[Pages H6194-H6236]
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, 1997

The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, the Animal Damage Control Program
represents one of the most efficient and cost-effective programs within
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It benefits the general public as
well as the agricultural industry. Without animal damage control,
studies have indicated that agriculture's annual losses would total in
excess of $1 billion. In 1994 in Oregon alone, the National
Agricultural Statistics Service estimated that 4,275 sheep and 15,200
lambs were lost to predators.
What kind of signal are we sending to these ranchers? When urban
residents are robbed of their private property, they rely on publicly
financed services to regain their property. It this a subsidy to
private property owners? Is the taking of private property in the East
worthy of publicly financed services, while in the West it is not?
Mr. Chairman, ranchers are hard-working, tax-paying citizens who
contribute mightily to their communities. And the Animal Damage Control
Program is a tool they rely on to maintain a successful operation. It
should be protected.
Oppose the DeFazio amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the DeFazio amendment, and I want to state
that predator control is not only a western issue; it is an issue
throughout the entire country. I think that we need to retain this
program because we retained other predator control programs that
pertain to our police protection. This is just another form of that,
and we need it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown].
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the DeFazio amendment that would cut $13.4 million from the fiscal year
1997 budget for animal damage control.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of my good friend, the chairman of
the committee, to understand my position because I hope I understand
his. I have a small spread in California. I engage in predator control.
I believe in predator control. I will not describe the type of predator
control that I use, but I think it is reasonably effective.
What I am suggesting here in this effort to cut the budget for animal
damage control is that we can do this job more effectively and in a
more principled fashion than we do. I believe in strong cooperation on
the part of the Government, the Department of Agriculture in this case,
to help the farmers, ranchers, and other people of this country. I have
demonstrated that time after time.
On the other hand, I do not believe in an unnecessary and less than
beneficial subsidy that is being used to support this program.
As I think we all know, the Department of Agriculture is authorized
to levy fees to support this program, but have never used that
authority. We move in that direction in almost every other area in
which we are providing services to a segment of the business community,
and it is my view that we should be moving in this direction as far as
the Animal Damage Control Program is concerned.

In previous legislation the Congress has indicated that there are
preferred ways to carry out this operation and they do not require the
extensive use of the kinds of traps, snares, poisons, aerial hunting,
and other things that are going on today under the name of controlling
animal damage. There are more effective ways, and the Congress has
directed that these be used.
We have GAO reports that the ADC has been using these methods that I

[[Page H6195]]

have described in essentially all instances, despite the Department's
written policies and procedures which call for preference to be given
to nonlethal methods. Now I confess that I am an unabashed animal lover
and like to protect their lives where possible, and I think in this
case we can achieve the control of predator damage by the use of
nonlethal technologies, and that we can do it cheaper and we can
distribute the costs of doing this in a more equitable fashion by
levying fees which would be levied on the people who get the benefit
from the program.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin].
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending
amendment which would reduce funding to the Animal Damage Control
Program.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is at the very best
uninformed, and possibly at the worst, mean-spirited. When we talk
about predators, we are not talking only about coyotes, we are talking
about the wolf which has been introduced into Wyoming, into my State,
which is an endangered species. The grizzly bear is an endangered
species. Eagles and hawks, many of them are endangered species.
We do not have any right or any will to kill these predators, and we
cannot legally do that to protect our livestock. I believe in predator
control, but when an endangered animal, an endangered species kills
some livestock, the only way that the owner of that livestock can get
compensated is through the Animal Damage Control Program.

{time} 1130

I would suggest that, if the gentleman who offered the amendment had
a dog that was worth $10,000 and this dog was in his very own yard, and
there are bulls that are worth that much, much more than $10,000, but
this dog was in its very own yard and my dog went over and killed his
dog, then he would say that I ought to be responsible to pay him back
for the value of his dog. This is all this predator control program
does.
If a species or if a predator, including an endangered species, kills
a cow, a bull, a sheep, whatever, all we are asking is that a portion,
a very small portion of the value of that livestock be given back to
the owner of the livestock. That is what we are asking. This is not a
subsidy. It is merely paying someone for a small portion of what is
rightfully theirs.
The animal loss in the livestock industry is enormous, as the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley] stated earlier. Aside from the
livestock issues, there have also been wildlife losses, not just in
Wyoming but in Oregon and across the western United States, due to
predation. It is the livestock producers who, by controlling predators,
who keep the burgeoning numbers of coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, and
brown bears down, who have provided the most protection for wildlife,
which are preyed upon by these same destructive animals. The Animal
Defense Control Program is the last line of defense for the wildlife
that we enjoy and that everyone wants to preserve in our State.
If Members have any real interest in protecting wildlife, they will
vote against this amendment, because the ranchers and the livestock
growers are the ones who are helping control the predators, and they
need the animal control money to enable them to do that.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The issue here is a subsidy, subsidy. That side of the aisle is
consistently against government programs and subsidies except when it
goes to their own parochial interests. This bill does nothing, nothing
to prevent predator control by individuals, by counties, by States. As
I said previously, when I was a county commissioner, we canceled the
predator control program, walked away from the Federal match. They
engaged in private predator control, and the losses did not go up. But
that is the issue here.
Will we continue a $13.4 million subsidy to a selected few of the
livestock producers in the Western United States?
As I stated earlier, yes, the losses are largely due to predation.
Almost 3 percent of the losses last year were due to predation. The
other 97 percent were due to a number of causes, some of which are not
preventable, like weather, but others which could be preventable with
research, like respiratory problems, 27 percent; digestive problems, 25
percent. Fifty-two percent of the losses in this industry were due to
respiratory and digestive problems.
Maybe we should invest this money in our veterinary schools. Maybe we
should invest it in a vaccination program for livestock. I do not know.
But there would be a heck of a lot better return than the 3 percent
that was due to predation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New Mexico for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeFazio amendment.
It is bad news, it is bad news for agriculture. It is bad news for
consumers. It is bad news for the environment. And it is bad news for
America's children.
Here is the bad news the DeFazio amendment has for agriculture. In
1994, 520,000 sheep and lamb were killed by predators, direct losses to
agriculture from wildlife damage totaled $461 million. The DeFazio
amendment says too bad, so sad, let us increase these losses.
The DeFazio amendment would cut animal damage control that is
essential for the continued viability for many American ranches already
battered by the drought. Let us not forget about the drought. The
DeFazio amendment would punish these ranchers with increased losses. My
friends, that is wrong, it is just plain wrong.
Here is the bad news the DeFazio amendment has for consumers. Higher
grocery bills are on the way for millions of American families
struggling to make ends meet. These higher costs are courtesy of the
DeFazio amendment which will increase predator damage and reduce
supply.
At the same time, ADC plays a vital role in the safety of millions of
air travelers. By 1991, 635 airports participated in the ADC program.
The importance was illuminated when a bird strike at Kennedy Airport in
New York caused severe damage to a plane and, more importantly,
threatened the lives of 300 passengers. The DeFazio amendment says so
sad, too bad, we should accept this level of risk.
That is wrong. It is plain wrong. We should reject this amendment for
that reason as well.
Here is bad news the DeFazio amendment has for the environment. ADC
activities protect threatened and endangered species from predators.
The black footed ferret, the San Joaquin kit fox, the desert tortoise,
the Aleutian Canadian goose might well be extinct were it not for ADC
protection from predators. The DeFazio amendment says too bad, so sad,
we may as well terminate these species. That is wrong, plain wrong,
another reason to reject this amendment.
Finally, and most troubling, the DeFazio amendment delivers bad news
to America's children. Rabies is rearing its horrifying face across
America. Between 1988 and 1992, rabies cases have doubled. New York
reported 1,761 new cases, while 640 of my fellow Texans were treated
for rabies. Predators also directly threaten our youth. In Los Angeles,
a 3-year-old girl was killed in her front yard by a coyote. ADC fights
these threats. The DeFazio amendment tells us not to worry about the
predator threat. It is not important, too bad, so sad.

This is wrong. We should reject the DeFazio amendment. If we care
about either agriculture, consumers, the environment or children, we
should stand strong and reject the DeFazio amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman should read the amendment before he rises with such
extraordinary charges that the amendment will be responsible for the
collapse of American democracy and the final victory of the
totalitarian Soviet state, which I think was part of the statement
there.
It has exceptions for human health and safety. It has exceptions for
endangered or threatened species. The endangered, threatened species
are often dealt with in a better manner by fish

[[Page H6196]]

and wildlife, who has a line item in their budget. All this does is
eliminate a subsidy for a ridiculous anachronistic program first
implemented in 1931 that has no discernible impact.
It has had an impact, and it is inadvertent, against nontarget
species, poisoning of nontarget species, the destruction of predators
which, like coyotes, in many cases prey on rodents or on groundhogs and
gophers and things which cause problems with pastures and with horses
breaking their legs. So the gentleman, by killing coyotes, is
responsible for people whose horses have put their legs in gopher
holes, broken them, fallen and then been killed.
I will not make that charge, but his charges were equally
irresponsible.
This is an absurd subsidy to a selected few, a very small percentage
of privileged western livestock producers. It is something that if they
need, they can contract for themselves without a subsidy from the U.S.
taxpayers to continue this ineffective and indiscriminate program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
have listened attentively to much of the debate. I think that the
proponent of this amendment is completely overlooking the reason why
some of us believe that it is a good program.
If you have ever talked to a rancher that has lost 200, 300, 400, or
500 kid goats, baby goats just born, if you have talked to ranchers
that have lost 200 or 300 or 400 baby lambs that have just been born,
then the 3-percent figure in the Nation makes no sense whatsoever to
that individual.
This program is designed to take care of a problem. When there is no
problem, when you do not have an undue number of coyotes or other
predator animals in an area, you do not have a program. But when you do
have one, and it becomes a problem, then you have a need for a program,
and it does not just benefit the rancher.
Living in my part of the country today, as my friend and neighbor
from San Antonio just pointed out, rabies, we have a serious problem
that we are trying to contain and control. It is spread by coyotes and
bobcats. And it is a problem that is now coming within the city limits
of some of our towns in the southern part of Texas.
This program, as it is designed, is designed to be a responsible way
to deal with problems like this. So I would hope that my colleagues,
both sides of the aisle, would not support this amendment. It does
nothing other than create some tremendous economic problems for certain
ranchers, and it is not just in the far west, it is in Texas, it is in
Oklahoma, it is in New Mexico, in all areas in which you have for
whatever reason a problem with predatory animals.
I would hope that Members would not support this amendment. I think
the committee has done a very responsible job. They have had a
difficult time with the amount of moneys available. They have put the
moneys where they believe is in the best and highest priority. I
believe that it is something that almost every one of us can find a way
to justify and support.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from New Mexico
[Mr. Skeen] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining and has the right to close,
and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of red herrings drug across the floor
here. Rabies is not affected by this amendment. Human health and safety
activities are totally exempt. Whether it is rabid animals or problem
animals, those things can still be taken care of by ADC.
We have heard about environmental concerns from the other side. I am
pleased to finally hear environmental concerns from the other side from
the gentleman from Texas, maybe not a first but definitely somewhat
unprecedented.
We accommodate endangered and threatened species in this amendment.
It does not affect control efforts that deal with the preservation or
safety of endangered or threatened species.
Quite simply, the amendment goes to the heart of this issue, which
is, should the U.S. taxpayers subsidize a program of poisoning,
baiting, killing, shooting from airplanes and others of predator
species that may or may not be a particular problem, should they
continue to avoid their mandate that they use other controls, should we
spend $14 million doing this? Maybe we should go out and have a Federal
program to acquire dogs. We could buy Great Pyrenees, kuvasz,
Komondors, Bouvier des Flandres. You can get a heck of a lot of them
for $14 million, and if they live 10 years, we would not have to spend
any more money.

The issue is, many ranchers have become dependent upon practices that
are not the most prudent practices, to have calving or birthing of
lambs in areas that are problem areas without any herders present,
without themselves being present.
As we saw earlier, actually more of the livestock die with calving
problems, 17 percent, than with the predation problems, 3 percent. But
in any case, they are saying we need this program. If they need the
program, they should pay for it themselves. They should go to their
county or State, have the county or State pay for it.
It is time to put this Federal anachronism to bed. At a time when we
are cutting back on every other program here in order to get to a
balanced budget, we should no longer subsidize the indiscriminate
killing by the animal disease control people and we should continue in
the areas of health, safety, airports, and endangered species.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me say to the gentleman, who is existing in oblivious and
euphoric unawareness, that is the closest I can come to being real kind
about this issue, I understand his problem. He feels so good that he is
cutting money.
Let me say to the gentleman, by cutting funding for the program there
will not be any personnel available to take care of the health and
safety issues that he is espousing because that is built into the
program.

{time} 1145

I ask the Members to vote ``no'' on this issue. Let us go back a
little bit in history. We had the perfect answer to the kind of
predatory control in the United States at one time with the formula
known as 1080. It did not cost near as much as it does for the program
that we have today because it took care of the problem. It was benign
and it was species-specific. But, no, the animal rights people decided
that this was a lethal method that was objectionable to them, and we
did away with it, we banned, the use of 1080 in Western ranges.
So they came up with this program, and it is a participation program
in which ranchers, farmers, and others put up money, that is to some
degree, matching the Federal funding that is involved.
Yes, we want to cut the budget, and how, but we need to take care of
a problem that is so onerous and so critical to those people who are
livestock raisers and grazers. The are not being subsidized. They are
paying their part because they have to spend enormous amounts of time
checking traps and doing whatever they do to keep their predator
control situation under absolute control.
So I say to the gentleman, ``Get out of the county courthouse that
you were sitting in so comfortable; get out there and live with a
family for a little while that has a predator problem so that you
actually understand what predator control means.''
This program also assists those who have trouble going in and out of
airports with huge flocks of birds that fly through jet engines and
things of that kind. We are using a mental approach and a research
approach to solving that problem; lethal means, are used as a last
resort.
I agree with the gentleman that there ought to be a better system. We
had a better system at one time, but it was not looked upon with great
favor. In our great wisdom we banned it by executive decree, and I
think that was a horrible mistake.
So I say to the gentleman and to those who are interested in this
particular thing that I sure would appreciate a ``no'' vote because I
think it has a devastating effect, and the gentleman, giving him all
due credit, does not know what he is talking about.

[[Page H6197]]

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
Currently, the Federal Government spends $27 million on the Animal
Damage Control Program. Various activities covered under this program
include prevention of the spread of rabies and control of bird flocks
near airports. I strongly support these programs because they protect
human health and safety. However, there are other activities within the
ADC program which serve as an unnecessary subsidy to livestock
producers. By the Federal Government paying for predator control,
livestock owners are not encouraged to deter predators and improve the
protection of their herds. By leaving newborn calves and lambs in
fields far from the protection of the barn, livstock producers are
enticing animals such as wolves, mountain lions, and foxes to prey on
this young stock. In addition, the Department of Agriculture is already
authorized to levy fees for predator control services but will not do
so while the Federal government continues to pay the bills.
By cutting this program in half, we will focus the remaining money on
the more beneficial programs that protect human health and safety. In
these times of budgetary constraints, supporting this amendment will
save taxpayer money and provide an incentive for livestock producers to
take responsibility for protecting their herds.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
DeFazio amendment, which would reduce funds for the Animal Damage
Control Program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
This is not a well-known program, but it is an important program for
California and the United States.
ADC's activities range from preventing bird strikes to aircraft at
JFK International Airport in New York, to seeking solutions to the
severe problem of canine rabies in Texas, to protecting threatened and
endangered species in California.
In California, ADC has worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to protect the western snowy plover, the California clapper rail, the
desert tortoise, and the California least tern.
In addition, ADC works with ranchers and grazers to prevent losses
due to predation.
Losses of sheep and goats due to predation averages approximately $24
million a year. Cattle losses due to predation average approximately
$40 million annually. In the absence of an operational ADC program,
these losses will increase dramatically.
The effect of the DeFazio amendment would be significant and
devastating. Seven ADC States offices would be closed, including the
gentleman's home State and six other Western States. Twenty ADC
district offices will close from Wisconsin to my home State of
California. Approximately 200 field positions would be subject to
reduction-in-force. Matching cooperative would decrease by 50 percent--
amounting to a $10 million loss in cooperative funding.
In short, this is an effective program throughout the United States,
and this amendment would severely reduce its effectiveness.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the DeFazio amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139,
noes 279, not voting 16, as follows:

[Roll No. 230]

AYES--139

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chrysler
Coburn
Cox
Coyne
Cummings
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Farr
Fawell
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Fox
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Goss
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Jackson (IL)
Johnston
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Obey
Olver
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Petri
Porter
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Woolsey
Yates
Zimmer

NOES--279

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rush
Salmon
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--16

Bass
Calvert
Chapman
Clyburn
Conyers
Emerson
Frelinghuysen
Gillmor
Inglis
Lewis (CA)
Lincoln
Martini
McDade
Moran
Pryce
Schiff

{time} 1207

Messrs. KILDEE, FATTAH, and ROSE changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mrs. KENNELLY, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Messrs. COX of California,
BILBRAY, SCHUMER, LEWIS of Georgia, and NEUMANN changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 230 on H.R. 3603 I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''

personal explanation

Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, this morning during rollcall votes 229 and
230 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I

[[Page H6198]]

would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 229, and ``nay'' on
rollcall vote No. 230.

amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 1.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
At the end of the bill (page 69, after line 5), insert the
following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for market access activities under
section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5623), or made available for the salaries of employees of the
Department of Agriculture who provide assistance under such
section, may be used to provide assistance to eligible trade
organizations (as defined in such section) to promote the
sale or export of alcohol or alcoholic beverages.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN pro temprore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, I would ask the gentleman, did he request 10 minutes?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New
Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Yes, 10 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Five and five?
Mr. SKEEN. Five and five, yes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, that is fine with me, and
I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will each be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think many people that saw the news yesterday that
Seagrams Liquor Co. is now going to begin advertising directly hard
liquor on television, were shocked at that development.
In a country that currently is involved in a situation in the United
States of America where the No. 1 killer of people under the age of 24
in this country is alcohol and alcohol-related deaths, when we spend
$15 billion a year of taxpayer funds to fight the war on drugs, and yet
we have the singly most abused drug in this country, alcohol, now
killing many, many more Americans than all other drugs combined, we
have a tragedy on our hands.
We have spent time and time again debating on this floor the need to
cut back programs that provide for the education of our children, that
provide for the research and development of our country, that provide
for the health care of our senior citizens. But in this bill is a
hidden subsidy worth millions and millions of dollars to advertise some
of the most profitable alcoholic beverages abroad. It is a shame and it
is a scam. It ought to come to a stop.
In this Market Access Program, we will be spending millions of
dollars to advertise Ernest and Julio Gallo, the richest winemakers in
the world, who receive $25 million worth of United States taxpayer
money to advertise its wine and brandy in Thailand, the Philippines,
Canada, and England. Jim Beam got over $2.5 million to push its whiskey
abroad. Other whiskey giants like Hiram Walker and Brown-Forman
profited from the Market Access Program.
The MAP program adds insult to injury by asking the taxpayers to foot
the bill of the world's largest foreign alcohol giants. We actually
spend money subsidizing Seagrams, the very company that has gone on
television yesterday to advertise its hard liquor, we are now
subsidizing that Canadian company with United States taxpayer dollars
to advertise their products abroad.
This is a scandal that ought to come to an end. Mr. Chairman, I would
just suggest to the Congress of the United States that it is about time
that if we are going to stand up to the senior citizens and tell them
we spend too much money on their health care, if we are going to stand
up to kids and tell them we spend too much money on their education, if
we are going to stand up to the poor and vulnerable and tell them we
spend too much money on poverty programs, then we can stand up to the
biggest alcohol producers, the biggest winemakers in the world and tell
them we are sick and tired of using taxpayers' money to subsidize their
profits.

{time} 1215

If they want to advertise their alcohol products abroad, let them do
it with their own money. Let them stay out of the taxpayer's back
pocket.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can shed some light on this subject. We
are talking about helping export American agricultural products under
this program. I am specifically talking about small wine grape growers,
most of whom market their products through several large wineries. This
is an amendment to help small agriculture.
Remember, the European Union spends more on the export promotion of
wine than the United States spends promoting all of our agricultural
products. They do a great deal to help their growers promote their
foreign sales. The European Community wine industries are heavily
subsidized to the tune of $1.5 billion, which includes $90 million
alone for export promotion. That is the total amount provided for all
of agriculture in this bill, if it is not reduced or eliminated.
Other countries do even more than the European Union. The Italian
Government through its trade commission is funding an additional $25
million for Italian wines alone. So when it comes to the wine industry,
the MAP program that we are now debating is a program that helps small
business, not visit the giant wineries, not only the names that we have
heard bandied about here on the floor.
In fact in 1994, for example, 101 wineries participated and 89 of
them were small wineries. So there is no question that this is not a
subsidy simply to big agriculture or big vintners.
We are not talking about people who are purveying distilled spirits.
This is wine, a product that we lead not only this hemisphere but this
world in the production of a quality product. MAP promotes independent
businesses. It is important that 90 percent of the small wine grape
growers in this country be given an opportunity to be part of an export
promotion program. This amendment would put an end to it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
suggest to the gentleman that if he reads the fine print of this
legislation, what he will find is there is a big gap. The gap says that
they can put money through the association. It is through those
associations that then launder the taxpayers' dollars that then go into
the pockets of the biggest wineries in the United States. Ernest and
Julio, et cetera.
Mr. FAZIO of California. If I could reclaim my time, the people who
are involved in this program are putting up half the money. This is not
all Government money. Half the money comes from the private sector,
both from the wine grape growers through their association and those
who make wine and help market the product.
This is a program that works for all elements of one of our most
successful agricultural industries. If we want to be successful in
getting down our trade imbalance, if we want to help small growers, we
ought to continue to support this very modest program, which is all we
can afford at the present time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding
time.

[[Page H6199]]

Mr. Chairman, I think we have to keep in mind in this debate with
respect to the Kennedy amendment that this program helps small farmers.
This helps small farmers out in Washington State who, I might say to my
friend from California, make the best wine in the world.
But also I want the gentleman from Massachusetts to understand that
the USDA directs the Market Access Program to small businesses, small
farms, small wineries. I do not think we want to cede our industry to
the European winemakers.
That is what we are really doing here. We are developing a program
that allows our Government to contribute some money to competition,
unfair competition in my judgment, from foreign governments who assist
their winemakers for shelf space. That is really what we are doing.
What we are doing is developing a program that allows our products in
this country to have some shelf space in foreign markets. That means
jobs to Americans. That means jobs to people in my district, small
wineries. I urge the rejection of this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting to note that people are
talking about how this program assists small vintners. I would
anticipate after a vote on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, offering a
follow-up amendment that would simply limit the subsidy program to go
only to small vintners.
As long as the gentlemen that talked so heartily about the need to
assist those small vintners would put their vote where their mouth is,
I think we might be able to work out a compromise on the underlying
issue about whether or not the program should go directly to those
small businesses.
My true feeling, and I know that the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen]
has offered this amendment with me in the past, I wish he was here--I
do not think he expected the amendment to come up quite so quickly--is
that we do not believe that the U.S. Government ought to be involved in
subsidizing alcohol products abroad. That is the fundamental question
that is involved with this debate. It is fundamentally, I think, wrong
for us to tell people that we do not have money in the coffers of the
Federal Government to provide for the health care and the education of
our people, but we do have money in the coffers to be able to subsidize
alcohol advertising for some of the richest companies in America
abroad.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR of California Mr. Chairman, I say to the last speaker, Wake
up.
We turn on the television set, we see Colombia's Juan Valdez selling
us coffee. We see Mexico selling us Corona beer. This is a global
market. If we want people to buy American, then we have to tell them
what is American.
This is a program that requires that the Government match by private
funds to advertise and to promote these products abroad. If we are
indeed going to sell our products grown in America abroad, we are going
to have to maintain this program. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on
each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from
Massachusetts and the gentleman from New Mexico each have 30 seconds
remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has the right
to close.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that we are hearing Members of
Congress that normally speak out so strongly against corporate
subsidies and say that is how we ought to balance the budget, all of a
sudden switching when it comes to a corporate subsidy that happens to
go to the wine industry.
Let us listen to Edward Nervo of the Famiglia Nervo Vines and Wines
in Sonoma County, CA, who has written to me and said, ``With corporate
welfare programs like these, no wonder the biggies get bigger and the
small fry end up in the frying pan.''
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. I thank my distinguished chairman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say, first of all, the 5 largest recipients
of market access promotion funds purchase over 90 percent of their
grapes from small independent grape growers. This is a program that is
working. It is a public-private partnership that has been improved by
the Congress over the last few years. I just want to remind my
colleagues that this same amendment went down to defeat in this House
last year on a vote of 268 to 130. The American wine industry and the
farmers who depend on that industry need our help to again defeat the
Kennedy amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The amendment was rejected.

amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: At the
end of the bill (page 69, after line 5), insert the following
new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for market access activities under
section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5623), or made available for the salaries of employees of the
Department of Agriculture who provide assistance under such
section, may be used to provide assistance to eligible trade
organizations (as defined in such section) to promote the
sale or export of alcohol or alcoholic beverages unless it is
made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds the the promotion activities
benefit a small-business concern.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will each
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee along
with my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for some language that
they inserted in the ag bill last year as a result of the same debate
that just took place on the House floor. I shall read what those
changes are:

The funds shall not be used to provide direct assistance to
any nonprofit corporation that is not recognized as a small
business concern described in section A of the Small Business
Act. Secondly, a cooperative; or, third, an association
described in the first section of the Act.

Essentially what that is attempting to do is to reform this act so
that the big subsidies do not go to the big companies, Seagrams, Ernest
and Julio Gallo and the other major vintners and major producers of
alcohol that have, I think, very unfairly skimmed money from the
American taxpayer while they are making millions and millions of
dollars in their exports.
The language of this amendment very simply suggests that while what
is really occurring is through this trade association loophole, the
money is now being funneled through to trade associations and then the
trade associations redistribute it to the very big companies.
I had a long talk last evening with the Department of Agriculture
about this loophole that is contained in the law. All that this
amendment would do would be to extend the small business criteria to
any funds that get funneled through the trade association to make sure
that the concerns of my good friend from California, who is so very
worried about those small vintners, will actually make sure the money
goes to those small vintners.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dooley].

[[Page H6200]]

Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
What the market Assistance Program is all about is trying to ensure
that U.S. farmers get their fair share of expanding export markets.
What the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is trying to do now
is define a different criteria and that we try to say that only small
businesses are going to be involved in achieving those expanded
markets.
As a farmer and as any grape farmer or wine grape grower out there
will say, what is important is to increase the sales of wine. What is
important is to assure that U.S. wineries have a fair playing field
when they take on the European Union and the 6-to-1 advantage that they
have in export promotion over U.S. wineries.
What we would be doing in this case if we limit the money on where it
goes, we would be saying to that small grower who is growing grapes
that is selling them to a larger winery that they are not ever going to
benefit from the Market Assistance Program. We would be saying to that
winery out there and that winery who might be owned by an individual
that might be farming 10,000 acres but has his own winery that he is
going to benefit from the Market Assistance Program. That is not fair.
What we are trying to do is to ensure that that average wine grape
grower in California, or other parts of the country, that grows less
than 100 acres of wine that they will have a tool that will ensure that
U.S. wine will be at a competitive advantage or have a fair playing
field when we take on the winemakers and the wine grape growers of the
European Union.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Does the gentleman really believe that
we should be providing Government tax subsidies to the richest
companies in the U.S. regardless of what their profit lines are?
Mr. DOOLEY. Reclaiming my time, what the issue is is that the U.S.
farmer have fair access. In a perfect world if the European Union were
not spending six times the amount that the U.S. Government was to
provide exports, then we would not need this program. But if we want to
ensure that the U.S. farmer has a level playing field, this Government
needs to stand behind them, and that is what the Market Assistance
Program does.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. May I inquire of the Chair how much
time remains on each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has 3 minutes remaining and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Skeen] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to suggest that I do think that we
ought to have some kind of test in this program as to whether or not
companies who are making tens of millions of dollars worth of profit
and then coming in and reaching into the back pocket of the taxpayer
and asking us to subsidize them when they are already making all these
dollars.

