[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13099-13147]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



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

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


                 Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       Page 21, after line 4, insert the following new paragraph:
       For an additional amount to prevent, control, and eradicate 
     pests and plant and animal diseases, $53,100,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the entire amount 
     under this paragraph shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount, 
     that includes designation of the entire amount of the request 
     as an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount under this paragraph is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

[[Page 13100]]


  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the amendment we are proposing today would 
provide an additional $53.1 million in emergency appropriations to the 
Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
to deal with emergency situations we have been talking about today 
dealing with pests and diseases.
  The additional amounts would bring total funding up to what the 
President's 2001 budget request had asked for in four critical lines 
within what we call APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service, budget. These include emerging plant pests, invasive species, 
fruitfly exclusion and detection, and the contingency fund itself.
  The bill, as reported by the subcommittee, provides $57.1 million 
less than requested for the first items listed and very partially 
offsets this shortfall by providing $4 million more than requested for 
the contingency fund. Our amendment eliminates the $53.1 million 
shortfall in this very, very important account.
  Now, these budget items are used by the Department of Agriculture to 
combat serious outbreaks of pests and diseases. People should think 
about their communities and some of the little green and yellow boxes 
that are put up on trees to detect what is happening across this 
country. We have just heard from two very distinguished Members from 
Illinois and from New York on the Asian longhorned beetle infestation 
which started in New York City and Chicago, Illinois.
  We have heard other Members this morning, including the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Boyd), a member of our committee from Florida, 
talking about citrus canker and the removal of entire groves of limes 
and of orange trees in Florida.
  We heard from the Members of the Pennsylvania delegation about plum 
pox in Pennsylvania and the impact on fruit trees and the spread of 
that pox across the fruit regions of our country.
  Members from California have spoken with us about Pierce's disease, 
which affects grapes in California and threatens our entire wine 
industry. Though these creatures may be small and we can hold them in 
our hands and some of the viruses and cankers we cannot even see but 
under a microscope, their economic devastation is gigantic, mounting to 
billions and billions of dollars annually.
  In the State of Michigan, the unfortunate incidence of bovine 
tuberculosis which can spread across that State and has spread to where 
now animals cannot leave that State unless inspected also would be 
covered by these accounts.
  Mediterranean fruitflies that threaten agriculture in wide sections 
of the South.
  These truly are emergencies. The report references the fact that 
these are situations that create havoc across the country. We believe 
they are important enough in a multibillion-dollar bill that we should 
restore the full account to the $53.1 million net additional dollars 
needed to truly meet the national need.
  Now the subcommittee's report acknowledges that the administration, 
by using its powers under the Commodity Credit Corporation, might be 
able to deal with some of these emergencies. But the administration 
maintains that the use of these powers is not appropriate for the kind 
of ongoing remediation that these difficulties cause.
  So this amendment simply provides the emergency funding that everyone 
agrees is necessary, and we should certainly restore these dollars in 
the bill as will be finally reported out of the House, hopefully today.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the membership for a favorable vote on this. I 
would hope that the objection might be withdrawn and that we could 
include these dollars that are so much, very much needed to help 
preserve our production and our ecosystems across our Nation coast to 
coast.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kaptur amendment. This 
language will increase the funding for the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, otherwise known as APHIS, by $53 million.
  I believe the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member, 
has been extremely eloquent on why we need these funds and why they 
should be designated as emergency funds.
  This Congress repeatedly spends billions of taxpayer dollars overseas 
and abroad to foreign nations and certifies those expenditures as 
emergencies so that no offsets are needed to be found to fund those 
expenditures. But whenever we have a real crisis here in the U.S., we 
always need to find offsets. This Congress can never seem to find the 
resources we need to help Americans when Americans need that help.
  We have a crisis evolving with invasive species. These are real 
emergencies. The Citrus Canker is destroying the Florida orange crop. 
The Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter is ruining our domestic wine stocks. And 
the Asian longhorned beetle is downing thousands of hardwood trees 
throughout New York City, Chicago, and now in Vermont.
  Let us help Americans today and provide these emergency funds to 
APHIS to eradicate these invasive species in our country. This is an 
emergency, and this Congress should recognize it as such.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for all her 
efforts on behalf of this emergency funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to again compliment my friend, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) in the way that he handles the 
committee. He and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking 
member, do a wonderful job of trying to address the issues and deal 
with the priorities that the Federal Government and this specific 
subcommittee should deal with.
  I want the Members, Mr. Chairman, to understand where our priorities 
should be in terms of the work of this subcommittee.
  The people of this Nation and the businesses of this Nation, 
specifically the agriculture business, expect the Federal Government to 
protect its borders. That is a basic criteria or basic function of the 
Federal Government, to protect its borders.
  These invasive species that we have been talking about this morning, 
we need to understand they are called invasive species because they 
come from other places, they are not indigenous to this country. They 
come into this country through the ports. They might be brought in in a 
commercial business transaction, or they might be brought in by a 
tourist that is visiting from another country or somebody who has left 
this country to go and then comes back.
  The species that we have heard about, the Asian longhorned beetle, 
the Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter, plum pox, Citrus Canker, the African 
hard-water tick all have come from other countries through our borders, 
through our ports. It is the obligation, the responsibility, of this 
Federal Government to protect those borders; and we are not doing a 
very good job of it right now. That is what the amendment of the 
gentlewoman attempts to do is to find more money so we could do a 
better job.
  We just dealt with the research side. We know that we have to 
continue to do the research to find preventive measures or cures for 
these problems. But right now we are working on the APHIS part, the 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
  So I would encourage the body to let us find this additional money. I 
know it is not the wish of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), 
the kind chairman, that we do not have more money here. It was not his 
decision. But that was the allocation that he

[[Page 13101]]

was given, and so he is having to work with what he has. But I think 
this body can express its will and come up with more money to protect 
its borders, and that is very important.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, the American people and its businesses, 
particularly the agricultural industry, we expect a good and clean and 
safe food supply; and it is under attack right now.
  I know more about the Citrus Canker issue than I do about any others. 
We have an $8 billion industry in Florida that is being threatened. It 
just so happens that the lime industry has already been wiped out, 
3,000 acres of limes in Florida. There is a very small number of lime 
trees in California. But if we eat a lime or use a lime wedge in our 
martini from now on, we will get it from some other country because the 
lime industry in this country has been wiped out by Citrus Canker. And 
we have allowed that to happen because we have not protected our 
borders.
  That is what the amendment of the gentlewoman is trying to do, 
provide the funds and resources to protect our borders. I would 
encourage the body, this House of Representatives, to recognize that 
and find the money to do what she is trying to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, in the past week, USDA has announced the release of 
more than $70 million in CCC funds to combat plant and pest 
infestations.
  OMB had tried to shift funding for these large programs into 
appropriated accounts this year. But given the dimensions of the 
problem, there is no way that we can afford to use the appropriated 
dollars.
  I believe OMB has finally come to its senses with the release of the 
CCC funds this past week. This is how it should be done.
  I would ask the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to withdraw her 
amendment. And if she cannot, I regret I must insist on my point of 
order.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that as we move toward 
conference we might try to find an accommodation. I hesitate to 
withdraw the amendment because I think it speaks for itself. But I 
respect the opinion of the gentleman and would hope that as we move 
forward we might be able to meet these needs across our country.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kaptur 
amendment and would like to thank her for offering this language today.
  This language will increase funding for the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) by $53 million.
  Congresswoman Kaptur was very eloquent in her remarks on our nation's 
need for these funds and the importance of designating them as an 
emergency appropriation.
  Time and time again, this Congress has sent billions of taxpayer 
dollars abroad and certifies it as emergency spending, requiring no 
offsets for these expenditures.
  But whenever we have a real crisis in America, Congress always 
demands the need to find offsets--this Congress can never seem to find 
the resources to help Americans when we need it.
  We have a crisis involving invasive species and it is a real 
emergency.
  The citrus canker is destroying the Florida orange and lime crop; the 
glassy-winged sharp-shooter is ruining our domestic wine stocks and the 
Asian Longhorned Beetle is downing thousands of hardwood trees 
throughout NYC, Chicago and threatening the maple syrup industry in 
Vermont.
  Let us help Americans today and provide these emergency funds to 
APHIS to eradicate these invasive species in our country.
  This is an emergency and this Congress should recognize it.
  I thank the Gentle Lady from Ohio for her steadfast dedication to the 
people of this country who are concerned about plant and pest diseases.
  You are a true leader and a representative for all of the people.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw her amendment?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I did not ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) insist 
on his point of order?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of 
Rule XXI.
  The Rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law. . .''
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would like to be heard.
  Mr. Chairman, I point out again how our country is currently dealing 
with a number of very serious new or resurgent agricultural pest and 
disease problems that threaten crops and trees and animals in many 
different parts of our country. We seem to be able to find funds to do 
many things in this legislation, as well as in the supplement, to fund 
counternarcotics programs in Colombia. Well, I would very much like to 
be able to fund needs in our country, especially those that threaten so 
very much damage.
  Just to summarize, in Florida, Citrus Canker is threatening Florida 
citrus groves. In Chicago and New York and in those States of New York 
and Illinois the Asian longhorned beetle, with no known predator. 
Bovine tuberculosis, which was thought to be eradicated in our country 
but is now spreading in Michigan, imposing heavy costs on that State's 
dairy and cattle industries.

                              {time}  1430

  Plum pox, a disease of peaches and plums and cherries and other stone 
fruits normally found only in Europe and Asia first detected in 
Pennsylvania last year and now threatening fruit growers in that State 
and likely to spread. Mediterranean fruit flies which appear only 
sporadically in our country but when they do they cause great damage; 
and should that infestation reach the southern United States, we would 
experience disastrous losses to fruit and vegetable industries.
  Now, I think that the appropriate way to handle this is to directly 
place the dollars in the account, not expect that an ongoing 
eradication program should be done through the Commodity Credit 
Corporation, which is generally used for emergencies only.
  So I would just say that it is vital we stop these pests and disease 
outbreaks from spreading and failure to do so is extremely costly. I do 
not think we should be burdening USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation 
authority with having these ongoing responsibilities.
  I think it is far more reasonable to provide the resources needed to 
stop these pests, and I would urge the membership to pay attention to 
this particular debate.
  I am sorry that the gentleman has to exercise his point of order.
  I would be pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) if she seeks time on the issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order and 
would ask that the comments be directed toward the question of whether 
or not this amendment is in order.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Would I be able to yield time to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney) on the point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN. Not on the point of order.
  Does the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I really feel that there is not a point of 
order to this because it really is an incredibly important crisis in 
our country, and I would like to have the opportunity to compliment the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her leadership and for bringing 
this to the floor. The increase for the animal and plant and health 
inspection service is absolutely critical. With trade has come an

[[Page 13102]]

influx of many invasive species that if we do not adequately control 
them can literally destroy forests, as they have in my district in New 
York with the Asian Longhorn beetle, for which there is no known way to 
stop it except to chop down the tree and everything else around the 
vicinity.
  I feel that this is an incredibly important appropriations she is 
talking about, and I really support it completely, and that it is 
important to the health and safety and well-being of Americans and of 
our vegetable life and our plant life and our other areas that she 
mentioned.
  So I am here strongly in support of her amendment and strongly 
suggest that the rule of order not be put in place because this is so 
critical, really, to the concerns of this Nation.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to appeal to the Chair and ask 
unanimous consent of the membership for an additional minute and a 
half, if I might, in addressing the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would request that the Members confine their 
arguments to whether or not this amendment is in order.
  The Members may strike the last word at an appropriate time and 
debate and make comments about this particular amendment, but at this 
point the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order, unless there 
is further arguments as to whether or not this amendment is in order.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for an 
additional minute and a half to address the point of order issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot entertain a unanimous consent request 
at this point because the point of order is pending.
  Are there further arguments on whether this amendment is in order?
  At this time, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair finds that the 
amendment includes an emergency designation under Section 251(b)(2)(A) 
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The 
amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in 
order.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in regard to the proposal on the amendment dealing with 
the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, I just wanted to read into 
the Record a statement of policy that I think is important to be 
appended to this debate today, and it comes in the form of a letter 
from the Office of Management and Budget dated June 29, 2000, from the 
Executive Office of the President concerning plant pests and diseases.
  It says: ``The administration places a high priority on fighting 
plant pests and diseases, especially when there are invasive species 
that may be eradicated before becoming an established threat. To combat 
sudden outbreaks of invasive species, the administration has used 
emergency transfers through the Commodity Credit Corporation at a level 
that is much higher than the two previous administrations combined, and 
we continue to support the use of Commodity Credit Corporation funds in 
cases of unforeseen emergencies. However, where eradication efforts 
extend over several seasons, costs are predictable and should be 
incorporated into the discretionary appropriations process. Therefore, 
to address ongoing plant pest and disease outbreaks, the administration 
has proposed substantial appropriations in the 2001 budget. The 
Committee bill has not provided these appropriations, thereby requiring 
a corresponding increase in emergency spending from the CCC for 
activities that can no longer be considered unforeseen.''
  The issue of proper compensation to producers for losses due to 
invasive plant pests and disease has grown more complex recently as the 
variety and complexity of outbreaks have increased. Legislative and 
administrative actions to provide compensation for invasive species 
losses would be better guided by a policy that distinguishes between 
compensation as part of eradication efforts and compensation as 
reimbursement for natural disaster losses due to infestations rather 
than through event-specific supplementals.
  The administration believes there should be a more systematic 
approach to making these decisions and will be sending to Congress a 
set of recommendations that it hopes can be used as a framework for 
discussion with Congress on this issue.
  I reiterate, in the President's cover letter it says he would 
recommend that this bill be vetoed if it were presented to him in its 
current form.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the committee.
  As the gentleman knows, in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Congress 
enacted a 3-year income averaging provision to protect farmers and 
ranchers from excessive tax rates in profitable years. Unfortunately, a 
ruling by the Internal Revenue Service late last year could potentially 
cost farmers and ranchers thousands more in taxes each year and is 
inconsistent with the intent of Congress.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Last October, the IRS proposed final 
regulations for income averaging failed to clarify that taxable income 
in the income averaging formula could in fact include a negative 
number. Current instructions that accompany schedule J of Form 1040 
require that taxable income cannot be less than zero. Earlier this 
year, I introduced H.R. 4381 to address this unfortunate situation. 
This legislation simply amends the Internal Revenue Service code of 
1986 by permanently taking into account negative taxable income during 
the base 3-year period.
  I believe this legislation, once passed, will codify Congress' 
original intent and ensure that farmers and ranchers receive the 
protection they deserve. Unfortunately, I understand that introducing 
H.R. 4381 as an amendment to this appropriations bill would violate 
House rules that prohibit legislating on an appropriations bill.
  As a result, I would ask for the gentleman's assistance and the 
assistance of the committee in working with me to present this 
legislation to the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) for his 
efforts on this subject. I know the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen) and I also believe the IRS's interpretation needs to be changed 
and regret that it cannot be done at this time.
  I have also seen the rapid and dramatic price fluctuations that 
farmers and ranchers are so often subject to. The goal of the Taxpayer 
Relief Act of 1997 was to help reduce the tax effect of these large 
fluctuations. I agree with the gentleman that the IRS's interpretation 
will dramatically impair the effectiveness of this legislation. I look 
forward to working with the gentleman on this important matter, as does 
the chairman.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman and the chairman for 
their help and their attention to this matter.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        Buildings and Facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance, 
     environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration, 
     and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized 
     by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 428a, $5,200,000, to remain available until expended.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           Marketing Services

       For necessary expenses to carry on services related to 
     consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution, 
     transportation, and regulatory programs, as authorized by 
     law, and for administration and coordination of payments to 
     States, including field employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225) and not to exceed $90,000 for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, $56,326,000, including funds for the wholesale 
     market development program for the design and development of 
     wholesale and farmer market facilities for the major 
     metropolitan areas of the country: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available pursuant to

[[Page 13103]]

     law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of 
     buildings and improvements, but the cost of altering any one 
     building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent 
     of the current replacement value of the building: Provided 
     further, That, only after promulgation of a final rule on a 
     National Organic Standards Program, $639,000 of this amount 
     shall be available for the Expenses and Refunds, Inspection 
     and Grading of Farm Products fund account for the cost of the 
     National Organic Standards Program and such funds shall 
     remain available until expended.
       Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization 
     activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31 
     U.S.C. 9701).


              limitation on administrative expenses level

       Not to exceed $60,730,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative 
     expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or 
     other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this 
     limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the 
     Appropriations Committees.


    Funds for Strengthening Markets, Income, and Supply (Section 32)

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 
     1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c) shall be used only for commodity program 
     expenses as authorized therein, and other related operating 
     expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the Department of 
     Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of August 
     8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in this Act; and 
     (3) not more than $13,438,000 for formulation and 
     administration of marketing agreements and orders pursuant to 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 and the 
     Agricultural Act of 1961.


                   Payments to States and Possessions

       For payments to departments of agriculture, bureaus and 
     departments of markets, and similar agencies for marketing 
     activities under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing 
     Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), $1,500,000.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     United States Grain Standards Act, for the administration of 
     the Packers and Stockyards Act, for certifying procedures 
     used to protect purchasers of farm products, and the 
     standardization activities related to grain under the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, including field 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $25,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $27,801,000: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall be available pursuant 
     to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of 
     buildings and improvements, but the cost of altering any one 
     building during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent 
     of the current replacement value of the building.


        limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses

       Not to exceed $42,557,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for inspection and 
     weighing services: Provided, That if grain export activities 
     require additional supervision and oversight, or other 
     uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded 
     by up to 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations 
     Committees.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Food Safety to administer the laws 
     enacted by the Congress for the Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service, $446,000.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

       For necessary expenses to carry out services authorized by 
     the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products 
     Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act, 
     $673,790,000, of which no less than $585,258,000 shall be 
     available for Federal food inspection, and in addition, 
     $1,000,000 may be credited to this account from fees 
     collected for the cost of laboratory accreditation as 
     authorized by section 1017 of Public Law 102-237: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall be available for field 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $75,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109: Provided further, That this appropriation shall be 
     available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration 
     and repair of buildings and improvements, but the cost of 
     altering any one building during the fiscal year shall not 
     exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value of the 
     building: Provided further, That the Food Safety and 
     Inspection Service may expend funds appropriated for, or 
     otherwise made available during fiscal year 2001 to liquidate 
     overobligations and overexpenditures incurred in fiscal years 
     1997 and 1998.

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by Congress for the Farm Service 
     Agency, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Risk Management 
     Agency, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, $572,000.

                          Farm Service Agency


                         Salaries and Expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration 
     and implementation of programs administered by the Farm 
     Service Agency, $828,385,000: Provided, That the Secretary is 
     authorized to use the services, facilities, and authorities 
     (but not the funds) of the Commodity Credit Corporation to 
     make program payments for all programs administered by the 
     Agency: Provided further, That other funds made available to 
     the Agency for authorized activities may be advanced to and 
     merged with this account: Provided further, That these funds 
     shall be available for employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $1,000,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.


                         State Mediation Grants

       For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural 
     Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106), 
     $3,000,000.


                        Dairy Indemnity Program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity 
     payments to dairy farmers for milk or cows producing such 
     milk and manufacturers of dairy products who have been 
     directed to remove their milk or dairy products from 
     commercial markets because it contained residues of chemicals 
     registered and approved for use by the Federal Government, 
     and in making indemnity payments for milk, or cows producing 
     such milk, at a fair market value to any dairy farmer who is 
     directed to remove his milk from commercial markets because 
     of: (1) the presence of products of nuclear radiation or 
     fallout if such contamination is not due to the fault of the 
     farmer; or (2) residues of chemicals or toxic substances not 
     included under the first sentence of the Act of August 13, 
     1968 (7 U.S.C. 450j), if such chemicals or toxic substances 
     were not used in a manner contrary to applicable regulations 
     or labeling instructions provided at the time of use and the 
     contamination is not due to the fault of the farmer, 
     $450,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b): Provided, That none of the funds contained in this 
     Act shall be used to make indemnity payments to any farmer 
     whose milk was removed from commercial markets as a result of 
     the farmer's willful failure to follow procedures prescribed 
     by the Federal Government: Provided further, That this amount 
     shall be transferred to the Commodity Credit Corporation: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary is authorized to utilize 
     the services, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity 
     disbursements.


           Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928-1929, to 
     be available from funds in the Agricultural Credit Insurance 
     Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans, $1,128,000,000, of 
     which $1,000,000,000 shall be for guaranteed loans; operating 
     loans, $3,177,868,000, of which $2,000,000,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans and $477,868,000 shall be for 
     subsidized guaranteed loans; Indian tribe land acquisition 
     loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $2,006,000; for 
     emergency insured loans, $150,064,000 to meet the needs 
     resulting from natural disasters; and for boll weevil 
     eradication program loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1989, 
     $100,000,000.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership 
     loans, $18,886,000, of which $5,100,000, shall be for 
     guaranteed loans; operating loans, $129,534,000, of which 
     $27,400,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans and 
     $38,994,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans; Indian 
     tribe land acquisition loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, 
     $323,000; and for emergency insured loans, $36,811,000 to 
     meet the needs resulting from natural disasters.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $269,454,000, of 
     which $265,315,000 shall be transferred to and merged with 
     the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.
       Funds appropriated by this Act to the Agricultural Credit 
     Insurance Program Account for farm ownership and operating 
     direct loans and guaranteed loans may be transferred among 
     these programs with the prior approval of the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations.

                         Risk Management Agency

       For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized by 
     the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 
     U.S.C. 6933), $67,700,000: Provided, That not to exceed $700 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i).

[[Page 13104]]



                              Corporations

       The following corporations and agencies are hereby 
     authorized to make expenditures, within the limits of funds 
     and borrowing authority available to each such corporation or 
     agency and in accord with law, and to make contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act as may be necessary in carrying out the programs set 
     forth in the budget for the current fiscal year for such 
     corporation or agency, except as hereinafter provided.

                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

       For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act, such sums as may be necessary, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund


                 reimbursement for net realized losses

       For fiscal year 2001, such sums as may be necessary to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized 
     losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed (estimated to 
     be $27,771,007,000 in the President's fiscal year 2001 Budget 
     Request (H. Doc. 106-162)), but not to exceed 
     $27,771,007,000, pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 
     17, 1961 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11).


       operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management

       For fiscal year 2001, the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for site investigation 
     and cleanup expenses, and operations and maintenance expenses 
     to comply with the requirement of section 107(g) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 
     6001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as 
     amended, 42 U.S.C. 6961.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Hayes

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hayes:
       Page 31, after line 5, insert the following:

                        Administrative Provision

       Any limitation established in this title on funds to carry 
     out research related to the production, processing, or 
     marketing of tobacco or tobacco products shall not apply to 
     research on the medical, biotechnological, food, and 
     industrial uses of tobacco.

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which is about 
existing benefits resulting from research. It is also about badly 
needed health breakthroughs which are dependent on future research 
using the tobacco plant.
  Recently I, along with the senior Senator from North Carolina and the 
senior Senator from Indiana, sponsored an appropriation for $3 million 
for North Carolina State University and Georgetown University Medical 
School to conduct cervical cancer research using the tobacco plant. 
There are high hopes and optimism that a preventive vaccine and 
ultimately a cure can soon be produced.
  These institutions have written letters outlining the goal of this 
research, which is to develop a preventive vaccine for this terrible 
cancer.
  In addition, other institutions, such as Virginia Tech, are 
conducting similar health and pharmaceutical-related research on such 
diseases as Parkinson's, Gaucher's disease, providing clot dissolving 
drugs and even preventing tooth decay, all uses from tobacco plants.

                              {time}  1445

  The potential benefits to medicine, health and industry are 
limitless.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask that letters from these institutions, 
as well as a letter of support from the North Carolina Farm Bureau, a 
press statement from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, who are 
supporting this type of research, be placed into the Record at the 
appropriate time.
  We are on the verge of a number of critical breakthroughs which are 
so vital to our Nation's health. There is language in the present bill 
that prohibits money from being spent on tobacco research. Although 
possibly well-intentioned, this language prevents medical, 
agricultural, and industrial research that is vital to our Nation's 
health and the economic health of our farm families.
  I want to make clear the types of research that I am speaking of are 
new breakthroughs. Research that can affect the lives of millions of 
Americans and provide life-saving vaccines and countless other medical, 
scientific, and economic benefits.
  The tobacco plant has unique characteristics which allow it to 
produce large volumes of high-quality proteins which are vital to 
medical, pharmaceutical and scientific research.
  The potential for new pharmaceuticals is unlimited. The ability to 
reduce the costs of new and existing drugs is also unlimited. It is 
this type of research I seek to preserve and expand with this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Hayes) for yielding to me and thank the gentleman for introducing 
the amendment.
  I want to join in support of this and say this is an opportunity to 
see how we can use tobacco for something other than for recreational 
use. It also is an excellent opportunity for medicinal and production 
goods, for enhancing the protein content for feeding of livestock, and 
I think it has potential economic advantage for the farmers in our 
areas who are really trying to find a quality value for tobacco other 
than being challenged as they have been about the health issues.
  I think this is a worthwhile issue, and I urge my colleagues not to 
apply any predisposition to this and see this in a very positive way 
and to support the amendment.
  Mr. HAYES. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for her very thoughtful comments. I 
also have supporting comments from the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), which I will ask 
them to insert in the Record later.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support.

                                             Georgetown University


                                               Medical Center,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 2000.
     Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young: I am writing in support of Congressman 
     Hayes' amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill that 
     would allow money to be spent on research for alternative 
     uses for tobacco. Your support of this amendment will allow 
     funding for an alternative use of a genetically modified 
     version of the tobacco plant capable of producing a vaccine 
     for the potentially prevention and cure cervical cancer.
       Cervical cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related 
     death among women worldwide. Every year in the United States, 
     approximately 15,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer 
     and 5,000 women die of this disease. Worldwide, cervical 
     cancer affects 500,000 women annually, and, after breast 
     cancer, it is the second most common malignancy found in 
     women.
       Clinical studies have confirmed that the human 
     papillomavirus, or HPV, is the primary cause of cervical 
     cancer. In order to develop a vaccine, large quantities of 
     HPV fragments are required. Unfortunately, this virus does 
     not grow under normal laboratory conditions. The tobacco 
     plant, however, shows tremendous promise to serve as a vessel 
     in which an HPV fragment could be cultivated.
       Recently, it has become feasible to biologically engineer 
     tobacco to produce high-value foreign proteins, including a 
     potential vaccine for the papillomavirus. Once developed, 
     this detoxified version of HPV fragments can then be injected 
     into the human body. These genetically engineered proteins 
     would trigger our natural immunization defense system and 
     create a resistance to the harmful strain of HPV. This 
     treatment could also serve as a cure for existing HPV.
       We greatly appreciate the recent appropriation of $3 
     million funding for this study that will permit North 
     Carolina State University (NCSU) and Georgetown to explore 
     this promising new vaccine. While this appropriation was not 
     included in the FY '01 agriculture appropriations, we 
     appreciate your attention to this matter and appreciate your 
     support. Your support is critical for finding a cure to 
     cervical cancer. Thank you.
           Sincerely,
     Kenneth L. Dretchen, Ph.D.
                                  ____



                                          NC State University,

                                       Raleigh, NC, June 29, 2000.
     Hon. Bill Young,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young, thank you for your leadership in 
     supporting the research of scientists at North Carolina State 
     University and Georgetown University Medical Center in their 
     quest to develop a vaccine against cervical cancer. Working 
     together, our researchers aim to grow the vaccine in tobacco. 
     However, a critical obstacle must be

[[Page 13105]]

     overcome in order for our important work to proceed: the 
     research project needs Congressional authorization to grow 
     the vaccine in tobacco. To this end we urge you to support 
     Congressman Robin Hayes' amendment to the agricultural 
     appropriations bill to allow this valuable research to 
     proceed.
       Our researchers propose to engineer tobacco plants so that 
     the plants produce a vaccine that can be used to immunize 
     women against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). We hope you agree 
     that research using genetically engineered tobacco to produce 
     vaccines and other valuable products is inherently different 
     from earlier work intended to produced improved tobacco 
     varieties for the benefit of growers. Therefore, this type of 
     work should be exempt from any regulations that seek to limit 
     federal support for tobacco research. Indeed, it is in the 
     best interest of the country as a whole to foster such 
     efforts wherever possible, both to produce valuable and 
     desperately needed commodities, and to develop wholly new 
     market opportunities for American farmers.
       This joint North Carolina State University-Georgetown 
     University Medical Center is an excellent example of this 
     type of research. Genetic engineering of tobacco can result 
     in production of the HPV vaccine. Currently there is no 
     economical method for producing this vaccine. Tobacco was 
     chosen for this work because it is relatively easy to 
     engineer so that it will produce the vaccine. Further, 
     tobacco products more green biomass per acre than any other 
     crop, thus containing input costs and reducing the ultimate 
     cost of the vaccine.
       Developing a cost-effective means to reduce the incidence 
     of MPV infection is critically important because this virus 
     causes virtually all cervical cancers. Cervical cancer is the 
     leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women worldwide. 
     The disease typically manifests during a time of life when 
     women are rearing their children, thus putting at risk both 
     the women who succumb to the disease and the children they 
     leave behind.
       A peripheral goal of the research is to identify other 
     potentially useful products that can be derived from green 
     biomass, and develop efficient methods for their 
     purification. Already several compounds have been identified 
     that have potential use in formulating both medical and 
     consumer products. Recovery of such compounds will generate 
     additional product streams that could be derived from the 
     same plants that are making the HPV vaccine. Each of these 
     products represents a potential new market that could help to 
     keep farming profitable during this difficult time of 
     transition and competition in the global marketplace.
       I strongly urge you to support this amendment to encourage 
     these valuable research efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Marye Anne Fox,
     Chancellor.
                                  ____



                                                Virginia Tech,

                                    Blacksburg, VA, June 29, 2000.
     Hon. Rick Boucher,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Rick: Virginia Tech is a leader in the development of 
     technology that uses tobacco plants for the purpose of 
     producing human pharmaceutical products. Two years ago, a 
     team of Virginia Tech scientists demonstrated the feasibility 
     of producing human therapeutic proteins in genetically 
     engineered ``transgenic'' tobacco plants. The Virginia 
     General Assembly has provided significant funding to the 
     University for transgenic biotech research involving the 
     tobacco plant and Tech's scientists are hard at work to 
     exploit new biomedical uses of this plant.
       As you know, a team of Virginia Tech scientists, working 
     with CropTech of Blacksburg, has introduced segments of human 
     DNA into the genes of tobacco. Those segments instruct the 
     plant to produce human protein, which can then be extracted 
     from the leaves and used to create drugs. Among their 
     achievements so far are tobacco plants that produce a human 
     protein that is part of blood clotting/anticlotting 
     chemistry. This protein is presently extracted from human 
     blood plasma for testing by hospitals.
       Just last month another team of our scientists announced 
     the discovery of a compound found in the tobacco plant that 
     inhibits the growth of an enzyme that may be a significant 
     causative factor in Parkinson's Disease in humans.
       I understand that an amendment may be offered to the 
     Agriculture Appropriations bill (HR. 4461) that would remove 
     existing limitations on the use of funds that restrict the 
     use of agricultural research funding for research on medical, 
     biotechnical, and other uses of tobacco. Such a modification 
     in existing agricultural research policy appears to be 
     appropriate in order to encourage the many promising uses of 
     tobacco that are being developed at Virginia Tech and 
     elsewhere.
       I ask that you give such an amendment every appropriate 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles W. Steger,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                    North Carolina


                                       Farm Bureau Federation,

                                       Raleigh, NC, June 29, 2000.
     Hon. Bill Young,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Young, the North Carolina Farm Bureau 
     supports the effort to include legislative language in the FY 
     2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill providing enhanced 
     research alternatives to produce a vaccine that could 
     potentially prevent and cure the human papillomavirus, or 
     HPV, a primary cause of cervical cancer.
       Recently, it has become feasible to biologically engineer 
     tobacco to produce high-value foreign proteins, including a 
     potential vaccine for the papillomavirus. Once developed, 
     this detoxified version of these HPV protein fragments can 
     then be injected into the human body. These genetically 
     engineered proteins would trigger our natural immunization 
     defense system and create a resistance to the harmful strain 
     of HPV. This treatment could also serve as a cure for 
     existing HPV.
       Cervical cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related 
     death among women worldwide. Every year in the United States, 
     approximately 15,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer 
     and 5,000 women die of this disease. Worldwide, cervical 
     cancer affects 500,000 women annually, and, after breast 
     cancer, it is second most common malignancy found in women.
       Again, we applaud your efforts in supporting the use of 
     tobacco plants in genetic research benefiting many Americans.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Larry B. Wooten,
     President.
                                  ____


                     Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids


statement of the campaign for tobacco-free kids concerning research on 
          genetically modified tobacco for nonharmful purposes

       In the last several years and because of advances in the 
     area of biotechnology, some researchers believe that it may 
     be possible that the tobacco plant, long known to cause 
     serious disease and addiction, may be genetically altered to 
     produce medicines that may be beneficial. These developments 
     may present new opportunities for public health as well as 
     for tobacco producing communities.
       The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids encourages continued 
     research into the use of genetically modified tobacco for 
     nonharmful and non-traditional uses, in particular uses that 
     may help treat disease rather than causing it.
       We wish to emphasize that these products like all products 
     that contain tobacco, whether used for smoking purposes, 
     chewing purposes, or in this case pharmaceutical purposes, 
     should be fully regulated by the Food and Drug 
     Administration.

     
                                  ____
            [From the Virginia Tech Spectrum, June 9, 2000]

     Castagnoli's Discovery May Protect Against Parkinson's Disease

                           (By Sally Harris)

       In a discovery that opens an important direction in the 
     study of Parkinson's disease, Virginia Tech scientists have 
     identified a compound in tobacco that inhibits an enzyme that 
     breaks down key brain chemicals.
       Parkinson's disease, a central-nervous-system disorder, 
     causes the gradual deterioration of neurons in the section of 
     the brain that controls movement. The brains of patients with 
     Parkinson's disease typically have less of a neurotransmitter 
     called dopamine. Studies have shown that smokers are 50 
     percent less likely to get Parkinson's than non-smokers, but 
     no one has isolated a particular substance in tobacco that 
     may be responsible for that phenomenon.
       Neal Castagnoli, director, and Kay Castagnoli, senior 
     research associate, at Virginia Tech's Harvey W. Peters 
     Center in the chemistry department, located in the College of 
     Arts and Sciences, conducted research that has led to the 
     isolation of a compound in tobacco that protects against the 
     loss of dopamine in mice and thereby may protect against the 
     development of Parkinson's Disease.
       ``Joanna Fowler, a scientist at Brookhaven National 
     Laboratory in New York, found by positron emission tomography 
     (PET) imaging that smokers' brains have 30 to 40 percent 
     lower levels of monoamine oxidase (MAO),'' Kay Castagnoli 
     said. MAO normally breaks down neurotransmitters such as 
     dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. Since the 
     Castagnolis had already been conducting research involving 
     MAO and neuro-protection, ``We thought about the 
     connection,'' Castagnoli said.
       They decided to examine if there was a substance in tobacco 
     that inhibits MAO. Ashraf Khalil, a post-doctoral fellow in 
     the group, was able to separate and characterize a compound 
     called 2,3,6-trimethyl-1,4-napthoquinone, or TMN, which was 
     also known to be present in tobacco smoke and proved to be an 
     inhibitor of MAO.
       Using mice, the Castagnolis first administered TMN and then 
     a potent neurotoxin, MPTP, a contaminant that had been 
     discovered in a street drug sold in the early 1980s.

