[Pages H7240-H7250]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 188 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1976.

{time} 2047

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1976) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Klug in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring before the House today H.R. 1976,
which makes appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration and related agencies.
Before I begin in this discourse, I would like to say that I
appreciate very much the opportunity to serve once again with the
distinguished Member of this body, Mr. Durbin, as my ranking member. He
was my chairman in our life a year or so ago, and it has been a real
pleasure and it is a real compliment to me that he would come back on
this committee as the ranking member.
I also want to thank the members of the committee that have worked so
hard and diligently and given of themselves to this process, and also
the great staff that we have that support us all. I want them to know
that I appreciate all their help, all their associations in the work we
have done. I think the work product will reveal the quality of that
work.
Mr. Chairman, I know many of my colleagues think of this simply as
the Agriculture appropriations bill. It does, of course, provide funds
for the very
diverse activities of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but its
scope reaches every American citizen and goes far beyond the borders of
this great country.

Before I begin, I want to say we have been living in sin for a
certain great span of time, Mr. Chairman. That is, as the Committee on
Appropriations, we have poached on the area of the authorizing
committee, so we have decided to have a prenuptial agreement and divide
this territory up and to get a property settlement and so on.
But, anyway, we are working together, and I am delighted to have the
cooperation of the House Agriculture Authorization Committee. We
understand the problems that we have had to go through to make this an
equitable and very harmonious situation, and we hope that it continues.
This bill provides funds for:
A system of agriculture which allows less than 2 million farmers and
ranchers to produce a safe and abundant supply of food for nearly 250
million Americans and others around the world;
Research programs at our universities, which keep us the most
competitive producer of agricultural products in the world;
The Food and Drug Administration's efforts to ensure safe supplies of
foods, drugs, and medical devices;
A wide variety of domestic feeding and nutrition programs, including
food stamps, the Women, Infants and Children feeding program, known as
WIC, and food distribution programs for the elderly and homeless, some
26 nutritional or feeding programs we handle on a renewable basis every
session of this Congress;
Housing and economic develop programs, rural areas which provide not
only shelter, but also create jobs and economic activity throughout the
country;
Export programs for bulk products and processed foods which this year
will reach a record $50 billion, generating millions of jobs in the
production, processing, and transportation industries, and contributing
to yet another year of agricultural export trade surpluses;
And food aid for developing countries and for emergencies such as the
tragic situation in Bosnia.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is the result of 8 weeks of hearings in which
325 witnesses testified, for which we have 7 volumes of hearings
available to the public, covering every detail of the programs covered
by this legislation.
The bill totals $62.5 billion, which is $5.5 billion less than fiscal
year 1995, and $4.4 billion less than the President's request.
Mandatory spending is 80 percent of the bill and totals $49.2
billion. Discretionary spending is 20 percent of the bill and totals
$13.3 billion, which is $1.6 billion less than the President's request
and $85.5 million less than the current year's spending.
The bottom line is we are right on our discretionary allocation for
both budget authority and outlays.
Mr. Chairman, there are very few accounts in this bill which have not
been reduced or frozen at current levels of spending. I would like to
remind my colleagues that this comes on top of nearly 10 percent in
cuts in the fiscal year 1995 bill.
There are few small but essential increases in the bill including:
The food safety and inspection service which protects every one of us
as consumers;
Conservation technical assistance for farmers as
well as rural and urban communities;

Guaranteed loans for rural housing which help offset a large cut in
direct loans; and
Money for USDA to begin an information sharing program to support the
Department's plan to close field offices and consolidate operations
which actually saves money in the long run.
There is an additional $260 million for the Women, Infants and
Children's program, known as WIC, but this does not, and I repeat does
not, provide for an increase in the program. It only maintains program
participation at the end of the fiscal year 1995 level of 7.3 million
individuals.
Otherwise, we have made large cuts in rural housing and development
programs, freezing other accounts at current year levels, and
eliminating some entirely.
Mr. Chairman, there is no money for university construction, either
for new buildings or to complete ongoing projects. More than 80 special
research and extension programs have been eliminated.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill provides for current level funding
for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and allows the Rural
Telephone Bank to begin privatization.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take a minute to explain the difficulty in
comparing this year's accounts with last year's. As most of you know,
the USDA is the first Federal department

[[Page H 7241]]
in many years to undergo massive reorganization. As that is happening,
there are many well-known agencies such as the Farmers Home
Administration and the Rural Electrification Administration that have
disappeared. As their functions were consolidated and placed elsewhere
in other agencies, such as the Consolidated Farm Service Agency and the
Rural Utilities Service, it is very difficult to show increases and
decreases in the budget.
As often happens in the formulation of appropriation bills, the
authorizing committee raised certain objections to provisions in our
bill which were limitations on spending and mandatory programs. I have
had several meetings with my good friend, the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts]
God love the gentleman, I do, too, and I am pleased to say we have
worked out an agreement on these differences, at least for now.
Mr. Chairman, shortly, I will offer an en bloc amendment which makes
several changes in the bill as agreed to by the authorizing committee,
and this amendment, which is part of the rule, makes the following
changes to H.R. 1976:
The limitations on the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands
Reserve Program and the Export Enhancement Program are stricken, as is
a provision that would have prohibited certain disaster payments for
livestock feed producers who refuse crop insurance;
The salaries and expense accounts of the Consolidated Farm Service
Agency is reduced by $17.5 million;
The Great Plains Conservation Program is eliminated for a savings of
$11 million;
The loan level for section 502 direct housing is reduced from $900
million in the bill to $500 million, while the guaranteed program is
increased from $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion, for a net savings of $83.6
million;
The Rural Development Loan Fund, one of several programs supporting
economic development in rural areas, is eliminated, for a savings of
$37.6 million; and
Funds available for the Rural Development Performance Partnership
Program for rural utilities, which is essentially a block grant for
water and waste disposal loans and grants and solid waste management
grants, is reduced from $562 million in the bill to $435 million.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is budget neutral. Producing this bill
has been a long and difficult effort, Mr. Chairman, and I have told
several of my colleagues that my joy at finally being in the majority
and being a subcommittee chairman has been severely dampened when I
finally got there and found out there was no money.
But as difficult as producing this bill was, it would have been
absolutely impossible without the active participation of my
subcommittee colleagues from both sides of the aisle.
I would like to personally thank my good friend, the gentleman from
Indiana, Mr. Myers, and my other Republican colleagues, Jim Walsh, Jay
Dickey, Jack Kingston, Frank Riggs, George Nethercutt, and our
chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Livingston, and their hard-
working
staff members who put in so many long hours on this bill. A special
thanks again to my good friend from Illinois, the distinguished former
chairman and now ranking member of the subcommittee, Dick Durbin.

