[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13061-13099]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 538 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4461

                              {time}  1031


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4461) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, 
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Nussle in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes.

[[Page 13062]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House today the fiscal 
year 2001 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration and Related Agencies.
  The subcommittee began work on this bill in early February when the 
administration produced its budget. We have had 11 public hearings, 
beginning on February 16; and the transcripts of these hearings, the 
administration's official statements, the detailed budget request, and 
several thousand questions for the record and the statement of Members 
and the public are all available in seven hearing volumes.
  The subcommittee and full committee marked up the bill on May 4 and 
May 10 respectfully.
  In the allocation process, our discretionary 302(b) allocation and 
budget authority will be $14.548 billion and we are exactly at that 
level. The allocation for outlays will be $15.025 billion, and we are 
slightly below that level.
  We have tried very hard to accommodate the requests of Members and to 
provide increases for critical programs. From all Members of the House, 
we received about 350 letters with more than 2,900 individual requests 
for more spending.
  I am pleased to inform my colleagues that the interest in additional 
spending in this bill is completely bipartisan. In spite of a very 
tight budget situation, we have managed to provide increases over 
fiscal year 2000 to several important programs. Some of those increases 
include the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, $32 million; 
the Food Safety and Inspection Service, $24.7 million; the Farm Service 
Agency, $34 million; the Natural Resources Conservation Service, $8.6 
million; the Rural Community Advancement Program, $82 million; WIC, $35 
million dollars; and the Food and Drug Administration, a net increase 
of $57 million.
  Most accounts have been frozen at the previous year's level, and many 
of those accounts have been at the same level for several years.
  Mr. Chairman, we all refer to this bill as an agriculture bill, but 
it does far more than assisting basic agriculture. It also supports 
human nutrition; the environment; and food, drug, and medical safety. 
This is a bill that will deliver benefits to every one of our 
constituents every day no matter what kind of district they represent.
  I would say to all Members that they can support this bill and tell 
all their constituents that they voted to improve their lives while 
maintaining fiscal responsibility.
  The bill is a bipartisan product with a lot of hard work and input 
from both sides of the aisle. I would like to thank all my subcommittee 
colleagues: the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Dickey); the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston); the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt); the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bonilla); the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham); the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson); the chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey); the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd); and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking 
member of the full committee.
  In particular, I want to thank my good friend the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member of the 
subcommittee, for all her good work on this bill this year and the 
years in the past.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following chart for the Record:

[[Page 13063]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.001



[[Page 13064]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.002



[[Page 13065]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.003



[[Page 13066]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.004



[[Page 13067]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.005



[[Page 13068]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH29JN00.006



[[Page 13069]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. I want 
to say that it is a great pleasure for me to rise today as we bring our 
bill to the floor, the fiscal year 2001 appropriation for Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.
  I want to also begin by saying that this is the last bill that will 
be managed by my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), as chairman of the subcommittee because his limited 
subcommittee chairmanship has been reached under current House rules, 
which I certainly would like to change.
  He is and has been such a leader, a fine gentleman in the true sense 
of the word, a caring chairman, an advocate for America's farmers and 
ranchers, and a true friend to every single Member of this institution. 
So I wanted to acknowledge his hard work on this bill. It has been a 
joy to work with him, and I number these days and years among the most 
memorable of my own life.
  I also want to thank the subcommittee staff: Hank Moore, Martin 
Delgado, John Ziolkowski, Joanne Orndorf; and our detailees: Anne DuBey 
and Maureen Holohan; and to the minority staff leader David Reich; and 
Roger Szemraj of my own staff, for all the hard work that has gone into 
putting this bill together.
  Let me begin by saying that I come to the floor rather conflicted 
this morning. This is a very, very important bill and one that we will 
focus on today. But we have just learned that, contrary to an agreement 
that was reached yesterday, the majority has chosen to place the 
sanctions language dealing with Cuba and Libya, the issue that we 
debated for hours here yesterday, into the supplemental appropriation 
bill, contrary to an agreement that had been reached with the minority.
  This is creating a great disarray that I think threatens not just 
this bill but the supplemental and its ability to move through the 
Congress and, also, to be signed by the President. There are many 
programs in there, such as firefighting and so forth, that are needed 
immediately in the western part of the country.
  I would just urge the Majority to remove that sanctions provision 
from the supplemental legislation. This is a violation of an accord 
that had been reached with the minority, and it truly places us in a 
most difficult position as we proceed forward with this bill today.
  Now, let me say that this bill deals with the basics of life that 
touch every American every day, have already touched every one of us as 
we awakened this morning, the food that we have eaten, the fiber that 
we wear, the fuel that we use to move vehicles and in industry, and 
forest production, all the land and water conservation programs that 
cover the vast majority of private lands in this country, the 
stewardship of those lands and the help that goes to those landholders 
is contained in this legislation.
  The food that we ate this morning no doubt was influenced in millions 
of different ways by the research that has been supported over the 
years through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. All the marketing 
programs, the safety that we felt when we ate that food, that the milk 
was okay and that it was very healthy to eat, the various medicines 
that we take, our certainty that that medication will do what it says 
and if there is a side effect that it is labeled. All of the Food and 
Drug Administration programs come within our jurisdiction.
  So this is a very important bill that goes to the center of life in 
America. And we hope by our example that we can influence the world's 
people as well.
  The bill's spending level is at about a level of $75.3 billion. 
Nearly a little more than 80 percent of that, or $60 billion, is what 
we call mandatory spending, money that we have for important programs 
like the Commodity Credit Corporation reimbursements that are central 
to the operation of our farm assistance programs to those who produce 
that food, fiber, and forest product. So there is $27.7 billion in the 
bill that goes to that major segment of this proposal.
  The Food Stamp program, which helps those who cannot afford to feed 
themselves in this country, $21.2 billion contained in this bill. An 
even more important program as Welfare to Work locks in across this 
country and our feeding kitchens and elderly feeding programs and so 
forth become short changed.
  Our School Lunch program, $5.4 billion, so that every child in this 
country will have decent food at least during the week while they are 
in school, $5.4 billion, and $1.5 billion for the School Breakfast 
program so those little urchins out there, their brains grow and, as 
they go to school, they are able to lead healthy lives and that they 
grow properly.
  Our conservation programs, nearly a billion dollars here, working 
with all the private owners of America to make sure that the land and 
the water and the ditches and the runoff is handled properly. We are 
making progress there, but we certainly have a long way to go.
  This is an incredible piece of legislation. Of the total amount of 
spending, $75.3 billion, the discretionary amount, the part our 
committee struggles with so greatly, $14.5 billion is, unfortunately, 
$400 million below the spending of the current fiscal year.
  This is a very tight bill, hard choices had to be made. In fact, the 
entire bill is $400 million below this year's spending when we discount 
the nearly $8.7 billion that was provided in emergency assistance last 
year.
  Now, I said that this bill came forward under difficult 
circumstances. The most recent nick, however, being the fact that the 
sanctions language was put into the supplemental against the will of 
the minority and against the agreement that was reached.
  The allocation we were given by the Committee on the Budget makes it 
difficult to detail with responsible priorities submitted by the 
administration.
  We are at least $1.6 billion in this proposal under the 
administration's request for all programs and, as I mentioned, $400 
million under last year.
  If we look at what was done in the supplemental, which is linked to 
this bill directly, there was nearly $400 million in the supplemental 
that we were expecting to help cushion the cuts and the lack of full 
support in this bill, and we were told yesterday that that has now been 
reduced by $204 million, which means that there is only about $195 
million left in the supplemental, which absolutely underfunds these 
programs at a time when rural America is just caving under the 
continuing low price situation, the drought, the high water levels in 
other parts of the country.
  To be underfunding agriculture at a time when rural America is in 
recession makes absolutely no sense to this Member.
  Now, the bill, as best as we were able to try to fund programs that 
are so necessary, does have some additional problems. For example, in 
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, we do not provide the 
resources requested by the President. In fact, we are $53 million below 
his request for funds to deal with the growing infestation in this 
country by invasive species, other pests, and viruses.
  For example, in the area of citrus canker in Florida where entire 
orange and lime crops are threatened, we do not have funding sufficient 
to deal with the eradication nor with trying to prevent further spread 
of that particular problem.
  The same is true with Pierce's disease in California. The 
Administration released about $12 million this past week, but that is 
not sufficient to deal with the vineyard problems all throughout 
California. Plum pox in States like Pennsylvania, which are affecting 
our fruit crops, all of these dollars that were proposed by the 
minority to try to deal with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service have not been fully provided.
  I can tell my colleagues that failure to deal with these pests and 
failure to

[[Page 13070]]

deal with prevention will mean costs in the future of billions and 
billions and billions of dollars to deal with something like the Asian 
Longhorn Beetle, which is destroying our hardwoods in Chicago and in 
New York. This is not an insignificant issue. It has long-term 
consequences.
  There are cuts in this bill, unfortunately, for the Food for Peace 
program $37 million below the President's request.

                              {time}  1045

  We keep saying that access to foreign markets is what will help our 
farmers recover from low prices, but at the same time we disarm 
ourselves by failing to provide the level of resources we need to get 
the job done and move our product into other markets, certainly when we 
have a surplus, to those people in our country and around the world who 
remain hungry and in fact in many quarters of the world that are 
starving.
  In this bill also we fail to adequately fund or place restrictions on 
the use of funds to deal with the problems faced by the most needy and 
the most powerless people in our country. For example, there are 
insufficient funds in this bill for the 1890 colleges, those colleges 
that have been dealing with those historically discriminated against in 
our society, as we try to spread the knowledge of the Department of 
Agriculture in all of its different aspects throughout the university 
and college systems of this country.
  Further, the bill prohibits further expansion of the Colonias 
initiative to deal with the tremendous pollution at the southwestern 
border of Mexico with Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.
  So there is no additional funding in the bill for that important 
effort.
  Finally, if we think about our food programs in general, the 
underfunding is largely in the area of food programs, certainly food 
stamps, our school breakfast, our school lunch, our elderly feeding 
programs, the Women Infants and Children feeding program.
  Totally, the funding in this bill is about a billion dollars under 
the administration's request.
  On the conservation front, which is so important to us, as the most 
productive land on Earth, the conservation programs are $65 million 
below the President's request in what we were able to provide in this 
bill. With the significant erosion problems, the drought problems and 
in my part of the country the significant water runoff problems right 
now, they are having a real impact on our ability to hold soil and 
prevent leaching into our ditches, rivers and ultimately lakes. These 
conservation programs are more important than ever.
  Now, in terms of the overall bill, while we do not provide all 
prudent increases that I have just talked about, we do not cut most 
programs under current operating levels, and we do provide some modest 
increases in rural economic and community development programs, and we 
have provided vital support for the Food and Drug Administration.
  I would be remiss if I stood on this floor, however, and I did not 
remind Members that in this supplemental bill, however, there were 
severe cuts made in important agriculture programs such as the 
replacement of our Food and Drug Administration building in Los 
Angeles. That was cut from the supplemental, and we do not cover it in 
this bill. We did not provide sufficient funding for our technical 
assistance providers for our natural resource and conservation programs 
to help people apply for the Conservation Reserve and Enhancement 
program, the Wetlands Reserve program, the Conservation Reserve 
program. This bill, and the supplemental, are underfunded in those 
areas.
  The supplemental, and this bill does not replace the funding for the 
renovation of the south building here in Washington, D.C. Our own 
Department of Agriculture, which is very old, gets lots of tourists, 
lots of visitors and needs to be repaired. Neither in this bill nor in 
the supplemental are those kinds of concerns taken care of.
  We have dozens and dozens of amendments we will be considering today, 
and I will just end with the request, respectful request of the 
majority, please do not violate the agreement that was reached with the 
minority to remove the sanctions language from the supplemental bill. 
This is going to cause us havoc on the floor here. It is going to cause 
havoc on the floor of the other body. It was our understanding that the 
sanctions language for Cuba, for Libya, for North Korea, for Sudan, for 
Iran, would not be put in the supplemental bill. That was done last 
night, violating an agreement that Members of the minority party had 
signed, and I would just beg the leadership of this institution to 
reconsider that very ill-timed decision.
  This bill is too important to be hung up in a partisan war over the 
sanctions issue on the supplemental bill, and this bill will be held 
hostage to that debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to 
stand here in support of this bill. I think this is an effort that 
obviously under very tight budget constraints the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has done an outstanding job, and I want to commend 
the chairman, a great leader in agriculture, a good friend to all 
farmers and ranchers and someone who I admire very much personally, and 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who I have had the pleasure in 
working with on various issues.
  This bill, I think, does a lot of very, very good things as far as 
the farm service agencies. The people in our county offices are under 
tremendous stress today. The workload is unbelievable that they are 
having to deal with, and they are on the front line of service to our 
farmers. I am very pleased that the committee has funded to the 
President's request, and I think we always have to look at additional 
funding and directing that funding to the local offices rather than the 
bureaucracy here in Washington.
  Agricultural credit programs, $1.475 billion over last year, and 
this, I think, is very, very positive; rural housing loan 
authorizations increased by $484 million over last year. As far as 
Iowa, this is very, very good news for us; and I in particular want to 
thank the chairman for including $9 million for the National Animal 
Disease Center to be built in Ames, Iowa.
  This is a first step to what I think is an extraordinarily important 
project as far as animal health, as far as disease research, and really 
as far as protecting our food supply for the public. This is going to 
go a long ways. The current facility was built back in the '60s. This 
is a very, very important project for the whole country but in 
particular for Iowa. To have this centered in Iowa I think is very, 
very important, which is obviously the center of livestock production, 
especially in the pork industry.
  One item, it is a small item, but I think very important to a lot of 
farmers out there to keep them in agriculture, the AgrAbility program 
we continue to fund at $3 million. This helps handicapped farmers be 
able to stay on the farm, be productive, a small program that does so 
much good for a lot of people who love agriculture, want to stay there. 
I think this is a very good example of our dollars being used in a very 
positive way.
  In closing, again I want to thank the chairman, the ranking member, 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). The staff has done an 
outstanding job.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a very distinguished member of the 
subcommittee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my deep thanks and 
appreciation to our chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen), our ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for 
all of their hard work in crafting this

[[Page 13071]]

bill. It is a tough job to balance the important priorities that the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies needs to address each and every 
year. As my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) pointed 
out, this bill really does deal with the basic sustenance of life for 
folks in our country.
  I might add that the unrealistic budget constraints that have been 
placed on the subcommittee made our work even more difficult, made 
their work more difficult this year. As always, there was the effort to 
work together in a bipartisan fashion to try to do what is best for 
American farmers and for all of America's families. So I think that 
that, in fact, is a tribute to the chairman and to the ranking member.
  Let me add my voice to that of my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and encourage the majority to please remove the 
sanctions legislation from the supplemental bill, because it in fact 
violates the agreement with the minority, and it places enormous 
restrictions on both this bill and on the supplemental bill.
  We did not come here to do harm, especially in light of having an 
agreement that was made and just willy-nilly violated last evening. 
That is wrong. We are going to hold up the process in both of these 
pieces of legislation which contain basic relief and help to farmers in 
the United States, plus people who are waiting to see what is happening 
in here for relief of all kinds in both of these two bills.
  We have tried to work together under the constraints, as I said, of 
the budget forces to shortchange a number of important priorities.
  The subcommittee has been denied the opportunity to meet America's 
priorities and reflect the values, to provide a strong safety net for 
farmers in crisis, to ensure safe foods on America's dinner tables, and 
to guarantee the proper nutrition for the children and the elderly.
  We could have better provided for these priorities if we had a budget 
resolution that did not put tax cuts for the wealthy above the needs of 
hard-working, middle-class American families across this country.
  Each year contaminated food causes up to 81 million cases of food-
borne illnesses, as many as 9,000 deaths. It costs Americans over $8 
billion a year in lost work and medical care. The situation requires 
decisive action. This bill undermines progress by underfunding the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service by more than $14 million. When one wants 
to take their youngsters out to dinner, they want to know that they are 
going to go some place and they are going to be safe and sound with 
whatever they are eating on those tables.
  The WIC program guarantees women and children receive solid nutrition 
and health advice. We could have covered more people if we increased 
the allocation for the WIC program.
  My final comment is that there is a great crisis facing farmers 
today. They are begging Congress to do something. We must. It is our 
responsibility. The allocation dealt the subcommittee prevents it from 
fully addressing the depression-level prices our farmers face.
  We need to emphasize Congress' responsibility to ensure the long-term 
safety and security of all Americans and their families. People deserve 
our highest commitment to these goals.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen) for yielding me the time to speak.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of this bill. I think this 
bill is philosophically in line with the objectives of this Congress in 
that it has common sense fiscal responsibility and balances social 
needs, agriculture-business needs.
  This Congress, on a bipartisan basis in 1997, signed off on a budget 
that said these will be our priorities. We are going to protect and 
preserve the Social Security system, and we have done that. We now have 
a surplus in Social Security.
  We said, number two, we are going to protect and preserve Medicare, 
and we have done that. Many of us remember working very hard in 
somewhat shock after the 1995 Medicare trustee's report came out saying 
Medicare would be bankrupt in 3 years if we did not act to do something 
on it.
  Well, this Congress on a bipartisan basis did do something, and now 
we have protected and preserved Medicare.
  The next priority is to pay down the debt, and this Congress has paid 
down over $350 billion in debt relief. As a result of this fiscal 
responsibility, this common sense approach to governing, we now have a 
budget surplus. This surplus, Mr. Chairman, should not be squandered on 
more government expansion and political initiatives designed to corral 
in another constituency group. It should be very careful to keep in 
mind that the money that we spend here in this Chamber does not belong 
to us. The Government has no money. The money belongs to the people, 
the hard-working taxpayers. So with that approach in mind, we have a 
budget here on agriculture and related agencies of about $76 billion.
  Now, half of that money goes to feeding programs, nutrition programs, 
funding for the poor feeding-type programs, nutrition for the poor, 
people who are socially disadvantaged. Half the money goes to that.

                              {time}  1100

  I make that point, because so many people look at agriculture from 
the cities and they sneer and they say, $76 billion for farmers. Guess 
what? It does not go to farmers. Half of the money goes to children in 
inner cities, and they need it; the other balance of that goes to, 
among other agencies, the Food and Drug Administration, very careful, 
each one of us take medicines, have a loved one that takes medicines. 
This bill funds that.
  Farm service agencies, conservation reserves and also research gets 
the balance of that money; very few dollars go directly to the farmers.
  Let me say something on behalf of America's farmers. We have less 
than 2 percent of our population today who are directly farming. We 
have maybe a little bit more, if we count the romantic farmer, and I 
would say that would be somebody who works in the city and has a 40-
hour-a-week job, but they have inherited some land or they have that 
gnawing that we all have, they want to have a piece of property and 
they want to work with their hands. They are part-time farmers. They 
often skew the statistics of who is out there actually farming and who 
is not. Certainly if they have some acres under cultivation, it goes 
into food, it is part of food production.
  The true farmers, Mr. Chairman, are less than 2 percent these days 
and, yet, that small sector of our population feeds 100 percent of us 
and a great portion of the rest of the world, and we can feed more of 
the world.
  I think that our farmers need eight things as we debate agriculture 
policy: Number one, they need good credit; number two, they need a crop 
insurance program that works; number three, they need good conservation 
programs; number four, they need good specialty programs; number five, 
they need market relief, international market relief; number six, they 
reed regulatory relief; number seven, they need tax relief; and number 
eight, they need good basic research.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just elaborate a little bit more on this, 
and I will try to go quickly. We on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies 
are limited as to what we can do with need number one, credit. But we 
can work with institutions, and we can work through our other 
committees.
  We can work with the private sector to try to say one of the big 
things we hear day in and day out from our farmers is the need for 
long-term credit. Just like any other business, they are at risk. They 
invest money. The return comes when they harvest, sometimes the return 
is not there because of disaster, but they need long-term and short-
term credit.
  Number two, they need a good crop insurance program. A crop insurance 
program that is based on the cost of production, a crop insurance 
program