[[Page 13106]]

     The drug was meant to mimic the effects of heroin, but 
     addicts who took large doses of the synthetic heroin suffered 
     severe Parkinsonian symptoms. Neal Castagnoli, then working 
     at the University of California at San Francisco, was one of 
     the scientists who determined what caused the brain to turn 
     the contaminant into a toxin that caused many of its users to 
     develop the Parkinsonian symptoms.
       In the recent tobacco study, the Castagnolis discovered 
     that TMN, found in tobacco smoke as well as leaves, did in 
     fact interfere with MAO and protected the rodents against the 
     toxic effects of the synthetic-herion contaminant.
       Although this discovery opens up the possibility of new 
     avenues of research, ``No one should start smoking based on 
     these results,'' Kay Castagnoli said, ``and people should 
     continue to stop smoking. There's no evidence that the 
     benefits of smoking will ever outweigh the risks.''
       ``The finding that smoking decreases the risk for 
     Parkinson's disease raises the question of identifying the 
     actual neuro-protective agent among the hundreds of compounds 
     present in cigarette smoke,'' said Donato Di Monte, director 
     of Basic Research at the Parkinson's Institute in Sunnyvale, 
     Cal. The discovery in the Castagnolis' lab, he said, 
     ``provides a critical clue for the development of drugs that 
     may directly reproduce the neuro-protective action of smoking 
     without exposing people to its other harmful health 
     effects.''
       The results of the Castagnolis' research, which has 
     included a second study of mice that confirmed their initial 
     findings, is an important step in the study of Parkinson's 
     disease, he said. ``This compound may be the one involved in 
     neuro-protection, but there may be others that, by acting on 
     the enzyme, may have neuro-protective effects.'' Also, Kay 
     Castagnoli said, it could be possible, in pharmaceutical 
     industries, that this basic structure could be used as a 
     template for the development of neuro-protective compounds.
       This summer, the Castagnolis, along with Ashraf Khalil, 
     will look for other neuro-protective agents in tobacco.
                                  ____


     Castagnolis Discover Compound in Tobacco May Protect Against 
                          Parkinson's Disease

       Blacksburg, May 15, 2000.--In a discovery that opens an 
     important direction in the study of Parkinson's disease, 
     Virginia Tech scientists have identified a compound in 
     tobacco that inhibits an enzyme that breaks down key brain 
     chemicals.
       Parkinson's disease, a central nervous system disorder, 
     causes the gradual deterioration of neurons in the section of 
     the brain that controls movement. The brains of patients with 
     Parkinson's disease typically have less of a neurotransmitter 
     called dopamine. Studies have shown that smokers are 50 
     percent less likely to get Parkinson's than non-smokers, but 
     no one has isolated a particular substance in tobacco that 
     may be responsible for that phenomenon.
       Neal Castagnoli, director, and Kay Castagnoli, senior 
     research associate, at Virginia Tech's Harvey W. Peters 
     Center in the chemistry department, located in the College of 
     Arts and Sciences, conducted research that has led to the 
     isolation of a compound in tobacco that protects against the 
     loss of dopamine in mice and thereby may protect against the 
     development of Parkinson's Disease.
       ``Joanna Fowler, a scientist at Brookhaven National 
     Laboratory in New York, found by positron emission tomography 
     (PET) imaging that smokers' brains have 30 to 40 percent 
     lower levels of monoamine oxidase (MAO),'' Kay Castagnoli 
     said. MAO normally breaks down neurotransmitters such as 
     dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. Since the 
     Castagnolis had already been conducting research involving 
     MAO and neuroprotection, ``We thought about the connection, 
     '' Castagnoli said.
       They decided to examine if there was a substance in tobacco 
     that inhibits MAO. Ashraf Khalil, a postdoctoral fellow in 
     the group, was able to separate and characterize a compound 
     called 2,3,6-trimethyl-1,4-napthoquinone, or TMN, which was 
     also known to be present in tobacco smoke and proved to be an 
     inhibitor of MAO.
       Using mice, the Castagnolis first administered TMN and then 
     a potent neurotoxin, MPTP, a contaminant that had been 
     discovered in a street drug sold in the early 1980s. The drug 
     was meant to mimic the effects of heroin, but addicts who 
     took large doses of the synthetic heroin suffered severe 
     Parkinsonian symptoms. Neal Castagnoli, then working at the 
     University of California at San Francisco, was one of the 
     scientists who determined what caused the brain to turn the 
     contaminant into a toxin that caused many of its users to 
     develop the Parkinsonian symptoms.
       In the recent tobacco study, the Castagnolis' discovered 
     that TMN, found in tobacco smoke as well as leaves, did in 
     fact interfere with MAO and protected the rodents against the 
     toxic effects of the synthetic-heroin contaminant.
       Although this discovery opens up the possibility of new 
     avenues of research, ``No one should start smoking based on 
     these results,'' Kay Castagnoli said, ``and people should 
     continue to stop smoking. There's no evidence that the 
     benefits of smoking will ever outweigh the risks.''
       ``The finding that smoking decreases the risk for 
     Parkinson's disease raises the question of identifying the 
     actual neuroprotective agent among the hundreds of compounds 
     present in cigarette smoke,'' said Donato Di Monte, director 
     of Basic Research at the Parkinson's Institute in Sunnyvale, 
     Cal. The discovery in the Castagnolis' lab, he said, 
     ``provides a critical clue for the development of drugs that 
     may directly reproduce the neuroprotective action of smoking 
     without exposing people to its other harmful health 
     effects.''
       The results of the Castagnolis' research, which has 
     included a second study of mice that confirmed their initial 
     findings, is an important step in the study of Parkinson's 
     disease, he said. ``This compound may be the one involved in 
     neuroprotection, but there may be others that, by acting on 
     the enzyme, may have neuroprotective effects.'' Also, Kay 
     Castagnoli said, it could be possible, in pharmaceutical 
     industries, that this basic structure could be used as a 
     template for the development of neuroprotective compounds.
       This summer, the Castagnolis, along with Ashraf Khalil, 
     will look for other neuroprotective agents in tobacco.
                                  ____


   Commercial Scale Cultivation of Pharmaceutical-Producing Tobacco 
                Possible, Virginia Tech Scientists Find

       Blacksburg, Nov. 11, 1998.--The results from a summer of 
     research show that pharmaceutical-producing tobacco can be 
     grown on a commercial scale, according to Virginia Tech 
     scientists.
       Carole Cramer, professor of plant pathology, physiology and 
     weed science, said additional field trials next summer are 
     expected to confirm and extend the findings from this year.
       Jim Jones, an agronomist and director of Virginia Tech's 
     Southern Piedmont Agricultural Research and Extension Center 
     in Blackstone, said the summer's field tests produced 
     encouraging data as well as experience in managing tobacco 
     grown for medical uses.
       ``We're not looking at growing tobacco in the way its been 
     grown in the past,'' Jones said. ``In fact, what we've got is 
     really a new crop.''
       Jones said the field research included increasing the 
     population of tobacco plants from about 6,000 plants per acre 
     in traditional tobacco growing practices to as much as 
     100,000 plants per acre.
       The growing pattern of tobacco to produce leaf for tobacco 
     companies is well established, he said. What Cramer is 
     looking for, however, is the optimum cultural practices to 
     produce protein. With that in mind, the transgenic tobacco 
     was harvested multiple times during the summer at a point far 
     earlier than tobacco is harvested for traditional uses.
       In 1995, a team consisting of Cramer and her associates at 
     Virginia Tech and CropTech, a biotechnology company located 
     in Blacksburg, was the first to induce a plant to express a 
     human protein with enzymatic activity. That achievement has 
     opened the possibility of using plants as factories to 
     produce human proteins that can be used in pharmaceuticals.
       The tobacco planted at Virginia Tech's agricultural 
     research and extension centers in Blackstone and in Glade 
     Spring last summer used a ``marker'' gene rather than the 
     human genes. The marker gene allowed scientists to evaluate 
     that ability of tobacco grown in different densities to 
     produce a target protein, Cramer said.
       So successful have been the results that Cramer hopes that 
     next summer's field trials will include limited quantities of 
     plants with target proteins that CropTech hopes eventually to 
     convert into pharmaceuticals on a commercial scale.
       CropTech has genetically engineered tobacco plants so far 
     grown only in greenhouses. The genes inserted into the 
     tobacco DNA orders the production of human enzymes, which can 
     be extracted, purified and used to develop pharmaceuticals.
       The gene that produces the protein cannot be ``turned on'' 
     until scientists give it a specific signal or inducer. Thus, 
     the process can be controlled so that drugs will be made only 
     after the leaves have been harvested and taken to a regulated 
     a manufacturing facility, Cramer said.
       Some tobacco plants have been modified to produce an enzyme 
     that can be used to treat Gaucher Diseases, a rare and often 
     fatal condition. Other plants have been modified to produce 
     human Protein C, which is used to prevent blood clots. Both 
     tobacco-based products are still in development and have not 
     undergone clinical trials.
       Cramer said tobacco has the potential to serve as the host 
     for many other pharmaceutical proteins as well. Tobacco is 
     exceptionally suited for use in producing pharmaceuticals 
     because it is one of the most productive crops in growing 
     leaf biomass quickly and efficiently, she said. It is also 
     one of the easiest plants to genetically modify. As a very 
     prolific seed producer, it will allow production to be scaled 
     up very rapidly.
       The field trials indicated that flue-cured tobacco is the 
     best variety for producing the target proteins in the 
     quantities needed for

[[Page 13107]]

     commercial production. However, both burley and oriental 
     varieties of tobacco also performed well in protein 
     production.
       ``That means it looks as though we have great flexibility 
     in regard to varieties,'' she said, ``That, in turn, means 
     that we won't necessarily be limited to any particular 
     growing region in Virginia. The results have shown that we 
     can grow this tobacco at very high densities. In fact, the 
     higher the density the better, from the viewpoint of 
     extracting proteins.''
       With the support of state Sen. William Wampler Jr. of 
     Bristol, former Gov. George Allen and Gov. Jim Gilmore 
     included $554,000 in the state budget over the biennium for 
     transgenic medicinal-tobacco research. During the 1998 
     legislative session Wampler sponsored an amendment which 
     earmarked an additional $2000,000 specifically for the field 
     trials. That funding was in part provided to help develop a 
     new, high-value use to hundreds of acres of tobacco land 
     statewide.
                                  ____


  Virginia Tech Begins Field Trials of Genetically Engineered Tobacco 
                    Plants Producing Pharmaceuticals


         GENERAL ASSEMBLY INVESTS IN NEW INDUSTRY FOR VIRGINIA

       Blacksburg, June 22, 1998.--Virginia Tech will soon begin 
     the first phase of a $754,000 state-funded research project 
     that could lead to a tobacco-based industry for growing human 
     pharmaceuticals in fields across Virginia.
       A team of Virginia Tech scientists has demonstrated the 
     feasibility of producing human therapeutic proteins in 
     genetically engineered ``transgenic'' tobacco plants. Now, 
     researchers will develop the special methods required to grow 
     the transgenic tobacco that could bring new, high-value use 
     to hundreds of acres of tobacco land statewide. ``This 
     investment in biotech research will help lay the foundation 
     for a whole new tobacco-based industry for Virginia,'' said 
     Carole Cramer, project director and professor of plant 
     pathology and physiology at the Fralin Biotechnology Center 
     of Virginia Tech.
       Planning began in early May for the first phase of a multi-
     year field trial. Researchers will eventually plant tens of 
     thousands of transgenic tobacco seedlings in fields at the 
     university's agricultural research stations at Blackstone and 
     Glade Springs. These studies will also include greenhouse 
     experiments and laboratory analyses at the Virginia Tech 
     campus in Blacksburg.
       With the support of state Sen. William Wampler Jr. of 
     Bristol, Governors Allen and Gilmore included $554,000 over 
     the biennium for transgenic medicinal tobacco research. 
     During the recent legislative session Wampler sponsored an 
     amendment which earmarked additional funds specifically for 
     the field trials.
       ``The General Assembly was pleased to add an additional 
     $200,000 to assist in the expansion of research in the 
     pharmaceutical uses of tobacco,'' said Wampler. ``We look 
     forward to reviewing the results of the practical application 
     of transgenic tobacco research, and we are hopeful that this 
     research will result in new, viable economic opportunities 
     for growing tobacco in our region.''
       Cooperating in the studies are scientists at Crop Tech 
     Corporation, a plant biotechnology company located in 
     Blacksburg. CropTech will contribute its proprietary know-how 
     and transgenic tobacco lines, as well as laboratory 
     facilities and financial resources from federal and private 
     sources.
       CropTech recently won a multi-year $8.8 million contract 
     from the Advanced Technology Program of the U.S. Department 
     of Commerce. That contract will allow CropTech to further 
     develop technologies to support commercialization of 
     transgenic tobacco for bioproduction of pharmaceutics. A 
     portion of the contract funds will support research at 
     Virginia Tech and will match the support from the 
     legislature.
       Cramer pointed out that the tobacco biotechnology being 
     developed at Virginia Tech is uniquely suited for 
     pharmaceutical production. The plants are modified to contain 
     a human gene--a tiny piece of human DNA with the information 
     to build a human protein--but the gene cannot be ``turned 
     on'' until the scientists give it a specific signal or 
     inducer. Thus, the process can be controlled so that drugs 
     will be made only after the leaves have been harvested and 
     taken to a regulated manufacturing facility.
       This summer's field tests are designed to begin designing 
     methods farmers will eventually use to grow the transgenic 
     pharmaceutical tobacco plants for commercial sale. Among the 
     issues being investigated are optimal plant density, planting 
     and harvest methods and timing, nutritional requirements and 
     pest protection, Cramer said. Also being studied are 
     conditions that could help maximize pharmaceutical production 
     and maximize the extraction of the target compounds from the 
     leaves of the plant.
       Cramer said tobacco is exceptionally suited for use in 
     producing pharmaceuticals because it is one of the most 
     productive crops in growing leaf biomass quickly and 
     efficiently. It is also one of the easiest plants to 
     genetically modify. As a very prolific seed producer, it will 
     allow production to be scaled up very rapidly.
       Although greenhouse studies during this year will include 
     drug-producing plants, the field tests for these lines will 
     not begin until next year, Cramer said. This year's field 
     tests will incorporate a ``reporter gene'' to enable 
     scientists to rapidly assess the performance of transgenic 
     tobacco under various growing conditions.
       The trials will also explore the potential of using 
     floating-bed greenhouse systems for producing transgenic 
     tobacco.
       ``This technology has tremendous potential as a win-win 
     situation for both tobacco producers and drug companies,'' 
     Cramer said. ``People will surprised at how fast this new 
     industry will be growing and the impact that it will have.''
                                  ____


           [From the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Sept. 24, 1997]

               In This Case, Tobacco Could Be a Lifesaver

                          (By A.J. Hostetler)

       Washington.--Tobacco may serve as a source of a new 
     medicine for a rare and life-threatening genetic disease 
     under patents being awarded this week for research at 
     Virginia Tech.
       The patents cover the processes involved in setting up a 
     new biochemical Trojan horse: a bacterium which carries a 
     human gene into a tobacco plant, from which scientists later 
     extract a human enzyme. The tobacco-produced enzyme could 
     eventually be turned into a drug.
       ``It's an incredibly effective delivery system,'' said 
     Virginia Tech plant physiologist Carole Cramer.
       She conducted the tobacco experiments at Virginia Tech and 
     at Croptech Development Corp., a private biotech company she 
     started with her husband, David Radin, a former Tech plant 
     cell geneticist.
       One patent for the genetic engineering was awarded 
     yesterday and another will be awarded tomorrow, according to 
     Radin. Both patents go to Virginia Tech and are licensed to 
     CropTech. A third patent, which awaits federal approval, will 
     be awarded to CropTech, with a small share of the patents, 
     and any resulting profits, awarded to Virginia Tech, Radin 
     said.
       The research was financed by grants from the National 
     Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense.
       At a biology conference yesterday in Washington, Cramer 
     described the research and how it could lead to a cheaper 
     treatment for Gaucher disease.
       Gaucher patients have a defective enzyme, called human 
     glucocerebrosidase or hGC, which prevents them from 
     processing fatting substances called complex lipids. The 
     lipids accumulate in the body to toxic levels, causing bone 
     deformities, liver and spleen problems and other 
     complications that can lead to death at an early age.
       Gaucher disease strikes mostly Jews, but others are also at 
     risk. About one in every 40,000 people in the United States 
     has the disease, according to one estimate, but that jumps to 
     one out of every 450 to 600 among Jews of Eastern European 
     descent.
       There are only two drugs approved in this country to treat 
     Gaucher disease. Both attempt to replace the missing enzyme.
       Patients typically take a single dose of Ceredase, or its 
     cousin, Cerezyme, every two weeks for their entire lives. The 
     average annual cost of either drug is about $160,000, 
     according to Cramer. A single dose of Ceredase is made from 
     as many as 2,000 human placentas, Cerezyme, made from hamster 
     ovaries, is similarly difficult and expensive to make, Cramer 
     said. But a single tobacco plant can be genetically 
     engineered to produce the same amount of enzyme far more 
     cheaply and easily.
       The Virginia research could offer Gaucher patients another 
     alternative if a drug produced from transgenic tobacco works, 
     said Rhonda Buyers, executive director of the National 
     Gaucher Foundation.
       The scientist who pioneered enzyme replacement therapy for 
     the disease, Dr. Roscoe Brady, says he regrets the high cost 
     of the current treatment and ``fervently'' hopes Cramer's 
     work succeeds.
       ``I want this to happen,'' said Brady, now chief of the 
     Developmental and Metabolic Neurology Branch at the National 
     Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes.
       ``I'd like everybody who needs it to get it. Even if (hGC) 
     comes from a tobacco plant, it's not going to be cheap.''
       Researchers are also developing gene therapy treatments 
     that could ``teach'' the human body to make the enzyme. But 
     that process is several years from general use. In the 
     meantime, CropTech's work is ``a good step forward'' for 
     patients with the crippling disease, Brady says.
       Cramer began her research on genetically engineered tobacco 
     in 1992 as she sought to understand how plants protect 
     themselves from disease. After learning how to transfer genes 
     from tomatoes into tobacco plants, she sought a more 
     challenging--and show-stopping--project.
       As the Clinton administration held hearings on health care 
     in the early 1990s, Cramer and her team heard about Ceredase, 
     which was being touted as one of the world's most expensive 
     drugs.
       Cramer said the researchers chose to study ways to produce 
     the Gaucher enzyme after wondering, ``What could we do that 
     would

[[Page 13108]]

     make a big splash'' in the scientific community?
       ``We wanted a dramatic example,'' she explained.
                                  ____


              [From the Virginia Tech Edge, January 1999]

                   Remote Sensing Center Established

       NASA will provide $419,256 to establish the Virginia Tech 
     Center for Environmental Applications of Remote Sensing 
     (CEARS). The center will provide maps and spatial data at all 
     levels--land and water, above ground and underground, 
     including such details as soil types, watersheds, and 
     wildlife habitats--to help place major developments with the 
     least impact, for instance. The center will be able to offer 
     better-detailed geographic information than currently 
     available, as well as data on the broad landscapes and inter-
     relationships.
       Spearheading CEARS is Randy Wynne of forestry, who 
     specialized in applying small satellite technology to natural 
     resources, and James Campbell of geography. ``CEARS will 
     focus on the environmental applications of remote sensing,'' 
     Wynne says.
       A remote sensing laboratory will be equipped with 25 
     networked (100 Mbs) Windows NT workstations, an NT server, 
     printers, and image processing and associated software (e.g., 
     compilers, spatial statistical packages, and GIS).
       ``We intend to augment our capability for measuring and 
     integrating data with a Sun photometer and PAR sensor, a 
     field spectroradiometer, and a roving GPS base station, and 
     will build an electric, remotely piloted vehicle capable of 
     carrying small sensor payloads.''
       Additional laboratories located in the geography department 
     and the Fish and Wildlife Information Exchange will support 
     the project.
       For more information, see the entire proposal for the 
     center or contact Dr. Wynn at 540-231-7811.


                 Tobacco Produces Human Pharmaceuticals

       Scientists at Virginia Tech and CropTech Corporation of 
     Blacksburg, VA, are using tobacco to produce human proteins.
       Carole Cramer, professor of plant pathology and physiology, 
     and colleagues have introduced snippets of human DNA into the 
     genes of tobacco. Those snippets instruct the plant to 
     produce human protein, which can then be extracted from the 
     leaves and used to create drugs.
       Among their achievements so far are tobacco plants that 
     produce:
        Human Protein C, part of blood clotting/
     anticlotting chemistry. This protein is presently extracted 
     from human blood plasma for use by hospitals. Human Protein C 
     from tobacco has yet to be tested on humans.
        Glucocerebrosidase, a human lysosomal enzyme that 
     may eventually be used to treat a rare, life-threatening 
     genetic disease affecting the body's ability to break down 
     fats. This enzyme is now purified from human placenta.
       Contact: Dr. Cramer at 540-231-6757.


                  Sorting the Building Blocks of Life

       A university DNA sequencing facility has been established 
     in the Virginia-Maryland Regional College of Veterinary 
     Medicine's Center for Molecular Medicine and Infectious 
     Diseases.
       Funded by Virginia Tech Research and Graduate Studies, the 
     college, and the Fralin Biotechnology Center, the laboratory 
     is staffed and equipped to provide reliable and prompt DNA 
     sequencing services for researchers, according to Stephen 
     Boyle, professor in biomedical sciences and pathobiology.
       To develop genetically engineered improvements in 
     everything from food products to medicine, scientists must 
     first acquire an accurate profile of a substance's molecular 
     structure. The new lab allows them to do precisely that, 
     Boyle says. Plus, the laboratory offers cost-effective, high-
     throughput services.
       The laboratory includes twin Pharmacia Biotech ALFexpress 
     sequencers. A computer-based control runs each unit 
     independently. Laboratory manager Lee Weigt has 10 years of 
     experience managing DNA sequencing facilities for the 
     Smithsonian's Tropical Research Institute in Panama and the 
     Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and has been 
     specially trained by Pharmacia on the equipment.
       Gaucher disease results when the body's enzyme storage 
     system goes awry. Plants have a similar storage process, and 
     Cramer thought she could prod a tobacco plant to grow hGC.
       She did it by inserting the human gene for hGC into a 
     common tobacco bacterium and allows it to infect a piece of 
     leaf.
       When the bacterium infects the leaf, it carries along with 
     it the human gene. It transfers the gene into the plant and 
     then dies, felled by antibiotics given to the tobacco plant.
       Cramer has dozens of these genetically altered tobacco 
     plants in various pots and petri dishes in her laboratory. 
     The green leaves look like any normal tobacco plant.
       While the plants grow, they show no signs of the human 
     gene. The tobacco cells know how to make the enzyme, but 
     don't do anything about it until they are activated by the 
     researchers in a secret process that is part of the patent 
     application. That helps control the quality of the enzyme 
     produced because weather conditions and the timing of the 
     harvest can affect the amount of hGC in the plant, Cramer 
     said.
       The harvested leaves are incubated for about a day before 
     they are ground up and the enzyme is extracted.
       The tobacco-produced hGC functions just like the human 
     enzyme, she said, giving CropTech hope that federal approval 
     for clinical trials may come in three to five years. When 
     CropTech wins that approval, it would work with a drug 
     manufacturer to produce the tobacco and enzyme in mass 
     quantities, Cramer said.

                [From the New York Times, May 14, 2000]

New Ventures Aim to Put Farms in Vanguard of Drug Production--Altering 
          Gene Structure to ``Grow'' Medicines in Common Crops

                          (By Andrew Pollack)

       Joe Williams, a Virginia tobacco farmer, has been forced to 
     cut his production nearly in half over the last three years 
     as people have kicked the smoking habit. But he is hoping 
     that a small experimental plot he just planted will hold the 
     key to his staying on the farm. That tobacco has been 
     genetically engineered to produce not cigarettes but 
     pharmaceuticals.
       Plants containing drugs could, indeed, represent a new 
     high-priced crop. ``If we can actually find a medical use for 
     tobacco that saves lives, what a turnaround for the much-
     maligned tobacco plant,'' said Christopher Cook, chief 
     executive of ToBio, a company recently formed by Virginia 
     tobacco farmers like Mr. Williams to grow drugs in 
     cooperation with the CropTech Corporation of Blacksburg, Va.
       The production of drugs in genetically altered plants--
     called molecular farming or biopharming--seems poised to 
     represent the next waive in agricultural biotechnology. Until 
     now, efforts have mainly been directed at protecting crops 
     from pests and improving the taste and nutrition of food.
       But just as the production of bio-engineered foods has been 
     controversial, molecular farming is already raising some 
     safety and environmental concerns. Chief among them is that 
     drugs might end up in the general food supply, either because 
     crops or seeds are misrouted during processing or because 
     pollen from a drug-containing crop in an open field 
     fertilizes a nearby food crop. What if insects eat the drug-
     containing plants or if the drug leaks into the soil from the 
     roots?
       About 20 companies worldwide are working on producing 
     pharmaceuticals in plants, according to the Bow-ditch Group, 
     a Boston consulting firm. A handful of such drugs are already 
     being tested in human clinical trials, including vaccines for 
     hepatitis B and an antibody to prevent tooth decay.
       There have been dozens of field tests like the one on Mr. 
     Williams's farm, aimed at seeing if products ranging from 
     hemoglobin to urokilnase, a clot-dissolving drug, can be 
     grown in crops like corn, tobacco or rice. In a closely 
     related effort, companies are also trying to use plants to 
     produce industrial chemicals.
       Proponents say that farming for pharmaceutical proteins 
     would be far cheaper than the current practice of producing 
     these drugs in genetically modified mammalian cells grown in 
     vats. That could lower the price of drugs produced by 
     biotechnology, some of which now cost tens or even hundreds 
     of thousands of dollars a year per patient.
       In some cases, the drugs would not even have to be 
     extracted from the plant. Scientists are testing edible 
     vaccines in which people would be protected from diseases by 
     eating genetically engineered foods.
       As these crops get closer to market, regulators are trying 
     to figure out how to ensure their safety. Last month, the 
     Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department 
     held a public meeting in Ames, Iowa, to discuss the issue.
       The regulators say some safeguards are already in place. To 
     minimize environmental risks, all field tests of drug-
     producing plants must receive government permits, while some 
     field tests of other modified crops require only that the 
     government be notified, said Michael Schechtman, 
     biotechnology coordinator for the Agriculture Department. In 
     addition, the distance by which the drug-bearing plants must 
     be isolated from other plants to prevent cross-pollination is 
     double the usual distance used by seed companies to assure 
     purity of their seeds, he said. And although genetically 
     modified food crops are often deregulated after the product 
     becomes commercial, he added, the planting of drug containing 
     crops is likely to be regulated forever.
       But Norman C. Ellstand, a professor of genetics at the 
     University of California at Riverside and an expert on pollen 
     flow, said that long-distance pollen flow is poorly 
     understood and that the appropriate isolation distance for 
     drug-producing plants would depend on the particular crop and 
     drug. ``It's just not clear that setting a double distance is 
     going to solve everything,'' he said.
       Indeed, biopharming lies on the border of medical 
     biotechnology, which has been largely free of controversy, 
     and food biotechnology, which has been beset by protests.

[[Page 13109]]

       Some executives in the fledgling industry say that because 
     medicines clearly help people, their activity is not 
     generating this same kind of resistance as the production of 
     genetically modified food crops. In addition, they say, drugs 
     are tested and regulated far more stringently than biofoods. 
     ``It's being received entirely differently,'' said William S. 
     White, president of Integrated Protein Technologies, a unit 
     of the Monsanto Company that is trying to grow drugs in corn.
       But critics of agricultural biotechnology say that such 
     companies, which underestimated the public reaction to 
     bioengineered foods, are repeating the mistake. Michael 
     Hansen of Consumers Union, for one, said the public had no 
     idea about the work being done to produce drugs in plants. 
     ``Once they have an idea, the thought of putting drugs in 
     plants, is not going to go over well,'' he said.
       Some companies producing drugs in plants are already being 
     hit. Axis Genetics of Britain went out of business a few 
     months ago, saying the protests over bioengineered food had 
     scared off investors. Groupe Limagrain, a French seed 
     company, says it has been conducting its field tests in the 
     United States because the dispute over modified crops is 
     greater in Europe. And Planet Biotechnology Inc. of Mountain 
     View, Calif., keeps the location of its greenhouses secret to 
     prevent vandalism by protesters, as has happened to companies 
     growing modified food products.
       Companies are considering various techniques to keep drug-
     producing crops from accidentally entering the food supply, 
     including the implanting of a gene to turn drug-producing 
     crops a different color from other crops.
       Techniques are also being developed to prevent cross-
     pollination. CropTech, for instance, said its tobacco would 
     be harvested before sexual maturity. Some drugs needed in 
     small quantities might be grown only in greenhouses, rather 
     than open fields.
       Just as with food, biocrops should be able to produce large 
     quantities of drugs at low cost, advocates say. The newest 
     factories now used to produce pharmaceutical proteins in 
     genetically modified mammalian cells can cost $100 million or 
     more and can produce a few hundred kilograms a year at most. 
     Drugs made in such factories can cost thousands of dollars 
     per gram to produce.
       For many biotechnology drugs already on the market, this is 
     not a problem because prices are high and only minuscule 
     amounts are needed. But some drugs under development, like an 
     antibody-containing cream for herpes, are likely to require 
     much larger quantities and not be able to command high 
     prices.
       ``They cannot make these drugs using the old 
     technologies,'' said Mr. White of Monsanto's Integrated 
     Protein Technologies. ``It's just not going to be cost 
     effective to do so.'' Mr. White said his company could 
     produce 300 kilograms of a purified drug for a $10 million 
     capital investment and a cost of $200 a gram.
       Planet Biotechnology is in clinical trials of an antibody, 
     produced in genetically altered tobacco, that blocks the 
     bacteria that cause tooth decay. Elliott L. Fineman, the 
     chief executive, said it would be impossible to use mammalian 
     cells to produce the 600 kilograms a year that might be 
     needed in a cost-effective way. But the entire supply could 
     be affordably produced on a single large tobacco farm.
       Still, the companies wanting to grow drugs have found the 
     going somewhat rough. The Large Scale Biology Corporation, 
     formerly Bio-source Technologies, did the first field test of 
     a drug produced by a plant in 1991 but still does not have a 
     drug in clinical trials.
       Drug companies are hesitant to depart from existing 
     technology. And some industry experts are not convinced that 
     plants would be cheaper when the cost of extracting the drug 
     from the plant is considered. ``With respect to purifying it 
     and isolating it, a plant can pose challenges,'' said Norbert 
     G. Riedel, president of the Baxter Healthcare Corporation's 
     recombinant DNA business.
       Moreover, the production of drugs in plants faces 
     competition from production in the milk of genetically 
     modified animals. This also offers potentially high volumes 
     at low costs, and the animal milk companies are closer to 
     bringing products to market. Some already have deals signed 
     with major drug companies.
       The plant-drug companies say their technique is safe 
     because mammalian cells and animal milk can introduce harmful 
     viruses into the drug, while plant viruses are not known to 
     infect people.
       There could be other problems, however, including 
     contamination by pesticides and plant chemicals like 
     nicotine. The F.D.A., which is preparing draft guidelines for 
     production of such drugs, is considering such issues as 
     assuring that the pharmaceutical protein does not change form 
     during plant growth, harvesting and storage.
       Yet another issue is that the sugars attached to proteins 
     by plants are different from those attached by animals. This 
     could prevent the plant-derived drug from working and could 
     cause allergies, said Dr. Gary A. Bannon, professor of 
     biochemistry and molecular biology at the University of 
     Arkansas medical school.
       Molecular farming might not prove to be the salvation of 
     vast numbers of farmers since the acreage needed will 
     probably be small. Mr. White of Monsanto said even a drug 
     needed in large quantities could be produced on a few 
     thousand acres of corn, a mere blip compared with the roughly 
     77 million acres of corn grown in the United States.
       But Brandon J. Price, chief executive officer of CropTech, 
     which is working with the Virginia farmers, said 45,000 acres 
     would be needed to satisfy the entire worldwide demand for 
     human serum albumin, a blood product that his company wants 
     to produce in tobacco.
       Said Mr. Williams, the Virginia farmer, ``we're looking at 
     thousands and thousands of acres it takes off and goes.''

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Miller of Florida

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 43 offered by Mr. Miller of Florida:
       Page 31, after line 5, insert the following:


                   purchases of raw or refined sugar

       For fiscal year 2001, the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     shall not expend more than $54,000,000 for purchases of raw 
     or refined sugar from sugarcane or sugar beets.

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. 
It is to say let us stop wasting taxpayers' dollars on the sugar 
program.
  Last month, the Secretary of Agriculture bought $54 million worth of 
sugar and does not know what to do with it. We have too much sugar in 
this country. We cannot even give it away around the world, but we 
bought $54 million worth of sugar. We cannot use it for the ethynyl 
program. What are we going to do?
  We are going to store it, and the media reports saying we are going 
to have another $500 million worth of sugar in the next 90 days, and we 
do not now have any use for it.
  This is a waste, and it is an embarrassment to this Congress that we 
allow this program to be authorized in the farm bill back in 1996. In 
fact, during the past month, national television has been making fun of 
us, The Fleecing of America on NBC news made fun of Congress for 
wasting money on this program.
  It's Your Money on ABC did the same, because it is a program that 
makes no sense. It hurts consumers. It hurts the environment. It hurts 
the jobs, and it is just bad simple economics.
  Let me briefly describe what the program is. We have a Federal 
Government program through a loan program and limits on imports to prop 
up the price of sugar at about three times the world price. That is 
right, here in the United States, we pay three times the price of sugar 
as they pay in Canada or Mexico or Australia. What does that mean? It 
means our consumers get hurt.
  In fact, the General Accounting Office, which is a nonpartisan 
organization that supports Congress, it is not supported by the 
agriculture or the business sector, it is nonpartisan, nonbias, their 
most recent study last month said $1.9 billion that it costs us. The 
taxpayers are being hit, $54 million last month alone and it can go as 
much as $500 million.
  The environment, I come from Florida, and the Florida Everglades is a 
real national treasure, and what are we doing is, because of the high 
price of sugar, we are overproducing sugar, which has all that runoff 
that flows into the Everglades down into Florida Bay and the Florida 
Keys, and it is causing environmental damage. That is the reason we get 
strong support from the environmental community on this issue.
  And when we get to trade, it is amazing. How can we go to Seattle and 
talk about trade issues and say we will talk about everything but 
sugar, because we do not want to talk about sugar. It makes it 
difficult for us to be advocating free trade when we have to protect 
sugar.

