law.
  I believe what this legislation would do, if the U.S. Trade 
Representative decided that we were not achieving somebody's trade 
policy objectives, that we would then go back to the 1937 act as the 
generic act. I do not think, in fact, I know there is no one in this 
place that can explain what the 1937 act is because nobody can explain 
what the 1996 act is.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, If the gentleman will continue to yield, 
what we can explain is the fact that we have regional socialism that is 
destroying the American dairy industry, and that is exactly what this 
amendment is about.
  Mr. POMBO. I will not debate the gentleman on the merits of the 
current dairy policy in this country.
  Mr. MANZULLO. But that is exactly why we are here.

[[Page 22246]]



                              {time}  1515

  I believe that the current policy is wrong. I believe the current 
policy is not good policy. And it was not my bill. It was not the bill 
of the Committee on Agriculture. It was a creation of a lot of the 
people that are pushing this stuff right now.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley), the cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment. I do so because, as a farmer and as a Member of Congress, 
and certainly as a member of the Committee on Agriculture, when I look 
to the future and where the market opportunities for U.S. agriculture 
are, they are certainly outside our borders. I mean, it is no secret 
that when we start looking at world demographics, the world's 
population, that we only have 4 percent of it which lives within the 
United States. Ninety-six percent of the consumers live outside of our 
borders.
  So it has been appropriate that this administration and past 
administrations have been diligent in trying to expand our 
opportunities to access those markets. But if we are going to make that 
one of our highest priorities, it is also very important that we have 
our domestic agriculture programs be consistent with achieving that 
outcome.
  I mean, already today we have over a third of our acreage which is 
devoted to the production of commodities which are exported, and that 
is going to increase. When we look at the potential opportunity in the 
developing countries and others, over 50 cents of every dollar in every 
developing country, every 50 cents of every dollar increase in per 
capita income goes to the purchase of food stuffs.
  That is the opportunity for U.S. dairy farmers, for U.S. cotton 
farmers, grain and wheat also. So it is important for us when we pass 
any type of policy that pertains to our domestic agricultural policy 
that it in fact be consistent with the trade agreements that we have 
entered into and have negotiated.
  The objective of the Manzullo-Dooley amendment is very simple. It is 
to ensure that USTR has the opportunity to review it, to ensure that it 
does in fact maintain a consistency with the trade agreements that we 
have already negotiated.
  I would say in terms of the trade objectives that our trade 
objectives are to reduce domestic interference and markets, whether 
they be with our trading partners or internally. We think that is 
important. Because if we are going to try to make our good-faith 
arguments in a consistent manner when we are bringing issues in front 
of the WTO and other trade dispute panels, resolution panels, we have 
to make sure that we are on the moral high ground too.
  If we are in fact putting forth a dairy program that is in fact 
interfering or is inconsistent with trying to move in a more market-
oriented direction that is ensuring that there is not undue Government 
interference in the marketplace, we are in fact being inconsistent with 
the same policies that we are trying to advocate and trying to see 
implemented internationally.
  This measure I think is an important amendment. It is one which I 
think can just provide an additional level of oversight to ensure that 
we are advancing policies in Congress that are consistent with our 
overall international trade objectives and ensuring, too, that our 
domestic policies are going to ensure that we are rewarding those dairy 
families and farming families that have the relative advantage in our 
country to produce the highest quality product at the least cost.
  I urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I join in the chairman's opposition to this amendment.
  It is interesting that we have those who support free trade who stand 
here and say we are for free trade and fair trade but also who 
consistently fight that Congress might have a determination over 
whether or not our policy mixes or matches with what other countries 
are doing suddenly come with an amendment that says that the ultimate 
judge of this will be the U.S. Trade Representative. I find that very 
interesting.
  But my opposition to the amendment stems from the practical side of 
the argument that they make. If in fact we are somehow calling this 
bill that we have today an anti-trade agreement, it would have already 
been discussed in the House Committee on Agriculture. Because, to the 
best of our ability, we bring no legislation to this floor that is not 
consistent with laws which we support. Because just as the chairman of 
the subcommittee, myself, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), 
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) support free trade, that 
is not the argument today.
  The argument on this amendment and why it ought to be opposed is who 
are we going to allow to make that determination. If we in fact were 
concerned about the spirit of this amendment, what we ought to have 
done is pass Fast Track so we could be negotiating in Seattle in a few 
weeks because this House has chosen not to do that, not the President, 
not the Senate. This House has voted we do not want to negotiate.
  Now, my feelings are very, very strong on trade. I would like to see 
freer and fairer trade. I want to see it negotiated at Seattle. I want 
to be part of it. We will be part of it. Under the chairman's 
leadership, the House Committee on Agriculture will be part of it. And 
we in fact will see that whatever is negotiated that we conform to it. 
But we are going to do it a little differently this time I hope.
  I hope that at this time that instead of us waiting to see or 
negotiating first and then adjusting to it that we do it a little bit 
differently; that whatever is negotiated this time, I hope we will 
conform our legislation to the spirit of that so that our producers, in 
this case our dairy producers, will have our Government standing 
shoulder to shoulder with them.
  To those that make the argument that somehow this bill is anti-free 
trade or hypocritical, have they taken a look at the Canadian dairy 
system, their neighbors just to the north, and see what they do, and 
then suggest that what we are doing today is anti-free trade? They are 
aiming their guns at the wrong target.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the United States filed a complaint and a 
panel was installed on the Canadian dairy system, and we won that 
round. It is being appealed by Canada right now.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is my point.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, 
that is the whole point. We have got something just as ridiculous and 
we are suing the Canadians because of theirs.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I beg to differ with 
the assessment of the gentleman of the bill that we have in this 
country.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to engage the 
ranking member for a moment, if I might.
  Is it not true that in all other agricultural policy in regards to 
what is compliant or noncompliant with U.S. and international trade 
rules that the Department of Agriculture makes the ruling on those?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COMBEST. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, that is certainly my understanding, and 
that is the way in which I believe this body would have wanted us to 
progress.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting here that we are talking about the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture having authority over trade and their 
wanting to keep that, but the ones making the argument are the same 
ones that are saying the U.S. Department of Agriculture

[[Page 22247]]

should not have the ability to pass 1-a modified and let the farmers 
choose for themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to do something that is fairly rare here on 
the House floor, and that is read a passage of the U.S. Constitution.
  Now, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) in his amendment is 
raising a very, very valid point. Let us go back to the Constitution. 
Everybody who is here in this body swore an oath to protect the 
Constitution.
  So in Article I, section 9, ``No tax or duty shall be laid on 
articles exported from any State. No preference shall be given by any 
regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those 
of another. Nor shall vessels bound to or from one State be obliged to 
enter, clear, or pay duties in another.''
  The point is this: this is unconstitutional. We are already setting 
up protectionist barriers within this country based on this antiquated 
dairy system.
  Now, the question about export, world trade with other countries, is 
a very, very valid question. But that goes to the heart of the issue, 
which is, we are already doing things that seem extraordinarily 
contrary to the Constitution that we are here to uphold.
  Now, I know I am a new Member, and I know it is very novel that we 
bring this to the floor, but the point is this: what we are already 
doing is, in many people's opinion, including my own, is 
unconstitutional. What we are doing is violating the very principles we 
try to export to other countries.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, let us assume for a moment the gentleman 
is correct. I am not a constitutional lawyer myself, but I will assume 
for a moment that he is correct.
  Would it not be the proper forum to determine that at the Supreme 
Court and not the United States Trade Representative?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, that is a very, very good 
question.
  In my opinion, I think Members of Congress, who swear to uphold the 
Constitution, should do that as well. We should debate the 
constitutionality of the bill as we try to propose so we do not logjam 
the courts heaping the responsibility over there. We should be the 
first check on the Constitution here in the legislative branch of the 
Government.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair inform the Members as to 
the amount of time remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and certainly in 
support of H.R. 1402.
  I come from Arkansas. We have a rich dairy tradition in northwest 
Arkansas. I have heard from my dairy farmers, and they need help; they 
need assistance. This is designed to give some relief and a flow of 
milk for our consumers in the United States.
  But the amendment that is being offered I think does raise a serious 
constitutional question, and I appreciate my good friend from Wisconsin 
reading from the Constitution. I think he should be here frequently and 
reading from the Constitution. But one thing I hear from my 
constituents is that this body assigns too much authority to other 
agencies of Government.
  What this amendment does is it delegates the United States Trade 
Representative and gives so much authority and power to that body to 
override, in essence, what we believe is important in setting policy 
for our dairy farmers and this industry.
  So I think that this takes us in totally the wrong direction. We look 
at the issue of trade, and I believe we need to expand trade and do 
everything that we can to move in that direction. But as the gentleman 
from Texas was discussing, other countries always have some type of 
program to help their agricultural community or some different industry 
that they are concerned about. And our responsibility overall is to 
make sure that our support system is at a minimum that does not 
interfere substantially with our trade.
  What we are doing is we will be singling out the dairy farmer and 
telling the United States Trade Representative that they have got to 
watch this particular element, they have got to watch our dairy 
farmers, they have got to watch the flow of milk here, and it puts us 
in a weak position in negotiating trade agreements with our other 
countries.
  I do not believe that this in any way would undermine our trade 
policy of the United States, but it would undermine our negotiating 
position. And there is a huge distinction there.
  So I fully support the bill. I would ask my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), my friend and my next-door 
neighbor, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
  A little more than 2 months from now, the U.S. will host a 
ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization, the first of its 
kind to be held in this country.
  A primary goal for American farmers is the successful launch of a new 
round of multilateral trade negotiations at this important meeting. The 
United States possesses the most efficient and competitive agriculture 
sector in the world. Agricultural goods accounted for $88 billion in 
total two-way trade during 1998, up 14 percent from 1993. U.S. 
agricultural exports alone stood at about $52 billion in 1998.
  Because domestic food consumption is projected to remain relatively 
stable, the further elimination of trade barriers and development of 
new export opportunities is essential to the economic health of 
American farmers.
  United States objectives for the next round of trade negotiations are 
to abolish export subsidies, phase out tariffs, and reform and 
eliminate domestic support programs.
  It is never easy to achieve liberalization of agricultural trade 
because farming is the most sensitive and politically powerful sector 
in almost every country. But this difficult objective becomes 
impossible if the United States, the avowed champion of open trade and 
agriculture, takes additional steps to distort markets and increase 
protection for our own favored commodities.