The programs funded by this bill have been supported for years by
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike, and, likewise, I would
like to express deep appreciation to my other Democratic friends and
colleagues, Marcy Kaptur, Ray Thornton, Nita Lowey, and to the
distinguished ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, and to their staffs for all their hard work and
contributions to this effort.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and it makes its fair share of
contributions to the goal of a balanced budget. It looks out for the
interests of farmers, ranchers, consumers, urban America, rural
America, and I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2100

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to personally thank my colleague and friend, the chairman of
this committee, Joe Skeen of New Mexico. There are accolades which are
tossed around this floor very loosely. I want those who are listening
to know that I am genuinely sincere in saying that my service in this
Congress has been enhanced from the time I arrived by the fact that the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and I have worked together, first
on the Committee on Agriculture and now on the Committee on
Appropriations.
He is a gentleman. He is an honorable man. He is very bipartisan. It
has been my pleasure to work with him, and I consider it to be one of
the highlights of my service in the House of Representatives.
That is not to say that we will not disagree on a few elements in
this bill. I am sure we will. But the fact is that we work closely
together to try to come up with a bill that addresses a very serious
problem. We have an important area of Federal spending here when it
comes to agriculture, rural development, the Food and Drug
Administration and
related agencies. And this year as last year, we were asked to cut
more than $1 billion in discretionary spending.

These are not the kind of illusory cuts that you might have heard of
in other bills. These are real cuts and real programs. Some of them are
cuts which I am not happy with and the chairman is not happy with
either. But this is our fate in life, to meet this responsibility, to
help reduce this federal budget deficit.
I might say that the gentleman from New Mexico has done his very
best, as I have, too, to preserve important programs for American
agriculture which is too often taken for granted. I regret that some of
the programs that we have cut which are important to rural development
will in fact reduce the opportunity for building new housing in small
town America and modernizing sewer and water systems. We will debate
that a little bit later, I am sure.
I do want to salute my colleague from New Mexico for one effort which
he made at my request, and I know he took some grief for it. He
insisted on maintaining the level of funding for the WIC program at
this year's case load level. For those who are not familiar with the
program, the women, infants, and children program is an effort by the
Federal Government to make sure that low income and poor mothers and
children do not go hungry, either during the pregnancy or after the
child is born.
This program has been a spectacular success. Across America, in
clinics far and wide, men and women come together to counsel pregnant
mothers on the appropriate nutrition during their pregnancy in the
hopes that their children will be born healthy with a bright future.
Time and again we have succeeded. What is a modest investment in
tomorrow's leaders in America has paid off handsomely.
The administration had hoped when elected that we could expand this
program dramatically. Budget realities have reduced that prospect. But
the gentleman from New Mexico was very diligent in his efforts to make
sure that the case load of people, women and children, served this
year, this fiscal year, would be maintained into the next fiscal year,
which required several hundred million dollars of additional
expenditure.
I can assure the gentleman that I personally appreciate his efforts
in this regard and his efforts
overall in putting together a very difficult bill. As I said, we may
disagree on some particulars as we go into the bill, but I know that he
has come to the table in good faith in an effort as the new chairman to
do a professional job. I can assure all those listening on both sides
of the aisle he has done just that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms.
Kaptur].
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I wish to rise in support of our agriculture appropriations bill
this year, to commend our very distinguished chairman in his maiden
voyage as chair of this subcommittee and also to thank our ranking
member for his terrific service.
This will be the last bill that, second to the last bill, that he
will be handling

[[Page H 7242]]
on this floor. We thank him for the tremendous contribution that he has
made over the years both as chair and now as ranking member of this
committee.
I wanted to insert my full remarks in the Record tonight, because the
subject of agriculture is so important to not just rural America but to
urban America, to the nutrition needs of our people. But I wanted to
say beyond that, as a member of this committee, I cannot think of a
better committee in this Congress to serve on.
In listening to some of the debate that occurred here this afternoon,
frankly, I was embarrassed at the level of dialog on both sides of the
aisle. At one point I had teenage students here with me from my
district, and I had to usher them out of the gallery because I was so
embarrassed at some of the language being used here on the floor.
If I had to pick one committee in this Congress to say how the whole
place should function, it would be this particular subcommittee, with
the comity, the good will, with the gentlemanly and ladylike behavior
that members of this committee display toward one another; frankly, the
good humor as well.
I think a lot of that is due to the leadership of our chair, the
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] who is truly a man for all
seasons. We appreciate what he is as a person as much as what he does
as chair of this committee. Frankly, I think if we had more Members
like him, with his spirit on both sides of the aisle in this
institution, I think the Nation would be much better off.
I rise in support this evening of this measure. I know with its
passage, the Nation will have been bettered.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Agriculture
appropriations bill and commend our chairman, the gentleman from New
Mexico, and our ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois, for their
outstanding leadership in putting together a responsible bill. This
bill continues our support for American farmers which are the most
productive in the world as well as fulfills an important commitment for
advancing agriculture and nutrition to rural and urban America.
The bill is fiscally prudent and includes a total of $13.3 billion
for discretionary programs which is $135,571,000 less than the amount
appropriated in Fiscal Year 1995 and $1.6 billion less than the budget
request.
For mandatory programs, which are 80% of the funding in this bill,
the committee provides $49.2 billion a decrease of $5.5 billion below
the amount available for fiscal year 1995 and $4.4 billion below the
budget request.
The committee faced difficult decisions in meeting the needs of U.S.
agriculture and related programs in this bill. Only three programs,
meat and poultry inspection, conservation and the Women, Infants, and
Children's Feeding Program received increases in funds.
Those who serve farmers and work with Agriculture are taught over and
over again that there is a big difference between money and wealth. Our
job on this Committee on Agriculture is to help create the wealth of
America through the investments that we make through this department.
To call this an agriculture bill is a bit misleading. Nearly 60
percent of the programs funded by our subcommittee are nutrition
programs, primarily foodstamps. The bill also funds rural development,
food assistance, and export programs as well as the Food and Drug
Administration.
Mandatory spending not under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee
accounts for a majority of the appropriations in this bill.
Discretionary spending in this bill amounts to $13.4 billion in budget
authority.
I would like to commend the chairman and the members of the
subcommittee for putting together a bill that meets the budget mandate
bill. We were faced with tight budget constraints that forced us to
eliminate a number of programs including the Great Plains Conservation
Program as well as 80 special research and extension projects. The bill
also places a moratorium on funding for all university research
buildings and facilities.
Tough choices had to be made. Yet while faced with tight budget
constraints we were still able to shift resources to priority programs.
We continued funding for TEFAP, the Emergency Food Assistance
Program, which provides vital support to our community food pantries
and senior centers.
The Women, Infants, and Children Feeding Program is provided with a
$290 million increase to cover inflation and food cost increases to
maintain 1995 participation levels. WIC decreases infant mortality
rates and investments in WIC are offset by decreases in long term
Federal Medicaid expenditures.
Traditional farm programs however continue to receive a decreasing
portion of our spending. With the upcoming debate on the 1995 farm
bill, it is my hope to begin targeting our scarce agricultural dollars
to small family farmers.
In the decade of the 1980's we have slowly eroded the basis of
American agriculture--the family farmer--and are moving in the
direction of large corporate farms. We must ensure that to ensure that
prices are maintained at a level high enough to compensate for costs or
production and to maintain standards of living in order to attract and
retain individuals in farm production. We must also negotiate trade
agreements which encourage and enhance the ability of family farmers to
compete in world markets.
In agriculture trade, we must also work to recapture lost markets and
increase exports. As American agricultural exports grow, foreign
agriculture exports are being shipped to the United States in greater
magnitude. Since 1981, our agricultural exports have declined from
$43.8 billion to a low of $26.2 billion in 1986 and back to $42.2
billion for 1992. Under the USDA programs, the profit has gone to the
exporter but the cost is charged to the farmer.
Since 1981 agricultural imports have increased from $10.8 billion to
$24.3 billion in 1992. In many cases these are products our own farmers
could be selling.
In closing, I want to again commend the chairman and the ranking
member for putting together a solid bill under difficult budget
constraints. I urge the Members to support this fiscally responsible
measure.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to engage in a colloquy with my good friend from Kansas,
Mr. Roberts, chairman of the authorizing committee, if I might.
While I understand that some Members are anxious to see certain
policy changes in the Federal farm programs, I am concerned that if the
appropriations process becomes the vehicle for these legislative
changes, the chances for true and longlasting reforms may be lost. I
know my friend from Kansas shares these concerns, and I ask if he can
offer any assurances to Members with amendments that their issues will
be addressed in the coming farm bill debate.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his question,
and I thank my longtime friend and colleague from New Mexico for the
opportunity to really discuss this problem.
Let me say that I would like to associate myself with the remarks
from the distinguished gentleman from Illinois in regard to the
accolades that are due to the gentleman from New Mexico. They are not
loose, as he has described. There is a snug-fit accolade that is well
deserved on the floor of the House. The gentleman from New Mexico
should wear it proudly.
Let me begin by saying how much the members of the authorizing
committee appreciate the hard work that the gentleman and the members
of his subcommittee and staff have really put into fashioning this
very, very difficult bill. We have worked very closely with him to
develop the legislation on the floor today, and this bill has our
support.
However, it would be unfortunate if the hard work he has done to
really create a good bill was overshadowed by some amendments that are
really inappropriate. I do share the concern that this bill should not
be the vehicle to take up major farm policy debates. The Committee on
Agriculture will be bringing a major and comprehensive reauthorization
of all farm programs to the floor later this year.
During the course of committee consideration of the farm bill, we
will be considering major changes of all the programs addressed by the
amendments that are proposed here today. The difference is that in the
farm bill these changes can be considered, in the context of the total
policy package that will provide long-term coherent framework for the
farm and rural sector. The Committee on Agriculture encourages all
Members of the House to bring their concerns to us and work with us as
we mark up the farm bill.
Let me repeat that: To every Member who has a concern about
agriculture program policy, to all watching in their offices and all
the staff that may be watching, the committee encourages all Members of
the House to bring their concerns to us and work with us as we mark up
the farm bill. Bring