{time} 1230

The real question is whether we should be promoting alcohol products
abroad to begin with, but if we are to do it and we have to do it
because the Europeans are subsidizing their industry, I say fine, but
let us not go out and needlessly line the pockets of companies that are
already making tens of millions of dollars' worth of profits.
Come on, Congress of the United States, stand up to the wine lobby.
That is what this is all about. Just for once say to the wine lobby,
look, we will accept that we are going to help out the little guy, but
let us not go out there and line the pockets of the richest wine
companies.
These are people that for all the time have gone out and gotten all
the farm workers picking the grapes and all the rest of it. They make
plenty of profits. Let us stand up to them, for crying out loud. Have a
little heart, have a little soul, and stand up to the big boys every
once in a while. It is good for the soul.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would say to
the gentleman from Massachusetts that the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of Health and Human Services say that a little wine in
each individuals' daily diet is healthy for them. So exporting wine is
something we should not be ashamed of. We should be proud of it, and we
should be out there competing with the rest of the world.
But the point the gentleman does not get is that we are talking about
small growers who own 30, 40, or 50 acres. They are not the ones who
make wine and send it overseas. They have to have a winery buy their
product. We are trying to help, as the gentleman from California [Mr.
Riggs] said, 90 percent of the small grape growers in this country to
find a home for their product. They will find it in many cases
domestically but we are expanding our international markets, and we are
doing it with a cooperative program that is shared between those who
profit and the taxpayer who profits even more by a modest investment in
terms of income producing tax paying jobs.
And I can tell the gentleman, in this MAP Program we get back $16 in
agricultural exports for every dollar that we spend. So please
understand we are talking about small farmers here and a benefit for
taxpayers as well.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has 2 minutes remaining and the gentleman
from new Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to address my
comments to my good friend from California, Mr. Fazio. The truth is
that all this amendment does is limit it to small businesses. All we
are saying is if the gentleman is truly concerned about small
businesses and the small vendor, then he should be supportive of this
amendment.
This amendment simply says that the trade association funding can
only go to businesses that will qualify under the Small Business Act as
small business. Instead of the big boys, the little guy.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I would note, as the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dooley] said, a winery may be called a small
business but 90 percent of the grapes grown by farmers move through the
five largest wineries. So the gentleman is not helping the grower if he
makes this distinction. He is trying to do something that is a worthy
cause, but he is missing by a mile.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the
truth of the matter is, if these people are part of a trade association
they still have access. What this bill does is limit the ability of the
trade associations to go about providing big subsidies to the biggest
wine companies. It does not, in fact, stop us from providing small
businesses with the ability to gain access to the program.
I think the whole program is crazy, but I think it is even crazier to
suggest that what we will do is continue to skip a loophole open that
provides all this money to go to the biggest companies in the country.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, the craziest thing we could do would be to eliminate 90
percent of the wine grape growers, who are small farmers. They do not
make wine and do not export it. They need private sector help to do it.
and this program provides the partnership to do it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter
is, this will have absolutely no impact. And if the gentleman talks to
people seriously about the impact of this whole MAP program, it will
not have a penny's worth of difference in terms of what the actual
sales are.
The gentleman and I both know we can produce wine. People want to buy
the wine and will produce the wine, and it has nothing to do with the
small amount of subsidies that end up going into this program. It is
the principle of the fact that we are providing taxpayer

[[Page H6201]]

dollars, millions and millions of dollars worth of taxpayer funds, that
go into the back pocket of the biggest companies. That is a scam and a
scandal that ought to be dealt with.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], the remainder of my time.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman from Massachusetts
could devote so much time and energy to helping us address the
competitive and trade disadvantage that our wine exports have against
Chilean and European wines.
But the gentleman was correct when he said last year in conference we
restructured the MPP, now known as the Market Access Program, to
restrict direct participation of for-profit corporations that are not
small businesses while requiring a direct match from any small business
that participates in this program. These reforms should silence this
unwarranted criticism of the Market Access Program.
The accusations that corporations are advertising products at
taxpayers expense are simply not true. The primary emphasis of this
program, as has been pointed out repeatedly over the last few minutes
of debate, is toward the small family farmer. Historically, 60 percent
of market access promotion funds have gone to generic advertising; the
remaining 40 percent is allocated to brand promotion, with priority
again given to small entities.
I quote from the act: In addition, a sizable number of large
corporations receiving market access promotion moneys are actually
grower cooperatives. All benefits those organizations derive from brand
assistance under this program are directly returned to their grower
members, who themselves tend to be small and medium sized operations.
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
(Mr. WARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to conclude by saying the Market
Access Program is not corporate welfare; it is a valuable resource for
America's small farmers to compete in highly restrictive foreign
markets. In fact, this program is pro-trade, pro-growth, and pro-jobs.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, although I have the utmost respect for the
gentleman from Massachusetts, unfortunately, I must rise in strong
opposition to this amendment.
I must do so because this amendment directly and unfairly targets my
constituents in Sonoma and Marin Counties, CA, who produce some of the
world's finest wine. If this amendment passes, however, their world-
famous wine would no longer be able to compete in the world market.
This amendment would devastate the small wine producers in my
district, who rely upon Federal export assistance to enter and compete
in the global marketplace.
Unlike Europe and South America, U.S. wine producers receive no
production subsidies whatsoever. Furthermore, our competitors outspend
the United States in export subsidies by more than 6 to 1!
Mr. Chairman, small California wineries cannot compete in such a
lopsided marketplace without some assistance. And let there be no
mistake, this amendment targets small, family-owned businesses--89 out
of 101 wineries that participate in the Market Access Program are small
wineries.
The Kennedy amendment takes this critical assistance away from small
wine producers and, in doing so, It takes away jobs; it takes away
trade; and, it takes away fairness.
Mr. Chairman, we should be working today to help export California
wine, Not California's jobs. Vote ``no'' on the Kennedy amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote,
and pending that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The Chairman pro tempore. Are there further amendments?

Amendment Offered by Mr. KOLBE

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Kolbe: At the appropriate place in
the bill, insert the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to administer a peanut program that maintains a
season average farmers stock price for the 1997 crop of quota
peanuts in excess of $640 per ton.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes with the
time being equally divided and to roll the vote.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment with the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. It is an amendment that simply
carries out the intent of Congress on the peanut program. The farm
bill, the Freedom to Farm Act, made some extremely modest changes to
the peanut program. The change that was supposed to benefit consumers
was a 10 percent reduction in support prices from $678 to $610. This
amendment would ensure that the price of quota peanuts would actually
be $610 per ton, as approved in the recently passed farm bill.
Now, why is this amendment necessary, if all we are doing is seeking
to implement what the farm bill said we were going to do? It is
necessary because the Secretary of Agriculture, not without reason,
since he represents agricultural interests, has chosen to administer
this program in a way that makes sure that peanut prices will continue
to stay at previous, much higher levels.
The Secretary was able to do this, to keep the peanut pries high, by
announcing a national peanut quota production level that is going to be
at least 100,000 tons less than the projected domestic demand. In other
words, the Government is creating an artificial shortage.
Mr. Chairman, what we have is a Government-created artificial
shortage of peanuts and, thus, a consequent higher price for peanuts.
That is contrary clearly to what we intended to do in the farm bill.
At a time when we have a peanut industry that is certainly in a
serious state of decline, with peanut consumption dramatically
declining over the last 5 years, it does not seem to me that we can
afford to let bad government policy excessively inflate the prices for
domestic consumers. Inflate the prices, I might add, to what is now
double, double, the export price. The domestic price of peanuts is
double what our producers get when they sell it into the export
markets. In other words, we have this artificially created price.
Even at $610 a ton, which we are not going to get to because of this
reduction in the quota, U.S. peanuts are 33 percent above the world
price of $350 per ton.
So this amendment only ensures that the administration will carry out
the will of Congress to reduce the price of quota peanuts by 10
percent, which is what we though we were getting when we voted for the
Freedom to Farm Act.
If some would question whether or not there is a precedent in this, I
would point out that the Committee on Appropriations has already
adopted an amendment which places a price cap on the price of raw cane
sugar at 117.5 percent of the loan rate. It was done for the exact same
reason we are talking about here today. This cap was necessary in order
to ensure that the price of sugar did not rise too far.
In both cases, the Department of Agriculture has created this false
shortage of a very basic commodity that we use.
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line here is very simple. We thought, we
intended, and we wanted to get market reform when we voted for the
Freedom to Farm Act. We got the least in the commodity programs, but we
thought we were getting something with a 10-percent reduction in the
target price.

[[Page H6202]]

However because of the other aspects of this, the quota, the Secretary
of Agriculture has been able to undermine any kind of a price reduction
by setting a quota that is below what the market can consume.
So all we are seeking to do is to make sure that the market works;
that the Freedom to Farm Act works exactly the way it is intended. We
are making no basic change to the program.
And I might to also add, Mr. Chairman, that this is a fix that can
only be good for 1 year. This is an appropriation bill for 1 year. It
can only work for 1 year, that is we can try to make the farm program
work they way we intended in the Freedom to Farm Act for 1 year any one
year only. If everybody really want to find a way to make this work
over the course of the next 7 years of the freedom to farm legislation,
then we can find a way to do that. But this is only to be sure that in
the calendar year 1997 it is already too late for 1996--that we can
have a price for peanuts that does not mean that consumers will pay
more for their peanut butter, more for their candy bars, more for
everything that they buy that has peanuts in them.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am not sure, and I would like to engage my colleague
in a colloquy. I do not believe he understands how the peanut program
works. In the first place, $610 was not a ceiling. It is a floor. In
other words, the Department of Agriculture price support level for
peanuts is $610. The gentleman is trying to fix the price of peanuts at
$610.
The ``Dear Colleague'' letter that when out from about 15
institutions in this town is a flagrant violation of the Federal
antitrust laws against price fixing. I have never seen anything to beat
it.
Does the gentleman actually believe that if the price of peanuts is
$610 a ton that the people who buy those peanuts are going to pass the
savings on to the American housewife?

{time} 1245

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman if he really thinks that?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROSE. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the answer is ``yes.'' I guess I have a
naive belief in market systems that there will be some passing on of
that price. And if the gentleman is correct about this being the floor,
then why do we have to lower the quota 100,000 below the level of
consumption?
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the purpose of the
program is to provide a safety net for the thousands and thousands of
farm families across this country who raise peanuts. Mr. Chairman, $610
is way below the marketplace price, and the program is probably not
even going to click into effect. And if it was, has the gentleman not
raised the number in his amendment about four times and is it not now,
what is it, $645?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, to respond to
the gentleman it is $640 per ton in the amendment.
Mr. ROSE. Six hundred forty. Mr. Chairman, I, for the life of me,
cannot understand why the gentleman would want to introduce an
amendment like this. It is not going to save any money. The Department
of Agriculture is perfectly content with operating the program at $610
a ton. That is a floor, it is not a ceiling.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues I think this is a very
mischievous amendment. It actually probably will not have any legal
effect if it passes because of the way it is written.
But it is a hoax to tell the American housewife that if we vote for
this amendment, that they are going to save anything on the price of
peanuts at the grocery store. This will go into the pockets of the
companies that manufacture candy.
Candy manufacturers are worried about only two things: the cheap
sugar and cheap peanuts. We could give peanuts to candy manufacturers,
and do you think they would drop a nickel or a dime off the cost of a
candy bar? Absolutely not.
This amendment does not relate to the peanut program because it does
not even understand how the peanuts program works. I urge my colleagues
in the House, vote ``no'' on this amendment. Let us get on to letting
the Department do what we agreed to in the farm bill, and that is that
the price support floor is $610 for peanuts. Let us do not even attempt
to fix the price of the peanuts in this bill.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] and I are
offering this amendment today to ensure that the minor reforms, and I
say minor reforms, to the peanut program that were included in the farm
bill are actually implemented. I do not think that is too much ask. The
peanut program epitomizes wasteful, inefficient Government spending and
it supports peanut quota holders at the expense of 250 million American
consumers and taxpayers.
This is an outdated program. It is based on a system reminiscent of
feudal society. Quotas to sell peanuts are handed down from generation
to generation. And let us remember that two-thirds of the people who
own these quotas do not even farm. They do not even live on the farm.
They probably do not remember what a farm looks like.
Mr. Chairman, the GAO has estimated that this program passes on $500
million per year in higher peanut prices to consumers. To my good
friend from North Carolina I would like to say I know that there are a
lot of studies, but there is a study done by Public Voice for Food and
Health Policy, between 1988 and 1993, that showed that as the
Government-set price of peanuts went up, the retail price went up and
as the Government-set price went down, the retail price went down. I
know that there are a lot of studies, but this was on study that
testified to that fact.
Mr. Chairman, the Kolbe-Lowey amendment is a reasonable approach to
ensuring that the reforms that were actually passed in the farm bill
are implemented. The amendment ensures that the average price of
peanuts is no greater than $640 per ton, which is $38 lower than last
year's price, and $30 higher than the price support rate included in
the farm bill.
As many of my colleagues know, I was not satisfied with the reforms
to the peanut program included in the farm bill, but the very least we
can do is to ensure that these reforms are implemented and executed.
Lowering the price of peanuts is also good for American jobs because
the price of peanuts in the United States is so high, peanut butter and
candy bar manufacturers are actually leaving the United States to open
up plants in Canada and Mexico because the peanuts can be purchased
there are at the world market price, which is half the United States
price, and the finished product can be brought into the United States
and sold here.
Seems to me that what we have to do is artificially lower the high
price of domestic peanuts to save these manufacturing jobs. I urge my
colleagues to stand up for American consumers, pass the amendment. It
is good policy, and it is only asking that the reforms passed as part
of the farm bill are implemented.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I
commend her for the statement she made.
Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to a couple of things said by the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] when he is talking about this
being a floor. He is right. But he forgets to talk about the other
aspect of this program, which is the quota that the Secretary can
manipulate.
The Secretary has toyed with the quota, which, as far as I know, has
never in recent times ever been set below the level of consumption. By
lowering it below the level of consumption, he has assured that that
price will not drop to that floor of $610 a ton. So we know that we
will not have a 10-percent reduction.
And if we are talking about a safety net for growers, where is the
safety net for those who do not have quotas, that

[[Page H6203]]

sell only in exports? There is no safety net for them. Why do not we
have a price that reflects the world market price?
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to respond to
one other point that was mentioned by my good friend from North
Carolina. We have heard a lot about fixing the price, but maybe I am
missing something. It seems that that is just what this feudal system
is about, fixing the price.
Mr. Chairman, if we do not want to fix the price and mess with the
market, then let us let it go free on the market. What we are doing
here is actually price-fixing by keeping this in place.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman was responsible, she and her
colleagues were responsible, for reducing the price support level for
peanuts from $678 dollars a ton to $610 a ton. That is a substantial,
tremendous financial hit on the peanut farmers of America. The
gentlewoman has characterized it as not a very substantive reform. We
think it was too much reform, but she has that to her credit.
It is a floor under which the Government support program buys the
peanuts. The gentlewoman and her colleagues are trying to say that if
the average price of peanuts----
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The time of the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Lowey] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Rose, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Lowey was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, what the gentlewoman from New York is saying
is that if the price of peanuts goes over $245, that the program
disappears. Well, who is going to tell the Department of Agriculture
what peanuts sell for when they do not monitor that, if they are not
within the program?
In other words, the gentlewoman has come up with something that will
not work. Will Rogers used to say, ``It ain't what people do not know
that bothers me; it is what they think they know that is just dead,
damn wrong that bothers me.''
The gentlewoman from New York and her colleagues all have wandered
into that area here rather beautifully. There is no way the Department
of Agriculture can go out and see every peanut farmers in America and
say, ``Did you sell your peanuts for more than $654 a ton? If so, we
want you to sign a paper.'' How you are going to monitor this monster
that you all have created? I beg to offer to you that it will not work,
and I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to say to
my distinguished colleague I am very respectful of his knowledge on
this program, but many of us as consumers do face the impact of these
programs. And all we are saying is we are not changing by this
amendment any of the improvements, any of the modifications that were
put in place that the gentleman supported, or many of my colleagues
supported, in the freedom to farm bill.
All we are saying is let us not be able to squeeze the market,
squeeze the quota so we push the price higher. CBO has estimated that
this amendment will be zero cost. The growers will not have to pay
anything. It is my understanding that that is all the amendment does.
My distinguished colleague is actually making sure that the reforms, as
modest as they were, be implemented.
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina referred to a monster
that he said we would be creating by passing this amendment. The real
monster and the real offense against the market system is the current
peanut quota system. It locks up the market tighter than a drum. It is
a Government-sanctioned cartel, and it is offensive to everything that
we as Americans believe in with respect to free enterprise.
Mr. Chairman, as for the gentleman's contention that none of the cost
savings to the manufacturers would be passed on to the consumers, if
that is the case, then let us set the price at $1,000 a ton or $2,000
or $5,000 a ton.
Of course, if we completely lose sight of rational economics and we
decide that there will be one corner of Stalinistic economics in our
economy, then anything should go, and why do not we go for $5,000 a
ton?
The fact is that the lower the price of the raw material, the lower
the price of the product. And it is adding 33 cents to the cost of a
jar of peanut butter to implement the current program. This is a cost
that is borne disproportionately by the working poor and by the middle
class. It is paid every day by that working mother who makes the peanut
butter and jelly sandwich for her children to take to lunch at school.
And that is the true impact.
It is time that we stop treating the peanut industry as a special,
privileged sector of the agricultural economy. The Freedom to Farm Act
made some important reforms in many commodities, but in order to get
the votes to enact those reforms, it went very light on sugar and very
light on peanuts.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is time for us to get serious about this.
This is a very modest step to make sure that we do not pay even more
than the Freedom to Farm Act contemplated.
So, it is absolutely essential that we pass this amendment, and I
strongly urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, that last exchange was truly amazing. If my colleagues
would only stop for a moment; when we talk about the consumer, and I
want my colleague from New York to listen very carefully, look at what
has been happening in the marketplace for cereal in the last 2, 3, 4
weeks. The price of cereal has dropped from $4 a box to $3 a box while
the price of grain has doubled to the farmer. Why? Because the
manufacturing interests that the two sponsors of this amendment are
carrying the water on today have decided that they do not need to take
$2 from the consumer for advertising in order to sell more of their
product, that by lowering the price they can sell more.
That is what is happening in the marketplace, and the same is true
for peanuts. You can find and document the exact same facts in the
manufacturing side. There is more cost in the container of a jar of
peanut butter than the value of the peanuts within the peanut butter.
So the argument that was just made by the gentleman from New Jersey,
better go back and check the facts.
Let us review what the Committee on Agriculture did in the farm bill
this year. We, much to the chagrin of the small producers that many of
us represent, agreed to cut the price to the producer from $678 down to
$610. Pretty good cut, folks, by anybody's definition of cut. And this
is not cut from rate of increase. This is a cut in net farm income that
does not seem to satisfy some folks around here today because they want
to do more.
Now, what is truly amazing to me about this amendment and this
argument, which I do not believe the proponents of the amendment truly
understand the peanut program or what they are proposing.
Mr. Chairman, if, in fact, we want the market to work, by cutting the
quota from 1.3 million tons to 1.1, we are allowing the market to work.
We are reducing the amount of subsidized peanuts and allowing the
probability of farmers who have no quota to produce peanuts for the
market.
Now, lo and behold, what the complaints are today is what? You cannot
find a seller for $650 for peanuts. Farmers want more. If the
marketplace says they should get more, then they will get more. If this
says they will get less, they will get less. Because who now has an
opportunity to sell peanuts? Anybody in the United States today can
raise peanuts.

{time} 1300

There is no prohibition on who can raise peanuts. If you choose to
raise them for this market that everybody is concerned about, you take
a guarantee of $138 a ton. That is all you are guaranteed. You can
produce for the international marketplace, get a contract perhaps for
$400, but if you want to go for the market in the belief that there
will be increased consumption, you

[[Page H6204]]

may do so. But you also take a chance on losing. That is what the
market is all about.
Listening to this debate today, I am saying, am I living in a
different world? All of the arguments being made are being made in
direct opposition to the market. That is why I believe that those
offering the amendment truly do not understand the intricacies of the
peanut program.
In conclusion, let me say this, please, to my colleagues: Understand
what we have already done to the peanut program. We are doing it
because we, too, recognize the market needs to work. We have moved the
program in that direction. We have reduced the support price from $678
to $610. We are allowing people to produce peanuts.
Yet we hear now those who are concerned that the consumer is being
hurt, take a look at cereal. Take a look at the argument. Ask those
people that are giving you the information of why you ought to come in
here and do to the peanut farmer what you are doing, ask them what and
why they are doing in the marketplace to the consumer other than trying
to take it out of the farmer's pocket.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask my distinguished
colleague a question. The gentleman is saying that the committee and
the freedom to farm bill passed some very important reforms, and I
would agree that there have been some reforms made. It is my
understanding, and I am trying to understand why he objects, that this
amendment, which we are proposing, is just making sure that these
reforms, which are an important step in the right direction, are
implemented.
The question that I have, with these reforms, the prices continuing
higher than the $610. My colleague is saying that it is the market.
There may be a case to be made that, because the quota is squeezed and
the quota is reduced, that continues to push the price up. Maybe there
is a faulty administration of the quota system.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Stenholm was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
if, in fact, this amendment is implemented, and I hope it is today,
then what it is trying to do is just to be sure that the reforms which
my colleague states were made, and they were in the freedom to farm
bill, are implemented correctly.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her question,
but follow this very carefully. There is no prohibition on anyone
raising any number of peanuts. Last year, I believe the domestic market
for peanuts was 937,010 tons. That was the domestic market last year.
The administration has reduced from 1.3 to 1.1; 1.1, the last time, I
checked, was more than 937. So really, you cannot make an argument that
even the reduced quota is going to short the market.
But the important thing to understand is that anybody can raise any
number of peanuts. If there is a shorting of the market because there
are not enough peanuts to go around, anybody can go into the pools that
we have, pools in which peanut farmers sell their peanuts into a joint
pool. If the market price is greater, they share in the benefits and,
if it is not greater, they lose.
So the argument that we, by reducing from 1.3 to 1.1 is unduly
influencing the market, it might be right now when some folks are
trying to contract. And if I were a buyer right now, I would be doing
everything in my power to do, to get somebody to come on the floor and
to put a cap on what farmers can receive. That is good business. I
understand that. That makes eminent good sense, put a cap on, which is
what this amendment would do. No farmer may ever get more than $640 a
ton for their peanuts.
Mrs. LOWEY. But my colleague agreed to $610 already.
Mr. STENHOLM. As floor, as a floor. But it is the same in corn. I
suppose the next thing we will have an amendment to put a cap on is
corn. Put a cap on wheat, put a cap on cotton. Control the price.
Control. Let us have price fixing, which is what you are proposing
right here with this amendment. Let us fix the price on the up side.
As we all know, what we have tried to do with farm programs is to put
some bottom-side protection to growers; bottom-side protection, because
we are in the international marketplace in all of agriculture. And in
peanuts it is a unique program, I concede that. It is very unique. But
I wish my colleague would give credit to the Committee on Agriculture
for doing that which we recognize we had to do, and that is move the
program more into the market orientation side. And we did that. But it
is never enough for those that want to kill the program. Those that
want to go in and eliminate the total program and would love to pay
$400 a ton for peanuts and buy all the peanuts for 1 year until you
break the farmers, I understand that. It makes good sense.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] has
again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Stenholm was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I only want to point out again, which I
think is the most relevant counter-argument to the amendment being
offered: There is no restraint on production of peanuts. The market is
the one that has to react. If the market chooses to pay $800 a ton,
peanut farmers will be happy. If they choose to pay $610, they will not
be so happy. Some will be very happy with $610. I have got growers that
make good money at $500, $400 a ton. I have got others that struggle to
make it at $610. We tried to balance that constituent interest because
I happen to represent both quota and nonquota. I happen to represent
some of the theory that the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is
trying to put forward here.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
just want to say again that, respectfully to my good friend, the only
difference in our view is, you are calling price fixing our amendment
which attempts to put in place the change in the freedom to farm
program where we are saying that this feudal program is price fixing
all along.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I will not take the full 5 minutes. Let us just put this in
perspective. What is going to happen if this amendment passes, the
small farmers is going to get hurt. We have practiced this in other
areas. He is going to get hurt. We talk so much about the consumer.
Everybody is a consumer, even the small peanut farmer. He buys peanut
butter, he buys candy bars. He buys all the stuff that is made with
peanut products. What is going to happen is the small farmer is going
to be hurt, it is going to cost him money. But if you think for 1
minute that, if you pass this bill, the savings are going to be passed
on to the consumer, then we have got some good property over in North
Carolina on the coast that fluctuates with the tides, we like to sell
you over there.
You are not going to pass along the so-called savings to this. The
people that make the Baby Ruths and the Pay Days and the Hershey bars,
they are not going to pass along the savings to the consumer. So what
it is going to boil down to is the small farmer, who is a consumer, he
has to go out and buy; but the masses of the consumer that go every
week to the Safeways and to the Giants and the places and buy the snack
bars, what have you, he is not going to see any savings on this.
It is going to be a tremendous profit to the people, the big
manufacturers that make the, that use peanuts to go into their profits.
So we can talk a lot about the consumer, but let us just keep in mind,
we have had it in the past when we had sugar programs that said, if you
pass a sugar program, hey, soft drinks will come down. We have the same
situation. They do not come down. They do not pass on to the consumer.
You are not doing anything in this amendment but doing harm to the
small farmer and giving exorbitant profits to the people that use the
peanuts in their products. The consumer, bless his heart, he is
mentioned a lot, but he is not going to receive one penny's worth of
benefits if you pass this

[[Page H6205]]

amendment. I strongly urge you to look at the reality of it and vote
this amendment down.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
As a member of Committee on Agriculture and one who comes from a
heavy peanut-producing area, we began work on reform of the peanut
program on November 9, 1994. We began talking to folks in the industry.
We began talk to go growers. We began talking to shellers, everybody
that is involved in it, because there was a continual attack on the
peanut program. Within the Committee on Agriculture, in a bipartisan
way, we made real reforms to the peanut program that ensured three
things. We talked an awful lot about this: One was that we secure a no-
net-cost program to the American taxpayer. We did that.
The second thing was that we make the program more market oriented.
We did that. We allowed the transfer of peanut quota across county
lines, we did a number of things that would make it more market
oriented.
The last thing we did was to provide a safety net for our farmers. We
did that with the program that we came up with in the Committee on
Agriculture.
Now, there has been some conversation about the domestic demand
versus domestic quota. It is true that domestic quota under the
previous farm bill was set at 1,350,000 tons. In order to make the
program more market oriented, we removed that floor. That was not at
the request of the manufacturer, the people who you are talking in
favor of right now. They did not want a floor on it. By doing that, we
ensured a no net cost, but it also eliminated a floor for domestic
demand.
Now, once we did that, the Secretary had the authority to come in and
to set that floor at whatever domestic quota, whatever he thought
domestic demand would be. It is true that the Secretary set it at
1,100,000 tons, and domestic demand had been 1,200,000 tons. That is a
100,000-ton difference.
Does the gentleman understand the buy-back provisions in the peanut
bill? Does the gentleman understand the buy-back provision?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do understand. I confess that I am
certainly not the expert on the buy-back provisions that my colleague
would be.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Does my colleague understand that under the buy-back
provision that that 100,000-ton gap can be filled with additional
peanuts by the Secretary?
Mr. KOLBE. In theory.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Not in theory, in actuality, that is the way the
program works?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, my
understanding of the way the program works in actuality, this is not
the case. I would just point out the difference between the domestic
price and the export price of peanuts. It is clear that the reduction
of the quota is designed to keep the domestic price at an artificially
high level.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, let us move on to talk about domestic
price. the amendment establishes the fact that no grower of peanuts
anywhere in the United States, of quota peanuts, can achieve a price in
excess of $640 per ton. No grower of additional peanuts can receive a
price in excess of $640 a ton; is that correct?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, no
one who would be under the quota program would get a price in excess of
$640 a ton.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. So we have set a maximum price on peanuts irrespective
of the market oriented provisions of this bill, set a maximum of $640 a
ton. Is that or is that not price fixing?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, the price fixing that is going on has been
going on in this program, as we know, since the 1930s when we created
this program. The reason for this amendment is because the Secretary
has chosen to use the other provision of the law, the quota provision,
by reducing that below the level of consumption. The result is a
dramatic increase in the price, the actual domestic price consumers pay
for peanuts. I would be happy, if the gentleman would agree to an
amendment, to do away with this entire program in one fell swoop.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I will be happy to go back to my friend from New
Jersey's recommendation that we go to $1,000 or $5,000 a ton limit.
But the gentleman is correct in saying that his amendment does fix
the price. If I am wrong about that, please correct me.
That flies in the face of everything we have tried to do from a
reform of agriculture programs and in particular the peanut program,
which is now market oriented. The growers of peanuts took a significant
reduction of $678 a ton to $610 a ton in anticipation of selling their
peanuts more in the world market. That is the whole idea behind it.
What this amendment does is to come in and slap those folks in the
face and say, irrespective of how much it costs you to grow it, how
much it increases the cost of growing your peanuts next year, throw
those facts out the door. The maximum you can get for a ton of peanuts
is $640. That is wrong. It is un-American. It is price fixing. I urge
my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