[[Page 13072]]

that rewards them for good farming practices which reduce losses, and 
crop insurance that would serve them the same way a commercial business 
is served by commercial and fire insurance; something that is 
understandable.
  Number three, conservation programs. Just think how much money we 
could save during a farm disaster, during the time of a drought if we 
had money available for irrigation systems, smart farming systems, and 
for building dams. If farmers could get water on a regular basis and 
get it abundantly and inexpensively, it would truly reduce the costs of 
farm disasters.
  Number four, as I said before, we need specialty programs, good 
specialty programs. I come from peanut country. It is amazing the 
number of people that say well, the peanut program is a strange ag 
program; that is not unusual. A lot of ag programs are very hard and 
complex to understand. I can say this, do we know what it does? It 
makes it possible for the young couple to stay on the farm and not move 
off to Atlanta, Georgia and sell real estate or not to move to Savannah 
and become a medical doctor, but it makes it possible for them to have 
a steady cash flow and stay on the farm.
  It makes it possible for the consumers of America to have a cheap and 
abundant supply of peanuts; the same is true with all the other myriad 
of specialty programs.
  Number five, they need market relief. When we can buy oats at the 
Port of Brunswick, Georgia cheaper than we can raise them in Millen, 
Georgia, we have a problem. Even with all the greatest of farm 
technology, we should be able to grow oats cheaper domestically than 
importing them. Because some of our international ag competition 
subsidizes their farmers heavily, it makes our farmers have a 
disadvantage in the marketplace.
  We do need to have market relief. Market promotion is part of that. I 
love the idea that my district's vidalia onion can be eaten and bought 
all over the world because they are the best and most delicious onions 
that have ever been made. We all know that. The folks all over the 
globe ought to be eating them. We need to have a program that promotes 
them and lets our farmers develop markets overseas.
  Number six, regulatory relief. It is not fair for our farmers to be 
restricted in what kind of fertilizer, what kind of pesticides they can 
use when farmers south of the border in Mexico or north of the border 
in Canada or wherever else can use the same fertilizers that are banned 
here. We need to work with our international partners. If a fertilizer 
is bad here, it ought to be bad anywhere in the globe; and we should be 
protected from those markets dumping on our farmers.
  Number seven, tax relief. If we do not have estate or a death tax 
relief, that farm cannot be passed on to the next generation. It is 
economically prohibitive.
  Number eight, we need good research. This bill will always catch a 
lot of grief. Oh, they are spending millions or thousands of dollars to 
study the mating habits of some obscure fly or a worm. That makes a 
good little press hit and a good humorous article in Reader's Digest or 
a great one-liner for Jay Leno, but the reality is a lot of the times 
ag research can save American consumers millions of dollars in lowering 
the cost of production.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 16 
minutes remaining and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 12\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time, if the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) would like to call on another 
speaker so that we are more balanced in our time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Ewing), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk 
Management, Research and Specialty Crop.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and 
Related Agencies for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this appropriations bill, 
H.R. 4461. This committee, the Committee on Appropriations, this 
Congress, the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
Drug Administration and Related Agencies have recognized the tremendous 
problems in American agriculture over the last 3 years.
  This bill goes along and provides the additional money which we need 
in discretionary spending for the year 2001. The bill also provides 
important funding for initiatives dealing with biotechnology, soybean 
diseases and aflatoxin and corn; particularly, biotechnology, an issue 
of critical importance to our farmers in America and our trading 
partners in Europe.
  This is a good piece of legislation which will go a long way in 
assisting our struggling agricultural economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the rest of my colleagues to help American 
farmers and ranchers by voting yes on H.R. 4461.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the full 
committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had one of the wonders of congressional history 
plaguing every farmer in this country the past few years; it has been 
called the Freedom to Farm Act. And under that act, farmers have had 
the freedom to experience record lows in the prices they are getting 
for their products.
  Dairy farmers, for instance, are getting about 40 percent less than 
they were getting just a few years ago for every hundred pounds of milk 
they sell, and you have lots of other commodities where farm prices are 
in the tank. You have suicide rates in farm-dominated counties at very 
high levels, and one would think that a Congress, which is supposedly 
dedicated to the free market to letting the ``wondrous'' market forces 
work, would insist that you have really true markets.
  Mr. Chairman, but if you look at the adequacy of this budget in terms 
of enabling the U.S. Department of Agriculture to assure that we have 
the tools to prevent undue market concentration so that you can 
maintain real markets, you see this bill is woefully inadequate.
  One of the great Supreme Court justices in our history noted once 
that a free market is the most essential ingredient in our capitalist 
system for any legitimate business to function, and yet you see four 
companies now control 81 percent of the cattle purchases, beef 
processing, and wholesale marketing.
  You see that four companies now control 56 percent of the pork 
market, and you see the same concentration in other areas; poultry, for 
instance. And this bill is grossly inadequate to prevent that problem 
from getting worse.
  We also have seen in the supplemental all efforts to help our farmers 
on the commodity price front have been stripped from that bill, so at 
this point that bill does not do anything for farmers. It pretends to 
do something on allowing additional exports. But in reality, it is a 
drop in the bucket, because of loopholes in the provision which was put 
in the conference report last night after the conference report had 
been signed, which is why I had to remove my name from that conference 
report, regrettably, because I had intended to try to support that 
bill.
  I do not believe in keeping my name on an agreement after that 
agreement has been unilaterally altered. I think that practice is 
offensive or ought to be to this House.
  I am going to ask Members, when the time comes, to vote against this 
bill, because this bill certainly is not adequate to our challenges on 
the farm front. It is not adequate with respect to pest control. It is 
not adequate with respect to agricultural research. It is not adequate 
with respect to rural development.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.

[[Page 13073]]

Skeen) for his work on this bill. I just wanted to add basically one 
editorial comment and, that is, that I do have one reservation on this 
bill that I would like to touch on, and; that is, I think that what was 
worked out with Cuba has a fatal flaw, and that is, if we propose to 
offer food and medicine without the ability to travel, I think we are 
making a real mistake.
  I would say that for a couple of different reasons. First of all, the 
present policy in Cuba has not worked. We changed welfare, because it 
supposedly did not work. Here we have a policy that has been in place 
for 40 years that has not worked, and we are not going to change it. 
That, to me, does not make common sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say also it does not make common sense from the 
standpoint of history, which interesting thing is, that one of the 
tools that Ronald Reagan used in changing things behind the Berlin Wall 
was travel, allowing young kids with backpacks to travel in the 
international community, in South Africa, apartheid South Africa, 
allowed people to travel, actually promoted the exchanges with young 
kids coming to America or American kids going there, so we had one-on-
one personal diplomacy. It was key to changing things down there.
  Mr. Chairman, the other reason I do not think the present policy 
works and, therefore, I think it was tragic that it was incorporated in 
this bill, I think that Americans have a constitutional right to 
travel. We can travel anywhere in the globe with the exception of Sudan 
and Iraq and Cuba, that makes no sense to me.
  We can travel to North Korea. They are developing nuclear weapons. 
They are sending bombs over to the top of Japan. We can travel to 
Serbia. We just bombed the place, but we cannot travel to Cuba. That 
makes no sense to me. In fact, Zemel v. Rusk, which was a Supreme Court 
decision back in the 1960s, said Americans have the right to travel 
unless there are overwhelming military reasons not to do so.

                              {time}  1115

  The Defense Intelligence Agency in 1998 said, there is no military 
threat from Cuba, so Americans ought to be able to travel there from a 
constitutional right.
  Finally, it is inconsistent with the notion of engagement. Engagement 
is what this body proposed. China engagement is what this body has 
proposed in many places around the globe, but for some reason we will 
not do that with Cuba, and that is inconsistent with what I heard when 
I traveled down there myself from political dissidents and independent 
journalists who said, if we want to change things in Cuba, we need to 
change the embargo.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), who is such a hard-working, able member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a very proud member 
of the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations, 
and I have to say that it is an incredible joy to serve under the 
chairmanship of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member. I think the 
camaraderie on this committee is one of the most outstanding in all of 
the House.
  The underlying bill that we are debating today is about appropriating 
money for the U.S. Department of Food and Agriculture. The difficulty 
with this bill is the allocation that was given to the committee is far 
less than it was last year, so we have to squeeze a lot of funds; and 
in the end, we squeeze a lot of programs that probably should not be 
squeezed.
  We squeeze funding shortfalls for food safety. This bill underfunds 
the budget request for USDA by about $14 million. They inspect meat and 
poultry. I am not sure that people want us to have shortfalls and an 
inability to inspect meat and poultry.
  It shortfalls the resources to deal with market concentration and 
abusive practices. One of the biggest problems in America is that we 
are finding that the consolidation of markets is making the prices stay 
low. It is good for the consumers, but it is also putting a lot of 
restraints on the ability to get the best price for a farmer's crop. In 
addition to that, there are all kinds of slotting fees and other 
things. They underfund the request from the President, which was about 
$7 million; and they only gave them $1 million, a little over $1 
million.
  It falls short by $53 million for new and the spreading diseases that 
we have in agriculture and pests.
  On conservation programs, the bill falls short $70 million from the 
budget request for conservation operations at the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service.
  The list goes on and on, and probably one of the most difficult or 
hardest hit is the rural areas of the United States.
  Speaking of the rural areas, I would just like to say, this bill is 
not about the sanctions that were lifted by this committee. It is about 
the fact that the sanctions were taken out by a rule. That greatly 
disturbs us.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. I thank the gentleman.
  The concern here is that in a bipartisan fashion, we funded the 
farmers of this country who grow the food that feeds the people, that 
feeds the children through school lunch programs and school breakfast 
programs and infants and newborns, and feeds the elderly through Second 
Harvest and Meals-on-Wheels; but we cannot sell that food to countries 
like Sudan, Libya, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. We voted to lift those 
sanctions to allow that food to flow to those countries.
  That is what the concern is here, that the rule was adopted last 
night which does not allow this. The promise was made that it would be 
in another committee report, but it was not there. It was not there 
last night when I checked. I am very concerned about this.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for their wonderful leadership on 
getting us to this point where we have this legislation on the floor 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, 4 years ago, in 1996, when we changed, significantly 
changed, this Congress changed the agricultural policy of this country 
with the so-called Freedom to Farm bill, that was a very drastic change 
and a move in the opposite direction of the way we had managed our 
agricultural policy in this country for the last 60 or 70 previous 
years.
  At that time, our farmers were promised that in exchange for the 
support program that had been in place for that 60 or 70 years, that 
the farmers would be given two things, as I recall. One was they would 
be given access to worldwide markets which would assist us in keeping a 
price at a level where our farmers could make a profit. The other was 
some decline in the excessive regulation that exists at the farm level.
  Now, it is obvious after 4 years that neither one of these promises 
have been delivered upon. I think we should have known back in 1996 
that the regulation that is in place is put there in many cases for a 
good purpose, and we are not going back on that. Meanwhile, we have 
been unable to deliver the worldwide markets that we promised in 1996.
  What we are experiencing today is worldwide low commodity prices at 
levels where our farmers really are not able to make a profit in the 
long term. If that is the only source they had, they would not be able 
to sustain themselves and stay in business. As a result, this United 
States Congress comes in every year with an ad hoc disaster assistance 
program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) has 
expired.

[[Page 13074]]


  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. So, Mr. Chairman, we have a situation where the current 
agricultural policy is costing this Treasury more than it ever has in 
the past. As a matter of fact, in the 4 years since we have had Freedom 
to Farm, we have spent more money out of the Treasury trying to sustain 
our agricultural industry. Mr. Chairman, it is a national security 
issue. We should not allow this agricultural industry to be weakened, 
because we never want to rely upon another country for our food supply.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill I think is the best that we can do, given the 
limited resources that we have. I am concerned about the fact that the 
subcommittee worked its will, the full committee worked its will, it 
went to the Committee on Rules, and now all of the rules have been 
changed, some of the sanctions language that was put in there will now 
be removed, and I do not think that is the way we should operate.
  So I do have some concerns about that, however. But my larger concern 
is about the national agricultural policy we have in place today.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey), a very able and distinguished member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), my leader, for yielding me this time.
  First of all, I want to express my appreciation to our chairman. I 
have never met a more affable man, nor a better gentleman, and to say 
it has been a pleasure to serve under his leadership for the past 2 
years on this subcommittee is, frankly, an understatement. It has been 
more than that, and it has been a learning experience as well.
  I particularly want to thank our chairman for the help and 
consideration that he and his staff provided in recognizing some of the 
agricultural problems that exist in the northeastern part of the 
country and elsewhere as well. Particularly with regard to apples and, 
to some extent potatoes, as a result of that cooperation, we were able 
to obtain in this bill $115 million, which will provide assistance for 
apple-growers in New England and New York and elsewhere around the 
country whose crop has been hard hit, first of all, by economic 
circumstances and secondly, by weather, hurricanes, and hail over the 
course of the last couple of years.
  I can tell my colleagues that the apple farmers in New York are going 
to be very grateful for this assistance. It is modest assistance. Yes, 
it is. Nevertheless, it is assistance that is very desperately needed 
and will be very greatly appreciated.
  In addition to that, we have another amendment in this bill which I 
was able to pass through the subcommittee again, with the blessings of 
my chairman and the help of the staff to provide $57 million for 
additional rural development. I think that that is very important. The 
bill itself underfunded rural development, not because of deficiencies 
in the approach by our Chairman, but by the fact that the allocation 
was so low. Now with his assistance, we have been able to provide an 
additional $57 million in rural development assistance in various 
places across the country.
  So for these two measures particularly, I want to express my 
appreciation to the chairman for this legislation. I do not want to 
give the impression that that is perfect by any means. There are 
certain aspects of the bill which need improving which we will point 
out as we go through the debate, but I do want to again express my 
appreciation to the chairman for his leadership and for the pleasure it 
has been working with him through this process.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is such an able representative of rural 
America, and certainly all of the agricultural facilities and interests 
in Beltsville, probably the most important research station in the 
world.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time and for her comments with reference to the Beltsville Agricultural 
Research Center.
  I rise not to talk about the substance; I know there is some concern 
expressed by the gentlewoman from Ohio and the gentleman from Florida 
and others about exactly where this bill is now; but I do want to say 
to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) that I echo the remarks of 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). There is no more affable 
individual nor better friend to any of us in this House than the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), an honorable, decent and good 
legislator; and I thank him for his help.
  I rise simply to say that we do have a lot of interests in my 
district in farming and agriculture. We have a lot of interest 
obviously in the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, and I want to 
thank the gentleman from New Mexico for his focus on those concerns and 
certainly the gentlewoman from Ohio, who does such an extraordinary job 
on behalf of the agriculture community, not just in Ohio, but 
throughout this country. I thank both of them for their leadership. 
Very frankly, it is unfortunate that we do not work together as 
collegially in every instance as I know these two do and we do on our 
committee.
  I might say in closing that I trust that we can get back at some 
point in time during this process to where we were when we came out of 
committee.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Baldacci), who is, by the way, a very involved member of the 
authorizing Committee on Agriculture, and we are very pleased that he 
is down here on an appropriation bill.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman, 
the ranking member, for her leadership on agricultural issues in making 
sure that agricultural energy issues are addressed on a national stage. 
So we appreciate her leadership.
  I want to thank the chairman of the committee also for his leadership 
in being able to recognize the needs of the Northeast in developing 
this legislation. We certainly do appreciate the focus that has been 
given to apples and potatoes. We also appreciate the focus that has 
been given to value-added in research, recognizing, as we get to a 
global economy, that we have to be able to give our farmers the latest 
research and technology and the opportunities to add values for farmers 
and farmer-owned cooperatives, and to be able to market those goods 
around the world.
  I rise also to thank the appropriators for doing the best that they 
can under trying circumstances with a very important spending bill. 
This bill impacts the lives of more than farmers. There are programs 
for the hungry, for food safety initiatives and economic development 
proposals which all get funded through this bill. I want to say it has 
been a pleasure to work with the appropriators, the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the ranking member, and the members of the committee. 
Working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh), and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen) and others on the committee has been a very rewarding process.

                              {time}  1130

  And recognizing that Rome was not built in a day and rocky roads lead 
to the Promised Land, I want to thank the gentleman and use this as a 
very good first step.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, could I ask, what is the remaining time on 
both sides, please.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), one of the most active and 
insightful members of the authorizing

[[Page 13075]]

committee from the State of Minnesota, which has weathered such 
difficulties in the agricultural sector.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today first of all to compliment the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio, our 
ranking member, for all the hard work they do for us in the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies, as well as all the members of the 
committee. They have a tough job and by and large they do a pretty good 
job.
  As the gentlewoman said, I represent an area that has had a lot of 
difficulties the last number of years. This year we had probably the 
best crop coming that we ever had, and about a week ago we got 7 inches 
of rain. Now I have one county that is pretty much under water. What I 
wanted to talk about today a little bit is the situation that we are 
in.
  In the 1996 bill, we eliminated the disaster programs with the idea 
that we were going to fix crop insurance. The foreign markets were 
going to help us keep the prices up where they needed to be. We finally 
got a pretty good crop insurance bill through; the problem is that it 
does not really take effect until next year.
  So in 1998 and 1999, we passed ad hoc disaster programs that helped 
out a lot of people. We did not fund them completely, but it made a big 
difference. We have had the extra AMTA payments which have helped 
people. But I have an area now that these folks have lost their crop 
now. This is the seventh year in a row for these people that are under 
water now.
  Mr. Chairman, my plea is that for these people, and any others around 
the country that are having these kinds of problems that are of no 
fault of their own, that we look at doing another disaster program for 
the year 2000, because the crop insurance fixes that would have helped 
some of these people, as I said, are not going to take effect until 
next year. Frankly, if we are going to keep these people in business, 
and it is literally one whole county, they need a Federal disaster 
program to underpin the crop insurance that they are going to get that 
is not going to cover the cost of production.
  So I would ask the chairman and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, as we go through this process that they remain open to 
the possibility of having a disaster program for the year 2000 for some 
of these folks that have had this problem.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) a member of the subcommittee.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of this bill 
today and thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his 
strong leadership on issues of importance to America's farmers and 
ranchers.
  My friend, the gentleman from New Mexico, has been a great champion 
of agriculture as chairman of this subcommittee, and it has been an 
honor for me to serve with him, as it is for me to serve with the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), our ranking member. She has done an 
extraordinary job as well, and that not only shows in her dedication to 
the support of American agriculture.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an extraordinarily difficult time for America's 
farmers and ranchers, as everyone who has spoken today has said. We are 
in the midst of our third straight year of low commodity prices and 
third year of financial hardship on the farm. And when we factor in the 
other challenges that our producers are facing, agricultural embargoes, 
consolidation of big agribusiness companies, punitive and heavy-handed 
overregulation by the Environmental Protection Agency and Fish and 
Wildlife, it is really very clear that farmers and ranchers have their 
backs up against the wall.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) 
recognizes the problems in farm country and the legislation that is 
before us today represents a lot of hard work by the entire committee. 
But it does not do everything I like. I particularly want to associate 
myself with the words of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) with 
regard to the issue of agriculture embargoes which the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has championed so well. I just pray that 
our leaders follow through on their commitment to us, all of us, to 
make sure that that part of lifting of sanctions gets put into 
legislation and gets passed by the Congress this week.
  I do have to say, though, I think that this bill is an important step 
forward and it does a pretty good job of balancing all of the different 
needs of agriculture. I am particularly pleased that the bill fully 
funds the TEFAP program. It increases funding for rural America through 
the Rural Community Advancement Program, so very, very important for 
rural America. It also maintains a firm commitment to agriculture 
research, which obviously is very, very important to the long-term 
productivity and profitability of our producers.
  Mr. Chairman, in short, I have to say, while we all would like 
additional funds for our agriculture programs, and I include myself 
among that, this bill does do a lot of good for American agriculture 
and moves the process forward. So, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
legislation.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen) yielding me this time for the purposes of a colloquy with 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. Chairman, last year, the House Committee on Appropriations and 
the final conference committee on the Agricultural Appropriations bill 
approved language giving special consideration for funding for a joint 
aquaculture distance learning/education and research project through 
Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution in my district and Florida 
State University in Tallahassee. The original request for the project 
called for $470,000 for the work to be carried out in fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, as a Member of 
the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration and Related Agencies, I appreciate the support of the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) for this project that the 
gentleman from Florida is speaking of. It is of high priority to the 
Florida State University in the Second Congressional District of 
Florida.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, however, now, despite the strong support of 
the House, and by reference the conference committee, the Rural 
Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture has ignored the 
intent of Congress and refused to fund the Harbor Branch-FSU 
aquaculture project. In fact, it is my understanding that the agency 
rejected the congressional language as ``nonbinding'' and made 
fundamental errors in analyzing the proposal that was submitted to the 
Department for funding.
  Mr. Chairman, was it the intent of the committee and the Congress 
that the proposed Harbor Branch-Florida State University project be 
fully funded by the Rural Utilities Service in fiscal 2000?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Foley) is absolutely correct. Traditionally, we have 
given special priority to projects such as this one through the 
committee report language; and we fully expect the agency to fully fund 
those proposals. I expect the Rural Utilities Service to make 
appropriated funds available in fiscal year 2000 to fully fund the 
Harbor Branch-FSU aquaculture distance learning project.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Foley), my friend, and distinguished gentleman from New Mexico 
(Chairman Skeen), who knows very well that the committee report 
language is taken very seriously on the Committee