                              {time}  1530

  H.R. 1402 increases market-distorting subsidies, penalizes consumers, 
and invites our trading partners to take similar steps. H.R. 1402 
enables the European Union to justify and maintain its protectionist 
agricultural policies which represent the single largest impediment to 
expanded agricultural trade worldwide.
  The Manzullo-Dooley amendment requires USTR to assess whether 
implementation of H.R. 1402 would undermine the trade negotiating 
objectives of the United States. Implementation of the bill's market-
distorting subsidies, Mr. Chairman, would end if USTR made an 
affirmative finding.
  Mr. Chairman, as the important WTO meeting in Seattle approaches, it 
is completely counterproductive to U.S. negotiating objectives to pass 
legislation like H.R. 1402. The United States

[[Page 22248]]

must stand foursquare for free market reforms and for free trade 
policy, a policy rather that benefits our farmers, processors and our 
consumers. We must continue to provide the international leadership for 
free markets that has traditionally come from America.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote on the Manzullo-Dooley amendment, and 
I urge a no vote on H.R. 1402.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) a 
moment ago, speaking of the constitutional authority, I am sure has 
forgotten that the rules of the House determine that every committee 
that brings a bill to the floor of the House must determine that the 
act is constitutional before it is eligible under the rules to come to 
the floor of the House, and on page 16 of the report the committee, the 
Committee on Agriculture, finds the constitutional authority for this 
legislation in Article I, clause 8, section 18, that grants Congress 
the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the 
powers vested by Congress.
  So we have made that determination in the committee bringing the bill 
to our colleagues so they can feel a little better about their 
concerns.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and to add on to the gentleman from Texas' explanation for 
the constitutional provision which allows the U.S. Congress to do what 
we are doing now, which is basically a more equitable distribution of 
the funds, not an inequitable distribution of the funds, and I will 
quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes. I was going to make this comment to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin who originally brought up the idea of the 
Constitution. Oliver Wendell Holmes, chief justice, said that the 
Constitution was made for people with fundamentally differing views. 
And what we see here today is a reflection of people on this House 
floor with fundamentally differing views. And at this particular point, 
my colleague with whom I have great respect, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), I would oppose his amendment.
  We talked about free and open markets. We need to have access to 
foreign markets. Well, in the state of the world today, especially when 
we consider the agricultural community in the United States, who are we 
going to sell our agricultural products to in the near term?
  Is it going to be Russia? I do not think so.
  Is it going to be China? I do not think so.
  Is it going to be Japan? So our markets right now with the 
international situation are somewhat restricted.
  Can the agricultural community in the United States wait until the 
Russian economy improves, or China opens its markets, or Japan opens 
its markets, or Canada opens its markets? I do not think so. We are 
talking about a free market system.
  What I would like to remind my colleagues who are in favor of this 
particular amendment is, Mr. Chairman, that if they look at General 
Motors, they operate whether it rains or whether it does not rain. They 
can operate in a free, open-market economy without much interference 
from anybody. They do not have to worry about floods; they do not worry 
about droughts; they do not worry about disease; they do not worry 
about insect infestation. But the U.S. agricultural community worries 
about all of those things every single day of the year, and the U.S. 
agriculture industry operates on a very slim weather margin.
  So I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Illinois for yielding 
this time to me.
  Let us come back to the spirit in which this amendment is offered, 
and that is to highlight the trade implications that this amendment is 
meant to address, and there are many.
  If our dairy farmers, farmers generally across the country, are to 
survive in the future, it is going to depend in large part on the 
ability to export products beyond our borders. Agriculture already is 
our number one export industry. We have an opportunity south of our 
border to take advantage, if we position ourselves correctly, of an 
emerging dairy market. That has proved more and more difficult because 
of policies of outside nations, especially the European Union. If 
anyone today is under the illusion that what we do on 1402 does not 
have an effect on our trade policy in the agricultural sector, Mr. 
Chairman, they do not understand how other countries are viewing what 
we are doing here today.
  Last December, I had an opportunity along with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dooley), Senator Pat Roberts, a few other 
representatives, to go over to Brussels and speak with members of the 
European Commission and European Parliament in regards to the reforms 
that they are looking at over their common agricultural policy. I 
raised the issue that in the European Union they have some of the 
highest state-subsidized dairy policies in the world, and they have a 
competitive advantage over us because of that high state subsidy. They 
turned to me and said: ``Listen. Until you are able to get your own 
house in order, who are you to come over here and lecture to us about 
lowering trade barriers and moving to a more free trade market 
system?''
  That is what is at stake here.
  We have another round of WTO discussions coming up this fall. If we 
are incapable of tearing down trade barriers that exist domestically 
over in the dairy policy, it is going to be very difficult for our 
trade representatives to have the moral authority and the credibility 
to engage in those WTO talks to convince other countries to move to a 
more free trade market system around the globe and give our farmers the 
opportunity to compete fairly and effectively.
  That ultimately is going to determine the success or the failure of 
our family farmers.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, we all are interested in 
ensuring that the agriculture industry grows and becomes healthy. But 
granting veto authority to our trade representative in domestic policy 
issues is a terrible precedent that relinquishes our congressional role 
in oversight of trade agreements.
  This amendment would essentially put our dairy programs on the 
trading block. That is not good for our family farmers. That cannot be 
good for our family farmers.
  As my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) pointed out, we always should question the wisdom of 
delegating veto authority to Federal agencies. That is what we are 
elected to do here. Agriculture has been compromised too many times 
already by our trade representatives, and all agricultural sectors have 
been effected by the shortcomings of those agreements.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on what is another amendment 
intended to bust 1402, a strong bipartisan measure.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  This amendment is leading by example.
  Now right now dairy products, the amount that we export into 
international markets of dairy products, represents about only 2 
percent of the dairy product we produce. So it is not a big item, Mr. 
Chairman, but it is an example.
  Now go to soybeans, for example, and one out of every two rows of 
soybeans grown in the State of Minnesota ultimately winds up in export 
markets.