[[Page H 7243]]
them to me or bring them to the former chairman and the distinguished
ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
Let me assure the Members with interest in specific policy changes
that, if the farm bill we bring to the floor does not satisfy the
Members'
policy concerns, there will be an opportunity for any Member to bring
those concerns before the House at that time.

The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] shares in that concern and
also shares in regard to that policy opportunity.
Today we need to get down to the serious business of appropriating
funds for rural America in the fiscal year of 1996. Issues concerning
farm policy for the rest of this century should be deferred until the
authorizing committee brings the farm bill to the floor. That will be
in September.
I urge my colleagues to withhold their amendments until the Committee
on Agriculture has had time to consider the issues individually. This
is not the appropriate time or place for authorizing amendments.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman and my friend
for his assurance that all Members will be given an opportunity to
address the issues that they deem important, and I thank him for the
partnership that we have.
Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me. I take the time only to echo the words of our chairman and to agree
with all of the accolades that he has made about the chairman and about
our ranking member. We certainly appreciate the concern and the
dedication and the sensitivity which the distinguished chairman has
shown to the authorizing committee and to those that work in that area.
I associate myself strongly and wholeheartedly with the remarks of
our chairman, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey], the newest member of our subcommittee.
I guess it is odd for people to be watching this and wondering what a
resident of New York City is doing on the Committee on Agriculture. But
I can tell you that she has noted, as many have, that this bill goes
far beyond addressing the concerns of rural America. It addresses
nutrition programs and environmental concerns which are of as much
importance to her home city and home State as well.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and our
minority ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for
the cooperation they have shown me on this committee.
This is an extraordinary bill, in fact, because, as our member said,
Mr. Durbin is from Illinois, this bill serves all of our communities
across this country. It has really been an honor and a privilege for me
to serve on this committee. I want to especially thank the chairman and
the ranking member for their help and for the knowledge which they have
offered, and certainly our staff.
At this moment I would like to engage the gentleman from Kansas [Mr.
Roberts] in a colloquy.
I understand that there is quite a bit of discussion about the proper
venue in which to alter the federal peanut program. But I must say that
those of us who favor elimination of the program have heard that we are
not going to be able to sufficiently debate and vote on this matter
during consideration of the farm bill.
I would ask the gentleman if he believes that debate on the
agriculture appropriations bill is the only time during which we will
be able to get a vote on this issue?
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentlewoman, and I
appreciate the question, the answer is no. I know that you and some of
your other colleagues have serious concerns about the peanut program. I
want to assure you that the Committee on Agriculture has heard those
concerns and is working on some real policy changes and a plan to
reform the program.
It is my hope that we can come to an agreement on a reform plan that
all the Members of this body will be happy with and that we can avoid a
protracted floor fight at the time of the farm bill. With that in mind,
I would ask the gentlewoman if she would consider withdrawing her
amendment and let us continue the progress, and let me add, we are
making real progress, to address your concerns about this program and
the concerns of the growers and everybody connected with the program.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased to know that
there is progress made on this issue, because I think the gentleman is
aware of the serious concerns that I and many of our colleagues have
with this program.
I look forward to seeing the result of the Committee on Agriculture
deliberations, but if the reform plan that the gentleman's committee
comes up with does not adequately address the problems I and many of my
colleagues have with this program, can the gentleman assure me that
there will be an opportunity to discuss and vote on this issue on the
floor during debate on the farm bill?
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield,
I will tell the gentlewoman, the answer is a firm yes. If the Committee
on Agriculture cannot reach an agreement on reforming the program that
satisfies the concerns of you and your colleagues, I can assure you, as
I have said in my previous colloquy with the gentleman from New Mexico,
that you and your colleagues will have an opportunity to address these
issues simply during the farm bill debate.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I will not offer the
amendment this evening. I appreciate the gentleman's consideration of
this very important issue.
Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I also wish to thank the gentlewoman
for her cooperation and agree with the chairman in assuring her that
because of her generosity and understanding our situation on this
legislation, we will work nonetheless to assure her and those that feel
like her that we will give them ample opportunity. In the meantime, we
ourselves are trying to correct any deficiencies in the program. So I
am assuring her we will work together, and we appreciate her
understanding of the issue this evening.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman for his
comments. I want to also make it very clear that those of us who
consume the products of all your hard work on the farm are very
involved with this issue, and we appreciate the gentleman's comments
and we look forward to working with him.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Miller].
{time} 2115