[[Page 13110]]

  Finally on jobs, we can go program after program, where the jobs are 
impacted in this country. We are losing jobs.
  Let me give my colleagues an illustration. Bobs Candies in Georgia 
makes candy canes. They use a lot of sugar in candy canes. It is a 
third generation company. What is happening is in Canada where the 
sugar is only a third of the price or in the Caribbean where they get 
sugar for a third of the price, they can shift their production. Why 
would they want to manufacture in the United States to pay that high 
price for sugar?
  This makes zero economic sense. It has zero economic sense, because 
it has all negatives. The only people supporting the program are the 
sugar growers, and the sugar growers love it.
  In fact, they love it so much they increased the production of sugar 
by 25 percent in the last 3 years because they are just making a 
killing off of sugar. Next year, they are predicting even more sugar 
protection and instead of buying $500 million worth of sugar, we can 
see a billion dollar a year cost.
  We were told back there 1996 oh, no, it does not cost us anything. It 
does not cost anything. In fact, they told us back in 1996, sugar is 
going to pay a support program part of this, like $40 million. Well, 
they got rid of that a couple of years ago. Now, we do not even make 
money on the sugar program, we just spend money. We just waste money.
  For my colleagues, I hope they will support me as we get rid of this 
program. If my colleagues are conservative, this is bad big government. 
If my colleagues are pro consumer. If my colleagues are concerned about 
the lower-income people that spend so much money on their income on 
food, my colleagues should support this. If my colleagues are an 
environmentalist, this is definitely one to support, because we want to 
protect the Everglades.
  It is just a bad big government program, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) 
continue to reserve a point of order?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for Iowa (Mr. Latham) for his 
indulgence; and I want to express my admiration for the diligent 
crusade the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has been conducting on 
behalf of consumers, taxpayers, and other farmers.
  In support of the gentleman from Florida's amendment, I want to 
address its negative impact on other hard-working honest unsubsidized 
farmers. I agree with what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has 
said about the taxpayers and about the consumers.
  I represent a large number of people who are in the cranberry 
business. They grow cranberries. Cranberries have been a non-program 
crop, that is, unsubsidized.
  As my colleagues know, this Chamber is full of people who are the 
world's most ardent advocates of free enterprise, of standing on your 
own two feet, of not having the government get involved, except it 
turns out that in all of the great conservative economic texts, there 
is a footnote that is written that says, except agriculture. Members 
have to come from a farm State to be able to read it. It is in 
invisible ink and one has to apply certain substances garnered on farms 
to be able to bring out that footnote so we can read it, because the 
part of the American economy which is the most heavily subsidized, the 
most heavily regulated, the most anti free market is, in fact, 
agriculture.
  I represent some people who are in agriculture without much of that. 
The cranberry growers do a very good job of producing a very important 
crop, until recently, without any kind of government entanglement. They 
are trying to continue that. But they find themselves in a great 
dilemma. Cranberries are very tart. They are nourishing. They are 
tasty, but they require sugar in many of the forms in which they are 
prepared.
  If Members want to come by my office, we have some very good dried 
cranberries, a very healthy snack, but they have a high percentage of 
sugar. The problem is that because of the sugar program, American 
cranberry growers and processors are at a significant competitive 
disadvantage vis-a-vis Canada.
  Thanks to NAFTA, we now have one market embracing both Canada and the 
United States for cranberries. Cranberries are grown in both places. 
American processors are significantly disadvantaged because of the 
price of the sugar they must use to deal with their cranberry products 
is so much higher than the price that our Canadian competitors pay.
  This is a case where the unsubsidized farmers and the cranberries 
farmers are seeking some help. They are seeking the one thing that I 
most support, a government purchase of surplus cranberries for use in 
various programs; but their dilemma has been exacerbated by the sugar 
program.
  The cranberry growers come to the government for help, because the 
government has helped cause their problem; and it has helped cause 
their problem by putting them at a significant competitive disadvantage 
in some respects because of the high price of sugar they have to pay 
compared to the price of sugar paid by the Canadians.
  I have, I guess, a very novel question, maybe it is naivete on my 
part. If we can, in fact, rely on a free market in oil, and we are told 
that the oil prices go up, well, that is tough, that is the free 
market. If we can have a free market in the most sophisticated 
telecommunications equipment, if we can have a free market in 
automobiles, in legal services, in shoe repair, in virtually every 
other commodity, what is it about the growing of sugar that repels the 
free market ethic?
  What is it about sugar growing that makes it entitled to be an 
exception from the free market principles to which so many of my 
colleagues, especially on that side of the aisle, profess allegiance? 
Is sugar some alien substance that repels the concepts of demand and 
supply?
  Are the people who grow sugar somehow mutants who are not subject to 
the same economic incentives and disincentives as others. So the sugar 
program is, of course, one of the great violations of principle that 
many on the other side profess, but we get used to a little principle 
slippage particularly late in the year when election time is coming up. 
But it hurts consumers, and sugar is consumed by lower-income people. 
It hurts the taxpayer considerably, the millions that we spent on sugar 
could well be used for other purposes; and, in particular, thought I 
want to stress here, it even hurts other parts of agriculture. That is 
one of the things about the free market, once we begin to tinker with 
it in such a substantial form, the effects of that tinkering cannot be 
confined, and the aid that is given by the taxpayers at the expense of 
consumers to sugar growers redounds to the significant disadvantage of 
people who grow cranberries.
  I would hope that we would adopt the gentleman's amendment and 
proceed in the earliest time frame next year to abolish the program and 
bring that radical subversive unknown doctrine known as free enterprise 
into another area of the American economy.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) continue to 
reserve his point of order?
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the new GAO report says it all, the GAO report 
is entitled ``supporting sugar prices has increased users costs, while 
benefiting producers.''
  According to this new report by our Federal Government, the sugar 
program costs consumers $1.9 billion each year in higher costs.
  Secretary Glickman has announced that the Department of Agriculture 
would spend $54 million of taxpayers' money to purchase 130,000 tons of 
surplus sugar to prop up domestic prices. Every time an American goes 
to a

[[Page 13111]]

vending machine to buy a candy bar or goes to the supermarket to buy 
ice cream, it can cost more because of the sugar program. Every time he 
tries to buy cranberry juice, it costs more, because of this program.
  The sugar program acts as nearly a $2 billion hidden tax to our 
consumers, but this tax does not go to the government to pay for the 
national defense or for some other program. It goes into the pockets of 
the big sugar lobby.
  The Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 began to phase out income supports 
for nearly every agricultural commodity, and tried to set them down the 
path toward free market competition, tried to set them towards free 
enterprise; however, the government continues to subsidize sugar 
producers by maintaining high sugar prices.

                              {time}  1500

  Well, this amendment will limit the Commodity Credit Corporation from 
extending any more than the $54 million, the amount they have already 
purchased this year, on the purchase of additional sugar with 
taxpayers' dollars during fiscal year 2001. And to let the Commodity 
Credit Corporation continue to bail out sugar producers only continues 
the cycle of welfare to sugar producers and higher prices for 
consumers.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows, I am sure, that sugar 
prices are at an all-time low; they have not been this low in years.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I know that the sugar 
prices are low, and I also know that the Federal Government, in its GAO 
report, has extrapolated the costs to consumers at $1.9 billion a year.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
understand that is what the GAO report said; but sugar prices are low, 
and I have not, and I just wonder if the gentleman has, seen any 
reduction in candy bars or soda pop or any other commodity that the 
gentleman claims will be such a windfall to American consumers. Has the 
gentleman seen any?
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, we have not 
repealed the laws of supply and demand, and to the extent that we have 
these types of programs that force higher prices on the consumer, yes, 
that is ultimately reflected in pricing. I believe that the market 
works.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will again continue to 
yield, with all due respect to the gentleman's opinion on this, I think 
it is faulty, because prices are low, and nothing is happening to the 
cost of the products with sugar in them.
  Mr. Chairman, when I look at this amendment, I recall the failed 
amendments that have been offered in the past on the Agricultural 
Appropriations bills. Regardless of how exactly the language reads, it 
all boils down to this: my colleague wants to eliminate the sugar 
program.
  Each time sugar opponents have offered such an amendment on the Ag 
Appropriations bill, the House has rejected their efforts. This in 
itself says a great deal. The House has stood by its agreement made 
with farmers in the 1996 Farm Bill.
  In the Farm Bill, Congress agreed to a sugar program that would stay 
intact for seven years. My colleague wishes to break this contract with 
farmers.
  My colleague has made reference to a recently-released GAO report on 
the sugar program. There are a number of problems with this report, 
which both USDA and the sugar industry have highlighted. USDA, the 
agency that administers the federal sugar program, concluded: ``GAO has 
not attempted to realistically model the U.S. sugar industry. The 
validity of the results are, therefore, suspect and should not be 
quoted authoritatively.''
  By agreeing to purchase sugar, USDA made an economic decision within 
the parameters of the program for the benefit of the taxpayer. In early 
June, USDA bought 132,000 short tons of refined sugar in an effort to 
avoid forfeitures of sugar under loan and to reduce the potential cost 
to the taxpayer. According to USDA, this purchase serves as a $6 
million cost savings compared to potential forfeiture costs of the same 
tonnage.
  To kill or impede the program today, nearly a year before we begin to 
authorize a new farm bill, especially without review by the authorizing 
committee, would be very unwise. The mechanics, operations, and success 
of the sugar program over the past five years should be evaluated more 
closely and carefully before a hasty vote on an appropriations bill 
hinders the current operations.
  Join me in supporting the taxpayer, the American farmer and the 
contract made in the 1996 Farm Bill. Vote No on this amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois is 
talking about how low the prices are. The price of sugar in the United 
States is about three times the world price. Look in today's Wall 
Street Journal; look in the financial pages. We see two prices: one for 
the United States, one for the rest of the world. And it is three times 
the world price.
  So what are we supposed to be feeling sorry for when we are paying 
three times the price that Australia pays for sugar and Canada pays for 
sugar. And, yes, anybody who has had economics 101 knows that cost 
influences prices. So yes, it does have a direct effect. That is the 
reason the GAO did the study. That is the reason we have a nonpartisan, 
unbiased source that did the study; and that is the reason we need to 
trust that $1.9 billion. That is real money that costs real consumers 
real dollars.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We go through 
this debate every year, and sugar becomes the culprit for all that is 
bad and all that is evil.
  We hear about the world's sugar price being so much less everywhere 
else. It is interesting that when we travel abroad, candy is very, very 
expensive. Maybe they access the world market, but their prices are the 
same. Sugar is the lowest it has been in years; candy bars are higher 
than ever. Some Members say it is for the big sugar lobby. Well, what 
about the big candy lobby? Only the bad actors are on the other side of 
the amendments. Yesterday, it was the big pharmaceutical lobby when we 
talked about prescription drugs. Today, it is the big sugar lobby.
  Nobody comes down to Clewiston and sees the small family farmers. And 
yes, there are some big farmers; we acknowledge that. Like everywhere 
else in America, there are small farmers and big farmers. But once 
again, we kick farmers when they are down. Some of the most difficult 
times we are experiencing in this Nation in farming are occurring 
today, and people always complain about programs done by the Department 
of Agriculture, and then they rush off out of this Chamber and have a 
big meal; and they eat a lot of food, and they fill up their bellies 
and think how wonderful it is that I had this delectable meal. Then 
they rush right back, full, their appetites satiated; and they 
immediately begin to attack farmers and the farm programs and the 
Agricultural Department and this runaway program that is being 
sponsored by Congress.
  I say, if we complain about farmers, do not do so with our mouths 
full. This program has been reformed; it has been changed.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 
just point out to my colleagues, they refer to this GAO report, which I 
have seen thoroughly, and there are a number of problems with this 
report. Both the USDA and the sugar industry have highlighted: ``USDA, 
the agency that administers the Federal sugar program, concluded,'' and 
this is important, ``the GAO has not attempted to realistically model 
the U.S. sugar industry. The validity of the results are, therefore, 
suspect and should not be quoted authoritatively.''
  So the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) is using it incorrectly.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) knows that they talk about the

[[Page 13112]]

sugar price, but what is the sugar price, the world dump price?
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the sugar price, as the 
gentleman well knows, it is 125,000 metric tons, so nobody runs out to 
the Publix and buys 125,000 tons. In addition to that, it is left-over 
excess capacity. It is not first-run sugar; it is floating around there 
looking for a buyer. It is like the end-of-the-year car sales when 
people are trying to get the cars off their lots. This is sugar that is 
sitting, waiting, looking for a purchaser; it is not first-run sugar. 
So they misrepresent.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield once again, 
most of that sugar comes from programs around the world that are 
subsidized much higher than we do in this country. They cannot use it; 
they cannot keep sugar. They dump it on the world market and take 
pennies on the dollar.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts made a big thing about the free market system. Well, I 
think we are spending about $14 billion on the big dig in Massachusetts 
for a tunnel. So all I will say to the gentleman is that we are 
spending money on projects throughout the country, and we are trying to 
help the farmers in America. We are trying to keep domestic production, 
and I think it is vitally important.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first, I would say that 25 
years ago I was opposed to that highway construction project. I thought 
it was not a good use of money.
  Secondly, I would say this. Even at my most critical, I have never 
suggested that we should have the free market build a highway. If we 
are going to build a highway, then the Government has to do it. But I 
would say that I was against building the highway.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much. Reclaiming 
my time, the Government, once again, did build a highway; and it is $14 
billion, probably about $8 billion overspending.
  All I can say is listen to the amendment; look at what is occurring. 
Defeat the amendment. I support the gentleman as he reserves his point 
of order against the amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlemen from Florida and California to reduce funding 
for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation 
by $54 million--the amount of money made available last year for sugar 
producers.
  Mr. Chairman, there is virtually no disagreement that the nation's 
sugar programs are flawed. In fact, an article which appeared last 
month in the Palm Beach Post quoted two sugar growers who admitted that 
the program has problems, and as one said, ``some new policy is going 
to have to be developed.''
  Until then, we should not continue to pour taxpayer dollars into the 
sugar sinkhole. The sugar market is glutted, yet producers continue to 
grow more sugar, and as a result, grow fat off these sweet Federal 
subsidies.
  While sugar producers get all the treats, the taxpayers wind up 
picking up the tab for all these tricks. Consumers are stuck paying 
higher prices for foods made with sugar, after already being forced to 
contribute tax dollars to pay for these subsidies. That doesn't sound 
like a sweet deal to me!
  Frankly, the USDA's sugar policies have left a bitter taste in my 
mouth. We should stop subsidizing sugar growers, and instead start 
spending that money on more deserving programs, such as child nutrition 
programs, WIC, and agricultural research.
  Mr. Chairman, let's get the sugar industry's hands out of the Federal 
cookie jar, and stop subsidizing Big Sugar. Support the Miller/Miller 
Amendment.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller amendment 
to the Agriculture Appropriations bill. This amendment limits 
expenditures by the Department of Agriculture for the purchase of 
sugar.
  During consideration of my legislation, H.R. 3221, the Corporate 
Welfare Reform Commission Act, the Budget Committee heard testimony 
from members of Congress and budget experts about rooting out wasteful 
spending. The sugar program is high on the list of corporate welfare 
items that private groups and fiscal watchdogs have targeted for 
elimination.
  The sugar program guarantees domestic cane and beet sugar producers a 
minimum price for sugar. It does this by offering loans to sugar 
processors at a rate which is written into law. This program has an 
unusual feature of allowing sugar processors to forfeit their sugar to 
the federal government instead of paying back their loans. In order to 
avoid the result of a direct expenditure from the federal government, 
the program restricts the amount of sugar that can be imported under a 
low tariff rate.
  It's not surprising that producers are all eagerly seeking to 
participate in this program. The amount of sugar under government loan 
has nearly doubled since 1997.
  It's also not surprising that there is currently a problem of sugar 
overproduction and now the sugar industry is not content with the 
government's subsidies in the form of restrictions on imports and 
direct payouts. They now are going directly to the Agriculture 
Department and selling their sugar that no one else wants to buy. The 
Department of Agriculture recently purchased 150 tons of sugar which 
cost American taxpayers more than $60 million.
  This is the height of absurdity. We encourage overproduction of sugar 
through subsidies and trade restrictions and then when sugar is 
overproduced, we buy it and then give it away to a third country for 
free. This amendment puts an end to these purchases.
  Proponents of this subsidy argue that the program does not cost the 
taxpayer anything. This argument is especially hollow considering the 
recent government purchases. But even putting those purchases aside, 
GAO has estimated that the cost of this program to consumers is nearly 
$2 billion a year. Every American that drinks a soda, eats a cookie or 
bakes a cake pays more than they should at the checkout line.
  This ``tax'' to pay for the sugar program doesn't go toward some 
public purpose. It goes into the pockets of a few large corporate 
farmers with an average farm size of 2,800 acres. According to a Time 
magazine article, one family which Time dubbed ``the first family of 
corporate welfare'' received $65 million in federally subsidized 
revenues from the sugar program.
  Mr. Chairman it is time we put an end to this shell game which always 
ends with the taxpayers losing. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. 
Miller's amendment.
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Chairman, Sugar Producers have been helping pay down 
our deficit for many years now.
  In fact the Congressional Budget Office estimates that sugar 
producers will have actually paid $288 million into the federal 
treasury by the end of 2002.
  So the recent $54 million sugar purchase by the USDA represents only 
a fraction of what sugar producers have already given to the 
government.
  As lawmakers, when we committed ourselves to helping farmers, we 
committed ourselves to helping all farmers.
  That's why I oppose the Miller amendment--because it singles out 
2,880 farmers and more than 23,000 beet-sugar related jobs in Michigan 
alone. But Michigan is not alone--the whole country profits from the 
sugar industry. Sugar related employment represents 420,000 jobs in 40 
states and over $26 billion in economic activity.
  Sugar farmers and workers need our help. Please don't abandon them in 
their time of need. This amendment has already been struck down on a 
point of order, but I urge my colleagues to vote no in the future on 
any anti-farmer amendment like this one.
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment.
  I can understand some of the criticism of the sugar program, 
especially from those that are true free traders. I, too, wish we had 
an open market for sugar. But what I don't understand is the continual, 
thinly veiled attack against U.S. sugar growers.
  This program protects American sugar growers, including the 23,000 
growers and sugar industry employees in my district, from a truly 
unfair, highly subsidized, and distorted world sugar market. American 
sugarbeet growers are the most efficient--the best--in the world. They 
wouldn't need our help, except that their competitors are foreign 
governments trying to prop up much less than the best.
  Also, please hold the arguments that the sugar program has hurt 
consumers. Wholesale sugar prices have fallen nearly 26 percent since 
1996, while consumer prices have risen. Cereal prices are up by more 
than six percent. Ice cream is up more than nine percent. Candy prices 
have risen nearly eight percent. If producer prices are down, but 
consumer prices are up, who is benefiting? You know the answer.

[[Page 13113]]

  Unilateral disarmament is not a fair or reasonable policy for 
American sugar growers. And an appropriations bill is not the place to 
even be discussing it. Reject this broadside against U.S. sugar. Oppose 
this amendment.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, while not everyone has said it yet, I think 
everything that needs to be said on the subject has been said. So at 
this point I will make a point of order against the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Florida.
  The amendment violates clause 2, section C of rule XXI of the House 
in that it proposes the inclusion of legislative or authorizing 
language on an appropriation bill.
  Specifically, the amendment proposes to limit certain expenditures 
made by the Commodity Credit Corporation where no such limitation 
exists in current law, instead of confining the amendment's proposed 
limitation to the scope of funds made available under this act. 
Additionally, the amendment of the gentleman from Florida contains 
``shall not'' language that, on its face, imposes a legislative 
directive.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has stated a point of order. Does the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, I feel very disappointed that we are cutting off debate 
like this. My cosponsor of the Miller and Miller amendment is not even 
allowed to speak on this bill. This is not the way we should treat our 
colleagues, to have the cosponsor being cut off from speaking.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LATHAM. Certainly, after the chairman has ruled, any Member has 
the opportunity to strike the last word.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the Members to 
do so, because there are a lot of people on the floor that want to talk 
to this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, with respect to the point of order, we were told back 
in 1996 when the sugar program was developed and we authorized it that 
it was a no net-cost program; it will not cost the Government anything. 
We have already spent $54 million last month, and we are getting ready 
to spend $500 million more, so we were kind of misled in 1996 to have 
been told that it was a no net-cost program; so because of the change 
is the reason I think we should not have a point of order raised.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order on the question of whether or not this amendment is in 
order?
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I might, in response to 
reserving the point of order, if I could speak through the Chair to the 
gentleman that made the point of order, might it not be possible, if 
the gentleman insists upon his point of order, and I know we have the 
right to strike the last word later, but might it not be possible to 
ask unanimous consent so that at least our written statements could 
appear in the Record at this point so it is part of this joint debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. Unanimous consent has already been authorized for that 
purpose for all Members.
  Mr. MILLER of California. To be put into the Record at this point in 
the debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct, yes.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members that wish to speak on the 
point of order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller) includes language limiting the Commodity Credit 
Corporation purchasing authority; and, therefore, the amendment 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and the 
point of order is, therefore, sustained.
  The amendment is not in order.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of misstatements today about the 
sugar program, not only today, but in the discussions that have been 
held over the years. I think it is really unfortunate that so much of 
this comes from a theoretical discussion, which is purported to be a 
government report called the GAO Study.
  I think that it is important when we look at these studies to look at 
the response the Department made with respect to each one of the 
assumptions that were propounded by the GAO report. The most 
significant of it is this use of the words, ``world price.'' Anyone who 
has studied this particular issue will know that the world price is 
nothing more than a dump price. There is no such thing as buying sugar 
at 8 cents or 9 cents a pound. It is only where the excesses, the 
surpluses of all of these government programs all over the world have 
no internal domestic source to sell, then they go out to the world 
market and they dump it. It is absolutely unfair to talk about our 
sugar program and relate it to the world dump price.
  If we are talking about the cost of sugar to an ordinary family in 
the United States, let us look at the chart here. Let us look and see 
what the world price is for sugar in the developed countries. We see 
all of these countries here, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Italy, 
Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, France, all of these other countries, and 
way down at the bottom here, the United States, retail price at 43 
cents. At the top here, 86 cents. That is what we are talking about 
when we talk about the cranberry production and the cranberry juice 
that we were supposed to feel sympathetic about in an earlier 
discussion.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a retail price in the United 
States which is significantly lower than what the price is in other 
countries throughout the world. Mr. Chairman, 8 cent, 9 cent sugar is 
unreal in terms of our own domestic market.
  What are we talking about? We are talking about killing an industry. 
I cannot think of anybody interested in fairness and support of our 
farmers, in support of agriculture, wanting to kill a whole industry in 
order to somehow fall prey to this mythological idea that they could 
buy 8 cent sugar in the world dump market. It is just not happening.
  I think the real way to look at this situation is what is happening 
to the sugar prices today. We who have sugar production in our 
districts know that the price has catapulted from about half of what 
they were perhaps 10 or 15 years ago. Our farmers are struggling. They 
are in despair. I have one sugar company on the island of Kauai that is 
about to close if we do not find a resolution to this problem.
  None of the Hawaii sugar is in this commodity market. I am not here 
because we are in that market where we are going to benefit 1 penny 
from any loan. We are restricted from that program. But I am here 
talking about sugar as fundamental industry in this country that has a 
right to exist, to be a part of our economy as any other farm product 
in this the United States. Why kill off this industry on a myth? Prices 
have gone down over the last year to maybe 18 cents for the people who 
are producing it, but what happens to all of the other products that 
are using sugar, the cakes and the cookies and the Cokes? All the 
prices have gone up 15, 20 percent. There is no economist worth his 
salt or her salt that can argue that the price of sugar being low is a 
good thing for America because it is going to lower the prices of the 
commodities. It has not.

                              {time}  1515

  The prices of all of these commodities have gone up, So the argument 
that the GAO makes that the consumers are paying through their nose 
because sugar is such an expensive item has absolutely no substance in 
terms of the rationale for their argument.
  If their argument were true, then the prices for all of these 
commodities, cakes, cookies, and whatever, would have gone down. There 
is not one item that we can find on the shelf today in

[[Page 13114]]

the grocery stores where the prices have gone down that uses sugar as a 
substance for their production.
  So it seems to me that we have to be together in this discussion 
about agriculture. We cannot pick out one particular farmer. We do not 
have any multibillionaire sugar producers in my State. They are all 
small hard-working farmers who are just making a living.
  So let us stand for the agricultural industry in this country and not 
kill sugar because somebody does not like the law that we passed in 
1996 that was designed to benefit all commodities.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of misinformation today about the 
U.S. sugar program. I want to present a few facts.
  During the 1990s, wholesale refined sugar prices fell 11 percent. 
During the same period, the retail price of refined sugar increased by 
1 percent and the prices of manufactured food products with sugar as a 
major ingredient--candy, baked goods, cereal, and ice cream--rose by 23 
to 32 percent. Since the start of the 1996 Farm Bill, wholesale refined 
sugar prices are down 26 percent, but retail sugar prices have not 
dropped at all and sweetened products prices are up 7 to 9 percent. It 
is clear that it someone is making a killing, it is not the sugar 
farmers.
  American sugar farmers are in crisis. In my state of Hawaii, only 
three sugar companies are still operating. In 1986, 13 operating 
factories were operating and sugar was grown on all of the four major 
islands. Today, sugar is produced only on the islands of Maui and 
Kauai--and the survival of these companies and the fragile rural 
economies of these islands are severely threatened by historically low 
prices. This year, Hawaii sugar farmers are receiving the lowest prices 
in 18 years for their sugar.
  Those who would like to kill the U.S. sugar program cite the so-
called ``world price'' of sugar of 8 cents a pound. No one--not even 
countries that use child labor--produces raw sugar for 8 cents a pound. 
This ``world price'' is in fact a dump price for excess sugar that 
bears no relationship to the actual cost of producing sugar. The dump 
market represents the subsidized surpluses that countries dump on the 
world market for whatever price that surplus sugar will bring.
  A study by LMC International estimated the weighted world average 
cost of producing sugar during the 11-year period of 1983/84 through 
1994/95 to be 18.04 cents a pound. The actual level is almost certainly 
higher now because of inflation since that time. Even though U.S. sugar 
growers are among the most efficient in the world, they cannot survive 
when they receive prices on the order of 17 cents to 19 cents a pound.
  Two-thirds of the world's sugar is produced at a higher cost than in 
the United States, even though American producers adhere to the world's 
highest government standards and costs for labor and environmental 
protections. U.S. beet sugar producers are the most efficient beet 
sugar producers in the world, and American cane producers rank 28th 
lowest cost among 62 countries--almost all of which are developing 
countries with deplorable labor and environmental practices.
  U.S. consumers pay 20 percent less for sugar than the average for 
developed countries. Our average retail price for a pound of sugar--
43 cents--is far below the more than 80 cents paid by consumers in 
Norway, Japan, and Finland. The average price paid by consumers in the 
European Union is 52 cents. Of course, U.S. prices would be even lower 
if the retailers and manufacturers did not absorb all of the benefit of 
the lower prices producers have been receiving over the past three 
years.
  Is the price of sugar a problem for the average American family? I 
don't think so. Sugar is so cheap that you can pick up packages of it 
in restaurants and no one cares. The average American works 2.3 minutes 
to purchase a pound of sugar. Are the opponents of the U.S. sugar 
program responding to concerns of consumers? Clearly not. They are 
responding to pressure from big businesses that want to increase their 
profits further still at the expense of American farmers. The Dan 
Miller amendments use consumer cost as an issue to mask the primary 
motive, which is allow cheap foreign sugar into the U.S. market so that 
the mega food-conglomerates can make more money.
  The U.S. sugar and corn sweetener producing industry accounts, 
directly and indirectly, for an estimated 420,000 American jobs in 42 
states an for more than $26 billion per year in economic activity. 
Defeat the Miller amendments that seek to destroy the U.S. sugar 
industry.
  I also wan tot respond specifically to the contention by Mr. Miller 
that the U.S. sugar program costs consumers $1.9 billion per year. 
First, the deeply flawed study by the GAO has been thoroughly 
discredited by the USDA. Economists at the USDA have ``serious 
concerns'' about the GAO report, which ``suffers in a numbers of 
regards relative to both the analytical approach and . . . the 
resulting conclusions.'' USDA concluded: ``GAO has not attempted to 
realistically model the U.S. sugar industry. The validity of the 
results are, therefore, suspect and should not be quoted 
authoritatively.'' As with the 1993 version of this report, the GAO 
assumes that food retailers and manufacturers would pass every cent of 
savings along to consumers--we have convincing evidence that this will 
not happen.
  Mr. Miller is also very critical of the moves by the USDA to remove 
excess sugar from the domestic market in order to stabilize the price 
of sugar and thereby avoid very expensive forfeitures. Several factors 
account for the excess of sugar on the market: good yields due to 
favorable weather, increased imports, and schemes that undercut the 
foundation of the sugar import quota such as importation of stuffed 
molasses (a product with a high sugar content, which is made into 
refined sugar) and importation of dumped sugar via Mexico under the 
reduced NAFTA tariffs. The Miller amendments to prevent the USDA from 
making purchases to reduce the supply of sugar and to avoid forfeitures 
will cost the government money, Purchases cost less per ton and will 
avoid a much larger volume of forfeited sugar. Purchases instead of 
forfeitures for the 132,000 tons the government purchased this year 
will save taxpayers $6 million in avoided forfeitures.
  Sugar farmers--like other farmers--are suffering. Prices for most 
crops are at or near all-time lows. The government has stepped in to 
avert a disaster in rural America by providing over $70 billion in 
payments to other farmers since 1996--but no assistance has been given 
to sugar farmers. Moreover, sugar farmers have contributed $288 million 
in marketing assessments to reduce the deficit and, prior to the recent 
sugar purchase, the sugar program has operated at no cost to the U.S. 
Treasury.
  It angers me to hear Members talk about the sugar program benefitting 
only a few wealthy sugar barons. I can tell you that the small growers 
who supplied the now defunct Hilo Coast Processing Company were not and 
are not sugar barons. Now many are not even farmers--they are 
unemployed. And the thousands of people who work for or whose jobs 
depend on the remaining sugar companies in Hawaii are not rich. They 
work hard at their jobs and have to pay their mortgages and save to 
send their children to college.
  In Hawaii, we have over 6,000 jobs dependent on the sugar industry. 
These are good jobs that pay a living wage, include health benefits, 
retirement and other benefits. U.S. sugar producers are providing these 
jobs while complying with U.S. labor and environmental law.
  Mr. Chairman, U.S. consumers benefit from the U.S. sugar program. 
They benefit from the stability it ensures, and the access it provides 
to quality sugar produced by U.S. companies. A strong domestic sugar 
industry contributes to our economy by producing jobs.
  The demise of the U.S. sugar industry would mean the loss of these 
jobs to sugar producers overseas that do not have labor or 
environmental protections and in documented cases use child labor to 
produce cheap sugar.
  Are we willing to forsake our own sugar producers so that the 
international food cartels can buy cheap sugar produced by twelve year-
olds in Brazil or Guatemala? I hope not.
  In Hawaii, the decline in sugar prices has been ruinous. These prices 
threaten the survival of our remaining sugar companies and the 
livelihood of workers in our rural areas. Sugar production ended on the 
island of Hawaii several years ago. Nothing has replaced sugar as a 
viable agricultural crop and the former cane lands remain idle. 
Unemployment is high and drug problems have increased as have the 
social costs of dealing with these issues. The islands of Maui and 
Kauai--where the sugar industry is a major source of employment--will 
face the same devastating consequences if we do not give sugar farmers 
a fair price.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the false consumer cost argument based 
on the GAO report, and vote today for a U.S. sugar industry that will 
continue to provide jobs here in America. Defeat the Miller amendments.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to carry on the debate and discussion about the 
issue of sugar.
  I made note when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) was on the 
floor. He said when the agreement was reached in 1996, taxpayers were 
promised that this would not cost the taxpayers any money. I want to 
remind

[[Page 13115]]

the people in this room that this program has not cost the taxpayers 
any money.
  Some people will point to the recent purchase of sugar that the 
administration has concluded for about $200 million. But I want to 
remind the Members in this Chamber that as part of this agreement in 
1996, that the sugar producers agreed to pay over $288 million towards 
deficit reduction during the 7-year life of this program. So the 
taxpayers, even with the purchase of sugar, even if that sugar is never 
resold, still will be beneficiaries to the extent of $288 million.
  The people who are advocating the change in the sugar program mostly 
come from districts where there are candy manufacturers. They come to 
the floor and argue that consumers have been hurt by this sugar 
program.
  Let me tell the Members, sugar cane prices have gone down 17 percent 
since this program went into place, and sugar beet has gone down 26 
percent. During that period of time, while the producers' share of the 
dollar has gone dramatically, the price of refined sugar has gone up 
1.1 percent.
  Guess what, the price of candy, cookies, and ice cream have gone up 
27 percent. So somebody is taking money from the pockets of consumers. 
It is not the sugar producers that are taking it out of the pockets of 
consumers, it is the candy manufacturers.
  If we kill this program, who will benefit? The candy manufacturers, 
among the wealthiest, most successful companies in the world. Who is 
going to get hurt? Family farmers and family ranchers who are out here 
struggling, trying to make a living.
  I want to also address, Mr. Chairman, this issue of the world price 
of sugar. People suggest that U.S. consumers are paying more for sugar 
because they compare our domestic sugar price with the world price. But 
there is not a world price. There are not two prices, as it has been 
represented. There are multiple prices. Every country has its own price 
based upon its own market.
  All the sugar that is on the world market is excess production. It 
comes from subsidized producers. What happens is our competitor nations 
subsidize their producers. They have quotas that they have to produce 
to. In order to get their subsidized price, which is way above our U.S. 
price, they have to overproduce. If they do not meet their quota of 
production, their quota gets cut back.
  What do they do? They overproduce and dump that sugar on the market. 
If they had to give it away, they would not care. It does not come 
close to covering the cost of production because it is excess 
production. It is a relatively small market. To suggest to U.S. 
consumers that the price of sugar in this country would go down if we 
started buying sugar on the world market is a manifest 
misrepresentation of the situation.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a good program. It has helped in our 
area, given people alternative crops at a time when they very much need 
it. This is the first time this program has been triggered. In order 
for the program to be triggered, we have to have imports that exceed 
the quotas and we have to have a price that falls below the market 
price and the cost of production.
  We need to keep this program. The amendment of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller) is really misguided and misdirected. I do not 
think that we should be further hurting our farmers, particularly at 
times when they are struggling so much.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), for introducing this amendment. I rise in support 
of this amendment, unfortunately, it was struck on a point of order, to 
limit the purchases of sugar to $54 million.
  The U.S. sugar program represents Congress at its worst. It takes 
precious resources held by the U.S. taxpayer and funnels them to 
private businessmen who are multimillionaires. The sugar program is 
nothing but corporate welfare that has survived solely due to the 
generous financial contributions from a very narrow interest groups.
  My colleague knows the sugar program props up the price of sugar by 
restricting imports and guaranteeing the repayment of sugar loans if 
the price falls too low. But the sugar program is a failure. Prices 
keep falling. The government is spending our money in a desperate 
attempt to salvage its own mess. Taxpayers should not be asked to 
support this.
  Twice taxpayers were robbed under the sugar program. First the 
program inflates the price of sugar. That means consumers pay more. In 
fact, the Government Accounting Office has been reported here as paying 
almost $2 billion more than they would otherwise.
  Then, because the price support actually creates an incentive to grow 
too much sugar, the price of sugar goes down from oversupply, and the 
taxpayers pay directly to buy up sugar stored in an effort to prop up 
the price again. I think the average American understands the program 
quite well and they do not like it.
  My office got a call the other day from a man down in Donaldsonville, 
Louisiana, an area where they grow a lot of sugar. The man says he owns 
a small dry cleaning business. He said, ``Wouldn't it be nice if the 
government guaranteed me a steady price during slow times? With sugar, 
the richest farmers in this country are getting bailed out by the 
government. It just isn't right.''
  That man in Donaldsonville, Louisiana, understands sugar. He does not 
need a GAO report or USDA analysis. He lives in sugar country. He sees 
how it works.
  Who benefits from the sugar program? The GAO has said that only two 
industries benefit, sugar beet growers and sugar cane growers. But the 
benefit handsomely is tuned to $1 billion in additional profits, $1 
billion extra, thanks to the program.
  Consider some of these allegedly needy farmers. One of the largest 
beneficiaries is the sugar family of the Fanjuls, estimated to be worth 
hundreds of millions of dollars, and who own extensive properties in 
Florida and the Dominican Republic. They also contribute vast sums to 
both political parties to ensure that this program stays alive.
  The Fanjul family Members and business executives alone have 
contributed over $2 million in the past three election cycles, but they 
have figured out how this program works. They have figured out how it 
works twice. First, they grow sugar in Florida and sell it at inflated 
prices guaranteed by the government. They earn an additional $50 to $65 
million per year from the sugar production of Florida, thanks to this 
program.
  Next, on top of that, they also grow sugar in the Dominican Republic, 
one of the countries with a guaranteed contract to export sugar to the 
United States, because of a treaty obligation. But the import comes to 
the U.S. at inflated U.S. prices, not at the lower prices on the world.
  Therefore, the Fanjuls, the biggest growers of Dominican Republic 
sugar, sell the sugar to the U.S. under the import quota and are 
estimated to earn an additional $80 million than they would otherwise 
earn because of the inflated prices under this program.
  It is very smart business for them and it could only happen because 
of the U.S. Government and the Congress' complacency in this program.
  Mr. Chairman, the sugar program is making a number of sugar growers 
very rich, but it is a failure as a policy. That is why the USDA had to 
take an unprecedented step earlier this year for the direct purchase of 
130,000 tons of sugar this spring for $54 million, 130,000 tons of 
sugar they do not know what to do with. They cannot put it on the 
market, sell it overseas, they cannot give it away. It is just $54 
million that is sitting in a dark warehouse somewhere, taxpayer 
dollars, taxpayer dollars to buy sugar that nobody wants and nobody can 
let them put on the market, because if they put it on the market, the 
price would go lower and we would have to buy more sugar. If we put 
that on the market, the price would go lower and we would have to buy 
more sugar.
  Do Members see why this is important? The $54 million was just the