[[Page 22249]]

  As my colleagues know, the fundamental fact about agriculture in 
America today is that we cannot eat all that we can grow. If we do not 
have export markets, do my colleagues know what happens? Prices drop 
like a rock. The biggest reason that we have a farm crisis in America 
today is that we have lost $11 billion worth of exports. That is $11 
billion that has come right out of the pockets of our farmers whether 
they produce milk or whether they produce pigs or whether they just 
grow corn or beans, whatever they grow. We have to export if we are 
going to have a strong agricultural economy.
  Now several years ago, the Reverend Jesse Jackson said something that 
I think is very important, and it really underscores what the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) just said. He said, ``If you want to change 
the world, you got to first change your neighborhood, and if you can't 
change your neighborhood, at least be a good example.''
  This is an amendment about being a good example. If we are going to 
lead the world in exports, if we are going to get back that $11 billion 
of lost export markets, at least let us be a good example.
  This is an important amendment, Mr. Chairman. I hope my colleagues 
will join me in supporting it.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. McHugh).
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  The more I listen, the less I learn. There are things being said here 
on the floor today with respect to this amendment that I think draws 
two conclusions:
  Number one, that somehow a Federal order system for milk is an 
improper and illegal restraint of trade. In fact, my colleagues, Mr. 
Chairman, that is an issue that has been well adjudicated. It was an 
issue that was extensively discussed during the last trade negotiations 
under GATT. It was an issue that was determined in the trade 
negotiations under GATT that Federal orders have no effect on trade. 
So, Mr. Chairman, that is not the core issue here.
  The second assumption or the second claim that is being made is that 
something in H.R. 1402 or something in the current law and current 
dairy policy restricts any farmer from exporting in America today. That 
is totally false. It is totally incorrect. If my friends in Wisconsin 
want to export, go ahead, they can do that. The current world price for 
milk is about $9 a hundred-weight. I do not think many farmers in 
America, be they in Wisconsin or any other part of the country, would 
want to export into that kind of market because it would be 
unaffordable, it would cause even wider bankruptcies.
  What we have here is a difference of not what should be done, but who 
should benefit. Every single Member who is in support of this amendment 
today voted earlier to try to impose and to keep a system that 
preserves the market order structure. What it does not do in their mind 
is direct enough money to them.
  So I think we have to keep reality in focus here, Mr. Chairman. We 
need to explore trade opportunities. There is nothing in H.R. 1402 that 
would prohibit that. There is nothing in the Federal order system that 
in any way precludes that. It is common sense; it is constitutional; 
and it is something that has been discussed time and time again.
  So when we go to the floor and vote on this amendment, I hope we keep 
reality in mind because it is rather important.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As my colleagues know, it is really interesting, the statement was 
just made by the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) that nothing is 
to stop the people in the Midwest from exporting. Well, it is 
interesting because, if the dairy farmers try to export their product 
to the northeast dairy compact, they have to pay a special tax on it. I 
cannot think of anything that is more trade distorting than that. And 
let me finish, and, if I have time, I will be glad to yield on that, 
but that is what this is about.
  This is about regionalism in this country. It is also about fairness. 
It is also about the ability of this body to come together and to come 
up with a fair solution, and we had something several years ago when 
nobody could determine in this body how to close down the military 
bases, so the Military Base Commission was established in order to do 
the right thing for America. The Members of Congress said let us 
appoint somebody, an independent panel, to do an evaluation as to 
determine exactly what is the best thing to do, and that is exactly how 
that commission works.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, in the Freedom to Farm Act that took place in 
this body several years ago, this body voted to allow the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to come up with a solution to the socialism 
that has been going on in this country since 1937, and they did. They 
came up with a final rule, and the very people who embodied the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture now say:
  ``Whoa, we don't like the solution that we gave you the authority to 
come up with; so now therefore we're going to come back into this body 
again and impose regional socialism on this country.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is outrageous. It is outrageous for farmers from 
one part of this country to send their products to another part of this 
country and end up paying the equivalent of a tariff or a duty. It is 
outrageous when farmers in this country, based upon their geographic 
location to Eau Claire, Wisconsin, that determines the price they get 
for their milk. That is pure insanity. That does not make sense, Mr. 
Chairman. There is not anything, anything in the laws of this country, 
that give any justification to having that type of a system.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment simply tries to make this unfair system a 
little bit more fairer under the circumstances.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. McHugh).
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Manzullo), number one, he will be delighted to hear, and apparently he 
was not on the floor earlier when I noted that H.R. 1402, as the 
modified one, B, also does, no longer uses Eau Claire, Wisconsin, as 
its basing point in determining class I differentials; so, we have 
taken care of that for him.
  Number two, New York is not part of the northeast dairy compact, but 
the gentleman's statement that farmers have to pay a tax is absolutely 
incorrect. Any farmer can ship into the northeast, as my farmers do. 
What it does require, that farmer receives the same equitable prices as 
every other member.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few points, if I could, about 
trade policy since the trade policy and subsidization of our domestic 
producers and domestic producers in other countries has been brought 
up.
  All of the subsidies, supports or whatever we may call them, fit 
within the trade laws. There is a process by which if that is 
questioned that can be adjudicated; but I would just say and remind 
people what I said in my opening statement, the European Union spends 
eight times as much in domestic support for their farmers as the United 
States does. It spends 16 times as much in export subsidies as does the 
United States.
  Mr. Chairman, our farmers can compete with any farmers in the world, 
but our farmers should not be forced to compete with other governments. 
I will be with my friend from Wisconsin and others when we begin to 
lead the fight worldwide to reduce subsidization and supports; but the 
idea that we should set an example and unilaterally disarm the American 
farmer, I think, is a ludicrous statement.
  I will be with everyone else when we do this worldwide, but I will be 
the last to suggest that we start it in this country when all other 
countries are still

[[Page 22250]]

doing it at many levels above what we are doing it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Manzullo) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  Amendment No. 4, printed in part B, offered by Mr. Gutknecht of 
Minnesota; Amendment No. 6, printed in part B, offered by Mr. Ryan of 
Wisconsin; and Amendment No. 7, printed in part B, offered by Mr. 
Manzullo of Illinois.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Gutknecht

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on Amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 112, 
noes 313, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 432]

                               AYES--112

     Armey
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Capps
     Carson
     Chabot
     Conyers
     Cox
     Crane
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Evans
     Ewing
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Goss
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ose
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thune
     Tierney
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wu

                               NOES--313

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Coble
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Fowler
     Herger
     Istook
     Moore
     Scarborough

                              {time}  1609

  Messrs. SMITH of Texas, WYNN, and BATEMAN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Messrs. KINGSTON, HEFLEY, and 
ROTHMAN 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 Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 294, 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 additional amendment on which the Chair has 
postponed further proceedings.


            Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on Amendment No. 6 offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) 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 109, 
noes 318, not voting 6, as follows:

[[Page 22251]]



                             [Roll No. 433]

                               AYES--109

     Armey
     Baldwin
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Carson
     Chabot
     Cox
     Crane
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Goss
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Souder
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thune
     Tierney
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wu

                               NOES--318

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Coble
     Dickey
     Fowler
     Istook
     Scarborough
     Tauzin

                              {time}  1619

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Manzullo

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The pending business is 
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) 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 pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 113, 
noes 315, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 434]

                               AYES--113

     Archer
     Armey
     Baldwin
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Capps
     Carson
     Chabot
     Cox
     Crane
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Frank (MA)
     Goss
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Souder
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thune
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wu

                               NOES--315

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy

[[Page 22252]]


     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Coble
     Dickey
     Fowler
     Isakson
     Scarborough

                              {time}  1627

  Mr. BECERRA changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 8 printed in Part B of House Report 106-324.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Boehner

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part B amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Boehner:
       Strike sections 1 and 2 and insert the following new 
     section:

     SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF MILK MARKETING ORDERS ON JANUARY 1, 
                   2001.