[[Page 13076]]

on Appropriations. I share the gentleman's concern that the Department 
has not complied with the clear intent of the committee and Congress.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank both the 
gentleman from New Mexico and the gentleman from Florida who serve on 
the subcommittee, and commend them both for their bipartisan support 
for this project. I am especially grateful for the leadership that the 
chairman of the subcommittee provides on agricultural issues facing the 
Congress.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the subcommittee.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for 
yielding me this time, and I will not use all of the available time. I 
just wanted to emphasize the importance of the trade discussion that 
has been going on here. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) brought 
up in his statement the idea and the concern that we have as far as 
opening up trade around the world and relating that to the farm bill.
  He is correct in exactly that we anticipated some cooperation with 
the administration when we passed the Freedom to Farm to open up 
markets. The reality is just the opposite, however. In the past 80 
years, there have been 120 sanctions put on other countries. Sanctions 
is a nice word for an embargo. The fact of the matter is over half of 
those embargoes have been put on in this last administration.
  So while we have fought to open up markets, to make sales available 
to our farmers overseas, it has flown in the face of the 
administration's policy of continuing and expanding the number of 
sanctions. I will say again, over half of the sanctions in the last 80 
years have been put on in the last 7 years, and it is very, very 
unfortunate.
  That is why opening up trade today for Cuba, for North Korea, for 
Sudan, for Iran, Libya, is so very, very important to change the 
dynamics of the whole debate here. I think it is imperative that we 
move forward, that we make sure that we do crack open the door and 
allow us to sell our products, food and medicine, to these countries 
who are so much in need.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to say that I did not 
invoke a partisan tint to my comments. And I would like to remind the 
gentleman that it is the administration who has worked very hard on 
Fast Track, and it is the administration that worked very hard on PNTR 
and these other trade agreements. I would like to remind the gentleman 
that those are divisive issues on this floor. Many Republicans and many 
Democrats both were against them, but it was not the administration 
that was against them.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind the gentleman of that.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, sure, and I very much 
appreciate the statement of the gentleman from Florida. I agree, as far 
as trade relations with China. The administration worked very hard, and 
I think that is very, very positive.
  And Congress is not beyond blame, also, in some of the sanctions that 
were put on. There is no question about that. But the reality is it is 
more difficult today in many parts of the world to sell our products 
than it was even 10 years ago. And if we have learned anything in the 
past decades, it is that using food and medicine as a weapon in foreign 
policy has never worked. All it does is punish our farmers here. It 
does not help the people in the countries that we are supposedly 
punishing. I think the gentleman's point is well taken.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
would like to remind the gentleman, and the Congress also, that we, the 
subcommittee and the full committee, addressed those issues in our bill 
and that language has been stricken when it arrived at the Committee on 
Rules by the majority leadership of this Congress. And so I just wanted 
to remind the gentleman; I want to be certain he is aware of that.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I certainly am.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  MR. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham), my colleague, who well knows that more than half of 
what U.S. farmers and ranchers produce every year is exported somewhere 
around the world. Without more markets for our farmers to participate 
in around the world, price improvement in the domestic market is not 
likely to happen.
  I appreciate the gentleman's defense of our current farm policy. As 
we did hearings around the country all spring, members of the Committee 
on Agriculture from both sides of the aisle, we all heard the same 
thing from every farmer and rancher in all parts of the country. No one 
wants to go back to the old farm policy, the old command and control 
system that we had in this country for some 60 years where the 
Government decided what we needed and what we did not need. And the 
fact is farmers like the freedom and the flexibility they have to make 
decisions about what markets they want to enter and what crops they 
want to plant on their land.
  Mr. Chairman, when we started this program some 4 years ago now, no 
one had the idea that this was going to be an easy transition away from 
60 years of the Government making the determination about what ought to 
be planted and this transition to a more open and more competitive 
marketplace. And so I congratulate the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time just in closing, I think 
there is a consensus with all of us in trade policy, and it is the 
debate that we should have. And just in closing, also, I would 
certainly hope that everyone would support this bill on final passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R. 
4461, the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.
  This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee for their hard work in bringing 
this bill to the Floor.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget 
constraints under which the full Appropriations Committee and the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee operated. In light of these 
constraints, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation 
includes funding for several important projects of interest to the 
State of Nebraska.
  First, this Member is pleased that H.R. 4461 provides $500,000 for 
the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (MAFMA). The Alliance 
is an association of twelve leading research universities and corporate 
partners. Its purpose is to develop and facilitate the transfer of new 
food manufacturing and processing technologies.
  The MAFMA awards grants for research projects on a peer review basis. 
These awards must be supported by an industry partner willing to 
provide matching funds. In the first six years of funding, MAFMA has 
directed $2,142,317 toward a research competition at the 12 
universities. Projects must receive matching funds. Over the first six 
years, matching funds of $2,666,129 plus in-kind contributions of 
$625,407 were received for MAFMA funded projects from 105 companies or 
organizations. These figures convincingly demonstrate how successful 
the Alliance has been in leveraging support from the food manufacturing 
and processing industries.
  Mr. Chairman, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S. 
agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing 
world-wide demands for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good 
exports. In order to meet these changing world-wide demands, 
agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on 
adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food 
Manufacturing Alliance can provide the necessary cooperative link 
between

[[Page 13077]]

universities and industries for the development of competitive food 
manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn, ensure 
that the United States agricultural industry remains competitive in a 
increasingly competitive global economy.
  This Member is also pleased that this bill includes $200,00 to fund 
the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the University of 
Nebraska-Lincoln. This project is in its fourth year and has assisted 
numerous states and cities in developing drought plans and developing 
drought response teams. Given the nearly unprecedented levels of 
drought in several parts of our country, this effort is obviously 
important.
  On March 13, 2000, the Federal Government issued its first-ever 
spring drought forecast. It anticipates drought across the southern 
U.S. and in the central part of the nation. These drought conditions 
clearly pose a threat to individuals, agriculture and industry 
throughout the nation. As the drought continues, the NDMC will play an 
increasingly important role in helping people and institutions develop 
and implement measures to reduce societal vulnerability to this danger. 
Most of the NDMC's services are directed to state, Federal, regional 
and tribal governments that are involved in drought and water supply 
planning.
  Another important project funded by this bill is the Alliance for 
Food Protection, a joint project between the University of Nebraska and 
the University of Georgia. The mission of this Alliance is to assist 
the development and modification of food processing and preservation 
technologies. This technology will help ensure that Americans continue 
to receive the safest and highest quality food possible.
  This Member is also pleased that the legislation has agreed to fund 
the following ongoing Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service (CSREES) projects at the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln:

Food Processing Center..........................................$42,000
Non-food agricultural products...................................64,000
Sustainable agricultural systems.................................59,000
Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI) (a joint effort with Iowa 
  State University and the University of Missouri)............1,000,000

  Also, this Member is pleased that H.R. 4461 includes $100 million for 
the Section 538, the rural rental multi-family housing loan guarantee 
program. The program provides a Federal guarantee on loans made to 
eligible persons by private lenders. Developers will bring ten percent 
of the cost of the project to the table, and private lenders will make 
loans for the balance. The lenders will be given a 100% Federal 
guarantee on the loans they make. Unlike the current Section 515 direct 
loan Program, where the full costs are borne by the Federal Government, 
the only costs to the Federal Government under the 538 Guarantee 
Program will be for administrative costs and potential defaults.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member appreciates the Subcommittee's support for 
the Department of Agriculture's 502 Unsubsidized Loan Guarantee 
Program. The program has been very effective in rural communities by 
guaranteeing loans made by approved lenders to eligible income 
households in small communities of up to 20,000 residents in non-
metropolitan areas and in rural areas. The program provides guarantees 
for 30 year fixed-rate mortgages for the purchase of an existing home 
or the construction of a new home.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member supports H.R. 4461 and urges 
my colleagues to approve it.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, today the House will consider 
H.R. 4461, the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act. I would like to 
thank Chairman Skeen and the members of the Subcommittee for their 
leadership in drafting this legislation and I rise in strong support of 
its passage.
  Included in this legislation is funding for the Retired Educators for 
Agricultural Programs, or REAP. REAP is an organization which was 
established in 1994 to address the diminishing numbers of African 
American agricultural education teachers in Oklahoma and the scarcity 
of African American youth enrolled in vocational agriculture and 
programs such as the Future Farmers of America. Initially, REAP was 
operating in five counties in Oklahoma. It has since begun to operate 
in other areas throughout the State.
  The mission of REAP is to build a foundation that promotes personal 
and economic opportunities in agriculture for African American youth 
through project development and partnerships with educational and other 
community resources. One of the primary goals of REAP is to emphasize 
citizenship, economic development, leadership and scholarship to the 
African American youth involved in the program.
  REAP extends its outreach to the parents and community members by 
means of programs, forums and opportunities to chaperone student 
activities. The program encourages this participation in the hope that 
the adults will become better informed, more involved and more 
supportive of the reasonable and achievable aspirations of their young 
people.
  REAP exemplifies a model that can be easily replicated. It is a 
program of vision, partnerships and commitment that is timeless in 
focus and limited only by the parameters of the imagination. Field 
trips to areas in my district in Southwest Oklahoma have ignited great 
interest in expanding the program into this area of our state. Parents 
and teachers in Lawton, Altus, Frederick and Tipton, assure me that 
there is a great need for REAP in our area of the State where limited 
financial resources have precluded service.
  Mr. Chairman, REAP is an important program which could be used as a 
model for similar programs in other states. This program is vital to 
the further development of rural America. I am honored to have the 
opportunity to play a role in furthering the efforts of this very 
important program. I would like to urge my colleagues in the House to 
join me in support of REAP and the development of programs like it 
elsewhere by casting their vote in favor of H.R. 4461.
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note that the Committee 
has recognized the vital role the College of Agricultural and 
Environmental Sciences in Griffin, Georgia plays in improving and 
sustaining the Southeast's food supply. I would like to specifically 
thank Chairman Skeen for his efforts in assessing the merits of this 
facility and am gratified he recognizes the importance of providing 
farmers and scientists with safe and accessible plant genetic 
resources.
  The Griffin campus is the headquarters of the Plant Genetic Resources 
Conservation Unit (PGRCU). As one of four working collections in the 
National Plant Germplasm System, the PGRCU conducts research critical 
to the national effort to develop plant varieties resistant to insects, 
diseases, and other pests. The work done at Griffin is especially 
important when one considers that many of the edible plants we take for 
granted in this nation have countries of origin outside the United 
States. The PGRCU stores and reproduces the genetic materials of these 
plants, in the form of seeds and vegetative tissue, for use in domestic 
food production and scientific research.
  The PGRCU was established in 1949 as a cooperative effort of the USDA 
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the Southern State Agricultural 
Experiment Stations. Significant advances in genetic technology have 
been made over the last decade, and the PGRCU's collection of genetic 
resources has expanded. However, since 1989, funding from USDA has 
remained essentially constant at approximately $1,500,000. An increase 
in the operational budget is urgently needed to bring the genetic 
resource collection to an acceptable level of quality, and to provide 
the expected and necessary germplasm quality to users of the 
collection. As we continue consideration of Fiscal Year 2001 funding 
levels, I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of the Griffin 
Agriculture Experiment Station to agriculture in the Southeastern 
United States. I hope we will be able to ensure the full funding 
request, as it is necessary to continue the Griffin facility's vital 
work.

                              {time}  1145

  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and title VIII shall be considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4461

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2001, and for other purposes, namely:


[[Page 13078]]

  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes. But I want to continue 
the discussion between the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner). It is a very important discussion.
  I would just like to say that I think there is agreement in the 
agricultural community all across this Nation that our rural markets 
are very critical to us to agriculture being successful.
  But where there is not agreement, and I would dispute what the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) said, the farm policy that was put in 
place by this Congress, the 104th Congress in 1996, is not working. It 
is not working in many parts of the country. It may be working in 
certain parts of the country. But it is important for the future 
national security of this country that our agriculture industry stays 
strong, and it will not stay strong under this current farm policy 
without huge influxes of cash from the Federal Treasury. That is what 
we want to avoid.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE I

                         AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and not to exceed $75,000 for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, $2,836,000: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000 
     of this amount, along with any unobligated balances of 
     representation funds in the Foreign Agricultural Service, 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses, not otherwise provided for, as determined by the 
     Secretary: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be 
     used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the 
     Department of Agriculture to carry out section 793(c)(1)(C) 
     of Public Law 104-127: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds made available by this Act may be used to enforce 
     section 793(d) of Public Law 104-127.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to follow on the comments on Freedom to Farm 
of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), my good colleague from the 
subcommittee, and just set the record straight here. We are now 
spending more money to prop up rural America in this country than we 
ever did prior to Freedom to Farm. It is into the multibillions. In the 
year of 1999, in the regular appropriation and the supplemental, over 
$7 billion. Then in the year 2000, $8.7 billion. In the Crop Insurance 
bill that just moved through here like lightening speed a few weeks ago 
and signed by the administration, $5.5 billion.
  Prior to Freedom to Farm being passed, about 8 cents of every dollar 
that a farmer in this country made came through the government. It is 
now 43 cents on average.
  The tragedy in Freedom to Farm is we are paying people who do not 
produce. This is an amazing program. This is freedom not to farm. We 
are spending more than we ever spent in the entire history of our farm 
programs. We are all for exports, but we are all for people here at 
home making money off their production.
  There are some that are really doing very well under this program, 
and I just wanted to set the record straight. Because if one adds up 
the gargantuan amounts of money that we are having to use to prop up 
this system, something is fundamentally wrong with the architecture of 
the basic programs.
  So those gentlemen that stood up there who have now left the floor, I 
wished they were down here. But take a look at the accounts. One of the 
reasons we are so stretched in this bill is simply because we are 
having to, on an emergency basis, prop up a system that is sick from 
coast to coast complicated further by bad weather and disasters.
  So that Freedom to Farm program has to be revisited quickly, and we 
need a new farm policy in this country that rewards production, not 
lack of production.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          Executive Operations


                            chief economist

       For necessary expenses of the Chief Economist, including 
     economic analysis, risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, 
     energy and new uses, and the functions of the World 
     Agricultural Outlook Board, as authorized by the Agricultural 
     Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1622g), and including 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to 
     exceed $5,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $6,408,000.


                       national appeals division

       For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division, 
     including employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of 
     which not to exceed $25,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, $11,718,000.


                 Office of Budget and Program Analysis

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program 
     Analysis, including employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed $5,000 is for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $6,581,000.

  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise out of serious concern about what is taking 
place throughout rural America, especially the adverse impact that low 
commodity prices are having on family farmers today, not just in my 
district, but this is true from East Coast to West Coast and virtually 
every region throughout the country.
  The bill that the House is considering today is woefully inadequate 
for those family farmers throughout rural America. As we all know, the 
current situation in the countryside today is dire, but the price of 
nearly every commodity across the board is at or near record lows.
  In my western Wisconsin district, dairy farm families are 
experiencing some of the lowest prices in more than two decades. 
Wisconsin dairy farmers currently receive less than $10 per hundred 
weight for milk that sells for over $35 or more at the grocery store. 
With such market inequities, roughly five to six dairy families are 
going out of business in the State of Wisconsin alone. That is 
intolerable. That is inexcusable. We need to do better.
  Unfortunately, on this issue, Congress has been asleep at the wheel. 
In short, the 1996 farm bill is failing our family farmers, while in 
fact, as the ranking member just pointed out, we are spending more 
money today than we ever did prior to the farm bill being passed back 
in 1996, and sending money to nonproducing land owners.
  We are providing only lip service and no relief to those actually 
working and toiling on the farms and what they require. One month ago, 
this body literally tripped over itself to push out the door a $15 
billion crop insurance bill which contained $8 billion in emergency 
farm relief funding. As is too often the case, that bill primarily 
assists larger agribusiness at the expense of mid-size dairy, beef, and 
hog producers.
  This Congress needs to take swift action to stop the hemorrhaging 
that is occurring in rural America. Despite the best intentions of the 
chairman and the ranking member, this bill falls woefully short. While 
this package takes care of many other farm commodities such as sugar 
and mohair and cotton, it fails to acknowledge the problems plaguing 
America's dairy farm families.
  Because this Congress remains stuck in neutral, I decided to take 
some proactive steps to address the major issues affecting America's 
dairy farm families. Later this week, I plan to introduce legislation 
that mandates accurate price reporting for all manufactured dairy 
products throughout the country.
  I am also working with dairy groups across the nation to develop a 
comprehensive dairy package which provides a price safety net when the 
market falls apart on our farmers. The need for these proactive steps 
is long past due, and I am hopeful that the House and my colleagues 
will look upon these measures favorably and support them when they are 
introduced.
  Mr. Chairman, the time for action is now. We cannot lose any more 
farmers because of shortsighted, narrowly conceived farm policy 
supported by some here in this Chamber. I am disappointed that this 
bill does not do

[[Page 13079]]

more to assist the hard-working men and women who labor daily to 
produce our Nation's milk, cheese, butter and yogurt.
  The farmers back home are not looking for any special privileges or 
any special advantages compared to other farmers throughout the 
country. What they are asking for is the recognition that we, as a 
nation, cannot afford to lose family farmers and see further 
consolidation of the agriculture industry that is taking place with a 
greater emphasis on larger and larger agribusiness operations who are 
starting to dominate more and more of our food supply throughout the 
country.
  This is a very serious and I believe a very dangerous trend in the 
long run because we may find ourselves waking up some morning in this 
country, realizing that our entire food supply needs as a nation is 
dependent upon a few very large corporate elites producing our entire 
food needs. Then we are quickly talking about a national security 
crisis at that point.
  Hopefully, this body will recognize the true crisis that exists right 
now and have the courage to take action, which is long overdue, of 
opening up a farm bill that obviously is not working for producers from 
Coast to Coast and finally do right by our family farmers, who are 
struggling day in and day out, many holding on by their fingernails 
just to stay in business. We cannot afford to see the greater and 
greater consolidation taking place throughout the country and us 
becoming more and more dependent on fewer and fewer hands for our food 
supply.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer, including employment pursuant to the 
     second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 
     (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed $10,000 is for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $10,051,000.

  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, today we are debating voting on one of the most 
important bills of the year, Agriculture Appropriations.
  America's farmers have entered the 21st century as they did the 20th 
century, as the most productive, efficient, and successful farm 
community in the history of the planet.
  With this record of success, how can so many farmers be struggling? 
This question must be addressed because when the American farmer is in 
crisis, so is America. We must seek the proper direction to sustain our 
farm system and set a positive pace for years to come.
  While facing some of the lowest prices for their work, the farm 
community is facing a sustained and severe drought. Drought conditions 
have caused speculation of 100 percent crop losses in corn and grazing 
crops in Pike County in my district.
  People in the business of digging wells are busier than ever, and 
many farmers in the fourth district simply do not know if they can 
continue.
  The USDA Disaster Assistance Program, NAP, continues to operate as 
though the Pony Express is bringing them news from the farm. While 
satellite imaging and knowledge of global weather patterns are 
available, the USDA seems tied to old methods of policy that make the 
delivery system of disaster payments too little too late.
  We must address these problems. In the meantime, we must pass this 
bill today. Thanks to the work of Senator Cochran in the Senate, we 
have an opportunity to provide added assistance to the Livestock 
Assistance Program. We must act and we must create a mechanism that 
provides this assistance in lightning fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, back in 1977, I was one of the farmers who came to 
Washington during the American agriculture movement to protest what was 
happening to our family farmers. I have not seen a lot changed since 
1977 because there are a lot of farmers going out of business today 
just like they did in the late 1970s.
  If we do not do something about the small farmer and family farms 
while we have a budget surplus to do something about it, I do not know 
when we are ever going to answer this question.
  But our farmers provide the food we eat and clothes we wear. They 
provide the foundation of our communities all across America. 
Economically, our farmers are crucial. The total market value of our 
farmers production in my congressional district is over a half a 
billion dollars. That is a lot of economy and a lot of jobs in my area, 
and we certainly do not need to lose them. We certainly do not need to 
lose our family farms.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the House on two amendments that will 
come up in this bill, both dealing with the importation of agricultural 
and fishery products from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  The first will be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) 
and myself, and it simply cuts $15,000 from APHIS. That is a small and 
symbolic amount. It is the minimum amount that we believe would be 
necessary in order to inspect goods coming from Iran and make sure that 
they were eligible for importation into the United States. Those goods 
would include caviar, dried fruit, and nuts.
  So I hope that the House, without undue time delay, could simply 
adopt that amendment. I realize, though, that that amendment by itself 
does not control how the Department of Agriculture spends its money, it 
simply reduces by $15,000 the amount of money the Department would 
have.
  So a second amendment will be offered by myself and perhaps others at 
the end of the bill, and that amendment would say that no money 
provided by the Agriculture Appropriations bill can be used to allow 
for the importation, basically the inspection of these agricultural 
products coming from Iran.
  So one amendment saves us an extremely small amount of money, and the 
other amendment eliminates the need and prohibits the expenditure of 
that money.
  We would hope that both these amendments could pass by a voice vote, 
because we were here late last night, late the night before, and I know 
how unpopular I am likely to be in asking 400 some of our colleagues to 
walk across the street to vote, not on one, but on two amendments.

                              {time}  1200

  What I would also hope is that the government in Iran would give us 
just verdicts. Now, there cannot be justice for the 13 Jews who have 
been subjected to show trials over the last several months. They were 
arrested in March of 1999. Most of them have been in prison since then, 
all on the ridiculous charge of spying for the United States. In Iran, 
no Jew is allowed near anything of military significance, so to think 
that the CIA would turn to this small minority to hire our spies would 
be to allege a level of negligence to the CIA that not even the Chinese 
ambassador to Yugoslavia has asserted.
  Ronald Reagan instituted a ban on the importation of agricultural 
products from Iran. This amendment, or pair of amendments, would 
restore that ban. We could then, in the months to come, evaluate the 
behavior of the Iranian government. And if, later on, the conference 
committee decided that these provisions were unnecessary, if there was 
justice for the 13 Jews being tried in southern Iran, we could modify 
our behavior as the Iranian government modifies its behavior.
  For now, all we see in southern Iran is injustice and religious 
persecution. And the correct response of this House at this time is to 
prohibit the U.S. tax dollars that we control from being used to 
facilitate the importation of these products to the United States to 
compete with the products of American agriculture, when, instead, we 
should send the message to Teheran: no justice, no caviar.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I just want to reiterate 
one element of my colleague's remarks, and that is that wherever we may 
stand on whether or not we should be liberalizing our import and export 
policies

[[Page 13080]]

with regard to Iran, this is an amendment that simply speaks to the 
timing.
  And the timing is extraordinarily precarious. Although no one knows 
for sure, there is some speculation that this weekend, the 4th of July 
weekend, Independence Day weekend, is when the verdicts for the Shiraz 
13 are going to be coming down. I am concerned that the statement of 
this House should be that we are watching, at the very least.
  Even if this language is changed in conference, even if we choose to 
say to the President at a later date to release this money, to broaden 
our exchange with them because the moderate Iranian government is 
indeed that, more moderate and more committed to human rights, my 
concern is that if we do not act in this bill this is our last 
opportunity to send a message to the Iranian government that we are 
watching.
  Regardless of where we may stand, if we think we should be harder 
than hard line, or we think we should start to moderate a little in 
response to their new government, these amendments are simply a chance 
for us as a body to take a symbolic deep breath and wait and see what 
happens with those verdicts, and to make it clear that this show trial 
that has been conducted in private has been and is being watched by the 
United States Congress.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and in closing, I 
would hope people would accept these amendments and send a message to 
Iran.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial 
     Officer, including employment pursuant to the second sentence 
     of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     of which not to exceed $10,000 is for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, $4,783,000: Provided, That the Chief Financial 
     Officer shall actively market cross-servicing activities of 
     the National Finance Center.