[[Page 13116]]

opening bid for sugar in this country. But if we have the U.S. 
taxpayers' purse, if we have open access to that, we can put down 
another $54 million in a couple of months, and then when the Mexicans 
import 250,000 tons of sugar, we can put another $54 million.
  Do Members get the idea? Do Members get the idea that maybe the U.S. 
taxpayer is being robbed to prop up the sugar industry that is failing? 
It is failing because of this support program. Refiners are going out 
of business, farmers are going out of business. Yet, we are keeping a 
very narrow band of these farmers in business.
  We ought to stop this program now. My colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), is quite right in offering this amendment.
  Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as I heard this debate, I felt the need to come down to 
the floor and participate because I think the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Miller), which unfortunately we will not be considering today, 
addresses an issue that we are going to have to address as part of our 
trade policy, whether we enjoy doing it or not.
  The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the sugar program has harmed U.S. trade 
policy. The United States has had a goal and policy of knocking down 
barriers to fair and open trade, such as tariffs, quotas, and 
subsidies. This policy clearly benefits domestic agriculture and 
domestic manufacturing.
  Our trade representatives have taken a message to the world that 
subsidies and tariffs are bad, and we need to allow free trade to work 
and we need to allow markets to be opened up.
  The U.S. economy is essentially free of subsidies and high tariffs, 
yet, despite that high ground, when our trade representatives go forth 
and meet with their counterparts, our trade representatives are forced 
to passionately defend the sugar subsidy and tariff, defend the 
indefensible.
  Sugar protectionism in America harms our efforts to open up world 
markets to more important U.S. commodities and sell U.S. corn, wheat, 
livestock, cotton, rice, and other products overseas. It also hurts the 
competitiveness of American food products that are made with sugar.
  We have heard some speeches on the floor about candy manufacturers, 
but they are not given a subsidy. They are invited to compete in a free 
market.
  Mr. Chairman, during the recent Seattle round our trade negotiator in 
the agriculture discussions was trying to lower foreign protections of 
corn, grain, and cattle. This job was made all the more difficult 
because other nations could point to our absurdly generous support of 
sugar and call us hypocritical.
  We cannot allow the sugar program to continue to be a black eye on 
our efforts at knocking down trade barriers for our most important 
products. The U.S. Trade Representative's testimony to the Subcommittee 
on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary conceded the trade 
negotiations relating to sugar are some of the most contentious she has 
had to deal with, despite sugar's relatively small share of our 
economy.
  Because of her concession, that appropriations bill contains report 
language for the USTR to prepare a report on how sugar complicates U.S. 
efforts to discuss trade policy with other countries.
  I have heard the world price of sugar described as the dump price, 
but the fact remains, we have in place antidumping laws to provide 
protection for our markets against those kinds of practices. That is 
the appropriate remedy, not sugar protectionism. Our trade policy 
should be to open up markets overseas first, not defend outdated, 
environmentally unsound corporate welfare benefiting a very small 
segment of our economy, the domestic sugar industry.
  To elaborate on this, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me correct a few statements 
made earlier. The gentleman from Montana talked about the fact that 
with sugar, we were told in 1996 there was going to be an assessment of 
about $40 million a year for sugar, generating $280 million over the 7 
years.
  Guess what? They got rid of it in an appropriation bill 2 years ago. 
We are not collecting that money anymore, so there is no income for 
deficit reduction in the sugar program.
  This GAO report that everybody wants to discredit, remember, the GAO 
is an agency for Congress, a nonpartisan, unbiased agency. This is a 
very complex issue. As I met with the GAO people, they brought in four 
distinguished academicians who specialize in agricultural economics to 
review this program to come up with the best type of report.
  When we talk about the world trade, the world market, he is right, we 
have antidumping. So if France subsidizes their sugar, they cannot come 
in the United States. Australia, the largest grower of sugar, does not 
subsidize. There are growers around the world that sell at the world 
price that are not subsidized.
  Some talk about jobs. Look at all the jobs we are losing in this 
country. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) talked about the 
cranberry growers. They cannot compete with Canadian cranberry growers. 
There are jobs in this country in the candy business that are moving 
offshore because they cannot buy candy cheaper, in Canada or the 
Caribbean. That is unfair competition and it is destroying jobs.
  So I think this report is fully justifiable to defend the full $1.9 
billion cost of the program.

                              {time}  1530

  I know the Agriculture Department and the sugar people will hire 
their own economists and try to dispute that, but that is the reason we 
have a GAO, nonpartisan, unbiased.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it somewhat ironic that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English) would stand up and say there is something 
wrong about supporting domestic production and that the cheapest 
foreign price is the thing that we should pay attention to. I have 
heard the same individual speak eloquently in an exactly opposite way 
when it comes to steel. When it comes to steel, he is all about 
protecting domestic capacity and resisting dumped steel subsidized by 
foreign governments.
  Mr. Chairman, I think he is right on steel, but he is dead wrong on 
sugar. He ought to be a little consistent. The same problem with 
exposing our domestic production to dumped subsidized exports apply in 
sugar just like they do in steel.
  Let us just talk for a moment about what is happening in the farm 
economy. We all know that our farmers are facing very serious distress. 
In North Dakota, the value of wheat has dropped 33 percent, 33 percent. 
Barley, 30 percent. Sugar prices are at a 20-year low. So it is a bit 
depressing to have to come and fight for the area where our farmers 
have at least some price protection, when everything else about family 
farming is so under stress.
  Some have suggested that this is about Big Sugar lobbyists and Big 
Sugar refineries. In the situation in North Dakota, it is about family 
farmers struggling to hang on.
  Here is the deal with sugar: it is one product where domestic 
consumption exceeds production. For the most part, we grow more than we 
possibly could eat, and we have to fight for exports and the 
competition has driven down prices. Sugar, we actually consume more 
than we produce.
  Now, much of the world wants access to this market and the 
governments are prepared to subsidize their exports to get it. And if 
it was allowed just to go without any restriction, without protection 
of the sugar program, we would not have a domestic sugar industry in 
this country. We would not have any significant domestic sugar capacity 
in this country. It would all be foreign sugar.
  Sugar is linked directly to the pricing of food. If we would be 
completely dependent on foreign sugar, our food prices, grocery store 
prices in this country would swing very dramatically depending on where 
the world price for

[[Page 13117]]

sugar has been. So we have had a sugar program for many years now and 
have struck a bargain. Farmers have a price that gives them some 
reasonable return; consumers have food price stability and some of the 
lowest-priced sugar in the industrialized world.
  The result is stable food pricing. The consequence of this amendment 
would be great volatility in grocery store prices. We have seen what 
has happened with gasoline just over the last year, the howls we are 
hearing from consumers at the gas pump this year. Last year, there was 
an unbelievable bargain at the pump. Unfortunately, what we have come 
to realize is the greatest disservice to the consuming price is 
volatility. Very low prices one day; extraordinarily high prices the 
next day, destroying household budgets, never leaving anyone knowing 
where they are at.
  We want the price of groceries for American families to have price 
stability, and that is what the sugar program is all about.
  Now, let us not think for a moment that the only Federal resources 
expended in this country is to help support sugar. Just weeks ago, my 
colleagues joined me in passing about $7.5 billion in economic relief 
to farmers because prices have collapsed, and under Freedom to Farm 
there is no price support protecting our farmers in these times of 
price collapse. Compared to commodity support, the support offered for 
sugar, with the much-maligned sugar purchase discussed on the floor, is 
very modest and, in fact, very modest indeed.
  Let me give a couple of reasons why our domestic farmers growing 
sugar beets or sugar cane are under such threat. Number one, Canada is 
cheating. Canada is stuffing molasses supersaturated, full of sugar, 
and shipping it into our market for manufacturers who are pulling the 
sugar out of the molasses and getting around the ban on Canadian sugar 
imports in that fashion. In an absolutely ludicrous court ruling, the 
judge held that that was okay. It is under appeal, and I believe it is 
a flat violation of the Canadian trade commitments to us.
  We are about to see, thanks to NAFTA, something I voted against, a 
very significant increase in Mexican sugar as well. It is vital to our 
farmers we keep the sugar program in place.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because I think it 
makes a whole lot of common sense. I would say that for a couple of 
different reasons. I would say this amendment is important first and 
primarily because I think that this present program in its present 
configuration is just plain evil. I would go so far as to say that I 
think this program is the equivalent of a crack cocaine of corporate 
welfare, because we have been talking about family farms. What we do 
not see with this program are family farms.
  Mr. Chairman, 42 percent of all the benefits that come as a result of 
this program go to 150 sugar producers in the United States. That is to 
say if we take about these two sets of chairs over there, and every 
person in each of those chairs would get about $6 million per chair. 
That is not a family farm.
  Then we look at some of the egregious examples: the Fanjul family 
living down in Palm Beach are not exactly family farmers. Are they a 
family farm if they have a Gulfstream jet, which is a $35 million jet? 
Are they a family farmer if they have a yacht, which they happen to 
have? Are they a family farmer if they own their own resort in the 
Dominican Republic called Casa de Campo? Are they a family farmer if 
they have a mansion in Palm Beach? I don't think so.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think this debate is about family farmers, 
which is to a degree what we have been talking about.
  I would say secondly, that this amendment is about simply the idea of 
watching out for the taxpayer, as the author of this amendment has 
pointed out. Mr. Chairman, $54 million of taxpayer money will go to buy 
sugar that will be used for nothing. Does that make common sense? In 
fact, if we look at the overall cost to the consumer based on the GAO 
reports, based on a number of different studies, $1.9 billion is the 
aggregate cost to American consumers in this program. That comes to 
about $15 per family in America that go to the likes of the Fanjul 
family who lives the lifestyle of the rich and famous down in Palm 
Beach. That, too, does not make common sense to me.
  Thirdly, I would mention that this amendment makes sense because we 
have to ask a larger philosophical question. This is especially the 
case for Republicans. That is: Why are we here? I heard conversations 
about ``dump price.'' We do not want to see the dump price. Every time 
I turn on the television back home there is talk about we are moving to 
2001 models with Ford or Chevrolet or other cars and we are dumping 
them down at the local car lot. ``Come on and get yourself a bargain.'' 
Nobody complains about those ads.
  So I look at other products out there, whether we are talking about 
cars, whether we are talking about homes, whether we are talking about 
computers or shoe repair or dry cleaning. The dump price is the market 
price, and so it seems to me that none of that is complained about.
  Mr. Chairman, all we are talking about is the market price. I live on 
the coast of South Carolina; and if we look at the, quote, ``dump 
price'' with watermelons, with cucumbers, with tomatoes, all of those 
are similar. Whatever the market will bear, that is what the consumer 
pays for. That, to me, seems to be a very Republican idea of standing 
on one's own two feet and working through markets.
  So I think that this amendment makes a whole lot of sense for a 
number of different reasons.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), the author of the amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Sanford) for yielding me this time. He was here in 1996, 
as most of the people who are participating in this debate, where we 
debated the issue under the authorization bill. We were told back then 
by Member after Member, no net cost. It will not cost the taxpayers a 
penny.
  Last month, the reason we have this amendment, $54 million worth of 
sugar was purchased by the Department of Agriculture. $54 million worth 
of sugar, and there is no use for it. We cannot give it away around the 
world. Nobody wants it. They will not let us use it for ethanol. What 
are we going to do with it? We will find a warehouse and the Federal 
Government will pay money to the warehouse to store it.
  Mr. Chairman, this is just the tip of the iceberg. We are on a 
slippery slope, because we have had the price of sugar so high. More 
and more people are growing sugar. Production is up 20 percent and will 
be higher next year, and we will buy more and more sugar. Media reports 
say it could have been as much as $500 million worth of sugar in the 
next 90 days alone. There is going to be a problem finding enough 
warehouses in this country to store all the sugar from the 
overproduction.
  We have created ourselves a mess in 1996; and we need to get a handle 
on it, because it is taxpayers' dollars. The $54 million, plus all of 
that storage, plus hundreds of millions more worth of sugar that we are 
stuck into buying and again having to store. This is real dollars for 
real consumers, and I hope we can get rid of this program in a hurry.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, we are having a rather bizarre debate this afternoon. 
It is on a subject which has already been ruled out of order; and as a 
consequence, it is hard to understand why we need to continue to 
consume time here on the floor.
  But I think in terms of trying to bring closure to this, it is 
probably useful to observe that the U.S. Trade Representative has not 
done a good job by the American sugar farmers in the sense that we have 
stuffed molasses coming into this country. I looked in my cupboard at 
home at the molasses and wondered how do you stuff this

[[Page 13118]]

stuff? I learned that there are tremendous quantities of foreign sugar 
coming in in the form of molasses, and it is refined and the sucrose is 
extracted and there it is as granular sugar. This product is then sent 
back up to Canada.
  Mr. Chairman, we had a hearing this morning in the Committee on 
Agriculture, and we had the chemical companies explaining to us why 
they charge less in Canada and Australia for farm chemicals than they 
do in the United States and saying that we ought to feel blessed that 
we can purchase these chemicals at a higher price.
  We talk about fair trade. We talk about international markets and 
open markets. The fact of the matter is that we do not have fair trade 
in this world. We have all different types of devices that exist out 
there to protect discrete sectors of the economy. I looked at the 
appropriation bill this afternoon. I noticed that we have a humble 
amount in there for GIPSA, the Grain Inspectors, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, to try to ensure America's farmers raising livestock 
that we indeed have a competitive marketplace when it comes to the sale 
of their livestock. They are very suspicious that we do not and, as a 
consequence, they would like to see stronger enforcement. We learned 
that we just have a very small staff for a national program.
  We are not devoting our resources to ensure competition in the 
American marketplace. Far more, we are limiting the resources that 
would assure us of that. And then we sit on the floor, and we talk 
about whether America's farmers, who are being forced out of business, 
many of them, including those raising sugar beets and sugar cane, ought 
to receive even less.
  The American consumers are paying billions of dollars for petroleum 
products this spring and summer. We have seen the world price of oil, 
the per-barrel price, go from $8 to $33, $34 a barrel. We have a world 
market in oil and look at the consequences. Tremendous volatility. 
Tremendous dislocation. Look at sugar, and we have a stable price in 
the United States. We do not have this tremendous volatility.
  The claim that the American consumer is being fleeced, it is 
certainly not by the sugar producer. The prices of refined sugar have 
gone up 1.1 percent during the period of time since 1996, in the last 4 
years. Compare that to the price of crude oil. During the period of 
time in the 1990s, the price of products made out of sugar have gone up 
27 percent. The problems that we are experiencing I think are very 
unfairly being laid at the feet of the farmers and a program which has, 
at least over the years, usually worked for the farmers.

                              {time}  1545

  It is not appropriate.
  I submit that the time has come to move on with our deliberations on 
this bill. Hopefully we could have put more money into GIPSA to assure 
that we had adequate enforcement of that program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to give my 
colleagues an example of what will happen if we get rid of this 
program. The truth of the matter is this world market is a dump market. 
The Europeans are the biggest people that dump into the world market.
  I had a chance to go to Romania last year where they had a huge sugar 
beet industry, 12,000 farmers, 36 plants. What happened, they needed 
some money from the World Bank, so they forced them to give up their 
tariffs, which they did. The Europeans came in and destroyed their 
industry by dumping into their market. They now have no sugar beet 
farmers left in Romania. They only have 11 of the 36 plants that are 
operating, and they are owned by the West Europeans.
  If we get rid of this sugar program under the current way that we are 
operating in the world, we will have the West Europeans owning the 
United States sugar industry in this country exactly as they have done 
in Romania, because we are not on a fair playing field. We have got 
this dump market.
  We are there subsidizing higher than my colleagues claim that we are, 
and then they are taking their excess production, using their $10 
billion of export subsidies, and dumping it into the world market. This 
is not a free market. It is not a fair market. My colleagues that are 
trying to take this apart really do not understand how this works.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Minge) will yield, I agree, we should not have a dump price.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. In summary, I urge that 
we move on to other portions of this bill and recognize that the sugar 
program has been authorized by Congress. It is a program that is 
scheduled to continue to the year 2003.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, We are going to start rewriting the farm bill next 
year, and we have already started hearings. Sugar review is going to be 
part of that effort.
  Some of the gentlemen that favor this amendment make a point about a 
lot of the money and benefits going to a few producers. Maybe we should 
restructure to assure that the distribution of benefits is equitable. I 
will research the possibility of an allocation that benefits individual 
producers, with possible payment limits, like we do on other commodity 
producers.
  It would be possible for the non-recourse loan benefits to go to all 
producers. It may be possible to prorate the loan and limit the 
payments.
  But here is the situation that we are faced with, not only in sugar, 
but in almost all farm commodities. We have other countries, for 
example Europe, that are subsidizing five times as much as we subsidize 
in this country. Again they are subsidizing their farmers up to five 
times the amount we subsidize in this country, and then, as has been 
suggested, they overproduce and their extra production, is dumped into 
what otherwise might be our markets or the world market.
  Consumers and this body have to face a decision of whether we want 
parts of our agricultural industry to diminish or if we want to 
establish the kind of farm policy with support and help that will allow 
producers in this country to survive. Produced in this country where we 
can examine how they are grown, and assure the safety of those 
products.
  If we don't support agriculture, here is what is going to happen. If 
we ruin some of our farm industries, we are going to be more dependent 
on imports. Eventually those imports and those people selling that 
product, like OPEC, will start charging whatever price they think they 
can get and we will be forced to accept the quality available.
  I think it is in our long-term interest, for our and our farmers that 
we maintain our agricultural production, including sugar. As we start 
rewriting our 5-year farm bill next year, we do not dismantle current 
programs with these kinds of amendments in an appropriation.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, obviously there have not been enough words stricken on 
this issue, and we need to continue talking about it.
  This debate comes up every year. It is really a debate between those 
who support the candy industry and the soft drink industry who would 
like to have lower sugar prices, they buy a lot of sugar, and those of 
us that support agriculture. We hear, well, there is a different policy 
here for sugar than there is for anything else, which is not true. This 
is not part of the AMTA payments. We do not pay the farmers directly.
  What we do in America is we limit the number of imports, and we give 
preference to countries that we are trying to help, particularly in the 
Caribbean Basin and Central America, allow their sugar products to come 
in, mostly cane sugar. What do we do? We pay the price that we get for 
sugar in America, which is a better price than they get on the world 
market. So it is really part of our foreign policy, this program.
  Also my colleagues make it sound like we do not do anything for any

[[Page 13119]]

other agriculture. In the last year, we have had the largest wheat 
purchase ever in the United States. We made another wheat purchase last 
April right after that for another $93 million. Then we assisted, went 
and purchased small hog operators, we helped them out. We assisted 
dairy farmers who were suffering low prices. Then in May of last year, 
we did the disaster assistance funds for farmers.
  In June, we put $70 million into livestock assistance. In July, we 
put another $100 to hog farmers. In December, we assisted tobacco 
farmers. In January, we assisted sheep and lamb farmers. In January, we 
also assisted other dairy farmers; in February, the cotton farmers; 
also in February, the oil seed farmers; in March, the livestock 
production; in March, the cheese production; in March of this year, 
another $231 million for drought relief. Then we have done crop 
disaster payments totally $1.9 billion.
  So America does help its farmer, and we ought to. We ought to make 
sure that they have a market that they can sell their product. For 
after all, if this all goes away, we all come here talking about what 
happens with urban sprawl and what is happening to rural America, I 
mean, rural America is our history, our culture. What we are really 
about is a people and where still our number one industry in this 
country is agriculture.
  We have got to be here as representatives of districts of 
agriculture, supporting agriculture. This program does it without 
spending taxpayer dollars. I urge that we continue to support the sugar 
program in the United States.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is inappropriate to suggest that this is a 
debate between soft drink manufacturers and even sugar growers for that 
matter. This is a question of taxpayer interests. I think there is no 
question, this program just does not serve the interests of the 
taxpayer and the interests of the consumer.
  I have heard two particular points made in the recent debate that I 
would like to address. One is the argument that, well, this is really 
about fair trade and that somehow, because other countries are 
penalizing their consumers or subsidizing their farmers to the 
disadvantage of taxpayers, that it is all right for us to do the same. 
I do not think that argument ever holds water.
  Just because another country is engaged in a policy that makes no 
economic sense or that penalizes consumers or that distorts markets 
does not mean that the United States should engage in that same 
foolhardy policy.
  Fair trade is about lowering barriers to imports and exports. We do 
that in order to benefit our own consumers, American consumers that 
should have every right and opportunity to purchase products on the 
world market that improve their quality of life, that enable them to be 
healthy, to be successful and to live the kind of existence they want 
for themselves and their families.
  The second argument that was made suggests that this is somehow 
protecting one class versus another. I think that that is wrong as 
well.
  There was a suggestion that this is about price volatility. The 
importance of the program is to maintain price stability. How is it 
ever in the interests of any American to maintain prices at an 
artificially high level and to then go back to the consumer and say, 
you see, we are protecting you from changes in price by keeping it 
really high so that you are penalized every time you go to the 
supermarket, every time you buy a product, but you are penalized at a 
very consistent level. I think that is a foolish argument to make and 
one that most Americans are going to see through.
  We accept the fact that prices are going to go up at times; they are 
going to go down at times. But the key to true economic productivity is 
a fair and open competitive market, and that is what America is known 
for. That is at the heart and soul of the strength of our economy.
  $1.9 billion in overpayments that consumers are being forced to 
handle every year, that is bad for the consumer. $100 million or more 
in direct taxpayer subsidies this year alone.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has suggested that may go as 
high as $500 million in direct taxpayer payments, the bulk of which are 
going to very large, very successful, very profitable agricultural 
concerns.
  I do not think the sponsors of this amendment bear those concerns any 
ill will. This is not about penalizing an industry. It is about being 
fair to taxpayers and consumers.
  Last, but certainly not least, our environment. Do we really want to 
perpetuate a program that does such tremendous damage to the 
environment? Whether it is the Everglades in Florida or sensitive 
environmental lands in Hawaii or anywhere else in this country, we 
certainly should not engage in policies that damage the environment all 
the while distorting markets and taking money from both consumers and 
taxpayers.
  I applaud the work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
Hampshire for speaking in opposition to the sugar program.
  One of the strange things of the sugar program is the way they 
control the prices. They control imports. What they have is a quota to 
different countries.
  People talk about this world price. Well, I agree we should have 
antidumping laws. I think it is wrong if France subsidizes their sugar, 
they should not be allowed to sell their sugar in the United States. We 
have laws to protect that. I fully support those.
  But places like Australia have a free market. They do not get 
subsidized. New Zealand does not get subsidized. They sell their sugar 
on the world market every day at about a third of the price of the 
United States. So there is a world price for sugar.
  One of the other strange things about this corporate welfare issue is 
this foreign aid corporate welfare. Now, Australia sells their sugar 
around the world for 9 cents a pound, whatever the world price is. But 
what do we do in the United States when we buy sugar from Australia. We 
do not pay the same world price, we pay the high U.S. price of 27-some 
cents a pound. That is amazing.
  Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, you name the country, the Dominican 
Republic, they sell it around the world for the world price; but the 
United States pays this high price to these countries. Now justify that 
one.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time just to be clear, that 
is a direct transfer of money from the American consumers to foreign 
corporations.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to say things that have not been said to this 
point. I think it is very important, we hear all the crocodile tears 
for consumers. I am speaking as someone from Hawaii associated in 
people's minds, people who are listening to us and people back in their 
offices, associated in people's minds with sugar.
  Well, the policies that we have pursued in this country supposedly 
about fair and impartial and open trade have destroyed sugar in Hawaii. 
My colleagues will not have to worry about it. The gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) has already come down here and said that we are not 
going to be affected by this. I am here to say the same thing.
  Sugar is effectively destroyed in Hawaii. I hope everybody is happy 
with that. Because what we have all around the world is wage slavery 
and child labor producing the sugar. Now, if that is determined to be 
and defined as free and open markets and free markets seeking their 
profit level as well as their price, then one can define it that way, 
but I do not.
  If one wants to define it as having other countries environment be 
degraded while ours is somehow upraised in the process and call that 
fair, one can do that.

[[Page 13120]]

  The fact of the matter is that child labor, what amounts in my mind 
to slavery, is used all over the world to produce its sugar. Yes, there 
are subsidies and oligarchy existing in the rest of the world where 
sugar is concerned that ought to make us weep with shame to think that 
we would import that sugar and say that that is some net advantage to 
the consumer.
  It has been said already, and I want to emphasize that, that none of 
this imported sugar, where there are no health standards, where there 
are no environmental standards, where there are no labor standards, 
none of that sugar that is imported at that price is going to be 
reflected in any product that is sold in this country that will be 
taken as profit.

                              {time}  1600

  Maybe people will applaud that. If my colleagues feel that it is a 
good idea to make a lot of money off of other people's pain and 
suffering, then I suppose that that is something that my colleagues 
would welcome. I do not. I think we set standards.
  The great irony, Mr. Chairman, for me, coming from Hawaii, is that 
the people who would lose their jobs, not these rich people in Florida, 
if my colleagues do not like these rich people in Florida or they 
disapprove of the way they live, then find a way to tax them or put 
them out of business or do whatever; but do not tell me that somebody 
working on a plantation in Kauai with his or her hands, working in the 
fields all their lives by the sweat of their brow, is on the same plane 
and should be treated the same as someone who my colleagues think is 
getting undeserved riches from what happens with a program that we 
passed.
  Fix the program. Do not attack the people who are the victims of my 
colleagues' self-righteousness. If my colleagues want to come down on 
this floor and attack sugar, then they are attacking people who are 
working for a living and who came from countries who are now being 
subsidized, who are dumping sugar into this country, whose ancestors 
came here looking for just an opportunity for justice, looking for just 
an opportunity for equity, looking for just an opportunity to earn a 
decent and fair living. Those people are being put out of business. 
Those people are losing their jobs because of the programs that my 
colleagues support to import wage slave sugar in this country.
  As long as I am on this floor, and as long as I am in this country, 
and I am in this Congress, believe me, I am going to be standing up for 
working people against those who would take advantage of them.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind all persons in the gallery that 
they are here as the guests of the House and that any manifestation of 
approval or disapproval of the proceedings and other audible 
conversation is in violation of the rules.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I will not be as passionate as the previous speaker. I was just 
sitting here listening to that speech and the other speeches thinking 
about what a wonderful place this is, because last night, I should not 
even say last night, earlier this morning the gentleman from Florida 
and I were here on this floor, and we were on the same side of an 
issue.
  We do not grow a single sugar beet in my district in Minnesota, but 
we do grow a lot of sugar beets in Minnesota. In fact, in Minnesota it 
is a $2 billion industry. It is a very important industry, and 
particularly in northwestern Minnesota, again, very nonpartisan areas 
represented on both sides of the Red River by Democrats.
  I want to talk about the sugar program just briefly, if I can, both 
from the perspective of agriculture policy and for budget policy, 
because I think it is interesting how people of good will, people who 
may agree or disagree on different issues, can look at the same set of 
facts and come to such incredibly different conclusions on them. Let me 
just share with my colleagues my conclusion.
  If we look at the sugar title in the farm bill, it does not cost the 
American taxpayer a penny. We make money on the sugar title. I would 
invite any of my colleagues to come to my office, and we will go 
through that with them.
  Another thing that has been said is that American consumers are 
paying more. In the first 3 years of the 1996 farm bill, and I have a 
small chart here which we did not have time to make into a big chart, 
but if we look at these red bars here, the price paid to the farmers 
for raw cane sugar and wholesale refined sugar dropped by 23 percent. 
But what happened for the consumer? Well, the retail price of sugar did 
go up, 1.2 percent; the price of candy went up 4.6 percent; and the 
price of cereal went up 5.8 percent. So a lot of the things we are 
talking about here today, the farmer is getting less for his sugar; but 
we are paying more for candy and some of the things sugar goes into.
  Let me just say that this really gets at the very core of why we have 
farm policy at all. Why do we have a farm policy at the Federal level? 
I think the reason we have a farm policy is to ensure that Americans 
have an adequate supply of safe food, and we have a farm policy to act 
as a shock absorber for some of the ups and downs in the market and 
some of the things that happen in terms of Mother Nature and floods and 
pestilence, and all the other things that can affect agriculture and 
farmers.
  And if we look at the sugar title, I think it really is the example 
we ought to use for all of our farm programs, because we do not 
subsidize sugar, although it is supply management to a certain degree; 
but at the end of the day what we have done is guaranteed an adequate 
supply of a very basic commodity for American consumers at very 
reasonable prices.
  I do not think that is too much to ask. I think it is a good program. 
And, frankly, I respect the gentlemen who are bringing this; but again 
I have to say that we look at the same set of facts and come to 
completely different conclusions.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. There has been a change since the program was 
approved back in 1996. In 1996, we were told no net cost, and there was 
going to be this assessment of about $40 million a year that would flow 
into the Government.
  First of all, that assessment has been done away with in an 
appropriation bill, I think, 2 years ago. The other thing is that 
because we are trying to keep that price high enough, we are having to 
buy sugar. Last month, in May, for the very first time since 1985, we 
bought $54 million worth of sugar in order to prop up the price, and we 
have no use for that sugar. And according to media reports, between now 
and the end of September, we could buy another $500 million worth of 
sugar.
  That is where it is going to start costing us money. We have $54 
million worth of sugar now, and we have nothing to do but to put it in 
storage. No one will take it around the world. So things have changed 
in the past 45 days.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman is generally 
correct in that. Right now no one would buy it. But when is the best 
time to buy a commodity? When the price is low. We should be buying 
sugar right now, and we should sell it when the price starts to go back 
up. That makes sense. That is supply management.
  At the end of the day, this program will cost the taxpayers nothing. 
It will save future taxpayers and consumers a great deal. We need a 
strong sugar industry in this country, and they are forced to compete 
every day against heavily subsidized sugar from around the rest of the 
world. I support open and free trade. We had that debate last night. 
But we do not have free trade, we do not have fair trade in the sugar 
industry, and, frankly, I think I would have to rise in opposition to 
the motion that the gentleman is trying to propose.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

[[Page 13121]]


  Mr. SUNUNU. I want to address the point that somehow the new farm 
policy is to buy and sell to manipulate the price of the commodity 
sugar in the market. I think that is a very dangerous precedent to set.
  We should not be manipulating prices in the sugar market or candy or 
grain or beef or oil for that matter. Price controls do not work.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is about this time of year that I think about my 
colleague from Florida, who I am certain, along with a lot of Members 
of this House, find former President Reagan to be one of their heroes. 
Now, most of my colleagues know that I was not the biggest fan of the 
former President; but he sure did know how to turn a phrase, and one 
that keeps coming to my mind, and that we use often here on the floor 
is, ``There you go again.''
  It is summertime and we are debating the agriculture appropriations 
bill and the opponents of this Nation's hard-working sugar farmers are 
at it again. It seems each year at about this same time, we have to 
have this vote. It is a waste of time and of this body's attention. Let 
me explain why, Mr. Chairman, in a very simple way.
  Let us look at the real issue here. The price of sugar in the United 
States is at a 20-year low, 30 percent lower than when we passed the 
farm bill. Yet all the things that have sugar in them in the 
supermarket have increased in price. Why is it, Mr. Chairman, sugar 
prices are down for growers and up for consumers?
  What we really should be doing here is taking a hard look at the big 
food companies who, in the final analysis, cause this amendment to come 
before us. The real truth is they just want sugar cheaper so they can 
pad their already fat pockets.
  Now, I ask the Members of this House if they have, in the last week, 
received in their offices e-mails and calls regarding the price of oil? 
My bet is that they have. As yesterday and on into the night last night 
we discussed the price of medicine, have my colleagues received e-mails 
and calls from their constituents around this great country of ours 
regarding that? I am certain that every man and woman in this House has 
received such a call. I ask any of my colleagues to tell me if they 
have received a call because sugar prices are too high.
  Now then, I would like to address specifically my colleague, my good 
friend, the gentleman from the west coast of Florida (Mr. Miller), who 
earlier in his comments made the statement that the price of sugar 
elsewhere around the world is cheaper. Well, I just want to use two 
countries, and I got this price today before coming to the floor, in 
Winn-Dixie and Publix, major supermarkets in my district and the 
district of my colleague in the State of Florida, the cost of a pound 
of sugar today is 32 cents. In England, it is 50 cents. In Germany, it 
is 50 cents. I have difficulty understanding how it is that we are 
going to gain this particular cheapness that I hear the proponents of 
this amendment offer.
  Now, I would like to say something else for purposes of the 
edification of the body. The United States Agriculture Department, 
USDA, has denounced the GAO report that has been continuously paraded 
here. I have also heard talk about who these farmers are. Let me say 
proudly that I represent many of the sugar farmers, along with my 
colleague across the aisle, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley). We 
represent in this country 75 percent of all the sugar cane grown in the 
United States of America. And that includes the much-maligned Fanjul 
family, who have done a considerable amount of good that has not been 
paid attention to in that area, and that includes United States sugar 
industry representatives as well.
  What I believe my colleague does know is that there is a United 
States cooperative that has 54 family farmers involved in the 
production and farming of sugar. Those farmers help in our State alone 
to produce good jobs. I am not talking about jobs for the average kind 
of wage that we think of when we think of the stoop labor that used to 
be directly involved in cane sugar growing. I am talking about jobs for 
machinists that start at $60,000 a year, I am talking about jobs for 
people who drive trucks, black and white people, that make $40,000 and 
$50,000 and $60,000 a year. We are talking about good jobs.
  So when we put a human face on this thing, if my colleagues come with 
me to Clewiston and to Belle Glade, and to Pahokee, they would see 
people who are working in this industry. And while it was one thing for 
my colleagues to offer $50 billion phased in for estate taxes, somehow 
or another they find it difficult to find $54 million for growth in 
jobs.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate over the course of the 
last hour with great interest. I think it is an example of how we have 
a tremendous capacity on the floor of this Chamber to talk past one 
another. It is an example here of one of many items where people get 
involved in a vicious cycle of subsidization that ends up savaging the 
markets, disadvantaging consumers, and posing great risks to the 
environment.
  We could have had this same conversation about what happens with 
products in the fisheries industry. Estimates have been made that it 
costs about $1.33 in total cost and government subsidies to deliver $1 
of product that is harvested from our oceans.
  There is no doubt in my mind that the sugar industry around the world 
is subsidized in many areas and produces distorting effects. But I do 
not think that the answer here is for us to step back and try to 
somehow imagine away the distorting effects in our country.
  We have heard on this floor that there is a disproportionately few 
number of people who benefit from this. If people want to step back and 
provide benefits for small family farms, I will be the first to look at 
ways that we can, in fact, do that in a cooperative fashion. But this 
program does not do that. It is not targeted. And, sadly, that is the 
case with many of our other agricultural subsidies that we spend 
billions of dollars on. Precious little gets to the small family farm, 
and they continue to go out of business each and every year.