       (a) Termination.--Effective January 1, 2001, section 8c of 
     the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted 
     with amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act 
     of 1937, is amended by striking paragraphs (5) and (18) 
     relating to milk and its products. On that date, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall terminate all existing Federal 
     milk marketing orders issued under such section.
       (b) Prohibition on Subsequent Orders Regarding Milk.--
     Section 8c(2) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 
     608c(2)), reenacted with amendments by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Milk, fruits'' and inserting ``Fruits''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting ``milk,'' after ``honey,'' in subparagraph 
     (B).
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 2(3) of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. 602(3)), reenacted with 
     amendments by the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 
     1937, is amended by striking ``, other than milk and its 
     products,''.
       (2) Section 8c of such Act (7 U.S.C. 608c) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (6), by striking ``, other than milk and 
     its products,'';
       (B) in paragraph (7)(B), by striking ``(except for milk and 
     cream to be sold for consumption in fluid form)'';
       (C) in paragraph (11)(B), by striking ``Except in the case 
     of milk and its products, orders'' and inserting ``Orders'';
       (D) in paragraph (13)(A), by striking ``, except to a 
     retailer in his capacity as a retailer of milk and its 
     products''; and
       (E) in paragraph (17), by striking the second proviso, 
     which relates to milk orders.
       (3) Section 8d(2) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 608d(2)) is amended 
     by striking the second sentence, which relates to information 
     from milk handlers.
       (4) Section 10(b)(2) of such Act (7 U.S.C. 610(b)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking clause (i);
       (B) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses (i) 
     and (ii), respectively; and
       (C) in clause (i) (as so redesignated), by striking ``other 
     commodity'' in the first sentence and inserting 
     ``commodity''.
       (5) Section 11 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 611) is amended by 
     striking ``and milk, and its products,''.
       (6) Section 715 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
     and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 1994 (Public Law 103-111; 107 Stat. 1079; 7 U.S.C. 608d 
     note), is amended by striking the third proviso, which 
     relates to information from milk handlers.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (b) 
     and (c) shall take effect on January 1, 2001.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) be allowed to control 15 minutes of the 
proponent's time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think everybody knows, when one lets milk sit around 
too long, it spoils, and it goes bad. It really is not any different 
for U.S. dairy policy that, after 62 years of a federally government-
imposed marketing system for dairy in America, that maybe it is time to 
take a very serious look at it.
  Today we have had a very healthy debate about dairy policy, and I am 
sure some of our colleagues are tired of hearing about this policy. But 
I think we now get to the core, the real debate about what ought to 
happen in the future.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have an amendment that 
says very simply that we ought to eliminate the milk market order 
system for dairy farmers in America.
  We all know that, over the last 5 years, the last 10 years, the last 
20 years, probably over the last 20, half of the dairy farms in America 
have gone out of business. Mr. Chairman, there is only one constant, 
only one constant that has been out there over those last 20 years as 
dairy farmers have gone out of business, and that is a federally 
mandated milk market order system.
  Yes, it is the Federal Government that has controlled prices, not 
allowed dairy farmers to succeed, and literally pushed small farmers 
right out of the market. Until we get out of the way and let the market 
begin to set prices, fair prices for all farmers, regardless of where 
they are in America, I think until we do that, we are making a big 
mistake.
  Today on the floor, we talked about the 34 marketing orders that are 
going to 11 marketing orders. Members probably heard about four 
different classes of milk depending upon how it is used. Why would the 
Federal Government want to decide how many different classes of milk 
that we have?
  My colleagues have heard about four separate pricing schemes that we 
have for milk in our country. They have heard about differentials, the 
fact that we price milk based on how far it is from Eau Claire, 
Wisconsin. What a bizarre notion, in 1999, that the Federal Government 
in Washington, D.C. knows how to price milk for a farmer in Vermont or 
a farmer in Idaho. Why would we not let the market determine it?
  We have also heard today about the USDA bureaucracy. Think of how 
many thousands of employees we have sitting right down the street 
determining how these prices should work, how these pricing schemes 
should work, and how it should be ``fair'' for all dairy farmers.
  My colleagues have heard about pooling, pooling different prices from 
around the country so that we can determine what the fair price to the 
dairy farmer is. They have heard about forward contracting. We wanted 
to actually give farmers the ability to go out and contract on their 
own, if they

[[Page 22253]]

wanted to. Why cannot we allow farmers to do it? But, no, the House 
said no and did not vote that way.
  We have heard about the mailbox price for milk as compared with the 
federal milk market order blend price. Now, when we start to look at 
the complexity of the milk marketing order system, I point all of my 
colleagues to this chart, this chart that says how we price milk in 
America. This is how we do it: from the laws that we pass here to the 
bureaucracy at the USDA to the different marketing orders and the 
pooling and every month that we have to determine what is the fair 
price for our farmers.


                Announcement By The Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All persons in the gallery are here as 
guests of the Chamber. Quiet is requested.
  Mr. BOEHNER. So why do we have all of this, Mr. Chairman? We have 
this because, in 1937, in the midst of the Depression, we had a serious 
problem affecting dairy farmers. The Federal Government decided on an 
emergency basis we were going to set up this program to try to ensure 
that we kept dairy farmers on the farm and we were able to get fresh 
milk to the marketplace.
  Now, that was 1937. This is 1999. Interstate highways, refrigerated 
trucks. My goodness, we have come a long way. I think it is time for 
all of us to take a big view of what has happened today, get out of the 
minutia of whether it is 1-A or 1-B, because either way, it is not 
going to make a dime's worth of difference to any dairy farmer. Then 
look at what we really can do to help the family farmer in America.
  What we can do to help that family farmer is to get rid of this, get 
rid of this convoluted 62-year-old program that has failed the farmer 
and has failed our consumers in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does a Member wish to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, and 
I ask unanimous consent that, in my absence, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Combest) be permitted to control the time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we just saw a chart on how we price milk. What we did 
not see is a chart on why we price milk, why that has been seen as an 
important and significant role of both the Federal Government and for 
the health of the country for the last several years.
  Market orders ensure a fresh local supply of milk. This is a 
perishable product, unlike most other products on the farm. I was 
raised on a dairy farm. I still live on a small farm. Most of the 
things on the farm one can have some control over. One can put them in 
an elevator. One can leave them on pasture a little longer. One cannot 
do that with what happens every day at the dairy barn. That has a very 
short life.
  It is a hard product to recreate. If one sees people going out of the 
dairy business, one seldom sees them go back in. Once there are not 
local dairies, it is pretty hard to imagine there will ever be local 
production of that product again.
  The 2 or 3 days of transportation does matter. In terms of what 
farmers would like to see, they just had the option of voting on a plan 
that I am convinced they did not like, 1-B or no market order at all; 
and they clearly said they did not want market orders.
  The letters we received from farmers, the various articles that 
Members have seen on this issue indicated that many people voted for an 
option they did not like because the option that they thought 
absolutely would not work if one is a family farmer, if one is a dairy 
farmer, was the option of having no marketing system for milk in this 
country.
  So I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I have a number of my 
colleagues who want to speak in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Houghton).
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, this is, to my infinite wisdom, parochial 
as it may be, not a complicated issue. I used to be in business. I 
produced the product. The laws of supply and demand worked. We abided 
by them. We did not want to have any government inference, no marketing 
orders, no anything. It had worked.
  This is different. The laws of supply and demand simply do not work 
in this business. It has been proven over and over again. That is 
number one.
  Number two, if one tries to sell something and one's customer does 
not want it, it is not a very good deal. As the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Blunt) was saying, 96 percent of the farmers voted against 
eliminating marketing orders. To me, that is a very clear message.
  So we can sit here; we can intellectualize what is best for the 
American family and what is best in terms of food supply. If the 
customers do not want it, we should not try to sell it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask Members of the House, when is the last time 
they have seen the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin agree on anything? It has been a long time.
  The reason we are here is because of Old Bossy. Old Bossy is a 
Holstein cow. Now, if one is Farmer Jones, and one milks Old Bossy in 
Oklahoma, the Government says one gets a bonus of $1.40 for every 
hundred pounds of milk one can get from Old Bossy in comparison to what 
one would get if one milks that same Old Bossy in the State of 
Illinois.
  Now, if my colleagues can convince me that that makes sense, I would 
nominate them for the Pulitzer Prize in any field they want to name. I 
would nominate them for the Nobel Prize or any other prize they want. 
But I do not think they can convince me. I do not think they can 
convince the members of the press. I do not think they can convince 
farmers. And I do not think they can convince the general public that 
that system makes very much sense.
  Now, the market does not dictate that difference in price; the law 
does. That is what makes it even crazier. Welcome back, Henry Wallace. 
Things have not changed since 1937, except for 1985, when this whole 
system got even crazier. Because in 1985, a fellow by the name of Tony 
Coelho, my good friend and colleague, came to this floor; and he 
decided that those bonuses were not big enough. He was going to make 
them even bigger. So he did.
  Now, we could have lived, I guess, with the original differentials, 
as bad as they were, because they were at least determined by 
agricultural economists who were trying to balance the needs of all 
regions fairly. But in 1985 that system was changed, and it was 
switched to a straight decision based on raw political power.
  Now, 3 years later, Steve Gunderson, then Chair of the dairy 
subcommittee, tried to get reform pushed through. He was told by the 
leadership of this House, Sorry, you cannot have a legislative remedy. 
All we are going to do is give you an opportunity for an administrative 
remedy. Let the USDA decide what is fair. So we said okay.
  That is what USDA did. They brought forth modest, and I mean modest, 
reforms. Now what has happened, the very folks who said we could not 
have a legislative remedy are now saying, oh, gee whiz, we do not like 
what the administrative remedy was. So we are going to overturn it 
through this legislation.
  That is why my colleagues have the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) 
and I united today. Because I for one have concluded that, while I 
prefer supply management, dairy is the only industry in the world I 
know of where one does not cut back supply in order to meet demand. But 
if one cannot get supply management, then one ought to have a 
reasonable government program that dictates how this is handled.
  But we do not have a reasonable government program. We have a totally 
arbitrary program based on how many votes one can get on this floor, 
not based on the legitimate economic