                      Common Computing Environment

       For necessary expenses to acquire a Common Computing 
     Environment for the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
     the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service and Rural 
     Development mission areas, $25,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for the capital asset acquisition of shared 
     information technology systems, including services as 
     authorized by 7 U.S.C. 6915-16 and 40 U.S.C. 1421-28: 
     Provided, That obligation of these funds shall be consistent 
     with the Department of Agriculture Service Center 
     Modernization Plan of the county-based Agencies, and shall be 
     with the concurrence of the Department's Chief Information 
     Officer.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Administration to carry out the 
     programs funded by this Act, $613,000.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public Law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 1984 
     delegation of authority from the Administrator of General 
     Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 U.S.C. 
     486, for programs and activities of the Department which are 
     included in this Act, and for the operation, maintenance, 
     improvement, and repair of Agriculture buildings, 
     $150,343,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That in the event an agency within the Department should 
     require modification of space needs, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may transfer a share of that agency's 
     appropriation made available by this Act to this 
     appropriation, or may transfer a share of this appropriation 
     to that agency's appropriation, but such transfers shall not 
     exceed 5 percent of the funds made available for space rental 
     and related costs to or from this account.

                     Hazardous Materials Management


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to 
     comply with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., and 
     the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
     seq., $15,700,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That appropriations and funds available herein to 
     the Department for Hazardous Materials Management may be 
     transferred to any agency of the Department for its use in 
     meeting all requirements pursuant to the above Acts on 
     Federal and non-Federal lands.

                      Departmental Administration


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For Departmental Administration, $34,708,000, to provide 
     for necessary expenses for management support services to 
     offices of the Department and for general administration and 
     disaster management of the Department, repairs and 
     alterations, and other miscellaneous supplies and expenses 
     not otherwise provided for and necessary for the practical 
     and efficient work of the Department, including employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed 
     $10,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That 
     this appropriation shall be reimbursed from applicable 
     appropriations in this Act for travel expenses incident to 
     the holding of hearings as required by 5 U.S.C. 551-558.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Metcalf

  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Metcalf:
       Page 6, line 16, insert after the dollar amount 
     ``(decreased by $40,000)''.
       Page 57, line 24, insert after the second dollar amount 
     ``(increased by $40,000)''.

  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, in March 1999, following an investigation 
into reports that researchers at Tulane Medical School had developed a 
test that demonstrated a direct correlation between Gulf War illnesses 
and antibodies to squalene, the GAO recommended that the DOD 
immediately replicate the independent research results that revealed 
the presence of squalene antibodies in the blood of ill Gulf War 
veterans.
  Unfortunately, the DOD, Department of Defense, has chosen to ignore 
this recommendation. Instead, it has embarked on an attempt to change 
the format of the test rather than validating the research data.
  Because of the urgent need to determine if this test can be used as a 
diagnostic tool for those suffering from Gulf War illnesses, funding is 
needed for a review to build on the published science. This amendment 
will provide the money to validate the Tulane test. A mere $40,000 will 
be shifted from the administrative budget of the Agriculture Department 
to the Food and Drug Administration. If this test is validated, it will 
give hope to thousands of Gulf War veterans who still suffer from their 
service in the Gulf War.
  This amendment will allow FDA to convene a panel of three to four 
immunologists to visit Tulane Medical School to review the data 
concerning the anti-squalene antibody assay and familiarize themselves 
with the test procedures. Subsequent to the visit, the panel will 
submit blinded samples from 50 Gulf War illnesses patients and 50 
gender-matched healthy individuals for analysis of the assay. The 
results from the blinded test will then be submitted to the panel for 
unblinding and analysis. If the results are favorable to the FDA panel, 
then the test will be considered validated. This will fulfill the 
recommendation made by GAO more than 1 year ago.
  The House-passed version of fiscal year 2000 defense appropriations 
bill included report language instructing the DOD to develop and/or 
validate the test for the presence of squalene antibodies. On January 
31 of this year, 10 Members of this House sent a letter to Secretary of 
Defense Cohen requesting that he answer one question, and this is the 
question: ``If the Tulane test is a good test, based on solid science, 
shouldn't we be using it to help sick Gulf War veterans?''
  I would like to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Schakowsky), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Scarborough), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for their concern about this issue 
and for signing on to that January 31 letter.
  I would also like to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Nethercutt) for their consistent support of the Gulf War veterans.
  Congress is entrusted to take care of the veterans who sacrifice 
their lives to protect American freedoms. Thousands of veterans are 
suffering from Gulf War illnesses. This is one small thing Congress can 
do to give these

[[Page 13081]]

veterans hope that one day effective treatments and cures will be 
found.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The gentleman's intention is to take $40,000 from the Department of 
Agriculture and add it to the Food and Drug Administration so that FDA 
can validate a test, and this test does not fall within FDA's mission 
area. Let me quickly review the agency's mission regarding biological 
products, such as the test the gentleman has mentioned.
  FDA reviews applications from a sponsor both at the investigation and 
clinical stages. FDA scientists evaluate laboratory tests and patient 
data. Inspectors visit manufacturing facilities and analyze data on 
medical errors. FDA's scientists would not themselves validate a test 
for a product under review but would analyze the validation data 
presented by the drug's sponsor.
  The sponsor of the drug or biological product must initiate the 
review process by submitting an application with the agency. There is 
no fee for investigating new drug applications, the first phase of the 
process. For those products covered by the Prescription Drug User Fee 
Act, there is a fee for the new drug application review. However, 
waivers of the fee are available in case of need. And I would hope that 
the sponsor of this test, which I understand is Tulane University, 
would develop an application and submit it to FDA so that the test 
could be evaluated and approved.
  I hope this information is helpful to the gentleman, and I repeat 
that I oppose the amendment since the request is outside the mission 
area of the Food and Drug Administration. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf).
  The amendment was rejected.


                  Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Ney

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

       Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Ney:

                               H.R. 4461

                          Offered By: Mr. Ney

       Page 6, line 16, insert ``(reduced by $34,000)'' after 
     ``$34,708,000''.
       Page 8, line 3, insert ``(reduced by $33,000)'' after 
     ``$8,138,000''.
       Page 8, line 14, insert ``(reduced by $33,000)'' after 
     ``$65,097,000''.
       Page 10, line 23, insert ``(increased by $100,000)'' after 
     ``$850,384,000''.

  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to this bill. 
However, first I would like to congratulate the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Skeen) and the ranking 
member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for their hard work and 
a job well done on this piece of legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment holds enormous significance for the 
researchers who will be affected by it and for the Nation as a whole, 
so I want to make it clear this is not just something specific to the 
18th district that I represent, but the fact that this is something 
that is very specific to the entire country.
  The North Appalachian Experimental Watershed, known as NAEW, located 
in Coshocton, Ohio, is a nationally significant research facility whose 
mission is to conduct research on hydrology, surface runoff, 
groundwater quality and erosion in an agricultural context. It was 
established in 1935, and the research center has provided over 60 years 
of historic long-term data on small watersheds which has helped to 
develop a knowledge of basic water sediment and chemical movement. I 
personally have been to the facility, and I can tell my colleagues that 
people come from all over the world, not just all over the United 
States, to look at the facility and the data.
  This 60-year database of measurements has been collected from rain 
gauges, watershed flumes, and monolith lysimeters. Lysimeters, one of 
the facility's most unique features, measures surface runoff and 
percolating water, and provides the data necessary to understand the 
intricacies of land and water management as applied to agriculture.
  Soon after the facility went into full operation, it garnered the 
attention of scientists from all over the world who came to view this 
``first-of-its-kind'' large-scale watershed hydrology research program 
in soil and water conservation. Today, the NAEW maintains a total of 11 
large monolithic lysimeters and is one of the few lysimeter sites in 
the U.S. that is located in rain-fed agriculture.
  Having collected data from lysimeters since the 1930s, the NAEW has 
the longest water balance record of any U.S. weighing lysimeter site, 
the longest in the history of our country. The data collected from the 
lysimeters allow researchers to track nutrient movement.
  Mr. Chairman, I am aware much of this information I am speaking about 
may not jump out and grab my colleagues, but let me give some practical 
ways in which the NAEW provides our country with valuable information 
on land and water conservation practices and general land uses.
  One example is drought-risk assessment. The economic and 
environmental impacts of drought can be costly, as we all know, with 
billions of dollars spent during a drought. The National Drought Policy 
Commission, formed by Congress through the National Drought Policy Act 
of 1998, released its report and recommendations regarding the 
preparedness and response of drought. The overall recommendation of the 
Commission was for Congress to pass a national drought preparedness 
act.
  An element of the Commission's recommendations was research into 
different aspects of drought. Research is needed on science-based 
methods of determining the risks and probabilities of drought at a 
given location and under different climates. Research is also needed on 
environmental consequences of and preparedness for drought with respect 
to land management, water quality, and erosion.
  The NAEW has an archive of runoff, weather, soil moisture, lysimeter, 
and water quality data with which this research can be conducted. Some 
records, as I previously mentioned, are as old as 60-plus years. The 
existing runoff and weather monitoring infrastructure of the NAEW is 
invaluable for conducting watershed and weather-related research into 
these high-priority areas.
  Another area of research done at the facility applies to food safety. 
The importance of assessing the risks in plant and animal food safety 
and quality with respect to poisonous and carcinogenic substances has 
been acknowledged. As an example, the fungus producing aflatoxin grows 
in improperly stored nuts and grains, and thrives in crops such as 
peanuts during drought conditions, as well as from being under stress 
from prolonged wet periods.

                              {time}  1215

  Risk assessments must incorporate both climate and physical 
conditions at a location, and long climate records are not available at 
most U.S. locations. Therefore, science-based models using existing 
weather records need to be developed for these kinds of food- safety-
climate-variations risk assessments.
  The NAEW has a long-term weather database to collect this information 
and can provide the necessary research to assist in advancing food 
safety initiatives.
  Data and research collected at the site also provide information on 
other topics such as how pesticide runoff affects groundwater, how 
runoff for Midwestern farms produces ``dead zones'' in the Gulf of 
Mexico, the environmental impacts of grazing systems, flood mitigation 
studies, and the environmentally friendly land application of animal 
waste.
  Unfortunately, because of a flat-lined budget over the last several 
years, the facility has suffered severe setbacks in its ability to do 
research. Over 90 percent of its current funding goes to pay salaries 
and expenses at the station leaving very little money to fund the 
research that benefits the entire Nation. Several employees have 
already

[[Page 13082]]

been forced to leave their jobs, and further layoffs are expected 
without this much needed increase.
  These employees who have a long-standing relationship with the center 
will be lost, and along with their loss will be many years of expertise 
on the subject.
  As if the loss of these employees' jobs were not enough, the fact is 
that valuable research opportunities will also be lost. And that is for 
the entire country. Portions of the NAEW research efforts will need to 
be terminated. Simply put, lost employees means lost research.
  Although I am aware that there are other facilities around the Nation 
that are facing the same funding situations, I believe that the unique 
nature of this facility for the good of our country and the invaluable 
research it provides warrants the small increase for which I am asking.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this small but important 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKEEN. Reluctantly, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment of the gentleman is 
commendable. He is trying to support an Agricultural Research Service 
laboratory in his district, the Northern Appalachian Experimental 
Watershed Research Station at Coshocton, Ohio.
  I know that this research station does good work. That is not the 
question. The problem is that there are 103 other research stations 
within the Agricultural Research Service and they all do good work. If 
each of these locations had more money, they could do even more good 
work. This particular lab is funded at $957,000 in the current fiscal 
year, and this amendment will increase that amount by about 10 percent.
  In putting together this bill, we have had to balance the needs of 
all such locations. I think that we have done a good job.
  So I must reluctantly oppose the amendment of the gentleman. I need 
to ask that his amendment be defeated and that we maintain the balance 
among all research stations.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) will be 
postponed.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is not that 
the gentleman does not have a good idea. The problem is that the ARS, 
which is doing a tremendous job, was underfunded in the budget by $44 
million under their request.
  What the gentleman wants to do in his amendment, which I oppose, is 
he wants to take money from the Department of Agriculture's 
administration account, from the Office Communication account, and from 
the Office of Inspector General. Each of those accounts is way below, 
$6 million for the Department of Administration account below what they 
requested; $800,000 below the Office of Communication, what they 
requested; and $5.1 million below the administration.
  So, in robbing Peter to pay Paul, they are just squeezing and 
squeezing and squeezing. What we really need to do is to have more 
money in the ARS account. Unfortunately, if the gentleman had not 
supported the small allocation figure given to the committee, we 
probably could have funded it. It is a project that I would support on 
merit if the money was there.
  I think that we need to work, perhaps, in conference that we get 
higher figures on projects like that, but I do not think that his 
amendment is proper at this time because of the lack of funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


              Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 2501 of the 
     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 2279), $3,000,000, to remain available until expended.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out 
     the programs funded by this Act, including programs involving 
     intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive 
     branch, $3,568,000: Provided, That no other funds 
     appropriated to the Department by this Act shall be available 
     to the Department for support of activities of congressional 
     relations: Provided further, That not less than $2,241,000 
     shall be transferred to agencies funded by this Act to 
     maintain personnel at the agency level.

                        Office of Communications

       For necessary expenses to carry on services relating to the 
     coordination of programs involving public affairs, for the 
     dissemination of agricultural information, and the 
     coordination of information, work, and programs authorized by 
     Congress in the Department, $8,138,000, including employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed 
     $10,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, and not to exceed $2,000,000 may be used for farmers' 
     bulletins.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General, including employment pursuant to the second sentence 
     of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and the Inspector General Act of 1978, $65,097,000, including 
     such sums as may be necessary for contracting and other 
     arrangements with public agencies and private persons 
     pursuant to section 6(a)(9) of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, including not to exceed $50,000 for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109; and including not to exceed $125,000 for certain 
     confidential operational expenses, including the payment of 
     informants, to be expended under the direction of the 
     Inspector General pursuant to Public Law 95-452 and section 
     1337 of Public Law 97-98.

                     Office of the General Counsel

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the General 
     Counsel, $29,194,000.

  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a strong supporter of all the good 
agriculture work that is going on across America. But I am taking this 
moment to recognize that we have reached another milestone in American 
history, a milestone that we should celebrate as a people and a 
milestone for one person in particular, a former Member of this body.
  The President has just announced the nomination of the first Asian-
American to ever serve in the United States Cabinet. Former Congressman 
Norman Mineta has been nominated to be Secretary of Commerce. I think 
that is an important milestone for Mr. Mineta, as an individual, for 
this body, and for us as a people.
  Mr. Mineta was an honored Member of this body; as well as chair of an 
important committee; the former Mayor of San Jose; and an executive in 
a private corporation; and, I might add, a fine mentor to me, someone 
who is brand new to elected office in this body.
  In the words of the tech industry in the San Jose area, Congressman 
Mineta is fully plug and play. He is ready to go, ready to work, ready 
to work and lead and serve. I wanted to take a moment of this body's 
time to recognize this honor which has come to one of our own and 
another milestone in American history.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Economic 
     Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics 
     Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and the 
     Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
     $540,000.

                       Economic Research Service

       For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in 
     conducting economic research and analysis, as authorized by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C.

[[Page 13083]]

     1621-1627) and other laws, $66,419,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225).

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

       For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural 
     Statistics Service in conducting statistical reporting and 
     service work, including crop and livestock estimates, 
     statistical coordination and improvements, marketing surveys, 
     and the Census of Agriculture, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
     1621-1627, Public Law 105-113, and other laws, $100,851,000, 
     of which up to $15,000,000 shall be available until expended 
     for the Census of Agriculture: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $40,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                     Agricultural Research Service

       For necessary expenses to enable the Agricultural Research 
     Service to perform agricultural research and demonstration 
     relating to production, utilization, marketing, and 
     distribution (not otherwise provided for); home economics or 
     nutrition and consumer use including the acquisition, 
     preservation, and dissemination of agricultural information; 
     and for acquisition of lands by donation, exchange, or 
     purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100, and for land 
     exchanges where the lands exchanged shall be of equal value 
     or shall be equalized by a payment of money to the grantor 
     which shall not exceed 25 percent of the total value of the 
     land or interests transferred out of Federal ownership, 
     $850,384,000: Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall 
     be available for temporary employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $115,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available for the operation 
     and maintenance of aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed 
     one for replacement only: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 
     U.S.C. 2250 for the construction, alteration, and repair of 
     buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided, 
     the cost of constructing any one building shall not exceed 
     $375,000, except for headhouses or greenhouses which shall 
     each be limited to $1,200,000, and except for 10 buildings to 
     be constructed or improved at a cost not to exceed $750,000 
     each, and the cost of altering any one building during the 
     fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the current 
     replacement value of the building or $375,000, whichever is 
     greater: Provided further, That the limitations on 
     alterations contained in this Act shall not apply to 
     modernization or replacement of existing facilities at 
     Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That appropriations 
     hereunder shall be available for granting easements at the 
     Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, including an 
     easement to the University of Maryland to construct the 
     Transgenic Animal Facility which upon completion shall be 
     accepted by the Secretary as a gift: Provided further, That 
     the foregoing limitations shall not apply to replacement of 
     buildings needed to carry out the Act of April 24, 1948 (21 
     U.S.C. 113a): Provided further, That the foregoing 
     limitations on purchase of land shall not apply to the 
     purchase of land at Corvallis, Oregon; Parlier, California; 
     and Florence, South Carolina: Provided further, That funds 
     may be received from any State, other political subdivision, 
     organization, or individual for the purpose of establishing 
     or operating any research facility or research project of the 
     Agricultural Research Service, as authorized by law.


                Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mrs. Clayton

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

       Amendment No. 57 offered by Mrs. Clayton:

                               H.R. 4461

                  Offered By: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

       Page 10, line 23, insert after the aggregate dollar amount 
     the following: ``(reduced by $6,800,000)''.
       Page 13, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 13, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 15, line 22, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,800,000)''.
       Page 17, line 5, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,800,000)''.

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), and myself.
  Several weeks ago, members of the Congressional Black Caucus and I 
introduced the USDA Accountability and Equity Act of 2000, which 
focuses on eliminating discrimination towards black farmers, black 
employees of USDA, and the 1890 Land Grant Institutions.
  Our 1890 Land Grant Institutions continue to face discrimination. 
These institutions have been a prominent feature of the American higher 
education for more than 130 years. They continue to accomplish much 
with, at best, a modest level of financial support, while producing 
quality teachers, scientists, community leaders, businessmen, and 
women.
  Statistics prove that although these institutions play a vital role 
in strengthening competitive agricultural systems, conducting research, 
and providing training opportunities and technical assistance in 
environmental science, the funding authorized under USDA Food and 
Agriculture Act of 1977 for research and extension continues to erode 
for these institutions, the very funding these institutions and 
universities depend on for their food and agriculture research 
programs.
  The proposed appropriation of $30.6 million for research and the 
$26.8 million is the same amount appropriated to these institutions 
last year and the previous year. This amount continues to put these 
institutions in a position where their programs suffer, making it 
difficult for them to maintain an optimal level of program activity in 
advancing their land-grant mission.
  Our amendment would bring the 1890 institutions closer to the level 
of funding they so desperately need and deserve to continue to provide 
quality education to millions of students and the intensive research 
nationally and internationally that has served so many over the years.
  This amendment provides us with the opportunity to take one more step 
towards eliminating discrimination by leveling the financial playing 
field.
  I urge, Mr. Chairman, a vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the Jackson-Lee, Thompson, Clayton amendment to H.R. 4461, Agriculture 
Appropriations for FY 2001. Mr. Chairman, my congressional district is 
the home of Alcorn State University, the oldest Historically Black 
Land-Grant College in the country. For years Alcorn, along with other 
1890 Historically Black Land Grant Colleges and Universities, have 
faced an uphill battle in acquiring adequate funding to provide 
research, technical assistance in environmental sciences, improve the 
production and preservation of safe food supplies, and train new 
generations of scientists in mathematics, engineering, food and 
agricultural sciences.
  Although these schools have traditionally functioned with the status 
quo, over the past few years they have received less of the minimum 
amount of the federal and state funds they usually receive. Many of the 
1890 HBCU's across the country are equipped with the experience to 
carry out the necessary research that is granted to larger 1862 
Colleges and Universities, if given the financial support by the 
federal government.
  The Jackson-Lee, Clayton and Thompson amendment will address this 
loss in federal support for 1890 universities. Specifically, this 
amendment will increase by $6.8 million the formula funds (i.e., Evans 
Allen Research & Extension Activities for the 1890 Land Grant 
Institutions) for the 1890 land grant institutions. The amendment will 
increase research activities by four million and extension activities 
by $2.8 million for the 1890's land grant institutions. This $6.8 
million increase will be deducted from the Agricultural Research 
Service (ARS) funding included in the bill. The bill currently includes 
$889.7 million for ARS related activities.
  Mr. Chairman, lets work together to provide a lift for our 1890 
Historically Black Land Grant Colleges and Universities.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge the house to 
adopt the Jackson-Lee, Clayton, Thompson amendment to H.R. 4461, 
Appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for FY 2001. This 
amendment will ensure the economic viability of 105 1890 Historically 
Black Land Grant Colleges and Universities.
  These 1890 HBCUs are a part of a land grant system of 105 state-
assisted universities that link new science and technological 
developments directly to the needs and interests of the United States 
and the world. In addition, to strengthening agriculture, the 1890 
HBCUs conduct research, provide technical assistance

[[Page 13084]]

in environmental sciences, improve the production and preservation of 
safe food supplies, train new generations of scientists in mathematics, 
engineering, food and agriculture sciences and promote access to new 
sources of information to improve conservation of natural resources.
  Although these institutions have been able to operate from minimum 
federal and state funds in the past, over the last couple of decades 
these institutions have received less than adequate support to continue 
their historical mission of strengthening agriculture. I think this is 
a clear travesty and congress must do everything their power to address 
this oversight now.
  These institutions have consistently requested additional federal 
support for several decades and they have been traditionally 
disapportionately funded. For instance, in my state of Texas, Prairie 
View A&M University (1890) receives about $2.3 million in federal land 
grant funds, while Texas A&M (1862) receives an astonishing $100 
million annually. I make this point not to discredit Texas A&M, but to 
illustrate the clear disparity in funding for these Institutions. 
Furthermore, while Congress continues to increase appropriations for 
many agriculture programs in general, they have consistently failed to 
provide even marginal increases to these vital institutions.
  The Jackson-Lee, Clayton and Thompson amendment will address this 
loss in federal support for 1890 universities. Significantly, this 
amendment will increase by only $6.8 million the most critical funds 
for these universities. This slight increase will be historic, given 
the fact that these institutions did not receive any land grant funding 
prior to 1967 and have been level funded for the last several years. 
This amendment will be offset by deducting this $6.8 million from the 
Agricultural Research Service. Currently, the bill includes $889.7 
million for ARS related activities.
  Again, I urge you to support the Jackson-Lee, Clayton, Thompson 
amendment to H.R. 4461, and assist these institutions in their historic 
mission of strengthening agriculture in our Nation.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman 
Skeen) might join me in a brief colloquy.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the attention of 
the chairman a very significant emergency taking place right now in my 
home State of Iowa, and perhaps most prevalently in my district. I know 
our chairman is most certainly aware of it, as he also is a colleague 
from Iowa. But right now hundreds of farmers are suffering from a 
severe drought.
  According to the National Weather Service, it has been 45 years since 
the Midwest has been in such a serious drought at this point in the 
year. According to weather service data, this past April was the fifth 
driest in Iowa in more than a century of record keeping.
  Iowa, like most agriculture States, depends on abundant rainfall 
levels in April to help grow a bountiful crop during the summer. 
However, during this past April, rainfall was significantly below 
normal. This sustained lack of rainfall is devastating to farmers. The 
subsoil moisture levels are nonexistent or very low.
  As a fellow farmer, my colleague might understand. I recently dug a 
post hole trying to repair a fence in a lot and it was powdery dry as 
far down as we went, and we went down about four feet.
  Iowa's State climatologist has stated the 8-month period between 
September 1 and May 1 was the second driest on record in Iowa.
  Although the National Weather Service says there is a slight chance 
of relief, soaring summer temperatures will increase evaporation and 
will bring a quick return to dry conditions.
  I would like to call to the chairman's attention a provision drafted 
by Senator Harkin and Senator Byrd in the Senate version of the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill. This provision will provide $50 
million for rural water needs to help farmers and those who live in the 
surrounding town to make it through this extremely dry time.
  I would have liked to have offered a similar amendment on today's 
Agriculture Appropriation bill, but because this would be considered 
emergency spending, I understand it will not be allowed. So I would 
like to express my support for the Harkin-Byrd provision in the Senate 
appropriations bill and hope that we could work together to get relief 
for farmers who are struggling through this incredibly tough time.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concerns and 
assure him that this measure will be adequately considered when we 
enter conference committee with the Senate and having been subjected to 
the kind of drought that is being talked about, where we have 12-year-
old kids that have never seen a rain in New Mexico. So we have a real 
problem.
  I do not know how else that we can do it, but we are going to take in 
and go after it.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I do know that the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) understands this, and I appreciate his concern. I 
look forward to working with him in any way that we can to bring relief 
to the farmers throughout the Nation, in my area, as well as his, that 
are suffering from drought.
  I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) again for his kind 
consideration and his hard work on this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there additional amendments to this section?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.
       In the current fiscal year, the agency is authorized to 
     charge fees, commensurate with the fair market value, for any 
     permit, easement, lease, or other special use authorization 
     for the occupancy or use of land and facilities (including 
     land and facilities at the Beltsville Agricultural Research 
     Center) issued by the agency, as authorized by law, and such 
     fees shall be credited to this account and shall remain 
     available until expended for authorized purposes.


                Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Tierney

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

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Tierney:
       Page 12, after line 24, insert the following:
       Of the funds made available by this Act for the 
     Agricultural Research Service, $500,000 shall be available 
     for the report required under this paragraph. Not later than 
     September 30, 2001, the Secretary, acting through the 
     National Academy of Sciences, shall complete and transmit to 
     Congress a report that includes recommendations for the 
     following:
       (1) The type of data and tests that are needed to 
     sufficiently assess and evaluate human health risks from the 
     consumption of genetically engineered foods.
       (2) The type of Federal monitoring system that should be 
     created to assess any future human health consequences from 
     long-term consumption of genetically engineered foods.
       (3) A Federal regulatory structure to approve genetically 
     engineered foods that are safe for human consumption.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks a National Academy of 
Sciences study to examine three things: if the tests being performed on 
genetically engineered foods to ensure their safety is adequate and 
relevant; what type of monitoring system is needed to assess future 
health consequences from genetically engineered foods; and what type of 
regulatory structure should be in place to approve GE foods for human 
consumption.
  The reason for this amendment is simple. The growing public awareness 
of genetically engineered food has led to questions about their long-
term health and safety. We have seen in Europe an example of what 
happens when the public loses confidence in the safety of food 
products. In Great Britain there has been a massive backlash

[[Page 13085]]

which has effectively eliminated the use of GE ingredients in foods 
sold in grocery stores and restaurants there.
  There are significant differences, of course, between the situations 
in the United States and Great Britain. Due to past outbreaks of food-
borne illnesses, consumers there lack faith in the regulatory abilities 
of their government when it comes to food safety. In the United States, 
we have maintained public confidence in our food regulatory system 
because we have been able to avoid and prevent such disasters from 
occurring.
  However, GE ingredients can be found in many of the foods that we 
commonly eat, including potato chips, oils, corn, soda and baby food.
  The Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 70 percent of the 
grocery store food may have been made with biotechnology crops.
  We cannot afford to coast on the past success of our regulatory 
system. We need to feel confident about the safety of GE products.
  The current system of testing GE products for their health and safety 
is overseen by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA does not 
conduct its own testing of GE products. Instead, the FDA provides 
guidelines and then relies heavily on the companies that produce GE 
products to test their safety.
  Until last month, that was a voluntary compliance where the company 
shared the results with the Food and Drug Administration. Under new 
rules proposed in May by the administration, companies will now have to 
give 120 days notice to the FDA before introducing a new GE product 
into the market.
  Even with these new rules, it remains the responsibility of the 
companies that create the market for those products to be tested for 
safety.
  To make a compelling argument for the safety of GE foods, we need to 
be sure that the tests required of new products are adequate and 
appropriate. To assure the public that these foods are safe to eat, 
this is the least that we should be doing.
  In addition to ensuring that our testing methods are adequate, we 
need to ensure that our regulatory system is also adequate. The current 
system is based on the 1986 coordinated framework for the regulation of 
biotechnology under which the United States Department of Agriculture, 
the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug 
Administration share oversight of GE products.
  The National Academy of Sciences in a recently released report on 
genetically modified pest-protected plants said simply, a solid 
regulatory system and scientific base are important for acceptance and 
safe adoption of agricultural biotechnology, as well as for protecting 
the environment and the public health.
  We need to ensure that the current framework is still the best 
regulatory system to ensure the safety of GE products.
  Mr. Chairman, we are already seeing the effects of a lack of 
confidence in GE foods in the United States. Gerber and Heinz have 
announced that they will not be using GE products in their baby foods. 
McDonald's has even requested that suppliers not use GE potatoes, and 
Frito-Lay will not be using GE ingredients in its corn chips.
  This reasonable amendment seeks nothing more, Mr. Chairman, than a 
study to ensure that we are properly examining GE products, in terms of 
testing and in terms of regulatory oversight. We do that in order that 
we can adequately address the concerns of the public and the concerns 
of the food producers about these genetically engineered foods.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) continue 
to reserve a point of order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, we 
have spent the last year and a half examining the safety of the new 
biotech foods. Safety is extremely important. In our final report, 
called ``Seeds of opportunity'' we concluded that not only a great 
positive benefit to consumers all over the world, but they are safe.
  Our regulatory system in the United States is the strictest in the 
world. Between USDA, the Food and Drug Administration, as well as EPA, 
the Environmental Protection Agency, we have the kind of regulatory 
review and testing of these biotech products that has been acclaimed by 
many in the scientific community as being over adequate.
  There are strong suggestions that we are over regulating and 
therefore stifling the development of products that have so much 
potential to safely help people.
  There are now over 1,000 GMO products, genetically modified products, 
that have been approved that are on the market. The consequences of 
stifling this innovation by overregulation, and scare tactics is real 
and serious.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make the point that this is 
not overregulation. This is simply asking the National Academy of 
Sciences to determine what the best process would be. I do not think 
there is any doubt that there is a lot of skepticism out there in the 
American public and that we need confidence in these GE foods if we are 
really going to have them, have all the advantages that the gentleman 
speaks to.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Reclaiming my time, the National Academy of 
Sciences has just released a very intensive report where they come to 
the conclusion, as we did in our report from the Subcommittee on Basic 
Research, that essentially the food products that are derived by the 
new genetic modification are as safe, if not safer, than the 
traditional products and plant products that are derived from cross-
pollination and cross-breeding.
  There are approximately 25,000 genes in a plant. When two such plants 
are crossed, what one ends up with is unknown offsprings because they 
do not know what genes are going to mutate in the process of that 
cross-breeding and which genes end up in the new plant.
  With genetic modification, one can pick out and isolate one or two 
genes and know their characteristics. The results of that kind of 
biotech alteration can be predicted and the advantages and the safety 
are attested by the scientific community.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. What this does is to say that the Academy of Sciences 
would do a study. This is for a study for three things, whether or not 
the tests are being performed.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Reclaiming my time. Did the gentleman have a 
chance to see the study that just came out in April?
  Mr. TIERNEY. In fact, I quoted from it in my report; and it also 
talks about the need to make sure that our regulatory system is, in 
fact, adequate to give confidence to these foods that are coming out 
and to make sure that the public has confidence. All this does is say 
that the National Academy of Sciences would help us by reviewing what 
would lift that level of confidence, what types of studies would be 
adequate, who should do the studies and how should they be conducted 
and what type of regulatory system should we have, because whether we 
like it or not there is a large part of our population out there and a 
great part of our market who do not have confidence in the current 
regulatory scheme.
  It either needs to be reaffirmed, or it needs to have some proposal 
out there that will allow everybody, not just the scientists, not just 
us and everybody else, but to have confidence in the system.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Reclaiming my time, the National Academy of 
Sciences in their report did say that proper oversight is good, but 
they also said, and I quote;
  ``In general, the current U.S. coordinated frame work has been 
operating effectively for

[[Page 13086]]

over a decade.'' For your information that is on page 19 of this 
report.
  Biotechnology has been used safely for many years to develop new and 
useful products used in a variety of industries. More than a thousand 
products have now been approved for marketing, and many more now being 
developed. They include human insulin for diabetics, growth factors 
used in bone marrow transplants, products for treating heart attacks, 
hundreds of diagnostic test for infectious and other agents, including 
AIDS and hepatitis, enzymes used in food production, such as those used 
for cheese, and many others.
  And this is just the beginning. In agriculture, new plant varieties 
created with this technique will offer more foods with better taste, 
more nutrition, and longer shelf life, and farmers will be able to grow 
these improved varieties more efficiently, leading to lower costs for 
consumers and greater environmental protection.
  As you are aware, agricultural biotechnology has come under attack 
recently by well-financed activist groups determined to stop it in its 
tracks. The controversy resolves around three basic questions: Are 
agricultural biotechnology and classical breeding methods conceptually 
the same? Are these products safe to eat? And are they safe for the 
environment? I have concluded that the answer to all three questions is 
a resounding ``Yes.'' In fact, modern biotechnology is so precise, and 
so much more is known about the changes being made, that plants 
produced using this technology may be even safer than traditionally-
bred plants.
  Far from causing environment problems, agricultural biotechnology has 
tremendous potential to reduce the environmental impact of farming. 
Crops designed to resist pests and to tolerate herbicides and 
environmental stresses, such as freezing temperatures, drought, and 
high salinity, will make agriculture more efficient and sustainable.
  Biotechnology will be a key element in the fight against worldwide 
malnutrition. Deficiencies of vitamin A and iron, for example, are very 
serious health issues in many regions of the developing world. 
Biotechnology has been used to produce a new strain of rice--Golden 
Rice--that contains both vitamin A and iron.
  The merging of medical and agricultural biotechnology has opened up 
new ways to develop plant varieties with characteristics to enhance 
health. Work is underway that could deliver medicines and edible 
vaccines through common foods that could be used to immunize 
individuals against a wide variety of enteric and other infectious 
diseases. These developments will potentially save millions of children 
in the poorest areas of the world.
  I oppose actions that would stifle this technology based on unfounded 
fears. To deny its benefits to our Nation and to those who need it 
most, the children of the developing world who are concerned about 
where their next meal will come from.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico continue to reserve 
a point of order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to just stand and to commend the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for his concern, genuine concern, 
about genetically modified foods. As a result of his initiatives and 
his constant prodding of the committee, I want to just put on the 
record that in the report that accompanies this bill we are calling for 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration 
to work together to improve the methods of testing and reviewing 
genetically modified foods, as well as providing more information to 
consumers.
  We think that it is important that these two major agencies work 
together and though we probably have not done enough to completely 
satisfy the gentleman, I want to reassure him and the people of the 
State of Massachusetts that he represents, that there could be no more 
vigilant leader here on trying to protect the public's safety in food 
consumption with adequate information. I wanted to publicly state that 
and to thank the gentleman for coming to us and for leading us forward 
in our own efforts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) for her kind remarks and for her interest, as well as the 
committee's interest, in this matter, the subcommittee also.
  I think the problem I am trying to get at here is that there are a 
large number of people, and some producers and end users, who are not 
sure that the method by which we are testing right now, allowing the 
companies to test and having that then reviewed by the governmental 
agencies, is enough to give them a level of confidence. I think if NAS 
did a study to determine that that, in fact, was the best way to 
proceed, it might lift the level of confidence.
  If it decided that it was not the best way to proceed and set up a 
different type of regulatory structure, decided what was going to be 
the monitoring system that was used to assess the health ramifications, 
people would have a higher comfort level on that.
  I note that what the report really said about it was that there was a 
priority that should be given to the development of improved methods 
for identifying potential allergens and pest-protected plants, 
specifically the development of tests with human immune systems end 
points and of more reliable animal models.
  So the NAS really does think that there has to be some improvement of 
the methods. I think this kind of review would be healthy. I think this 
particular motion does not take it as a friend or an enemy of the 
system, but says, look, let this group that I think most people will 
trust come in and determine what we should do on a regulatory matter, 
either confirm what is going on or where they have raised questions, go 
after it and set up a structure that people have confidence in.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. My concern is the implication that the review 
process is not adequate and the implication that somehow there is some 
kind of danger with genetically modified products. That is totally 
incorrect. I think you heard the quote from the National Academy of 
Sciences suggesting that USDA, EPA and FDA have a good coordinated 
system to review and regulate agricultural products. The potential 
scare, from un-scientific accusations does a great disservice not only 
to the scientific community but to the agricultural producers of this 
country.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) for 
staying within the 30 seconds and would just say that the Academy of 
Sciences report issued on June 14 did state that more awareness of the 
regulatory process is needed, maybe not necessarily of what happens 
after that. But that is why we have tried to get USDA, as well as the 
Food and Drug Administration, to come up with a unified approach.
  I think the gentleman is pushing us in the proper direction, and I 
just wanted to state that publicly for the record. I do have a bit of a 
concern about an across-the-board, an unspecified cut in the 
agricultural research service because we have so much trouble in that 
account anyway.
  I think that the gentleman is obviously one of the leaders in this 
Congress on this whole question of giving the public absolute certainty 
about the food that they are eating and having some light shone on the 
regulatory process itself, and I think the gentleman has moved us along 
as a committee and is moving the country along. I wanted to commend the 
gentleman publicly for that.

                              {time}  1245


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney). 
The amendment violates clause 2(c) of rule XXI of the House, in that it 
proposes the inclusion of legislative or authorizing language in an 
appropriations bill.
  Specifically, the amendment proposes to use funds made available 
under the act to require and fund a new study not currently authorized 
by law.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?

[[Page 13087]]


  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, just on that point of order. I recognize 
and appreciate the point of order that is made and just say this was 
not about scare tactics, this was just the opposite about that; that 
is, trying to alleviate the concern that is out there and provide a 
mechanism by which that could be done so that everybody could have 
confidence in the process and eventually confidence that we all hope 
will be something that we can all benefit from.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that the amendment proposes new duties on the 
Secretary of Agriculture, and, as such, it constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        Buildings and Facilities

       For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
     extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
     facilities as necessary to carry out the agricultural 
     research programs of the Department of Agriculture, where not 
     otherwise provided, $39,300,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That funds may be 
     received from any State, other political subdivision, 
     organization, or individual for the purpose of establishing 
     any research facility of the Agricultural Research Service, 
     as authorized by law.

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service


                   Research and Education Activities

       For necessary payments to agricultural experiment stations, 
     for cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, 
     and for other expenses, $477,551,000, of which the following 
     amounts shall be available: to carry into effect the 
     provisions of the Hatch Act (7 U.S.C. 361a-i), $180,545,000; 
     for grants for cooperative forestry research (16 U.S.C. 582a-
     a7), $21,932,000; for payments to the 1890 land-grant 
     colleges, including Tuskegee University (7 U.S.C. 3222), 
     $30,676,000; for special grants for agricultural research (7 
     U.S.C. 450i(c)), $74,354,000; for special grants for 
     agricultural research on improved pest control (7 U.S.C. 
     450i(c)), $13,721,000; for competitive research grants (7 
     U.S.C. 450i(b)), $96,934,000; for the support of animal 
     health and disease programs (7 U.S.C. 3195), $5,109,000; for 
     supplemental and alternative crops and products (7 U.S.C. 
     3319d), $750,000; for the 1994 research program (7 U.S.C. 301 
     note), $1,000,000, to remain available until expended; for 
     higher education graduate fellowship grants (7 U.S.C. 
     3152(b)(6)), $3,000,000, to remain available until expended 
     (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for higher education challenge grants (7 
     U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)), $4,350,000; for a higher education 
     multicultural scholars program (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(5)), 
     $1,000,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b); for an education grants program for Hispanic-serving 
     Institutions (7 U.S.C. 3241), $3,500,000; for a secondary 
     agriculture education program and 2-year post-secondary 
     education (7 U.S.C. 3152(h)), $600,000; for aquaculture 
     grants (7 U.S.C. 3322), $4,000,000; for sustainable 
     agriculture research and education (7 U.S.C. 5811), 
     $9,000,000; for a program of capacity building grants (7 
     U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to colleges eligible to receive funds 
     under the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328), 
     including Tuskegee University, $9,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); for payments to 
     the 1994 Institutions pursuant to section 534(a)(1) of Public 
     Law 103-382, $1,552,000; and for necessary expenses of 
     Research and Education Activities, $16,028,000, of which not 
     to exceed $100,000 shall be for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       Page 13, line 17, insert ``(reduced by $200,000)'' before 
     ``, of which''.
       Page 13, line 24, insert ``(reduced by $200,000)'' before 
     ``; for''.

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut $200,000 for 
International Asparagus Competitiveness from the special research 
grants. Before I get bombarded with the asparagus contingent like 
George Bush did with broccoli, let me say this, I am not saying I do 
not eat asparagus, and I am not saying asparagus does not have the 
right to be competitive in a national market. In fact, I like 
asparagus. Mr. Chairman, I want to stand on that here today.
  I am saying the Federal Government should not be paying for 
specialized pork projects like this. Money would go towards building a 
harvesting machine for asparagus, it is currently picked by hand, and 
various other research projects.
  The asparagus industry is far from beleaguered. They earned $43 
million in the first half of 1999. In 1998, U.S. exports of fresh 
asparagus totaled 15,601 tons at a value of $46 million. In May 1999, 
fresh asparagus exports to Japan were up to 422 percent from the 
previous year.
  As the industry is doing very well, why should the Government pay to 
build them a harvesting machine? While I highlighted this section of 
the bill, let us look at some of the other wasteful projects which are 
included in this bill. There is $400,000 for an agriculture-based 
industrial lubricant research, $5 million for research into citrus 
canker, $150,000 for blueberry research, $500,000 for peanut allergy 
reduction, and it goes on and on, Mr. Chairman.
  The asparagus issue is simply an indication of what we get in this 
bill. All industries listed above, including asparagus, make enough 
money to subsidize their own research and development. Congress should 
be working to solve farmers' problems with the drought, the industrial 
farm competition, the estate taxes, but these small pork projects like 
this really do add up.
  Mr. Chairman, total special research grants for this year would be 
$74,354,000. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and I had a very 
good friend, still have a very good friend, Dan Schaefer, who was a 
Congressman from Colorado, and I remember one year when Dan did have 
legitimate competition in his congressional race, the opponent used his 
support of this type of asparagus program.
  I remember the brochure she used, and she had asparagus sprouts all 
wrapped in a little ribbon on the front page of this brochure showing 
this is the kind of thing that Congress does and it needs to be 
stopped. Of course, she was going to come here and stop that kind of 
thing that Dan supposedly supported.
  This is something that it is a minor thing, it is not a big deal, but 
illustrative, I think, of some of the things that we do in here. I give 
a porker of the week award every week for some kind of government 
foolish spending, and I have to tell my colleagues, the Agriculture 
Department gets the porker of the week award more than its share. It 
gets it for things just like this.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage support of the amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Hefley) a question, the proponent of the amendment, and ask in 
whose congressional district does this project lie?
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no idea.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, in which State?
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no idea. That is not a point with 
this at all.
  Ms. KAPTUR. It is our understanding that this is the State of 
Washington? I do not know if there are any Members that would like to 
comment, but I just thought for the record we ought to state that.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Will the gentlewoman continue to yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Yes, I continue to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman makes my point for 
me, which State does this lie? Is there a Member from that State here 
who wants to defend this project? That should not be the reason we make 
these decisions. We should make those decisions based on real issues.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am stating we do not 
know whether it is at a research station, whether it is in cooperation 
with the land grant university. The gentleman from Colorado is offering 
sort of an unspecified cut. We have many, many worthy research projects 
that occur across this country that try to save crops, that try to 
produce better crops.