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture concerning the
ability to offer amendments on the agriculture reauthorization bill
later on this year. As the gentleman may know, I am the author, along
with 95 other Members of Congress, of a bill to repeal the sugar
program.
As we balance the budget, the American people want a fair process and
must see that everything is on the table. America's wheat growers, corn
growers and others have seen farm programs slashed since 1985. Yet
unlike the other programs of wheat and corn, the sugar program has
conspicuously not been on the table. The generous benefits to the large
cane and beet producers have not been reduced at all during the last
two farm bills. Meanwhile, benefits to wheat farmers have been
effectively reduced by 40 percent since 1985 and the budget process may
require cuts amounting to another 25 percent.
In fact, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's equity analysis
dramatically indicated that the Federal government supports sugar
growers at $472 per acre, more than 20 times the $23 per acre

[[Page H 7244]]
that wheat farmers receive. Faced with a broken sugar program and the
farm bill inequity, we believe our bill, H.R. 1687, which has 96
cosponsors, a fair way to provide America's sugar farmers with a
market-oriented sugar policy.
It removes the excessive price supports and domestic cartel-like
provisions, taking the government out of micromanaging the sugar
industry, yet it leaves in place the program's import quotas to protect
our farmers from subsidized sugars.
Many in the House of Representatives are eager to see what the
Committee on Agriculture will do with respect to sugar.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the distinguished Chairman of
the committee, and inquire about his intentions regarding the sugar
program.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman what are his intentions with
respect to the sugar programs?
Mr. ROBERTS. We have very good intentions.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I hope so.
Mr. ROBERTS. The road to a good farm program is paved with good
intentions.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] and
some of his other colleagues have serious concerns about the sugar
program, as well as other farm programs. I want to assure him, as I
have assured the gentleman from New Mexico and the gentlewoman from New
York, that the Committee on Agriculture plans to pursue a market-
oriented policy to this program.
It is my hope that we can come to an agreement on policy changes that
all Members of this body will be happy with and that we can avoid a
protracted floor fight at the time of the farm bill.
With that in mind, I would ask the gentleman, as I have asked the
other Members of this body, to withdraw his amendment and permit the
authorizing committee to address these issues.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, then I understand and appreciate
the chairman's commitment to reform the sugar program. I look forward
to seeing the results of the Committee on Agriculture's deliberations.
Indeed I have already testified before the specialty crops subcommittee
for over two hours, a very enjoyable two hours I might remind the
gentleman, of my concerns about the programs.
Many members have expressed concerns with the domestic marketing
allotments and the high loan rate. After the committee finishes its
work, if Members believe that more needs to be done, can the gentleman
assure us that we will be afforded the opportunity to debate and vote
on our amendment to the sugar program?
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes, I would tell the
gentleman. And after the Committee on Agriculture finishes its
consideration of the sugar program, if he is not satisfied with the
committee's actions, I can assure the gentleman and his colleagues that
they will have an opportunity to amend the sugar program during the
farm bill debate.
Many are called; few are chosen. The gentleman from Florida will be
one of the chosen.
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
commitment to the honest and open debate on the issue. We respect the
right and the prerogative of the distinguished chairman of the House
Committee on Agriculture to have the initial opportunity to address
the sugar program and I will not be offering the amendment to the
appropriations bill.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I think the
gentleman from Virginia would like to be recognized to address the same
concerns and questions that the gentleman from Florida has.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
(Mr. DAVIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. First of all, I want to
thank my colleague from Florida, Mr. Miller, for his leadership in this
matter and I thank my friend from Kansas for the assurances he has
given us today.
This fall, in the House we will be debating a new farm bill. We will
also be debating the budget reconciliation bill that will balance the
Federal budget in 7 years, which is going to force substantial cuts in
farm commodity programs, such as wheat, dairy, corn, cotton and rice.
While these programs have faced an average 40 percent cut since 1985,
sugar has not been cut one iota. I believe this is unacceptable and we
can face this issue during the farm bill.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to add I think every citizen is paying a
hidden tax today because of the sugar program. It takes money out of
the pockets of American consumer to the tune of $1.4 billion every year
in higher food prices. I thank my colleagues for their efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss the Miller amendment to repeal
the government sugar program. There is no plausible reason why our
government is involved with setting and controlling the price of sugar.
It is big government at its worst. It benefits a wealthy few. It
promotes the destruction of one of our prized environmental landmarks--
the Florida Everglades.
The November elections signaled that the American people wanted a
change in the way we in Washington do business. Getting the Federal
Government out of this program is a very good place to start. Every
citizen pays a hidden tax that takes money out of the pockets of
American consumers to the tune of more than $1.4 billion every year in
higher food prices according to GAO. This hidden tax has cost Americans
more than $10 billion over the last decade. In addition, the consumer
interest group Public Voice has recently estimated that the sugar
program has cost the Federal Government $110 million annually because
of higher purchase prices for sugar and sugar-containing products used
in domestic feeding and food programs. This is money that the American
people could be saving, investing, or using to buy needed items for
their families. But because of this program, they must pay higher
prices on everything containing sugar all because of the Federal
Government controls in the marketplace.
I have great respect for the distinguished chairman of the House
Agriculture Committee, Mr. Roberts and also respect his committee's
right to deal with the future of the sugar program. I want him to know
that the nearly 100 co-sponsors of the Miller amendment to repeal the
sugar program are watching his committee closely. We look forward to
working with him in this endeavor, and working with my friend, Mr.
Foley, from Florida, who represents many of these growers and shares a
different perspective on this issue.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I also want to add my commendation and
also observation that the authorizing committee in agriculture works
with a certain amount of respect across party lines. And it is good to
also see that the appropriating and authorizing committees are also
working well with each other.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both my colleague, the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Lowey], who is respectful of the fact that with the
farm bill we will have the opportunity to discuss the issues that she
is concerned about.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to raise some concerns that I have about this
particular bill, not because it has not been well intended, but there
are some cuts, Mr. Chairman, that I think we need to observe and bring
to the attention of our colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, Speaker Gingrich last week cautioned this House about a
mindless march towards a balanced budget, without regard to the merits
of certain programs, I agree with that statement.
The Agriculture appropriations bill, which we are considering, is
typical of that kind of budget cutting, a mindless march, without
regard to the great pain and suffering we will cause a large number of
people, and without regard to the dislocation of communities.
It is for that reason that I intend to support and perhaps offer
amendments, designed to spare programs of merit that are slashed by
this bill or by other amendments.
Agriculture has consistently reduced spending and has absorbed
drastic cuts over the last several years.
Again, we will absorb reductions in operations and support of our
commodities programs. But, much in this bill goes too far.