[[Page 22254]]

needs of every farmer in the country regardless of where they come 
from.
  That is why I have reluctantly concluded, if we cannot get a square 
deal out of this Congress, then let us not have any deal at all. Let 
the market deal it. Then at least we will not have politicians to blame 
for the ridiculous situation you have across this country when it comes 
to dairy prices. That is why I support this amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to support it along with us.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
that what we need is strong supply management, and I am a strong 
advocate of a two-tier supply management system. I also agree with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that the current system is far from 
perfect. But I strongly disagree with him in saying that we have got to 
junk the whole system because what we have now is not perfect.
  The fact of the matter is that, just last month, dairy farmers all 
over this country had the option of essentially voting for the Boehner-
Obey point of view. They had the option of saying, well, the current 
system is not perfect. They had the option of voting for 1-B, which, in 
my view, is strongly flawed, or letting the current system expire and 
have nothing. But farmers who knew that the current system is not 
perfect said overwhelmingly by 96 percent that we need to have federal 
milk price supports, and that is what they voted for.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. Chairman, there is no question in my mind, none whatsoever, that 
at a time when all over this country, in Wisconsin, in Vermont, in the 
Midwest, all over, when family farmers are going out of business, when 
today family farmers are receiving, in terms of inflation accounted for 
dollars, much, much less than they received 15 or 20 years ago, when 
they are struggling just to keep their heads above water, there is no 
doubt in my mind that if we approved this measure and did away with all 
price supports that what we would see is a rapid acceleration in the 
decline of family farms all over this country, especially the small 
farms.
  Mr. Chairman, during the last 6 years alone, we have seen a decline 
to the tune of 26 percent of dairy farms in this country. And what we 
are also seeing is that while the small farms go under, in terrible 
numbers, in Vermont, in Wisconsin, all over this country, that the 
larger farms are becoming larger and gaining a greater share of the 
market. For example, in 1978, farms with 50 cows or less produced 40 
percent of the milk supply. By 1997, that same size farm produced only 
12 percent of the milk in our country. And the trend is very clear: 
Fewer and fewer large farms produce more and more of the milk, while 
small farms are rapidly going out of business.
  If the Boehner-Obey amendment were to pass, this process would 
rapidly accelerate, and I will tell my colleagues what this country 
will look like in 20 years. What we will have, literally, is a handful 
of giant agri-business corporations controlling the production and 
distribution of dairy products all over this country. And that would be 
a disaster not only for rural America and the economies of rural 
America, that would be a disaster not only for the environment and 
keeping our land green, it would be a disaster for consumers as well.
  I have, I believe, one of the strongest pro-consumer voting records 
in the House of Representatives, and I will challenge anyone who thinks 
that the consumer benefits when a handful of giant corporations will 
control the production and distribution of dairy products. So if my 
colleagues are for the consumer, if they are for the family farmer, if 
they are for the environment, they will vote against this amendment and 
vote for final passage. Let us do what little we can to protect the 
family farmer.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to refute two of the points that 
have come up. I grew up on a farm in South Carolina, and we raised 
tomatoes and shrimp. Yet we have been told in this debate so far that 
milk is different, it is a perishable product. How many of my 
colleagues want to buy spoiled tomatoes or rotten shrimp? Nobody.
  So there are a lot of other goods that somehow miraculously make 
their way from the farm to the grocery store without a price-fixing 
system in place. I would make that one point.
  The second point that I would make would be if we had a price-fixing 
system on the farm that I grew up on for shrimp or for tomatoes, would 
we want to leave that system in place? Absolutely. But to say that 
those farmers who voted for that, those few that happened to benefit, 
that that should be the barometer by which we judge this amendment, I 
think, would be a big mistake.
  Lastly, if we are going to go this route, why do we not adopt the 
ideas of pricing software based on its distance from Redmond, 
Washington, or the idea of pricing timber based on its distance from 
the Southeast. This does not make sense. This amendment does.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to point out that 
the USDA requires that milk be off the farm in one day. That is the 
case for no other product, and I am confident, I am sure it is not the 
case for either tomatoes or shrimp.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to the amendment and in support of the underlying bill.
  The issue really here is about food supply and food quality, but it 
is also about the quality of life in America. Farms preserve open 
space; they provide living evidence of man's dependence on the Earth 
and our responsibility for sound management of our environment.
  In 1996, Congress recognized that we needed to reform the milk 
marketing order system; not that we needed to repeal it, but that we 
needed to reform it. And, in fact, the Option 1-A, just as the Option 
1-B, was compiled by economists and professional staff of the USDA's 
agricultural marketing service. It takes into account more 
realistically transportation costs for fluid milk, regional supply and 
demand issues, costs of both producing and marketing milk, and the need 
to assure that milk can be produced in all the regions of the United 
States.
  It is simply a fairer option. It is real reform. The system will be 
simpler, but it will be also sensitive to regional issues. That is why 
it is in everyone's interest to support the 1-A option in the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Boehner-Obey amendment and in opposition to H.R. 1402.
  I do agree with many supporters of 1402 that we must do everything in 
our power to help small farmers who are suffering. The dairy industry 
is vitally important to my home State of New York, and I would be proud 
to support 1402 if it represented targeted relief that would help New 
York's small family dairy farms. But we should not preserve an 
antiquated milk pricing system that punishes consumers throughout New 
York, both upstate and downstate, while doing little to help the 
farmers who need the help most.
  Mr. Chairman, most of the debate today has focused on the impact of 
this legislation on farmers, but let us not forget how this legislation 
will affect consumers, including the families in my district and 
throughout this country. According to even the most conservative 
estimates, consumers will pay at least $200 million more each year 
under this bill. Now, I know some of my colleagues may say that the 
price increases brought about by this bill may be small, but small 
increases in price can make a big difference to a

[[Page 22255]]

working family struggling to get by, or to a struggling mother trying 
to make ends meet, or to programs such as WIC, food stamps, and the 
school lunch programs which are impacted tremendously by the price of 
milk.
  Mr. Chairman, if we pass H.R. 1402, we are undoing USDA's very modest 
reforms and preserving a depression-era system that benefits no one. 
Over 300 Members of this body voted for the Freedom to Farm Bill that 
was based on the principle that we should have a free market for 
agriculture. But that bill exempted dairy and, instead, required USDA 
to implement the new milk marketing orders that we are here discussing 
today. This bill today threatens to undo even those modest reforms.
  Rather than preserving this outdated system, we should continue to 
move to a free market for milk that is fair to both farmers and 
consumers. I urge my colleagues to support the Boehner-Obey amendment 
and to oppose 1402.
  It has been noted that this will result in an increase of 22 cents a 
gallon by the change in the differential. That is a lot of money to a 
lot of people, and that will increase the price of milk.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to continue speaking up for consumers across 
this country. We should not make it harder on consumers and help big, 
large farmers.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, milk was left out of Freedom to Farm for 
a reason. Milk is different than wheat, and it is different than corn. 
As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was talking about milking 
Bossie, that has to be done twice or three times a day 365 days a year. 
And that milk has to have a market. And no one dares to be able to take 
advantage of that little producer because they know he has to sell it 
right then.
  This is a pretty good system that has been working since 1937, and 
the legislation here would change it greatly. I am as free market, free 
enterprise a person as there is in this Congress. I never asked the 
government for a thing in my business. Milk is different. Dairy farming 
is different. What we need is a supply of fresh, wholesome milk so that 
WIC can have it, so poor families can have it, so we can all have it.
  There is not a better system of milk distribution in the world than 
we have in the United States right now. The farmers voted to preserve 
it, it is working well, and I am in very much opposition to the 
amendment of my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and in opposition to the underlying bill.
  Passage of this bill would undermine the course that Congress set 
just 3 years ago towards agriculture reform. In the 1996 farm bill, 
Congress made a commitment to allow the USDA to make modest reforms to 
the controversial dairy price program after 3 years of public hearing 
process. Now that we have the final rule on milk marketing order 
reforms, people are trying to renege on that original goal of trying to 
reform with a simple modest plan.
  As far as I am concerned, the proposal is not far enough, and that is 
the reason I am supportive of the Boehner-Obey amendment. It does not 
matter whether we are talking about milk, oranges, wheat, or sugar. We 
need to make our agricultural programs come into the 21st century and 
not go back to the 19th century. We have a real opportunity for real 
dairy reform today and we are doing a disservice to everyone if we do 
not pass this amendment to go to a free market type of plan.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot open up markets to our agricultural products 
to advocate free trade while we maintain the barriers on dairy. I 
advocate the support of the Boehner amendment.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo), the subcommittee chairman that deals with these 
issues.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today in opposition to the amendment, not because I do 
not think that one day this amendment will be necessary and will come 
true, because I believe the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is right. 
I believe that this is the direction that we will ultimately end up 
going with American dairy.
  But the problem that I have with this amendment at this time is that 
in 1996, when we started on the path of deregulating American 
agriculture, we said that there had to be a transition period, there 
had to be a period of time when we went from a heavy-handed, 
government-regulated bureaucracy that dictated everything that happened 
in American agriculture to a time of free market. And I believe that 
that transition is taking place. It has been sometimes topsy-turvy, 
sometimes very difficult, but it is happening.
  It is happening much slower than some people would like to see, 
including a dairyman that I just had lunch with not too long ago from 
my district. He told me that he knows that one day we will have an 
unregulated dairy economy, that we will not have the Federal Government 
setting prices. He said he knows that one day that is going to happen 
and that he looks forward to that day happening. But what will happen 
if this amendment passes today is that it would send the dairy economy 
into chaos immediately. And, unfortunately, we just cannot handle that 
right now.
  I support what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is trying to do 
in the aspect that the Federal Government should not be involved with 
how many cows somebody milks, how many pounds of milk they produce, and 
where they sell that. I do not want dairymen having to come back to 
Washington, D.C. to ask us for something, for some change on dairy 
policy. It should not happen. But we need an orderly transition to be 
able to go from this government-run bureaucracy that was handed to us 
before we pass a farm bill to a free market economy.