[[Page 13088]]

  I just thought it would be important for the offerer of the amendment 
to place on the record exactly where this is. And USDA conducts many 
activities; I think it is very important for us to understand the full 
impact of what the gentleman is proposing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. 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 538, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time and ask for the indulgence of the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) to enter into a colloquy. I would 
like to bring a very serious matter to the attention of my colleagues, 
which is the devastating effect the drought is having on Texas and its 
residents.
  We are well aware of the economic impact it has had on agriculture 
production. Our colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) was 
speaking in terms of what was happening in his State and other parts of 
the country. The prolonged drought is now threatening an essential 
human need, drinking water.
  Let me give my colleagues a few examples: Sylvester, McCaulley, West 
Odessa, Rhineland, Mirando City, and Bruni's water supply comes from 
wells. Because of the drought, the water tables have dropped and the 
water quality is poor. In addition, they face the real potential of 
their wells running dry.
  Stamford, Texas has about a 1-year supply of water. The water quality 
is poor. Solutions have been delayed by bureaucratic indifference. 
Without assistance to divert water into the lake, any rainfall will be 
lost.
  Throckmorton, Texas, a population of 1,036 whose sole source of water 
is a lake, has approximately 117 days of water left. They are working 
with State and Federal agencies for resources to fund a pipeline to a 
neighboring community about 30 miles away. This is an emergency 
situation.
  Mr. Chairman, within USDA, there are rural utility programs that are 
designed to address problems such as these. Section 381E(d)(2) of the 
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act describes several programs 
that can alleviate the dire circumstances that these small rural 
communities face.
  For example, the Emergency Community Rural Water Assistance Program 
provides grants for communities in these dire situations. 
Unfortunately, the program has not been funded since fiscal year 1996.
  I would like to ask for the help of the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Mr. Skeen) and to work with the gentleman and others on this committee 
as this bill moves through the legislative process to find funding for 
these programs so these communities can receive the critical assistance 
that they need.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure my colleague that I 
will work with him to identify the funding sources for these programs 
and get these communities the help that they need either as this bill 
moves through the conference or other legislative vehicles arise. It is 
a very serious problem in that part of the country, and I understand 
that.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his help, and I look forward to working with him 
and the ranking minority Member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) 
on this issue of gravest circumstance.
  Mr. Chairman, I would take the remaining part of my time, and again, 
highlight something that I said a couple of nights ago when the HUD 
bill was on the floor. The bureaucratic indifference to the problems of 
these communities is becoming a very, very real problem, so I would 
hope that all of the committees, the authorizing committees of 
jurisdiction, would work with us as we attempt to work with the various 
agencies in order that we might have a little common sense applied to 
these emergencies and not have projects delayed needlessly as we 
continue to dot every ``I'' and cross every ``T'' on many of the myriad 
of hindrances that Congress has put in the way of dealing with 
emergency situations.
  I would hope that as we work through this difficult situation in all 
communities, all over the United States, that we might have the kind of 
sympathetic, common sense concern to address the problems.


                Amendment No. 49 Offered by Mr. Sanford

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

       Amendment No. 49 offered by Mr. Sanford:
       Page 13, line 17, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $14,406,000)''.
       Page 13, line 24, insert after the dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $14,406,000)''.

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply hold at the 
fiscal 2000 year level special research grants. The reason I think that 
this is important is because there has been basically a $14 million 
increase in overall research grants, which represents a 24 percent 
increase in this category of spending within this bill, and that is 
significant, because that is about eight times the rate of growth in 
inflation. It is about eight times the rate of growth in overall 
government expenditure.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons that this occurred was that there 
are $15 million in new research grants over the last year. They were 
not part of the fiscal year 2000 budget. They were not requested by the 
President. They were not appropriated by the Senate. In short, they 
were simply pork for Members within the agricultural committee.
  I do not blame them one bit for doing this. They were watching out 
for their district, but if my colleagues look at the last component of 
cooperative State research education extension grants, they are to be 
focused on a national mission. This just flat out is not the case as we 
look down to these grants. What I see is $1.25 million for efficient 
irrigation in New Mexico and Texas. I see $300,000 fish and shellfish 
technologies in Virginia. I see $300,000 for nursery, greenhouse and 
turf specialties in Alabama. I see $200,000 for International Asparagus 
Competitiveness in Washington that was just recently talked about. In 
fact, I see a number of increases on all kinds of different things, red 
snapper research up by 37 percent. Vidalia onions up by 200 percent. 
Wood utilization, I think this is just plain crazy one, if we look at 
wood utilization research, it is there to help in speeding the process 
from timbers' exit from the forest to the mill. Yet there is nothing 
more efficient than a redneck out in the woods of South Carolina with a 
chain saw. He is getting bit up by ticks and mosquitoes and red bugs. 
He is going to find the most efficient way to move the tree from the 
stump to the mill. He does not need a Federal Government grant to teach 
him how to do that.
  It is with that in mind that the USDA only requested $6.3 million of 
this type of research, because they, in fact, wanted broader research, 
research that was national in nature.

                              {time}  1300

  In fact, on this very front, if we look, competitive research grants 
were cut by about $23 million while these noncompetitive grants have 
been added to. It is for this reason that I think this amendment makes 
sense, because not to have competitive grants means that Oklahoma, 
Vermont, South Dakota, Delaware got zero in research grants. In fact, 
two big farm States, Indiana and Tennessee, got one each.

[[Page 13089]]

  So I urge this amendment's adoption.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Special research grants do not represent ``pork barrel spending.'' 
Special research grants have strong constituent support and provide the 
Nation with vital research alternatives to critical issues facing the 
American agricultural endeavor.
  Freezing special research grants at last year's level or eliminating 
new projects, as the gentleman's amendment proposes, will have a 
devastating consequence on vital research needed for eradicating citrus 
canker, preventing inventive species, combating exotic pests such as 
the glassy-winged sharpshooter that carries Pierce's disease, and 
improving agricultural and environmental technologies.
  The following three new projects highlight the significant nature of 
the special research grants funded in this year's appropriation bill:
  Citrus canker currently threatens the $8.5 billion citrus industry in 
Florida. $5 million is provided for much needed research on citrus 
canker and invasive species prevention and detection and eradication 
methods.
  Two, exotic pests are introduced into California at a rate of 1 every 
60 days. The bill provides $2 million to establish a research center 
devoted to the study of short- and long-term alternatives in combating 
exotic pests.
  Number three, Pierce's disease, carried by the glassy-winged 
sharpshooter, currently threatens the $12 billion wine industry in 
California. $2 million is provided for short- and long-term research on 
Pierce's disease and the glassy-winged sharpshooter.
  Historically, special research projects sponsored by Members of 
Congress have made significant contributions to American agriculture 
and have provided an opportunity for special oversight. Each year, the 
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service is required 
to report to the appropriations subcommittee on the national, regional, 
and local needs for the projects and the goals and the accomplishments 
to date. This year's detailed description for special research grants 
begins on page 513 of part 4 of the subcommittee's hearing record and 
concludes on page 775. Research conducted through the competitive grant 
process does not receive the same detailed oversight by Congress 
because the USDA does the selection process.
  Individual Members have submitted nearly 800 requests in support of 
the special research grants funded through this appropriation bill. 
Although we are not able to fund every request, we did evaluate the 
benefits of each project before we included it in the appropriation.
  The process associated with the appropriation process is long and 
includes oversight hearings and evaluations of many proposals. The 
funding presented in the special research grant proposal represents the 
combination of many months of work by the subcommittee, and the 
gentleman has not been specifically involved in the process. 
Furthermore, the gentleman's amendment moves to arbitrarily cut or 
freeze funding without any consideration to the merit or value of the 
research needs facing American agriculture. This approach ignores the 
methodical process the committee used to fund the specific projects, 
and it brings into question the sentiment of where the gentleman's 
support actually lies.
  Does the gentleman support American agriculture or foreign imports? 
Because if vital research such as those related to citrus canker and 
Pierce's disease is not performed, then the American citrus and wine 
industries and other agricultural industries supported by special 
research grants are in serious jeopardy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, along with our very able chairman, the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), I rise in opposition to this amendment in the 
area of research. One of the great gifts that America has given the 
world is our agricultural research. There is no more productive Nation 
agriculturally on Earth than our own. This has not happened by 
accident. When the country was founded and we tried to master the 
plains and people moved westward and so forth, even until today, we try 
to understand the ecosystem and its function; and we know we could 
never really control it, but we try to live in harmony with it.
  I am always someone who is a very strong supporter of research for 
the Nation, whether it is medical research, whether it is research 
related to space science, or certainly in the area of living tissue, 
whether that be plant tissue or, in fact, human tissue research. My 
record is very clear on that.
  The gentleman has picked one set of accounts called Special Research 
Grants, and for the record, I just wanted to point out that if we look 
at all research within the U.S. Department of Agriculture and all 
agriculture programs, there is, indeed, a prejudice toward row crop 
production, corn, wheat, feed grains, that runs through the general 
performance of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. There are many, many 
crops and many issues that are left out of that general prejudice, and 
these include many of our vegetable crops and they include many of our 
fruit crops; many items that would be smaller in terms of actual 
presence in the economy.
  Take maple sugar production, for example. This is an area that is 
covered under special research. The area of molluskan shellfish, 
granted, it is not something that everyone in America thinks about; but 
on the other hand, we have all managed to indulge at dinners and so 
forth in some of the products produced in that research. If we look at 
peanuts, it sounds like a simple thing to do, produce peanuts. One has 
to have the right climate, the right fertilizers, the right soils.
  What happens with peanut research? We have discovered, that, my 
goodness, there are allergens associated with peanuts and some people 
can die from eating peanuts. My district does not produce peanuts. I 
certainly do not want anyone to die, and yet with the general research, 
it is important that we as a country understand what is going on there 
and that food safety and investment in research related to peanuts 
occurs.
  Citrus canker. I do not have oranges and limes in my district in 
Ohio, although I certainly buy them at the grocery store. My heart goes 
out to all of the producers in Florida that are losing their shirts 
because of citrus canker. It is important for the Nation, if we are 
going to have citrus crops, to find answers to controlling, if we can, 
the devastation that is going on in those groves.
  On behalf of my own State I have to say, with tomato production, it 
seems that we can all grow a tomato plant, but how do we grow enough 
tomatoes to feed a Nation to make sure that we can move it from field 
to shelf.
  So I oppose the gentleman's amendment simply because it really throws 
a dagger at the heart of our special research grants which do not have 
the kind of support that we get in the major feed grains but, 
nonetheless, are very important to integrated production in this 
country. I think the gentleman has a worthy objective, but I really do 
not think he has chosen the right place to express himself.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and I understand 
completely what she is saying.
  I guess my only question about this is those very needs that the 
gentlewoman is talking about could be addressed through a competitive 
basis. My problem with the special grants is that they are on a 
noncompetitive basis so that many States are left out and some of the 
very needs that the gentlewoman is talking about are not addressed 
because they are not on a competitive basis.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I might say to the 
gentleman, he knows the problem with the Small Business Administration, 
why do we even have one? It is simply because so many people fall 
between

[[Page 13090]]

the cracks because we as a country are more able to deal with large 
institutions. It is no different than smaller producers, for example. 
Most farmers who might raise something like asparagus or tomatoes, they 
do not know how to apply for competitive research grants. Oftentimes 
this is done in conjunction with our land grant universities who do 
work with many of our smaller producers; raspberry producers, for 
example, who have to worry with viruses on their crops. We have a lot 
of internal review that is done by the academic institutions working 
with these crops and with the individuals who grow them. Also, the USDA 
Cooperative Research Service works and makes sure that we are getting 
our money's worth.
  So I think the gentleman is trying to do something worthy, but I 
think he has chosen the wrong vehicle to do it, and I oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. I want to remind the Members, Mr. Chairman, that the reason 
this money is in there is because we, because of our trade policy and 
the opening of our markets and our ports, we have many very serious 
invasive pest issues that we are dealing with in this country. I will 
give a couple of specific examples.
  In Florida right now we are under severe attack from citrus canker. 
The source was a tree that was brought in through the Miami airport. 
Right now, this Federal Government is going to be spending millions and 
millions and millions of dollars to try to eradicate this disease. The 
only way that we can get rid of it is destroy the tree. It is spreading 
in at a very rapid pace. In the process, it is destroying the citrus 
industry in Florida and bankrupting many of the folks who have been in 
the citrus business down there for hundreds and hundreds of years.
  There are other examples, as I am sure have been referenced in this 
debate. Pierce's disease in the grape industry, plum pox in the 
Northeast, the African hot water tick is another example of an invasive 
pest which has been found in this country which has the capability of 
destroying totally the livestock industry, including the wild deer 
population.
  I need to remind the gentleman that we did not become the world's 
greatest economy, including agriculture and other industries, by 
sitting on our hands when it comes to research; and this basic research 
to solve these problems has to be done by the Government. One of the 
things that we have done in the last 5 years that has not served us 
very well is to cut back in many of these areas within the Department 
of Agriculture and its funding.
  So I would very strongly oppose the amendment.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOYD. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for the way he has 
been a consistent advocate for farmers in general and farmers 
specifically within his district.
  However, my concern here is that people have mentioned a lot of 
strange diseases, canker sores on the sides of citrus trees and 
whatnot; but again, based on the research grants themselves, if we 
actually break them out, what they are correlated to is not the 
diseases on the citrus trees, but they are correlated to who sits on 
the Committee on Agriculture.
  So while these are interesting points, that is not where the research 
grants are going, and that is why I think they ought to be made on a 
competitive versus not-competitive basis.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, 
and I would remind the gentleman and others who have the same interest 
that this is one Member who sits on that committee and would be glad to 
work with anybody from any part of the country if they have a specific 
problem. We intend to earmark a lot of this money, and rightfully so; 
and we have taken into consideration those folks, like the gentleman, 
who have specific problems.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOYD. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, on that point, I fully recognize the fact 
that while this particular Member may well do that with farmers from 
anywhere across the Nation, as a whole, at the end of the day, what 
comes out of this process is not that happening. In fact, again, we see 
a direct correlation between simply sitting on that committee and the 
research grants.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to say that 
unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I do not control the whole process. I 
would be glad to work with the gentleman to solve his specific problem.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOYD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say, as ranking member 
of this committee, our responsibility is to serve the country; and we 
have Members that come to us, for example, from New York City and from 
Chicago who are not on the Committee on Agriculture who are suffering 
under the Asian long-horn beetle infestation where all of those 
hardwoods are having to be cut down. We serve the country. We try to 
provide answers through this section of research in special grants and 
special research efforts all across this country. We do not just serve 
people on the agriculture committees. Our job is to serve the 
membership and, through them, serve the Nation.
  So I would object a little bit to the way the gentleman characterized 
the performance of the committee. We are very proud of the work we do 
in serving the Nation.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

                              {time}  1315

  I come from Southern California. We are being attacked by what is 
called the glassy-winged sharpshooter, which is capable of totally 
destroying the wine industry.
  I want to make one point, Mr. Chairman: Insects do not wait. They do 
not wait for a competitive grant, they do not wait for a competitive 
investigation of whether one insect is more deserving of investigation 
or research than another. We do not have time. When an insect first 
hits the ground, it starts reproducing at a rapid rate. They become 
endemic very quickly.
  We have found in California if we do not respond, for instance, to 
the fire ant that was found recently, or the Formosa termite, which was 
literally eating its way across San Diego, or the Medfly, and continue 
to have research on that most destructive insect, I think everyone 
would agree in the United States, which totally destroyed, by the way, 
the citrus industry in Florida many years ago, that these research 
grants need to be responded to immediately. They cannot wait. We do not 
have the time. We have to give the responsibility to people to make 
those types of decisions.
  I would say that I join my friends on both sides of the aisle in 
opposition to this amendment. I would hope for the sake of the produce 
industry, certainly something very important in California, that this 
amendment is voted down.
  We do not get subsidies on our crops in Southern California. We are 
produce farmers: strawberries, fruits and vegetables. Our farmers 
really have to succeed on the price of their produce. The only thing 
that we have to get us in some kind of a competitive advantage is good 
research. I want to stand for research and in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I just think the gentleman makes some good points. I have great 
respect for my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina. But coming 
from a

[[Page 13091]]

farm State and being part of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the 
Committee on Appropriations, we do look carefully at the problems that 
come up in different parts of the country and try to address the needs 
where they can best be addressed, at the universities or land grant 
universities who have an ongoing research program.
  It is popular to say, ``This has a funny name, jointed goat grass 
research,'' for example, ``Let us try to strike it;'' or asparagus 
research, like my friend from Colorado had an amendment which I 
opposed.
  But it really, I think, diminishes a bit the work of the members of 
the subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations who look at all of 
these challenges in agriculture research and try to use their best 
judgment to make sure that problems are addressed for farmers, so we 
can sell crops and grow them, and grow them healthfully.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. I would just make the point that the gentleman raises 
some areas of acute need. I would recognize those acute needs. The 
problem is, the money is not being spent here. I see $5.5 million on 
wood utilization research; $3 million on vidalia onions, we do not have 
a crisis there; red snapper research, I do not see a crisis there.
  Mr. CALVERT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I do not know the 
instances in these various products, but I have confidence that the 
appropriators have looked into this.
  I have confidence that the USDA does not have time to look sometimes 
into the minutiae of what the gentleman is trying to do. They must 
respond immediately, not only with research but with dollars to back up 
that research, or we are going to have an epidemic on our hands with 
various produce and products in this country.
  I would like to say one thing, produce is extremely important to this 
country. Fresh vegetables are important to this country, not just to 
the farmers but to the people who consume them. We need to have the 
research and the response as quickly as possible in this country to 
make sure that we continue to have the best produce at the best 
possible price for the consumers in this country.
  In that sense, I would absolutely oppose the gentleman's amendment, 
and would urge all our Members to vote against it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of problems with this bill, but I want 
to take just a moment to question the presumption that somehow the 
public interest is served if the Congress never exercises its own 
judgment about where a dime of taxpayers' money ought to go.
  There are a lot of occasions on which I oppose individual requests of 
Members to add items to appropriation bills. Many times I oppose them 
because essentially those requests have been marred by lobby groups in 
this town. I think Members ought to be able to represent their own 
districts without having to be plagued by a middleman who is simply 
trying to make money off the deal.
  But the gentleman from Washington said something which I wanted to 
emphasize when he talked about the tendency of some people in this 
institution to sometimes go after projects just because they ``sound 
funny.''
  I remember about 15 years ago when a research project at the National 
Science Foundation was ridiculed on this House floor, on the Senate 
floor, and in most of the newspapers across the country because it was 
a research project involving Polish pigs. Everybody had a big laugh 
about the research that was being done on Polish pigs.
  The fact is that out of that research came one of the new, modern 
drugs for control of blood pressure.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just 
want to make a point of clarification. The gentleman suggested that I 
thought Congress should never be involved in this decision-making.
  Mr. OBEY. I did not mention the gentleman.
  Mr. SANFORD. Not me, but I am just saying generally. What is 
interesting is, I leave in place $60 million for special research 
grants. All this amendment goes after is the increase of $14 million, 
so Congress would very much be involved in the process of making 
special research grants.
  Mr. OBEY. I would simply say this, we have an economy that is second 
to none in the world. We have an agricultural community which is second 
to none in the world. We did not get that way by putting green 
eyeshades ahead of our own judgment.
  Sometimes the Congress has the temerity to think that there ought to 
be an increase in a program because there is some other value that is 
served by investing that money.
  I would simply say that it is very easy for one Member who has not 
sat through hearings, who has not gone over the individual Member 
requests, who has not weighed the requests of one Member versus 
another, given the very tight squeeze on money that we have around 
here, it is very easy for a Member to come to the floor and just say, 
knock off the increase in this program, or knock off that category of 
grants.
  The reason Congress has survived as the strongest legislative body in 
the world is because Congress specializes, and Members are expected to 
learn their trade. They are expected to learn about the subject matter 
under the jurisdiction of their committee.
  If we cannot have some expectation that that committee is to be 
trusted to use good judgment, then we become a zoo where the amendments 
are adopted on the basis of what some staffer in some Member's office 
thinks is a clever tack. I do not think that serves the interests of 
the taxpaying public.
  Mr. SANFORD. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I 
want to be clear, this is not about a green eyeshades analysis or 
nonspecialization. In other words, when I look at the wood utilization 
grants, I will bet I am the only Member of Congress who raises pine 
trees. I have been out there in the woods with a McCullough chain saw 
cutting timber, watching loggers do the same.
  It is based on that experience that says to me that the wood 
utilization program is a waste of money.
  Mr. OBEY. That is fine, but this is an institution that makes 
collective judgments. With all due respect to the gentleman, I think 
the committee spent more time examining this problem than the gentleman 
has.
  Mr. SANFORD. The question is how much time Members have spent in the 
woods.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I just wanted to express opposition to this amendment. As someone who 
is not on the subcommittee and someone who has not necessarily been 
advocating, although I certainly advocate for special projects 
research, but I have seen the value of these projects, whether I have 
advocated for them or not, in not only responding to special projects 
that someone else, not understanding it, may see it as something 
completely beyond what is practical and reasonable.
  Part of the ingenuity of research is to begin to not only speak to 
crises but speak to opportunities for research, opportunities for 
greater production, opportunities for enhancing the quality of food and 
the products that we grow. Having this and the judgment to respond both 
to crisis and opportunity is a unique value that we should not lose in 
the austere position of balancing the budget.
  If we are going to err, we ought to err on the side of looking at 
research in the sense that research really is a searching for the 
unknown, searching for the possibilities. I want to suggest that if we 
are to be practical, we also ought to have a future. Research is about 
the future. Sometimes we do not