{time} 1315

Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Kolbe-Lowey amendment
because it is indeed unfair. It is unfair because the peanut industry
and agriculture has made an honest attempt, notwithstanding those who
are not satisfied that we have not gone far enough in $678 to $610, a
substantial reduction in what that forwards.
Further, the Government's program is supposed to be a safety net,
only used as a bottom line, not the ceiling. Now we are imposing a
ceiling, and I also think this is now antimarket. I would think, I say
to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], this was certainly in
contradiction to what the Republican Party said they were all about.
This is unfair because, I want to say to the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Lowey], ``You may not know who those farmers are, but I do
know, and many of them are minority farms, many of them are low-income
farms, because you can have a small lot of land and still farm.'' So
this will have a disproportionate hardship on smaller farmers and
minority farmers.
By the way, to those who may not know, more minorities participate in
farming of peanuts because it is relatively cheap to get into. They do
not need as much land. So there is an opportunity here. This
opportunity will be removed from those who have had that opportunity.
I would urge a ``No'' vote on that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Sisisky].
(Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Many
of the arguments I was going to give have already been expressed.
Let me just explain something. I went to peanut hearings, and we had
a Senate hearing in my district, and one of the manufacturers who has
peanuts in the can said about the program that he could reduce the
price, I think, about a dollar a can. And I asked him, ``Do you have 50
cents worth of peanuts in that can?'' He said, ``No, as a matter of
fact, 48 cents.''
I said, ``You must be a genius.''
Six or seven years ago I was in a hearing in the ag room in the
Longworth Building, and it was a candy manufacturer from the Midwest
who said he can save 30 percent on a candy bar, and I asked the
chairman, and it was the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose], and
I said, ``May I interrupt for a minute?'' I said, ``Thirty percent.'' I
said, ``Retail or wholesale?'' He said, ``Retail.''
I said, ``That's 15 cents. Do you have 2 cents worth of peanuts in
there?'' He said, ``No, got about a penny and a quarter, and that is
what the problem is.''
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] mentioned something which was
basically true. I have been in a consumer product business, so I know
what I am talking about. The container is more expensive than the

[[Page H6206]]

ingredients by a large margin. It is not just the ingredients that are
in there. And if my colleagues think for a minute that the gentlewoman
from New York [Mrs. Lowey] mentioned that we would open plants in
Canada. Why? They send peanut paste down here already. They send peanut
paste from China through Canada to come in at a discount. But we have
not seen the price of peanut butter drop, I guarantee.
So with that I would ask this House, and I thank the gentlewoman for
giving me the time to oppose vehemently the Kolbe-Lowey amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my very strong opposition to the
Hobson/Lowey amendment, which would gut the peanut program.
Only a few months ago Congress passed a farm bill that included a
series of reforms to the peanut program. Congress made sure this would
be a no-cost program that would not add to the deficit.
But for peanut farmers, there was a price to pay. Farmers had to
accept a cut in the support price from $678 to $610. As a result of
that cut, planting of peanuts has already gone down 5 percent this year
because it just does not pay to plant peanuts.
Now just a few months later, with the ink barely dry on the farm
bill, here we are debating whether to go back on that package of
reforms.
The Hobson/Lowey amendment was drafted to correct a problem that does
not exist. Its supporters claim that peanut prices are too high because
there is a shortage of supply. They claim the national poundage quota
is set too low. But what is their evidence for this? Every indication
is that there will be no shortage of peanuts in 1996 or 1997.
Supporters of this amendment point to prices in some parts of the
Southeast that are higher than the support price. But this has nothing
to do with the national quota being set too low. It is not unusual for
prices in the Southeast to be higher than they are elsewhere. In the
Virginia-Carolina area and the Southwest, prices are lower. The price
that's been offered in my district, for example, is $610. That is the
support price exactly.
The real problem that some of the manufacturers have is that peanut
prices are not as low as they would like. They did not succeed in
eliminating the peanut program in the farm bill, and they would prefer
a support price that would make the program worthless to farmers.
What supporters of this amendment would like to do is slash the price
paid to farmers below the cost of production. But that is simply not
fair to peanut farmers.
The support price is meant to be a safety net to keep farmers from
going out of business. This amendment sets up a cap on the price that
can be paid to the farmer. Nowhere in the farm bill did it place a
limit on the prices farmers could receive.
The truth is that this amendment does not carry out the intent of the
farm bill, as its supporters would have you believe. In fact, it
reneges on the compromise that was made in that legislation.
I urge you to stand by the reforms we agreed to in the farm bill and
give them a chance to work. Vote ``no'' on the Hobson-Lowey amendment.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kolbe-Lowey amendment to
establish a maximum market price for peanut sales of $625 per ton.
As my colleagues know, we all remember when the 1996 farm bill was
passed, one of the reform measures that passed in that legislation was
a 10-percent reduction in the price of peanuts. This amendment merely
insures that the peanut program will be administered as we intended in
the 1996 farm bill.
The peanut program comes up every year. It is an antiquated program;
there is no doubt about it. Peanuts cannot be sold for fresh use in
this country unless they are grown on land that has a quota for peanut
production. This system prevents new farmers from growing peanuts. Only
so many U.S. producers are permitted to produce peanuts for the U.S.
market. Their production is limited to estimated domestic demand or
just below to guarantee them a congressionally set support price.
So by producing the peanut support price to an effective rate of $610
per ton, the U.S. support price would still be $200 per ton above the
world price of $350 per ton. The price of domestically produced peanuts
would still be 43 percent above the world price.
The Kolbe-Lowey amendment would insure that some measure of reform is
carried out by encouraging the Secretary of Agriculture to set the
national peanut quota system production at a realistic level.
So, Mr. Chairman, the existing quota and price support program for
peanuts is anticonsumer, anticompetitive, inefficient. It needs to be
changed, and I urge my colleagues to support the Kolbe-Lowey amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], the
amendment introducer.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I
will not take the full time, but I just want to emphasize a couple of
points that have been made here and to reiterate that this has been a
controversial program; I think we all acknowledge that, a controversial
program since its very inception, and frankly growers, manufacturers,
and consumers have been constantly at odds on this program.
But I think the freedom to farm bill clearly had a philosophical
direction, and that was to make commodities, to market commodities,
consistent with a market-oriented approach, to move us in that
direction.
There is a huge difference, a huge gap it seems to me, when we are
talking about peanuts. It is being treated in a very different fashion,
particularly with regard to this gigantic loophole that the Secretary
has used. When we talk about setting prices, we are setting prices at
$610 a ton, we are setting prices at $640 a ton, whichever one we are
using. But the fact of the matter is the Secretary has used a huge gap
in the law which allows him to put the quota below, below where the
actual level of domestic consumption is to force prices back up. One
does not have to be an economics major to figure out that that is going
to have a effect on the demand, and it is going to have a effect on the
price. If we artificially set the amount of peanuts that can be sold in
the United States and one cannot sell any peanuts in the United States
without that, it is going to drive that price up. That is what we are
trying to correct here.
I have talked to numerous Members here who represent peanut growing
interests and they have said, ``Look, we did not do it; it was the
Secretary that did this.'' OK, if that is the case, all we are trying
to do is correct what we thought we were getting in the farm bill,
which was some very modest reduction in the price, and that is why I
think this is so essential.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am appalled. I believe that this amendment is clearly
nothing more than a fraud. Proponents would have us to believe that it
will lower the cost of peanuts, peanut products to the consumer. That
could not be farther from the truth, as has already been stated. Not
one single manufacturer anywhere in this country has agreed to lower
the cost of a candy bar, a jar of peanut butter or a bag of salted
peanuts one red cent if this amendment passes. Instead the amendment
would put a ceiling on what a farmer who has weathered the storms, the
droughts and all of the other risks of growing to what that farmer can
get for his product after he has worked so hard.
It seems to me what we are doing here is artificially, as the
gentlewoman from New York pointed out, artificially fixing the price.
If this is not a violation of antitrust laws, what is? No matter what
the market price might be, this amendment limits the amount of profit
that a poor farmer in Georgia could make on his peanuts. This is price-
fixing, pure and simple.
Now, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss] and I offered earlier
last year the national peanut reform bill because the gentlewoman from
New York and the gentleman from Texas and many other places have
pointed out that they had some problems with the way that the peanut
program was structured. As a consequence, we passed a reform bill which
was folded into the new farm bill, a reformed peanut program. As a
consequence, as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, we achieved a
program that has no net cost to the Government, that is market
oriented, but at the same time provides a safety net for our farmers.
That is all that it does.

[[Page H6207]]

What this amendment will do is take away that safety net, and the
minimum profit that a farmer might get because the market has driven
the price up will be taken away, and that windfall will be placed in
the hands of those people who manufacture that candy bar, who
manufacture that jar of peanut butter and who manufacture that bag of
salted peanuts. Those are the ones that will get the benefit of that.
The poor farmer is going to suffer, and we will see fewer and fewer
family farms.
Now, the attack has been made on the Secretary. The Secretary is
accused of setting the national pound quotage too low; as a result,
artificially driving up the price because of a reduction in supply. But
I want to point out, as someone has already said, that in 1995, last
year, the national poundage quota was 937,010 tons. This year it is
almost 200,000 tons more. That does not sound like anything that is
going to reduce the supply. The supply is going to increase. And what
is consumption? Consumption is what the market will bear.

This amendment is a fraud, it should be defeated, it is an attack on
family farmers, and particularly peanut farmers. I represent the
largest peanut farming district in the country. Our farmers work hard,
and they suffer great risk to try to turn a profit. We, at great
sacrifice, passed a bill, the farm bill, that would address some of the
concerns that the critics have had although we felt that they were not
well taken. Nevertheless, we compromised, and we have taken a great
deal of profit away from our farmers already, reducing the price from
$678 a ton to $610 per ton. That is a significant decrease in what our
farmers can make on their hard labor and the risk they take.
I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment, protect family farms,
protect all of what we have tried to do in farming, our commodity
programs and our farm programs, in this 1996 farm bill. This peanut
program has been reformed, we have fixed it, and we do not need to
break it as this amendment would do. It is clearly a fraud, and I urge
my colleagues to defeat it.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make it plain that we do not grow peanuts in
my district. We have had some of the large peanut growing districts get
up here and speak, but I did have the responsibility of chairing the
subcommittee that produced the peanut program for the farm bill and
other speciality crops. And I want to say that I believe that the
peanut program was in need of reform, and I believe that we reformed
the peanut program, and I believe that it is in the continuing process
of being reformed, not with amendments like this, but because of the
world market situation of the NAFTA and GATT treaties that we have
approved in this House. It will happen and is going to happen. And I
think that some of the reforms should be pointed out to this House if
my colleagues forget that we eliminated price support escalators, we
eliminated undermarketing, we eliminated the quota floor, and we
reduced and modified and reformed the quota provisions, and people are
going to lose their quota eligibility. And it was designed to put quota
with the farmers of the South, where peanuts are grown. Sale, lease,
and transfer of quota is freely made between the peanut growing areas.

{time} 1330

The loan rate was reduced considerably. We did all of this, and now
those who oppose this program are back here wanting to reform it before
it has ever had a chance to work.
Mr. Chairman, I kind of resent, or I think it is unfair, that the
peanut farmers of America are not in the halls, the manufacturers are
in the halls seeking somebody to carry this amendment. Where and who is
representing the farmers of America, the people that grow our food and
fiber? I gladly say I do represent them. It is time to let this program
work. Yes, if we need more reforms we can come back and do it later.
Let us get the Department of Agriculture to do their job down there.
Then we will not have this.
The one thing we tried to put in the farm bill was not shackles on
American agriculture. If we can get more for our products, we should
have this, we should have it in the free market, and this is a floor
for the peanut industry and not a ceiling. I suggest that this
amendment is ill-timed and should be defeated.
Mr. PETERSON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the chairman of the subcommittee
on our Committee on Agriculture for his previous remarks. He was right
on target. I probably just will not take 5 minutes to reiterate what he
has already said. But I do want to say, first of all, that this is a
consumer-oriented program. We are taking care of the consumers, because
we are giving them quality and we are giving them guaranteed quantity.
Yes, we are helping the farmers, too, because we are helping assess
some of the risk that they are taking. These are incredible risk-takers
that we have, Mr. Chairman, these small farmers, who are not in the
halls, incidentally. They are out there planting crops and tending to
the crops now, they are not out there with the manufacturers up here,
asking that this amendment pass.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be pulled. This is a
very bad, un-American amendment. It is not well thought out. It does
not do the things that we tried to do in the reform process of this
program. This is price-fixing at its worst. I think everybody agrees
that this is price-fixing.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, not only does it price-fix, but it has this
absolute line drawn that says if you go above that, then the program is
dead. What kind of Congress is that, that is going to take all of these
small farmers in America and just cut their throats in one fell swoop
because they are participating in the free market? Is that not un-
American? That, to me, is un-American.
The program that was reformed in the Committee on Agriculture last
year was real reform. This took from $678 to $610 on the quota price.
It did a number of things on the quota transfer. The biggest issue is
that it is now, for the first time ever, a no net-cost program. This is
not a program that is costing the Federal Government millions and
millions of dollars. We need to defeat this amendment. This amendment
is as bad as any amendment that has ever come across anybody's desk,
and for whatever reason we are doing this, I cannot find a good one.
I ask my colleagues to seriously look at this, look at the fact that
we are, in fact, injuring not only peanuts in this regard, because what
we are going to do if we take this to its final conclusion, we are
going to destroy all of the other programs that are out there.
I will tell the Members, if we do this, the American public is going
to have sticker shock in the supermarket. Not only are they going to
have sticker shock, but they are going to be a Third World country when
they go to the supermarket and try to find these products at the
quality levels with which we are producing them now. This is a very
poorly thought out amendment. Anybody can look at the fact that it is
un-American from the standpoint that it is price-fixing and taking
people out of the free market. We need to defeat this amendment today,
without delay.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the Kolbe and Lowey
amendment, a fellow New Yorker, a colleague of mine. I ask Members to
support the amendment and ask my colleagues to continue to listen to
this debate. I also want to take a minute to congratulate the
subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois, on the work that he
has done and the reform he has put forward in the full bill.
I also believe that while he is a representative and a great
representative of the farmers, that we need to make certain that the
consumers are also represented here in this discussion and in the
amendment and in the bill. I believe that the one small farm bill
change of moving the price support from 678 to 610 has been negated by
the fact that the USDA has set the quota on the amount of peanuts that
can be grown at such a low level as to basically short the market and
to drive up the actual price.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this reform, the amendment, the Lowey-
Kolbe amendment, is one that is a moderate reform in the peanut program
for consumers and it represents

[[Page H6208]]

exactly that kind of information, exactly the kind of modification. I
do not think it is as drastic as we could offer here today. I urge its
support.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. QUINN. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I do not know how any opponent of this
amendment can say with a straight face ``un-American'' or use the word
``world market'' and talk about ``consumer-oriented'' and talk about
the free market. Give me a break. Un-American? Yes, it is un-American
not to let Americans grow peanuts, but you can go to jail if you grow
peanuts and sell in the market. You can certainly get arrested and you
can be fined. The point is, you cannot grow peanuts and sell at the $6
price.
Mr. Chairman, I just would say, the bottom line is I would be
embarrassed to be opponents of this amendment and talk about un-
American, consumer-oriented program, world market, free market. The
bottom line is the world market cannot compete. They are not allowed to
sell peanuts unless they come and they crush them and they do not get
the price. There is no free market, because people from outside this
country cannot sell and people in this country, Americans, cannot sell
peanuts unless it is to be crushed.
Talking about consumer-oriented, what is consumer-oriented about
fixing supply? They fix supply. They are told it is going to be about
900-and-some tons, 1,000 tons. That is fixing the price. What is
American about that? What is free market about that?
The problem is we only allow a few people to farm peanuts, only a
few. We fix the price by limiting the supply. We attempted to reform
that system and we failed. We then said the price should not be $610,
not lower than that, the Government will buy it. What has happened by
what the Department of Agriculture has done, they have fixed supplies
so the price will be well above the $610 price. We may end up having to
be more than $678. I think this is an outrage that you can say with a
straight face that it is un-American, that it is against the consumer,
that it is the free market. How can Members do it? How can they in a
straight face use those words?
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. QUINN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to humbly say to my good friend, who
I admired for his support of the minimum wage, we have a little modest
minimum wage here for peanut farmers at 610. I just want to chide the
gentleman a little, because I have great respect for the gentleman and
have read about him in the paper very well the other day, and I was
very proud of that. This is a modest minimum wage program. It puts a
floor under the peanut farmer.
Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, the
bottom line is the price is double in this country what the world
market price is.
Mr. ROSE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Members should go
up to Canada, where this so-called free market works, and see if peanut
butter does not cost more than it does in this country. It is cheaper
in this country. We keep it that way and we want it to stay that way.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this is so ridiculous. We have sponsors of amendments
up here that have no idea about the program, do not serve on either the
authorizing or the appropriating committees, the Committee on
Agriculture, or its subcommittees. Frankly, this is an ill-conceived
amendment, as my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, said. It really
ought to be pulled. This is an embarrassment to the House.
First of all, it is price fixing. it is kind of odd that these folks
want to fix the price to a farmer who goes out there and puts his
capital out there, who sweats and earns his living by his brow, but
they do not want to fix the price to the sheller or the manufacturer.
They can charge as much as they want to.
Another definition that needs to be explained here is when these
folks get up and talk about consumers and quote the GAO report, guess
who they are talking about? They are talking about the first buyer of
that peanut, which is the sheller and manufacturer. They are not
talking about the housewife. We have congressional testimony in
committees where these manufacturers say they will not pass one thin
dime on to the housewife, not one thin dime.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will be the gentleman yield?
Mr. EVERETT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman telling this House and the
people watching this debate that he does not believe that the
manufacturers would pass this savings on to the consumer? That is what
the argument is about, the consumer. The consumer is not going to
benefit from this amendment one iota. Am I correct on that?
Mr. EVERETT. Not one iota, Mr. Chairman. Anybody that believes that
has driftwood where their brains ought to be. There is no question
about that. There is no evidence whatsoever that one dime of this, and
anybody that would say anything like it was going to reduce the cost of
peanut butter by 35 cents a jar has no idea where he is coming from,
has nothing to support that with, absolutely nothing. Mr. Chairman,
this is price fixing without question. It is price fixing without
question. Next week I guess we should expect a price-fixing amendment
on corn, wheat. After all, they are in short supply this year. We have
a terrible situation with corn and wheat.
Let me tell the Members what this is all about, pure and simple. This
is about corporate greed. This is about people who are carrying the
water for these major corporations who are lining the halls out
here, carrying the water for them, and as my colleague pointed out, we
do not see any farmers out there lobbying. Every dime of this will go
to these corporations' pockets. Not a penny would be passed on to the
consumer. This is the most ill-conceived, crazy amendment I think I
have seen come on this House floor since I have been here.

For the first time ever, the peanut program is a no cost program. We
were asked to do that and we did that. The CBO estimates savings, it
says, of $400 million in the next 7 years. It has already been pointed
out the price support escalator is gone, the national pound quota floor
has been eliminated. That makes the program market-oriented.
Institutional and out-of-State quota holders are stripped of their
peanut poundage quota. No more Sam Donaldsons getting checks, from the
Government. That has been taken care of. Sale and lease across country
lines, that has been taken care of. My growers bitterly opposed that,
but we compromised and passed it.
The growers who abused the program and refused to sell the peanuts on
the commercial market will be kicked out of the program. No other
commodity program in this country has such a severe penalty, not one,
none. The price support has been reduced. Overall, the farmers are
going to get about 30 percent less in income now because of this new
program that has been passed.
For the benefit of the House, I would like to remind the membership
that these reforms were made at the expense of the farmer. When we had
a hearing in Georgia with both gentleman, my colleagues from Georgia
were there, and the gentlewoman from Florida was there, I asked the
manufacturers, come work with us. Help us reform this program. But do
Members know what? It was their way or no way. They would not move one
inch and never moved one inch. Every reform that has been made has been
made at the expense of the farmer. As a matter of fact, there are
multinational manufacturers, and six or seven of them control 83
percent of the peanut crop, and they just want to line their pockets
even more.
Mr. Chairman, this is corporate greed, this is price fixing. Why do
we not fix the price, as I said, on peanut butter, candy bars? Let us
just fix the price on everything around here, I say to all the free
market folks. I ask my colleagues to vote against this amendment. It is
absolutely ridiculous.

{time} 1345

Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.

[[Page H6209]]

Mr. Chairman, the peanut program which was debated on and passed by
the full House earlier this year has already been extensively reformed.
It is now a no-cost program representing a $434 million savings. The
support price has been cut by 10 percent, reducing grower income.
These changes already made will reduce farmer income by over 20
percent, $200 billion annually. Further reductions to the price support
level or elimination of the peanut program altogether will only cause
the economic ruin of America's 15,000 family peanut farmers and the
thousands of rural communities they support without benefiting
consumers or taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, the small family farmers in my district have taken
substantial cuts and they have done their part to reduce Government
spending and help balance the budget. We do not need a price-fixing
amendment. For once let us look out for the concerns of the small
family farmers and let us vote ``no'' to this Kolbe-Lowey amendment.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FUNDERBURK. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask our friend from
Arizona, Mr. Kolbe, the sponsor of this amendment, the gentleman from
North Carolina has just reiterated the fact that in our peanut title of
the 1996 farm bill there was a reduction in the price from $678 to
$610, in excess of 10 percent. Would the gentleman accept an amendment
to his amendment which would reduce the price of a candy bar by 10
percent? And would the gentleman also accept an amendment that would
put a cap on the price of all candy bars in this country?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FUNDERBURK. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from North
Carolina and the gentleman from Georgia that the last I checked, there
is no Government price program for candy bars as there is for peanuts,
so I do not think that the question is a relevant question.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly the point. There should
not be a price-fixing cap by the Federal Government on any product in
this country.
My friend from Texas made a classic point. I think he struck at the
heart of this amendment. We have the highest prices for corn and wheat
in this country today that we have ever seen in the history of anybody
that sits in this House. Yet this week the manufacturers of cereal, the
manufacturers who process corn and wheat, have reduced their prices at
the retail level.
That shows us that a reduction in price is not going to translate
into a reduction at the retail level. An increase in the price in that
instance translated into a reduction at the retail level. I again say
this amendment is deplorable, it is un-American, it is price fixing,
and it ought to be defeated.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
First off I would like to apologize to my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle who feel very strongly about this issue because I know they
are speaking from their heart. I would never want to give the
impression that I doubt their sincerity. I guess we have a sincere
disagreement about what different words mean. But I also apologize, I
guess, to my own Republicans because I thought Republicans believed in
the concept of supply and demand. I thought that was one of the things
that my party believed in, and I thought my party believed in
competition, and so that is why I get so exercised, because I really
believe in some of these things that we have said we want and why we
got elected.
I also believe that when we went after social welfare that we were
also going to go after corporate welfare and after agricultural
welfare. I define welfare as a very simple thing, when you start doing
things and giving to people that basically become handouts and
protections that just promulgate an inefficient system. I see it in
this agricultural program.
The program to me, as I see it, is quite simple. We say only some
Americans in this country have the right to farm peanuts. I view that
as un-American, to say that only some can farm peanuts. I think it is
immoral to say that only some in this country.
If we have someone who wants to farm peanuts and sell it at the U.S.
price of $678 or $610 or whatever, they cannot do that, because they do
not have a quota. In this country, unbelievable to me, you need a quota
to farm peanuts and sell at that inflated price.
We lost that debate--and I did not introduce this amendment--we lost
it by a few votes. We wanted to get rid of the program. But we at least
thought that $610 number was a real number in which a farmer, it would
go from $678 to $610. We thought that was a real number that meant
something and that if a farmer sold at the $610 price to the Government
and the Government bought it at $610 but could not sell it at $610, we
were told that the farmers would make up the difference in the next
year.
But what we learned is we are now going to limit supply to 935,000
tons. My basic Republican tenet told me that when you limit supply, and
you have a certain amount of demand, the price starts to go up. And so
what you have done effectively or what the Commissioner has done, what
the Secretary has effectively done, we went from $678 with a support
price to $610, and you say it is a 10-percent reduction, but it is
never going to be at that $610 price because we have limited
production. So it may be even more than $678.
What the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] wanted to do was at least
say it would be at $640 and not higher. That is price-fixing. It is
price-fixing in a system that is fraught with fixing. It is a system
where only some Americans in this country can farm.
I have gone after social welfare in my urban areas, I want to go
after corporate welfare and I want to go after agricultural welfare.
That is what this program is. We need to get people out of it
gradually, I agree. That $640 price is a fair price. They are going to
go from $678 to $640. That is fair. We did not eliminate the program.
We are just asking for some protection because we did not think the
Secretary would manipulate price by limiting supply of the product so
much.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, did I understand the gentleman to say
that the $610 was a ceiling or the floor?
Mr. SHAYS. It is the price at which a farmer can sell to the
Government.
Mrs. CLAYTON. It is a price below which the Government will have a
safety net to help.
Mr. SHAYS. That is the safety net. When the Government buys it and
has to sell it if it does not get $610.
Mrs. CLAYTON. What does the Government buy it for?
Mr. SHAYS. It is the floor.
Mrs. CLAYTON. It is the floor for which the Government will make it
eligible for a farmer to buy.
Now the gentleman wants to fix the price at $640.
Mr. SHAYS. No, no. We want to put a ceiling on that price, because by
limiting supply, the supply may even go over $678. That is the irony.
We talk about the manufacturer and we talk about the farmer. Who is
talking for the consumer?
Mrs. CLAYTON. I would like to think that I am.
Mr. SHAYS. No, I think the gentlewoman is talking for the farmer,
because the consumer is getting screwed in this system. The consumer is
getting screwed.
Mrs. CLAYTON. They are not getting screwed by the farmers.
Mr. SHAYS. If they were paying the market price, it would be $350.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced the
noes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.

announcement by the chairman pro tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If no intervening business occurs after
this vote, there will be a 5-minute vote on the Kennedy amendment.

[[Page H6210]]

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 234, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 231]

AYES--189

Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baldacci
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Borski
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bunn
Burton
Camp
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clement
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Cox
Coyne
Crane
Cremeans
Cunningham
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Fawell
Flanagan
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodling
Goss
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hancock
Harman
Hayworth
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Jacobs
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kim
King
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Packard
Pallone
Pelosi
Petri
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quinn
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Talent
Tate
Torkildsen
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walker
Wamp
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
White
Wolf
Yates
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--234

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bateman
Bentsen
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Bonilla
Bonior
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Canady
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Clayton
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Foley
Fowler
Frost
Funderburk
Ganske
Gephardt
Geren
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kildee
Kingston
Kleczka
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manton
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
Meek
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quillen
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Sanders
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Calvert
Emerson
Frelinghuysen
Gillmor
Hayes
Inglis
Lincoln
McDade
Payne (VA)
Schiff
Souder

{time} 1415

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mr. Frelinghuysen for, with Mr. Calvert against.

Messrs. WARD, DICKEY, MARTINEZ, SERRANO, and DELLUMS changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. REED, DEUTSCH, KIM, PACKARD, BECERRA, Ms. PELOSI, and Messrs.
SAWYER, BURTON of Indiana, WHITE, Ms. FURSE, Mrs. KENNELLY, and Mr.
BROWNBACK changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

{time} 1415

amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by a voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated 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 133,
noes 288, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 232]

AYES--133

Archer
Armey
Barton
Bass
Beilenson
Bereuter
Blute
Borski
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Burton
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Chrysler
Coburn
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Cox
Coyne
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Ensign
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Foglietta
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hancock
Hansen
Hayworth
Hoke
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
LaFalce
Lazio
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Markey
Martini
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Moran
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Petri
Porter
Poshard
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skaggs
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stockman
Studds
Tate
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wolf
Yates
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--288

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Hall (TX)

[[Page H6211]]

Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Livingston
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schroeder
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Solomon
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Calvert
Emerson
Frelinghuysen
Gillmor
Hayes
Inglis
Lincoln
McDade
Payne (VA)
Schiff
Tauzin
Walsh
Waters

{time} 1426

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. McHALE, Mr. OWENS, and Ms. JACKSON-LEE
of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. TIAHRT change his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
The amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall
vote No. 232, the Kennedy of Massachusetts amendment to H.R. 3603, the
fiscal year 1997 Agriculture appropriations bill. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

amendment offered by mr. bono

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

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Bono: Page 69, after line 5,
insert the following new section:
Sec. . It is the sense of Congress that, not later than
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture should--
(1) release a detailed plan for compensating wheat farmers
and handlers adversely affected by the karnal bunt quarantine
in Riverside and Imperial Counties of California, which
should include--
(A) an explanation of the factors to be used to determine
the compensation amount for wheat farmers and handlers,
including how contract and spot market prices will be
handled; and
(B) compensation for farmers who have crops positive for
karnal bunt and compensation for farmers who have crops which
are negative for karnal bunt, but which cannot go to market
due to the lack of Department action on matching restrictions
on the negative wheat with the latest risk assessments; and
(2) review the risk assessments developed by the University
of California at Riverside and submit a report to Congress
describing how these risk assessments will impact the
Department of Agriculture policy on the quarantine area for
the 1997 wheat crop.