                              {time}  1700

  That transition is going to take place.
  Now, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) held up a poster that had 
policies in place for going from the Congress to the cow and everything 
that had to happen in order for those prices to be set. That is the 
exact reason why this amendment cannot pass today.
  So much dependency has grown up around that system that it is going 
to take some time to unwind all of that, and it is going to take some 
time to create a system that the American dairy farmers can understand 
and use, and eventually we will do that.
  I would also like to say we have heard a lot of reasons why this 
amendment is not good, and a lot of those reasons are no longer 
relevant today.
  American dairy farmers are the most efficient dairy farmers in the 
world. We have the most efficient delivery system of anywhere in the 
world, and we have the ability to compete with any dairy farmers in the 
world.
  But in doing so, we need to take the time that is necessary to 
transition away from the dependency that has grown up around a 
bureaucratic government program to the free market.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment today. I pledge to my 
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), to continue to work with 
him to see that his vision one day comes true.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehner-Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues can see from this chart, eliminating 
milk market orders, which is what the Boehner-Obey amendment would do, 
would save approximately $80 million every year.

[[Page 22256]]

  The current, yet antiquated, milk marketing system, which would in 
essence remain in place under 1402, gives dairy farmers more money the 
farther away they are from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. This was a wise 
policy back in the 1930s because there were not refrigerated vehicles 
and there were no interstate transportation systems to ensure that all 
areas of the country received an adequate supply of milk.
  In the 1930s, it was proper to provide incentives to farmers to milk 
in traditionally nondairy areas. But as we approach the new millennium, 
taxpayers should no longer prop up an unfair system that compensates 
farmers depending on where they live. It is wasteful and it makes no 
sense to taxpayers and consumers.
  Now, let us be clear. Under H.R. 1402, more taxes would be needed to 
keep very important nutrition programs from having to cut needy 
families off their rolls. Take the WIC program for example. The 
Consumer Federation of America estimates that under 1402, unless 
additional taxes are provided, 3,700 women, infants and children could 
be kicked off the WIC rolls every year and more federal dollars would 
be needed to keep the food stamp program, the school lunch and 
breakfast program, and nutrition programs for the elderly at their 
current assistance levels.
  Mr. Chairman, why should consumers and taxpayers subsidize dairy 
farmers based solely on where they milk their cows?
  I urge support of the Boehner-Obey amendment.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Sweeney.)
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been here all day debating this issue, and we 
have heard arguments on both sides and recurring arguments on both 
sides.
  A minute ago I heard a colleague mention that what this amendment 
proposed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will do is reaffirm a commitment made in 1996 
by this Congress that would allow for the Department of Agriculture to 
modestly adjust the milk marketing orders and reflect more readily the 
marketplace. We refuted that a couple of hours ago when we pointed out 
that it is not a modest adjustment when we are going to cost dairy 
farmers in excess of $2 million to $400 million annually.
  We have seen evidence presented throughout the last several years to 
the United States Department of Agriculture and input from all experts 
within the dairy community that said very clearly that Option 1-A was 
the option that we ought to pursue. Yet here we are with our final 
amendment before what I hope is final passage, and the Boehner-Obey 
amendment really operates under the premise that the milk marketing 
order system is an outdated system that does not reflect the 
marketplace at all, and we know that simply is not true as well.
  To establish the prices that are used, the Department of Agriculture 
surveys the wholesale market prices of milk and milk products such as 
cheese and translates those prices into a fair market-based price for 
raw milk sold at the farm level.
  We have heard throughout the day the discussions about why we need to 
do this with milk and why it is important, and I find it ironic that 
many of the same Members who are going to stand and speak and indeed 
vote for this amendment are the same folks who earlier today were 
trumpeting the results of the August daily referendum, were 95 percent 
of dairy farmers said they supported this system.
  I urge my colleagues to support this safety net. I urge my colleagues 
one more time in the next vote to defeat an amendment that is intended 
to gut 1402.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the managers of well-run businesses periodically survey 
their operations. They take a hard look at everything they are doing 
and they ask a simple question, and that is: If we were not already 
doing this, would we start it up today? If not, it should probably be 
stopped.
  Well, let us apply that same approach to the dairy program. If we 
were not already running this program today, would we even consider 
starting anything remotely like it? Would any sane person start a dairy 
program like the one we have today? If the answer is, no, and I believe 
it is at least, heck, no, then common sense tells us we should stop it.
  To my colleagues who profess a belief in market economics, this is a 
test. Please vote their principles and support this amendment. To my 
colleagues who represent urban consumers, this is also a test. Please 
vote their constituents' clear interest, not some special interest, and 
support this amendment. To my colleagues who represent dairy farmers 
outside the Midwest, do not fear the free market. There were dairy 
farmers in all regions before the dairy program began, and there will 
be efficient dairy farmers in all regions after we end it. There will 
always be an advantage in proximity to local markets for fresh milk.
  It is way past time for all of us to unite and cast off this horrible 
relic. I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment of the 
gentlemen.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair tell us the remaining 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) has 14\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 7 minutes 
remaining. And the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, to restate the issues that have been before us all day 
is that the issue of the 1-A, 1-B option before us is a developmental 
plan that was put forward by the Department of Agriculture and gone 
across the country in 11 different regions in trying to elicit and get 
support and get materials presented in regards to those options.
  Those options are not going to cost consumers any more money than 
already is into the system now. The money that is being purported in 
terms of coming from different departments is money that is already 
going to the dairy farmers right now.
  What is on issue now is that the 1-B option in the elimination of 
this marketing program will take away $200 million from dairy farmers. 
It will take this money from the dairy farmers, and it will revert back 
to the industries or to wherever; but it is not going to be benefiting 
to the dairy farmers.
  The formula is based on use. It is based on a weight between those 
uses of whether it is milk or ice cream or butter or cheese, and then 
they factor into a distance the further they are away from the market 
for transportation costs. And those issues have all been articulated.
  The Department designed the options that we have before us; and in 
doing so, when we passed the reforms and seeing the impact of the 
reforms on our farmers, we only need to look at the billions of dollars 
that we are spending in agricultural assistance each year for the last 
2 years to recognize that the freedom to farm has not been the success 
that many wanted it to be and the exemption of milk in that freedom to 
farm may have been a blessing in disguise and allows for more 
cooperation and more time and thoughtfulness to develop a system which 
maintains a floor for the dairy farmers, at the same time giving them 
the tools to be able to be successful in a more market-oriented 
economy, which 1-A would allow, which was designed by the Department.
  The Department was not charged to reduce the farm income by $200 
million to dairy farmers and what was going to dairy farmers. It was 
asked to reform it and to make it more market oriented, which 1-A would 
do.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo) be able to manage the time in opposition.