[[Page 13092]]

know all the practical crises of those situations.
  I urge that we vote against this amendment.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to get in this debate, but one of the things 
I heard that really bothered me is an assumption that the American 
people should not take as fact. There is no shortage of money. 
Discretionary spending from this Congress last year rose almost 9 
percent, three times the rate of inflation in this country.
  So dare we not make the case that money is tight. Our pocketbooks 
that we are spending of taxpayers' money is growing three times the 
rate most of them are seeing increases in their own budget.
  The second contention that I would make is that it is okay to fund 
research that is not necessarily legitimate, because sometimes 
something positive comes out of it. I am reminded of the research that 
was appropriated when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was 
chairman of the committee that studied the flatulence of cows. There 
has been nothing positive that has come out of that approach.
  It is ironic that we would be so resistent to a lessening of programs 
that are not necessarily cogent and reasonable that are necessarily 
related to regional politics and reelection.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) 
is indiscriminately attacking important programs in this bill without 
much discussion about the impact of the proposed cuts, I want to take a 
minute to talk about the program that he is attacking with this 
amendment.
  The Cornell University program on breast cancer and environmental 
risk factors was launched in 1995 in response to the abnormally high 
incidence of breast cancer in New York. The program investigates the 
link between risk factors in the environment, like chemicals and 
pesticides, and breast cancer.
  The BCERF program takes scientific research on breast cancer and 
translates it into plain English materials that are easy to understand, 
and disseminates this information to the public. They have a web site 
that is filled with information on BCERF's activities, breast cancer 
statistics, scientific analyses of environmental risk factors, and 
links to other sources of information. They sponsor discussion groups 
that provide a public forum to discuss breast cancer.
  This amendment would destroy our ability to bring the important work 
of the BCERF program to more people around New York and around the 
country.
  Let me make this very simple. If Members oppose efforts to educate 
the public about breast cancer, and if they think we have done enough 
to prevent breast cancer in this country, then vote for this amendment. 
But if Members agree with me that we need to do more about stopping the 
terrible scourge of breast cancer, if Members agree with me that we 
cannot sit by while one in eight women are diagnosed with breast cancer 
over the course of their lifetimes, if it outrages Members that 
approximately 43,000 women will die from breast cancer, and 175,000 
women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year alone, then join 
me in voting no on this terribly misguided amendment.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I just I want to make very clear that this 
amendment simply gets at the overall funding category, the 24 percent 
increase in funding. It in no way goes specifically after your very 
worthy research project.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I wanted to point out 
the importance of this use of that source of funds. Because I think we 
have to be very careful in this body about indiscriminately cutting 
back on an account that may have very important uses for those dollars, 
and I wanted to point out one of the very important uses of these 
dollars so that I think we have to be careful.
  I am just stressing this to the gentleman that to cut out a whole 
account, we could put a program like this in danger.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to 
yield, I would simply say on that point, that is why I think it is so 
important to go after some of the others that I think have far less 
merit, like the wood utilization program.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I would like to 
state again to my colleagues that I think we all have to be careful in 
this body about cutting money from a general account when, frankly, the 
impact of those cuts could impact a very important program such as this 
one.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) just said that there 
were some Members standing on this floor who were saying it was okay to 
use taxpayers' money for research which is of no value. Nobody is 
saying that. I mean, the gentleman's comments I think simply do not 
accurately reflect what Members have said.
  What we are saying is that it is nice if there are people in this 
place who recognize the value of something as well as its cost. That 
goes to the very essence of research. We do not know ahead of time what 
value there will be, but we do know that there will be a very large 
cost if we do not engage in that research, whether it is in the case of 
human disease or even, I might add, if it is in the case of bovine 
flatulence which produces methane which has an impact on atmospheric 
gases.
  Mr. Chairman, I see nothing against the national interest in trying 
to determine whether an adjustment in bovine diet can lead to less 
impact on the Earth's atmosphere, so that we do not have to focus all 
of the squeeze in creating a cleaner environment on industry which has 
a negative impact on jobs.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, and in 
conclusion, I think that points out once again that the reason that I 
am using this as an example is to explain to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford), my good friend, that the impact of his cuts, 
although it may be unintentioned, could severely affect very important 
programs such as I have mentioned here.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I rise in 
opposition precisely because of the nature of the amendment in which 
the gentleman from South Carolina, my good friend, reduces arbitrarily 
the amount of money set aside. And I do so without apology on spending 
or defense of this particular category.
  When we look at the total amount of money that is being invested in 
agriculture on food, then it should be relatively easy to oppose an 
amendment that arbitrarily strikes $16 million without saying where we 
will strike it. I trust the judgment of the committee that has spent 
literally hours in determining the priority of projects. And I say that 
as one who has had some of my own requests turned down this year 
because there was not sufficient money available to fund all of the 
projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect that, as much as it hurts me to say that, 
because I happen to believe some needs that we were supporting in Texas 
and in other areas should have been considered, but were not able to be 
considered under the tight budget restraints. But to come in and 
arbitrarily cut an additional $16 million seems to me to be a little 
harsh, because when we look at things like bovine tuberculosis in 
Michigan, a very, very serious problem that we do need to have a 
special rifle-shot attention being done for it.
  We have already heard about the citrus canker in Florida. Designing 
foods

[[Page 13093]]

for health, very important. Potentially, something might be wasted, but 
by the same token, trying to find answers through our food supply of 
dealing with the very serious disease of cancer.
  I can list others. We have already heard the California problem in 
the wine industry, et cetera. But I remember not too many years ago in 
which, on this floor I am sure, but I heard it on talk shows, radio 
hosts who ridiculed a program that this Congress had appropriated 
dollars for, to study the sex life of a fly. If we let our mind wander 
for a moment, anyone who would hear that as we were spending taxpayer 
dollars and suggest what fun one could have with that.
  But, Mr. Chairman, it turns out that program was the Screw Worm 
Eradication program. That was a program that has now successfully 
eradicated the screw worm not only from the livestock industry in the 
United States, but also in Mexico. We are hoping to continue to move it 
completely off the face of this Earth. It has also benefited the 
wildlife industry tremendously. How many fawns have lived because there 
was no screw worm to take their life?
  So I would ask the indulgence of the body to stick with the 
committee. They have done a good job. I can criticize the $74 million 
as not being enough, but that is not what we are here today to do. But 
I would respectfully say to the gentleman from South Carolina, I know 
his intent, and he and I have joined on many occasions to reduce 
spending. But I would use this opportunity to point out to the entire 
House, we have done a pretty darned good job. We are now down to where 
we are going to be discretionary spending something like less than 17 
percent of the available funds.
  At some point in time we who call ourselves conservatives have got to 
acknowledge that and begin to look seriously at whether or not 
additional cuts are going to do real harm. I respectfully oppose the 
amendment, because when we look at the 16 million, if some of these 
projects would come out, we could do some real harm that I know the 
gentleman from South Carolina, my friend, would not want to do.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would make two comments. One would be the semantics 
between ``cut'' and ``freeze.'' And we might say this differently. I 
would view this as more of a freeze at last year's level, rather than a 
cut from a proposed increase.
  Secondly, I would make the point that if there is anything arbitrary 
about what is in here, it is the degree of correlation between not the 
diseases that are being talked about but the degree of correlation 
between the grants themselves and membership on the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. But from the 
standpoint of freeze, I would hope the gentleman would look at it from 
the total perspective of agriculture, not a particular program. Because 
if we look at it from the total and the needs that we have, and those 
needs that were not able to be funded, I believe perhaps the gentleman 
would have some sympathy for those of us who say it is a cut.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again yield, that 
is fair enough and a point well taken.
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this amendment. While I have 
enjoyed the company and support on other measures with the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), I have to stand in opposition to 
this amendment. I feel that it is important for me to be here to 
probably tell the rest of the story.
  The funds for the wood utilization research go to land-grant 
institutions in nine States. Maine is one of them. The money does not 
go to teach loggers how to cut trees more efficiently. Money is used to 
generate the new knowledge and technologies that are necessary to 
balance the sustainable use of our timberlands and forest resources 
with the need to maintain a vigorous forest products industry.
  The quality of the science performed with the help of these funds can 
be shown by the patent applications, the research awards, and the use 
of the awards by the industry itself.
  A couple of examples: it has helped with the environmental 
improvements in the pulp and paper industry, which I am sure has a 
presence in the State of the gentleman from South Carolina. The funds 
have been used to assist in the development of pulping and bleaching 
technologies that use oxygen delignification instead of chlorine. It is 
the use of chlorine in the process that creates dioxin.
  Last year, the University of Maine received about $890,000 in Federal 
funds, matched that with $500,000 in program support and industry 
provided in-kind support of over $250,000. This ongoing research has 
helped, because as we try to make sure that we are having a sustainable 
forest program, that we are able to use less-valued timber to be able 
to make sure that we could create a wood composite so that it would 
have the same strength and value of a higher grade of timber that could 
be used in the home construction industry to keep houses affordable and 
construction costs affordable for small businesses and working 
families, and at the same time to be able to better create a balanced, 
sustainable forestry program.
  Mr. Chairman, this research is necessary to do that. I do not 
remember or recall people talking about reducing the research that the 
NIH was doing that was providing the basic elemental science for the 
pharmaceutical industry to create drugs which are going to help people 
with MS and other diseases to better cope with it. I do not remember 
anybody proposing an amendment to cut those dollars that are providing 
that research that is going on in the pharmaceutical industry.
  But I notice as it pertains to agriculture, and I notice as it 
pertains to land-grant institutions and the research that is going on 
there that is helping industry provide and support alternative 
approaches to creating the opportunities for more economic development 
and jobs, I see the attacks coming in those directions.
  So as a member of the Committee on Agriculture, as a member of the 
Committee on Agriculture who represents the largest physical district 
east of the Mississippi, I stand here to defend these programs and the 
research that has gone on.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BALDACCI. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises very valid points in 
terms of the overall net effect of what is done in terms of research. 
My question would be on some of the things that the gentleman 
mentioned. On the New York Stock Exchange we find Boise Cascade and 
International Paper and Westvaco. And given the fact that these are 
multimillion-dollar corporations, and given the gentleman's advocacy 
for people in need, and given the fact that there are scarce dollars in 
Washington, all I am suggesting by this amendment is given the fact 
that we have publicly traded companies that can do this basic research, 
why not let them do it, rather than having them subsidized by people 
who frankly are not so well off in these research projects?
  Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman makes a 
very good point. But the research is not being done. The resources are 
being either clear-cut or overharvested, which is creating ripple 
impacts, which I know the gentleman cares about, in natural resources 
and in the quality of the environment. In order for us to be protective 
of our natural resources, creating a sustainable forestry program that 
is balanced, we need to publicly do the research. And by the ability to 
enfranchise and have the support of private industry with private 
dollars, we are able to use a public-private partnership to both 
protect our public resources and at the

[[Page 13094]]

same time provide an opportunity for business and industry to create 
the jobs and opportunities here in this country. So I think it goes 
hand in hand.
  I appreciate the direction that the gentleman is coming from, but I 
think it is very important that this research go on.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak briefly on the amendment previously 
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), which was defeated 
by a voice vote. I urge my colleagues to also vote ``no'' on that 
amendment when it comes before us later on.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak specifically because the asparagus 
industry, while it is a small specialty crop, is very important in my 
district.
  Let me briefly walk through the asparagus industry. It is a small 
specialty crop. They assess themselves somewhere around a million 
dollars for research and market promotion and those monies are 
obviously spent wisely. But the problem they are having overall is that 
the foreign competition from other countries comes at a price to our 
domestic growers, because in large part they are subsidized by their 
governments.
  That has a negative impact on our asparagus industry, because 
harvesting asparagus is very, very labor intensive, and therein lies 
the crux of the problem.

                              {time}  1345

  Now, I have talked to my growers in my district a number of times, 
and they said just give us a level playing field and we will compete 
with anybody because of the quality of their product. And I believe 
them.
  But one of the problems within the asparagus industry that is not new 
just this year, but going on some 20, 25 years and probably longer than 
that, is how one can harvest asparagus mechanically because it is very, 
very labor intensive.
  Part of this modest appropriation that was made to this industry was 
to find ways to reduce the cost of production through alternative 
production and harvesting. The key word here being harvesting.
  So this industry, simply being a specialty industry, is simply not 
large enough to fund the needed research, and this is a start to try to 
find what I tell my growers is the elusive automatic asparagus 
harvester.
  So I would hope that my colleagues would join me in voting no on the 
Hefley amendment, because this is the start where I think ultimately 
will be, and I cannot tell my colleagues whether it is going to be 1 
year, 5 years or 10 years down the line, but with our ability to create 
technology in this country, I think we will find the means to find a 
way to harvest asparagus mechanically rather on a manual basis.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Hefley amendment when it 
comes to the floor later on when we come back to rolled votes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, just to reinforce the Hefley 
amendment that takes the research money away from asparagus, I mean, I 
do not know how many people in this Chamber like asparagus, but have my 
colleagues noticed the increased quality of that asparagus?
  Right now our asparagus farmers throughout this country are facing 
the competition of losing their ability to produce because of the 
imports coming in.
  Vote against the Hefley amendment. Keep the research going for 
asparagus. This is a very, very small start.
  Additionally, let me say that Michigan is third in the nation in 
asparagus production, growing on over 16,000 acres at an average annual 
value of over $20 million.
  The asparagus industry is a small farm specialty crop with an average 
farm size of 65 acres. Asparagus is a very labor intensive crop as it 
must still be harvested by hand. During the growing season asparagus 
must be picked by hand daily with the selection of ripe shoots done by 
hand labor.
  When Peru was allowed to export asparagus into the U.S. as a result 
of the Andean Trade Pact, the U.S. asparagus industry was put at an 
unfair competitive advantage. While U.S. growers pay at least minimum 
wage, Peru's average wage is $4 a day. The U.S. industry needs a 
mechanical harvester to reduce the costs of harvest so they can be 
competitive with foreign competition. Because asparagus is a minor 
crop, there is little interest or incentive for private industry to 
develop a mechanical harvesters.
  Until the U.S. asparagus industry can find a way to reduce its 
dependence on hand labor, it is in danger of surviving due to 
competition from foreign markets. With cooperative assistance from 
Washington State University and Michigan State University, this funding 
will help develop mechanical harvesting technology to succeed in a very 
competitive marketplace.
  Without our assistance, this small but essential industry could 
disappear from the United States.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the subcommittee, 
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the full 
committee.
  In the Supplemental Appropriations bill that the House passed in 
March, $393,193,000 was included in programs within the jurisdiction of 
this subcommittee. The Supplemental Appropriations bill, which is 
coming to the floor sometime this evening apparently, or whenever the 
final differences of the House and the Senate can be resolved, contains 
only about $56 million of that amount.
  It is my understanding that those items were deleted without 
prejudice in order that the two bodies might reach agreement on 
urgently needed funds for the Army and for firefighting in the Western 
States before the July 4th district work period.
  I ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), is that the correct 
intent of where we stand?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin for yielding to me. I thank the gentleman for his question.
  As he knows, the House did pass this bill with the agricultural 
interests included in March, and it has taken us this long to reach 
some kind of a conclusion with the other body. We are prepared with a 
bill, a supplemental bill that has been scaled down somewhat.
  But I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, he is exactly 
correct. We have to move the supplemental as early as possible. The 
money has already been spent for the Defense Department in Kosovo and 
other parts of the world. So it is essential that we move the 
supplemental quickly.
  I would say to the gentleman, in response to his question, that I 
agree with his interpretation. I agree with his intent. There are 
agricultural matters of interest that were in the supplemental that are 
of great interest to the State of Florida. We do intend to make sure 
that we meet those obligations as we go through the further process.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), chairman of the subcommittee, if he can assure the 
Members of the House that the agriculture items contained in the 
supplemental will represent the House position when we take the regular 
fiscal year 2001 appropriation bill to conference with the other body?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen).
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding to me, and I would assure him that we worked very hard in 
developing these priorities in the agriculture section of the 
supplemental. We recognize that the need for these items is still 
great. We will make certain that they are addressed in the conference 
with the Senate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

[[Page 13095]]


  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), the chairman of full committee, for coming to the floor and 
trying to clarify what is happening here.
  As my colleagues know, when our bill was sent to the Senate and we 
were later called to become conferees, though we were appointed as 
conferees, we never met as conferees. We never had a chance to sit 
together. We were not even allowed to work our will on the bill, and 
many House items fell out as the Senate worked its will. We could not 
represent the interests of this House and our Members.
  I would just like to state for the record that funding for some 
important programs like Conservation Technical Assistance under the 
Natural Resources and Conservation Service that help our farmers apply 
for necessary programs like Wetlands Reserve, Conservation Reserve 
Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program were dropped. 
Hopefully, we will be able to restore that so we can get people to 
apply and to meet the deadlines necessary. One cannot do that without 
field people out there helping farmers across the country.
  Remediating citrus canker, which we had put in the House bill, at 
nearly $40 million for tree replacement and compensation to growers, 
was eliminated for some reason; the funds for APHIS to address Pierce's 
Disease, that is affecting the grape crop in California; were dropped; 
funds were also removed for the Inspector General, one part of USDA 
that brings in money as we arrest thieves around the Nation and those 
who are cheating and committing fraud in these various programs. 
Further, money was eliminated for our water and waste water grants. We 
have got people lined up all over the country applying for USDA 
utilities programs, unable to be served. Through the conference 
committee that we were not allowed to participate in, over 28 million 
more dollars removed from that program.
  Homeownership loans, resulting in a loss of loan volume of over $296 
million, were dropped from the bill. Our mutual and self-help housing 
grants, assistance to migrant and seasonal farm workers, the 
replacement of our FDA, Food and Drug Administration, building in Los 
Angeles--all were dropped out, sometime in the dead of night. We in the 
House did not have a chance to work our will. Many emergency 
conservation authorities were removed.
  I guess I would just say that I will place in the Record a statement 
that has come to us today from the Clinton administration, the 
Executive Office of the President and the Office of Management and 
Budget, that if we do not fix the Supplemental bill, the President's 
advisors have recommended vetoing this bill. Thus, I am so grateful for 
the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee 
standing here today and entering into this colloquy with the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member. It is absolutely 
essential that these items be restored.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen).
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, we will address all of the items contained 
in the agricultural section of the supplemental which passed the House.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to add that the position that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others, as well as the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), indicated that we want the position of the House to 
prevail.
  I appreciate the support and the strong leadership that the chairmen, 
both of the committee and of the subcommittee, have given to maintain 
the crisis in which we found ourselves in Eastern North Carolina, and 
we find that the drainage in Princeville has been eliminated.
  I am very appreciative that they are willing to consider that and to 
maintain that position, because the House voted on that. In the 
colloquy we had with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), he said 
he would work with us to maintain that at least the drainage that is so 
desperately needed in a town which was completely flooded would be 
provided.
  This was not new monies. These were just the ability to use monies 
already appropriated. So the emergency was not creating new drain on 
the Treasury, it was just giving the authorization for them to use the 
money that had been appropriated years in the past.
  So I want to express both my appreciation to everyone who understand 
that this is a crisis, and we should do the right thing by responding 
to it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to recapitulate that 
what occurred on the supplemental is that the majority party at the 
staff level had determined that there was a very large amount of money 
that both the Senate and the House were asking to be included in this 
bill for everything from citrus canker to dairy supplemental payments 
to you name it on the agriculture side.
  The decision was made by the majority negotiators to eliminate all of 
those items before anyone else was even brought into the conversation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I think it is important for 
people to understand that we consider those items to be merely 
deferred, not eliminated, because people are smoking something that is 
not legal if they think we are going to be able to get out of here 
without dealing with these problems, because the collapse in farm 
prices is simply not going to go away, and the Congress is going to 
have to respond to that.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman kindly yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to reexpress my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Chairman Skeen) for trying to restore regular order in this 
House and permitting the Members to exercise their will. The 
legislative will of the House and its membership must be retained both 
here on the floor and in the conference committee, and no special set 
of leaders who may have a higher title than any Member that stands on 
this floor should have a right to write our conference bill.
  We thank them for restoring the power back to the membership where it 
belongs and to the regular order of the committee process.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.


              Native American Institutions Endowment Fund

       For establishment of a Native American institutions 
     endowment fund, as authorized by Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C. 
     301 note), $7,100,000: Provided, That hereafter, any 
     distribution of the adjusted income from the Native American 
     institutions endowment fund is authorized to be used for 
     facility renovation, repair, construction, and maintenance, 
     in addition to other authorized purposes.


                          Extension Activities

       For necessary payments to States, the District of Columbia, 
     Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern 
     Marianas, and American Samoa, $428,740,000, of which the 
     following amounts shall be available: payments for 
     cooperative extension work under the Smith-Lever Act, to be 
     distributed under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said Act, and 
     under section 208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for retirement and 
     employees' compensation costs for extension agents and for 
     costs of penalty mail for cooperative extension agents and 
     State extension directors, $276,548,000; payments for 
     extension work at

[[Page 13096]]

     the 1994 Institutions under the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 
     343(b)(3)), $3,060,000; payments for the nutrition and family 
     education program for low-income areas under section 3(d) of 
     the Act, $58,695,000; payments for the pest management 
     program under section 3(d) of the Act, $10,783,000; payments 
     for the farm safety program under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $4,000,000; payments for pesticide applicator training under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $1,500,000; payments to upgrade 
     research, extension, and teaching facilities at the 1890 
     land-grant colleges, including Tuskegee University, as 
     authorized by section 1447 of Public Law 95-113 (7 U.S.C. 
     3222b), $12,000,000, to remain available until expended; 
     payments for the rural development centers under section 3(d) 
     of the Act, $908,000; payments for youth-at-risk programs 
     under section 3(d) of the Act, $9,000,000; for youth farm 
     safety education and certification extension grants, to be 
     awarded competitively under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     $1,000,000; payments for carrying out the provisions of the 
     Renewable Resources Extension Act of 1978, $3,192,000; 
     payments for Indian reservation agents under section 3(d) of 
     the Act, $1,714,000; payments for sustainable agriculture 
     programs under section 3(d) of the Act, $3,309,000; payments 
     for cooperative extension work by the colleges receiving the 
     benefits of the second Morrill Act (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328) 
     and Tuskegee University, $26,843,000; and for Federal 
     administration and coordination including administration of 
     the Smith-Lever Act, and the Act of September 29, 1977 (7 
     U.S.C. 341-349), and section 1361(c) of the Act of October 3, 
     1980 (7 U.S.C. 301 note), and to coordinate and provide 
     program leadership for the extension work of the Department 
     and the several States and insular possessions, $16,188,000: 
     Provided, That funds hereby appropriated pursuant to section 
     3(c) of the Act of June 26, 1953, and section 506 of the Act 
     of June 23, 1972, shall not be paid to any State, the 
     District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin 
     Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and American Samoa 
     prior to availability of an equal sum from non-Federal 
     sources for expenditure during the current fiscal year.