                              {time}  1615

  I think we have had people back away from the myth that somehow this 
is paid for by magic, that there is no risk to the consumer or to the 
taxpayer. And I thank my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Miller) for talking about that; and, if time permits, I would like to 
discuss it further with him.
  The notion somehow that prices here are too low, well, what is 
happening in the face of prices being too low and a worldwide glut, the 
evidence is that every year since 1996 production has increased in 
terms of the acreage in the United States, every year since 1996; and 
the estimation for the year 2000, with the terrible prices, the threat 
of world dumping, all of the things that we have heard, the estimates 
are that we are going to plant at least as much as we did last year.
  But my particular interest has to do with the vicious cycle we are in 
in terms of the environment. We heard our colleague the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) talk about the cycle that we are in in 
terms of subsidization, more imports at lower prices, having to 
subsidize and purchase more, stockpiling sugar, at least at this point 
that we do not need and we have no market for.
  But I am concerned with the cycle that we are involved with in terms 
of the Everglades this Congress is involved with, and I commend the 
effort to try and repair decades of damage to that fragile ecosystem. 
It is a situation in south Florida where people are going to end up 
having to desalinate water in the foreseeable future, a product that is 
going to cost them more than petroleum and that is going to taste about 
as good.
  Yet, what are we doing in this Congress to deal with the serious 
problems that are associated with it? The sugar program is clearly 
harmful to the environment in south Florida. The subsidized production 
of sugar in Florida

[[Page 13122]]

results in this phosphorus-laden agricultural runoff flowing into the 
Everglades, contributing to the destruction of the ecosystem. And we do 
not have enough money to fix that.
  But, amazingly, the Government continues to support the sugar program 
in south Florida even as we are asking to put up more money to repair 
the destruction. And, in fact, according to the information I have 
received, the production in Florida for cane sugar has gone up every 
year since 1996 and this last year was an estimated 10,000 more acres, 
compounding the problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Miller), to see if I understand correctly the dilemma that we are 
facing in this Congress.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I thank the gentleman for his support for the Everglades.
  The Everglades is a national treasure, just like the Grand Canyon is, 
the Everglades National Park down there. My colleague has been to the 
Everglades, I know, and is very supportive.
  The Senate recently passed a bill that is going to cost $8 billion to 
restore the Everglades. Because of Government problems, we lost land in 
the Everglades. Half the Everglades is gone, and sugar is causing even 
more destruction.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about sugar beet farmers in Michigan 
and Minnesota and North Dakota in the area of the country that I come 
from. And the question that they must be asking now is, why on Earth, 
when we are providing billions and billions in emergency support for 
family farmers, would we want say to the SDA that they cannot buy 
surplus sugar from a group of growers who have been among the hardest 
hit in the country?
  The message that we send these families and these farmers is that 
their sweat and their toil and their hard work is not worth a dime, 
that their labor is not valued, and that their product should just be 
thrown to the wind.
  This amendment, if offered, would have driven a number of beet and 
cane growers out of the business, ensuring that sugar loan forfeitures 
actually occur at great cost to the U.S. taxpayer.
  Let me put some perspective on this issue. We heard this debate rage 
on now for a while on the floor. And as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer) has just said, other nations provide huge subsidies to 
their sugar growers and then they try to flood our market with cheap 
foreign sugar.
  Yet, how do some people in this institution respond to that? They 
want the USDA to turn their backs on our growers and even purchase the 
excess sugar for the established food programs that we already have.
  Now, that is not a level playing field. It is a slippery slope toward 
eliminating that part of the agricultural sector of our economy.
  On top of all of this, to make matters worse, when we passed the 
North American Free Trade Agreement back in 1993, it had a provision in 
there, and we warned people about this, and it said that Mexico will be 
able to increase their export sugar to the United States from 25,000 
metric tons to 250,000 metric tons later this year, a ten-fold 
increase.
  So now we are having not only domestic problems, we are going to have 
a surge coming in as a result of this treaty from Mexico. We are not to 
be surprised by this because, of course, when we did that very same 
treaty, we, basically, put those people in our country who produced 
tomatoes out of business.
  If my colleagues go to south Florida, the State of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller) that had just spoken, or if they go to the Eastern 
Shore of Maryland today, they do not grow the tomatoes anymore. The 
reason they do not grow them is because that treaty provided provisions 
where a child of 10, 11, and 12 could pick the tomatoes, they could 
have pesticides sprayed on those tomatoes that are not allowed here, 
and they are undercut and forced those workers and those farms out of 
business.
  So, in an era of budget surpluses, Mr. Chairman, one can only 
conclude that this is a concerted attempt to drive these farmers out of 
business. And it needs to be stopped, because they are not only the 
backbone of their communities, but they provide a valuable commodity to 
the people of this country.
  I hope that this amendment will indeed not be offered and that the 
people that toil on our Earth to provide us with the food at such a 
reasonable cost will be provided with the opportunity to provide a 
living for themselves and their families.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE II

                         CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest 
     Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
     $693,000.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Berry

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Berry:
       On page 31, line 14, strike ``693,000'' and insert $0; and 
     on page 36, line 13, strike ``41,015,000'' and replace with 
     ``41,708,000''.

  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment cuts $693,000 out of the 
salaries and expenses of the office of the Undersecretary for Natural 
Resources and the Environment at the Department of Agriculture. It puts 
this money in the Resource Conservation and Development Account.
  My intent is to point out that farmers are tired of being abused by 
the bureaucracy. This money would be much better used to assist our 
producers in the field.
  Enough is enough. It is time to draw the line.
  Just yesterday, in the Committee on Agriculture, we had a hearing on 
EPA's proposed rules on total maximum daily load. This rule would 
devastate farmers by requiring permits for normal, everyday farming 
practices.
  Sadly enough, it was quite clear by the performance of the gentleman 
from EPA and USDA that their interest is in regulating, let us just 
regulate.
  EPA has overstepped its bounds with this rule and many other rules 
that they have proposed. We might as well not have an Undersecretary 
for Natural Resources and the Environment. This money would be better 
spent, as I have said, in technical assistance for our farmers in the 
field.
  We can no longer stand by and allow more and more regulations to be 
placed on America's farmers that benefit no one or nothing.
  One concrete example is a survey that I have here with me that is 
proposed by the Administrator of EPA which would go to every 
aquaculture producer in this country. This survey would require 
farmers, under penalty of law, to turn over their income statements and 
balance sheets.
  What does confidential financial information have to do with water 
quality? Nothing.
  The USDA should stand up for America's farmers and prevent such 
misdirected Government regulation from going forward. This has not 
happened. This is part of the job of the Undersecretary for Natural 
Resources and the Environment.
  In the past 9 months, the administration has proposed at least 10 new 
regulations to be imposed on agriculture. Most of these regulations 
have come from EPA. With each regulation, EPA has failed to follow a 
transparent process and use good science in an effort to show the need 
for what they are trying to do.
  This problem has not been the goal to clean the environment. The 
problem has been with the process and principles used to make 
regulatory decisions and the collusion between the Natural Resources 
and Environment Agency and EPA.
  The USDA must stand up to these bureaucratic, unscientific, and 
impractical efforts of EPA. Our farmers are faced daily with 
overwhelming bureaucratic rules that they can no longer

[[Page 13123]]

tolerate. The USDA should be representing this viewpoint. They have 
not, as I have said. This includes the regulations on total maximum 
daily load proposals.
  Let me be clear. Farmers need an advocate in the decision-making 
process. We must have an advocate at USDA, and they should be 
fulfilling this role. I hope that in the future the USDA will stand up 
for agriculture in this process.
  My amendment is intended to highlight the need for an advocate. 
Producers must be represented as these decisions are being made. I 
would hope that this amendment would bring attention not only from USDA 
and EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Services and all the other Federal 
agencies that seem determined to tell every farmer and landowner in 
this country exactly what they can do and how they can do it.
  Agriculture deserves to have a voice and especially when regulations 
are being developed.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Congress to stand up for America's farmers 
and approve this amendment.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and commend 
my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), for offering 
this.
  On the Subcommittee on Appropriations, as well, we have had great 
difficulty in dealing with the specific item that the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry) has mentioned.
  This office is, quite frankly, a loose cannon. It is not standing up 
for the rights of farmers. The USDA is supposed to look after the 
interests of American agriculture; and in this particular case, with 
this particular office, it is not.
  The issue of the total daily maximum load that would impose onerous 
regulations on American agriculture is out there, and this office is 
supposed to be looking after the interests of agriculture and rejecting 
these costly, onerous regulations that are pending out there for 
American farmers.
  Also, this office has been audited by the Inspector General, who 
discovered that $21 million in this budget that is overseen by this 
office was not used appropriately. These are dollars that could go to 
American farmers and ranchers who are interested in conservation 
programs. And instead, throughout the years, it has spent money, 
misappropriated money, misspent money on crazy ideas like wall murals 
and civil lawsuits and are working on an agenda that is out there that 
no one even knows for sure what they are doing.
  This is the United States Department of Agriculture. Again, it is 
supposed to be looking after the interests of our farmers and ranchers. 
Money contributed directly to the Sierra Club. It does not matter what 
interest group is out there advocating or fighting for whatever the 
cause that they are interested in, this office should not be giving 
this money away when farmers and ranchers are in desperate need of it, 
and for field trips for some of these groups for goodness sake. That is 
not what the American taxpayers should be spending.
  I questioned the head of this office, as well as the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry) did in the authorizing committee yesterday, 
questioned him extensively on why is all of this going on. What is 
this, a rogue operation out there, a mission that no one is authorizing 
or interested in pushing? And somehow someone has given this office the 
authority to work on these interests that, again, have nothing to do 
with the well-being of American agriculture.

                              {time}  1630

  So I commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for offering 
this amendment, will strongly support it. We have to put a stop and 
rein this loose cannon in.
  Mr STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say that it saddens me somewhat to have to rise 
in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). 
However, I have been tremendously disappointed with the leadership 
shown, or lack of leadership shown, by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture during the entire process that has led up to the publishing 
of the TMDL rule, the Total Maximum Daily Load.
  During the entire process, there has been much, much to be faulted. 
There are serious questions about the science and financial analysis 
underlying these new water quality regulations proposed by EPA. Recent 
reports by the General Accounting Office, the Society of American 
Foresters, and other respected experts have questioned the wisdom of 
EPA's proposed rules.
  Our colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
have called on the EPA to withdraw this rule, as have a number of 
agricultural and environmental groups.
  Even USDA, in their own testimony before the Committee on 
Appropriations, took strong exception to some of what EPA proposed in 
their TMDL rule, although they seem to have tempered that concern 
somewhat.
  This House has already spoken on this issue with a provision passed 
by the House in the VA-HUD appropriation bill that does not allow EPA 
to implement the proposed rule in FY 2001.
  Now, USDA has the technical and scientific expertise to review the 
actions of EPA and help guide them toward a reasonable solution that 
might actually work in the field, and that is why the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry) offers this amendment today and why it is very 
pertinent to the discussion today.
  If the Department of Agriculture is not willing to use their 
resources to stand up to EPA for the benefit of farmers and ranchers 
and the environment, then we should spend their money helping those 
same landowners that are already trying to preserve their soil and 
protect water quality. That is the simplistics of this amendment.
  Now I find it very frustrating, because I happen to have been 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, 
Nutrition, and Forestry when we reorganized USDA in 1992 and one of the 
things we agreed to in this Congress and with the administration was 
that we wanted to improve the ability of USDA to be a coequal with 
other branches of government when it comes to dealing with 
environmental and food safety issues.
  The problem is that we do not have a coequal when one part of the 
coequal does not stand up for that which is in their own testimony and 
also in which they have said we agree. So the purpose of this amendment 
today is pretty simple. It is delivering what we hope will be a very 
strong message to both EPA and to USDA that common sense must apply, 
and to all of those groups that keep pounding on EPA to do things that 
do not make common sense, to require our farmers and ranchers to spend 
unlimited amounts of money fixing a problem that may not be fixable 
with any amount of money.
  If we could just come back, just come back to a common sense approach 
in which we recognize that farmers and ranchers want to solve the TMDL 
problem, I certainly in my district have some very serious problems in 
which all farmers and ranchers are willing to work with reasonable 
people to come up with a reasonable solution that will solve the 
problem.
  Therefore, I am not here today saying we should do nothing, but many 
times doing something is very, very detrimental to the very cause in 
which we are talking and today it is clean water.
  When there is someone within a bureaucracy that so believes they are 
right, that they are completely, completely willing to ignore all 
common sense and forge ahead with requiring paperwork burdens and 
things that absolutely will not solve the problem in the opinion of 
everybody but them, there is a problem.
  So this amendment is very serious. Let us put the money where there 
is an indication that we will have a willingness to solve the problem. 
Hopefully, though, we will have the kind of common sense approach to 
this question that will lead us to a solution that can

[[Page 13124]]

be embraced by all. Certainly that is the desire of farmers and 
ranchers that I represent in my district, in my State and the other 49 
States.
  To those out there in EPA land, listen carefully. We want to work 
with them. We do not agree with those of them who believe that the only 
solution is theirs and they want to do it in the quiet of the night. We 
want to work with them. Let us work with them. Quit demanding that it 
be done only their way.
  Mr. COMBEST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), and I recognize and understand the 
frustration that has driven the gentleman to this fairly serious 
amendment.
  As I am sure it is in the district of the gentleman and all of the 
districts of the other Members, it is not the common sense regulation 
approach of the Federal Government that concerns people. It is the 
approach and the regulations that simply do not pass the logic of the 
stupid test. This subject is one that has gained the attention of 
agriculture all across this country, and it has gained their attention 
in a very negative way.
  As the gentleman from Texas, my colleague, mentioned, we felt 
somewhat excited about the fact that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, the agency that we look to to speak in behalf of the 
American farmers, not as a rubber stamp but those who understand the 
problems of agriculture, as well as any other agency of government, was 
going to have a more equal role in making the decisions that were going 
to affect farmers, with other agencies of government.
  When the total maximum daily load issue arose sometime back, we felt 
that USDA would be there to explain what the benefits or what the costs 
would be to agriculture, in fact, felt quite heartened by a letter that 
was written that talked about the hundreds of millions, even possibly 
billions of dollars of expense that this was going to impose upon 
agriculture, and without having the scientific basis on which to base 
these regulations that are proposed, whether or not it would even 
accomplish the good that EPA was trying to accomplish.
  Well, subsequent to that time, I will describe the actions of USDA as 
we would back in Texas. They have basically tucked tail and run and now 
have become almost a rubber stamp for the EPA. Well, this concerns us a 
great deal because this is moving forward in an area that we do not 
believe is scientifically based. It is moving forward in an area that 
we believe is going to be extremely detrimental, and it is moving 
forward in an area that we do not believe is going to do the most good.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and I and 92 of our 
colleagues have introduced a bill that would stop the implementation of 
the regulations. There are several other bills in both the House and 
the Senate, and totally there is almost half of the Congress that is 
supporting at least one or a variety of these bills.
  I think that if nothing else that this should send a strong signal to 
USDA and hopefully to EPA as well that they have in the past run 
roughshod over the American farmer. We do not intend to let them run 
roughshod over the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Agriculture 
is the number one industry in our great country, always has been and it 
always will be, because our folks depend on a good quality supply of 
food to feed themselves and their family, and we are very blessed and 
we are very lucky here.
  Agriculture all across the United States today is in some very, very 
difficult times. Particularly from a commodity price standpoint and 
from a weather standpoint, we have been through some tough years; but 
we have survived, and we have survived in part because we have had some 
policies in part that have been adopted here and some policies that 
have been carried out of USDA that have been beneficial to agriculture.
  There is a current mindset at USDA that in my opinion is anti-
agriculture, and that mindset has been no more appropriately displayed 
than has been the case with the issuance of the TMDL ruling and the 
failure on the part of the United States Department of Agriculture to 
stand up for farmers and forestry landowners in opposition to this 
unfair, capricious, and arbitrary rule that was promulgated by EPA.
  This amendment strikes at the heart of establishing common sense at 
USDA because what it does is remove some people at USDA who very 
honestly do not have common sense. I do not care whether one talks to 
them in a hearing setting that we had yesterday or whether one talks to 
them just standing on the side of the road discussing agriculture with 
them. This amendment, in my opinion, is a very important amendment; and 
it does more than send a message. This amendment helps to establish the 
fact that we in Congress are going to continue to work to establish 
common sense in this town, and the folks in the various agencies around 
better get the message because we are going to do it.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to acknowledge that this is a real issue in 
my part of the country because indeed those people who are affected 
feel that the system has not worked simply because the bureaucracy has 
not understood nor taken the time to find all the information based on 
science.
  I just feel that they have not been fair in listening to both sides 
of the issue. I for one stand as a person who believes in the 
environment, so I do not take shortcuts. I embrace this issue as an 
issue that we should wait imprudently for economic development. I take 
as a part of my faith that actually the environment is God's creation 
and we should do everything to preserve it and certainly, as we move 
into this area of trying to balance and have clean water, it is equally 
important that we are fair in that.
  The tree farmers and those affected, they also honor the land not 
only because that is where they get their livelihood, but they love the 
land. To find that they are put in this kind of situation of having to 
determine that they are not polluters or they are not doing all they 
want to do to preserve the land is grossly unfair, and it is not based 
on science.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for yielding to me.
  Just to make sure that our colleagues understand this amendment, what 
we are saying is there is a process in which most folks in USDA and EPA 
have agreed to from time to time, and that is to allow the 
participation of all interests in this case, those groups concerned 
solely with conservation, but also not only those individual groups but 
also producers. There is a mistaken belief among some that farmers and 
ranchers are always on the opposite or other side of conservation, 
clean water and clean air; and nothing could be further from the truth.
  What we are saying and have been trying to say and have been almost 
totally ignored thus far by EPA is that we want to be included. We want 
to have them decide and discuss sound science and the rationale behind 
their proposal in this rulemaking and do it in the sunshine so everyone 
can see their rationale and can hear those who disagree, and then 
reasonable people can come together and can come up with a solution 
that accomplishes what we all want to accomplish.
  That has not been followed. That is the frustration that we have had 
not only on this issue but also on the Food Quality Protection Act. We 
are simply saying very strongly, as we know how, USDA, if they choose 
not to exercise their authority, as they stated to the

[[Page 13125]]

Committee on Appropriations when they said in a letter that they take 
strong exception to what EPA is doing, if they took strong exception to 
what USDA is doing, why have they now decided to go along with what EPA 
is doing?

                              {time}  1645

  That is the message today, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
Berry amendment.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of points. I guess, first 
of all, as a farmer myself and someone who grew up on a family farm now 
and in the fifth generation over 110 years, the idea that somehow 
farmers are not concerned about the environment, about maintaining the 
land and the quality of their environment is simply outrageous, and to 
me is very, very offensive.
  We are the ones who, in my family, drink out of the well where the 
water, where the runoff is going to go. We are the ones who have to 
live in this environment, and it is the most important. It is our 
biggest asset as farmers to maintain the quality and the land itself 
and the clean environment.
  It is very personal and very real to anyone who lives on a farm like 
I do. I will also tell my colleagues as someone who strongly believes 
in trying to preserve the family farm that these new regulations are 
not going to harm the big mega hog lot producers, the big mega cattle 
producers, chicken producers, those folks are already in compliance 
with every new regulation that is being proposed. It is not going to 
cost them one more dime to comply with these regulations.
  What it is going to do, Mr. Chairman, is bust the small family farmer 
out there who cannot afford to comply with these regulations. We talk 
about concentration in agriculture, about doing away with the family 
farm, then we have bureaucrats here in Washington who want to put 
regulations who are only going to hurt the little guy.
  Let us not forget about what this is about. The big mega hog lots are 
already in compliance with these regulations. It is not going to hurt 
them a bit, but it is going to kill the family farmer out there. That 
is what is so outrageous about this whole idea and about the USDA 
basically backing off and saying okay, you go ahead, put mandates on 
small family farmers, let the other folks go as they are.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, in light of the June 27, 2000 
hearing on water pollution and the impact of EPA's proposed Total 
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) rules on agriculture and silviculture, I 
would like to express my disappointment with the EPA approach to this 
problem and voice my support for Representative Berry's amendment to 
cut funding from the office of the Undersecretary for Natural Resources 
and the Environment. In recent years, public concerns about surface 
water contamination by nutrients, in particular nitrogen and 
phosphorus, has intensified as agricultural practices have been 
identified as a significant contributor to non-point source pollution. 
While we have made great progress in the past 30 years at cleaning up 
our waterways through addressing both point and non-point source 
pollution, much room for improvement still remains. The EPA idea of 
Total Maximum Daily Loading was introduced to address these problems 
directly, but unfortunately calls for unreasonable and unrealistic 
changes in our current pollution prevention programs.
  Though I have long recognized the importance of managing agricultural 
nutrients in a manner that both sustains agricultural profitability 
while protecting the environment, I am strongly opposed to EPA's TMDL 
plan, and equally disappointed with the extreme lack of communication, 
consistency, and straightforwardness by the Department of Agriculture 
on behalf of American farmers. It has become evident that the EPA 
overstepped their bounds in the development of their TMDL proposal, 
avoiding communication with farm groups and Congress, picking and 
choosing data to support their own regulatory agenda, and 
underestimating the cost of this program to our states and farmers. 
Though I am thoroughly disappointed by the EPA's actions, I am even 
more disappointed that our own Department of Agriculture has stood 
behind this questionable proposal and turned its back on our farmers. 
For these reasons I applaud Mr. Berry for his amendment transferring 
$693,000 to the Department of Resource Conservation and Development so 
farmers can be assured that the USDA is in fact working for them, not 
against them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Berry).
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service


                        Conservation Operations

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of 
     the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f ), including 
     preparation of conservation plans and establishment of 
     measures to conserve soil and water (including farm 
     irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for 
     soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent 
     floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control 
     agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation 
     plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil; 
     dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water, 
     and interests therein for use in the plant materials program 
     by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to 
     exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 
     428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of 
     permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and 
     maintenance of aircraft, $676,812,000, to remain available 
     until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), of which not less than 
     $5,990,000 is for snow survey and water forecasting and not 
     less than $9,125,000 is for operation and establishment of 
     the plant materials centers: Provided, That appropriations 
     hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2250 for 
     construction and improvement of buildings and public 
     improvements at plant materials centers, except that the cost 
     of alterations and improvements to other buildings and other 
     public improvements shall not exceed $250,000: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act shall be used to carry out any 
     activity related to urban resources partnership or the 
     American heritage rivers initiative: Provided further, That 
     when buildings or other structures are erected on non-Federal 
     land, that the right to use such land is obtained as provided 
     in 7 U.S.C. 2250a: Provided further, That this appropriation 
     shall be available for technical assistance and related 
     expenses to carry out programs authorized by section 202(c) 
     of title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act 
     of 1974 (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)): Provided further, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $25,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided 
     further, That qualified local engineers may be temporarily 
     employed at per diem rates to perform the technical planning 
     work of the Service (16 U.S.C. 590e-2).


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Kelly

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

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mrs. Kelly:
       Page 32, line 20, strike ``or'' through ``the American 
     heritage rivers initiatve'' on line 21.

  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer today an amendment to strike 
language from this bill which prohibits funding from being used for the 
American Heritage Rivers Initiative. I feel this prohibition is 
inappropriate, as it imposes a serious detriment to river communities 
in 25 States, which have chosen to be a part of this initiative.
  American Heritage Rivers Initiative began in 1997, the purpose behind 
it being to refocus and improve our efforts to preserve the cultural, 
economic and historic values of rivers throughout the country. Since 
then, the initiative has served as an effective tool in supporting 
voluntary community efforts to restore rivers and revitalize river 
fronts.
  Despite the potential it holds for some of our Nation's treasured 
resources, the communities which have accepted designations under this 
initiative have been subjected to repeated efforts to undermine their 
intentions, primarily through the placement of funding restrictions on 
various agencies involved in this enterprise.
  The bill being considered today continues this effort by prohibiting 
funding for the National Resource Conservation Service from being used 
for purposes under the initiative.
  I realize that these restrictions have been spawned in part by an 
undercurrent of concern among those who feel

[[Page 13126]]

the initiative represents some sort of Federal intrusion into local 
matters.
  To this point, let me say this is simply not the case. Throughout the 
process, proponents of the initiative have gone to great lengths to 
ensure that local control is not circumvented. In fact, it should be 
argued that local control is not only preserved, but enhanced by an 
increased awareness of the options that are available through already 
existing programs.
  It should be made clear that the American Heritage Rivers Initiative 
involves no new mandates. It involves no new money, and it is entirely 
voluntary. Those communities which are on designated rivers but choose 
not to be involved are under no obligation to do so. Those which do 
choose to be involved are subject to no new regulations.
  I further understand that some object to this initiative because of 
its origins, and because of the way in which the administration has 
worked with and responded to Congress in their effort to implement it. 
When it comes to reports of opposite-minded and uncooperative officials 
in the administration, I am not without sympathy for my colleagues.
  Nevertheless, I rise today with this proposal for the simple fact 
that the restriction in this bill affects stubborn actions not nearly 
so much as it does the river communities in 25 States across the 
country which made a conscious choice to be a part of the initiative. I 
should emphasize that I am not on the floor today with some proposal to 
force this initiative on communities that do not wish to be a part of 
it. Nor do I come here today with a proposal to take away a Member's 
right to preclude communities in their district from being eligible for 
the initiative.
  I am here because I object to the practice of placing these 
restrictions on communities which have made a choice to be a part of 
the initiative. Members representing those communities should not be 
forced to go from bill to bill to bill to ferret out these kinds of 
restrictions simply so they can try to protect their constituents from 
being penalized for their decision to be a part of this initiative.
  If there are objections to the American Heritage Rivers Initiatives, 
I believe there are more appropriate and reasonable approaches than to 
simply tack restrictions onto a spending bill.
  I believe that Members of this House who represent communities which 
have chosen to benefit from the American Heritage Rivers Initiative and 
Members who believe that these communities should not be penalized for 
making this decision ought not to sit idly by to watch its gradual 
deconstruction through appropriations processes.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), which would eliminate 
language in the Agriculture Appropriations bill that would prohibit 
funds in the bill from being used on activities related to the American 
Heritage River Initiative.
  The language currently in the bill would bar most USDA funds from 
being used to support and coordinate the American Heritage River 
Initiative. This broad language could be interpreted to prohibit most 
USDA agencies from undertaking community-oriented service or 
environmental projects related to the American Heritage Rivers. This 
could selectively put at a disadvantage 25 States that contain all or 
portions of the current 14 American Heritage Rivers.
  I would like to compliment my colleague from New York (Mr. Hinchey) 
who at the full committee was successful in having language inserted in 
the bill. The bill language would not affect the Hudson River, which 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) represents, and the 
Susquehanna River which I represent, but it would still not remove the 
bar and the effect on the other 12 Heritage Rivers in the country.
  The fact of the matter is that this initiative, although sometimes 
attacked, sometimes understood and sometimes misunderstood by some of 
our colleagues is not a threat of the American government to the 
American people. It is, in fact, reinventing government at its best. It 
says basically that each community along the river or groups of 
communities have and are encouraged to put together comprehensive 
programs to celebrate the historical significance of their community to 
protect that, to add and think about the economic development elements 
that their river affects in their community and to provide for 
historical preservation.
  Mr. Chairman, the essence of the success of this program was really 
set out when the initial applications were made when 126 rivers across 
America competed for designation as an American Heritage River in the 
first round, and that competition was some of the stiffest competition 
I have seen since I am a Member of Congress.
  There were 14 that won the initial round, 14 rivers. I think to use 
the appropriation process to bar Federal funds to move to this program 
would be wrong from this standpoint. This is a creature of reinventing 
government.
  Some of the very basic problems in our governmental structure is that 
funds flow down through the departments and agencies of government in a 
very narrow focused way. What this initiative calls for across 
government is to come together in an agreement and agencies and 
departments and bureaus of the Federal Government to cooperate with 
those communities that have set out a comprehensive plan, that plan has 
been reviewed and thought to have great merit and then these agencies 
to cooperate in this comprehensive effort to be more efficient and 
effective in expending Federal funds to further the plans of those 
local communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of anything that is more American, more 
supportive of community activity and that should not be inhibited, 
either in the appropriation processes here or by the nature in which 
this program was originally established.
  I want to compliment my colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey) for the process itself, protecting the Hudson and Susquehanna 
Rivers, but I want to compliment the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Kelly) to carry that protection to all 14 rivers of the American 
Heritage River Designation and Initiative.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I wish to urge all my colleagues on the 
Democratic side, together with my colleagues on the Republican side, 
that this is indeed good policy. It is something that is starting to 
show areas of success, and we should not prohibit or inhibit the 
American communities from participating in honoring and preserving and 
forwarding the success and effort of the American Heritage Initiative.
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Kelly). I was very lucky when this competition began, 
because I have two of those 14 rivers designated in my congressional 
district as American Heritage Rivers. I think it is important to recall 
what the objectives were as we began down this course. First, natural 
resource and environmental protection, something we certainly can all 
rally to. Second, the question of tasteful growth and economic 
revitalization. Third, and perhaps the most important, historic and 
culture preservation.
  This initiative involves the coordination of a number of agencies, as 
well as the cooperation of local leaders, but the main initiative here 
is to help people who live near these rivers effectively coordinate 
their efforts to preserve, protect and revitalize the watershed areas.
  What is significant about the Blackstone River, where much of our 
industrial heritage grew from or certainly the Connecticut River, which 
is New England's mightiest river, is that virtually everything that 
occurred in the Pioneer Valley began because of the Connecticut River.
  There are few words in American history or, for that matter, world 
history, that are more powerful than the word river. The success of 
these initiatives

[[Page 13127]]

not only are underway but the navigators have been put in place. The 
catalyst that these rivers offer I think for further tasteful growth 
and development are very important to all of us.
  Let me, if I can, take one moment to congratulate the late Senator 
John Chafee, who was a great champion of this initiative and, indeed, 
much of the growth in the Blackstone Valley and the success that we 
have had with that proposal stems from the commitment of former Senator 
Chafee, the navigators have been entrusted with the revitalization of 
these two rivers and they have done a tremendous job in a very, very 
short period of time.
  These proposals represent no threat to local property owners, indeed, 
if anything, they have enhanced the property values of those who live 
along these waterways. Let us not deny the hard-working residents and 
business leaders of the river valleys of the Connecticut and Blackstone 
our support.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I know that we have had a lot of time 
spent on this, so that we can proceed, I urge a vote on the amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the American Heritage 
Rivers Initiative is a popular, effective and completely voluntary 
program.
  Claims that the program somehow violates property rights have been 
rejected by this Congress, the courts and the communities who 
participate in the Initiative.
  Having failed to abolish this program outright, the anti-river forces 
are now attempting to starve the program to death through a series of 
small funding cuts.
  These attacks are unwarranted, unwise and should be defeated.


                               background

  The American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI) was first proposed 
during President Clinton's 1997 State of the Union Address.
  The program was actually established in September, 1997 through 
Executive Order, after an extensive notice and comment period. The 
notice and comment period included a series of public meetings held 
around the country.
  One hundred and twenty-six rivers in 46 states were nominated for 
designation and, in 1998, President Clinton selected 14 of those 
rivers, running through portions of 25 states, for designation.
  The rivers selected in the first round include some of the most vital 
waterways in America including the Hudson, Mississippi, Rio Grande, and 
Potomac Rivers.
  Contrary to the claims of opponents of the program, AHRI remains 
extremely popular. Nearly 200 Members of Congress, more than 500 
mayors, and 21 Governors have expressed support for the AHRI. CEQ 
receives new nominations, in addition to the 126 received in the first 
round, regularly.


                             what ahri does

  The program allows local communities to voluntarily nominate a river 
in their area for designation as an American Heritage River.
  For those rivers selected, a ``River Navigator'' is appointed to help 
coordinate federal, state and local efforts to protect the qualities 
which made the river eligible for designation in the first place.
  Anyone who has attempted to navigate the sea of federal, state and 
local grant and technical assistance programs understands why a river 
navigator working on behalf of each of these rivers is necessary.
  AHRI is designed to identify some of the most important waterways in 
this nation and make certain that any and all efforts to protect those 
rivers are as targeted and well coordinated as possible.
  The program is about achieving managerial efficiency and using 
federal resources to leverage private funds.


                         what AHRI does not do

  The American Heritage Rivers Program is in no way a federal ``land 
grab.'' The program involves no land acquisition or condemnation 
authority.
  AHRI is not an attempt to limit the use of private property. The 
program involves no new regulatory authority of any kind.
  The AHRI does not waste a single tax dollar. The program does not 
involve the expenditure of any new funds. Rather, the program takes 
money that likely would have been spent on general water quality 
programs or other environmental protection efforts and attempts to 
focus and leverage those funds more effectively.
  The program has no international component. Claims that this 
initiative is somehow part of a U.N. conspiracy to control America, a 
claim which has been made regarding this program, simply have no basis 
in fact.


               effects of the limitation in the base bill

  Language inserted in the base bill would prohibit any funds in the 
bill from being used to carry out the American Heritage Rivers 
Initiative.
  Specifically, this would prohibit the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service (NRCS) within the Department of Agriculture from participating 
in the program.
  The effect would be two-fold. First, the NRCS is the conservation 
assistance arm of the Agriculture Department. This limitation would 
prohibit NRCS experts from working with local communities, which have 
requested assistance, to improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, 
re-vegetate eroded areas, restore habitat and wetlands and help create 
economic development opportunities.
  The limitation leaves the AHRI program standing but robs the program, 
and the 14 rivers and 25 states included in the program, of expertise 
critical to achieving the goals of the program.
  A second effect is even more devastating. A representative of the 
NRCS happens to be co-chair of the Interagency Task Force which 
coordinates the AHRI. If the language stays in the bill, it would 
cripple the entire initiative by removing one of its current leaders.
  Rather than address the program on its merits, this funding 
limitation, another like it in at least we other appropriations bills, 
seeks to weaken the program by robbing it of crucial know-how and 
manpower.