[[Page 22257]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Wisconsin for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I, quite frankly, am flabbergasted to understand where 
this $200 million lost figure comes from because it just belies the 
facts.
  In fact, USDA released an analysis over the past year what the basic 
formula price, what the producers would get through class I 
differentials under the reform proposals that they have announced and 
which will take effect on October 1.
  Virtually every region in the country under the more free market-
oriented pricing system actually sees more income in their pockets 
rather than less.
  The Boston region, 38 cents per hundred-weight; Des Moines, $1.22 
more; New York 23 cents more; Philadelphia, they lost 2 cents this past 
year; St. Louis, 96 cents more; El Paso, 27; Atlanta, 69; Seattle, 42; 
Kansas City, 85; Cleveland, 87; Tampa, $1.19 more; Louisville, 71; 
Boise, 82; Minneapolis, $1.27.
  In fact, the figures just released for the month of October this 
year, the first month when the reform takes effect, shows that on a 
national average the producers get 57 cents more per hundred-weight 
class I than they would under the 1402.
  So the issue is simple. We can vote for passage of 1402 and by doing 
so we would be taking money out of, rather than putting more money 
into, the pockets of the producers over this past year and for the 
month of October.
  Now, I commend my colleagues who are in support of 1402 for their 
desire to help the small family farmers. But if there has been one 
common denominator in this entire debate regardless of the region is 
that we can all stipulate that our family farm earnings have been 
suffering badly and they have been suffering for some time under the 
current system. But I submit that the continuation of the status quo 
with the government-set price differentials only encourages large 
corporate farms to produce for the mailbox and the Government check, 
rather than for basic economic principles of supply and demand.
  Look at the increase of large corporate farms in these regions that 
see a higher price differential. They in turn put the squeeze on the 
small family farmers. So if we want to help the family farmers, let us 
support this amendment; let us have some confidence that they can 
compete under the principles of supply and demand, that we do believe 
in the marketplace, and that we are not going to create these 
artificial price systems which will only encourage the larger 
operations to go into that because of the price differentials and 
ultimately hurt our small family farmers.
  That is the direction that we should be going in, and that is why I 
support the Boehner-Obey amendment and would ask my colleagues to vote 
no on final passage.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I represent five of the eight top dairy 
counties in the State of Illinois; and they are losing 10 to 15 percent 
of the dairy farmers each year.
  If we are to sit around and wait for all these reforms to take place 
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) talks about over a 
period of time, there will not be any dairy farmers left in northern 
Illinois.
  Mr. Chairman, the difference really is between milk and something 
like peaches, for example. The price that the dairy farmer gets is 
based upon how far his production is from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The 
price that the peach grower gets is not based upon where his farm is in 
relation to somewhere in the State of Georgia.
  What we are asking for here under the Boehner amendment is the last 
opportunity for the American dairy farmer to participate in the free 
market system. The Boehner amendment would allow that and, hopefully, 
will stop the elimination of all the dairy farmers in the district that 
I proudly represent.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) has 12\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just point out, 
which we did earlier today, what this is about.
  This is about the status quo of the market, and I would like to go 
through what the status quo is because a lot of Members around here do 
not exactly know how the price of milk is determined.
  So, under the status quo, let me read how the price of milk is 
determined. There is the basic formula price, and there is the blended 
price.
  Here is the basic formula price:
  The BFP equals, basic formula price, equals last month's average 
price paid for manufacturing grade milk in Minnesota and Wisconsin plus 
current AA grade butter times 4.27 plus current nondry milk price times 
8.07 minus current dry-buttermilk price times .42 plus current cheddar 
cheese price times 9.87 plus current grade A butter price times .238 
minus last month's grade A butter price times 4.27 plus last month's 
nondry milk price times 8.07 plus last month's dry-buttermilk price 
times .42 minus last month's cheddar cheese price times 9.87 plus last 
month's grade A butter price times .238 plus present butterfat minus 
3.5 times current month's butter price times 1.38 minus last month's 
price of manufacturing grade milk in Minnesota and Wisconsin, times 
.028.
  That is the basic formula price.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman repeat that?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will repeat it to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) after this, Mr. Chairman.
  The blend formula price now takes that basic formula price, which I 
just mentioned plus .12 times the percent of milk used for cheese, 
powder, and butter plus the basic formula price, that formula I 
mentioned a second ago, plus .30 times the percent of milk used for ice 
cream and yogurt plus the formula price, the basic formula price, plus 
1.04 plus .15 times the distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, divided by 
a hundred, all times the percent of milk used for fluid.
  That is the current milk pricing system. That is the choice my 
colleagues are making, to perpetuate that if they vote for H.R. 1402.
  If my colleagues want to scrap this 1937 abomination, Mr. Chairman, 
they should vote for the Boehner amendment, vote against 1402.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just feel like I have heard Jay Leno's monolog for 
about the fifth time. It was amusing the first time, but the fact of 
the matter is what we are doing here today is going to have a profound 
impact on dairy farming in America.
  Talk about turning a deaf ear to the will of the very people we are 
trying to help, Mr. Chairman. In August, we just had a referendum. 
Ninety-six percent of the farmers said they want to continue milk 
marketing orders.
  Now I know we sometimes cannot resist the temptation to create chaos 
out of order, Mr. Chairman, but I would suggest that if we eliminate 
the milk marketing orders, that is exactly what we would be doing.
  I do not want to identify with that effort. I want to identify with 
looking realistically at the plight of dairy farmers in America, and I 
must admit it, being a little bit selfish, I am particularly concerned 
with the plight of dairy farmers in beautiful upstate New York. They 
are in crisis. They need some help, and I want to help. This amendment 
would not help, Mr. Chairman; 1402 would.

[[Page 22258]]


  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and what I want to try to explain up here in the 2-minute 
time frame that I have is what is happening with the present amendment 
by my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the bill that I hope all 
my colleagues will vote for.
  If the bill, if the amendment, passes by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), it will have a significant impact on the type of farming over 
a period of years that we have in the United States. Right now we have 
a mix of farming. We have some corporate farms, we have some family 
farms, and we have a mix of corporate family farms. We have some really 
big farms that are family farms. We have mega farms that are corporate 
farms that take in tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of acres 
whether it is poultry, dairy, grain; just name it.
  Right now though, we have a relatively pretty good mix of small 
family farms, big family farms, and pretty big corporate farms. If we 
vote for the gentleman from Ohio's amendment, what will happen is the 
shift will go from family farms, big family farms, to corporate farms, 
and it will shift from being all across the United States, whether one 
is a dairy farmer in New York, New England, South Carolina, California, 
Oklahoma, Montana, Ohio. The consolidation of agriculture then will go 
to corporate agriculture, and a consolidation of the dairy industry 
will go to the Midwest.
  If I could draw just very briefly a map of the United States? Now, 
right now the Midwest is a big producer of dairy products. We have 
other dairy regions in the Northeast, the mid-Atlantic States, the 
Southeast, virtually all across the country. But with Mr. Boehner's 
amendment, the focus of the dairy industry, the corporate dairy 
industry, will be concentrated in the Midwest.
  Now there are several problems with that, but one of the problems is 
suppose this is a severe drought in the future, a concentration of 
dairy in the Midwest, without it in other areas of the country. If we 
had a drought, if we had an increase of pests, if we had an increase of 
disease, if we have floods, we do not have the safety net of the 
diversity of agriculture that we have right now.
  So I will urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment and vote 
for the bill.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for 
yielding this time to me.
  I would like to just briefly shift our focus away from the family 
dairy farm.
  If this were merely a debate between dairy interests, it would not be 
as bitter as it is, and it would not be as important as it is.
  Make no mistake. It is important because it affects nearly every 
aspect of our economy.
  A quick reality check looking outside the Beltway. Heard a lot about 
the support for 1402 in this House, but when we go outside this House, 
and we turn to beyond the Beltway, the coalition against 1402 and the 
pricing scheme, it has ranged from the National Restaurant Association 
to the Teamsters; yes, the Consumer Federation of America, Americans 
for Tax Reform, the Snack Food Association, the AFL-CIO.
  There is very little that could unite such a group. They are united 
in their opposition to 1402 and to this outdated pricing scheme. They 
view it as a tax on milk. It artificially increases the price of milk 
to consumers. Not only a tax, but a regressive tax because it hits 
those who can least afford it; and if we know anything about principles 
of taxation, we know this regressive tax will drive down the 
consumption of milk.
  Can we afford that as a Nation? No. We want to increase consumption 
of milk and healthy products.
  Finally, this will also hurt many of our antipoverty programs. The 
WIC dollars will not go as far, food stamps will not buy as much, all 
caused by this outdated pricing scheme, the very pricing scheme that 
1402 seeks to reimpose.
  End this. End the tax on milk. Introduce market forces. Free up dairy 
farmers to produce and to compete. Support the Boehner amendment and 
oppose 1402.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and I want to respond to the last speaker for just a moment 
when we start talking about this as a tax. Let me give my colleagues 
some mailbox prices. That is what dairymen have been receiving, 
average, for the first 5 months of this year.
  Dallas, Texas or Texas order, $14.13; the current retail price for 
milk in Dallas is $2.50. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, the mailbox price 
was $13.52, which is 51 cents less than Texas. But guess what? The 
retail price of milk in Minnesota as of today is $2.99. In fact, New 
York City today, the price of milk, $2.79. The farmers' mailbox price, 
$14.43.
  We can go right down the line on any of the mailbox prices that are 
determined through the Federal milk market order system that can be 
made to sound very complicated, which it is, but it accomplishes a very 
important goal for the dairy industry in that it provides a stabilizing 
way of pricing milk.
  There is no one that can say that what the price the farmer gets is 
affecting what the consumer pays to the degree that the previous 
speaker said it.
  As my colleagues know, one of the things that I have said over and 
over in this debate, somehow, some way we have got to get away from 
this idea that only the dairy farmer or the corn farmer or the cotton 
farmer or the rice producer or the peanut producer has to constantly 
produce for less in order that the consumer might pay less when 
everyone in between does not do that. Remember, last December, there 
was an article in the Washington Post that stated their commodities 
winners and losers, and the losers were producers and consumers. And 
the article there had to do with cereal, and the price of cereal went 
up last December by 9 percent. Why did the cereal prices go up? Because 
the cost of advertising and marketing for the cereal manufacturers went 
up. Now that means that somebody's television contract went up, and it 
was judged important enough for the processors of cereal to increase 
their price to the consumer at the same time we were seeing the lowest 
prices to producers of grain since the Depression.
  Now the tone and tenor of the argument today, and I know the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) have good intentions, I know that they believe that if we can 
just eliminate Federal market orders that the dairy industry would be 
better off in their regions or in the country as a whole. And I assume 
it is the country as a whole.
  But to that argument, let me point out again dairy farmers in their 
regions and in every region had a chance to vote on whether they wanted 
to eliminate the Federal milk order last August, and from 90 to 99 
percent of the dairy producers said, no, a resounding no, to the 
Boehner-Obey amendment. Why did they say that? If they believe that 
things are going to be better for dairy farmers, did they not vote it 
out when they had a chance? That is a question for this body to answer.
  Now my colleagues will hear, already heard, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin mentioned a moment ago, that the latest figures, October, 
show that under the new pricing system that dairy farmers are going to 
get more money. That is true compared to the old, but it is irrelevant 
to whether or not we deal with 1402 or whether we deal with 1-B.