                         Integrated Activities

       For the integrated research, education, and extension 
     competitive grants programs, including necessary 
     administrative expenses, $39,541,000, as follows: payments 
     for the water quality program, $12,000,000; payments for the 
     food safety program, $15,000,000; payments for the national 
     agriculture pesticide impact assessment program, $4,541,000; 
     payments for the Food Quality Protection Act risk mitigation 
     program for major food crop systems, $4,000,000; payments for 
     the crops affected by Food Quality Protection Act 
     implementation, $1,000,000; payments for the methyl bromide 
     transition program, $2,000,000; and payments for the organic 
     transition program $1,000,000, as authorized under section 
     406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education 
     Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7626).

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to 
     administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress 
     for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the 
     Agricultural Marketing Service, and the Grain Inspection, 
     Packers and Stockyards Administration, $618,000.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, including those 
     pursuant to the Act of February 28, 1947 (21 U.S.C. 114b-c), 
     necessary to prevent, control, and eradicate pests and plant 
     and animal diseases; to carry out inspection, quarantine, and 
     regulatory activities; to discharge the authorities of the 
     Secretary of Agriculture under the Act of March 2, 1931 (46 
     Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C. 426-426b); and to protect the 
     environment, as authorized by law, $470,000,000, of which 
     $8,065,000 shall be available for the control of outbreaks of 
     insects, plant diseases, animal diseases and for control of 
     pest animals and birds to the extent necessary to meet 
     emergency conditions: Provided, That no funds shall be used 
     to formulate or administer a brucellosis eradication program 
     for the current fiscal year that does not require minimum 
     matching by the States of at least 40 percent: Provided 
     further, That this appropriation shall be available for field 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $40,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for the operation and maintenance of aircraft and 
     the purchase of not to exceed four, of which two shall be for 
     replacement only: Provided further, That, in addition, in 
     emergencies which threaten any segment of the agricultural 
     production industry of this country, the Secretary may 
     transfer from other appropriations or funds available to the 
     agencies or corporations of the Department such sums as may 
     be deemed necessary, to be available only in such emergencies 
     for the arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious 
     disease or pests of animals, poultry, or plants, and for 
     expenses in accordance with the Act of February 28, 1947, and 
     section 102 of the Act of September 21, 1944, and any 
     unexpended balances of funds transferred for such emergency 
     purposes in the preceding fiscal year shall be merged with 
     such transferred amounts: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to law 
     (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and alteration of leased 
     buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the 
     cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year 
     shall not exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value 
     of the building.


                 Amendment No. 65 Offered by Mr. Weiner

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

       Amendment No. 65 offered by Mr. Weiner:
       Page 19, line 4, insert after the first dollar amount the 
     following: ``(reduced by $15,510)''.

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I do not expect to take the full 5 minutes. 
First, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Skeen), chairman, 
and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), ranking member, of the 
subcommittee and their staffs for their commitment to our sound 
agriculture policy.
  But this is an opportunity with this amendment to use the matrix 
between agricultural policies and our human rights policies in how we 
deal with other countries to have, hopefully, a positive impact on a 
very important matter.
  As we speak, and, frankly, since March of 1999, 13 prisoners have 
been held on charges of spying by the Iranian government. There has 
been a trial that has consisted mainly of a kangaroo court where the 
prosecutor was the same person as the judge who was the same person as 
the appeals court, et cetera. It is expected that this weekend, there 
will be a verdict coming down in that case.
  What my amendment does is very simple. It strikes a small amount, 
$15,510 from this section of the bill from the over $400 million, I 
believe, section of the bill that is APHIS, that is used to deal with 
imports and imports only from Iran.
  What we are saying with this amendment is that Members are watching 
very closely what happens with those 13 prisoners. What we are saying 
is that, regardless of how we feel about the policies of Iran, whether 
we think they are moderating or not, that this case is one that we are 
watching very closely. We are withholding, albeit temporarily, we are 
withholding additional benefits for Iranian imports.
  I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. This is an 
opportunity for us to, frankly, say the right thing and do the right 
thing in a symbolic way.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the 
subcommittee chair, and his staff for his assistance in preparing this 
amendment.
  As I said, I do not anticipate taking my entire 5 minutes. This is an 
amendment that I have offered.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) in 
the interest of preserving time.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Weiner 
amendment to cut $15,510 from the Animal and Plant Inspection Service, 
APHIS.

                              {time}  1400

  This symbolic cut represents the amount that has been spent over the 
last 10 years on the importation of Iranian goods. While only a small 
cut, this will help send a message to the Iranian government in protest 
of the sham trial of the 13 Iranian Jews.
  Numerous Members of this body and the international community have 
come forward to express their outrage at this travesty of justice. I 
join them in their anger. These 13 Jews have been wrongfully 
imprisoned, and some have been forced to confess to the imagined crime 
of spying for Israel.
  When the president of Iran was elected, it was on a platform of 
moderation and reform supported by the Iranian people. In response to 
his election, the United States made good will overtures

[[Page 13097]]

towards Iran, including the lifting of restrictions on Iranian 
foodstuffs, like pistachios and carpets, as well as easing the travel 
restrictions on Iranians. Yet despite the rejection of hard-liners in 
the last election, the leaders of Iran are still on the wrong track.
  At a time when the U.S. has sought to improve relations with the 
Iranian people, the government of Iran must reciprocate and respect 
fundamental human rights and act as responsible member of the world 
community. When travesties such as this trial continue, it should 
concern all of us as to our policy towards Iran.
  While the State Department pursues its pistachio diplomacy, innocent 
people in Iran are suffering. The Iranian government must put an end to 
this sham trial, free the 13, and let them and their families live in 
peace. Unless they do this, our policy towards Iran will have to 
change.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and keep 
pressure on Iran. The Jewish community in Iran, especially the 13 
Iranian Jews, must know that the United States Congress supports them 
in their time of need.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEINER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, the trials are going on now. The 13 Jews 
charged with spying for the CIA may hear their verdicts on the 4th of 
July.
  This amendment sends a strong message that America is watching. No 
justice, no caviar. Or at least no caviar imported from Iran.
  I want to thank the distinguished subcommittee Chair for, as I 
understand, his willingness to accept the amendment.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise not 
in opposition to the amendment, but I just wanted to note that as well 
as these 13 Jews there are also Muslims. There are also Muslims on 
trial, and I think we should note that.
  I am not standing to say I am opposing this amendment, but standing 
to offer just a few words. I lived in Iran during the last year when 
the Shah was in power in Iran. If we look back at the history of the 
two countries, we have to also realize that the United States of 
America, after Dr. Mossadeq was in charge in Iran, the United States of 
America pulled a coup on Dr. Mossadeq. The United States, through the 
CIA, pulled a coup on Iran; and, in fact, we reinstalled the government 
of our choice. The Iranian people had a revolution, of course, of the 
Shah, and that can be debated for the next 20 years. But since that 
period of time, we have had zero contact.
  Now, I am not saying this is not a bad move to do, but I will tell my 
colleagues that we only fool ourselves in this U.S. House of 
Representatives and the United States Senate when we continuously pass 
other resolutions and we talk about strictly sanctioning Iran. Iran now 
has a freely elected parliament, where 78 percent of the people that 
were running were reform-minded. It has a freely elected president.
  We talk about doing business with China, where they hold Catholic 
priests and bishops in prison; yet we extend every option of trade 
avenue, and we are told we can reform them by engaging. All I am saying 
in regard to this amendment is not that I am opposing this amendment, 
but I am just simply saying that the day shall come when we wake up and 
realize that there are sins on our side, meaning the U.S., towards 
years of policy in Iran, and there are some sins on the Iranian side, 
obviously. At some point in time these two countries have to 
communicate, and then I think we can change each other's thinking in 
the sense of how we think towards each other. But maybe also we can 
change behavior through engagement.
  I have also seen and heard talk about the fact that if someone wants 
to talk to Iran, something is wrong with them. I think there are people 
on both sides of the aisle that realize the time has long come. We can 
hopefully help a lot of people on a humanitarian basis if we keep in 
mind that we need to communicate. So I think this amendment is done in 
that particular spirit.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman's words. I think 
that there is legitimate disagreement about how to encourage these 
moderate voices that we have heard about to emerge.
  One thing we do have to keep in mind, though, as the gentleman points 
out, is that there are people whose lives quite literally hang in the 
balance at this moment in time. But I certainly think that being in 
support of this amendment someone can legitimately hold a position on 
either side.
  We are just saying let us take a symbolic deep breath, step back, and 
hope we can encourage the behavior we would like.
  Mr. NEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that is the thrust of my 
point. This amendment, in fact, does not mean that we are necessarily 
not going to open up avenues someday of communicating so all the 
Iranian people and all the American people can share a peaceful world.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has raised a serious issue which all 
Americans should be aware of, and I congratulate him for it. I would 
prefer that this cut would come from the budgets of other Federal 
agencies which are responsible for our import policy. APHIS, of course, 
is bound by law to inspect cargo wherever it comes from. However, I 
understand the extreme importance of this issue, and urge all my 
colleagues to consider the gentleman's words.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment offered 
today by Mr. Weiner that will reduce funding for the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service by over 15,000. This amount is more 
significant than its number, because it represents the APHIS budget 
that is used to administer Iranian agricultural imports to the United 
States.
  Mr. Chairman, thirteen Iranian Jews were arbitrarily arrested in 
March, 1999, and are about to be sentenced and condemned by the Iranian 
Revolutionary Court for crimes they did not commit. Now is not the time 
to send Iran symbolic victories. Not while the Iranian Court prepares 
to sentence the thirteen Iranian Jews who are on trial for their 
religious beliefs, not for anything they have done wrong.
  As my colleagues have pointed out, this sham trial was orchestrated 
by the Iranian government which refused to allow members of the Jewish 
community, diplomats, or human rights activists to be present in the 
courtroom and observe the trial. This sham trial undermines the 
progress we have been anticipating as a result of the recent Iranian 
elections--which raised our hopes and led to our lifting of sanctions 
on carpets, caviar, nuts, and dried fruits. Now is not the time to go 
further.
  We must not reward Iran for persecuting religious minorities 
including Jews, Bahai's and Christians. We must not reward the Iranian 
government for being the world's leading sponsor of terrorism. We must 
not reward them for doing everything in their power to destroy the 
Middle East peace process. And we must not reward the Iranian 
government for their intensive effort to build weapons of mass 
destruction. Now is the time for Iran to send the world a positive 
message.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity right now on the Floor of the 
House to send a clear message to the Iranian government that their 
treatment of the thirteen Iranian Jews is unacceptable and will not be 
rewarded.
  If Iran is to become a respected member of the international 
community, she must immediately end this show trial, release the 
Iranian Jews, and begin protecting the religious rights of all of her 
citizens. Until such time, Iran will remain a pariah nation. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, which will send a strong message to the government of Iran 
and the world that the United States Congress will not tolerate Iran's 
blatant disregard for basic human rights.
  We have heard about the so-called ``moderation'' of Iran, about the 
power struggle between the hard-line clerics and the reformists led by 
President Khatemi. I invite my colleagues to examine carefully the face 
of this moderation:
  13 Iranian Jews are currently awaiting sentencing on charges of 
spying for the United States and Israel. These 13 have been denied

[[Page 13098]]

due process, were coerced into confessing on Iranian TV, and are being 
prosecuted, judged, and sentenced by the same Revolutionary Court 
judge.
  Since late May, over 20 newspapers and magazines associated with the 
reformists have been shut down by the Iranian government, silencing the 
voices of the independent press in that country.
  And just yesterday, two prominent human rights lawyers in Iran were 
sent to prison, without trial, on charges of insulting public 
officials.
  No reasonable person could call this ``moderation.''
  Mr. Chairman, Iran is not ready to join the community of nations. 
Each day, Iran produces more and more evidence that the terms of 
membership in this community--including respect for basic human rights, 
due process, and freedom, are not terms it can accept. Each day, Iran 
sends unmistakable messages to the world that it is not willing to 
embrace the mores of reasonable society. Each day, Iran continues to 
threaten its neighbors and pursue the development of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  We have heard these messages loud and clear. And we should react 
accordingly. This is not the time to make concessions to Iran. This is 
not the time to open up our markets to Iran, to allow the government to 
fill its coffers with dollars from the sale of Iranian goods to the 
United States. This is not the time to give Iran one iota of legitimacy 
in the international community. Legitimacy must be earned, and Iran has 
earned nothing.
  I urge my colleagues strongly to support the Weiner amendment, which 
would deny funding for the importation of agricultural products from 
Iran. We owe this to ourselves, as the premiere defenders of democracy 
throughout the world. And we owe it to the Iran 13, the independent 
journalists, the human rights lawyers, and all the people of Iran who 
are still not free.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join with my colleagues to 
condemn Iran for the arrest, imprisonment and current trial of thirteen 
Iranian Jews on charges of spying for Israel and the United States. 
These thirteen rabbis, teachers, students and other citizens were 
arbitrarily arrested in March of last year and held for seventy days 
without any charges filed against them. In June of 1999, Iran charged 
them with spying for Israel and the United States.
  Finally, in April of this year, the trial of these thirteen Jews 
began. However, what is currently taking place in Iran is not what any 
American would recognize as a trial. The judge is acting not only as 
the judge but also as the prosecutor. The accused were not allowed 
access to any attorney, court-appointed or otherwise, until just hours 
before their trial started. Finally, access to the courtroom has been 
denied to the press, human rights workers and most importantly, to the 
families of the accused.
  The Iranian government has a long history of mistreatment of several 
of its minorities including the Baha'is, Sunni Muslims, Christians and 
Jews. More than half the Jews in Iran have fled the country since the 
Islamic Revolution in 1979, due to the intense religious persecution. 
Numerous written and unwritten laws exist in Iran limiting the 
activities of all minorities. Forbidding Iranians to visit Israel and 
denying the Baha'is access to higher education, government employment 
and pensions are just two examples of the discrimination which is 
commonplace throughout Iran.
  I am extremely concerned that the Iranian government is treating the 
thirteen Jews currently being tried with the same disregard for human 
rights and due process that it has treated so many minorities in the 
past. Our administration and the international community must do all it 
can to see that this does not continue. The time for Iran to begin to 
live up to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 
including religious freedom, has come.
  I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for the 
leadership he has taken on this issue and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Weiner) for his amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations Bill 
today. The U.S. government should not be lifting any restrictions on 
trade with Iran until these men are free, and Iran shows the 
international arena that it is serious about living under that rule of 
law and respecting basic human rights. I hope and pray that soon we can 
celebrate the release of these thirteen individuals.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In the current fiscal year, the agency is authorized to 
     collect fees to cover the total costs of providing technical 
     assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other 
     political subdivisions, domestic and international 
     organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided 
     that such fees are structured such that any entity's 
     liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical 
     assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the 
     agency, and such fees shall be credited to this account, to 
     remain available until expended, without further 
     appropriation, for providing such assistance, goods, or 
     services.
       Of the total amount available under this heading in the 
     current fiscal year, $87,000,000 shall be derived from user 
     fees deposited in the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection User 
     Fee Account.

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for 
purposes of entering into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman 
and ranking member of the subcommittee, as well as the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by praising the leadership and 
bipartisan spirit brought to this subcommittee by the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). His work in promoting the needs of agriculture, 
forestry, and domestic nutrition programs will be long hailed in this 
Chamber and throughout our Nation well into the future.
  As the Chairman and ranking member know, the Asian Longhorned Beetle 
has done tremendous damage to trees and parkland areas throughout both 
New York City and the Chicago metropolitan areas. In my congressional 
district, which is comprised of a diverse swath of middle- and working-
class neighborhoods in Queens and the Bronx, New York, many of the few 
trees we do enjoy have either fallen victim to or remain seriously 
threatened by the Asian Longhorned Beetle.
  Specifically, the neighborhood of Ridgewood, Queens, in my 
congressional district has seen a virtual destruction of many of their 
trees, very treasured trees, from this unwelcome pest. Therefore, it is 
of great concern to my constituents that the adequate resources are 
allocated for the elimination of this invasive species before it strips 
our entire city bare of its trees and greenery.
  Last year, this subcommittee, under the leadership of the chairman, 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), and ranking member, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), provided both a direct 
appropriation to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
otherwise known as APHIS, to combat the Asian Longhorned Beetle, as 
well as language granting the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to 
use Commodity Credit Corporation emergency funds and Emerging Plant 
Pest funds to address this issue.
  These funds serve as an important investment in my congressional 
district, and I am extremely grateful that the subcommittee has again 
included similar language in this bill regarding CCC and Emerging Plant 
Pest funds for New York City.
  Having stated that, I would like to request the assistance of the 
chairman and the ranking member in conference to work for an increase 
in direct funding for APHIS for its Asian Longhorned Beetle project so 
that they may continue their efforts in working to rid America of this 
destructive invasive species.
  Additionally, I have grave concerns about the pace at which the 
Office of Management and Budget is releasing these emergency CCC funds 
for invasive species emergencies throughout the United States when the 
Secretary has already requested them. I recognize and appreciate the 
fact that the House report accompanying this measure addresses this 
problem. I am hopeful that working with both the Senate and the 
administration we will be able to rectify the situation.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CROWLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me, and I want to commend the gentleman on his leadership. New York and 
Chicago have a great deal of things in common. Unfortunately, this is 
another thing that New York City and Chicago have in common.

[[Page 13099]]

  Chicago, Mr. Chairman, is a great city. We have great trees, we have 
great parks; and the last time I checked, we still had Sammy Sosa. But 
2 years ago in Chicago, residents of the Ravenswood community, in my 
congressional district, discovered that the trees in their neighborhood 
had fallen pry not to the New York Yankees but to the Asian Longhorned 
Beetle.
  This Asian Longhorned Beetle, Mr. Chairman, is a pest which destroys 
trees by burrowing into their trunks. Within weeks many of the trees 
which had shaded neighborhoods for years had to be removed to stop the 
spread of the Asian Longhorned Beetle.
  The Asian Longhorned Beetles are not natives to the United States. 
They are stowaways who came here in packing crates from Asia. These 
beetles infest our trees by burrowing inside and hatching larvae. This 
destroys the tree's structure from inside out. And once the tree is 
infected, Mr. Chairman, there is no way to save it except that it must 
be destroyed in order to prevent it from infecting other trees.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) 
to recognize that the Congress has in the past provided funding to 
contain the Asian Longhorned Beetle, and I would hope that the 
chairman's leadership can secure funding again this time around.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CROWLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York and the 
gentleman from Illinois for their comments and would like to take a 
moment to recognize them for their work on behalf of their constituents 
to address the problem of the Asian Longhorned Beetle and work for its 
eradication. That is why the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and I 
have included language, both this year and last year, stating the 
destructive nature of the Asian Longhorned Beetle, as well as directing 
the Secretary to use CCC emergency and Emerging Plant Pest funds to 
address this situation.
  I will make my best effort in conference for the inclusion of 
additional resources for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service, known as APHIS, as they have done good work in addressing not 
only the problem of the Asian Longhorned Beetles but with a variety of 
other invasive species as well.
  Additionally, I will work for increased resources to assist the Asian 
Longhorned Beetles project at APHIS. I recognize that if left unchecked 
the destruction of our Nation's trees, parks, and forests by the Asian 
Longhorned Beetle could cost tens of billions of dollars. Furthermore, 
I will continue the work the committee began to seek redress in the 
procedures used by the Office of Management and Budget in releasing 
emergency CCC funds requested by the Secretary.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from 
Illinois for their comments.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and want to 
continue a bit on this colloquy on the Asian Longhorned Beetle.
  I, too, would like to join with the chairman of our subcommittee, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), and state that I will work in 
conference for increased funding for the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service so it has the resources to effectively battle such 
invasive species as the Asian Longhorned Beetle, the citrus canker, and 
the Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter, among others.
  And I want to say to our colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich), that we 
know what leadership they have taken here in the Congress in bringing 
our attention to the problems that their home communities are facing. I 
hear that in New York City this week there have been additional 
sightings of the beetles near Central Park. And having traveled to New 
York and Chicago, I can only imagine your park directors and what they 
are going through, because we have no known predator for this creature. 
The only solution we have is to basically cut down the trees and burn 
them.
  Of course, we know that these creatures came in in packing crates 
from China, both in the wood and in the cardboard inside, 
unfortunately; and we are now trying to take more precautions to 
fumigate those crates when they come in here, but this is a very, very 
serious problem. And because there is no known predator, adjacent 
States that have agricultural production, for example in maple sugar 
and maple syrup, those forests are threatened, those groves and stands 
of trees are threatened by this very same insect.
  So we hear the concerns of both the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich), and we will 
absolutely be bringing this to the attention of the conferees.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, the one thing I would like to say, and the 
gentlewoman just made reference to it, I would like to put in people's 
minds the picture of Central Park. It is one of the treasures of not 
only New York City, New York State, but really of this country. It is 
probably one of the most famous parks in all the world. Imagine what it 
would look like without any hard wood trees. Unimaginable.

                              {time}  1415

  But the threat does exist and it is there.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman and the gentleman for their work and 
I want to thank them in advance for their efforts very, very much.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we thank both the 
gentlemen for coming down and leading the entire Congress and country 
in trying to resolve a problem that may have started in their community 
but is spreading just as the gypsy moth did many, many years ago.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) assumed the 
Chair.

                          ____________________