(Mr. BONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONO. Mr. Chairman, as many of my colleagues may know, a wheat
fungus called karnal bunt was found this spring in Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona, and California. Many areas were placed under quarantine by
USDA. This means that no wheat infected with karnal bunt can leave the
quarantine area, and wheat free of karnal bunt can be sold only under
specific conditions.
Karnal bunt is a staggering problem in a year when drought already
has troubled the Nation's wheat supply.
The USDA has implemented compensation plans in Texas and New Mexico
for farmers who suffered losses from the quarantine.
However, despite weekly promises for 2 months from the USDA, no
compensation plan has been released to California farmers. The only
thing the Department has told the farmers is, that some will be
compensated, and a plan will be released next Tuesday. The USDA has
been making this promise over and over for 2 months and has not
delivered.
In other words, these farmers have been left in the dark--with no end
in sight. These farmers do not know how they will be treated by the
USDA, who will be compensated for losses from the quarantine, and what
is the official policy.
The Department's inaction has caused our farmers more uncertainty and
anxiety, when they already have to deal with the devastation of a
quarantine on their best crop in 20 years.
Our farmers deserve better. They deserve timely and thorough
information, not unfulfilled promises and uncertainty.
This amendment is simple. It expresses the sense of the Congress that
the USDA should live up to its promises: It should end the delay and
release a detailed compensation plan.
The amendment also requests that the USDA review a new study of
karnal bunt in these counties, and report to Congress on how this study
will affect the Department's policies for the 1997 wheat crop.
This study was recently performed by some of the most respected
experts in agriculture at the University of California. Because it is
more complete and updated than the USDA's last study, it should be
seriously considered.
This amendment is the least we can do for the farmers.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment.

{time} 1430

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] for his
leadership on this issue which is of great economic importance to not
only California but all of the other States in which this disease is
now showing up. Let me just say that this is a well-thought-out
amendment. It requires that USDA give us a blueprint for the
compensation package that we need now for our farmers as a result of
the Government imposed quarantine.
Second, it requires the Government, USDA, to look at the new study,
the University of California study that shows that in most of our
areas, the possibility of having a karnal bunt outbreak as a result of
the California wheat crop is less than 1 in 1 million years and taking
that into consideration to give us a policy, a blueprint for farming
our wheat, planting our wheat next year. So the gentleman has taken the
leadership on this, and I want to applaud him and join with him on this
amendment that not only helps California farmers but farmers across the
United States to plant wheat.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my friend from San Diego in
strongly supporting the amendment of the gentleman from Palm Springs.
The reason I do so is that there is tremendous uncertainty out there
today. All that the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono] is asking is
that we have some kind of decision come forward so that we can address
what is obviously a very serious and important problem. As my friend
from San Diego said, this is not simply a California issue. This is
something that has an impact on the entire Nation.
Let us see a decision made so the uncertainty that exists will be
able to shift to the past.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment by my good friend, the gentleman from Palm Springs, CA [Mr.
Bono], supported by my good friend from San Dimas and my good friend,
the gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. Hunter]. I know that they all
have a serious interest in this. It is a problem

[[Page H6212]]

which does involve both of their districts.
I rise to indicate that this amendment has strong bipartisan support
throughout the State.
There is no wheat in my own district, but I am very familiar with the
problem that this is causing in California. I think that it is a very
excellent piece of legislation which addresses the problem and, more
than that, assures the farmers who sometimes feel neglected down in
southern California that there is concern for their conditions here in
Washington. I think that is very helpful.
I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this very good amendment.
Let me conclude by saying one other thing. I do not know which one of
you instigated the investigation by the University of California at
Riverside; possibly it was the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].
I want to say that the universities reacted very promptly and very
thoroughly to this request and have prepared a really excellent report.
They are to be highly commended also.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman because this is a
very important point for California. Actually, Mr. Birdsall, the
agricultural commissioner for Imperial County, asked for that report
early. The University of California has come up with this study
validated by peer review to the effect that we only had about a 1 in 1
million chance of having a Karnal bunt outbreak, a disease outbreak as
a result of the California wheat crop in most areas. To me that means
one chance, a chance of it happening one time in 1 million years.
To me those numbers, which have been validated by the USDA, now, in
their recent analysis, should compel us to lift the onerous quarantine
requirements that USDA presently has on California wheat. I know the
gentleman, my friend Mr. Bono, is working as I am. I know our good
friend, Mr. Brown, is working as are other Members to try to lift that
quarantine requirement. I think the University of California analysis
supports at least a modification of the quarantine to lift the heating
requirement.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this and accept the
amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would like to make sure having assurance from my colleague from
California that our vote on the issue of Karnal bunt will not be used
against us by the Family Values Coalition?
I ask the gentleman in all seriousness whether or not the wheat
growers who were affected by this quarantine have any protection from
crop insurance for these losses?
Mr. BONO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BONO. Mr. Chairman, it does not apply. So the answer to that is
no, they do not have protection right now. That is the problem. They
are stuck with this, cannot get a response from USDA. And they have a
study, a more recent study than the USDA's that shows that the
liability is not nearly to the degree that the USDA has placed on it,
but they are just stuck. There is no response from the USDA.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, just to back up my friend, I am just
talking to the committee staff, and I have talked to a number of our
farmers. This did not prevent us from harvesting the crop. We are
harvesting the crop. It is good wheat. It is high class wheat. But
because it is harvested and it is simply selling restrictions that are
a function of the quarantine, that is not covered, I understand, by
most private insurance programs. So basically these farmers are out, at
least in my county, in excess of some $70 million worth of wheat. I
think Mr. Bono's county is pretty close to that. It is the Government-
imposed quarantine which is the direct cause of the nonmarketability of
the wheat at this point.
Let me say this: This study Mr. Bono has talked about that we have
done at the University of California says that a chance of an outbreak
is less than 1 in 1 million years. We think that that new evidence,
that it has beeen analyzed now by USDA, should justify USDA lifting the
heating requirement that presently makes the marketability of this
wheat very onerous.
We can only ship this stuff to mills now that have a heating facility
that they can heat the feed byproduct with this. It makes it very
difficult. I would hope my friend would joint with us in talking with
Secretary Glickman, who has been working with us here on this problem,
and with Mr. Bono and with Mr. Miller and the rest of the Californians
in trying to lift that very onerous requirement which I do not think
now is justified in view of the 1 in 1 million years risk factor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time and thank my
colleagues for giving the additional information on this amendment.
I just say that, since this is not a question of whether or not the
growers bought crop insurance, I have much more sympathy for the
situation. Second, let me say I do not want Congress to put itself in a
role of making scientific decisions, but I do believe that we want the
very best and we want an objective decision which will, frankly, help
all wheat growers.
Finally, let me say this should remind many of our colleagues, again,
how critically important agriculture research is. We are looking at
fungus problems with the corn crop. Here we have one with the wheat
crop which literally may cripple some of our wheat growers in our home
areas. So I hope my colleagues will stick with us in the future as we
try to make sure that ag research receives adequate funding.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Bono].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. schumer

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Schumer: Page 69, after line 5,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 734. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds made available in this Act may be used to provide
assistance to, or to pay the salaries of personnel who carry
out, a market access program pursuant to section 203 of the
Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623).
(b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided in this Act for ``Commodity Credit Corporation
Fund--Reimbursement for the Net Realized Losses'' is hereby
reduced by $90,000,000.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] will be
recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Skeen] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Schumer-Royce amendment eliminating funds for market promotion
programs. The 104th Congress has been constantly struggling to get
corporate welfare out of the budget. Last year we missed a perfect
opportunity to prove to the American people how serious we are about
cutting spending by failing to get rid of the Market Promotion Program.
Believe it or not, Mr. Chairman, the Market Promotion Program is worse
than corporate welfare. At least most corporate welfare dollars are
spent in the United States. The Market Promotion Program, on the other
hand, takes precious tax dollars and spends them overseas to pay for
advertising of American companies like Sunkist, Gallo Winery, and
McDonald's.
The self-serving argument goes that scarce tax dollars are being
spent to convince people in faraway lands to buy American products. Is
it a legitimate role for the Federal Government

[[Page H6213]]

to act as an ad agency for a multimillion dollar corporation? I think
not. The last thing we need to do is for the hard-working taxpayers of
America to find themselves footing the bill for the promotion of
wealthy companies' products. Let them promote their own products at
their own expense. It is time to stop using scarce tax dollars to
convince the French to buy Le Big Mac. Let us show the American people
instead that we are truly serious about balancing the budget and, by
getting the Federal deficit under control, we can get the Federal
deficit under control by being responsible and eliminating programs
like the market promotion program that are not necessary for the
Federal Government to do, that should be left to those big corporations
to pay for their own promotional and advertising costs.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment as I have done many
other times the gentleman has offered it or a similar version.
USDA predicts that American agricultural exports will earn a net of
more than $30 billion for our trade balance this year. We are headed
toward $60 billion a year in exports, an all-time record. The Market
Access Program, as it is renamed in the new farm bill, has a lot to do
with that success.
This program is responsible for tens of thousands of jobs in food
production, processing, and transportation. It has been strongly
supported by several administrations and by a solid bipartisan majority
in Congress.
Under the new World Trade Organization rules, it is one of the few
programs that are legal anymore so I fail to see the reason for
unilaterally giving it up when other countries are doing the very same
thing.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would refer the gentleman to the new farm
bill where the authorizing committee has made major changes to reform
the program and make sure funds are directed to small and not-for-
profit organizations. The program level has also been reduced by almost
20 percent to $90 million.
I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Schumer amendment.

{time} 1445

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Skeen] for yielding, and I would rise in very strong
support of the position which he has taken and for two reasons, one of
which he has already dwelled on, and that is this country today is
facing a situation of strong competition from around the world in every
field, including agriculture, and if we do not do our very best to
assist the farmers and, by extension, the business community in this
entire country to deal with that competition around the world, we are
going to end up with severe economic damage as a result of that.
Now, this is the general and national position that I take. I hate to
be parochial, but this program is extremely important to California. We
probably have a major part of our agriculture in California that goes
into the export market, particularly into Asia, but also other parts of
the world as well. That includes our citrus, our grapes, our fruits and
vegetables, all other things of that sort, and I would be remiss if I
did not point out at least to every Californian that a vote in favor of
this amendment is very detrimental to the economic interests of
California.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Well, Mr. Chairman, it is deja vu all over again. Six years ago the
1990 farm bill took one of the most ludicrous Federal programs known as
targeted export assistance, and instead of reforming it or eliminating
it, we changed its name and hoped no one would notice. And this year,
in our own congressional version of the Federal Witness Protection
Program, we did it again. Behold, now we are going to call it the
market access program.
Mr. Chairman, the hasty reformer who does not remember the past will
find him or herself condemned to repeat it. In 1986 Congress created
the Targeted Assistance Program, or TEA. This $300 million per year
boondoggle passed during a time when ridiculous provisions were
routinely added to farm legislation to win support. In this case, a lot
of the California folks came over and said, ``We do not have a program.
Wheat has a program, and soybeans has a program, and milk has a
program, but what about our stuff? Wine and fruits and things like
that? Almonds? Nuts?'' And so they created this program. But the TEA
program was so bad it did not pass the laugh test. It became the poster
child for corporate welfare by giving no strings attached grants to
huge agribusinesses to advertise their products overseas.
In 1990 Congress responded to mounting criticism by, lo and behold,
changing its name to the market promotion program, or MPP. But old
habits are hard to break. USDA checks flowed in the millions of dollars
to Sunkist and Dole, M&M Mars, Blue Diamond, Gallo Wine, Campbell Soup,
Fruit of the Loom, and a tiny mom-and-pop business hamburger chain
called McDonalds.
Over the course of the 4 years, GAO issued three reports on TEA and
MPP, each one worse than the last. According to GAO, USDA rarely
evaluated any of the 1.25 billion grants it made. There was no evidence
the grants led to increased exports. Can my colleagues believe this?
The whole name of this program is for exports; they did not find a
single bit of evidence it lead to increased exports. USDA gave buckets
of money to the same companies each year, and the companies treated the
grants in a sloppy and haphazard manner.
My favorite, the California Raisin Board. They used their $3 million
to air their famous Claymation dancing raisin ads in Japan. My
colleagues remember the ads. They were a hit in the United States. I am
sure my colleagues remember those dancing raisins singing ``I heard it
through the grapevine.'' But the ads were a bomb in Japan because
unfortunately these raisins were not bilingual. They sang in English to
a baffled Japanese audience who, one, never heard of Marvin Gaye; two,
never saw a raisin; and, three, did not understand English. They put
these ads in English on Japanese television because they had free
money. Why not?
Anyway, the Raisin Board conducted no market research because they
were using taxpayer dollars, not their own. If they used their own
money, they perhaps would have learned that the Japanese, having never
seen an actual raisin, would not recognize a gargantuan singing raisin.
Now that brings us to this year, the freedom to farm act, renamed MPP
again, this time as the market access program, or MAP. That is three
farm bills and three names, for those of my colleagues keeping score.
Call it MAP, call it MPP, call it TEA or any other name, it still
spells W-A-S-T-E, waste. Funds are still going to profitable brand-name
products. This year Pepperidge Farm, Entemann's Cakes, Ocean Spray,
Tootsie Roll, Welch's, M&M Mars, Pillsbury, Campbell Soup, and Hershey
all received grants.
Now, there is some good news. MAP is funded at $90 million, which is
much less than the historical levels for MPP and TEA, and more of the
funds are going to smaller companies in cooperatives. But this year,
when we are struggling to cut the budget in so many worthwhile areas,
better is far from good enough. The whole premise of the program is
wrong. At a time of 12-digit deficits, we should ask our constituents
should Congress award $14,000 to promote beef jerky?
Mr. Chairman, does beef jerky equal reform?
We do not need the Market Access Program, and we all know it.
Pillsbury and Sunkist and Blue Diamond and Gallo will still advertise
overseas. Dole, Sunsweet, and Fruit of the Loom will still make a
profit. The makers of beef jerky did not need a subsidy to advertise
Slim Jims in the United States, and they will not need it overseas.
Last year, we exported $54 billion of agriculture products; that is
great. This year the projection is a record high $60 billion. USDA and
proponents of MAP argue that corporate welfare subsidies are the reason
for our record exports. That is clearly not the case. The program is
not needed, and I urge that we support this amendment and put this
program, once and for all, to its deserved kindly, but certain, death.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Walsh].
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, we have all afternoon heard about these
terrible

[[Page H6214]]

corporate welfare programs. The reformers are out to knock off these
corporate welfare programs and sugar and tobacco and peanuts, and now
apples and grapes. Do my colleagues not understand that what we are
doing is we are going after the American farmer?
My distinguished colleague from downstate New York, where all the
people are, does he realize that upstate New York is where a lot of the
food comes from, and he is well in the same State, and when he comes
upstate to talk about whatever it is that he wants to talk about, we
are going to remind him that the farmers in upstate New York benefit
from these programs. These are small farmers.
We heard the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] talk
about the peanut farmer who is going to be hit when we went after these
big corporations. American corporations are in a global market. When in
a market place, there is need to advertise; if in a global market,
advertise globally.
The apple farmers in New York State and Washington State and Oregon
and Michigan have benefited from this program. Let me just cite one
example. A couple of years ago the French apple crop failed. Many of
those apples found their way to Israel. The New York State Commissioner
of Agriculture, using market promotion funds, was able to go to the
Israel marketplace, put our best foot forward, and we sold that market
millions of dollars' worth of apples. That was a successful program.
There is nothing wrong with American corporations making money. That
is what capitalism is all about. And if we are going to make money
overseas in a global marketplace, let us advertise globally, and the
gentleman paraphrased Santayana about learning from history. If the
gentleman would learn from history, he would understand this amendment
failed last year and the year before, and I expect it to fail again.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional minute.
I would just like to respond to the gentleman from upstate New York,
a great place that, he is right, I have visited on occasion. I have the
list of all the programs that New York State benefits from, not a
single farmer, not a single small business person, although I will say
this:
In my own district of Brooklyn they have Minkowitz Services, gets
$5,000. I do not know who Minkowitz Services is, but I am sure he
deserves a cut just as much as the upstate folks, the upstate
businesses to get it.
Free enterprise, I would remind the gentleman, and then I will yield
to him, means free enterprise, not Government subsidy, and I am sure
his constituents in Onondaga County accept that premise, we should all
accept it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
Mr. WALSH. We are not going nearly far enough to support American
agriculture. We have 2 percent of the population of this country
feeding the world, and we need to do all that we can to support this
activity.
Mr. SCHUMER. Reclaiming my time, supporting agriculture by these kind
of subsidies is a waste. It does not support it.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding this
time to me.
Listening to my good friend from Brooklyn give a history of
agriculture export programs has got the same ring of authenticity that
my analysis of the New York subway system might have. In fact, when he
says in his comments, cites the song ``I Heard It Through The
Grapevine,'' I think ``I Heard It Through The Grapevine'' must be the
source of his information about what we are doing to this program.
We have heard the gentleman's speech before; in fact, I think the
same speech before, but we have gone to the Committee on Agriculture
and we have reworked this program. We have cut the funding by 20
percent. We have directed the funding provided be limited to ag co-ops
and associations. We focused on high-value meats, vegetables, wines,
and fruits because that is where the value-added jobs that increase the
benefit of this program are.
Our trade competitors across the world must look at this debate in
absolute amazement. United States of America, the largest trade
imbalance in the world, and what do we want to do? We want to
unilaterally disarm our own export enhancement efforts. Europe
outspends us 5 to 1 today, and what do we want to do? The gentleman
from New York wants to reduce our effort. That is crazy.
We have tried to fix the program and, I believe, have made a very
meaningful attempt to address any criticism that could be launched on
this. But let us just look at the track record of what we have already
accomplished: $5.6 billion of exports attributed to this program, $16
in exports for every $1 invested, and because we are talking about
value added, we are not just talking about raw ag product, we are
talking about the men and women that go to those processing plants
every single day, make a living, and there is a lot more of those jobs
because the opportunity out there for U.S. agriculture is fantastic if
we do not just throw in the towel and walk away.
Do not throw in the towel. Reject this amendment. Stand by the move
to increase our ag exports.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Royce], cosponsor of this amendment.

{time} 1500

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, traditionally the battle cry for business in
America has been ``Get government off our backs.'' However, some
corporations have been publicly demanding less Government interference
while quietly seeking millions of taxpayers' dollars to finance their
business endeavors overseas. A wealthy corporate executive in a pin-
striped suit is not exactly what most people would think of as a
typical welfare recipient. However, some Fortune 500 companies are
lining up at the public trough to get their share of the millions of
dollars being given out through the Federal Government's market access
program to subsidize their overseas advertising budget.
The numbers are not insignificant. I will share with the Members that
since 1985, 1\1/4\ billions of dollars of Federal money has been spent
on this program. We are fighting a $5 trillion debt that has dragged
our economy to a point where the economic growth is a crawl. Five
trillion dollars, and here is 1\1/4\ spent since 1985.
Mr. Chairman, we have offered this amendment to eliminate one of the
most egregious corporate welfare programs, with the hope that a trend
will develop which would further rid the private sector of an intrusive
government. The Federal Government first began financing corporate
advertising in 1985 with the targeted export assistance. It was
established to encourage commercial export markets for U.S. farm
products. Then, after a critical audit of the General Accounting
Office, it was changed to the market promotion program. Then, after
another critical audit, it was changed to the market access program in
1996.
The names may have changed after every audit, but the program has
not. Not unlike most good-intentioned Federal programs, Federal funding
of advertising turned out to be just another Government handout.
Instead of promoting generic agricultural products like wheat and corn,
a majority of the budget has gone to brand name corporate advertising
of the most well-known American corporations.
Despite the amount of money that has gone into MPP, the General
Accounting Office, in assessing the program, concluded that ``There is
no clear relationship between the amount spent on MPP and the levels of
exports.'' In a separate report, the GAO questioned whether MPP funds
are actually supporting additional promotional activities or if they
are simply replacing private industry funds.

MPP is typical of a bureaucratic program run amok. This should not
come as a surprise to us. Whenever the Government attempts to help
business, the inevitable result is reduced efficiency due to weakened
market incentives. If overseas promotion is so critical to a particular
product's market, then companies would, in considering their rate of
return, invest their resources there.
Because MPP funds are, in essence, free money, corporations have no
incentive to spend it wisely. We have already heard the example, and I
doubt

[[Page H6215]]

that the raisin industry would have spent $3 million of their own money
as carelessly in the Japanese market. That is not likely.
Mr. Chairman, Government has no business deciding which companies are
worthy of advertising funds. That is precisely what the free market is
there to do, to allocate resources in the most efficient way possible.
The Government ought not to be taking tax money from companies to
finance the advertising of their competition, which is the direct
result of redistribution.
Our amendment to eliminate MAP enjoys support from across the
philosophical spectrum. Everyone, from the Progressive Policy Institute
and Friends of the Earth to the Cato Institute and Citizens Against
Government Waste, agree corporate welfare must be eliminated, and the
best place to start is by cutting funding of Government-subsidized
advertising.
If we are truly committed to balancing the budget and downsizing the
Federal Government, we must be willing to attack corporate welfare and
take companies like Pillsbury and Tyson Foods off the public dole.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York and my good
friend, the gentleman from California, both suggested that the Market
Access Program, as we now know it today, is somehow unnecessary or
wasteful. But let me quote the Secretary of Agriculture and our former
congressional colleague, Dan Glickman:

Longstanding competitors like the European Union and Canada
are using market promotion and credit programs as well as
monopoly marketing boards to compete aggressively for
international markets. Even less traditional exporters are
becoming more aggressive. We cannot eliminate unilaterally
our export assistance efforts at a time when the competition
is increasing its investments in these areas. It would be
pennywise and pound foolish, and just plain stupid.

His remarks are general in nature, Mr. Chairman, but they certainly
apply to our U.S. wine industry, which I think most Members know
produces an award-winning high value product that competes with the
best in the world. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that many wine-
producing countries have established both tariff and nontariff barriers
that prevent American wine from competing on a level playing field. In
other words, they have access to our markets. We just do not have
access to theirs.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 1995 the European
Union subsidized exports to the tune of $94 million. That figure is
comparable, as other speakers have already pointed out on the floor
today, to what the United States spends for all agricultural export
promotion. In addition, the European Union supplements that $94 million
where individual countries also contribute to wine promotion. So we are
not talking about a level playing field here. If we were, those of us
who believe strongly in this program would not be out here fighting
this fight.
The Market Access Program is the only Government program that the
American wine industry utilizes. It is a dollar-for-dollar matching
partnership that works, with over 100 wineries participating. As I said
earlier today, the five largest wine recipients of these funds purchase
over 90 percent of their grapes from small, independent grape growers.
One other point I would like to add for my colleagues. Apparently
Members are not familiar with the reforms we made to this program in
conference last year, in the House-Senate conference on the
agricultural appropriations bill, the 1997 bill. If Members would like
to see these reforms, please come see me. I have the exact language
here which limits these funds, and should address the legitimate
criticism that has been made of this particular program.

We very carefully restructured this program last year, and yes, not
only did we change the name, but we also included language prohibiting
for-profit corporations from direct participation in this program and
giving small businesses priorities, while requiring that those small
businesses participating in the program match any Federal funding
assistance on a dollar-for-dollar basis.
Mr. Chairman, this is not corporate welfare, it is a valuable
resource for small farmers in highly restrictive foreign markets.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, this is not a difficult
issue. For my friends on this side of the aisle who have been screaming
for months that Uncle Sam should get off their back, this is the time
for them to get their hands out of Uncle Sam's pockets. There is no
reason for Uncle Sam and the people of this country to subsidize
companies for marketing overseas. If they are going to be making money
overseas, they are going to continue to advertise. There is no reason
in the world for us to underwrite that advertising.
For my friends on this side of the aisle who are concerned about
restructuring and downsizing, this is corporate welfare. This is
exactly what we are saying we do not want to have happen in this
country. We think that our country can compete. For those who say that
there are tariff problems with industries like wine, then let us
address those problems. Let us talk about the tariff problems. Let us
address them head on. But let us not give one segment of our economy an
advantage over another.
Mr. Chairman, I come from a district that does not benefit greatly
from this program. Why should the producers in my district not benefit,
while producers in other parts of the country benefit? I think we
should have a level playing field and not have the U.S. Government
subsidizing for-profit companies.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dooley].
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. Let us take a look at U.S. agriculture. Currently one out of
every three acres that is cultivated in the United States is used for
the production of crops which are exported. Last year agriculture
exports hit $60 billion in the United States. When we look at the
growth that we are seeing in exports, in China alone we saw a 175-
percent increase in U.S. exports; in Korea, 74 percent; in the Pacific
rim, 33 percent.
What we are talking about with the market assistance program is to
ensure that the U.S. farmers have equal access to those markets. We
have heard speaker after speaker talk about what our international
competitors are doing. They are outspending us by six to one. If we are
going to provide the farmers with the assistance they need to ensure
they can take on these unfair practices by other countries, we have to
provide the market assistance program.
When we look at it in terms of benefits, what it has provided, a
recent USDA study has shown that every investment, every dollar
invested in the market assistance program, has generated $16 in
increased sales. For every $1 billion in agricultural exports, we have
generated over 20,000 new jobs. I think it is clear that the Market
Assistance Program is a good program for agriculture, it is a good
program for farmers.
A gentleman earlier said there are no farmers listed as the primary
beneficiaries. I can tell the Members, if you are a cotton farmer, you
are not going to be making that sale to China. You are going to be
working through a cooperative. You are going to be working through a
major company. The same thing if you are a prune grower. You are going
to be working through Sunsweet. If you are a raisin grower, you are
going to be working through Sunmaid. If you are an almond grower you
are going to be working through Blue Diamond. You are not going to have
the ability and resources to enter into those international markets.
The market assistance program does this: It provides that financial
assistance that ensures that the small farmers of this country, working
in cooperation with the businesses of this country, can ensure that we
will see the promotion of U.S. agricultural products.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, the elimination of the Market Access Program means the

[[Page H6216]]

elimination of jobs. It is just that simple. We have heard a lot of
talk here this afternoon by proponents of this amendment who talk about
corporate welfare. What this Market Access Program really does is help
employ people in the United States as we export our agriculture
products overseas. It is just that simple.
The gentleman from California who spoke in favor of this amendment,
137,000 people in his State depend on the Market Access Program and
export-related jobs; the gentleman from New York, 8,300 jobs; the
gentleman from Wisconsin, 27,500 jobs directly related to agriculture
export jobs.
Let us be serious about this. We have again this year come to the
same place we were last year trying to eliminate a program, a modest
program that is going to help American jobs overseas and help us export
our products overseas. That is what we ought to be doing. We ought to
reject this amendment wholeheartedly.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown].
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time, although I have already spoken once,
to point out that this morning I was on a panel looking at the problems
of export promotion in another area, in the Department of Energy. We
had eight leading businessmen from this country, each one of whom, and
they are mostly Republicans, testified to the fact that the assistance
that they were getting from the Department of Energy in terms of
promoting their products overseas, was invaluable to them. They thought
that we should have more of them, not less. That applies to agriculture
as well as to energy and the environment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this
amendment. We all know that agricultural exports are vital to this
country, to the strengthening of farm income, providing jobs. They
generate $100 billion in related economic activity for every dollar we
spend, and what we spend on MAP is now down to $90 million. We get $16
back in additional agricultural exports for every one of those dollars.
We are backing out of the world market at a time when the rest of the
world, in GATT-compatible fashion, is investing more money. This is a
blind approach to cutting spending. Under the rubric of corporate
welfare, we are shooting ourselves in the foot and putting American
workers out of jobs. We ought to defeat this once again--once and for
all.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would
eliminate the Market Access Program, formerly known as the Market
Promotion Program.
Every year, we see these shortsighted attempts to reduce or eliminate
the Market Access Program.
This is a mandatory program established by the Agriculture Committee
at $90 million. It has been reduced significantly from a funding level
or $200 million just a few years ago and an authorized level of $350
million.
The so-called reformers of this program have sought to whittle away
at this program until we can no longer recognize it.
Unfortunately, such a continued assault will render it less and less
effective. Yet it is a program which works well to expand U.S.
agricultural exports, garnering $16 in return for every $1 invested.
Since 1993, the House has acted to take into account concerns of
critics of the program, and these reforms have now been embodied in the
1996 farm bill.
We have made sure the funds go to U.S. companies.
We have made sure the funds are not merely substituting for funds for
market promotion that were already going to be spent.
And we have specified that only farmer-owned coops, trade
associations, or small businesses can be the beneficiaries.
I believe these changes have satisfied most, if not all, of the
reasonable complaints made against this program.
I am particularly pleased that the House has voted repeatedly over
the last few years to keep this important program alive in the face of
such opposition, and I hope we will be smart enough to do so again this
year.
American agriculture leads the world in productivity and in total
production. Agriculture accounts for our greatest export dollar.
Agriculture and related food and fiber industries employ more Americans
by far than any other industry.
However, one area in which we are falling short--and this has been
analyzed by agriculture experts, the GAO and others--it promotion for
our agricultural products overseas.
In particular, we need promotion for so-called ``value-added''
agricultural products. This is an area where our competitors in the
European Union and Asia are making enormous promotion investments and
reaping enormous returns. It is an area where we should be doing much
more.
The Market Access Program is the program that fills this need.
Agriculture exports, projected to exceed $50 billion again this
year--up from $43.5 billion for fiscal year 1994--are vital to the
United States.
Agriculture exports strengthen farm income.
Agriculture exports provide jobs for nearly a million Americans.
Agriculture exports generate nearly $100 billion is related economic
activity.
Agriculture exports produce a positive trade balance of nearly $20
billion.
If U.S. agriculture is to remain competitive under GATT, we must have
policies and programs that remain competitive with those of our
competitors abroad.