                              {time}  1730

  It is irrelevant. We are making changes. In spite of the fact that 
speaker after speaker after speaker said it is a decision or a choice 
between status quo, it is not. We said when we passed the farm bill 
that we wanted to reduce the number of orders. We are going from 31 to 
11. When we went from

[[Page 22259]]

31 to 11, that meant we had to have another vote so the dairy farmers 
could say they agree with what Congress told USDA to do, and they voted 
overwhelmingly, not because they approved of everything. They have a 
difference on 1-A and 1-B, and that is what this is all about.
  While it may be true that under current conditions Class I prices 
will be higher in the USDA decision than under the current system, this 
effect is the result of changes in the calculations of manufacturing 
milk prices that Class I differentials are added to.
  In spite of the fact that we continue to talk about milk being priced 
in one spot, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, that is not true. I do not know how 
many times we have to say, those of my colleagues arguing the other, 
that that was changed. We are not keeping the status quo. We do 
recognize that this system, the federal market order system, needed to 
be improved and we are doing that, whether we go 1-A or 1-B.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we will all oppose very strongly this amendment 
and support 1402. That is what the dairy farmers of America believe is 
in the best interest of their futures. Then I hope that we can get on 
with some more serious type of discussions as to how we deal with the 
real problem, the fact that prices for all agricultural commodities are 
too low. That is what it is all about.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire how much time is remaining 
for all parties.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has 2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, not to further muddy the waters but in this last speech 
by the distinguished ranking member he brought up an issue that I do 
not think has been talked about enough today and that is that we have a 
new way of establishing the manufacturing price of milk in the current 
rule that will go into effect on October 1.
  What a lot of people have not focused on is in this bill we actually 
change what USDA recommended for the new manufacturing price. We 
legislate a make-allowance that was done just in the committee, and 
then we ask them to go back to rulemaking and take another look at the 
manufacturing price.
  One of the reasons that some of us have argued that this is a better 
system is because it is not just the Class I differential; it is a 
combination of this whole system.
  I have here the prices for Class I milk that are going to be 
announced by the Department as determined by the rule that is going to 
go into effect October 1 if this Congress does not change that rule 
prior to that time.
  In every order area, there is an increase in Class I milk over the 
current system. So those of my colleagues that are going to vote for 
1402, they ought to take a look at this because the price of Class I 
milk, which is what everybody is concerned about, and I will admit that 
it is based on the new manufacturing price, but what the prices are 
going to be in southeastern Florida, for example, they are going to get 
$1.32 more per hundred-weight. All through this system there is more 
money that is going to be available for farmers. And people ought to 
look at this before they vote on 1402.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, the question before us is very simple. Should the 
highest cost producers in this country get a special bonus from the 
taxpayers in order to drive up the overall supply of milk which drives 
down the price that all farmers in the country receive? That is the 
issue.
  The USDA, in contrast to those of us who have regional biases, and 
that is all of us on this floor, the USDA is supposed to be neutral. 
What the USDA estimates is that if the modest reforms under Option 1-B 
had been in effect last year, over all dairy farmers throughout the 
country would be better off by 87 cents per hundred-weight for Class I 
milk and dairy earnings would be 15 to 20 cents per hundred-weight 
higher. That means a farmer with 50 cows, each producing 20,000 pounds 
of milk, would be $1,500 to $2,000 better off with the dairy reform 
preferred by USDA.
  Dairy farmers nationwide, according to USDA, would have received $300 
million in additional income. They are not going to receive that if 
this legislation passes today. Since it appears that it is, then I 
would urge Members, as an alternative, to support the Boehner-Obey 
amendment because if Government is going to involve itself, it needs to 
do so in a fair manner.
  It is clear that involvement is not fair in this instance, and that 
is why no involvement is better than unfair involvement.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by saying that I urge my 
colleagues to stick to the transition period that we all approved in 
the 1996 farm bill. That is the only fair way to take dairy from a 
regulated bureaucratic business into a free market economy, and I urge 
opposition to the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize that the amendment that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I are offering comes to the floor today with 
some controversy, but I do appreciate all of my colleagues on the 
Committee on Agriculture that have been here all day debating this 
issue, and I really appreciate the fact that we have had a quality 
debate on the future of dairy.
  Now, I have had all my colleagues down here though defending the 
status quo, do nothing, do not let the USDA changes go into effect; yet 
out of the other side of their mouths they are describing the plight of 
dairy farmers in their region.
  Now if the plight of dairy farmers is so great in their region, why 
do we not do something to help them? Why do we want to come to the 
floor today and preserve the status quo? That is why the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have this amendment because, in fact, today, 
the co-ops, where 76 percent of the milk in this country comes from, 
have taken the place of the Federal Government.
  The co-ops are strong entities who are well equipped to go out and 
negotiate on behalf of their members with processors around the 
country. Why do we need a dual system where we have a government system 
in place, a co-op system in place, where the dairy farmer himself has 
no ability on his own to make decisions for himself?
  The amendment we offer today will in fact help those dairy farmers 
achieve real success, because for 62 years we have never given them the 
chance to succeed, never given them a chance to succeed because they 
can only sell their milk based on the complicated price scheme that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) pointed out earlier.
  How can my colleagues defend this antiquated, Depression-era, Soviet-
style socialism in dairy that traps our farmers in a system that is 
never going to work? The fact is, let us help our farmers. Let us give 
them a chance to succeed by passing the Boehner-Obey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 124, 
noes 302, not voting 7, as follows:

[[Page 22260]]



                             [Roll No. 435]

                               AYES--124

     Archer
     Armey
     Baldwin
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Brown (FL)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Capps
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Cox
     Crane
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Evans
     Ewing
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moran (VA)
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Souder
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wu

                               NOES--302

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pastor
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bono
     Coble
     Dickey
     Fowler
     Jefferson
     Scarborough
     Thomas

                              {time}  1802

  Ms. LOFGREN and Mr. GREENWOOD changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, ROTHMAN, WAMP, and MENENDEZ, Mrs. JONES 
of Ohio, and Mr. MEEHAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 435, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Chairman pro tempore 
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. 
1402) to require the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the Class I 
milk price structure known as Option 1A as part of the implementation 
of the final rule to consolidate Federal milk marketing orders, 
pursuant to House Resolution 294, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 285, 
noes 140, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 436]

                               AYES--285

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley

[[Page 22261]]


     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Packard
     Pastor
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--140

     Archer
     Armey
     Baldwin
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Brown (OH)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Capps
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cox
     Crane
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Goss
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Souder
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thune
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Berman
     Bono
     Coble
     Dickey
     Ford
     Fowler
     Jefferson
     Scarborough

                              {time}  1823

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
  Ms. PELOSI changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________