[[Page H 7245]]

This bill intrudes heavily into the jurisdiction of the Agriculture
Committee, legislating, in many instances, instead of appropriating.
Among the many provisions to H.R. 1976, there is one that is
particularly egregious to Republicans and Democrats alike--the
unamendable en bloc that is to be offered by our colleague, Congressman
Joe Skeen, who is, acknowledged, a very considerate person and a good
person to work with.
That amendment, among other actions, zeros out funding for the Rural
Development Loan Fund Account.
That account funds the vital empowerment zones and enterprise
communities program, including loans and grants for water and waste
disposal; community facilities; guaranteed business and industry loans
and other programs.
We are also facing drastic cuts in two housing programs that
effectively serve rural and low-income Americans--the 502 Direct Loan
Program and the 515 Rural Rental Housing Program.
Section 502 provides the opportunity for home ownership for people
who otherwise would have no chance to own their own home. It also
provides loans to farmers for housing for themselves and their workers.
Section 515 is the only housing program available for very low income
people. It is essential to the housing needs of citizens in rural
areas.
All of these programs should be the recipients of our unwavering
support; instead they face decimation.
These programs often provide the only means for rural communities to
support local initiatives and also provide avenues in which to combine
Federal, State, local and private funding initiatives--thus allowing
limited Federal dollars to be expended with the support from other
resources.
Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities are prime methods
through which government can encourage self-sufficiency, a key element
of the Contract With America.
In my district, funds from the Rural Development Loan Fund Program
Account have been allocated to renovate a defunct hospital site into a
facility the citizens of Wilson can use for jobs, training and business
expansion.
In addition, it is expected that in fiscal year 1995, the Rural
Housing and Community Development Service will provide over 30,000 home
ownership loans to rural families.
Moreover, thousands rely on the Section 515 Program. At one time,
this program was funded at $540 million. Last year, I and others joined
in an effort to restore the program to its current level of $220
million, after a proposed cut which nearly eliminated the program.
Another cut in the Section 515 Program will render it nearly
ineffective.
What happens next year? How much more deeply can we cut? It is our
intent to phase out all rural programs?
And, while this bill is cutting programs to help people survive, it
is also cutting programs that could allow them to thrive.
The bill severely limits the Export Enhancement Program, for example.
Agriculture exports have been vital to our balance of trade situation,
yet this bill will make it more difficult for us to compete globally.
Cooperative State research, education, and extension programs are
cut.
The implementation of new meat and poultry inspection regulations are
hindered by this bill.
The list seems unending.
It would appear that we are engaged in a mindless march.
A balanced budget is important, but if in seeking to balance the
budget, we create a serious imbalance among our citizens and in our
communities, this march could lead us to places we do not intend to go.
Let's heed the admonition of the Speaker.
Let's balance the budget, but let's make program cuts that are
meaningful, not mindless.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley].
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Skeen] for his fine work on this document dealing with agriculture. I
would like to thank our colleagues for their colloquy earlier on the
sugar and peanut program.
Mr. Chairman, let me suggest to all Americans listening and to
Members of Congress, when we talk about America's food supply we have
one of the finest, safest, most affordable food supplies in the world.
I think it important when we talk about these programs that we put them
in the context that they deserve; that we are feeding America's
families.
We are doing it efficiently, we are doing it safely, and we are
supplying the world's food needs. So when we talk about farm bills and
we talk about in the abstract of eliminating programs, let us look at
the consumers that would be affected by our actions.
Let us remember that when we order ice tea in the restaurant, they
give you sugar. When we are riding on the airplanes, they give you
peanuts. There is a reason for that; because they are inexpensive,
because they are abundant, and because they are available.
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis]
tonight to give us the opportunity in September to fully debate the
farm bill in the appropriate forum, in the farm bill where it belongs.
I thank the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the chairman, for
his efforts to bring this bill to the floor ultimately when we can
discuss it, debate it in the full context of making certain that
America continues to be the leader in food production, not only for
ourselves and our citizens, but for occupants around the globe.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word to my colleagues
from America's great cities, or from those places that do not have
farms or agriculture production at all. I know that sometimes the farm
portion, the ag portion of this bill, and particularly the ag bill that
will come later out of the House Committee on Agriculture, can get a
little arcane if you do not deal with production farming. But there are
a couple of facts that I want to share with my urban or non-agriculture
colleagues.
One out of every six jobs in America happens because of agriculture.
Agriculture makes up 16 percent of America's gross domestic product.
Now, what are the cost of farm programs and are they going up or are
they coming down? In less than the last 10 years, in just 9 years,
since 1986, the cost of agriculture programs has dropped 60 percent.
The Federal cost of farm programs has dropped 60 percent in 9 years.
By the way, entitlements, the Federal cost of entitlements, have
doubled during that same time period.
Farm programs amount to less than 1 percent of Federal spending, so
the farm portion of this program that we may vote on tonight and will
complete tomorrow, will be less than 1 percent of all the Federal
spending we will be called upon to enact this year.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to make this point to my colleagues.
Americans paid just 8 percent of their income for food. Our European
friends spend an average of 17 percent of their income for food and our
Japanese friends spend 20 percent of their income for food. Why?
Because Federal farm programs stabilize price by stabilizing
production.

{time} 2130

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Kingston], a committee member.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, fellow Members of the House and
Representatives representing grocery buyers, let me talk to you a
little bit about what the previous speaker just said about our European
counterparts spending 17 to 20 percent of their energy on groceries.
In America we do not do that, and yet every time I pick up the
Readers Digest, it seems that the way to balance the budget is always
on the back of agriculture. Americans spend 11 percent of their income
on farming. And what is the investment your government makes in order
to make this possible?
Look at this chart right here. We see what the Federal Government
spends money on: Social Security, defense, Medicare, Medicaid, interest
on the debt. Where is agriculture? Under 1 percent. That is what the
farm programs are costing our taxpayers, and