                               conclusion

  Attempts to abolish the American Heritage Rivers Initiative are based 
on misunderstanding of the program and, in some cases, purposeful 
mischaracterizations.
  Legislation to end the program never made it to the floor and a 
lawsuit challenging the program failed.
  AHRI is fiscally and environmentally responsible, which is why it is 
so popular. This attempt to strip the program of the tools it needs to 
continue succeeding should be defeated.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, my community has been working hard to 
restore the water quality in the Willamette River. We recognized that 
the American Heritage River program would make the federal government a 
better partner in this effort and spent years working to get the 
Willamette River so designated.
  The Heritage River program has funded a river navigator who works 
full-time on behalf of our local governments and watershed groups. The 
River Navigator provides an important link between the river 
communities and the appropriate federal agencies and programs to clean 
the river. The local Heritage river communities have already dedicated 
an enormous amount of time and effort to this program without any 
additional funding, and we are committed to seeing this program develop 
to its full potential.
  I am concerned, however, that the bill as written undermines our 
efforts. The bill's restrictions on heritage funding do not represent 
the type of support that was promised when the Willamette River and her 
sister rivers were designated. Since current federal participation in 
water resource management is poorly coordinated, we should not be 
stepping back from this commitment. I urge my colleagues to join with 
me in supporting the Kelly/Kanjorski amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kelly-Kanjorski 
amendment and ask that the House support its adoption. This amendment 
recognizes that inclusion of language to prohibit funding for the 
American Rivers Heritage Initiative into the Agriculture Appropriations 
Act is short-sighted and ignores the tremendous benefits of this 
important program.
  Since its inception, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative has been 
extremely popular with communities and local government officials. 
Currently, there are over 50 communities that are included in the Upper 
Mississippi River American Heritage River Initiative. Four (4) river 
communities within my district participate in this program.
  ``River towns'' are some of our nation's oldest and have rich 
cultural, social and natural histories. In the past, many of these 
towns were forced to turn their backs on the river because the costs 
associated with redevelopment were too large and the planning process 
too cumbersome. Today, however, as a result of this initiative, people 
are returning to the river and seeking to integrate it into their daily 
lives. The communities in my district are working to invest in 
riverfront development projects that share the story of their 
communities' pasts while also stimulating much-needed economic 
development.
  With help from the ``River Navigator,'' these communities are better 
able to identify and utilize Federal programs and services that assist

[[Page 13128]]

them in meeting the objectives of natural resources and environmental 
protection, economic revitalization, and historic and cultural 
preservation.
  Mr. Chairman, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is a successful 
program and should not be eliminated as a result of the short-
sightedness, misinformation, and false allegations by those who seek 
the initiative's demise.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kelly/Kanjorski 
amendment to strike language in the Agriculture Appropriations bill 
which prohibits conservation funds included in the bill from being used 
for purposes related to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
  The Initiative was created to insure that all local efforts to 
protect rivers were coordinated and targeted. No new federal funds were 
obligated, no new regulatory authority was created, and there was no 
provision for federal land acquisition. When President Clinton created 
this Initiative, forty-six states voluntarily took part by submitting 
applications for 126 rivers to be designated as a Heritage River. 
Fourteen were selected including the Upper Susquehanna-Lackawanna River 
in PA.
  Even though the Initiative is completely voluntary, there have been 
detractors which continue to attack it. Efforts to abolish it have 
failed and a lawsuit designed to eliminate it has been dismissed. In 
this legislation there is another effort to disable this very 
successful program.
  The Agriculture Appropriations bill contains an anti-environmental 
rider which prohibits any conservation funds under the bill from being 
used for the Heritage Rivers Initiative. This would prevent the USDA 
from sharing information with other agencies to benefit all river 
communities. While there is a partial exemption for the Upper 
Susquehanna, other river communities are denied the benefits of this 
initiative.
  Today, the Schuylkill River is a key focal point for Southeastern 
Pennsylvania. A major community and economic development project is 
underway in Montgomery County bringing new attention and energy to the 
river and its surrounding communities.
  There will be hiking, biking, and equestrian trails as well as other 
recreational paths in a linear park along the riverbank. There will be 
a water trail for canoe paddlers, kayakers, fisherman and other 
boaters. There will be a fish ladder constructed at flat Rock Dam to 
make the river passable for fish with the hope of restoring the once 
plentiful American Shad to the waters upstream.
  While the Schuylkill River is not a designated Heritage River, the 
river has benefited from this initiative. The Council on Environmental 
Quality disseminates information to local communities like those in 
Southeastern Pennsylvania on how to coordinate efforts and where to 
look for federal resources.
  There are the benefits that the America Heritage River program can 
offer to all communities across the country not just the fourteen 
designated rivers. The American River Heritage Initiative is a program 
that deserves our support. Vote to strike this unfortunate anti-
environmental rider by supporting the Kelly/Kanjorski amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment, which would remove an unnecessary and counter-productive 
spending limitation from the bill.
  The spending limitation is an attempt to cripple the American 
Heritage Rivers program. Yet the benefits of this program are visible 
and real, the alleged problems are unproven and imaginary.
  The American Heritage Rivers program is voluntary, communities apply 
to win the designation. And the competition for the program is intense. 
Communities of all sizes from all regions of the country have been 
applying to the program. So unless all these communities are 
delusional, there must be a real benefit to the program.
  And there is. The program helps communities to focus on economic 
development programs along the rivers and gives them greater access to 
a wider and better coordinate assortment of federal agencies for help. 
Sounds like a good idea to me.
  What this program does not do is impose any additional regulatory 
burdens or coerce anyone into participating.
  So why would we shut down a program that localities want, that 
improves the targeting and coordination of federal programs, and that 
comes with no federal mandates? I can't think of any reason. And indeed 
there is no reason unless one believes that paranoia should prevail 
over common sense and that imaginary fears should triumph over proven, 
practical benefits.
  Let's show that common sense can prevail. Vote for the Kelly 
amendment and help communities around the country redevelop their 
riverfronts.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment which would strike the restrictive language in the 
Agriculture Appropriations bill that prevents any funds from being used 
for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI).
  This initiative has received and continues to receive unprecedented 
support from the residents in my district; including residents of the 
Connecticut River Valley, business owners, Chambers of Commerce, 
environmental leaders and local-elected officials. This initiative is 
not being forced on the American people by their government. It is and 
has always been a voluntary initiative. The community involvement is 
voluntary and they can terminate their participation at anytime.
  The people who live along the Connecticut Rivers and other Heritage 
Rivers realize the value of these great natural resources. They have 
come together with a deep resolve to not only clean up their rivers, 
but to promote economic revitalization in their communities. The 
partnership created by the residents, environmentalists and business 
owners will create a clean, healthy environment while boosting a 
thriving tourism industry.
  There has also been tremendous bipartisan support for this initiative 
within Congress. Over 200 Senators and Representatives wrote letters of 
support for one or more Heritage River applications. There should be no 
opposition to this program simply because it does not create any new 
rules or regulations for state and local governments. Furthermore, it 
does not create additional costs because funding comes from programs 
authorized for river restoration.
  The detestable language used to prevent the use of funds on any of 
the 14 Heritage Rivers is just another attack on the environment. It is 
another effort by so-called private property advocates to derail local 
initiatives.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in support of the Kelly/
Kanjorski amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill (H.R. 4661).
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                     Watershed Surveys and Planning

       For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation, 
     and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, and 
     for small watershed investigations and planning, in 
     accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 
     Act approved August 4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001-1009), 
     $10,868,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and not to exceed $110,000 shall be available for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to say a word with regard to the amendment that just passed.
  The American Heritage Rivers program is one of the proud initiatives 
of the Clinton administration. I think that as the years go by, it will 
be increasingly recognized as such. A decade from now, indeed, 100 
years from now, people will recognize that the American Heritage Rivers 
initiative coming from the Clinton administration was one of the 
important environmental initiatives, among many, that the Clinton 
administration has been responsible for. I am very proud to be a 
supporter of that initiative, and I am also very proud that New York 
contains two of the rivers that have been designated in this 
initiative, the Hudson River and the Upper Susquehanna, Lackawanna 
Rivers.
  I want to say also with regard to the amendment that just passed, 
although it is an amendment that does absolutely no harm, it is also an 
amendment that was, in fact, unnecessary, because as a result of the 
cooperation of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Committee on Appropriations, 
we were able to place language in the bill which removed any ambiguity 
whatsoever with regard to the Department of Agriculture's ability to 
fund the Upper Susquehanna and Lackawanna River and the Hudson River 
American Heritage Rivers. It is a fact that these are the only two 
rivers that are funded in any way by the Department of Agriculture. The 
other American Heritage Rivers are funded through other appropriations 
bills and are under the auspices of other agencies.

[[Page 13129]]

  So with the cooperation of our chairman, the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Skeen), we were able to take care of any problem that may 
have been foreseen to have existed with regard to these heritage 
rivers; and the language in the bill makes it clear that the Department 
of Agriculture may, in fact, and will, in fact, continue to fund the 
Hudson River navigators and the Susquehanna, Upper Susquehanna/
Lackawanna Rivers and other aspects that relate to the American 
Heritage Rivers program of these two rivers, these two rivers being the 
only two rivers that, in the American Heritage Rivers initiative, are 
funded through the Department of Agriculture and, therefore, under the 
jurisdiction of this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


               Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures, 
     including but not limited to research, engineering 
     operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of 
     vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in 
     use of land, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and 
     Flood Prevention Act approved August 4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001-
     1005 and 1007-1009), the provisions of the Act of April 27, 
     1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f ), and in accordance with the 
     provisions of laws relating to the activities of the 
     Department, $83,423,000, to remain available until expended 
     (7 U.S.C. 2209b) (of which up to $12,000,000 may be available 
     for the watersheds authorized under the Flood Control Act 
     approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701 and 16 U.S.C. 1006a)): 
     Provided, That not to exceed $44,423,000 of this 
     appropriation shall be available for technical assistance: 
     Provided further, That this appropriation shall be available 
     for employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 
     706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to 
     exceed $200,000 shall be available for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That not to exceed $1,000,000 
     of this appropriation is available to carry out the purposes 
     of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205), 
     including cooperative efforts as contemplated by that Act to 
     relocate endangered or threatened species to other suitable 
     habitats as may be necessary to expedite project 
     construction: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, of the funds available for Emergency 
     Watershed Protection activities, $1,045,000 shall be 
     available for DuPage County, Illinois for financial and 
     technical assistance: Provided further, That up to $4,170,000 
     is for the costs of loans, as authorized by the Watershed 
     Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1006a), for 
     rehabilitation of small, upstream dams built under the 
     Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. et 
     seq.), section 13 of the Act of December 22, 1944 (Public Law 
     78-534, 58 Stat. 905), and the pilot watershed program 
     authorized under the heading ``Flood Prevention'' of the 
     Department of Agriculture Appropriations Act, 1954 (Public 
     Law 83-156, 67 Stat. 214): Provided further, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided further, That none of the costs for such 
     rehabilitation activities (including any technical assistance 
     costs such as planning, design, and engineering costs) shall 
     be borne by the Department of Agriculture: Provided further, 
     That the Department may provide technical assistance for such 
     rehabilitation projects to the extent that the costs of such 
     assistance shall be reimbursed by the borrower, and such 
     reimbursements shall be deposited into the accounts that 
     incurred such costs and shall be available until expended 
     without further appropriation. In addition, for expenses 
     necessary to administer the loans, such sums as may be 
     necessary shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.


                 Resource Conservation and Development

       For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out 
     projects for resource conservation and development and for 
     sound land use pursuant to the provisions of section 32(e) of 
     title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1010-1011; 76 Stat. 607), the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 
     U.S.C. 590a-f ), and the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16 
     U.S.C. 3451-3461), $41,015,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That this appropriation 
     shall be available for employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                               TITLE III

                       RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Rural Development to administer programs 
     under the laws enacted by the Congress for the Rural Housing 
     Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the 
     Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture, 
     $588,000.


                  Rural Community Advancement Program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants, 
     as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1926a, 1926c, 1926d, and 
     1932, except for sections 381E-H, 381N, and 381O of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2009f 
     ), $775,837,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $33,150,000, shall be for rural community programs described 
     in section 381E(d)(1) of such Act; of which $668,988,000, 
     shall be for the rural utilities programs described in 
     sections 381E(d)(2), 306C(a)(2), and 306D of such Act; and of 
     which $73,699,000, shall be for the rural business and 
     cooperative development programs described in sections 
     381E(d)(3) and 310B(f) of such Act: Provided, That of the 
     total amount appropriated in this account, $12,000,000 shall 
     be for loans and grants to benefit Federally Recognized 
     Native American Tribes: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount appropriated for Federally Recognized Native American 
     Tribes, $250,000 shall be set aside and made available for a 
     grant to a qualified national organization to provide 
     technical assistance for rural transportation in order to 
     promote economic development for federally recognized tribes: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated in 
     the Rural Community Advancement Program account, $2,000,000 
     shall be for an agri-tourism program: Provided further, That 
     of the amount appropriated for rural community programs, 
     $6,000,000 shall be available for a Rural Community 
     Development Initiative: Provided further, That such funds 
     shall be used solely to develop the capacity and ability of 
     private, nonprofit community-based housing and community 
     development organizations, and low-income rural communities 
     to undertake projects to improve housing, community 
     facilities, community and economic development projects in 
     rural areas: Provided further, That such funds shall be made 
     available to qualified private and public (including tribal) 
     intermediary organizations proposing to carry out a program 
     of technical assistance: Provided further, That such 
     intermediary organizations shall provide matching funds from 
     other sources in an amount not less than funds provided: 
     Provided further, That of the amount appropriated for rural 
     community programs not to exceed $5,000,000 shall be for 
     hazardous weather early warning systems: Provided further, 
     That of the amount appropriated for the rural business and 
     cooperative development programs, not to exceed $500,000 
     shall be made available for a grant to a qualified national 
     organization to provide technical assistance for rural 
     transportation in order to promote economic development; 
     $5,000,000 shall be for rural partnership technical 
     assistance grants; $2,000,000 shall be for grants to 
     Mississippi Delta Region counties; and not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 may be for loans to firms that market and process 
     biobased products: Provided further, That of the amount 
     appropriated for rural utilities programs, not to exceed 
     $20,000,000 shall be for water and waste disposal systems to 
     benefit the Colonias along the United States/Mexico borders, 
     including grants pursuant to section 306C of such Act; not to 
     exceed $20,000,000 shall be for water and waste disposal 
     systems for rural and native villages in Alaska pursuant to 
     section 306D of such Act, of which one percent may be 
     transferred to and merged with ``Rural Development, Salaries 
     and Expenses'' to administer the program; not to exceed 
     $18,515,000 shall be for technical assistance grants for 
     rural waste systems pursuant to section 306(a)(14) of such 
     Act; and not to exceed $9,500,000 shall be for contracting 
     with qualified national organizations for a circuit rider 
     program to provide technical assistance for rural water 
     systems: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, not to exceed $42,574,650 shall be available 
     through June 30, 2001, for authorized empowerment zones and 
     enterprise communities and communities designated by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership 
     Zones; of which $30,000,000 shall be for the rural utilities 
     programs described in section 381E(d)(2) of such Act; and of 
     which $8,435,000 shall be for the rural business and 
     cooperative development programs described in section 
     381E(d)(3) of such Act.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       Page 37, line 10, insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)'' before 
     ``, to remain available''.
       Page 37, line 11, insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)'' before 
     ``, shall be for''.
       Page 38, line 3, insert ``(reduced by $2,000,000)'' before 
     ``shall''.

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts what I think is 
questionable government spending by $2 million. The money was dedicated 
to agritourism in the Rural Community Advancement Program.

[[Page 13130]]

  Now, on the television program ``20/20'' John Stossel has a segment 
at the end every time that is called ``Give Me a Break.'' I guess I 
would say to this program, give me a break. Agritourism. This program 
just does not meet the laugh test, it seems to me.
  Congress should provide real solutions for America's embattled 
farmers instead of creating wasteful spending programs. The number of 
small farms in America has fallen from over 300,000 in 1978 to 170,000 
today. Last year, 260,000 American farmers were hit by natural 
disasters, claiming $1.3 billion in damages. The number of farmers has 
dropped from 6 million in 1933 to less than 2 million today. We all 
know of the terrible drought conditions being faced this year by 
farmers in the Southeast.
  Agritourism is not a bad idea, because look what some of the examples 
are: cut your own Christmas tree, pick a pumpkin out of a pumpkin 
patch, roadside produce stands where people can meet the farmers who 
grow their food, pick and process grapes in a vineyard. All of these 
programs are a great way for American farmers to raise money. But all 
of these programs are for profit. Farmers make money on these programs. 
Why should the Federal Government subsidize them?
  Congress should not create wasteful programs that will only benefit a 
few. We need real solutions, real progress, real programs in Congress 
to help our farmers. This amendment is a good way for Congressmen to 
stand up against government waste in the agriculture appropriation 
bill, which is often known as a vehicle for pork barrel spending.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage support of this agritourism 
amendment.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the committee, I think we can all agree 
that people in rural America are going through some very hard times. 
The purpose of the agritourism program is to offer our rural 
communities another way of developing their economic potential. This 
bill supports a number of economic development programs in rural 
America. It offers loans and grants for cooperatives and small 
businesses, and it supports basic infrastructure that rural communities 
need to survive. The money for agritourism is just one more part of 
that effort.
  Mr. Chairman, this program has strong bipartisan support on the 
committee. It does not earmark the money for any particular State or 
community. All rural areas are eligible for the funding.
  I ask my colleagues for their support for economic opportunity for 
rural America and to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to identify with the remarks of 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), because this is a very modest 
amount to invest in some hope and some opportunity in an area of the 
country where people are really hurting, rural America. Family farms 
are struggling to make ends meet; and constantly, we in Washington say, 
do not come to Washington and expect us to write a blank check for all 
sorts of subsidies and everything, we are reducing those. We want you 
to diversify and come up with new opportunities so you can stay on the 
farm and yet make a decent, livable income.
  So a lot of farms are just trying to do something like this, and I 
think it makes so much sense. It is an innovative program, and I want 
to compliment the committee for addressing this program in such a 
prudent, responsible manner.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from New York. I would really like to associate myself with his remarks 
and remember that we are trying to encourage our farmers to diversify, 
to find new crops, new ways of generating income in rural America; and 
also, I will tell my colleagues as a member of the Commerce-Justice-
State subcommittee, I find it interesting that we give microloans all 
over the world; and yet we will not help our local rural communities to 
develop small businesses just like we do all across the world.
  So I would hope that while I understand the gentleman's concern from 
Colorado, I would certainly hope that this very small program, which I 
think does some good and will do some good, would be able to continue. 
I urge a no vote.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and support the 
Vermont agritourism initiative. I do so because first of all, the 
committee and the House have approved this initiative. I want to 
commend the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for his leadership on 
this. We all know what is happening to farms, especially small and 
medium-sized farms across our country.
  The name of this subcommittee is Agriculture and Rural Development, 
and this is one of those activities that falls in the area of rural 
development. For all of the other Members here who have supported this 
in the past, it is very interesting to think about some of the articles 
we read in the newspapers today, about people getting shot on the 
freeways in California. Just the stress of being on those roads every 
day and to have to commute hours a day. People are looking for relief 
from the stress of modern society. Then we read other articles about a 
place like Lancaster, Pennsylvania, which is known to have a number of 
people of Amish heritage and which also has benefited from agritourism 
over the years. There are so many visitors to Lancaster county, 7 
million visitors. It is one of the most key destinations in 
Pennsylvania for tourists. They cannot even handle it.
  The American people and visitors from abroad are looking for the 
experience that rural America can provide. We do not really have a very 
well-coordinated set of initiatives across this country to help people 
move through the rural countryside. I remember when I was traveling in 
Europe years ago and they had a whole system of bed and breakfasts, one 
could go to the main tourist bureau in the town and they would give you 
a list of where to stay. America is beginning to catch up. But we are 
far from where other countries in the world are in this regard. There 
are a few tour books. I know in Michigan I picked up one in a bookstore 
about some of the places one could visit in the State of Michigan.
  Mr. Chairman, as rural incomes decline and prices decline in terms of 
commodities, and we are going through this extremely difficult period 
in rural America right now, people in rural America are looking for 
ways to enhance their income. They are not asking for a handout, they 
are asking to use the assets they have, which include their farmland, 
their barns, their communities, their community activities, in order to 
bring in people from the outside who have extra dollars to spend and 
invest.
  So I really think agritourism is a vital element for economic growth. 
It is one of the answers for us in terms of restoring vitality to rural 
America. Really, we need to celebrate the natural wonders and 
educational opportunities that rural areas and the people there offer 
to all of us.
  Perhaps the gentleman has a good intention of trying to be fiscally 
responsible; but I think that this is not a forward-looking amendment, 
because many parts of the country, including Vermont which does not 
have the highest income in the country, that is for sure, sagging 
incomes and a very precarious rural situation, this is really part of 
the answer for the future for Vermont as well as many other places.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to commend the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders). I apologize if I have not listed all of the cosponsors 
of this proposal. I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman any 
remaining time that I might have in order to further discuss the 
gentleman's opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentlewoman.

[[Page 13131]]

  Let me just associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from 
Iowa and thank him for his support, and I thank the gentleman from New 
York and the gentlewoman from Ohio. I also want to thank the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his support of the concept of 
agritourism.
  The gentleman is aware that agritourism has worked very, very well in 
New Mexico and in many other parts of this country; and we should all 
be clear that what we are talking about now is a national program. 
Vermont is experimenting, getting into it, New Mexico is in it, Ohio is 
in it, Massachusetts, New York. But this is a national program which 
will accept competitive applications from people all over this country.
  I should say that as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 
already indicated, there is strong bipartisan support for the concept 
of agritourism and an understanding that it would really be very unfair 
to family farmers all over this country who, as the gentleman from Iowa 
pointed out, are looking for alternative sources of revenue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) has 
expired.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The point here is that as commodity prices decline, and that is true 
for dairy, it is true for many other commodities, family farmers are 
looking for alternative sources of revenue. One of the sources of 
alternative revenue that they are looking at is agritourism. What we 
are looking at here is a $2 million program that would help family 
farmers all across this country.

                              {time}  1715

  The key issue here, which is an interesting concept, is that, as the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) just said, people from cities all 
over the country go to rural areas in order to enjoy the peace and 
beauty that exists in rural areas.
  One of the reasons that the rural landscape is beautiful is because 
our family farmers keep that land open. It seems to me what we have to 
try to do is make sure that family farmers get a fair shake, get a fair 
return in terms of the agritourism money that is spent in their States; 
that it is not just the ski areas, that it is not just the fancy 
hotels, but that some of that money goes out into the rural countryside 
and helps the family farmers who need it the most.
  Let me just give a few examples of what farmers in Vermont and 
throughout this country are doing, and why we need additional help for 
family farmers to get involved in what is a growing national concept.
  Family farmers throughout this country are converting their guest 
rooms into small bed and breakfast operations. That means that on the 
weekend and maybe a few days a week they have a room available for a 
tourist to stay in.
  But in order to do that, in many instances, they might need a loan to 
convert the guest room into a bed and breakfast. They might need some 
help in learning how they can market what they are developing. It is 
not so easy for farmers suddenly to get on the Internet and to know how 
to bring guests into their home.
  Farmers are now encouraging tour buses to stop by and learn what 
family agriculture is about. But in order to be successful, they might 
need a loan or a small grant to build a restroom. If you are going to 
have a busload of people coming by, you might need a restroom there, 
improved parking facilities.
  Farmers might want to build snowmobile trails through their fields 
and woods so people can come and use the snowmobiles. It might cost a 
little money in order to maintain those trails and in order to 
advertise what they have available.
  In some instances, people who own apple orchards might want to do 
some value-added work. I know of an instance where somebody, instead of 
just doing apple picking in the fall, what they are doing is baking 
apple pies, selling them to tourists. They might need a few bucks to 
build or buy a new oven, a commercial-sized oven, and to deal with the 
health regulations in order to do it.
  The list goes on and on and on. And the gentleman from Iowa made a 
good point about we give out these microloans all over the world, and 
they are good loans, they are successful, but a few thousand, a few 
hundred dollars to a family farmer could literally make the difference, 
if that money is converted into $5,000 in additional revenue stream. It 
is the difference between whether that farm stays up or goes under.
  I happen to think that we are going to see is that agritourism is 
going to be spreading all over. It is good for the urban folks who want 
to get out and have the kids see what farming is about.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his remarks.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an environmental aspect to this because urban 
sprawl is a concept that concerns us all. One of the reasons we have 
urban sprawl is that so many family farms are so hard-pressed that they 
have no choice but to sell their land for development. That is not good 
for them, that is not good for us. It just adds to urban sprawl.
  If we have something like this, the microenterprise, small assistance 
package, we can help them and help increase the family farm income. 
That is an objective worthy of our best effort. I thank my colleague 
for yielding.
  Mr. SANDERS. Just in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, there is no argument 
that family farmers all over the country are losing their farms. This 
is a national tragedy.
  I do not claim that this $2 million is going to save the world, but I 
think what it will do is add energy to a growing concept by which 
farmers can gain the greater share of the tourist dollar that they 
deserve. Tourists come to their areas because they keep the land open.
  I would urge strong opposition to the Hefley amendment.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Most of the things that have been said I agree with. It is great to 
have farms there. That is good for the environment, there is no 
question about that. It is a matter of whether this program makes any 
difference or makes any sense. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
said this program is doing well. Great, let it do well, but why does 
the Federal government have to participate in it?
  When we talk about building bed and breakfasts, people build small 
businesses every single day without a special program like this. If 
they need help for it, if they need small business loans, we have a 
Small Business Administration. We have a small business loan program 
for that. If they need guidance in how to make a small business thrive, 
then they have small business guidance programs to train them in how to 
make a small business thrive.
  If they need to build a restroom, by gosh, the lumberyard on the 
corner that gets started, it does not have a farm loan to build its 
restroom. It figures out how to build a restroom as part of its small 
business.
  To me, Mr. Chairman, this seems to me to be the perfect example of 
the classic farming of the Federal government, rather than farming of 
the land. It just makes no sense to me at all. If people want to go 
watch people milk cows, watch corn grow, I think that is great. I think 
it is great. You have a tourism industry to do that. I do not know why 
the taxpayers of the whole Nation need to subsidize that.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, let me close by commenting on the remarks 
of our colleague, the gentleman from Colorado.

[[Page 13132]]

  As the cochairman of the Rural Caucus with my very dear friend, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), I am a little taken 
aback. It strikes me as something that is very important to say, 
because everywhere I go in rural America, it does not matter, in my 
district, which is 26 counties of very, very rural and somewhat remote 
areas, the economic prosperity that seems to be pervasive in the 
suburbs and in some of the cities is nowhere to be found.
  The Federal government reimburses our hospitals for Medicare at a 
fraction of what the cities get. We have hospitals closing right and 
left. We have folks in my district who cannot get local TV, who cannot 
get cable TV, who have no means by which to find out what happens in an 
emergency. Education funds are lacking, infrastructure funds are 
lacking.
  Everything that we want to do to preserve our heritage, to preserve 
the very heart and soul of the country, is what my colleagues are all 
talking about.
  I would ask our colleagues to please make sure that we defeat the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a word about the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Colorado, because I think that it is important that 
the full dimensions of the effect of his amendment be more clearly 
understood by the Members of the House.
  One of the strengths of American agriculture is its diversity. We 
grow enormous amounts of food and fiber in this country. We do it in 
very diverse ways under very diverse circumstances. I suppose that some 
people living on the edge of the Great Plains may not have an 
appreciation for the small farms that exist in other parts of the 
country.
  The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) told us quite a bit about 
the circumstances of family farming in Vermont. Those circumstances are 
very similar to those that exist in New York and other places in New 
England and in the central States, as well; I think on the West Coast, 
in many instances, also, as well as many parts of the South. As we have 
heard from some of our colleagues, that occurs in the Midwest, also.
  In many areas, particularly in areas where farmers are trying to 
survive on the edge of metropolitan centers, there is great pressure 
coming out of those metropolitan centers for the land on which 
agriculture now is carried out.
  We have a great interest in this country, I think, in keeping that 
land in agriculture and supporting those farmers who live near 
metropolitan centers and doing everything we can to help them continue 
in agriculture. That is, first of all, because the products that they 
produce are important to us. The food and fiber that comes out of those 
farms is important to those metropolitan areas and to other places all 
across the country. So we have an interest in keeping those farms 
viable, successful, economically strong, allowing those family farms to 
make a living and helping them to do so.
  We perform in a variety of ways here in this Congress to support 
agriculture. Just earlier this year we provided $5.5 billion, $5.5 
billion in supplemental crop payments for farmers who needed assistance 
in the Great Plains and elsewhere.
  I live far away from the Great Plains, but I understand the problems 
of agriculture in the Great Plains. I supported that $5.5 billion of 
supplemental payments and crop insurance in that bill. I did so because 
I have an appreciation for the problems that those farmers are facing 
out in the Great Plains and elsewhere who would benefit from that kind 
of support from the Federal government.
  The Federal government has a strong and long history of providing 
support for agriculture here in the United States. That I think is 
appropriate, and we should continue to do so.
  What we are asking for here today, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) and myself and the others who sponsor this small amount of 
money in the agriculture appropriations bill, is simply this, a 
recognition of the kind of circumstances under which agriculture on 
small farms, in orchards, in vegetable farms, in vineyards and other 
similar circumstances around the country, have to operate in order to 
survive.
  Agricultural tourism is increasingly becoming a very important part 
of that, a very important part of their economics, the economics that 
allows them to continue operating their farms, feeding their families, 
providing the produce from those farms that are so highly valued by the 
other Americans who consume them.
  This is an important program. Yes, it is relatively new, but it is 
very important. I hope that the vast majority of the Members of this 
House will join all of the rest of us who have spoken on this bill this 
afternoon in showing that we appreciate agriculture in its great 
diversity. We appreciate the small vegetable farms, we appreciate the 
orchards that grow apples and other fruits. We appreciate the vineyards 
that grow vines for the production of wine and other agricultural 
products from those vines.
  We want to do what we can to sustain those farmers in agriculture; 
keep that land out of other less appropriate, less environmentally 
sound, less ecologically healthy development, keep it in agriculture.
  The way to do that in large measure, Mr. Chairman, is by supporting 
agricultural tourism and this small amount of money that is asked for 
in this appropriations bill.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the concept of the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) in the bill. I think the idea of agritourism is 
essential to a changing agricultural landscape in my State.
  When people think of New York State, they do not necessarily think of 
agriculture. I remember when I first came down here as a candidate, I 
went to see Frank Horton, who was then the dean of the New York 
delegation. I sat down and we talked. He said, if you get elected, what 
committee do you want to be on? I said, I want to be on Agriculture. He 
said, Well, we will do the best we can, but it is a very competitive 
situation. The first thing you have to do is get elected. So I was 
elected. Little did I know that he was just dying to get somebody from 
New York on Agriculture.
  Again, New York State's number one industry is agriculture, but it is 
a changing scene. The dairy farms that are spread across New York, as 
they are across most of the northern tier of the country, are 
relatively small: a lot of woodlots and streams and rivers and gullies. 
A lot of it is not suitable to large-scale agriculture, so dairy farms 
are what have been what populates it.
  But what the farmers are doing, because the prices are difficult in 
dairy, they are trying to diversify. They want to stay on the land. 
They want their children to stay on the land, so they try to find other 
ideas.
  There is one farmer in my district in upstate New York near Syracuse 
who turned a corn lot into a maze; planted the corn according to a map 
and planted it in the form of a maze, and advertised. He made ten times 
as much money on that small plot, several acres, ten times as much 
money on that acreage as he did prior when he was just planting corn.

                              {time}  1730

  There are vegetable farms and truck farms, fruit farms all around 
central New York that encourage the city dwellers to come out from 
Syracuse, Albany, even the folks who come from New York City. And you 
can always tell them. They have a dress shirt on opened at the top with 
a T-shirt, black pants and black shoes. We love to see them come; they 
usually have lots of money in their wallet. And they love to come 
upstate and see us rubes, and we like to take their money.
  One of the ways we can do that is by supporting agritourism. It is an 
opportunity for our small family farmers to stay on the land, to make 
some money,

[[Page 13133]]

and improve their lot. And nobody husbands that land better than those 
farmers; nobody takes care of that land better than those farmers. They 
are protecting the environment. They are keeping the streams clean. 
They are rotating their crops properly. They are working the wood lots. 
But they need this extra incentive to provide them the ability, the 
cash income. Think of it as a new cash crop to sustain their 
livelihood.
  So I strongly support the gentleman's idea. I hope we would reject 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). I 
know he feels strongly about rural development, but I would say to the 
gentleman we have a lot of rural areas in upstate New York. But this is 
true rural development for us.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley amendment 
that eliminates the bill's funding for USDA's Agri-Tourism program.
  In the last twenty years, my state of Wisconsin has lost over one 
half of its dairy farms--decreasing from 46,000 in 1980 to less than 
21,000 today. At the same time, the average age of the Wisconsin dairy 
farm has increased to 58 years. The family dairy farm is struggling 
with many pressures; unstable commodity pricing, unpredictable trade 
policies, and the growing pressures of sprawl.
  Adapting to change and taking advantage of emerging traveler 
interests in agriculture and rural places is a wonderful opportunity 
for Wisconsin's farms and rural communities. Wisconsin's natural 
scenery of rolling hills, bluffs, coulees, valleys, lakes, and rivers 
are tourist destinations for many outside visitors. In addition, it is 
often times important to families that they are able see cows, pigs, 
goats, and sheep in their natural settings instead of in picture books 
and on television. Many visitors have never been on a farm and seek bed 
and breakfasts that are in rural farming communities. Unfortunately, 
there currently is little effort to link our family farmers with 
tourists.
  For these reason, programs such as USDA's Agri-Tourism provide 
important steps in linking tourists with farming communities. In 
addition to providing important recreational opportunities for 
tourists, agri-tourism can provide needed financial assistance to our 
farm families. It would be short-sighted for Congress to eliminate this 
important program.
  I urge my opponents to oppose this misguided amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. 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.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         Rural Housing Service


              Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing 
     Act of 1949, to be available from funds in the rural housing 
     insurance fund, as follows: $4,800,000,000 for loans to 
     section 502 borrowers, as determined by the Secretary, of 
     which $3,700,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed 
     loans; $32,396,000 for section 504 housing repair loans; 
     $100,000,000 for section 538 guaranteed multi-family housing 
     loans; $114,321,000 for section 515 rental housing; 
     $5,000,000 for section 524 site loans; $16,780,000 for credit 
     sales of acquired property, of which up to $1,780,000 may be 
     for multi-family credit sales; and $5,000,000 for section 523 
     self-help housing land development loans.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Clayton

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

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Clayton:
       Page 40, line 23, before the period insert the following:
       : Provided, That of the total amount made available for 
     loans to section 502 borrowers, up to $5,400,000 shall be 
     available for use under a demonstration program to be carried 
     out by the Secretary of Agriculture in North Carolina to 
     determine the timeliness, quality, suitability, efficiency, 
     and cost of utilizing modular housing to re-house low- and 
     very low-income elderly families who (1) have lost their 
     housing because of a major disaster (as so declared by the 
     President pursuant to The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act), and (2)(A) do not have 
     homeowner's insurance, or (B) can not repay a direct loan 
     that is provided under section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949 
     with the maximum subsidy allowed for such loans: Provided 
     further, That, of the amounts made available for such 
     demonstration program, $5,000,000 shall be for grants and 
     $400,000 shall be for the cost (as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) of loans, for such 
     families to acquire modular housing.