GATT did not eliminate exports subsidies, it only reduced them.
The European Union spent, over the last 5 years, an average of $10.6
billion in annual export subsidies--the U.S. spent less than $2
billion.
The EU spends more on wine exports--$89 million--than the U.S.
currently spends for almost all commodities under the now-renamed
Market Access Program.
MAP is critical to U.S. agriculture's ability to develop, maintain,
and expand export markets in the new post-GATT environment, and MAP is
a proven success.
Our experience with the Market Access Program in California is very
instructive.
MAP has been tremendously successful in helping promote exports of
California citrus, raisins, walnuts, almonds, peaches, and other
specialty crops.
MAP permits small producers to pool the promotion efforts for
particular commodity groups.
It may allow them to pursue new markets--markets they could not have
pursued otherwise.
It may leverage their promotion efforts in a particular market that
are already underway.
We have to remember that an increase in agriculture exports means
jobs: a 10-percent increase in agricultural exports creates over 13,000
new jobs in agriculture and related industries like manufacturing,
processing, marketing, and distribution.
The measure of any government program has got to be performance.
The Market Access Program performs.
For every $1 we invest in MAP, we reap a $16 return in additional
agriculture exports.
MAP limits participation to 5 years--that means commodity groups will
not grow dependent on MAP, but will use those funds wisely to put in
place long-term, industry-wide promotion efforts.
MAP requires a cost-share--participants, including farmers and
ranchers, must contribute as much as 50 percent of their own resources
for branded advertising and cannot substitute MAP funds for investments
they intended to make in the first place.
MAP is accountable--independent audits and ongoing reviews ensure
that the program remains effective and remains true to the intent of
Congress.
In short, MAP is an effective program. If anything, we should be
bolstering our commitment to value-added market promotion overseas
instead of constantly whittling back our efforts in the face of
significant investments by our competitors.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support American agriculture,
support smart marketing efforts to promote American exports, support
American farmers and producers, and oppose this amendment.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, for over a year now, we have been debating
in this Chamber how to balance the budget. Democrats and Republicans
have been trapped in a stalemate, arguing how to cut Government
programs without harming the poor, the elderly, without sacrificing the
environment. The majority party has proposed cutting vital programs for
education, child nutrition, all in the name of deficit reduction. Yet
today, here we are again, fighting an uphill battle to end one of the
greatest corporate boondoggles in our budget, the renamed but certainly
not repealed Market Access Program.

[[Page H6217]]

There were 300 Members in this Chamber who voted for a balanced
budget amendment. That did not take courage. They come in, vote for a
balanced budget amendment. The challenge we face as a country is how to
balance the budget. This Market Promotion Program is a flagrant misuse
and misallocation of funds. Anyone who voted for a balanced budget
should not come into this Chamber day in and day out to keep corporate
subsidies in the budget. Let us stand up and take a stand. If Members
voted for a balanced budget, have the courage to balance the budget.

{time} 1515

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend, the farmer from
Flatbush, that he really should get out into the real world of
agricultural competition. I know he stays close at home in Brooklyn and
in New York. But had he joined me in a visit to Asia, he might have
found that many countries such as France are outspending the United
States 3-to-1 to win market share in Korea, in Japan, in China and in
so many other places.
We have reformed this program dramatically. We have pushed for
companies that are new to export, we have pushed for small companies,
and the gentleman may make light of some of these companies, but
frankly, by themselves they would never have a chance in the world
market.
When we consider the fact that our ag exports are so important when
it comes to our trade balance, and when we consider the fact that our
consumer food products that we are exporting have increased so
dramatically over the last several years, what the gentleman from New
York, my big-time agronomist from the Big Apple, fails to realize is
that to eliminate this Market Access Program would literally eliminate
jobs and opportunities in the United States. I hope he will reconsider
this ill-considered amendment, and I hope that the grower from Gotham
next year will not be offering this amendment as he has in previous
years.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman I rise today in opposition to the
amendment offered by my colleagues, an amendment that would gut the
market access program.
We revisit this issue annually.
I'd like to point out a few things about MAP, which used to go by the
acronym MPP. Over the past several years, Congress has mandated several
reforms. These changes help small businesses and co-ops, limit branded
promotion activities and increase the cost share requirements for
private firms. On top of that the authorized level of spending was cut
$20 million in the 1996 farm bill.
But step back and look at the larger picture. The farm bill that was
signed into law a little more than 2 months ago made sweeping changes
in agriculture policy. An integral part of those reforms was increasing
the focus on exports.
American farmers are competing for market share in countries around
the world. They are competing against farmers in countries that provide
far, far deeper subsidies.
In my home State of Maine, potato farmers are suffering at the hands
of subsidized Canadian imports. One bright spot is the potential for
overseas outlets for Maine potatoes. The industry is exploring options.
They need assistance in gaining access to those markets.
I recently talked to a friend of mine, Rodney McCrum who farms 650
acres of potatoes in Aroostook County, ME. I asked him about MAP.
He said, and I quote, ``That program really expands the world market
to create jobs here in Maine. We just get so much bang for our buck.''
In the past decade the value of U.S. potato exports has increased
nearly six-fold, reaching more than half a billion dollars that has
come about in large part as the result of the pooling of industry money
and funds from the old MPP program.
We need to build on that success. We need to continue to ensure that
U.S. agriculture continues to be competitive overseas, that our
agriculture exports continue to exceed our imports, that our farmers
remain the best in the world.
I urge you to oppose the amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to this amendment. The Market Access Program is critical to the
continued expansion of U.S. agricultural exports, and is one of the few
Government programs that really works. Virtually all funding is used to
combat unfair trade practices, and the amount we are spending is almost
nothing in comparison to the huge export subsidies of our foreign
competitors. Our trading partners would love to see funding for this
program reduced. In fact, it has already been reduced by over two-
thirds since it was first enacted.
The fact is, the Market Access Program has proven to be an effective
method of expanding our agricultural exports. It has sustained American
jobs and contributed to the reduction of our trade imbalance.
For every $1 in MAP funding, sales of U.S. exports increase by $16.
Ultimately, the increased economic activity created by the Market
Access Program supports as many as 28,000 American jobs through
expanded exports.
The argument has been made that the types of promotional activities
implemented through the MAP will go on regardless of Government
funding. However, my colleagues should understand that the participants
match the Government funding on a one-to-one basis. The argument also
ignores the fact that the program is targeted towards nations which
utilize unfair trade barriers, such as Japan and the European
community. To cite just a few examples, my colleagues may be interested
in the following MAP success stories from my State of Washington alone:
In Mexico, MAP funds helped boost United States exports of apples
from just 574,000 cartons to over 4 million cartons in just 1 year.
In Egypt, MAP funds helped convince potential buyers of the quality
and value of United States wheat flour--leading to contracts for
427,000 metric tons of flour in 1993.
In Germany, MAP funds supported market development and awareness
activities--leading to an increase of United States asparagus exports
of 14 percent.
I urge my colleagues to support economic growth and jobs by opposing
amendments to eliminate funding for the successful Market Access
Program.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Schumer-
Royce amendment to cut the $90 million appropriated from the Market
Access Program, formerly the Market Promotion Program.
Last July, I cosponsored the Zimmer-Schumer amendment to defund this
program, and although the program has a new name, it is still a misuse
of taxpayer dollars.
The essence of the Market Promotion Program has not changed. In fact,
this is the second name change this program has undergone--it began its
life as the Targeted Export Assistance Program. It's still a giveaway,
and it's still unfair to taxpayers and to other businesses trying to
compete abroad.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a loan program. This program is a giveaway
to U.S. businesses, which use public money to advertise their goods
abroad. There are other export assistance programs available to U.S.
businesses. This program is uniquely flawed.
Termination of this program is supported by the GAO, the CBO, the
Grace Commission, Citizens Against Government Waste, and the National
Taxpayers Union. As far as I'm aware, these organizations did not
recommend simply renaming the program; they believe it is corporate
welfare and support its elimination. Let's save $90 million.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
The amendment was rejected.

amendment offered by mr. durbin

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Durbin: Page 69, after line 5,
insert the following new section:
Sec. 734. For an additional amount for the Department of
Agriculture (consisting of an additional $22,500,000 and
$2,500,000 for ``Rural Utilities Assistance Program'' and
``Distance Learning and Medical Link Program'',
respectively), and none of the funds made available in this
Act to such Department may be used to carry out or pay the
salaries of personnel who carry out any extension service
program for tobacco or to provide or pay the salaries of
personnel who provide crop insurance for tobacco for the 1997
or later crop years, $25,000,000.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this
amendment and all amendments thereto close in 90 minutes and that the
time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Mexico?
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, some 1,500 different crops are grown in the
United States of America. The Department of Agriculture gives 60 of
those 1,500 crops special treatment. For those crops, those 60 crops,
we have many

[[Page H6218]]

programs, including the Crop Insurance Program.
The purpose of my amendment today is to delete one crop from that
list. The crop I am speaking of is tobacco. Why would I single out
tobacco of all the things grown in America? Because tobacco is not like
any other agricultural product. It is neither food nor fiber. It is in
fact the only legal product sold in the United States which, when used
according to manufacturers directions, will kill you. Tobacco is not
just another agricultural crop.
My friends who will stand today in defense of tobacco and its
programs will speak at great length about equity and fairness. Let me
tell you about the equity and fairness of tobacco.
At this very moment there are young people who are listening to this
debate. They have a vested interest in this debate.
Each year the tobacco companies, with this tobacco product, have to
lure these children into a lifetime addiction that will kill 1 out of
3. Each day in the United States 3,000 children start smoking for the
first time. Think about it, parents of America. Think about it. If your
child came home tonight and said, ``Mom, Dad, I've got great news, I
just started smoking,'' how many of us would stand up and say
``Congratulations, we were hoping that you would make that decision.''
My colleagues know better, and so do I.
Four hundred thousand Americans will die this year from tobacco-
related diseases. It is the No. 1 preventable cause of death in
America.
Also in the Chamber, sitting in the seats today, are the lobbyists
for the tobacco companies and the tobacco growers. They are the heavy
hitters in this town. They have more money than friends, but we will
see a lot of their friends on the floor today. They will tell us in
debate that the Federal Government does not subsidize tobacco. That is
not true. Let me tell you specifically why it is not true.
We will spend this year $98 million on a variety of programs
subsidizing tobacco. The single most expensive is crop insurance.
Follow me. A tobacco grower plants his crop and buys crop insurance and
pays a premium. Then if the crop fails, from drought, flood, pests,
whatever it is, he will expect to collect on his insurance policy. But
when we add up all the premiums paid by tobacco growers and then we add
up all the money paid by the Government when the crop fails, guess
what? They do not match. We taxpayers step into this situation and put
$68 million on the table to subsidize tobacco and tobacco growth.
Some of my friends have passed around some ``Dear Colleagues'' about
the Durbin amendment. One of the statements here is that tobacco
growers would be the only farmers in the Nation without access to crop
insurance. I am sorry. They should have checked the facts. One thousand
five hundred different crops in this country and only sixty are covered
by crop insurance.
The Durbin amendment, and I have many of my friends, the gentleman
from Utah [Mr. Hansen] on the Republican side, and others who have
joined me in this amendment, says that the tobacco crop will no longer
be covered by crop insurance. What does it mean to my colleagues?
When you go to your town meetings and the person stands up and says,
``Congressman, explain something to me, if you will. If tobacco is
killing our children, if it is the No. 1 preventable cause of death in
America, why does the Federal Government still subsidize to the tune of
$90 million a year the growth and production of tobacco products?''
Most Congressmen will say, ``Oh, but we don't.''
They are wrong. We do.
Many of them will say, ``we should not.''
By voting for the Durbin amendment today, they will be able to put an
end once and for all to this Federal subsidy of crop insurance for
tobacco.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Durbin was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, behind me on this podium, you may not be
able to see it, carved into the wood, are nothing short of tobacco
leaves. The people who designed this Chamber 100 years ago thought that
this was such an important part of the American political scene, they
put it permanently in place. You will find it, too, as you tour this
Capitol, at the top of the columns, tobacco leaves. Tobacco has always
enjoyed, I guess, a special place in the politics of America. But I
think the American consumers and taxpayers have had their fill of the
tobacco growers and the tobacco companies. As we witness day in and day
out our families and friends afflicted by diseases related to tobacco,
we understand this is not just another agricultural product. As we see
these tobacco companies openly deceive American consumers about their
products, we understand this is not just another product. As we realize
that over half of the smokers in this country started smoking before
the age of 16, when we realize that the starting average age for a
person to use spit tobacco, those little round cans, is 9 years old in
America, we understand what we are up against. We are up against a
product that has to be treated differently. It should not have a
privileged place in this town or in this Government. If the tobacco
growers want to continue their program at their own cost, God bless
them. If they want to continue their crop insurance at their own cost,
God bless them. If adults want to choose to smoke, and I hope they do
not, but if they want to, God bless them. But, Mr. Chairman, the rest
of us, the taxpayers of this country, should not be footing the bill to
subsidize this deadly product. Today Members of Congress who have been
preaching about balanced budgets and deficit reduction for months
around this place have a chance to put up or shut up. This Durbin
amendment gives them a chance to save at least $25 million a year and
to say to the taxpayers once and for all when they ask the question,
``Why do you subsidize this deadly product?'' We did, until we passed
the Durbin amendment, and we stopped.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the Durbin amendment is the same amendment that this
body rejected last year out of hand, it is the same amendment the
committee just last week rejected out of hand, and it is the same
amendment that today this body is going to reject again out of hand. I
will tell you why. The Durbin amendment has nothing to do with smoking.
It has nothing to do with the health hazards of smoking. It has nothing
to do with whether or not you think you have the right to smoke or not.
Smoking is not involved here. What is involved here is singling out by
this sinister amendment small poor farmers who in the main have no
other way to earn a living for their family. This amendment does not
get at big tobacco companies. I will say that again. This amendment
does not get at big tobacco companies as has been stated. In fact, it
plays into their hands, because it would cripple the small growers in
this country and favor the big companies who would love to grow the
tobacco in this country and more importantly outside this country and
ship it here and sell it for dirt cheap prices.
So the Durbin amendment, I would say to you, favors big tobacco
companies. They have been wanting this a long time, to run these small
farmers out of the business. Without this program, small farmers will
not be able to grow tobacco. The Congress has protected that right ever
since we have been here almost. So this amendment plays into the hands
of big tobacco.
If you want to see cheap cigarettes, you bring in this imported
tobacco, grown under no telling what kind of conditions, pesticides you
would not dare let on crops in this country, you are going to bring in
poisoned tobacco and you are going to bring in tobacco that is dirt
cheap and you are going to drive down the price of cigarettes until
everyone can say, even kids, ``Hey, I can afford to smoke now.''
So I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], your amendment
will promote smoking. It promotes big tobacco companies. We are
standing here telling you that if you pass the Durbin amendment, you
are singling out the very small, poor tobacco growers in this country
to the favor of big tobacco companies and foreign growers all over the
world.
This amendment does not save you money. The no-net-cost program--and

[[Page H6219]]

the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] knows this--passed through
this Congress a few years ago that says the tobacco program will cost
nothing to the American taxpayer.
The gentleman says that in his amendment we will not let ASCS
employees talk to a tobacco farmer. That tobacco farmer may also grow
corn or soybeans or wheat, and what have you but the ASCS employee
cannot go out there and talk to him because he grows tobacco. We may
have to send a policeman out there with him to be sure that they never
mention tobacco. But the tobacco program does not cost you. The no-net-
cost program prevents that. Tobacco does bring into the coffers of your
city, your county, your State, and your Federal Government $14.8
billion a year, and it results in $6 billion in American exports.
This amendment discriminates against a legal crop. The gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] should go ahead and do what he wants to do and
offer an amendment to declare tobacco to be an illegal product. That is
what you really want. Go ahead and do that. Let us vote on it. But, no,
you are going through these back doors trying to eliminate the tobacco
program without declaring the crop to be illegal.

{time} 1530

What is next? I submit to the gentleman from Illinois that a lot of
the corn grown in his district goes to fatten up beef. Beef has a lot
of fattening in it. That is bad for hearts. Why, a lot of people say
heart disease is the leading killer. That is caused by the fatty
substances in the food that we eat, including beef. Let us get after
corn, that is the problem in this country. That is the cause of the
great health scare and the health problem in the country. It is corn
that causes fat.
And what about wheat, I ask the gentleman? Does he know that wheat
goes into the making of Twinkies? And we all know that Twinkies are bad
for us. They can cause all sorts of problems. Let us outlaw wheat.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Rogers was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman that the ASCS
advisers of the Agriculture Department help farmers, including tobacco
farmers, with such things as preventing the use of illegal or dangerous
pesticides, for example. If we take away that advice, these farmers are
going to be on their own, and who knows what kind of dangerous health
hazards that will cause.
The intent of this amendment is to eliminate American tobacco
production, make no mistake about that. It would promote cheaper
foreign tobacco grown by who knows what kind of pesticides or other
poisons on their crops, bringing poisonous tobacco into the country at
dirt cheap prices, promoting smoking. It would drive down the price of
cigarettes to no telling what level. It would drive onto welfare rolls
these small farmers, in the South primarily, in favor of big tobacco
companies who would then buy that tobacco from offshore. The jobs would
go offshore.
The prices of cigarettes in this country would go down, smoking would
go up, and farmers would be on welfare. Is that what the gentleman
wants?
I say to the gentleman that the Congress said last year on this very
amendment ``no.'' The full Committee on Appropriations just last week
said to answer that question ``no,'' and I say to my colleagues again
today, to the Durbin amendment say ``no.''
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just heard the gentleman from Kentucky bring up
Twinkies, and it is interesting because when the CEO's of the major
tobacco companies of this country testified before the Congress of the
United States, one of them said, ``Nicotine is no more addicting than
Twinkies.'' It is ironic that Twinkies would come up again here today.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Durbin-Hansen-Meehan
amendment to once and for all end the Federal Government's $25 million
subsidization of tobacco. And by the way, the USDA says that it costs
the taxpayers money, the Congressional Budget Office says it costs the
taxpayers money. It is time to finally put an end to our agricultural
policy that is not in line with our health policy.
Mr. Chairman, the tobacco crop insurance subsidies, these are
products of a bygone era that have no interest other than the special
interest of the big clout that is supporting them. No longer should the
Federal Government be a willing and knowing partner in the addiction of
America's youth. Now is the time to correct a serious disconnect in
Federal policy.
It borders on hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman, that on the one hand we tell
our young people do not smoke, do not chew tobacco, it is a nasty and
ultimately deadly addiction. Be smart, do not cave in to the
destructive advertising, the peer pressure, and on the other hand to
the tobacco and extension services and crop insurance subsidies the
Federal Government tells our young all across America, do as I say, not
as I do.
A vote against this amendment is a vote against kids in America and a
vote for big tobacco. Mr. Chairman, by voting for big tobacco Congress
votes for an industry that manufactures a product that kills 420,000
Americans each year; an industry that has convinced through its cartoon
character Joe Camel, by the way a multibillion dollar advertising
campaign directed specifically to children in America, and through that
specifically directed cartoon character there are 300,000 kids a day
that pick up a cigarette and try it for the first time. One thousand of
those children will eventually become addicted to this deadly product.
It is an industry that costs the American economy through health care
costs and lost productivity $100 billion a year. Is this the type of
vote we want to go back and explain to the mothers and fathers back in
our district that we made?
Mr. Chairman, those on the other side of the issue will argue that
this vote will only affect a small family-run tobacco farm. Mr.
Chairman, tobacco farming is one of the most lucrative forms of
agriculture. An acre of tobacco is 1,000 percent more lucrative than 1
acre of corn. The fact is this amendment does not affect the operation
of the tobacco price support program; therefore, this amendment will
not cost a single tobacco farmers his or her job.
No, this amendment is not directed against the small tobacco farmer,
he will still have his customers, the Philip Morris, the R.J. Reynolds
of the world. The amendment is about putting our agricultural policy in
line with our health policy.
We have spent millions of dollars educating Americans about the
diseases of this product, the dangers of this product. We are seeing
historic Americans come out in a historic way to demand that the
Congress regulate this product in the advertising to children. We have
seen the President come forward and call for the FDA to regulate this
product in its advertising to children. We have seen attorneys general
all across this country begin to hold tobacco companies accountable for
the millions and millions of dollars of damage to health care in every
State in this country.
Now is not the time to move backward. Now is the time to make the
move to move forward. Just because this amendment has been defeated in
the past does not mean we shall not do the right thing here.
Mr. Chairman, I agree the tobacco company needs the help of Congress,
but further subsidizes are not the answer. No, Mr. Chairman; big
tobacco does not need further subsidization; big tobacco in this
country needs regulation. I urge my colleagues to join with me in
supporting the Durbin amendment.
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Durbin amendment.
This is a mean-spirited attack on small farmers throughout the South.
We all know that the gentleman from Illinois does not like smoking, but
this amendment will not stop one person from smoking; it will only hurt
the small tobacco farmers in my district and throughout the South.
The opponents of tobacco always imply that we should not pay farmers
to grow tobacco. We do not. We do not pay farmers. Let me repeat that.
The Federal Government does not pay

[[Page H6220]]

farmers subsidies to grow tobacco. Sure, our Government offers to
tobacco farmers some of the same programs, like crop insurance and
extension service, that are offered to other farmers. But we should
offer them the same treatment other farmers receive.
Tobacco farmers grow a legal crop. These farmers are not outlaws.
They should not be treated as such. They should be treated the same as
those who grow corn or raise dairy cows or other commodities. Tobacco
farmers should not be forced to pay for the same services every other
farmer receives for free.
What this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is single out the small
tobacco farmers who are the backbone of the agricultural industry in my
State and all over the South. Most of these farmers, including the
14,400 tobacco growers in my district, own their own family farms. They
may have 2 acres, 5 acres, or 10 acres of tobacco that they use to
offset their other costs in farming, or they may use the extra income
to send their children to college so that their children may have it
just a little bit better than they did. Where is the crime in that?
Tobacco is a legal product. We have no right to treat honest,
taxpaying, hard working Americans like they are outlaws. They have
committed no crime, yet this amendment singles them out and treats them
like criminals.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not do one thing, as the gentleman
from Kentucky has already said, to prevent smoking. It will not do one
thing to the major tobacco companies in this country. It will not
decrease the deficit. It will only treat small farmers like they are
criminals. It is bad policy, it is unfair, it is wrong, and let us vote
against the Durbin amendment.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment came up in the full Committee on
Appropriations and the full Committee on Appropriations soundly
defeated this amendment. Just as an old timer around here, I would say
stick with the Committee on Appropriations. The Committee on
Appropriations, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has informed
me, does not want this amendment to pass and he said it very eloquently
on the floor himself.
This amendment does two things. It prohibits agricultural extension
agents from giving advice to tobacco farmers. It does not stop the
tobacco farmer from growing tobacco, but if the agricultural extension
agent is called on by the farmer for advice about pesticide spraying
for certain insects or fungicides, they will not be able to give that
advice to the farmer.
I do not believe that is the result that we want. We are not going to
stop the growing of tobacco, but we will stop USDA from giving good
horticultural advice on how to grow the crop using the proper
insecticides, fungicides, and pesticides. That is not good for either
the farmer or the farmer's neighbors.
That is one good reason to vote against this. The second reason is it
prohibits small farmers from getting Federal crop insurance. Now, the
Federal crop insurance is important mainly to the small farmer. Larger
farmers buy it privately. In my part of the world a small farm that has
5 acres of tobacco can be grown by the small family. A husband and a
wife and children can take 5 acres of tobacco and put 10, 15, $20,000
extra a year into their pockets.
No, this is not about smoking. My colleague from Massachusetts [Mr.
Meehan] and my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] know this has
nothing to do with whether or not people smoke, and they really made
that clear in their arguments. But do my colleagues know that if these
small farmers cannot get crop insurance, they cannot grow tobacco, that
the companies will import more foreign tobacco and, in my opinion, will
smile all the way to the bank because they will bring it in cheaper
than they can buy it here in America?
If we want to hurt the tobacco companies a little bit, keep the price
of tobacco high to them. Make them pay a good price. Take away crop
insurance from the small farmer, we will put him out of business, and
we will make it impossible for him to bring income in to his small
family. It is not good policy to do it that way.
Now, I am not in favor of any advertising or anything being directed
at underage smokers. I will support, as my colleague who is now in the
other body, Mr. Wyden, and I proposed, an extensive program of efforts
by private industry and the government to stop young people from
smoking.

{time} 1545

This is not about smoking. It happens, though, that because of the
way budgeting is done and accounting is done, crop insurance does show
up as a cost to the Department of Agriculture. But other than that, the
tobacco program is a no-net-cost program. The farmer pays an assessment
into the Treasury to cover any potential losses from the tobacco price
support program.
CBO, our own Congressional Budget Office, estimates that the current
tobacco program will result in a $1.4 billion gain for the Federal
Government over the next 7 years. Let me repeat that. The current
tobacco program will produce a positive cash flow of $1.4 billion over
the next 7 years. How is that? Because when the Government loans money
to the cooperative to pay for the price support program, the money has
to be paid back with interest. A $1.4 billion gain.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr.
Rose] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Rose was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I wish that there was an accounting mechanism
that would allow us to lump all of this together, but there is not. So
my colleague from Illinois has a fair shot here at a cost of extension
service and a cost of crop insurance. But when we back away from the
tobacco price support program and look at the big picture, it way
overpays for what it costs the U.S. Government.
Mr. Chairman, I will join with anybody in this House to find a
sensible way to stop young people from smoking, to make it illegal,
tougher, to give more strength to the States, to outlaw vending
machines, to outlaw free cigarettes and many, many other things. That
is what we should do.
But, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues they should not kill crop
insurance for small farmers and go back home to their urban districts
and tell their constituents that they saved them from the horrors of
tobacco. They have not done anything. They have hurt some little people
and they have, in my opinion, not accomplished what they really would
like to accomplish.
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROSE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
(Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Durbin
amendment, which I believe, the gentleman from Kentucky was very kind,
this is a mean-spirited, in my opinion--and I have known the gentleman
from Illinois since we got here together 14 years ago--this is a mean-
spirited amendment and I wish that the House would defeat it.
Mr. Chairman, I very strongly oppose the Durbin amendment, a mean-
spirited amendment that is grossly unfair to tobacco farmers.
I understand that there are many Members in this House who would like
to make a political statement against smoking. But this is surely not
the right way to go about it. This amendment will do nothing to stop
smoking, but it will cause a lot of harm to tobacco farmers and the
farming communities that depend on them. Many of these communities are
located in my district.
The Durbin amendment would treat tobacco farmers worse than other
farmers. It would deny them the benefit of extension services that are
available to every other farmer. And it would prohibit them from buying
Government-backed crop insurance that is available to every other
farmer.
This is not only discrimination against tobacco farmers. It's also
discrimination against tobacco farming communities. These communities
are the ones who will pay the price for the mistakes made because
extension services are not available, from the misuse of pesticides,
and from the erosion of their economic base.
Mr. Chairman, this is nothing but scapegoating. The backers of this
amendment are upset with tobacco companies. So they are taking out
their frustrations on farmers, many of them small family farmers
struggling just to make a living.