[[Page H 7246]]
yet time and time again you hear, ``Cut the farm bill, cut the farm
bill.''
Have we ever cut the farm bill? This is what we have reduced in
discretionary agricultural spending since 1986, almost $26 billion, and
today, 1995, we are at $10.6 billion.
What other Federal Government program has dropped like that?
Support the farm bill.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
(Mr. ROSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise and thank the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] for
their colloquy with the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, and I
want to also associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley].
I held a hearing on the General Accounting Office audit of the peanut
program and the sugar program, and what we found was that the General
Accounting Office was saying that the consumer was paying too much, and
by that they meant the first purchaser of sugar and the first purchaser
of peanuts, who is not the housewife, not the consumer, but the
manufacturers. I asked them, ``Did you ask the sugar and the peanut
people if we give them a reduction in the price level, will you pass
that on to the American housewife?'' They said, ``Yes.'' We asked them,
``What did they say?'' ``They said `no,' they could not do that.''
My friends, we could give sugar and peanuts to the candy
manufacturers of this country, and that is who is driving this train,
we could give them the peanuts, we could give them the sugar, and you
would not see one nickel decrease in the price of a candy bar.
I hope that between now and the farm bill we can have an opportunity
to go into this. I would be glad to reduce the price of port levels of
both of these commodities if the savings were passed directly to the
American housewife.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise to discuss in support of this appropriation. I represent the
State of California. You are always hearing about California being a
state of 32 million people. But what you may not know is the largest
industry in California is agriculture.
Per year, $18 billion in farm sales generates over $70 billion in
economic activity annually and employs over 2 million people on the
farm and related jobs. Nearly 1 out of every 6 California jobs depends
on agriculture.
The fastest-growing sector of this economy is the agricultural export
market, which now derives nearly $13 billion in economic activity and
supports over 137,000 jobs in California.
Despite the Uruguay round agreement on GATT, California's
agricultural exports are up against the heavily subsidized foreign
competition that still dominates the global marketplace. The European
Union, for example, outspent the United States in export subsidies by
more than 6 to 1 and will be able to maintain this historical advantage
under GATT.
Chile just announced a $25 million export promotion, and Norway has
initiated a $20 million program to promote just salmon exports.
This is the real world of global competition.
With the help of the market promotion program, we run a trade surplus
of $14 billion per year with Japan, our biggest agricultural export
market, and it grew by $500 million just in last year alone. The market
promotion program helps California agriculture develop, expand, and
maintain foreign markets. Eliminating the market promotion program
would amount to unilateral disarmament.
The USDA estimates that for every dollar in the market promotion
program, the funds generate an average of $16 in agricultural exports.
I support the market promotion program in this bill and would urge my
colleagues to reject any amendments to delete or diminish it.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois [Mrs. Collins], who has been a leader in this Congress on many
issues and has a recognized expertise in the area of meat inspection
and food safety.
(Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for
withdrawing his language that would have blocked issuance of the new
meat safety rule. The Agriculture Department has been working on this
rule for about 6 years and is finally about ready to issue the rule.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], who
has worked very, very hard on this issue, and even though he has
mentioned that I have been a hard worker on this particular matter, so
has he. He has been a yeoman on this particular issue which is
critically important--to all Americans.
To block it now would only further delay bacterial testing of meat
and poultry which is the only way, I repeat, the only way to determine
whether meat has the deadly E. coli or other bacteria.
Bacteria contamination of meat is what caused the death 2 years ago
of young Alex Donley of Chicago, IL. It is also what killed 4 children
and made 600 others gravely ill 2\1/2\ years ago in the Jack-in-the-Box
food poisoning incident in Washington State.
Mr. Chairman, the new meat rule has been the object of constant
attack from the very beginning of this Congress. Opponents of the meat
safety rule tried to kill it in the regulatory moratorium bill; they
tried to kill it last week in the Senate's regulatory reform bill; and
they tried to kill in this bill.
I, for one, completely oppose any further delay in the issuance of
this regulation. Only bacterial testing can tell us whether the meat
and poultry our families consume may be deadly.
Mr. Chairman, again I thank the gentlemen, both gentlemen, in fact,
for withdrawing, first of all, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth]
for withdrawing his amendment. I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Durbin] who worked so hard on this issue, and I am very pleased the
Agriculture Department will be able to go forward with this important
new meat inspection program.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I must register my very
strong opposition to the Republican proposal to limit the number of
people who can participate in the WIC program, a program that for
decades has sought to reduce some of the effects of severe poverty on
infants and children in this country.
WIC's annual appropriation already limits the number of women,
infants, and children who can be served. An additional participation
cap, as proposed by the Republicans, would likely result in serving
fewer eligible people next year, by creating additional administrative
burdens.
Currently, some 3 million eligible women, infants, and children are
unable to receive WIC benefits. These are overwhelming statistics,
given the fact that WIC saves lives and is highly cost-effective. WIC
reduces infant mortality, low birthweight and anemia and therefore,
saves money by averting medical and other related expenditures. For
every dollar spent by WIC on pregnant women, taxpayers save between
$1.92 and $4.21 in Medicaid costs for newborns and their mothers.
Not only is such a cap morally wrong, but it simply does not make
good fiscal sense. The participation gap would discourage State
innovation, cause taxpayer dollars to be spent less efficiently, and
result in participation declines. There are better ways to achieve the
Appropriation Committee's goal of fiscal responsibility. We owe it to
our country to show greater moral leadership than my Republican
colleagues have shown. And we owe it to our country to show the kind of
compassion that will lead to a brighter, healthier future for our
children.
Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with regard to the Federal
peanut program. There are several members of this House, including
myself, which would like to see major reform or the outright
elimination of this program.
I am pleased that the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr.
Roberts of Kansas, has made a commitment to this entire body that this
issue will be addressed when his

[[Page H 7247]]
committee takes up the reauthorization of the entire Federal farm
programs later this year.
The peanut program has two peculiar aspects to it. First, and
foremost, the peanut program subsidizes the price of peanuts received
by farmers and raises the cost of peanuts and peanut products for the
consumers. Second, in order to grow peanuts to be sold for human
consumption, peanut farmers have established a quota system that forces
potential farmers to rent licenses from a few ``quota-holders'' that
were granted over a century ago. This license system along with other
Federal Government restrictions raises the cost of peanut production by
26 percent. This cost is also passed along to the consumer. These
consumers are the individuals who make up my Congressional District in
northern New Jersey.
The General Accounting Office estimates that the peanut program costs
American consumers between $314 and $514 million a year in higher
prices. In an era of tight budgets and a promise to achieve a balanced
budget it is clear this program needs to be restructured. We have made
a promise to make the Federal Government smaller, smarter, and less
costly, and ending this program would be another step toward that end.
All businesses are required to produce revenue or face the harsh
reality of termination, why should the Federal Government treat peanut
producers any differently? In a country that values competition, a
peanut program that shelters the industry from competitors is contrary
to the very principles that founded this great nation.
Mr. Chairman, this is why I call upon the Chairman of the Agriculture
Committee to restructure or eliminate the quota and price supports for
peanuts. I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to
eliminate the peanut program from the folds of the Federal Government's
wings.
Mr. BEREUTER, Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R.
1976, the Agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996.
This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], the ranking member
of the subcommittee for their hard work in bringing this bill to the
Floor.
Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget
constraints under which the subcommittee operated. The subcommittee was
forced to make some difficult funding choices in order to stay within
its budget allocation. In light of these limitations, this Member is
grateful and pleased that this legislation includes funding for several
important projects of interest to the State of Nebraska.
First, the bill provide $423,000 for the Midwest Advanced Food
Manufacturing Alliance. The Alliance is an association of twelve
leading research universities and corporate partners. Its purpose is to
develop and facilitate the transfer of new food manufacturing and
processing technologies.
The Alliance awards grants for research projects on a peer review
basis. These awards must be supported by an industry partner willing to
provide matching funds. During the first year of competition, the
Alliance received 30 proposals requesting nearly $1 million, but it was
limited to funding 14 proposals for a total of $393,617. Matching funds
from industry totaled $623,148 with an additional $134,000 from in-kind
funds. These figures convincingly demonstrate how successful the
Alliance has been in leveraging support from industry.
Mr. Chairman, the future viability and competitiveness of the U.S.
agricultural industry depends on its ability to adapt to increasing
world-wide demands for U.S. exports of intermediate and consumer good
exports. In order to meet these changing world-wide demands,
agricultural research must also adapt to provide more emphasis on
adding value to our basic farm commodities. The Midwest Advanced Food
Manufacturing Alliance can provide the necessary cooperative link
between universities and industries for the development of competitive
food manufacturing and processing technologies. This will, in turn,
ensure that the United States agricultural industry remains competitive
in a increasingly competitive global economy.
This Member is also pleased that this bill includes $200,000 to fund
a drought mitigation project at the Agricultural Meteorology Department
at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. This level of funding will
greatly assist in the further development of a national drought
mitigation center. Such a center is important to Nebraska and all arid
and semi-arid states. Although drought is one of the most complex and
least understood of all natural disasters, no centralized source of
information currently exists on drought assessment, mitigation,
response, and planning efforts. A national drought mitigation center
would develop a comprehensive program designed to reduce vulnerability
to drought by promoting the development and implementation of
appropriate mitigation technologies.