  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not require any new 
spending, but it can provide new hope. More than 8 months ago, 
Hurricane Floyd struck eastern North Carolina and left a path of death 
and destruction that was unprecedented in the history of our State. 
Millions of our citizens were affected; 60,000 homes were left in 
disrepair; 11,000 homes were completely destroyed.
  Since that time, thousands have been left in a state of virtual 
homelessness. Many have moved in with their relatives and friends; 
others have been placed in temporary housing.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues may recall The Washington Post article 
which described the typical day of these families who have found 
themselves without a home. They may recall that there was a young girl 
living in a trailer park near Tarboro, North Carolina, who was forced 
to do her homework outside in the snow because a trailer housing six 
family members was too crowded and stuffy.
  Many of those families are still in trailers, trailers that did not 
provide sufficient warmth in the winter, trailers that must be 
unbearable as we face drought-producing heat this summer.
  Imagine, Mr. Chairman, having to do without those things that we take 
for granted: the ease of transportation, the pleasure of recreation, 
the convenience of communication. For many of the flood victims in 
North Carolina, those things are incidental to us, but they are a 
luxury to them. That is because they have no permanent place to live; 
no expectation of a permanent place to live in the future.
  This amendment will not require any new spending, but it will provide 
new hope. It does not require any new spending because it makes use of 
the funds already available through the Department of Agriculture for 
housing. It provides new hope because, through a pilot demonstration 
program, it will provide the use of modular housing to rehouse low- and 
very low-income elderly families who have lost their homes because of a 
major disaster.
  Mr. Chairman, what is modular housing? Modular housing is no 
different from site-built housing. Modular housing is highly 
engineered; however, it is built offsite and then moved on-site. In the 
end, a modular house looks no different than a site-built home. Modular 
housing can be constructed very quickly and affordably. Modular housing 
can be constructed in less than a month in some times. Site-built homes 
take at least 3 months.
  The reasonable cost of a modular house is as low as $45,000. On the 
other hand, a reasonable cost for a comparable site-built house would 
be at least $100,000 or more. Modular housing is of equal and sometimes 
even better quality than site-built housing.
  At the end of this demonstration project, we will be able to 
determine the timeliness, the quality, the suitability, the efficiency, 
and the cost of utilizing modular housing in disaster-affected areas.
  In April, this House passed H.R. 1776 by a vote of 417 to 8. Title XI 
of that bill contains the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act. Under 
that act, every State is required to have a comprehensive installation 
program within 5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, modular housing is the wave of the future. But for the 
flood victims in eastern North Carolina, it is a hope for the present. 
Eastern North Carolina is in crisis. The destruction has been enormous. 
The needs are great. The situation is urgent.
  This amendment will not solve every problem for all in North Carolina 
as a result of the flooding, but it will help to normalize the housing 
situation for some of our elderly citizens. More importantly, it 
provides hope and it will

[[Page 13134]]

indeed provide the housing that thousands of our citizens need. I urge 
the acceptance of this amendment.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for her 
interest in rural housing and her continued strong support for rural 
development programs. And on behalf of the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Chairman Skeen), our side will accept this amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham) and the majority, along with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen), chairman of the subcommittee, for accepting this very worthy 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Clayton).
  I cannot think of another Member who comes up to me as much as the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina does to carry the plight of those from 
North Carolina who have been suffering from this hurricane, from 
floods, from low prices. We need more Members like the gentlewoman in 
this Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the people of North Carolina who sent 
her here, they have really gotten their money's worth. This woman works 
every day, 24 hours a day for her constituents and for this country. 
And this particular initiative to try to provide modular housing to 
people who have been very damaged by disasters in North Carolina is but 
another example of the kind of work that she does here.
  So my compliments to the gentlewoman for her leadership and her 
absolute devotion to her State and to her people. And I think that this 
amendment offers an innovative way to help people who have lost their 
homes through no fault of their own. And without question, it is the 
responsibility of the people of the United States to help our fellow 
brothers and sisters around this country who are trying to live under 
the weight of natural disasters over which they have had no control.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for her real leadership 
coming to this committee, both sides of the aisle, and crafting a very 
worthy amendment like this. She obviously has the support of both sides 
of the aisle. I extend to her my congratulations.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because, as my 
colleagues are probably aware, last fall Hurricane Floyd left a 
devastating path of destruction in my State of North Carolina. In the 
days and the months afterwards, thousands of families spent endless 
nights in temporary shelters.
  The sad reality is that many of these families are still living in 
those same temporary shelters, and they have no reason to believe that 
they are ever going to get a permanent home. Unfortunately, the elderly 
are more likely to never leave these temporary homes which tend to be 
dirty, overcrowded and insufficient. These unbearable conditions harm 
seniors' well-being and health, and there is very little they can do to 
change their situation.
  But, Mr. Chairman, this amendment could change all of that. It is 
aimed at helping those low-income elderly families in North Carolina 
who are facing this crisis; and it will allow, through this pilot 
program, the use of modular housing for these low-income seniors who 
lost their homes and their livelihoods during Hurricane Floyd.
  The good news is the modular homes can be assembled quickly and they 
are extremely low cost, compared to building a regular site-built home. 
And further, the amendment requires no new spending, but will go 
extremely far in helping these victims of this natural disaster.
  This amendment is going to be a good first step toward the goal of 
helping all low-income seniors nationwide who are left homeless after 
any major natural disaster. I urge support of this amendment in order 
to help this urgent situation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), my good friend and a friend of rural America 
who does a wonderful job.
  The Rural Development section of this bill includes language 
concerning a region of importance not only to the State, but certainly 
to the county of Tillamook County. In 1996, floods wiped out the rail 
link from Tillamook County to the largest population center in 
Portland, which is 75 miles away.
  Last year, Congress provided $5 million from Rural Development to 
reimburse the port for money that they already spent for the 1996 
floods, as well as to make improvements to the rail right-of-way that 
also serves as Alaska's fiber optic corridor to the lower 48 States.
  I am currently working with USDA to ensure that the entire $5 million 
is released to the port. Next year, a diverse route will be constructed 
from Nedonna Beach terminal along 20 miles of railroad right-of-way 
south of Tillamook, and then east along Highway 6 to Portland.
  This section of rail bed was not included in the portion repaired 
following the 1996 floods and needs immediate upgrades to reduce the 
risk of service interruption for all users.
  The Port of Tillamook Bay needs $3 million from Rural Development to 
upgrade the railroad infrastructure and protect the fiber optic 
telecommunication network. Now, not only does this corridor serve 
Alaska, but it also serves as a landing for MCI WorldCom's Southern 
Cross that crosses the Pacific from Australia. There will be two more 
cable landings next year. Within a short time, Tillamook's 
communication corridor has become a strategic location for the 
telecommunication world.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to create a diverse route, a redundant loop, to 
make sure that we guarantee connectivity; and I ask for the committee's 
assistance in securing this badly needed funding from USDA.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this 
important economic project to our attention. The committee in our 
report identified this project as one that should be given special 
consideration by the Department, and I am certainly willing and 
prepared to work with the gentlewoman to be certain the Department is 
supportive of this very worthy project.

                              {time}  1745

  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
leadership and her commitment to Tillamook County.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the committee for accepting the 
amendment pertaining to the American Heritage River Initiative. I want 
to add my support because it is very important initiative. It is an 
initiative that put decision making in the hands of local officials. It 
is an initiative that requires no new funding and no new mandate. This 
is the kind of partnership that we should encourage, not discourage.
  The St. Johns River is an American Heritage River because of the 
grassroots efforts of Republican and Democratic mayors, city council 
people, and other people throughout the river community. From 
Jacksonville to Orlando, there is overwhelming support for this 
designation. This initiative is a great example of how government 
should work.
  We should encourage our Federal agencies to work together and target 
the kinds of resources available to these river communities.
  Florida's St. Johns River runs through the middle of Jacksonville and 
spans 325 miles of the third district. Republican Mayors John Delaney 
of

[[Page 13135]]

Jacksonville and Glenda Hood of Orlando supported this designation and 
have formed advisory committees to set priorities for the river.
  Later today I plan to submit a newspaper article to the Record that 
ran in the Daytona Beach News-Journal last week. In this article, the 
reporter talks about how the local officials in Volusia County want the 
politicians in Washington to stop interfering with their plans.
  ``This is a real grassroots, community-driven program that is working 
to bring awareness to the designated rivers,'' said Pat Northey, 
Volusia Council member and chair of the river task force for Orange, 
Seminole, and Volusia County.
  She says that the river has already benefited from this designation 
by giving a small grant to mark the historical elements. This is just 
one of the many benefits. In Jacksonville, the community has come 
together behind a plan called the Preservation Project, which would 
help preserve the sensitive ecosystem in north Florida.
  In a letter from Jacksonville Mayor John Delaney, he says ``This 
program has enabled cities and counties in the St. Johns River Basin to 
identify priority projects and align the projects with existing Federal 
funding sources. Because of this designation, local governments along 
the river have worked cooperatively toward the goal of restoring the 
river and improving their communities.''
  Mayor Delaney said that, with restricted language, the City of 
Jacksonville may be limited from obtaining these funds on a competitive 
basis because Federal agencies would be reluctant to fund any project, 
regardless of the merit, that could be associated with the Heritage 
River designation.
  He goes on to say that the effect of these riders would punish areas 
like north Florida for trying to improve the river and surrounding 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment was supported by all of the local 
mayors, city council members, and I am very happy that this committee 
uses common sense in supporting this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: section 502 
     loans, $184,160,000 of which $7,400,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans; section 504 housing repair 
     loans, $11,481,000; section 538 multi-family housing 
     guaranteed loans, $1,520,000; section 515 rental housing, 
     $56,326,000; multi-family credit sales of acquired property, 
     $874,000; and section 523 self-help housing land development 
     loans, $279,000: Provided, That of the total amount 
     appropriated in this paragraph, $11,180,000 shall be 
     available through June 30, 2001, for authorized empowerment 
     zones and enterprise communities and communities designated 
     by the Secretary of Agriculture as Rural Economic Area 
     Partnership Zones.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $375,879,000, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.


                       Rental Assistance Program

       For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed 
     pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or 
     agreements entered into in lieu of debt forgiveness or 
     payments for eligible households as authorized by section 
     502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, $655,900,000; and, 
     in addition, such sums as may be necessary, as authorized by 
     section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt incurred prior 
     to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the rental assistance 
     program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act: Provided, That of 
     this amount, not more than $5,900,000 shall be available for 
     debt forgiveness or payments for eligible households as 
     authorized by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, and not to 
     exceed $10,000 per project for advances to nonprofit 
     organizations or public agencies to cover direct costs (other 
     than purchase price) incurred in purchasing projects pursuant 
     to section 502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: Provided further, That 
     agreements entered into or renewed during the current fiscal 
     year shall be funded for a 5-year period, although the life 
     of any such agreement may be extended to fully utilize 
     amounts obligated.


                  Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A) 
     of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $28,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b) of which 
     $1,000,000 shall be available through June 30, 2001, for 
     authorized empowerment zones and enterprise communities and 
     communities designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as 
     Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.


                    Rural Housing Assistance Grants

       For grants and contracts for very low-income housing 
     repair, supervisory and technical assistance, compensation 
     for construction defects, and rural housing preservation made 
     by the Rural Housing Service, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 
     1474, 1479(c), 1490e, and 1490m, $39,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, $1,200,000 shall be available through June 30, 
     2001, for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities and communities designated by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.


                       Farm Labor Program Account

       For the cost of direct loans, grants, and contracts, as 
     authorized by 42 U.S.C. 1484 and 1486, $27,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended for direct farm labor housing loans 
     and domestic farm labor housing grants and contracts. In 
     addition, for grants to assist low-income migrant and 
     seasonal farmworkers, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 5177a, 
     $3,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                           RURAL DEVELOPMENT

                         Salaries and Expenses


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of administering Rural Development 
     programs authorized by the Rural Electrification Act of 1936; 
     the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act; title V of 
     the Housing Act of 1949; section 1323 of the Food Security 
     Act of 1985; the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926; for 
     activities related to marketing aspects of cooperatives, 
     including economic research findings, authorized by the 
     Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946; for activities with 
     institutions concerning the development and operation of 
     agricultural cooperatives: $120,270,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $1,000,000 may be 
     used for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, 
     That not more than $10,000 may be expended to provide modest 
     nonmonetary awards to non-USDA employees: Provided further, 
     That any balances available for the Rural Utilities Service, 
     the Rural Housing Service, and the Rural Business-Cooperative 
     Service salaries and expenses accounts shall be transferred 
     to and merged with this account.

                   Rural Business-Cooperative Service

              Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, $19,476,000, as authorized by 
     the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)): 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for 
     the principal amount of direct loans of $38,256,000: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount appropriated, $3,216,000 
     shall be available through June 30, 2001, for the cost of 
     direct loans for authorized empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities and communities designated by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture as Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan programs, $3,337,000 shall be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for ``Rural Development, 
     Salaries and Expenses''.


            Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized 
     under section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act, for the 
     purpose of promoting rural economic development and job 
     creation projects, $15,000,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of 
     modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $3,911,000.
       Of the funds derived from interest on the cushion of credit 
     payments in fiscal year 2001, as authorized by section 313 of 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, $3,911,000 shall not 
     be obligated and $3,911,000 are rescinded.


                  Rural Cooperative Development Grants

       For rural cooperative development grants authorized under 
     section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932), $6,500,000, of which 
     $2,000,000 shall be available for cooperative agreements for 
     the appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program.


       National Sheep Industry Improvement Center Revolving Fund

       For the National Sheep Industry Improvement Center 
     Revolving Fund authorized under section 375 of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended (7 
     U.S.C. 2008j), $5,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

[[Page 13136]]



                        Rural Utilities Service


   Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935) shall be 
     made as follows: 5 percent rural electrification loans, 
     $50,000,000; 5 percent rural telecommunications loans, 
     $75,000,000; cost of money rural telecommunications loans, 
     $300,000,000; municipal rate rural electric loans, 
     $295,000,000; and loans made pursuant to section 306 of that 
     Act, rural electric, $1,200,000,000 and rural 
     telecommunications, $120,000,000.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935 and 936), 
     as follows: cost of rural electric loans, $25,500,000, and 
     the cost of telecommunication loans, $7,770,000: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding section 305(d)(2) of the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, borrower interest rates may 
     exceed 7 percent per year.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $31,046,000, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Development, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.


                  Rural Telephone Bank Program Account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       The Rural Telephone Bank is hereby authorized to make such 
     expenditures, within the limits of funds available to such 
     corporation in accord with law, and to make such contracts 
     and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as may be necessary in carrying out its authorized 
     programs. During fiscal year 2001 and within the resources 
     and authority available, gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans shall be $175,000,000.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct loans authorized by the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 935), $2,590,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses, including audits, 
     necessary to carry out the loan programs, $3,000,000, which 
     shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``Rural Development, Salaries and Expenses''.


               Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program

       For the cost of direct loans and grants, as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 950aaa et seq., $18,100,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to be available for loans and grants for 
     telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas; 
     in addition, for the cost of direct loans and grants, for a 
     pilot program to finance broadband transmission and local 
     dial-up Internet service $1,400,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That the definition of ``rural 
     area'' contained in section 203(b) of the Rural 
     Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 924(b)) shall be applicable in 
     carrying out this pilot program: Provided further, That the 
     cost of direct loans shall be as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

                                TITLE IV

                         DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and 
     Nutrition Service, $554,000.

                       Food and Nutrition Service


                        Child Nutrition Programs

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), except section 21, and 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1771 et seq.), 
     except sections 17 and 21; $9,535,039,000, to remain 
     available through September 30, 2002, of which $4,407,460,000 
     is hereby appropriated and $5,127,579,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from funds available under section 32 of the Act of 
     August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c): Provided, That, except as 
     specifically provided under this heading, none of the funds 
     made available under this heading shall be used for studies 
     and evaluations: Provided further, That of any funds made 
     available under this heading by transfer from the Special 
     Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
     Children (WIC), up to $6,000,000 shall be for school 
     breakfast pilot projects, including the evaluation required 
     under section 18(e) of the National School Lunch Act: 
     Provided further, That up to $4,511,000 shall be available 
     for independent verification of school food service claims.


Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
                                 (WIC)

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the special 
     supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), 
     $4,067,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     2001: Provided, That none of the funds made available under 
     this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount available, the 
     Secretary shall obligate $10,000,000 for the farmers' market 
     nutrition program within 45 days of the enactment of this 
     Act, and an additional $5,000,000 for the farmers' market 
     nutrition program from any funds not needed to maintain 
     current caseload levels: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 17(h)(10)(A) of such Act, up to 
     $14,000,000 shall be available for the purposes specified in 
     section 17(h)(10)(B), no less than $6,000,000 of which shall 
     be used for the development of electronic benefit transfer 
     systems: Provided further, That once the amount for fiscal 
     year 2000 carryover funds has been determined by the 
     Secretary, any funds in excess of $100,000,000 may be 
     transferred and made available as follows: $6,000,000 to 
     programs under the heading ``child nutrition programs'', 
     $5,000,000 to programs under the heading ``commodity 
     assistance program'', and $10,000,000 to programs under the 
     heading ``food donations program'': Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act shall be available to pay 
     administrative expenses of WIC clinics except those that have 
     an announced policy of prohibiting smoking within the space 
     used to carry out the program: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds provided in this account shall be available for the 
     purchase of infant formula except in accordance with the cost 
     containment and competitive bidding requirements specified in 
     section 17 of such Act: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds provided shall be available for activities that are not 
     fully reimbursed by other Federal Government departments or 
     agencies unless authorized by section 17 of such Act.


                           Food Stamp Program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $21,231,993,000, of which $100,000,000 
     shall be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts and 
     at such times as may become necessary to carry out program 
     operations: Provided, That none of the funds made available 
     under this heading shall be used for studies and evaluations: 
     Provided further, That funds provided herein shall be 
     expended in accordance with section 16 of the Food Stamp Act: 
     Provided further, That this appropriation shall be subject to 
     any work registration or workfare requirements as may be 
     required by law: Provided further, That not more than 
     $194,000,000 may be reserved by the Secretary, 
     notwithstanding section 16(h)(1)(A)(vi) of the Food Stamp Act 
     of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2025(h)(1)(A)(vi)), for allocation to State 
     agencies under section 16(h)(1) of such Act to carry out 
     Employment and Training programs: Provided further, That 
     funds made available for Employment and Training under this 
     heading shall remain available until expended, as authorized 
     by section 16(h)(1) of the Food Stamp Act.


                      Commodity Assistance Program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the commodity 
     supplemental food program as authorized by section 4(a) of 
     the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 
     612c note) and the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, 
     $138,300,000, to remain available through September 30, 2002: 
     Provided, That none of these funds shall be available to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities 
     donated to the program: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 5(a)(2) of the Agriculture and 
     Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-86; 7 U.S.C. 
     612c note), $20,781,000 of this amount shall be available for 
     administrative expenses of the commodity supplemental food 
     program.


                        Food Donations Programs

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 4(a) of the 
     Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973; special 
     assistance for the nuclear affected islands as authorized by 
     section 103(h)(2) of the Compacts of Free Association Act of 
     1985, as amended; and section 311 of the Older Americans Act 
     of 1965, $141,081,000, to remain available through September 
     30, 2002.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Stupak

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

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Stupak:
       Page 53, line 9, insert ``(increased by $20,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       Page 56, line 13, insert ``(reduced by $30,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this important 
bipartisan amendment with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). 
Our amendment adds $20 million to the USDA's nutrition programs for the 
elderly meal reimbursement programs; in other words, senior center 
meals and Meals on Wheels, and offsets this additional spending by 
reducing international commodity aid. I wish there were some other 
offset that we could look to, but this was the most logical offset.
  Our amendment has the support of the Meals on Wheels Association of

[[Page 13137]]

America, the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services 
Programs, the TREA Senior Citizens League, the National Council of 
Senior Citizens, and the National Association of State Units on Aging.
  I am sure that all the Members have met and spoken with seniors in 
their districts, and they have told my colleagues how much they depend 
on the senior meal assistance that they receive, be it Meals on Wheels 
or meals at the senior centers.
  Senior meal providers receive funding for the meals through three 
avenues, private donations, Department of Health and Human Services, 
and USDA meal reimbursements.
  Let me explain why the funding increase to the USDA reimbursements is 
so necessary. Unlike funding from HHS, which is channeled to the States 
and local providers based on certain formulas, our amendment here 
through the USDA reimbursements go directly to every senior meal 
provider for every meal that they prepare.
  This amendment is the best way and it is the only way to ensure that 
there is direct and immediate aid to senior meal providers and the 
seniors they serve.
  Every senior, every meal provider in every district in every city, in 
every town will get their money, whether they are up in Calumet in the 
Keewanaw Peninsula or in Traverse City or Alpena in the Lower 
Peninsula, which makes up my district.
  Why do we need this money? Why does this amendment go above the 
President's request.
  The funding for USDA reimbursements has remained fairly constant 
since 1992. But look at what has happened since 1992 as this chart 
demonstrates. The amounts, when translated into today's dollars, have 
steadily been dropping due to inflation. For example, in fiscal year 
2000, we allocated $140 million. In fiscal year 1992, we allocated $151 
million. But in real dollars, what has happened since 1992, it has gone 
down. We have lost $40 million from this program in real dollars. It 
used to be 62 cents they would get for every meal. It is now down to 54 
cents. Funding has stayed constant, but the rate of inflation and 
everything else to prepare those meals have gone up. I do not know how 
they can do it, but they manage to get by right now at 54 cents per 
meal.
  It is for this reason that the senior meals across the country are 
suffering, from 62 cents to 54 cents. Pennies per meal but, nationwide, 
it has effects of millions of millions of meals. If we pass the Stupak-
Boehlert amendment, we will go from 54 cents up to 57 cents. We can 
stop this downhill spiral that we have been on.
  Our amendment will allow reimbursements to finally increase. It may 
only be 3 cents, but it means a lot to our seniors. I offer this 
amendment because, like all of my colleagues, I go to senior centers, I 
talk to my seniors, I talk to my senior meal providers.
  Bill Dubord and Sally Kidd of the Community Action Agency in 
Excanaba, Michigan, they told me their agency is having a tougher and 
tougher time just trying to keep their head above water to provide 
their seniors meals. I am sure many of my colleagues have heard the 
same stories and hardships when they go home.
  The bottom line is this, our senior meal providers need more money to 
provide senior meals. An increase in USDA reimbursements will give them 
more money, from 54 cents to 57 cents. They will be able to provide 
more meals. More meals mean more help for the seniors. It is really 
that simple.
  Now, again, to pay for this amendment, we have taken less than 3 
percent from an $800 million program, the international commodity aid. 
I fully recognize the legitimate need for these funds by people of 
other nations, but before we provide to needy persons in other 
countries, let us ensure that our own seniors are provided for and 
protected.
  When my colleagues are casting their vote, I hope all the Members 
will think of the seniors they have met back home, the senior meal 
providers they have spoken with. Cast a vote for them and support the 
Stupak-Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  I am sure that the amendment was offered with good intentions, but, 
Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, not a single additional meal 
would be served to anyone. Allow me to explain why.
  The USDA role in this program is to supplement the Department of 
Health and Human Services with cash and commodities on a per-meal basis 
for each meal served to an elderly person. The amount reimbursed at the 
current year level is about 54 cents per meal for 259 million meals. 
There was an increase of $10 million in the budget request for an 
additional 20 million meals to be served.
  This bill contains language that allows the Department of Agriculture 
to transfer $10 million out of excess WIC carryover funds, that is 
money that the WIC program cannot spend, and to allow the reimbursement 
of 54 cents to be maintained in fiscal year 2001. If we add $20 million 
to this account, as this amendment seeks to do, all we will be doing is 
increasing the reimbursement per meal from 54 cents to about 57 cents. 
But HHS will still serve the same number of meals. Furthermore, the 
corresponding budget request from HHS did not request an increase in 
their budget.
  Now, the gentleman's amendment seeks to cut $30 million out of the 
P.L. 480, Title II program. Some may take this amendment to mean that 
the choice we are being asked to make is between a domestic feeding 
program versus an international feeding program. Just for the 
information of my colleagues, the commodities shipped abroad through 
the P.L. 480 program are grown all across America, such as wheat from 
Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, Washington, Iowa, and Texas; rice from 
Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi and California; dried beans and peas 
and lentils from Michigan, Montana, and Idaho; and other commodities 
like feed grains, vegetable oil and corn and soy meal. This amendment 
would cut funds to purchase these commodities and would hurt farmers 
who are already financially strapped.

                              {time}  1800

  In addition, this cut would reduce the amount of funds to private 
voluntary organizations that help to oversee this program to ensure 
that food gets to where it is needed most, and this amendment would 
also cut funds to shipping companies that transport these commodities.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman's intent is, but this 
amendment does not do what the gentleman intends, and I oppose the 
amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very reluctant opposition to this amendment, 
mainly because of the offset and not because of the worthiness of the 
gentleman's objective here in trying to lessen the burden on seniors 
who participate in our elderly feeding programs.
  I have to say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) that I have 
the highest regard for him and for his trying to be a voice here so 
ably for all the seniors of our country and their nutrition needs. But 
for the record I do want to point out that our subcommittee, under 
great strain, was able to meet the administration's request for all 
feeding programs, including the elderly feeding program. And, in fact, 
because we were able to transfer funds, $10 million from other 
accounts, we were able to increase the amount of funds available in 
this account from $141 million that is being spent this year to $151 
million next year. So that is an increase, and that would help tick up 
the amount of funds available across our country.
  Since 1993, the program that the gentleman wants to take the money 
from, the PL-480 program, has been cut by nearly half, and for this 
coming fiscal year, even in the bill we are presenting today, we are 
$37 million below the administration's request in an account that has 
been reduced by 42 percent over the decade of the 1990s. So I would beg 
of the gentleman to find another offset.

[[Page 13138]]

  I think I sort of feel he is doing half right and half wrong here. 
Because with the crisis we have in rural America, one of the ways that 
we are able to help is to use the PL-480 program, as underfunded as it 
is, to move these commodities around the world. We are certainly moving 
commodities around our country to our feeding kitchens, to our pantries 
around the Nation, and through our humanitarian programs; but to take 
the money from this account really is almost like taking the money from 
programs that feed starving people and putting it into programs for 
those who are participating in nutrition programs here in our country 
that will be funded at the administration's request.
  So I am very torn by the gentleman's amendment. I would only 
encourage him to, as we move toward conference, to work with us on the 
subcommittee to see if we cannot find other offsets for the gentleman's 
very worthy request. I would also mention that his amendment might 
result in increasing the reimbursement rates for senior meals from 54 
cents to 57 cents. While local program operators might have legitimate 
expenses, I guess one could question the real value of this amendment 
in terms of actual dollars that would be available at the various 
feeding sites.
  So, please, recognize our objection to this is stated very 
reluctantly only because of the account that it is being taken from, 
which is not only underfunded for this next year, and does not meet the 
administration request, but which has been cut by 42 percent since 
1993. I would just encourage the author to seriously look at other 
offsets.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from 
Michigan, and like the gentleman was talking about, I, too, visit a lot 
of senior citizen centers. And also one complicating factor is that my 
mother attends these on a regular basis, so it becomes quite personal. 
But I would really like to associate myself with the words of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio, and her point is exactly right.
  In the bill this year we do have the flexibility to increase funding 
for this program by $10 million, which fully funds the President's 
request for this program. And I think everyone in the House is in full 
agreement that we need to fund the seniors' feeding programs to the 
full amount. I think we have done that in the bill. And like the 
gentlewoman from Ohio, my big problem is that we are taking funds out 
of an account that is already reduced by $37 million this year. So to 
cut another $30 million out of this would be extremely harmful, I 
believe.
  When we look at PL-480 and the benefits it gives around the world to 
people who are starving to death, I think it is very, very important. 
And I think if we talked to most senior citizens, if it meant the 
difference between 2 or 3 cents a meal, they would also say that people 
who are dying of starvation probably need as much help as possible, and 
they would be willing to possibly even forfeit the 2 or 3 cents a meal 
to make sure that does not happen.
  Also, I think it is very important that the Members are aware of the 
people who stand in opposition to this amendment, like The Coalition 
for Food Aid, and groups such as Catholic Relief Services, Save the 
Children, World Vision, and CARE. All very much oppose this amendment 
because of the devastating effect it would have as far as their feeding 
programs around the world.
  So, Mr. Chairman, while I have great empathy and concern for the 
seniors' feeding programs, I think with the facts as they are, that we 
are fully funding the feeding program at the request of the 
administration for this program, and the detrimental effect this 
amendment will have as far as our PL-480 programs, food for peace 
around the world, I must strongly oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stupak-Boehlert 
amendment to increase funding for the USDA's nutrition program for the 
elderly by $20 million. This vital program helps provide over 3 million 
senior citizens with nutritionally-sound meals in their homes through 
the Meals-on-Wheels program, or the senior centers, churches, and fire 
halls, through the congregate meals program. These programs are facing 
financial hardships, and a smaller percentage of needy seniors are 
being fed.
  Quite frankly, the President's request is not adequate. This program 
has been flat funded since 1997. With the number of seniors growing, 
the demand for Meals-on-Wheels funding has continued to increase. The 
National Association of Nutrition and Aging Service programs recently 
testified before the subcommittee that 34 percent of their member 
programs indicate they have a waiting list for home-delivered meals. It 
is only sensible that if they have more money, they are going to be 
able to serve more seniors.
  The increase provided by this amendment is long overdue, and the need 
for this program is quite real. Participants in this program are 
disproportionately poor. Thirty-three percent of congregate meal 
participants and 50 percent of home-delivered meal participants have 
incomes below the poverty level. A majority of Meals-on-Wheels 
participants live alone and have twice as many physical impairments as 
the average elderly person.
  The nutrition program not only feeds seniors in need, but also allows 
these seniors to remain connected to their communities. Congregate meal 
sites give participating seniors the opportunity to socialize with 
members of the community, and Meals-on-Wheels volunteers deliver meals 
to frail and sick and home-bound seniors who are in greatest need of 
assistance.
  This amendment offsets the urgently needed seniors meal program by 
reducing funding for a foreign assistance program. I do not doubt the 
need for these funds by people of other countries, but I want to ensure 
that our seniors are given the highest priority. The fact of the matter 
is that the foreign assistance program would still receive $770 million 
after our amendment passes.
  But I have a deal. I agree with the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Ohio, who was rather eloquent in stating that she likes this program, 
the congregate meals program, the Meals-on-Wheels program, but she also 
likes the foreign assistance program. We have great confidence in the 
good judgment of our distinguished chairman and our ranking minority 
member. There is flexibility as they go into conference. So I would 
suggest that we pass this amendment, give them the flexibility, and 
they know better than we do, so maybe they can find some other offset.
  The Stupak-Boehlert amendment is endorsed by the National Council of 
Senior Citizens, the Meals-on-Wheels Association of America, the Senior 
Citizens League, the National Association of Nutrition and Aging 
Services Programs, and the National Association of State Units on 
Aging. This amendment represents a small investment in a program that 
helps to fight the malnutrition and isolation far too many of our 
seniors face.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  With regard to some of the concerns about our amendment, and I have 
the utmost respect for the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), but this program here, after 
being flat for so many years and actually losing money in real dollar 
amounts, we cannot just turn our backs and continue to pretend it is 
not happening.
  To put the issue in proper perspective, the Meals-on-Wheels 
Association has endorsed our legislation, the Stupak-Boehlert 
amendment, and they have said, ``Because America's elderly population 
continues to be the fastest growing segment of the population, demands 
on nutrition programs for the elderly are increasing.'' So what are we 
doing? Our funding is staying flat and actually losing in real dollar 
amounts every year.

[[Page 13139]]

  The most comprehensive national studies to be conducted in recent 
years found that 41 percent of home-delivered meals had waiting lists. 
The relatively small investment, and as they said, what would three 
pennies mean, three pennies in meal programs that our amendment would 
provide would pay substantial dividends in helping to target 
malnutrition and isolation in the elderly, improving their nutritional 
and health status, and enabling many seniors to be able to stay in 
their home because they got a good meal.
  While I appreciate the increase of $10 million that the 
administration has put in, that only puts us even with last year. Throw 
in inflation, and we are behind the 8-ball again. Let us pass the 
Boehlert-Stupak amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan and the 
gentleman from New York for this amendment, and I rise in support of 
the Meals-on-Wheels amendment to counter skyrocketing gas prices.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is right, when we look at 
this chart, at how our senior citizens really are beginning to suffer 
from the gradual decrease in constant dollars that are spent for this 
important program. Currently, Meals-on-Wheels reimbursements have been 
steadily dwindling to the current rate of about 50 cents per meal. 
Consequently, Meals-on-Wheels is suffering from a severe loss of food 
purchasing power and funds to cover mileage reimbursements.
  Our Nation's elderly are lifetime taxpayers, and it is our duty to 
provide our elderly citizens the basic human services which they are 
entitled to. However, high gasoline prices are straining the budgets of 
the Meals-on-Wheels program and destroying the volunteer delivery 
networks the program depends on.
  People in the Midwest are very familiar with this, because last week 
we had gas prices over $2 a gallon and now it is over $1.80 a gallon. 
We are now in a condition where many people who would deliver the 
Meals-on-Wheels are finding that they cannot afford to do it. Now, 
think about what that means. We have this great program, and yet people 
are finding they cannot participate in it.
  In light of the recent increases in gas prices, volunteers cannot 
afford to provide their services and meals cannot be delivered. The 
Meals-on-Wheels program is in danger of losing both its volunteer and 
paid labor base.
  Now, this is not a hypothetical situation. Again, back to the 
Cleveland area and a city called Westlake, which is in my district. I 
received a letter from the director for the Department of Senior and 
Community Services for the City of Westlake. Here is what she has told 
me in part.