[[Page H6221]]

I would suggest that they pick on someone their own size. Small
farmers have enough troubles. They don't need mean-spirited efforts
like this one to treat them like pariahs. They deserve better than that
from us. They deserve some fairness, and at the very least some
consideration.
I urge you to soundly reject this terrible amendment.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I too want my colleagues
to think twice before they vote for this amendment. We have got so many
battles to fight around here. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] we have whiskey ads back on TV again. Whiskey ads
back on television. Seagrams is down in Texas showing television ads of
Crown Royal whiskey.
Now all of my good health friends who are going to speak about the
problems of smoking, which this amendment has nothing to do with, for
the Lord's sake, over the night and over the weekend go back and get
busy on demon rum and whiskey that is going to be shown to the children
of this country.
Please vote against this amendment.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, here we are again. Tobacco has surfaced as the
perennial convenient whipping boy. Tobacco, the ``golden weed'' we used
to affectionately call it in the Tobacco Belt. Whipping up on tobacco
again.
Mr. Chairman, I was not even going to get into this until the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] mentioned about teenage
smoking. Some days ago a fellow in my district came up to me and said,
``I have a cure for teenage consumption of tobacco. Why do you all in
Congress not enact legislation requiring teenagers to consume
tobacco?'' He said, ``Given the ingenuity of American teenagers, they
will manage to violate that law some way, and the problem is cured.''
He said that, of course, Mr. Chairman, with tongue in cheek, but it
makes about as much sense as what we are about today. The Durbin
amendment, and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] said it,
the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] said it very adeptly, it will
do nothing to discourage smoking or reduce tobacco consumption.
Mr. Chairman, I will tell my colleagues what it will do. It will
unfairly attack and penalize small farmers by denying them critical
agricultural administrative services available to every other family
farmer known to me producing agricultural commodities under a Federal
program.
Mr. Chairman, I will tell my colleagues what it will do. It singles
out tobacco farmers, particularly small ones, and tramples upon their
right to earn a living in regions often inhospitable to growing
alternative crops.
This amendment damages, emasculates the small tobacco farmer, not the
industry at large. The amendment undermines a decades-old relationship
between farmers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, destroying the
farmers' safety net and placing tobacco farmers at the mercy of the
elements, the weather, diseases, pests.
The demise, Mr. Chairman, of the tobacco program would destroy, I
repeat, destroy the nature and structure of agriculture in the
southeast farm area, what we commonly know as the tobacco belt.
Tobacco, my friends, is a crop that is lawfully grown, lawfully
cured, lawfully marketed, lawfully processed, lawfully sold in the
marketplace, lawfully consumed. And Americans benefit, Lord only knows
how much, from this product.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, do not permit this antitobacco
propaganda to damage innocent farmers who are trying their best to keep
their heads above water, to provide for their families by growing a
legal and marketable commodity. I urge defeat of this amendment.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Durbin-Hansen amendment. At a
time when critical funding for children, for health care, for education
is being slashed to the bone, how can we even think of providing even
another cent to the tobacco industry? Smoking and its impact on health
costs billions of dollars every year, and it costs thousands of lives
in the United States of America.
The prior speaker said that it is lawfully grown, it is lawfully
sold, it is lawfully consumed. I agree to that, and that is one of the
sad problems that we have in this Nation today, because it is lawfully
grown, lawfully sold, and lawfully consumed.
Just ask one of the members of the thousands of families, many of
whom we know very well, who have lost a parent, a daughter, a son, or a
wife to smoking-related cancer, and they will give you the straight
answer. No more money for tobacco. Simply, no more money for tobacco.
Yet, in vote after vote on the House floor and in committee, aid to
the tobacco industry stays alive. This is wrong. Let us make some smart
choices on how we spend our Federal dollars. This amendment gives us a
choice. We can vote for tobacco and smoking, or we can invest in
health.
This amendment takes the money the bill would spend on tobacco and
invests these dollars in linking rural underserved educational and
medical facilities to more advanced urban centers. Moreover, it would
make significant investment in the rural water and sewer grant and loan
programs.
The choice is clear. Vote for the Durbin amendment and end the
subsidies to this killing industry.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOGLIETTA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support of
this amendment, and say to earlier speakers that someone has noted the
fact that the Committee on Appropriations voted against this amendment,
and that is true. The Committee on Appropriations also voted against an
amendment which I had several years ago to ban smoking on airplanes.
Fortunately, this House of Representatives came together in a
bipartisan fashion overruling the decision by the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, I would defy all my friends on the side of tobacco
today to stand up and say that was the wrong decision. It was the right
decision. No one, no one would consider turning back the hands of the
clock to the day when people could smoke on an airplane and pass along
secondhand smoke to innocent people. The fact of the matter is, this
has been accepted conduct now across the United States and we are now
applying it to international flights.
I might also thank the gentleman for noting that the money saved from
the Durbin amendment will be reinvested in the same rural communities
that we have talked about here during the course of this debate,
providing in the southeastern United States and across the country,
opportunities for medical telecommunications links so that community
hospitals can have professional medical care, providing rural water and
sewer grants so that a lot of small town America will be able to
modernize its infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, the final point I would like to make is, my friends on
the other side of this debate continue to ignore the reality that we
subsidize tobacco growers in this country. The gentleman shakes his
head, but I would like to tell the gentleman the exact dollars. Ninety-
eight million dollars will be put in Federal subsidies to tobacco
growers this year; $68 million for crop insurance losses beyond
premiums paid; $10 million overhead costs of administering the program.
If this is not a Federal subsidy, I tell the gentleman, nothing is. It
is $78 million for those two items and $700,000 for extension agents.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his forbearance, and say that
any farmer who grows other crops will not be prohibited from speaking
to extension agents. We just do not want the Federal Government
encouraging the growth of tobacco in this country, a deadly product
which is killing so many innocent people.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOGLIETTA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to make it absolutely
plain, at least unless my memory is totally gone, that smoking on
airplanes was legislation that came through the Public Works Committee.
It was not done

[[Page H6222]]

on an appropriation bill. We may have had it as an amendment, but I
know it came through Public Works.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOGLIETTA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, it was before the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Ewing] arrived here, and the amendment came through the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. JONES. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Durbin
amendment. The denial of Federal crop insurance will destroy the
tobacco farmer and the economy of rural America. Besides being excluded
from common USDA services provided to all other farmers, this will be
an economic nightmare. It is no way of doing business.
The denial of crop insurance does not seem like much. However, most
farmers have entered into loan agreements requiring them, the farmers,
to obtain crop insurance. This amendment will place the farmer in
violation with their current and future lenders. Who will help the
family farmers then?
Let me repeat that. Most farmers have entered into loan agreements
requiring them, meaning the farmer, to obtain crop insurance. This
amendment will place the farmer in violation with their current and
future lenders. Who, again, will help the family farmer?
Most importantly I believe this amendment is aimed at the cigarette
industry. However, the victim will not be the industry, it will be the
small tobacco farmer. In my State of North Carolina the production of
tobacco employs approximately 260,000 people. More specifically, 1 in
12 people have a tobacco-related job. A ``yes'' vote will be a vote to
destroy the North Carolina economy.
Madam Chairman, in closing I want to make two points that the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] and others have made on the
floor of this House.
Since 1982, the tobacco program has been a voluntary farmer-run
program that is operated through farmer-paid assessment and fees. I am
going to repeat that again, Madam Chairman. Since 1982, the tobacco
program has been a voluntary farmer-run program that is operated
through farmer-paid assessment and fees.
The second point I would like to make, CBO estimates the concurrent
tobacco program will result in a $1.4 billion gain for the Federal
Government over the next 7 years. I am going to repeat that again. CBO
estimates the current tobacco program will result in a $1.4 billion
gain for the Federal Government over the next 7 years.

{time} 1600

I ask the House to vote against the Durbin amendment.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment, but I do congratulate the gentleman for trying to do
something to put some money back into an area that should never have
been taken out to start with, it is sorely needed, into the Rural
Utilities Assistance Program. I commend him for that. But I do not
commend him for where he would like to get it.
This, I do not think there is anybody in this body that would
encourage young people to smoke. It would make the health argument as
far as tobacco goes, but to me this is a punitive amendment. It does
harm to small farmers. Make no doubt about this. It is not going to
cause one person not to smoke. It is not going to spend any money for
the health care for people that do smoke, if that be the cause. It is
not going to do anything to keep people from smoking cigarettes.
What it is going to do is to those small farmers, it is going to say
to them, you are not going to have the same privileges that everybody
else that is engaged in agriculture has, whether you are soybeans,
whatever, peanuts, sugar, whatever, you are not going to have the same
privileges these other folks have. You are going to be a second-class
farmer. If you happen to be a small tobacco farmer that maybe grows
some other crops and you use tobacco, that is going to be something
that you have done that you are going to put my kids through college.
You are going to say, we are going to cut off, this is going to take
away a part of your income.
It is not going to affect the big picture. It is not going to
convince anybody not to smoke. It is just an attack on the small
tobacco farmers all across the South that raise tobacco and count on it
for their livelihood. So make no mistake about it. The only people that
are going to be harmed are going to be the small tobacco farmers. We
have thousands of them in the great State of North Carolina and
Kentucky and Georgia and Alabama, all across the South.
I might add, there is no place that these folks say: Hey, what we are
going to do; we are going to diversify. There is no crop that they can
say in the short run next year they will not plant tobacco, we will
plant blueberries or we will plant something else. They cannot
diversify. This is something that is going to have an impact on the
small farmers in North Carolina and all over the South. Make no mistake
about it.
I would not call this a mean-spirited amendment. I have known the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] ever since he came here. He is a
fine gentleman. But he is just misdirected in his avenue that he has
taken as far as the Tobacco Program. We are talking about a legal
product that the tobacco farmer has just as much right to grow tobacco
as people have to grow soybeans, cotton, corn, wheat, any other crop in
these great United States.
This is a punitive amendment, and I would urge the Members of this
great body to vote this amendment down and get on with their business.
As far as the Rural Assistance Program, that should be put back in
the bill. This is something that should be funded. It should not have
been taken out. It is a disgrace that it was, but this is not the way
to address something that is bad in the bill to make it even worse by
adopting the Durbin amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
I am here today in strong opposition to the Durbin antitobacco farmer
amendment, which was already soundly defeated in committee and last
year on this floor.
Let me tell you about the family farmer in Kentucky's Second
District. He grows several crops--soybeans, corn, wheat, whatever--but
most often, he grows tobacco.
In fact, for thousands of families back home, it's tobacco that puts
food on the table and clothes on the kids' backs.
Sometimes, that farmer needs advice on crop production, diseases, or
fertilizer. The extension services across rural America are often the
only source of this type of information. This amendment denies tobacco
farmers that advice.
Now I would assume supporters of this antitobacco farmer amendment
would say they care about the environment. They should consider this
question: What if a tobacco farmer misuses pesticides because the
expert at his local extension office wasn't allowed to talk to him?
This amendment also prevents hard-working tobacco farmers from buying
the same crop insurance that farmers in, say, Illinois have.
Think about it: Tobacco is a legal crop. And we are saying to the
farmers, when they need assistance, that they are second-class
citizens.
The Durbin amendment does away with a critical part of the Federal
safety net for farmers who grow tobacco. It is a discriminatory
amendment.
Each year, tobacco contributes nearly $15 billion to Federal, State,
and local government in taxes. It adds another $6 billion in exports.
That's $21 billion.
The gentleman from Illinois should consider what liberal social
programs he'd do away with without those $21 billion. Tobacco farmers
also pay an additional 33 million for various assessments to allow the
Tobacco Program to operate at no net-cost to the taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't single out the farmers who grow tobacco.
We

[[Page H6223]]

shouldn't hurt the many families who are just barely getting by with a
few acres of this legal product. And we shouldn't pretend that this
amendment will stop one person from smoking, because it won't.
The health risks associated with tobacco are well known, and not the
issue today. The issue is the thousands of independent decisions made
by farm families.
The Durbin amendment would be a disaster for tens of thousands of
small family farmers. Vote against this anti-tobacco farmer amendment.
Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I probably have a little more unique position or
consideration of this amendment than most Members because I am the only
tobacco farmer in this House.
Let me tell you what this amendment does. I am not going to get into
all the money everybody else has talked about. It is telling every
tobacco farmer in Kentucky today, we have had rain for the last 4 or 5
weeks, we now have the possibility of a blue mold coming in on our
plants, which could very well devastate our crop as we move along from
June, July, and August. We want to tell that farmer, with the Durbin
amendment, we want to tell him, Mr. Farmer, you do not have any
protection for that.
We might be devastated. If the blue mold does not get us later in the
summer, we have a disease called black shank which could.
Why do I mention these two diseases? First of all, it is the
extension services which go to the farmer who does not have to go to
anybody else and say, Mr. Farmer, here is what you put on your tobacco
plant to try to prevent blue mold, try to prevent black shank. What do
they do? They wither up the plants. They give you absolutely no
production at the end of the year. But guess what, you have already put
in several thousand dollars per acre. You have already put in the
fertilizer cost. You have already put in, in some cases right before a
harvest, you have put in most of your labor, a great deal of your
labor.
Under the Durbin amendment, he wants to tell this farmer, this
farmer, you cannot have a safety net. You go on and go broke. We do not
care.
Just two or three amendments ago, I heard Mr. Durbin himself talking
about the disaster we had in the wheat. Why didn't those people go get
insurance? I would be more interested in hearing them, if they go
insurance.
We are telling my farmers they cannot have insurance. It has nothing
to do with smoking. You are basically telling the farmers in Kentucky
and North Carolina, we cannot have the safety net that we need to make
sure we do not go broke. We are not talking just about landowners here.
Do not think you are talking about farmowners who just have a lot of
land. We are talking about young tenant farmers who maybe do not have
any land but have over $100,000, $200,000 invested in equipment. We are
going to tell him and her, a lot of women, going right on that farm, do
not worry about it, folks, you do not need a safety net, you are going
to go broke. Andy by the way, you cannot go talk to the extension
service about how to make your crop better. Are you going to use
Clorox? That is illegal. You cannot do that. The extension service
cannot tell you that. You have got to know it.
This is mean spirited. It is hypocrisy at the highest level. Two or
three votes ago, two of the sponsors of these amendments voted to keep
on paying the funds necessary to market alcohol. They voted against the
Kennedy amendment. I voted against it, too. But now is not that
something, we are saying here to the tobacco farmer, somehow you cause
health problems, Mr. Farmer. We are not even asking for money to help
us market. We are going to tell the alcohol folks, fine. I voted for it
and think it is the right thing to do, we are going to help our market,
yours and nobody is going to deny that alcohol has some problems with
health.
What disappoints me about this is it has nothing to do with smoking.
It has nothing to do with what is going to happen. The gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and others have said it. The Mexicans are going
to love it. The Brazilians are going to love it. The Africans are going
to love it because they are going to be able to market their products.
Who is not going to love it? Farmers in Kentucky and throughout the
South, because we are telling them today, if this amendment passes, we
do not care about you. We do not care if you go broke. We do not care
if you cannot get insurance. We pay our taxes; you pay. The university
has got an extension service; Federal Government has extension
services. You cannot go see them.
This is a mean-spirited amendment. It is the most hypocrisy that I
have ever seen, over two or three votes ago. I am disappointed by the
fact that we do not care about these people.
What is the next small farmer we are going to kick in the shins? What
is the next small farmer we are going to hurt? Who are we going to pick
on next? Tobacco is an easy target for you folks. Tobacco is an easy
target for the urban areas because they do not care about it. Tobacco
is an easy target because they do not think about the billions of
dollars they get.
I am disappointed. Vote no because this is very mean spirited and the
height of hypocrisy.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Durbin-Hansen amendment. This
amendment prohibits the use of Federal funds for tobacco-related
extension services and crop insurance. It is needed because the current
so-called no net cost tobacco price support program does not eliminate
Federal spending related to tobacco.
Tobacco products, as the medical profession has repeatedly
emphasized, kill. Tobacco is frequently used as a pesticide, thus it is
no wonder that almost one half million Americans die each year from
tobacco use. This, along with tobacco-related illnesses, costs Medicare
and Medicaid approximately $15.3 billion each year.
The Durbin proposal would not cause tobacco farmers to lose their
jobs. It does not affect the tobacco price support program; debate on
that issue is deferred to the farm bill. Rather, the Durbin proposal
continues to align our agricultural policies with our health policies.
As part of this sensible undertaking, the proposal would reallocate
funds from the tobacco industry to more health conscious interests. One
part of Mr. Durbin's proposal would help to provide safe and affordable
drinking water to the 400,000 rural households currently without it.
Mr. Durbin also proposes to reallocate money to the Distance Learning/
Medical Link program. This is another important program which offers
valuable opportunities to rural residents though increased educational
venues and better access to health care.
It is time for governmental policies to work together, and for us to
get out of the tobacco business. I urge my colleagues to seize the
opportunity to move one more step toward that goal by supporting the
Durbin-Hansen amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a chart that I want to display so
that Members can see the full consequences of this tobacco issue.
This chart indicates the causes of death in the United States. Deaths
related to tobacco come close to 20 percent. It is higher than the
combination of deaths due to illicit drugs, motor vehicle accidents,
sexual behavior, guns and firearms, toxic agents, microbial agents, and
alcohol; all of them combined.
This is a major health problem in this country. We need to address
it. The Centers for Disease Control came out with a report a couple of
weeks ago. They have indicated to us that we are losing this war
against smoking in America.

{time} 1615

Forty percent of white teenaged girls are smoking. Three thousand new
kids are taking up smoking each day.
What are we are going to do about it? What is a commonsense rational
policy for this Nation to avoid the consequences of 400,000 people
dying each

[[Page H6224]]

year? How do we stop our kids from taking up smoking?
Now, the Durbin amendment is not a solution. We need some commonsense
solutions, but it is a reasonable step that we ought to take.
I have listened to the discussions of the representatives from the
tobacco growing areas. They say that we are treating their farmers like
second-class citizens, we are saying that they are criminals. No one is
saying that. They have a legal right to grow those crops and to sell
them.
But the fact of the matter is, why should taxpayers help them when we
face this kind of consequence from this product? We ought to be talking
about, if we really care about those farmers, how to make a transition
to other crops as we, as a nation, try to discourage people from
smoking. That is what we ought to be doing, and if the gentleman wanted
to deal with the problem, we would try to come to terms with it.
We have enormous pressures to keep the status quo. Do not touch the
subsidies going to tobacco farmers. People say, ``Well, let's deal with
alcohol.'' Well, let us deal with alcohol, but let us recognize the
disproportionate deaths from tobacco. They say, ``Well, let's do
something about kids smoking,'' but those same people that said that on
the House floor object to the Food and Drug Administration promulgating
regulations. They are in favor of some voluntary effort by the tobacco
industry which, as an industry, has a conflict of interest. The
industry does not want to discourage kids from smoking because those
kids that take up smoking as 13-, 14-year-olds are their customers when
they are adults. They are the ones who get hooked on nicotine.
I urge that we support this amendment. It is a good first step. We
ought to do it. There is no reason not to do it.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Now, the gentleman from California mentioned that there
are other measures besides this amendment which only keeps us from
wasting a certain amount of public moneys in support of death that
ought to be taken. Are there going to be any of those measures coming
out of the subcommittee that the gentleman from California has served
on and focused so much attention in prior Congresses to this tremendous
tobacco epidemic in the country?
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Texas well knows, the
most powerful special interest in this country is the tobacco industry.
They have invariably gotten their way in the Congress of the United
States. The inquiry that our subcommittee conducted about tobacco
industry practices was stopped. The tobacco industry is a major
campaign contributor.
Mr. DOGGETT. How does the gentleman from California mean it was
stopped?
Mr. WAXMAN. The new leadership of the committee decided that there
was no reason for this country and this Congress to look into tobacco
industry practices.
Mr. DOGGETT. So even though tobacco is the No. 1 cause of preventable
death in the United States, this Congress, this House under the
Gingrich leadership, is not doing anything about it?
Mr. WAXMAN. The gentleman is absolutely correct. This Congress and
the leadership of this Congress has done exactly what the tobacco
industry has wanted it to do. It has stopped any investigation of the
tobacco industry. It has condemned the Food and Drug Administration as
it attempts to deal with the problems of children being seduced into
smoking. It has supported the continued subsidies of the tobacco
industry and its farmers. We are losing the war, and the people who
have been elected to be responsible for the Nation are turning their
backs on that whole effort.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman]
has expired.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from California [Mr. Waxman] be granted 3 additional minutes to
respond.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, there have been no objections to anyone
else getting unanimous-consent extensions on this.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I would like the gentleman identified
under the rules because they may want to speak again and I may want to
object.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] has objected.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
It is impossible today in today's climate to discuss anything
relating to tobacco without discussing the political correctness of the
issue, and I think that all of us would agree with that, and I do not
think there is anybody in this Chamber, or anybody that I know of, that
wants young people to smoke any tobacco product, and every tobacco
product today has on the package that it may be dangerous to one's
health to smoke the product or to chew the product, and we all know
that, and all of us know that there are many things in our society that
it is harmful for us to engage in. Many things: drinking alcoholic
beverages, drinking and driving, dropping out of school. But we also
know that individuals make individual choices about what they do, and
the same thing takes place on this issue of tobacco.
We know historically that prohibition did not work in the alcohol
business, we know that it is illegal to sell and buy cocaine and heroin
on the streets of America, and yet we know that it is done all over the
streets of America, and we know that organized crime is involved in the
selling of those products. But one thing that we also know is that
tobacco is a legal product, and it is a regulated product. It is not
regulated by FDA, as the President and other Members of this body would
like it to be, but it is regulated by the Department of Agriculture,
the Federal Trade Commission, HHS and other agencies of the Government,
and it is a legal crop.
Now, over the past 8 years two agencies of the Federal Government
have taken real reductions in appropriations. That has been Agriculture
and Defense. And the farmers throughout America stepped up to the plate
on this Freedom to Farm bill and volunteered that over the next 5 years
all of their price support systems would be eliminated. And in tobacco
there is no price support system today that is paid for by the
Government. The tobacco farmers and the tobacco industry,
manufacturers, pay for that price support system.
And this amendment simply discriminates against over 140,000 small
farmers in 23 States, many of whom only have 1 or 2 acres of land to
grow this legal product, and this amendment basically says that if
someone grows this product, this crop, they cannot use the facilities
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to advise them on the pesticides
or the insecticides that they should use on this product, and all of us
recognize that there are some dangers in the chemicals being used
today, and we need advice from the Department of Agriculture on those
types of issues, and so this amendment would prohibit that.

And in addition, this amendment would also prohibit farmers from
buying crop insurance. Now, up until this freedom to farm bill, it was
required that farmers buy catastrophic crop insurance. Most of them
really did not want to. And the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]
mentioned awhile ago, he said that the Government will spend $97
million this year, but the estimate is that it will be $97 million, and
most of that is on crop insurance that farmers themselves paid the
premium, they paid the premium for it, and if anything happened to the
crop, they will be reimbursed. And some things did happen. As the
gentleman from Kentucky mentioned earlier, blue mold hit, and it about
destroyed the crop this year, and so they paid for a premium to be
covered. Blue mold hit the crop, and now they are going to be
compensated. And this amendment would prohibit that from taking place
in the future.
And so I would just say it is an amendment that discriminates against
140,000 small farmers in 23 States around this country.

[[Page H6225]]

Now, if my colleagues want to make tobacco illegal, then let us bring
it up for a vote. Let us not try to harm these small farmers and let
the big manufacturers get off. And furthermore, I would challenge my
colleagues that Government cannot control the actions of people on
everything that they do. We cannot control that somebody is going to
smoke. We cannot control if somebody is going to contact AIDS through
illicit sexual contact or kill themselves while driving intoxicated.
So that is what this amendment is all about, and I would urge all of
us to vote against the Durbin amendment.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Durbin amendment. I feel
that this amendment is unfair, it is discriminatory, and it will create
a bureaucratic nightmare.
I represent tobacco growers. I represent tobacco warehouses, and I
represent the largest cigarette manufacturing plant in the country.
What I see this debate about is not whether to outlaw tobacco, which
perhaps would be more of an appropriate debate, not whether to smoke or
not to smoke, which perhaps would be an appropriate debate, but here we
are talking about taking away crop insurance and the advice of
extension agents from people who are scratching out a living from the
soil in the hardest of possible ways to just to make ends meet.
It is not right, it is not fair, and I just think that we ought not
be doing that.
What we are talking about here are jobs. What we are talking about
are families. We are talking about college tuition. We are talking
about hospital bills, doctor bills. We are talking about health
insurance even, derived from the hard work that these families scratch
out from the soil.
I had the good fortune to marry a young lady who grew up on a tobacco
farm, and we spent hours and hours talking about what it was like
growing up on that tobacco farm when her father would have to go and
mortgage the land to plant his crop and how when the crop came in and
after they got through curing it and they got through selling it, how
he would go back to the bank, if they had a good year, and pay off the
mortgage. And she talked about how many years they would have to go
back and renew that mortgage and hope that they could make a better
crop the next year, and in the meantime the land did not get foreclosed
on.
Her father always said, ``I hope that life for our children won't be
as bad on this tobacco farm as it has been for me.''
The advent of crop insurance improved that lot for that tobacco farm
in North Carolina. I believe that we ought not to, as long as this
product is legal, discriminate, be unfair and create a nightmare, as
this amendment would do.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs.
Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Durbin amendment and say
this really is not about whether one smokes or not. I am not in denial
that smoking harms. I am not one who says that smoking should not be
for children. I do not advocate. So it is difficult to follow Mr.
Waxman's startling statistic.
But this is not about smoking. This is about discriminating against
the poorest of the poor of that industry. Our colleagues are not
attacking the big boy. They really are attacking the small farmer.
This is a vested interest. I represent the largest amount of farmers
who grow flue-cured tobacco in the country.

{time} 1630

Obviously, I feel for them. I also feel for those who may see this as
a moral issue. I commend the gentleman from Illinois, who has
consistently been about this.
However, Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the Members, this is not the
way to go about it. We should not discriminate against farmers who
happen to be growing tobacco, soybeans, cotton, and to say that they
should not have the assistance of our Government, or we should not find
a way where they cannot insure their crops. Go after it as a moral
issue. This is not the way to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to understand, they are not
making the decision around smoking or not smoking, they are really
making the decision about whether they want to be fair to farmers,
regardless of what legal crop they are growing. I urge the defeat of
the Durbin amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request. I would
ask the gentleman from Illinois, we have been at this for about an hour
and 15 minutes. I do not want to cut anybody off, but I think at least
we ought to have some parameters. How about 80 minutes?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKEEN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. If the
gentleman would agree to 90 minutes, I think we might be able to wrap
it up.
Mr. SKEEN. We will go 90 minutes.
Mr. DURBIN. Forty-five minutes on each side. Will the gentleman
control those in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. SKEEN. Yes.
Mr. DURBIN. I will control those in favor of it.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 90 minutes and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that the time will be divided, 45
minutes to be managed by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and
45 minutes to be managed by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen].
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Funderburk].
Mr. FUNDERBURK. Mr. Chairman, here we go again with the constant
attack on tobacco in the form of another Durbin amendment. This
amendment is being sold as an attempt to change smoking habits. As
usual the label is misleading. It won't change smoking habits one bit.
This legislation breaks a complex and time-honored agreement between
the farmer, the Government, and the manufacturer. If this amendment
passes, tobacco farmers would be the only farmers in America denied
access to Government-funded research, education, and extension services
for their crop. This amendment even denies tobacco farmers Federal crop
insurance and sets up the taxpayers to absorb millions of dollars in
defaulted farm loans. It imposes a politically correct gag rule on USDA
officials by preventing southern farmers from accessing information
which they paid for with their own tax dollars.
If the authors also intend to wound multinational corporations they
are off the mark. The big companies won't be hurt by this amendment.
They will simply pack their bags, move off shore, and sell us foreign
tobacco. So, the people this amendment really hurts, live in the small
towns in my State and across the country. These law-abiding citizens
don't sit on corporate boards or drive big cars, they merely ask the
Congress to treat them fairly and on that count the Durbin amendment
fails miserably.
It is time for Durbin, Waxman, Kessler, and Clinton to stop picking
on small tobacco farmers. Where is their substitute for $15 billion to
the Federal, State, and local governments in the form of sales and
excise taxes? Six billion dollars in exports--that's a lot of jobs.
Over $30 million to the U.S. Treasury for deficit reduction.
Prohibition, crop diversification--it's simple to say but not to do.
This amendment is bad legislation. It does nothing the authors claim
and punishes no one the authors want to punish. So, Mr. Chairman, the
next time a Member of Congress, on either side of the aisle, talks
about protecting the little man and small businesses take a look at how
he voted on the Durbin amendment and see how his claim stands up.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FUNDERBURK. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.

[[Page H6226]]

Mr. Chairman, none of us disagree with the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Durbin] that we ought not to encourage children from smoking. We
ought to. This amendment will do nothing about that. All of us agree
that smoking presents hazards to one's health. This amendment does
nothing about that. This amendment is, pure and simple, about corporate
America versus little farm family America.
Mr. Chairman, I have very few big farmers in my district. Most of my
farmers are small farmers. The big farmers, the corporate farmers, do
not depend on the county agent for advice. They depend on the experts,
the high-priced experts from Lexington, from Raleigh, from Athens. They
can afford that. The small family farmer depends on that extension
service agent, the Gary Gloes, the Scott Browns, to come out and
examine their fields, be it corn, be it peanuts, be it cotton, be it
tobacco.
What you are doing is saying it is all right for you to look at your
corn patch but I cannot look at your tobacco patch and tell you what is
wrong or what you need to do. The gentleman and I know that the
management of that will never work. It simply cannot work. I urge the
defeat of this amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington [Mrs. Smith].
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Durbin amendment to cut the tobacco subsidy and transfer the money
saved into the rural development programs.
This is just one of the many steps this body needs to take to balance
the budget. Members have a clear choice today. They can choose to
subsidize tobacco growing or they can vote to give rural areas safe
drinking water. We need to spend the taxpayers' money very, very
carefully. I think if we took a poll of America today, we would find
that 99 percent would not choose to subsidize tobacco.
Do not think for a minute this is about the small farmer. Last year
when we took this vote, the three major tobacco lobbies cut 135 checks,
half of them on top of the markup and the other half within 48 hours of
the vote. The time for the vote came and it went down. These are
business people. They had every intention of affecting the vote. I do
not question each Member's vote, but a good businessman or woman does
not give money to anything that they do not expect a return on.
Mr. Chairman, the big tobacco industries are a $45 billion industry.
They are fighting this vote and they are fighting it because they do
not want to lose one toehold they have on this place, or at least they
believe they have on this place, because they are major, major
contributors to campaigns, and mostly right around the votes.