Another important project funded by this bill is the Alliance for
Food Protection, a joint project between the University of Nebraska and
the University of Georgia. The mission of this Alliance is to assist
the development and modification of food processing and preservation
technologies. This technology will help ensure that Americans continue
to receive the safest and highest quality food possible.
This Member is also pleased that this legislation includes $1.5
billion in loan authority for the Farmers Home Section 502 Middle
Income Loan Guarantee Program. This is a housing program this Member
proposed and pushed through his membership on the House Banking
Committee. After a very successful 20 state demonstration program in
1991, the 502 unsubsidized loan guarantee program was expanded to all
50 States in 1992. The subcommittee members are to be commended for
recognizing the value of this program and providing funding levels more
in line with the demand for the program from lenders, borrowers, and
future homeowners.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member supports H.R. 1976 and
urges his colleagues to approve it.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, as a former member of the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee, I recognize the difficulties faced by the
Chairman and ranking member and I commend them for their efforts on
this bill. H.R. 1976 provides $15.9 billion in agricultural programs
but still saves $5.2 billion, compared to spending last year. However,
with tough challenges come tough decisions, and I am faced with one
today. I am concerned about an amendment to be offered later during
this debate and the effect this will have on low-income housing for
people in my State of Nevada and throughout the Nation. Specifically,
502 direct housing loans help those low and very-low income families
who are unable to obtain financing elsewhere. Without these funds, it
will be difficult or impossible for people to achieve the American
Dream of owning their own home. In addition, I am concerned about other
reductions to rural programs including rural waste disposal projects
and rural development.
Although reluctant, I will support this amendment because it does
have some good provisions in it regarding the Conservation Reserve
Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program. However, I urge the Chairman
to continue to fight to restore funding for the 502 housing program and
some of the other rural programs in conference.
Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, the sugar program fixes the price of
sugar, guaranteeing business high profit margins in an industry that is
not suffering significant losses. In fact, the Federal Government takes
it a step further by limiting imports to further increase the price of
sugar. These efforts swell the price of sugar to double the price paid
in most foreign nations.
My colleague, Dan Miller of Florida, has been a leader in the effort
to reform this program. Congressman Miller should be commended for
going against an interest which has a strong representation in his home
State. He said, long before the election results told us, that the
American people expect changes in Washington, beginning with the
elimination of programs like the sugar subsidy. I am pleased that Mr.
Miller has received the commitment from the chairman of the Agriculture
Committee, Mr. Roberts, to work to restructure this program.
While the wealthy sugar producers claim that the industry can not
survive without the subsidy, nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, the sugar program subsidizes the wealthiest
plantation owners. The 33 plantations represent only 0.2 percent of all
sugar producing farms, yet they receive one-third of all farm-level
benefits from the program. In addition, the General Accounting Office
estimates that the program costs American consumers $1.4 billion a year
through the increased prices of products that contain sugar.
The citizens of my district sent me to Washington with a specific
goal in mind. That goal was to eliminate or restructure all the Federal
programs that are outdated. The Federal sugar program is exactly the
type of program that I seek to eliminate from the government books.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Federal Government to get out of the sugar
business. While it may be a sweet deal to the sugar producers, it
leaves a bittersweet taste in the mouths of the American public.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment printed in House Report 104-185
is now pending. That amendment shall be considered read, shall be
debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations, and shall not be subject to amendment or to a demand
for division of the question.
If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as amended, shall be
considered as

[[Page H 7248]]
the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 5-
minute rule.
Further consideration of the bill for amendment shall proceed by
title and each title shall be considered read.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during further
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded
vote on any amendment made in order by the resolution.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less
than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting
by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not
be less than 15 minutes.

amendment made in order by house resolution 188

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment printed in House
Report 104-185.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment made in order by House Resolution 188:
On page 25, line 20 strike $805,888,000 and insert
$788,388,000.
On page 34, line 16 strike the ``and'' and all that follows
through ``590p(b)),'' on line 20; and on page 35, line 13
strike $47,000,000 and insert $36,000,000.
On page 35, line 25 strike $77,000,000 and insert
$210,000,000.
On page 40, line 10 strike $2,400,000,000 and insert
$2,200,000,000; and on line 11 strike $1,500,000,000 and
insert $1,700,000,000.
On page 40, line 20 strike $191,460,000 and insert
$107,840,000 and strike $2,550,000 and insert $2,890,000.
On page 46 strike lines 8 through line 2 on page 47.
On page 50, line 22 strike $562,000,000 and insert
$435,000,000.
On page 67 strike lines 10 through 17.
On page 67 line 18 strike 717 and insert 715.
On page 67, line 21 strike 718 and insert 716.
On page 69, line 6 strike 719 and insert 717.
On page 69 strike lines 12 through 18.
On page 69, line 19 strike 721 and insert 718.
On page 70 strike lines 5 through 11.
On page 70, line 12 strike 723 and insert 719.
On page 70, line 15 strike 724 and insert 720.
On page 70, line 20 strike 725 and insert 721.