                              {time}  1815

  ``As you know, many of the volunteers for Meals on Wheels are 
themselves older adults on fixed incomes. One such couple travels 
almost 100 miles in a rural area to deliver meals. They are considering 
resigning because they cannot afford to volunteer.''
  Think of what that means. People who want to help their fellow human 
beings who get a good feeling out of delivering meals to the elderly 
and suddenly, because of these high costs of fuel, gasoline, they are 
suddenly in danger of not being able to afford to do it.
  Now, this amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak) would offset, under Title III of the Older Americans Act, 
monetary donations made to the program to cover increasingly high fuel 
costs by providing more food purchasing power and mileage reimbursement 
funds.
  In increasing the program's reimbursements, the amendment will 
alleviate the enormous burden faced by many volunteers who are 
increasingly unavailable to aid in the delivery of meals to millions of 
senior citizens through the high fuel cost.
  If funding through the USDA adequately covers the Meals on Wheels 
program, then their food purchasing power will be strengthened and 
their labor base will be secured.
  Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) would like 
to comment in the time that remains, I would be happy to yield to him 
because I know the work that he is doing on this is so important. I 
know the elderly in my district are very concerned about what is going 
to happen to the Meals on Wheels program.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, again, this is a good discussion we are having because 
we have got valuable programs here that we are trying to save. But as 
the chart clearly shows, in real dollars we keep going backwards; and 
while we may have put $10 million in, that just made us even with last 
year.
  Throw in the rate of inflation. Throw in the point that my colleague 
made about the increase of gas for Meals on Wheels just to deliver and 
we are going further and further behind.
  With the largest increasing part of our population being senior 
citizens, they cannot stay even, they cannot regress. We have to move 
forward with this funding.
  Again, we are taking 3 percent from a $800 million program. There is 
still $770 million left in that program, and we are at $140 million for 
senior meals. We are saying just give us a little extra.
  Now, they say bring up all their offsets. The gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), myself, the 
authors of this amendment, we will sit on the Committee on 
Appropriations. If they want to turn over the power to us and make the 
offsets, we will be happy to. We would love to.
  But, in all seriousness, we tried to work on this one. And amongst 
friends there has to be disagreements. We feel we have to take care of 
our senior citizens here at home first and make sure that their 
nutrition needs are met so there is not the malnutrition we see with 
senior citizens, especially in rural areas, the inner city areas, and 
the isolation of seniors, bring them to the senior centers and bring 
that meal in to them.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stupak-Boehlert 
amendment to H.R. 4461, because I believe the Congregate and Meals on 
Wheels programs are in need of additional funds.
  There are few communities within the country where a senior nutrition 
program does not exist, and the demands on nutrition programs for the 
elderly is increasing.
  Few programs can boast the importance to the elderly and overwhelming 
success as the senior nutrition programs.
  I became deeply involved in this issue last November, when I became 
aware that the Agency on Aging in my district began cutting back the 
Congregate Meals program after having exhausted their reserve funds.
  In the face of a potential crisis, the State of Connecticut and local 
governments agreed to make up the financial shortfall for this year. 
The additional State and local funds are allowing the Agency to 
temporarily overcome the financial shortfall and enabling providers to 
serve the same number of meals this year as were served in 1999.
  While this financial contribution is significant and speaks volumes 
about the importance of the Congregate Meal program to seniors in 
Connecticut, it does nothing to prevent similar funding shortfall from 
occurring next year and the year after that.
  This body has an obligation to ensure that senior nutrition programs 
are adequately funded. I hope we can all recognize that Congregate and 
home delivered meals programs need assistance, and that this House has 
the good sense to act favorably on this amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stupak-Boehlert bill to 
add $20 million to the Meals on Wheels Program.
  This amendment adds much needed funds to a program that truly plays 
such a vital role in communities across this country. Meals on Wheels 
improves the physical and the mental

[[Page 13140]]

health of seniors in our communities. It provides them with a balanced, 
nutritious, and appealing diet.
  Last year the program brought over 1.9 million meals to almost 10,000 
seniors and the disabled in Connecticut alone.
  The West Haven center in my district distributed 1,000 meals a day to 
homebound citizens of 15 towns throughout south central Connecticut, 
200,000 per year.
  I might add that Mayor Borer, the mayor of West Haven, Connecticut, 
and myself last year went on the Meals on Wheels truck, went place by 
place and helped to deliver the meals. And it was amazing. This program 
is a lifeline for people. It is one of the most remarkable experiences 
that I have had in being a Member of this House.
  Meals on Wheels helps those elderly who find themselves homebound, 
unable to go out and shop for their own food. It allows seniors who 
would have been forced into a nursing home to stay in their home and 
maintain their dignity and their independence. It helps to lower health 
care costs while allowing seniors to retain that independence.
  It also fills an important need in the community for the preservation 
of ties with our elders. By providing seniors with essential food every 
day of the week, sometimes, I might add, the only hot meal an elderly 
citizen receives, it builds important links and relationships between 
the men and women who deliver the meals and the seniors who take 
advantage of the program. In some cases, these people are the only 
visitors that seniors get all day.
  Meals on Wheels is truly an example of neighbors helping neighbors.
  I call on my colleagues, support the Stupak-Boehlert amendment, 
support a program that provides an essential safety net to millions of 
seniors and strengthens the community ties between generations.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the gentlewoman speaking for an 
additional 5 minutes?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I probably will not take the full 5 
minutes. But I did want to commend our colleagues, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) 
for bringing that chart to the floor that shows the discretionary cuts 
that have affected all programs, including elderly feeding programs, 
across this country.
  As we look at the revenues that the Government of the United States 
is receiving now and the work of all of our committees, without 
question, every single American sacrificed in order to put the accounts 
of this Nation in order. These programs got hurt just as much as many 
other programs in our country. So these decisions to move us toward a 
surplus position have not been easy decisions.
  We are now at the point where we can more openly look at ways to 
expand worthy programs. And this certainly is one that has gotten the 
attention of the subcommittee. And believe me, I give my word to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert), who have worked so diligently to bring this to the 
attention of the membership, that, but for the offset, I certainly 
would be one Member who would be working 150 percent of my energy in 
trying to help them find a way to expand these worthy programs for 
feeding our senior citizens.
  I thank the gentlemen for their respective leadership on this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      Food Program Administration

       For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic food 
     programs funded under this Act, $116,392,000, of which 
     $5,000,000 shall be available only for simplifying 
     procedures, reducing overhead costs, tightening regulations, 
     improving food stamp benefit delivery, and assisting in the 
     prevention, identification, and prosecution of fraud and 
     other violations of law and of which not less than $3,000,000 
     shall be available to improve integrity in the Food Stamp and 
     Child Nutrition programs: Provided, That this appropriation 
     shall be available for employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $150,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by 
     this Act or any other Act shall be available to carry out a 
     Colonias initiative without the prior approval of the 
     Committee on Appropriations.


                 Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Reyes

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

       Amendment No. 62 offered by Mr. Reyes:
       Page 53, beginning line 25, strike ``: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act or any other Act shall be available to 
     carry out a Colonias initiative without the prior approval of 
     the Committee on Appropriations''.

  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to bring much needed 
assistance to some of the poorest communities in our Nation. My 
amendment will strike the provision in the bill that prohibits funding 
in the bill or any other bill from being available to carry out a 
colonias initiative without prior approval of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  ``Colonia'' is a Spanish term for ``community.'' Along our Southwest 
border, it is the name for U.S. communities that lack basic water and 
sewer systems, power, paved roads, safe and sanitary housing, health 
care, and adequate educational, recreational, and employment 
opportunities.
  There are more than 1,500 of these third-world-like communities in 
our Nation, with more than half a million people in California, Texas, 
New Mexico, and Arizona. These communities sprung up because of a lack 
of affordable housing, unscrupulous land development, and neglect of 
our border region.
  Because of a lack of basic service, poverty is extreme in our 
colonias. Fifty percent of the residents are below the poverty level, 
with average family income of about $12,675. Moreover, 40 percent of 
colonia residents have less than a ninth grade education and 
unemployment exceeds 40 percent.
  The health of these citizens is terrible due to contaminated wells, 
poorly constructed septic tanks, and the difficulty in buying water 
from private vendors.
  This situation is a tragedy that has never been properly addressed. 
Eight-five percent of colonia residents, Mr. Chairman, are United 
States citizens, and 40 percent of those residing in our colonias are 
children. Devastating diseases are prevalent in the colonias, with 
hepatitis and tuberculosis at rates of between 30 and 50 percent.
  Colonia residents are part of our Nation, and we have a moral 
obligation to give them the basic essentials we expect for all of 
America's children.
  The need to allow USDA to implement programs and initiatives to help 
address the severe problems of colonia residents is very critical.
  One such program is the Partnership for Change-Colonias Initiative, 
which was a pilot program which began in Texas bringing together 
Federal, State and local governmental entities and nonprofit groups to 
create a unified colonia strategy.
  This strategy called ``Partnership for Change'' addresses the 
multitude of colonias issues including housing, health, nutrition, and 
employment issues. The ``Partnership for Change'' uses innovative 
approaches to ensure that food and nutrition services reach colonia 
residents. Because colonias are remotely located without proper roads, 
colonia residents are simply unable to retain these kinds of services.
  In response, the ``Partnership for Change'' built an additional seven 
WIC clinics directly in the colonias serving an additional 5,200 
residents. It has also purchased vans to transport clients to 
assistance centers and coordinated traveling food pantries.
  My amendment will allow strategies such as this to go forward without 
the continuous need to obtain committee approval.
  If the committee has problems with the way programs like this are 
administered, the proper approach is to have

[[Page 13141]]

the committee discuss the various aspects with the USDA rather than 
continually require this prohibitive requirement before colonia 
initiatives can go forward.
  Every American family, regardless of where they live, should have the 
basic essentials of water, roads, housing, and a health environment. 
Otherwise, we allow a cycle of poverty and disease to continue despite 
having the resources to make an enormous difference.
  While the rest of our Nation is reaping the benefits of a booming 
economy and budget surpluses, colonia residents are struggling barely 
to survive. This is unacceptable, and we can do much better as 
Americans.
  I, therefore, ask all Members to support my amendment and to show 
their commitment to our fellow Americans who are having to overcome 
unbelievable obstacles and to give the USDA flexibility to use 
innovative approaches to provide additional outreach and coordinated 
efforts to colonia residents.
  I ask all Members to vote yes on my amendment.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment. I have always 
enjoyed working with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), my compadre, 
and will continue to do so on this important issue.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I appreciate the 
hard work. We have always worked together, and I appreciate the 
opportunity to work through this very critical issue. I thank the 
gentleman, as well as the rest of us who understand the necessities 
that Colonias have, and I really appreciate the gentleman working with 
us on this.
  Mr. SKEEN. We have done a whole lot of hard work on it, particularly 
under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), and I am 
glad to work with him.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take 5 minutes. I just want to thank 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) on his efforts and all the 
congressmen, the representatives from California, New Mexico, Arizona, 
and Texas. I want to just emphasize the importance of the amendment 
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) had, and I want to put it in 
perspective in terms of an analogy.
  The particular language that it would prohibit the Colonias 
initiatives unless the appropriations funded it, I want the gentlemen 
to think about the way it was, and I am real pleased that it has been 
eliminated because if that same kind of language was there, say, that 
was in the Department of Commerce, and a chamber of commerce or a 
particular corporation was prohibited, it would be said that it was 
discriminatory. If that same kind of language was in the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, and it would be said that funding would be 
prohibited from the veterans to go to specific veterans, it would be 
said that that was discriminatory.
  If that same kind of language was in the Department of Transportation 
and it said that particular resources would not be able to be spent in 
a specific community, it would said that that was discriminatory.
  So I want to thank the gentleman for agreeing and being able to 
remove that language from there because there is no doubt that the 
Colonias need a lot of help, and I know everyone on the border 
recognizes the importance of providing resources and access just like 
anyone would have those opportunities.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for his sympathy to this 
proposal in support of the Colonias initiative. I wanted to also thank 
very deeply the members of the Hispanic Caucus, and Shirley Watkins at 
Food and Nutrition Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture for 
really helping us to begin to carve out a new initiative that would 
reach some of the most forgotten people in America.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) 
for their strong leadership on this proposal and to say that we look 
forward to working with them as we move toward conference to really 
make sure that this Colonias initiative is not forgotten.
  Some of the aspects of this proposal involve such initiatives as 
piloting breakfast and after-school snack programs right on the bus, as 
children are being driven to and from school because it is so difficult 
sometimes to reach many of the children who live in these areas, and 
also taking a look at how we could use traveling food pantries to reach 
some of the more isolated individuals of all ages who live in the 
Colonias.
  The proposals also take a look at organizing farmers markets, which 
is a real strong interest of my own, to make sure that good, fresh 
produce and farm-grown products from the State of Texas or New Mexico 
or wherever the Colonias are located are organized near where the 
people live; and to make sure that locally grown produce, some of it 
perhaps raised by local farmers, would be able to be used in the school 
programs in those areas responding to some of the ethnic preferences 
for food that may differ in different parts of the country, depending 
on people's preferences; and working with USDA to look at an 
interactive Web site to link various partners and Colonias advocates 
and others to share success stories and communicate accomplishments of 
the existing projects in Texas.
  So there are so many aspects to this, and we are at the very 
beginning of it; but I think it is such a wonderful proposal and one 
that we are going to take step by step and really try to reach among 
some of the lowest-income people in America. I never like to say 
poorest because there is a richness of heritage there and a richness of 
hope in every community in America, but if we can help people have 
better nutrition for their children, where their children can learn and 
they can have a better way of life, food is one of the most basic 
needs, and certainly contribute to better health.
  This is such an exceptional opportunity to reach many of these 
families. The proposals for refrigerated trucks, for example, even 
finding trucks that have been used perhaps in business and are not 
brand new but even used trucks, almost like we put book mobiles in some 
of the underserved rural areas of America before, to do this in the 
Colonias is just so practical and so achievable.
  We want to thank Shirley Watkins from the Department of Agriculture 
for working with our Hispanic Caucus, with the Congressmen and women 
who have supported this here.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here joining my good friend in 
support of the second amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) 
on Colonias, and delighted to see that our good friend, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), has been so supportive of the work that we 
are all trying to do to improve life in Las Colonias.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to bring awareness to a very important 
issue to my district in south Texas and all along the United States-
Mexico border. The continuing plight of Colonias is what I wish to 
speak on. As my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), 
noted, Colonias are substandard housing developments in America, with 
many homes which have no water, sewer or utility hook-ups. United 
States citizens are forced to buy property without these essential 
services because of chronic housing shortages in high-poverty areas.
  For example, in the fifteenth district of Texas, my own district, we 
have the

[[Page 13142]]

third fastest growing metropolitan statistical area in the Nation. We 
also have the third highest rate of poverty.
  This unique situation creates a hardship on the children and families 
that live in Colonias.
  A group in Texas called the Las Colonias Project has worked to bring 
national awareness to this vital issue but more, much, much more must 
be done.
  If we will look at this chart, we will see the numbers that are 
staggering. There are more than 1,500 Colonias along the United States 
border with Mexico with more than 400,000 residents. All these facts is 
the type of national awareness that we are trying to bring to the House 
floor today and in a bipartisan way be able to bring resources to be 
able to correct the deficiencies that exist in these Colonias.
  While I cannot support getting money for this program at the expense 
of the USDA Wildlife Services program, an absolutely worthwhile 
program, I do urge Members to support funding for the serious problem 
of Colonias.
  I know we can find both a way and the money to do this.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to compliment the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Reyes) for bringing this issue not only to the floor today but before, 
when he was able to bring some young children from Colonias to testify 
before Members of Congress. I would like to also thank my good friend, 
the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), for doing a great job, him 
and his staff; the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), from our class 
of 1983; and the staff, thank them for being able to understand the 
seriousness of the problem that we have.
  I do not want to continue to belabor the issue, but it is a very, 
very serious issue along the border.
  These children have tremendous potential. With all the obstacles and 
pitfalls that they face on a daily basis, some of them make the 
national honor roll. They make the Boy Scout troops, with all these 
obstacles.
  So we do have tremendous potential if we can help them by providing 
all these services so that they will never lose sight of the fact that 
they can become productive citizens. Again, I would like to thank my 
colleagues, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), members of his 
staff, my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), for all 
they have done in bringing this issue to the floor.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE V

                FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service

       For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service, 
     including carrying out title VI of the Agricultural Act of 
     1954 (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development activities 
     abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to coordinate and 
     integrate activities of the Department in connection with 
     foreign agricultural work, including not to exceed $150,000 
     for representation allowances and for expenses pursuant to 
     section 8 of the Act approved August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), 
     $109,186,000: Provided, That the Service may utilize advances 
     of funds, or reimburse this appropriation for expenditures 
     made on behalf of Federal agencies, public and private 
     organizations and institutions under agreements executed 
     pursuant to the agricultural food production assistance 
     programs (7 U.S.C. 1737) and the foreign assistance programs 
     of the United States Agency for International Development.
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
     products.


                     Public Law 480 Program Account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, of agreements under the Agricultural 
     Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, and 
     the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as amended, including the 
     cost of modifying credit arrangements under said Acts, 
     $114,186,000, to remain available until expended.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     credit program of title I, Public Law 83-480, and the Food 
     for Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to the extent funds 
     appropriated for Public Law 83-480 are utilized, $1,850,000, 
     of which not to exceed $1,035,000 may be transferred to and 
     merged with ``Salaries and Expenses'', Foreign Agricultural 
     Service, and of which not to exceed $815,000 may be 
     transferred to and merged with ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     Farm Service Agency.


        Public Law 480 Title I Ocean Freight Differential Grants

       For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise 
     recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including 
     interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, $20,322,000, to 
     remain available until expended, for ocean freight 
     differential costs for the shipment of agricultural 
     commodities under title I of said Act: Provided, That funds 
     made available for the cost of title I agreements and for 
     title I ocean freight differential may be used 
     interchangeably between the two accounts.


                Public Law 480 Grants--Titles II and III

       For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise 
     recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including 
     interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, $800,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, for commodities supplied in 
     connection with dispositions abroad under title II of said 
     Act, of which up to 15 percent may be used for commodities 
     supplied in connection with dispositions abroad under title 
     III of said Act.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur:
       Page 56, line 17, insert before the period the following: 
     ``, and of which $1,850,000 may be used for administrative 
     expenses of the United States Agency for International 
     Development, including expenses incurred to employ personal 
     services contractors, to carry out title II of such Act (and 
     this amount is in addition to amounts otherwise available for 
     such purposes)''.

  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment which has to 
do with the way in which our Food for Peace commodities are delivered 
in other countries. Essentially, what this does is it allows the U.S. 
Agency for International Development, which is a part of the Department 
of State, to hire contractors in-country for this work on PL-480, title 
II commodities, just as the U.S. Department of Agriculture does.
  During hearings on these important humanitarian programs, it became 
very clear to us on the committee that the U.S. Agency for 
International Development does not have the same ability to hire 
contractors in-country to work on the Food for Peace program that USDA 
has.
  I know this sounds like kind of a technical bureaucratic problem but, 
in fact, it is; and we worked with AID and the chairman to identify the 
best way to correct this problem.
  I want to thank the chairman deeply for his support. We want to make 
sure that when wheat or soy meal or any product is delivered to a very 
needy country that the private voluntary organizations that are there 
and AID contractors are able to find the most efficient way to get food 
into the villages, to the people, maybe refugees, living very far from 
the point where the food actually comes to port.
  AID is having particular problems with this, we think simply because 
the legislation was written in a way that AID and USDA are under 
different committees here in the House.
  Truly, with many of the private voluntary organizations doing this 
work in-country, which is one of the most risky jobs in the world, 
because they go into areas sometimes that are war torn, deep in-
country. It is not easy work. We have had plane crashes around the 
world where many of these volunteers are going. All we are trying to do 
is to find a more efficient way to help them do the job that all of us 
want to do and that is to bring food to hungry people.

                              {time}  1845

  No bureaucratic snafu should prevent that kind of person-to-person 
assistance from occurring. We still want to find a way to allow greater 
authority for the Department of Agriculture, to use administrative 
funds in countries to provide and monitor food assistance in needy 
areas of the world. Essentially, this would provide additional

[[Page 13143]]

contracting latitude to the U.S. Agency for International Development, 
so it parallels what USDA is able to do in moving these commodities to 
people that truly need them.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen) very, very much for his cooperation and participation in this.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will help provide more effective and 
more efficient administration of our food aid programs overseas. I 
thank the gentlewoman for taking this initiative and recommend to the 
House that it be accepted.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen) will yield, I thank him truly on behalf of all the people that 
this will help.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure doing business with the 
gentlewoman from Ohio.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


       Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation's export guarantee program, GSM 102 and 
     GSM 103, $3,820,000; to cover common overhead expenses as 
     permitted by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     Charter Act and in conformity with the Federal Credit Reform 
     Act of 1990, of which $3,231,000 may be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for ``Foreign Agricultural 
     Service'' and $589,000 may be transferred to and merged with 
     the appropriation for ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.

                                TITLE VI

           FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND RELATED AGENCIES

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

                         salaries and expenses


                         (including rescission)

       For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration, 
     including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for 
     payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to Public 
     Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and Drug 
     Administration which are included in this Act; for rental of 
     special purpose space in the District of Columbia or 
     elsewhere; and for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the 
     Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's 
     certificate, not to exceed $25,000; $1,267,178,000, of which 
     not to exceed $149,273,000 in prescription drug user fees 
     authorized by 21 U.S.C. 379(h) may be credited to this 
     appropriation and remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $104,954,000 shall be for payments to the 
     General Services Administration for rent and related costs: 
     Provided further, That of the funds appropriated for ``Food 
     and Drug Administration Salaries and Expenses'' under Public 
     Law 106-78, $27,000,000 is hereby rescinded upon enactment of 
     this Act.


                Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 42 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 58, line 4, insert after the colon the following: 
     ``Provided further, That $500,000 is available for the 
     purpose of drafting guidance for industry on how to assess 
     genetically engineered food products for allergenicity until 
     a predictive testing methodology is developed, and reporting 
     to the Congress on the status of the guidance by September 1, 
     2001; for the purpose of making it a high agency priority to 
     develop a predictive testing methodology for potential food 
     allergens in genetically engineered foods; and for the 
     purpose of reporting to the Congress by April 30, 2001, on 
     research being conducted by the Food and Drug Administration 
     and other Federal agencies concerning both the basic science 
     of food allergy and testing methodology for food allergens, 
     including a prioritized description of research needed to 
     develop a predictive testing methodology for the 
     allergenicity of proteins added to foods via genetic 
     engineering and what steps the Food and Drug Administration 
     is taking or plans to take to address these needs:''.

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, food allergies are a serious health 
concern, 2.5 to 5 million Americans have food allergies. Common food 
allergies include milk, eggs, fish, seafood, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts, 
soybeans.
  The health impacts of a food allergy range from itching to 
potentially fatal anaphylactic shock. We all know people who have food 
allergies. People learn about their food allergies by way of the trial 
and error method. If they eat a food a few times and react to it, each 
time they know they are allergic to it.
  Now, with respect to genetically-engineered foods and known 
allergens, things get much trickier with foods that have been 
genetically engineered.
  Scientists at the University of Nebraska inserted a Brazilian nut 
gene into a soybean. The study showed that people allergic to Brazil 
nuts, which is a common allergy, are also allergic to soybeans that 
have been modified by the Brazilian nut gene.
  The scientists concluded that allergens from one food can pass to 
another and harm anyone with that allergy who unsuspectingly eats 
genetically-engineered foods.
  Genetically-engineered foods have this problem with unknown 
allergens. The problem is very complicated. Most biotech crops on the 
market today were inserted with genes from things we have never 
digested before. Now, here is a picture of bacteria.
  Most crops engineered today are engineered with genes from bacteria. 
Are we allergic to this? Scientists do not know. Are we allergic to 
these new foods? The huge genetic pool of possibilities to engineer in 
the world have not been tested for allergies.
  As a matter of fact, it may surprise my colleagues to know that over 
a 100 million acres of crops last year in the United States were 
genetically engineered.
  There are huge challenges with allergy testing. Allergy testing for 
unknown allergens is difficult if not impossible. Here is a report from 
the National Academy of Sciences.
  The National Academy of Sciences states in this report, allergenicity 
is difficult to test. They go on to say that tests for possible 
allergenicity either are indirect, do not involve adverse effects, or 
are otherwise problematic for testing of novel proteins that have not 
previously been components of the food supply.
  Researchers from the Clinical Immunology and Allergy Section of 
Tulane University Medical Center state, and I quote, ``The most 
difficult issue regarding transgenic food allergenicity is the effect 
of transfer of proteins of unknown allergenicity.''
  In other words, if we are allergic to Brazil nuts, the Brazil nuts 
gene is in soybeans, we respond to the soybean; and we do not even know 
that it has a Brazil gene in it. The challenge is to determine whether 
these proteins are allergenic as there is no generally accepted, 
established, definitive procedure to define or predict a protein's 
allergenicity.
  We all know that old saying, what you do not know cannot hurt you. We 
have all heard that. What we do not know cannot hurt you. But in this 
case, what you do not know can, what you do not know can hurt you.
  The FDA is unfortunately failing to protect Americans. Unfortunately, 
the Food and Drug Administration admittedly having taken a pro-biotech 
position have completely dropped the ball on the serious issue of 
unknown and untestable allergens.
  In my hand, this is a 700-page transcript of an FDA conference on 
this very topic from 1994. The document clearly acknowledges that 
unknown allergens are difficult to test for. My amendment instructs the 
FDA to continue the scientific research on this topic and draft 
guidance from the industry on how to assess genetically engineered food 
products for allergenicity until a predictive testing methodology is 
developed and report to Congress on the status of this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Mexico reserve his point of 
order?
  Mr. SKEEN. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

[[Page 13144]]

  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to call to the body's attention and 
to the attention of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) that the 
Brazil nut gene within that soybean and its potential danger was 
discovered through premarket testing meeting the requirements of FDA 
and USDA. The product never got to market.
  I rise in strong opposition to the amendment, because the mandate of 
food labeling which is part of the sponsor's goal, would send dangerous 
signals. Let me review a little bit of what we did in our Subcommittee 
on Basic Research.
  On April 13, I issued a chairman's report on plant genomics and 
agricultural biotechnology. This report was a culmination of three 
hearings that we held in Washington and meetings throughout the United 
States with scientists.
  The Subcommittee on Basic Research had some of the Nation's leading 
scientists testify, one of the issues that we dealt with in some detail 
in the report was the mandatory labeling provision. What we found is 
that there is no scientific justification for labeling food based on 
the method by which they are produced. Labeling of agricultural 
biotechnology products would, as suggested by the industry and by some 
of the scientists, confuse, not inform, consumers and send a misleading 
message on safety.
  The Food and Drug Administration has more than 15 years of experience 
in evaluating food-based products of biotechnology, more than 20 years 
of experience with medical products of biotechnology. FDA's decision 
not to require labeling is consistent both with the law and with FDA's 
``statement of policy'' More to the point, consumers have a lifetime of 
direct personal experience with foods genetically modified through 
hybridization and cross breeding should have the same regulations 
scrutiny as those modified by the new technology.
  FDA bases labeling decisions on whether there are material 
differences between the new plant-based food and its traditional 
counterpart. These material differences include changes in the new 
plant that are significant enough that the common or usual name of the 
plant no longer applies or if the safety or use at issue exists that 
warrants consumer notification.
  Despite this sensible policy, biotechnology's critics including the 
sponsor of this amendment, continue to argue that foods created using 
recombinant DNA techniques should bear a label revealing that fact. 
This view is based, in large part, on the faulty supposition that the 
potential for unintended and undetected differences between these foods 
and those produced through conventional means is cause for a label 
based solely on the method of production of the plant.
  I would urge our three regulatory agencies that are overlooking, not 
only the biotech, but all products produced through traditional cross 
breeding, to thoroughly evaluate, all plants and seeds regardless of 
the process of development.
  Mr. Chairman, I mean we have had products developed through cross 
breeding that ended up poisonous. So the regulatory bodies that we have 
with USDA, Food and Drug, as well as EPA is the best in the world right 
now. They are doing a good job.
  What I am concerned with, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich), because of emotion, and miss information, labeling is going 
to be like putting a skull and cross bones on the food product. If we 
were to define a biotech-produced food the way Food and Drug defines a 
biotech-produced food, then it would require labeling of everything 
except a few brands of fish. Essentially all food today has been 
genetically modified.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, although this specific amendment does not 
speak to our labeling bill directly, I would like to say that the 
labeling bill that the gentleman is speaking of serves to give the 
public the right to know what is in the food they are eating, that is 
really the basic concept.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as well as the 
sponsors goal of mandatory labels would be extremely confusing, and of 
little relevance, or service to consumers. FDA's current policy on 
labeling has been scientifically and legally sound and should be 
maintained. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio, which would mandate labeling of foods derived 
from biotechnology.
  Mr. Chairman, the risks for potentially unintended effects of 
agricultural biotechnology on the safety of new plant-based foods are 
conceptually no different than the risks for those plants derived from 
conventional breeding. As described in FDA's Statement of Policy, ``The 
agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by 
these new methods differ from other food in any meaningful or uniform 
way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present 
any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by 
traditional plant breeding.'' This view was echoed by the research 
scientists who testified before the Subcommittee on the subject.
  Indeed, there is a genuine fear that labeling biotech foods based on 
their method of production would be the equivalent of a ``skull and 
crossbones''--that the very presence of a label would indicate to the 
average consumer that safety risks exist, when the scientific evidence 
shows that they do not. Labeling advocates who argue otherwise are 
being disingenuous. The United Kingdom's new mandatory labeling law, 
for example, was put forward ostensibly to enhance consumer choice. 
Instead, it has prompted British food producers and retailers to remove 
all recombinant DNA constituents from the products they sell to avoid 
labeling.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and 
rise in support of the Kucinich amendment, and I believe it is a 
forward thinking measure that deserves this Chamber's full support. If 
passed, the amendment would earmark $500,000 in the FDA portion of the 
budget to study guidelines for industry on how to assess genetically-
engineered food products for allergenicity or for the potential food 
allergens and report back to Congress by the end of fiscal year 2001. 
If all that the prior speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), 
says is true, it seems the gentleman would be supportive of the 
Kucinich amendment because everything that FDA has done in support of 
these issues would be met by a study.
  As was previously stated, it is estimated that 2.5 million to 5 
million Americans are allergic to foods such as milk, eggs, fish, 
seafood, tree nuts, wheat, peanut and soybean, and of all the millions 
already diagnosed, there are still countless others who do not know 
they are allergic to foods until they have a reaction which sometimes 
can be deadly.

                              {time}  1900

  We must act now to ensure that we understand not only what we eat, 
but what effect the food we eat has upon us.
  Again, I rise in support of my colleague's amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. 
Jones), my colleague. The gentlewoman and I both represent the people 
of the Cleveland area.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to remember what this amendment is about: it is 
to get $500,000 for the purpose of drafting guidance for the industry 
on how to assess genetically engineered food products for 
allergenicity. We are not voting on a labeling bill here. Some day we 
hope to bring such a bill to the floor so that the people of America 
will have a right to know what is in the food they are eating.
  But with respect to this and the comments of the previous speaker, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), Brazil nuts are a known 
allergen. What we are speaking about here is testing for unknown 
allergens. I want everyone here to know that I am pleased to report 
that the FDA just informed me that they support the concepts within 
this amendment. I have pledged to

[[Page 13145]]

work with them to find a compromise that all the parties can support.
  So I want to let the chairman and the ranking member know that I am 
going to withdraw this amendment with an understanding that the 
chairman, the ranking member, the Food and Drug Administration, the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), and other Members of the Congress 
who are working on this, that we could all work together to include 
acceptable language in a conference report.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. 
Skeen) if that would be acceptable if the gentleman, that is, if I 
withdraw this amendment, could the gentleman give me some help with the 
FDA in encouraging them to go ahead and work to find a compromise so 
that the concepts in this amendment could be supported.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I am sure I will do my best to give the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) that kind of help.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I again yield to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and I want to 
thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for his indulgence, and 
I also want to say that this issue of genetically engineered food is an 
issue all over this world. People in Europe are demanding labeling all 
throughout the European Union. People in Japan, people in Australia, 
people in New Zealand, demanding labeling. Why? Because people want to 
know what is in the food they eat. People have a right to know that. 
That is why years ago the Food and Drug Administration passed a regime 
so people could learn the ingredients on the food that they buy.
  Imagine today if we did not even know the ingredients on the food 
that we were eating. Suppose someone did not want too much fat content 
or one was concerned about their protein intake. That is why Americans 
have become more sophisticated on dietary matters because of that law.
  Americans are going to have the opportunity in the future, hopefully, 
to be able to know what is in the food they are eating. If it is 
genetically engineered, it will have to be labeled.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, it is very important that we 
move ahead, that we give the assurance of safety. It has to be done. We 
cannot go ahead like Europe has gone ahead, based on unscientific 
evidence.
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Kucinich's 
efforts to secure funding for more study on the allergenic effects of 
genetically modified foods. I believe that bioengineered foods hold the 
potential for great benefit to the consumer. However, studies indicate 
that allergens from one food may pass to another through genetic 
engineering, and more research is required before families can be 
comfortable buying them at the grocery store.
  Americans need to be able to make informed decisions about the food 
they buy. I understand that funding for an FDA study is not included in 
the bill we are debating today, but I hope that it can be inserted in 
conference.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: amendment No. 18 by Mr. Ney of Ohio; amendment 
No. 1 by Mr. Hefley of Colorado; and amendment No. 2 by Mr. Hefley of 
Colorado.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Ney

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 18 offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 94, 
noes 326, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 359]

                                AYES--94

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Campbell
     Chabot
     Collins
     Crane
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     English
     Fattah
     Foley
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaTourette
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Oxley
     Peterson (PA)
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Regula
     Riley
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wise

                               NOES--326

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers

[[Page 13146]]


     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bishop
     Clay
     Cook
     Filner
     Goodling
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lofgren
     Markey
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Vento
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1925

  Messrs. ROTHMAN, RADANOVICH, SHAYS, BATEMAN, RYAN of Wisconsin, 
CUNNINGHAM, and CONYERS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. STRICKLAND, SHAW, HILLEARY, ADERHOLT, and SAWYER changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 538, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 132, 
noes 287, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 360]

                               AYES--132

     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coburn
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ewing
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hall (TX)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Inslee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Largent
     Leach
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moore
     Morella
     Myrick
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pickering
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Smith (NJ)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wilson

                               NOES--287

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bishop
     Clay
     Cook
     Cubin
     Filner
     Goodling
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lofgren
     Markey
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Vento
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1934

  Mr. WISE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. ROUKEMA and Messrs. INSLEE, COX and MINGE changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.

[[Page 13147]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 94, 
noes 319, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 361]

                                AYES--94

     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Coburn
     Cox
     Crane
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Ewing
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goss
     Hansen
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Inslee
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Largent
     Leach
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Paul
     Petri
     Pickering
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shows
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Wamp

                               NOES--319

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bishop
     Bonilla
     Clay
     Cook
     Coyne
     Filner
     Goodling
     Hastings (WA)
     Klink
     Lazio
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McIntosh
     McNulty
     Vento
     Weygand
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1942

  Mr. ENGLISH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 361, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I just would like to wish the gentleman from New Mexico 
(Chairman Skeen), a happy birthday. Tomorrow is his birthday, and I 
wish him a happy birthday.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my colleagues make me 
feel a lot younger, and I thank all of my colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Happy birthday.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I had 
intended to offer an amendment that would have added $5 million to the 
Food and Nutrition Service for a program that would target outreach to 
expand the feeding programs in the colonia areas of the Southwest.
  I will not offer the amendment, but I would like to request a 
commitment from the chairman that, as the agriculture bill moves to 
conference committee, that he will do what he can to secure the funds 
for this much-needed targeted assistance in the colonias.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Texas for his involvement in this issue. The plight of the people 
living in the colonias is serious. The USDA spends about $350 million 
per year on this type of outreach. I commit to the gentleman that I 
will work in conference to direct that adequate funds be targeted to 
this program in the southwest.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank 
the chairman. I also want to thank the staff for helping us work out 
this commitment. I look forward to working with him.
  Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Nussle, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4461) making 
appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________