Last year, we even had tobacco checks, as we read in the news a
couple of weeks ago, passed out on the floor of this Chamber. This is
serious, Mr. Chairman. Tobacco companies know that they are in trouble.
Why not give the $23 million to clean water? Does that not make more
sense? I think it makes more sense. I think the American people think
it makes more sense.
We have had conflicting stories on the floor today about how
lucrative it is or not, and how in jeopardy the small farmers are. I
have looked. You can grow a little tobacco, for a lot of money,
practically in your backyard. I understand that that is a good way for
some families to make their living, but it also costs America very
dearly.
Mr. Chairman, the argument of corn, let us talk about the argument of
corn. Why do we continue with crop insurance for corn? By the way, I am
for getting rid of all agriculture and all corporate subsidies
eventually. If we Republicans believe in getting rid of the debt, we
have to stop subsidizing a lot of things we have been subsidizing over
the years; by the way, started by the Democrats.
But I believe that starting with tobacco makes a whale of a lot of
sense, whether it is $20, $21, or $90 million, because the difference
between corn and tobacco is very simple. My grandkids need corn to eat.
Tobacco is going to kill them. It killed my mother. It has killed my
relatives. It could kill my grandchildren. That is a lot of difference
there--400,000 deaths each year. Corn does not cause emphysema or lung
cancer. It might make you fat, but in general you can only eat so much
of it, and 3,000 children a day do not become addicted to corn.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly do not want to be in a position with my
constituents of going home and saying ``I subsidized tobacco, but I did
not have any money for clean water for your communities.'' I have 27
pending applications for water and sewer grants. We need that money.
That is good, healthy money. It could be used for that. Mr. Chairman,
let us vote today to free up that money for clean water. This is just
one of several farm and corporate subsidies we need to get rid of to
balance the budget.
The main cry we came in with, in fact, I waved a flag at the Contract
With America that said ``I am going to balance the budget. I am going
to clean up the corruption.'' We stood there together and we said that.
We have to do it even to things that are in our backyard, folks. I have
done them to things in my backyard. You have to, too.
The argument that tobacco is legal makes little sense to me. There
are a lot of legal things, but we do not subsidize them. Especially we
do not subsidize those things that are destroying Americans and costing
the Medicare system enough to bankrupt it. Today, I ask Members to
think very carefully about where they have their priorities in this
body. We all have to have their priorities, but this one has a lot of
problems. I ask today that Members support the Durbin amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I will try not to use all that time so
others can.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, this amendment, I would say to my
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], is somewhat
confusing. If we were to adopt it, I am not sure exactly how it would
be administered or what would be carried out. I am somewhat confused
between crop insurance and rural utilities. I would have thought, and I
have many of these same co-ops in my district that the gentleman has,
but I would have thought if the gentleman really wanted to fund this,
he would have cut crop insurance for corn and soybeans, corn and
soybeans in the gentleman's district. Then we would have probably all
come to the floor and discussed that. I do not see the connection
between taking crop insurance from one crop and not from another.
It is about small farmers. The debate here is totally off what we are
talking about, what this amendment does. This amendment takes from the
Crop Insurance Program and puts it into another area; maybe a very
deserving area, but one the Committee on Appropriations has already
decided has been adequately funded. Now we are going to take it away.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that a lot of this is very self-serving and
political. The debate is not about tobacco. Yes, it is about small
farmers that will be hurt, in this case, tobacco farmers; not corn and
soybean farmers, tobacco farmers, because that is who the amendment is
aimed at. Yet, we continue just to ignore the fact that these same
farmers are paying their way, paying their way, and then we are going
to take away what little government is left for them, and we are not
going to take away the assessment that they pay, it is going to
continue to be there, that tax on them.
Mr. Chairman, let me just, in closing, say that this amendment is
confusing. I do not think it is easy to enforce. I think it is time to
vote it down. But the issue of smoking, not one person has gotten up
and said, ``I like to smoke.'' I am not going to, either. I am a
reformed smoker. I do not think we should smoke. My children do not
smoke. I did not want them to smoke. But the point is, if you want to
legislate on that issue, the appropriation process is not the place for
the debate and not the place to decide that. We should do that in the
substantive committee. That is where it ought to go.
We ought to decide what we can do to address this problem in America.
We ought to remember that we only should put into law what we can do
and what we can afford to do, because we put into law an awful lot of
things that we do an awful poor job of enforcing, and then we wonder
why.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this amendment is ill-advised, terribly
hard

[[Page H6227]]

to follow, unable to be enforced, and should be voted down. If we want
to debate this issue, do it in the proper form.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
I join him today in offering this amendment, because it is time for our
Government to stop subsidizing death. That is really what this is all
about. A government subsidy to promote the growth of tobacco makes as
little sense as a government subsidy to promote the production of the
plants and the seeds from which strychnine is derived. In either case,
it uses public money to deliver poison to the American people.

{time} 1645

The only difference is that the tobacco kills a little more slowly
and a little more painfully than the strychnine. And tobacco ultimately
costs our American taxpayers literally billions of dollars in
additional health and disability claims that we end up having to pay
rather than a swift strychnine death.
Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in this country.
Yet there are people on this floor today opposing this amendment who
are at this moment expending public money to promote the production of
even more tobacco.
Some 80 percent of adult smokers begin as children in their smoking
habits. That is why it has been described as a pediatric disease by the
American Academy of Pediatrics. Every day more than 3,000 young people
take up smoking. The average age, according to one study in Texas, was
a little under 13 years old to begin this terrible situation that
ultimately leads to death for so many. But the opponents of this
amendment say, ``Keep the Government in the driver's seat. That's the
only way to make it fair.''
Well, the Government is in the driver's seat all right. It is in the
driver's seat of a hearse. That hearse is carrying and transporting
400,000 Americans directly who are smokers and about another 50,000
every year who die from the indirect consequences of secondhand smoke.
This amendment eliminates the public funding of tobacco-related
extension services and it eliminates Federal funding for tobacco crop
insurance subsidies.
But this amendment is more than just one of fiscal responsibility. It
is more than just one of saving lives. It is about breaking the
stranglehold that one of the most powerful lobbies in the country has
on this Congress.
As always, the purveyors of poison are hiding behind the small
farmer. They picture some fellow with a big plug of chewing tobacco in
his cheek in an old beat-up pickup truck rumbling down some back road.
This is not about that guy. This is about the most pernicious lobby
in this country today. If our citizens could vote directly on this
issue, they would see right through this sham. They recognize that the
tobacco companies are going to continue to peddle this poison as long
as they can pay for the right to do so.
And my how they have been paying. For while I recognize that they
have exerted tremendous influence over both parties in the past and
while I applaud my Republican colleagues like the last gentlewoman who
rose to support this amendment, I think we have got to be clear that
the Republican National Committee these days is like a giant cigarette
vending machine. The tobacco companies put in their money and they pull
out the influence they want.

In the first 6 months of 1995 alone, the tobacco companies poured
more than $1.5 million into the national treasury of the Republican
Party in so-called soft money. By the end of the year they had gotten
up to almost $2.5 million. Who knows, now that we are finally in an
election year, how much money they have been able to dump over there.
With those kinds of dollars, you can bet that when a tobacco lobbyist
calls the National Republican Party that they do not get put on hold or
get forwarded to voice mail.
No, they get Haley to pick up the phone as he did and call the
Governor of Texas. They get him to call all over. As far as the soft
money is concerned, then there is the hard money. Of course the tobacco
lobby does not make it too hard on Members of Congress to get their
largesse. Indeed, they had the head of the Republican conference
running around here on the floor of this body, on this very floor,
acting as an errand boy for them so that the Members of Congress that
want that tobacco money will not even have to walk across the street to
get it.
All during 1995, tobacco interests gave a total to people of all
parties associated with Congress in soft money and PAC money over $4
million. That is a pretty good harvest. I would say it is a very
bountiful harvest.
It was Mark Twain who said, ``It's easy to give up smoking. I know so
because I have done it a hundred times.'' Well, we only need to give up
this public largesse in return for the favors from the tobacco lobby
one time.
Let us do it today. Let us get out of the hearse and get this program
revised and the public out of the business of promoting death.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Burr].
(Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BURR. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I have sat here for an hour and a half, maybe a little
bit longer. Thank goodness we have a time frame on it. I have waited
for the merits of why this bill, a bill that puts a gag order on
extension agents in this country, is good. I have heard about smoking
and I have heard about this and I have heard about that, and now we
have heard about PAC money and we have heard about influence. We still
have not heard any merits on why extension agent gag is an appropriate
method.
In fact, tobacco is an attractive target these days. The
administration is on it. We have got the Durbin-Waxman two shoe again.
It is consistent. In due respect to them, they are consistent. They
continue to do it. Why do they do it? For the same reason my colleague
from Texas was just up here. Because it is profitable for them. Because
they do not talk about the money they raise from the people that fight
this industry day in and day out.
Congress has the jurisdiction on what the legal status of it is. If
the American people want it changed, I will assure my colleagues they
are a much more powerful lobby than is any single interest group here
in Washington or the whole interest groups here in Washington combined.
We give the American people the wrong impression when we say that they
do not have a voice here.
Well, they do have a voice in the Fifth District of North Carolina
and they elected me to be here. They elected me to protect their
livelihood. The fact is that this amendment is not about tobacco and it
is not about smoking. This is about killing the livelihoods of
families. It is about destroying communities throughout the South
because we will drive farmers out of business.
My colleagues are offering to kill programs from which tobacco
farmers in my district benefit, while they are proposing to maintain,
as my other colleagues have mentioned, their own programs.
I would say this to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], and
I am sorry she is not here, if she believes that doing away with the
extension agents for tobacco is in fact that profitable, then why does
she not propose that we do away with extension agents, period?
It is very simple. It is because the assault here is tobacco. It is
under assault under the auspices of Federal spending. There is not a
crop in this country that has done more to be self-sufficient than has
tobacco. They have reached out every time that this body has suggested
that in fact the Federal Government had too great a share and they have
cleaned it up. They have a no net cost program for the stabilization
side of it.
And yes, there is some Federal money that is there for extension
agents to talk to farmers, to help them move from a one-crop farm to a
multi-crop farm. As a matter of fact, North Carolina used to be a one-
crop State. Today we are the third most diverse State in this country
behind California

[[Page H6228]]

and Texas. Why? Because extension agents have helped us to make that
transition. Without them, our farmers are dead, and you can bet on it.
It is unbelievable to think that we would in fact sit here and pass a
law that would say to extension agents, ``You can talk to a farmer
about the azalea bushes and when to clip them, about the grass and how
to make it green, you can talk about cotton and pigs and everything
else, but you can't talk about tobacco.'' How insane we would be to
even consider something like this.
As a matter of fact, if I were a farmer in Illinois today, as my deal
colleague Mr. Ewing said, I would be scared to death of what the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Durbin may do.
The reality is that, as in the past, this amendment amounts to plain
discrimination against our farmers who depend on tobacco to put food on
their tables. In fact, earlier, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Durbin] said, look at the kids visiting us today. My only regret at
that time, I was sorry that the children of tobacco farmers were not
here today, because they are just as important. Are their lives not as
important for us to protect as everybody's in this country?
We will solve the smoking issue. We will do it responsibly. We will
debate the issue. But we do not do it by disguising an attack on the
industry and by destroying people who in fact are just plain farmers.
Mr. Chairman, if Congress were to say today that tobacco could not be
grown anymore, it would take at least 3 growing seasons to prime soil
for new crops, notwithstanding the fact that most tobacco farmers have
neither the acreage or the proper soil to prosper with different crops.
As a matter of fact, the average tobacco farm in my district is 3
acres. Three acres is not enough to even take a good-sized tractor and
get it going before you have got to turn it around. Needless to say,
they do not have the up-front capital to start raising chickens or
hogs. Given the same circumstances, I am sure that most other farmers
would face a similar situation.
But Congressman Durbin would eliminate crop insurance for tobacco. He
may not like tobacco, but it is downright cruel to pull the rug out
from under farmers whose crops fall victim to such plagues as blue mold
which has wiped out hundreds of acres of burley tobacco.
Will we not cause a nightmare for extension agents when they cannot
control disease in one crop and all of a sudden it begins to affect
others? Will we not do a terrible thing to our environment in this
country if we do not have agricultural agents who are working with
farmers as it relates to pesticides and to other things that they use
on their crops, and farmers do it out of ignorance versus out of
education? Do we not do an injustice by not allowing the latest in
research and technology to drive what they do? How can it be good
policy to put agricultural extension agents under a gag order?

Good policy would be to control disease, to monitor pesticide usage,
to protect workers and the environment. The Durbin amendment is bad
legislation. It threatens the environment, it threatens the livelihood
of thousands of families, and it threatens American jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today to defeat the Durbin amendment. I am
here to defeat the Durbin amendment for one primary reason, because it
is what is right.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Utah [Ms. Greene], who is in support of this bipartisan amendment.
Ms. GREENE of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Durbin-Hansen amendment. This amendment would prohibit the use of funds
for tobacco-related extension services and for tobacco crop insurance.
Mr. Chairman, we have had to make many difficult choices in the
appropriations process in this Congress, but this amendment should be
offering us an easy choice. We simply have to ask ourselves the
following question: Why is the Federal Government subsidizing the
tobacco industry?
We now have incontrovertible evidence regarding the catastrophic
damage tobacco use does to our citizens, to our economy, and to our
Federal budget. More than 400,000 Americans die every year because of
cancer, heart disease, and other smoking-related illnesses. Smoking
costs our economy approximately $50 billion a year in direct health
care costs and another $50 billion in indirect costs such as lost
productivity through sickness and premature deaths. It is estimated
that Medicare will be forced to spend approximately 800 billion
taxpayer dollars over the next 20 years to care for people with
smoking-related illnesses. Given these profoundly troubling facts, how
can we ask this House to appropriate another dime for the tobacco
industry?
Setting aside the individual health concerns for a moment, let us
look at this issue from a purely economic perspective. How can this
House ever justify subsidizing a product that directly increases our
Federal health expenditures so dramatically, let alone during such
challenging budgetary times?
Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes another critical step toward
bringing our budget priorities in line with the realities of the danger
and the expense of tobacco. Previous Congresses have already prohibited
USDA funding for tobacco-related research and export assistance. This
amendment is the overdue next step.
The $25 million that the Durbin-Hansen amendment will save will be
used to restore cuts in funding for rural development and health
programs. For example, this amendment will increase rural water and
sewer assistance by $22.5 million. Mr. Chairman, the USDA has estimated
that over 400,000 rural households are still without safe and
affordable water. Addressing that problem should take priority over
subsidizing one of America's most lucrative industries.

{time} 1700

This year the Federal Government is spending $98 million on a variety
of taxpayer-supported programs for the tobacco industry. We have heard
that this is discrimination, that this should be treated like any other
crop, but unlike other crops, tobacco has no safe level of use, and of
all the crops grown in this great country only tobacco has a body
count. This crop should not enjoy the same Federal assistance and
protection that other crops do.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues in the House to support the
Durbin-Hansen amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Durbin amendment,
and I do so reluctantly because I admire the gentleman and have worked
with him and have enjoyed getting to know him since I got here, but I
think this amendment is really not aimed at the right folks, and I mean
this sincerely.
This amendment is going to be aimed at the people who produce tobacco
on farms, and those are not the people who are getting rich on tobacco;
those are not the people who we hear about when we hear about the
tobacco issue being discussed; rather; these are the people who are
able to stay on their family farms because of the income they derive
from their tobacco allotment, and these are not large farmers.
As we heard from the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Burr], these are
people who are farming, 2, 3, and 4 acres. The size of their acreage is
comparable to home sites in some parts of this country. These are not
big agribusiness folks, these are regular people, and it is these
tobacco crops that are allowing them to keep these farms in the family.
The reason that I know that, Mr. Chairman, is that I know these
people from my community. Mostly they do not live in Louisville, KY,
but they work in Louisville, KY. And Members might say to me how do
they work in Louisville if they farm tobacco? Well, the reason they
work in Louisville is that the tobacco income is what keeps them on the
farm, but what keeps their families going is their factory job income.
They work in Louisville at United Parcel Service or General Electric or
one of the other manufacturers in Louisville, one of the other large
business enterprises, to keep their family farm and their way of life.
So as we have heard today, this amendment is not about attacking
tobacco, this amendment is not about attacking the large tobacco
companies;

[[Page H6229]]

the brunt of this amendment will land on the small farmers.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Hinchey].
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I am very much in support of the amendment
of the gentleman from Illinois, and I commend him for offering before
the House.
Over and over this afternoon we have heard the opponents of this
amendment attempt to equate tobacco with other products, with corn,
wheat, and soybeans, but there is no equation of tobacco with those
products. Those products provide the food and fiber which sustains our
health and our lives.
Tobacco is fundamentally different. Tobacco promotes dependency,
addiction and death. There is hardly a family in America that has not
been affected by this addictive drug and the health consequences that
it causes. In my own family we have been robbed of the counsel and
comfort of members who have been taken prematurely as a result of the
addiction to tobacco. That affects everyone and that is what this
amendment is all about.
Tobacco costs us. It costs us billions of dollars, several hundred
billions of dollars a year in health care costs related to the effects
of tobacco.
We send a contradictory message. We tell people they should not
smoke, but we are here subsidizing the essence of that smoking.
Cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, which is the basis of this amendment,
causes addiction and causes death. We say to our kids, do not smoke.
And they say to us: ``If smoking is so bad, why is the Government
paying people to help them grow tobacco? Why is the Government paying
people to go out and help them grow better crops and grow more tobacco?
Why is the Government subsidizing insurance if it is so bad? I do not
understand what is going on here,'' they say to us. ``You are telling
me two different things.''
If we are sincere about dealing with the problems of tobacco in our
society, which are costing us so much, robbing us of productive people,
causing enormous expenditures in our health care delivery system, which
affects our budget deficit on a daily and yearly basis, then we need to
be consistent in the message we are sending and we need to support this
amendment which will help us bring about that consistency.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in support of his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government, as has been stated earlier
today, spends roughly $98 billion on a variety of subsidies for
tobacco. Tobacco use is responsible for one out of every five deaths in
America. Tobacco products are responsible for more than 400,000 deaths
each year due to cancer, respiratory illness, heart disease, and other
health problems.
Cigarettes kill more Americans each year than AIDS, alcohol, car
accidents, murders, suicides, illegal drugs, and fires combined.
Smokers who die as a result of smoking would have lived on average 12
to 15 years longer if they had not smoked. Smokers are 50 percent more
likely to bear mentally retarded children, and on an economic basis
smoking costs our economy over $50 billion a year in direct medical
costs.
Then there are the young people. Smoking is also a major issue for
our young people. An estimated one out of every six American teenagers
are regular smokers. Every day approximately 3,000 people begin smoking
and over half of them have become addicted. Over 70 percent, it has
been said 80 percent on this floor, of adults who smoke started smoking
daily before age 18. One quarter of these new smokers will eventually
be among the more than 400,000 who die of tobacco-related illnesses
each year.
One day in Delaware I was going through a pharmaceutical supply house
and they had a room called the smokers room, and it was all liquid
food, basically for people who had smoked and no longer could eat
regular food as a result of that smoking.
Given these facts, the amendment we are considering today is a very
modest one. It would simply reprogram $25 million of tobacco subsidies
from tobacco-related extension services and tobacco crop insurance to
rural development and health programs, a very good cause, by the way,
giving rural areas safe drinking water.
Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to justify using scarce taxpayer
dollars on a product which literally kills those who use it as
directed. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Durbin
amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time and I rise in opposition to the Durbin amendment.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a number of good arguments today on both
sides. I know the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is very sincere
in his beliefs, as are the other folks who have spoken with their
various issues. We have heard debate, though, that I think should be
categorized in two areas, one is philosophical and one is specific to
the amendment.
Philosophically, we do have a debate of the U.S. role in the tobacco
industry. What is the proper Government role? The Government, for
example, spends millions of dollars on the ASSIST program and on the
DARE program, which are, among other things, tobacco-oriented education
programs that teach people, students, not to get involved with illegal
drugs and then some of the legal, I do not know if they are drugs, but
alcohol and tobacco and other habits that young people can, all people
can fall into.
We spend lots of money on these programs and we do spend money in an
indirect fashion on tobacco, yet we also have heard many times that
that program brings in $1.4 billion in revenue. So it is certainly not
a perfect program the way it is handled right now, and yet, as we look
at farm programs in general, none of them are perfect and often we do
have some inconsistencies in what we are trying to do in the big
picture.
But if we get away from the philosophical debate, and I think we
should have the philosophical debate, for example, one of the things
that has not been brought up, in my opinion, is the freedom argument. I
think that people in America do have a freedom to engage in smoking or
not to engage in smoking, a freedom to overeat or not to overeat, a
freedom to exercise or not to exercise. And I would also submit to my
colleagues that the statistics that I read, which are often attributed
to smoking in terms of illnesses, often the person who is that
statistic is not eating right and is not exercising right as well, but
it is the cigarette industry that always gets blamed for it.
But let us move away from the philosophical debate, because what we
are arguing here is not philosophy, what we are debating here is the
Durbin amendment. And the Durbin amendment says that farmers cannot
participate in the Federal crop insurance program and they cannot have
communication with the extension service folks.
Now, as long as tobacco is a legal crop, does it make sense to say
the farmers in America cannot do what other farmers are doing who farm
cotton, wheat, corn, soybeans, peanuts, sugar, and so forth; they
cannot participate in a subsidized crop insurance program?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I would note one fact that was brought up
early in the debate, there are 1,500 legal crops in the United States,
only 60 of the 1,500 are covered by crop insurance. There are many
things the gentleman and I could grow that would not even qualify for
crop insurance, and that is the basis for this amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is correct, but
I believe the ones that are subsidized are ones that have Federal
Government programs, and so the ones I have named are the ones where
there is a Federal Government program.
My point is, as long as it is legal, is it right to tell a farmer
that he cannot participate in it? I am not sure that it is right. I
think it is a tad punitive, although I certainly know that the
gentleman's target is not the farmer.

[[Page H6230]]

The other thing is this communication with the extension service
agents. These are the agents who tell folks how to apply pesticides and
fertilizers and so forth, and often, as the gentleman knows, because he
is a gentleman who likes to protect the environment, misuse of
pesticides and fertilizers can lead to environmental impairment, and
yet tobacco farmers would be unable to get the needed expertise from
the extension service agents.
There are also ramifications on the loan program and so forth. So I
would say that what the Durbin amendment does is, while philosophically
this is not its intent, in reality it has the effect of hurting farmers
and I think is somewhat punitive. I believe that a better approach
would be the general philosophical debate on tobacco at the proper time
and also continuation of programs like the DARE Program, the ASSIST
Program, possibly looking into the outlawing of cigarette vending
machines, because they are readily available to minors, and maybe
having some tricky debate about first amendment rights in terms of
advertising that entices young children to get involved in cigarette
smoking, and so forth.
These things the gentleman and I have talked informally on. We are
not really on the proper committee of authorization for it, but I think
it is something this House should hold a debate on. But on the current
amendment that is pending I believe the proper vote, Mr. Chairman, is
``no.''
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership,
and I rise in support of the Durbin-Hansen amendment because it is time
to stop spending the taxpayers' hard-earned money to subsidize a
product that kills over 1,000 Americans every single day.
Each year more than 400,000 people die prematurely of tobacco use. As
my colleague from Delaware pointed out, cigarettes kill more Americans
each year than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders, suicide, illegal
drugs, and fires combined. Fifty billion dollars is spent on health
care related to tobacco use.
Despite all that we know about the health hazards of tobacco, too
many of our young people, especially the young ones, continue to light
up. In my own State of Connecticut, one out of three 9th through 12th
graders have smoked a cigarette in the past month. About one out of
five 9th through 12th graders smoke regularly.

{time} 1715

More preschoolers in this country recognize Joe Camel than they do
Mickey Mouse. We have a problem in this country. And industry, like big
tobacco, that can find the money to run ads so convincing to appeal
especially to young people about the glamour of tobacco surely does not
need taxpayers' money.
About 3,000 young people across the Nation under age 18 become
regular smokers every day. On average, they start smoking at age 14.
Tragically, one out of three of these teenagers will die of a tobacco-
related illness. We must stop this killing of our family members and
our friends.
I am doing all I can to prevent these tragic deaths. At home I
started a campaign called Kick Butts Connecticut, targeted at middle
and elementary school kids to prevent them from ever starting to smoke.
More than 80 percent of all adult tobacco smokers had tried smoking
before their 18th birthday and more than half of them had already
become regular smokers by that age. Studies show that if people do not
begin smoking as teenagers or as children, it is very unlikely that
they ever will do so.
I think public education campaigns are vital to the war that we are
waging against cancer in this country. We truly do need to do more if
we are to cut the number of tobacco-related deaths in this country.
And despite the deadly impact of tobacco, some have argued that we
cannot simply abandon our Nation's tobacco farmers. This amendment does
not abandon them. It takes the $25 million in savings from the
elimination of the tobacco subsidy and puts it into productive uses in
agricultural regions all over this country. The money saved would be
used to improve water and wastewater for development purposes, expand
the use of technology and advance education and medicine in rural
areas.
These funds would create great alternatives for struggling areas of
our country, without relying on taxpayer-funded subsidies to promote an
industry that kills. This appropriations bill, like all appropriations
bills, is really about out Nation's priorities, and I do not understand
how we can support the tobacco subsidies in this bill and at the same
time are proposing in other areas to gut and decimate Medicare.
Mr. Chairman, we have the opportunity today to send a very clear
message to the cigarette industry and to the grim reaper, big tobacco.
Let us stop wasting taxpayers' money to promote an industry that has
been truly so costly to this Nation. It is time that big tobacco
learned to get along in this business without the taxpayers' hard-
earned dollars. It is time that we get the tobacco industry off of the
Federal Treasury, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
amendment.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I always hesitate to enter this debate, but I
think it is an important one. I always put out my caveats to begin
with. First of all, I do not smoke; I do not counsel anybody to smoke.
Second, I support the basic thrust of the FDA regulations that would
prevent young people or seek to prevent young people from smoking or
having accessibility to cigarettes.
And, third, so that this issue of who gets what campaign
contributions is off the table, I have declined to accept tobacco
contributions so that when I argue this no one can charge any kind of
financial motivation.
But, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because
this is not about big tobacco, No. 1. Big tobacco is the tobacco
company that makes the product. This is about a lot of small farmers,
of which there are hundreds in West Virginia. We are pale in comparison
to the Kentuckys and North and South Carolinas of the world, but yet we
do have a large number of small tobacco farmers that are making this as
a part-time living.
But I simply do not understand what is gained by kicking a lot of
small tobacco farmers in the teeth. I guess I resent the fact that this
would say to them, ``You are not going to be able to derive the
services of the agricultural extension service who can drive by your
place, stop off and see this person raising this crop, and this one
raising that one, but you, who also pay taxes, you who are trying to
send your kids to school, you who are probably working some regular job
in addition to trying to work nights to get this crop in, you do not
get the benefit of that agricultural extension agent. You do not get to
learn about the latest pesticides or fertilization or whatever it is.
You do not get any of the assistance that everybody else that raises a
crop does.''
If, indeed, as many of us predict, that we drive this production
overseas, that is that now we are buying more and more foreign tobacco,
tell me what assurance that we have got that the farmer in the
developing nation is using the latest scientific techniques that we
would want to have our farmer using?
Mr. Chairman, what concerns me most about this is that I do not see
where this stops one cigarette from being produced. There are going to
be the same number of cigarettes come rolling off the lines. There is
going to be one difference: There is not going to be any American
content in there. It is going to be foreign content. And so what that
means is that we are supporting a whole host of foreign nations.
My understanding, and I have no reason to doubt it, is that if we
pass this, this is actually in some way a big-tobacco amendment because
what it does is it permits without any hesitation, it permits the large
tobacco company to go buy what they would like to do, the cheaper
foreign tobacco.
And so what we have done here is to not prevent one cigarette, not
decreased one cigarette from being produced, but added greatly to the
foreign balance-of-trade deficit.
Restore $25 million. Boy, I would love to have additional money for
rural water and sewer. I would love to have that money. The reality is
it has been

[[Page H6231]]

cut far too much; $25 million over the country is not going to go very
far. But I have a question: Who is that rural water going to serve in a
lot of areas if we, indeed, pass this amendment and make in many parts
of our country the rural tobacco farmer and the small tobacco farmer
that much poorer?
There is a final point. Here I got real conservative. At some point
people choose. And we are not stopping the tobacco extension agent from
visiting the person who raises grain or other products that might
eventually find their way into the alcohol consumption chain? Perhaps
we ought to require them to sign a certificate that it will not be used
for any alcohol products so at some point people choose what it is they
are going to do.
So by passing this, we perhaps go and get a bunch of small tobacco
farmers but have not made it illegal, we have not reduced one
cigarette, all we have done is to grant a large number of people who
are eking out relatively small livings have that much more difficult
time to do of it and we have not reduced cigarette consumption one bit.
I do not understand it.
I appreciate the motivation that the gentleman and other supporters
of it have. I support education, every kind of effort possible so that
people, when they make choice, make it on an informed basis. But going
after the small tobacco farmer and saying that we have done something,
I just do not think that is what this amendment does, and I would urge
defeat of it.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], who is a Republican cosponsor of this
amendment, and I thank him for his patience.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for
his very strong leadership on this particular issue.
Mr. Chairman, I feel this is a very important initiative, and at the
outset of my remarks, in the spirit of full disclosure, I have an
admission to make. I was born and raised in Louisville, KY, and I have
never used these a day of my life. Yet, as I listen to this debate, I
realize that there is a tremendous contradiction, a dissonance that
surrounds this debate, because right on the side of this packet of
cigarette it says: ``The Surgeon General's warning: Quitting smoking
now greatly reduces serious risks to your health.''
So the Government already warns citizens of the harmful effects of
tobacco, yet the Government, or more accurately the taxpayers,
partially subsidize the production of tobacco. The Government gives a
tacit acceptance to the production of this crop even though on the
other hand it warns against its use.
Now, colleagues, we should be consistent here. This is not a
discriminatory or hypocritical or mean-spirited amendment. This is
about right and wrong.
Mr. Chairman, the other thing that I want to add to this debate, we
have heard speaker after speaker come down to this well, on both sides
of the aisle, and remind us of what we already know, which is that
smoking is the leading cause of avoidable premature death in this
country today. Using this product, which may well have been produced or
made at least through partial subsidies from Federal taxpayers, is the
leading cause of avoidable premature death in our country today.
And it is taking an enormous and growing and deadly toll each year.
Tobacco products are responsible for more than 400,000 deaths each year
in America due to cancer, respiratory illness, heart disease, and other
health problems. Cigarette use and use of other tobacco products kill
more Americans each year than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, murders,
suicides, illegal drugs, and fires combined.
Smokers who die as a result of smoking would have lived on an average
12 to 15 years longer if they had not smoked. And that results in a
loss to society of roughly $40.3 billion in lost productivity.
Now, I mentioned the health care costs associated with the tobacco
use are rising. Hence, good reason for the warning on this packet of
cigarettes. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that the health
care cost associated with smoking, and this is just for the year 1993,
total $50 billion. $26.9, or $30 billion for hospital costs, $15.5
billion for doctors, $4.9 billion in nursing home costs, $1.8 billion
for prescription drugs, and $900 million for home health care
expenditures.

So, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I think we should be concerned about
helping tobacco farmers make a transition to other crops, but right now
we have a fundamental choice that involves right or wrong and, I
believe, a responsibility to be accountable to the people who elected
us, the people we represent, and the American citizens who
overwhelmingly favor elimination of Federal taxpayer subsidies for
tobacco farmers.
So while I empathize with my colleagues who represent tobacco
districts and tobacco States, let us work together, let us pass this
amendment, then we can work perhaps to help the farmers that we
represent make a transition to good alternative crops that do not
require Government warnings and are not inherently injurious to the
public health.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that whenever it
comes to the floor, I always speak out. And my reasoning is quite a bit
different from any of my colleagues. I have a tremendous respect for
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], and whatever he says is
correct. I do not disagree with him, nor do I disagree with any of the
others who spoke for this amendment. But I am against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I must ask my colleagues not to support it, and I will
tell them why.
First of all, if I thought the Durbin amendment would reduce or stop
smoking, I would vote for it and get other people to vote for it. But
the Durbin amendment will not stop smoking and it will not reduce
smoking at all.
Philosophically or morally, it is excellent. I wish we could
legislate morals and keep people from doing things that would kill
them. I wish we had that power. If we had the power in this Congress to
legislate initiatives that would stop people from doing things which
kill them, we would do a marvelous job, and I appreciate anyone trying
to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I remember when my father used to pull tobacco over
there in Quincy in Monticello, FL. That is the only place my daddy
could get a job. I am from Tallahassee, FL. During those days, black
Americans could not get a job in north Florida doing anything, but he
was able to go on to this farmer industry and get a job. They did not
ask him if he came from Carroll's Quarters. They did not ask him
anything. I will never forget that. These small farmers, I think many
of us do not understand what it means to be economically viable by
using the farm. And this country was built on the farming industry. It
helps to keep us all going. I will vote against anything. If Members go
against peanuts, I will vote against them there. If Members go against
tobacco, I will vote against them there.
But, Mr. Chairman, if I thought this amendment were doing anything
good, I would vote with my colleagues in favor of it. This Durbin
amendment should be defeated because it discriminates against these
small farmers and the small communities. If my colleagues think it is
going to do anything with the big tobacco industry, then they are
wrong. They may be thinking that we can legislate it, but we cannot. If
we do not let them consult with their extension service people, we are
leaving a big educational void out there. They can help prevent some of
the things that we are talking about. Education is the key.

I heard my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro]
talk about what she has done in prevention programs in her community.
That is it.

{time} 1730

She did not need any legislation to do those things. She knows that
what turns this country around is to turn the mindset around. The
mindset has to be turned around. You cannot turn that mindset around
through legislation. We think we can but we cannot.
Now, the program that we are talking about has its merit. It does not
cost this Congress or this Nation anything.

[[Page H6232]]

We are watching the budget as much as we can. We all are watching our
health, and we must continue to do that, Mr. Chairman. Government
cannot do this for us. You can cut the subsidy if you want to. But it
will make no changes in the people who smoke cigarettes. Vote against
this amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I certainly commend him for his leadership on this issue in all the
years that we have served together.
Since so many Members here have given their own little personal
disclosures, I will give one, too. I was born and brought up on a farm
in Pennsylvania. At a particular time in my life, I found some
cigarettes in the dairy barn. My father, I believe, had carefully
soaked those in horse urine, and I did not find much further temptation
in the matter. In any case, so much for the disclosure.
Mr. Chairman, the issue today is not a question of the number of
dollars, the $15 billion of revenues that are lost by the Federal or
State governments in relation to the tobacco industry, although it is
easy to show that the health care costs to the public as a whole are at
least $100 billion a year, taking the direct and the indirect costs. At
least half of that comes directly out of the public treasuries of the
same Federal Government and the State government. So it is many times
the tax revenues that are gained in the process.
Nor is the question the one of political correctness. The question
really is that we are using Federal dollars, Federal expenditures to
assist in the production of tobacco, which is the product with the
greatest threat to the public health. One other previous speaker
pointed out that this is a legal product, tobacco is, that every farmer
has a legal right to grow as well as they have the right to grow corn
and wheat as soybeans. He was right. There is no question he was right.
The difference is that none of those, neither corn nor wheat nor
soybeans has the effect that tobacco has. Only tobacco ends up
representing the greatest threat to the public health in this country.
The difference is that we are using Federal dollars to continue that
assistance to the tobacco industry to continue this crop which
represents the greatest threat to our public health.
I really wanted to dwell for a moment on what these funds would be
used for it we switched the fund to a legitimate purpose. Within this
last decade, all over this country, in at least 1000 communities in
this decade alone, communities with fewer than 10,000 people have had
public safe drinking water supplies and wastewater disposal facilities
and solid waste disposal facilities subsidized with the help of moneys.
Most of the money that would be saved from, if we passed this amendment
as we should, most of that money would go to helping other small
communities to build those public safe drinking water supplies and
waste disposal supplies.
In my district alone, in my State alone, over $100 million has gone
into those. We desperately need, there are hundreds of other
communities that are looking for that sort of assistance, both in
grants for the poorer communities and in loans at low interest for the
less poor communities of small size to be able to build those public
facilities for safe drinking water and for wastewater disposal.
What I am asking here is that we vote for this amendment and use
these moneys for the public health in rural communities all over this
country, rather than for the assistance to the production of the
product which is so devastating the public health in this country.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
yielding time to me.
I would just like to take a minute and talk about my colleague from
California that spoke a little while ago on the floor. He held up a
package of cigarettes and talked about the warning label. He asked why
should the Government support the tobacco farmer with the fact that
there is a warning, a health warning on the side of that cigarette
package. I wish that he would have brought along a wine bottle also
because on the side of the wine bottle there is a warning label
concerning that person's health.
Since the gentleman represents a district where there are grape
growers and he represents the wine industry, I wonder why it is
different that there is support for the wine industry. I noticed he
voted for the Kennedy amendment. Why should there be a difference in
that and the tobacco farmer? I just thought that would be a good
question to ask.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to address the
gentleman, Mr. Durbin, directly, because I would like to thank him for
his leadership. Frankly, I think it is important that this debate be
noted, that you have actually been very kind, fair minded, and
balanced. I am somewhat dismayed as I listen to this debate, the
accusations about those who would be put in harm's way because of this
amendment. Maybe I need to just for a moment detail what we are talking
about.
First of all, I think we have noted that this amendment dealing with
this particular industry responds to just a small corner of the tobacco
industry, which happens to be one of the fastest growing and most
lucrative industries in the nation. Might I say that, in addition to
being lucrative, it has a worldwide market. We can find in Asia and in
India and Africa, in the European continent that tobacco is doing quite
well. So this is really a kind amendment. It is a sensible amendment,
and it is a fair-minded amendment.
What it does for those who are whining on the other side, it does
nothing to deal with Federal price supports. The industry still has
that. Being very lucrative, I would argue very vigorously for the
amount of costs that it costs us in health care costs, we really should
take away Federal price supports. But this amendment does not do that.
It simply takes away from a very prosperous industry those Government
subsidies that help in the administration of crop insurance, which by
the way it does not hinder a farmer from going into the private sector
for that. It also takes away certain extension services as well as
certain promotion services. Do you not understand how kind we are being
to an industry that promotes death and devastation in our community?

Again, this is a first step in saying that we recognize that we have
a problem with tobacco. It is addictive. What it does do, it provides
for us good results. I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]
for it because he comes from a State such as Illinois, like Texas, that
combines rural and urban centers. Time after time I have heard from our
rural communities coming from Texas how they are at a disadvantage for
educational resources and health resources.
In fact, I have spent a number of years on an indigent health care
task force in the State of Texas. We were trying to prevent hospitals
in rural areas from closing. Unfortunately, we were not all that
successful. This legislation will allow moneys to be used to help
communities obtain the facilities and equipment to link rural education
and medical facilities with more urban centers and other facilities.
These telecommunications linkages provide rural residents access to
increasing educational opportunities and to access better health care.
I hope that my colleagues will really look at what the gentleman from
Illinois, [Mr. Durbin] and his colleagues have done in this
legislation, for they have given the tobacco industry a real break,
unfortunately. They have allowed them to keep Federal support systems,
price support systems, but in fact they have begun to make the
statement in a fair and balanced way that enough is enough.
This is a lucrative industry. This is an industry that can support
itself. Why should we promote the devastation that this creates? Why
not help end the 400,000 deaths that we have every year from cancer and
heart disease and other illnesses? Why not begin the diminishing of the
promotion that already exists in this industry?

[[Page H6233]]

I would simply say, if all of us would be fair and balanced and, yes,
a little kind today, we would support the Durbin amendment, for the
Durbin amendment stands for where we need to go in this country. That
is for good health. It does not in any way diminish the opportunities
for those small farmers who insist on and must stay in this business.
What it does say to America is that we believe that it is time now to
end the promotion of something that causes 400,000 deaths every year in
this Nation.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, today's debate is a classic example of the
cliche that everything has been said, it is just everyone has not had a
chance to say it. In that tradition, let me give my quick synopsis of
how I view this debate, what it is about and what it is not about. It
certainly is not about smoking. It certainly has nothing to do with
reducing the size of Government. It has nothing to do with tobacco
company products. What does it have to do with?
Well, if the Durbin amendment passes, it has to do a lot with
American jobs, the loss of American jobs. If the Durbin amendment
passes, then there is going to be a lot of small tobacco farmers that
are going to go out of business. Now, how does this affect the tobacco
companies; fine with them, foreign tobacco is cheaper anyway. So their
profit goes up. As a matter of fact, it is cheaper to produce
cigarettes offshore, so let us just go offshore and produce them and
you save even more money. There are more American jobs that go
offshore.
Let us make no mistake about this debate today. It has nothing to do
with smoking. It has nothing to do with reducing the size of
Government. It has to do with jobs, American jobs. A vote for the
Durbin amendment means shipping American farming jobs overseas,
American manufacturing jobs overseas. A vote against the amendment
means keeping those jobs here in America. That is what this debate is
all about.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleagues, particularly the gentleman
from New Mexico, for his patience. I think this has been an important
debate. It has gone on longer than any other debate on this bill, but,
frankly, I think the issue at hand is one of the most important facing
us today.
I wanted to acknowledge two people: one who is not here and one who
is. The one I would like to acknowledge who is here is my staff
assistant, Tom Faletti. Tom Faletti has been standing by my side on
this tobacco issue for 10 years. He has covered me with glory in those
rare moments when we have defied the tobacco lobby. He has stood by me
loyally and forgiven me my defeats and my failings in the course of
this experience, taking on the most powerful lobby in Washington.
I know the results of the vote last year. We were defeated with the
same amendment. I sense today that it might be better, I hope it is.
But let me just say this: One of the reasons I am involved in this
debate is because another person I served with is not here today. His
name was Mike Synar of Oklahoma.
Mike Synar was a tiger on this issue. He paid for it dearly in terms
of losing his congressional seat when the tobacco companies turned on
him and managed to defeat him. Mike gave up one of the most precious
things to him, next to his family, his congressional career, because he
believed so intensely in this issue. Those of us who come to this side
of the table have that same passion.

{time} 1745

I respect those on the other side, too, because they speak with
conviction and passion as well.
I listened to this debate today and jotted down a few of the words
that have been used to describe either me or my amendment. I say to my
colleagues: You have to have a pretty tough mental hide to be in
politics, to hear people get up on the floor and call you or your
amendment, in full view of the C-SPAN audience and the people here,
``mean-spirited, punitive, misdirected, hypocrisy at the highest level,
self serving, political and cruel,'' and I think they were warming up
to some stronger words before they finally had to sit down. I
understand that the emotions really run high on this issue. They
certainly run high on this side of the issue, those of us who have
fought the tobacco companies for so long.
First, let me say a word about tobacco farmers and growers. For as
long as I have been involved in this debate, from the very beginning, I
have made known to every congressman and congresswoman from a tobacco-
producing State: ``I will join you at the table to find transitions for
these tobacco growers to go into some other crop. I will work with you,
I'll subsidize it.'' I do not have any battle with these poor men and
women who are struggling to make a living, but I can tell my colleagues
honestly no one ever takes me up on my invitation. The reason they do
not take me up on the invitation: there is no crop that one can legally
grow in America that is as profitable as tobacco; not one.
For example, the gross receipts per acre, on tobacco, are $4,000; the
net receipts from $1,400 to $800. In my part of the world we grow a lot
of corn and soybeans. Corn, gross receipts per acre will run $400 to
$800. A farmer might take half of that away.
So look at the difference here. It is anywhere from 3 to 10 times as
lucrative as growing some other crop. That is why the tobacco farmers
do not want to leave it. They cannot make any kind of money close to
that growing any another crop on their land. They just do not want to
give it up.
But quite honestly, I think it is time for the Federal Government to
say to them, ``You're on your own,'' and that is what this amendment
starts to do. It takes away the subsidy for crop insurance and the
subsidy for the extension service for these tobacco farmers.

Let me also mention this argument about jobs. The previous speaker,
my friend from Tennessee, stood up and said the Durbin amendment will
cost jobs. It will. It will. Because if we can diminish the use of
tobacco in this country, we will have fewer respiratory therapists, we
will have fewer cancer specialists, we will have fewer surgeons
operating on people who are devastated by the diseases attached to
tobacco. Make no mistake about it. The jobs associated with tobacco in
this country, the best-paying jobs, are associated with the victims of
tobacco in this country, and we have to be sensitive to that fact as
well.
I feel sorry for those working in tobacco companies, but let me tell
my colleagues: The product they are selling is killing people every
single day.
The gentlewoman from Utah said earlier there are a lot of
agricultural products. There is only one agricultural product in
America that has a body count, and it is tobacco. That is why it is
different, and that is why it should be treated differently.
Forty-seven of my colleagues from both parties have joined me in a
task force taking on the tobacco industry. Let me say to my colleagues
when I first got to Congress, that was unthinkable. No one came out
publicly against the tobacco lobby. Now there are 47 of us, and
occasionally we can put a majority together on the floor.
For those who argue, and one of my colleagues did, well, these folks
who oppose tobacco, they get a lot of big political contributions too.
Let me tell my colleagues I am still waiting in my office for my first
PAC check from the American Cancer Society, the American Heart
Association, the American Lung Association, the Coalition on Smoking
and Health. These health groups give away a lot of psychic income, they
do not write the checks like the tobacco lobby will for the people who
vote against the Durbin amendment today. On the political ledger all
the money is on the other side. We have to struggle and put this battle
up because it is something we believe in.
Now let me close by saying this. I certainly hope that my colleagues
will take this amendment very seriously. I do. This has been a 10-year
battle that this Congressman has waged on this floor of the House. We
started off with a victory banning smoking on airplanes. We extended it
to flights all across the United States. The tobacco companies said it
was the end of the world; try to stop smoking on airplanes, they are
going to be beating up the flight attendants and smoking in the
restrooms. It never happened. It never happened. People knew that
sensible regulation of smoking is something that this country ought to
be

[[Page H6234]]

doing, and now it is time for us to get out of the business of
subsidizing tobacco.
Mr. Chairman, this Durbin amendment will give to my colleagues the
right answer to the question: Congressman, if this product kills so
many Americans, why in God's name does the Federal Treasury subsidize
it?
By voting for the Durbin amendment, my colleagues who support me will
be able to say to those colleagues we ended it, and we ended it in the
right way, saying to tobacco growers; find another line of work, or at
least support your production of tobacco on your own dollar, not on the
dollar of taxpayers.

Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me and thank him for his work on the bill to which this
amendment has been attached.
Mr. Chairman, I hope not to consume the entire time because I think
we have had a good debate and we have heard practically every point
that conceivably could be made on both sides of the issue.
Mr. Chairman, one could have thought by listening to this debate that
there was an amendment on the floor to abolish smoking or an amendment
that would have declared smoking to be the most dangerous thing one can
do or an amendment that would have prohibited the big cigarette
companies from deducting the advertising costs, or some such thing,
because we have heard all of these arguments about whether or not
smoking is good for us, which has nothing to do with the amendment.
We have heard all of the attacks on big tobacco as if it was one big
monolithic thing, and if we attack one part of it, we are attacking the
whole thing. The gentleman maybe does not understand, that offered the
amendment, what tobacco is, the industry, if we want to call it that;
there is big tobacco, the cigarette companies, perhaps big cigar
companies, perhaps big chewing tobacco companies and the like. They are
big worldwide. Philip Morris is a huge corporation.
Then there is little tobacco that is grown in the districts of these
Members who have spoken. They are not big. It is a family. The average
acreage is probably 2 acres on red clay on a 35-degree-angle farm, and
they cannot grow anything else. They are trying; believe me they are
trying. There are experiments on aquaculture, growing fish, and they
are trying to grow other types of crops all over tobacco land. But
right now these are poor dirt farmers.
My colleagues are not attacking Philip Morris here with your
amendment. They are not attacking big tobacco. They are attacking
little tobacco. These are the most vulnerable people that we could
possibly talk about when we talk about tobacco.
I grew up on a hillside farm. We grew rocks on a very small farm. We
also have a small patch of tobacco, and that was the only way that my
father could raise this family, and send us to school, and buy the food
on which we lived. That story is repeated 100,000 times around this
country every year. We are not Philip Morris. We are not big tobacco.
We are little. And we are poor. And we are scrapping, just trying to
earn a living on 2 acres or 1 acre of tobacco. That is the average
crop. We do not grow tobacco like they grow corn in Illinois, by the
thousands of acres. There is no way to conceive of a scale when growing
crops on that scale with a 2-acre patch of tobacco on a hillside in the
hills of Kentucky or Tennessee or North Carolina or Georgia or
wherever, 23 States.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment does not try to outlaw
smoking. Perhaps he should try that. It does not try to outlaw the
Tobacco Price Support Program which protects big growers as well as
small growers. No, the gentleman just singles out the most vulnerable
people that we have, the little tobacco people, and, yes, we are
emotional about it; yes, that is the reason for encountering people who
are fighting fiercely because we are trying to defend people who are
defenseless but for us.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois does away with this program
for these small farmers, and ironically and paradoxically he is helping
big tobacco. Only then will tobacco be grown by big tobacco, and they
would love that. They have been trying to do that for years. But for us
here, tobacco would be grown by the big companies, most of it imported,
grown on patches or fields or plantations across the sea where they do
not regulate what they can spray on the crop, and we will be bringing
in poisoned tobacco for people to smoke here.
People are going to smoke, they are going to smoke something for the
time being. Maybe it is not good for them; that is not the question
here. They are going to smoke. Question is: Who is going to grow it;
the small growers or Philip Morris? The gentleman's amendment says
Philip Morris. He may not intend that, but that is exactly what he is
doing, believe me.
The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] said it better than I
do. Other speakers have said it better than I did. But that is
precisely where the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is headed with
this amendment.
His amendment does not deny deductibility of advertising expenses to
big tobacco, does not try to abolish the Tobacco Price Support Program
which protects big growers as well as small, it does not deny crop
insurance or agricultural advice to Philip Morris. No, it denies crop
insurance to the poorest people, and the gentleman is allowing them to
become the victims of the elements.
Does not hurt Philip Morris. In fact, it probably helps them because
they would grow what we cannot if the gentleman from Illinois knocks us
out of the business.

So I think the amendment is misdirected, Mr. Durbin. The gentleman
ignores all the questions I have just asked, and he picks out the least
among us, he tackles the poorest. He would cripple those who cannot
help themselves by this amendment. He jerks away the only safety net,
the crop insurance, for families, kids, children, and leave them to the
mercy of the elements.
The large corporate growers do not need crop insurance. The large
corporate growers do not need expert agricultural advice which this
amendment would deny. They do not need it. The only people that need it
are the small growers, and those are the ones that would be impacted
the most severely by the gentleman's amendment. By driving out small
growers, as this amendment would do, putting them on welfare in the
name of trying to harm big tobacco, ironically will help big tobacco
because when the small growers are gone, big tobacco will do what they
have long wanted to do, and that is grow and import tobacco.
Last year the House realized this very point. We argued these types
of things just last year on the floor of the House, and our colleagues
wisely said, ``No, we will not do the Durbin amendment, it harms the
people who we do not want to harm. It is misdirected.''
Last week the full Committee on Appropriations denied the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] his amendment in full committee, voted it
down 29 to 19 in committee.
I ask our colleagues again on the House floor, ``When you vote in a
few minutes, think about who you are harming.''

{time} 1800

Think about the question that is not being addressed by this
amendment. This is not a smoking issue. It is not a health issue. It is
not a question of whether we are harming big tobacco. We are not. We
are harming little tobacco. We are harming the people that none of us,
I think, want to hurt. I urge Members when they vote again in a few
minutes, vote ``no,'' and help the people who cannot help themselves.
Mr. HEINEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Durbin
amendment. This is nothing more than a punitive attack on hard working
farmers. North Carolina is the leading producer of tobacco, and if the
Durbin amendment passes it will drastically hurt farmers in my State.
This amendment is misguided and unfairly attacks small family tobacco
farmers by denying them important services that are available to every
other family farmer who produces agricultural commodities. I urge my
colleagues to stand up for farmers and oppose this draconian amendment.
Mr. PAYNE of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the Durbin amendment to H.R. 3603.
This amendment would eliminate all support services provided to
tobacco farmers by the USDA and its county agents.

[[Page H6235]]

It would prohibit the USDA from using funds to provide extension
services, market news, and analysis to tobacco farmers.
It would not allow farmers to call upon the guidance of their local
USDA agent about how to distribute fertilizer without causing damage to
the soil or water or how to apply insecticides safely or how to combat
agricultural plagues such as blue mold.
It would also strip from the farmer his right to purchase Federal
crop insurance.
Eliminating tobacco crop insurance is simply unfair.
In 1994, Congress mandated the purchase of crop insurance for farmers
participating in the Tobacco Program.
Denying tobacco farmers is unfair because they, like other farmers,
rely on this insurance when their crops fall victim to droughts,
floods, hail, and winds.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply a mean-spirited, direct
assault on the hard working farmers and their families who grow tobacco
in rural America.
Even worse, some would have you believe this amendment eliminates a
Federal subsidy to tobacco farmers.
Let me set the record straight--there is no direct Government subsidy
for tobacco.
Since 1982, when Congress passed the No Net Cost Tobacco Act, all
costs, except USDA administrative costs, shifted from the Government
and taxpayers directed to farmers and tobacco companies.
Since that time, the program has been one of the more efficient
agricultural programs, especially compared to similar price support
programs for other crops.
Not only does the Tobacco Program take care of itself--it is doing
more than its fair share to reduce the Federal deficit. Each year,
growers and companies pay assessments that goes directly to the U.S.
Treasury for deficit reduction.
Annually, this deficit reduction assessment returns almost $30
million to the U.S. Treasury.
That's right, almost $30 million directly going to deficit reduction.
Tobacco's importance to our Federal, State, and local governments can
be summed up in one impressive figure--$62,000; $62,000 is the amount
of money per acre tobacco generates for the public sector.
It generates almost $15 billion to Federal, State, and local
governments in the form of excise and sales taxes.
It contributes $6 billion in exports.
By any measure, tobacco makes a huge economic contribution to our
Nation's economy.
I believe the numbers and facts speak for themselves.
The Federal Government does not subsidize farmers or the tobacco
program.
And tobacco contributes very positively to the U.S. Treasury and that
of State and localities.
However, this amendment would allow every farmer in America--except
tobacco farmers--the right to use USDA extension service agents and
guidance.
And this amendment would allow every farmer in America--except
tobacco farmers--the right to purchase Federal crop insurance.
Do not be fooled by this amendment.
It is not about punishing the tobacco companies or stopping smoking.
It is about blatant discrimination against tobacco farmers.
Simply put, the amendment is not fair, it is punitive, and it should
be defeated.
As a Member of Congress who is proud to represent almost 5,000 honest
hard working tobacco farmers I urge my colleagues to defeat the Durbin
amendment.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Durbin
amendment. It defies common sense that our Government supports tobacco
while simulatenously spending billions of dollars to combat the public
health problems it creates. Tobacco use causes 400,000 deaths in
America each year--and every single death is preventable.
Last year, a remarkable young woman in my district. Sarah Weller, got
together with her friend Jessica Harding and created an action plan to
spread the word about the dangers of smoking and tobacco use. Sarah
knows that tobacco use causes massive health problems in America, and
she has been working to create a healthier, more productive future.
Sarah and her friends know what the entire Congress should know: we
should stop supporting tobacco at taxpayer expense.
The Durbin amendment will take the savings from tobacco subsidies and
increase funding for sorely needed rural water and sewer projects, as
well as rural medical access programs. I strongly support this
amendment, and urge my colleagues to support it.
June 26, 1995.
Rep. Elizabeth Furse,
Cannon Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Furse: Thank you for meeting with me
recently about tobacco prevention issues. All 102 Smoke-Free
Ambassadors worked at the Forum in Washington, DC to develop
a national Smoke-Free Contract With America. I have enclosed
a copy of this document. Most of what we believe in the
Contract requires support from our Senators and
Representatives. I realize the difficulty of passing these
ideas into law.
Jessica Harding and I, the two Smoke Free ambassadors from
Oregon, will be doing our best to alert other students and
media about what happens to tobacco prevention bills in
Congress. It is hard for students to understand why it is so
difficult to pass law which would save tens of thousands of
lives.
Jessica and I also have developed a state plan of action
which is enclosed. Our main concern is with illegal sales of
tobacco to children. We will be working hard locally to
reduce sales of tobacco to kids.
Thanks again for meeting with us. Maybe when you are in
Oregon we could meet to update each other on Congressional
and local tobacco activities.
Sincerely,
Sarah Weller.

____
State Plan of Action, Smoke-Free Class of 2000, June 1995

State of Oregon

The Smoke-Free Class of 2000 are all 8th graders in the
United States who will graduate in the year 2000 who have
learned about the dangers of smoking and tobacco use since
1st grade. The students of the Smoke-Free Class OF 2000 have
pledged their commitment to lead the younger graduating
classes and future generations into a healthier, more
productive and informed 21st century.
We, of the State of Oregon Smoke-Free Class of 2000,
consider the most important tobacco issues in our state to
be: accessibility to teens.
As advocates for all 8th graders and all students in the
future graduating classes, we are asking: heavier fines and
penalties to stores that sell tobacco to minors.
The way we plan to accomplish our goals is to: Start
petitions, do sting operations, testimonies, letter writing.
Thank you for helping us make our state a healthier place
for children!!

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210,
noes 212, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 233]

AYES--210

Ackerman
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Blute
Borski
Brownback
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burton
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Christensen
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cummings
Davis
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dornan
Dunn
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Foglietta
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goodling
Goss
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Harman
Hayworth
Hefley
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
King
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
LaFalce
Largent
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Petri
Porter
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Riggs
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
White
Wilson
Wolf
Woolsey
Yates
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

[[Page H6236]]

NOES--212

Abercrombie
Allard
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kim
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Martinez
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McIntosh
Meek
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Quillen
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Richardson
Roberts
Rogers
Rose
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wise
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--12

Brown (OH)
Calvert
Frelinghuysen
Gillmor
Hayes
Hoke
Lantos
Lincoln
McDade
Payne (VA)
Tate
Ward

{time} 1819

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Mr. Brown of Ohio for, with Mr. Payne of Virginia against.
Mr. Tate for, with Mr. Calvert against.

Mr. NEUMANN and Mr. HUTCHINSON changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
Mr. MATSUI changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

personal explanation

Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 233, I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

____________________