The Chairman. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New Mexico
[Mr. Skeen] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] will each be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like again to explain the en bloc amendments.
Mr. Chairman, the limitations on the Conservation Reserve Program,
the Wetlands Reserve Program and Export Enhancement Program are
stricken from the original bill, as is the provision that would have
prohibited certain disaster payments for livestock feed producers who
refused crop insurance.
The salaries and expenses account of the Consolidated Farm Service
Agency is reduced by $17.5 million. The Great Plains Conservation
Program is eliminated for a savings of $11 million. The loan level for
section 502 direct housing is reduced from $900 million in the bill to
$500 million, and the guarantee program is increased from $1.5 billion
to $1.7 billion, for a savings of $83.6 million.
The Rural Development Loan Fund, one of several programs supporting
economic development in rural areas, is eliminated for a savings of
$37.6 million. Funds available for the Rural Development Performance
Partnerships Program for rural utilities, which is essentially a block
grant for water and waste disposal loans and grants and solid waste
management grants, is reduced from $562 million in the bill to $435
million.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, this amendment is budget neutral, and
that is the en bloc amendment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time.
I rise to oppose the chairman's en bloc amendment because it contains
further reductions in direct loans available through the section 502
rural housing program. My district covers most of the rural areas of my
State. Over the past year these low-interest loans have allowed 89
families in my district who otherwise could not secure a loan to buy or
build their own home. these families earn an average of about $22,000 a
year, which is only a little bit more than half the average income in
Massachusetts.
Even in the most rural areas of my district, homes cost upwards of
$85,000. The 89 loans this year in my district are worth almost $5
million.
This loan program is the one chance that many families have to own
their homes. In fact, it is the only Federal assistance for low-income
rural homeownership.
Section 502 funding has already been cut by about 20 percent over the
past 5 years, and the Skeen amendment would so reduce the funding for
the direct loan portion of the program that only about 8,000 families
in the whole country could be assisted next year. This is no way, in my
view, to encourage people who are working hard to pay their bills and
raise their kids, yet dream of owning their own home.
I would urge my colleagues to vote against the Skeen amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Callahan].
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree very much with the former speaker
here with respect to the 502 housing program. It is a very valuable and
essential program that is working in America.
There are 130,000 people standing in line waiting for this.
We have 13,000 people here in America standing in line waiting for
October 1 and waiting for the money under the 502 program.
Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to put it in this bill at
this time, but I will assure you that the chairman of the committee is
sincere in his effort to work with us to try to find some opportunity,
try to find some way to properly fund the 502 program, because he
agrees with us that it is essential that we do it.
There is just not enough money under the agreement that they have
with the Committee on Agriculture to do it now. I think that we have
worked out a way where we can get an additional $10 million put in.
That will be offered by me under title III.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. We are essentially looking for other monies to put back in
the program. If we find any, which I think we can, we will put it back
in the 502 housing. We also have the concern for and respect for that
program and how well it has worked.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I know you do, Mr. Chairman. That is my point here. I
am encouraging people to support your en bloc amendment. Let us get on
with it. Let us get to title III. We found a way to recapture some of
it. We can probably recapture some more during the process.

{time} 2145

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, this
is exactly what we have had to do because we did the en bloc very
quickly, and so we are going to do everything that we can to make that
program whole again.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I know that, and I appreciate that.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the authorizing committee I
want to make it very clear for everybody on the floor and who has
concerns about the housing programs the gentleman will be offering an
amendment under a different title, we have $10 million, staff informs
me that really leverages to $50 million, and the gentleman has
indicated that while he has some concerns over the housing situation,
he will vote for the en bloc amendment. We will address that issue in
other titles.
I would urge a yes vote on the en bloc amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. That is right. I encourage my colleagues to vote for
the en bloc amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the minority

[[Page H 7249]]
spokesman on the appropriations subcommittee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that farmers in my area
have virtually given up on that expectation that they will get any kind
of rational national farm policy which will be at all fair. They face,
for instance, milk marketing arrangements which are ridiculously
outmoded and biased against our region of the country. But at least
they held out some hope that there would be some modicum of rural
development which would help in terms of housing, and in terms of
water, and in terms of sewer, and the problem with this en bloc
amendment is that it further damages those programs. It cuts help for
the program which provides people to buy their first home in rural
America. I do not think that is a good idea. It amazes me that the
reductions in the rural sewer, and water loan and grant programs will
mean, for instance, that if this House buys the B-2 program, that we
will spend more on just one B-2 bomber than the entire cost of all of
those programs for 4 years on just one of those bombers.
Mr. Chairman, it makes absolutely no sense to me, it makes absolutely
no sense to the farmers I represent or certainly to the nonfarmers who
occupy rural America in districts like mine, and therefore, while I
have great respect and affection for the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee, I do not much approve of the amendment which will be
offered, and I would urge Members to vote against that amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's concern and
also appreciate the respect and so on, and I would be disappointed if
he had not made some comment contrary to the best efforts of this
thing. We are going to try to get there.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Roberts].
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skeen en
bloc amendment. This amendment reflects the work done between the
authorizers and appropriators to put forward a bill that both
committees can support. This amendment makes the difficult choices in
discretionary spending to reach the requirements of the budget
resolution.
Many of the spending choices reflected in the en bloc amendment are
painful. I wish we didn't have to make them, but we do. Later this
year, the Agriculture Committee will be bringing a farm authorization
bill to the floor that will contain ever harder choices. The en bloc
amendment before us today will allow the House to make clearer and more
accurate decisions on how we should approach all farm and rural
spending.
The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and his colleagues on the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee have faced up to their budget
responsibilities and provided in this amendment honest spending
reductions in their discretionary area of responsibility. Adoption of
this amendment is crucial to securing the support of all the
agriculture community for this bill. I strongly urge the House to pass
the Skeen en bloc amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that I understand why the chairman entered
into an agreement with the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture on
this amendment, but I do not particularly care for the terms of it. Let
me tell my colleagues two specific areas that I think are wanting in
this en bloc amendment and give them two specific reasons to vote
against it.
My colleagues have heard about the cuts in the rural housing program.
Last year we spent $1.2 billion on rural housing programs under 502,
which is a single-family dwelling program, usually for communities of
50,000 population or less. The administration asks for the same amount
of money. With this en bloc amendment we will cut the spending to $500
million, less than half of what it is in the current fiscal year.
The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] was correct. We have over
100,000 people hoping and praying that they will be able to realize the
American dream in their small towns through this housing program, and
we will be saying no to more than half of those. In fact, we will be
saying no to virtually all of them in the outyears if we follow the
course predicted by this en bloc amendment. So there is a substantial
cut in rural housing.
Now my colleagues say, ``Well, Mr. Durbin, now that you've said that,
where will you come up with the money?'' One of the things the
Committee on Agriculture insisted on was a provision which allows those
who are in livestock to have special benefits. In other words, we have
a provision in the law now which says:
If your livestock feed could be covered by crop insurance; in other
words, if you had the ability to protect yourself in case of a
disaster, then the Federal Government is not going to race to your
rescue if a disaster occurs.
Now that is a provision in law that is sensible because we ought to
encourage people, ``Buy insurance. Cover yourself. Don't come begging
to Uncle Sam.''
Well, the Committee on Agriculture insisted on lifting that provision
and saying that livestock feed that is lost because of a disaster will
now be eligible for a disaster payment even if the livestock producer
could have bought crop insurance and could have protected himself.
My colleagues, that is the wrong message. If we are going to cut back
in Federal spending, and particularly in disaster spending, the message
should be, if insurance is out there, buy it, and if you don't buy it,
it is at your own peril.
Please join me in opposing the en bloc amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment made in order by House
Resolution 188.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 240,
noes 173, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 535]

AYES--240

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Taylor (NC)

[[Page H 7250]]

Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--173

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn

NOT VOTING--21

Blute
Bryant (TX)
Collins (MI)
Crane
Hall (OH)
Harman
Jefferson
Manton
Martinez
Miller (CA)
Moakley
Moran
Murtha
Reynolds
Schiff
Sisisky
Studds
Tate
Tauzin
Volkmer
Yates

{time} 2211

Mr. GILCHREST and Mr. POMEROY changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment made in order by House Resolution 188 was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr.
Kingston], having assumed the chair, Mr. Klug, 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. 1967)
making appropriations for Agriculture, rural development, Food and Drug
Administration, and related agencies programs for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________