Marcy Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, may I make a parliamentary inquiry?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. KAPTUR. That were preprinted. But there were several amendments where Members under the open rule would have been permitted to offer their amendments but now they cannot. Will the gentleman list which amendments those are?

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman understands my point that the taxpayers, if they really understood this, would be outraged that they are paying commissions to private sector insurance agents to sell this insurance.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I agree with the gentleman. We had a freedom to farm bill and we said to the farmers of America, compete in the global marketplace. Why do we not say the same to the insurance agents?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I think that what happens is we are taking the taxpayers' money and giving the sales commissions to the insurance agents. That is who is getting the money.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, if I might reclaim my time, I think the GAO was very clear in the analysis that they did on an objective basis, and there are serious questions about who is making money. I think the taxpayers of our country would be pretty upset if they knew that they were paying for commissions to the private sector. That is not quite the way they think it is supposed to work. They do not understand a lot of the details about what crop insurance is all about, but the point is that it is not a program that has a terrific reputation and, therefore, we were trying to be fair. We did meet the requirements of the Department of Agriculture. They asked for $154 million. We passed that at the subcommittee level. When it went to the full committee, all of a sudden some of the powers that be, the ones that like making those bigger commissions, made their weight felt. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin has a responsible amendment. He represents a very agricultural State, as do I. We have seen abuses in this program, and this is a way of sending a very strong message that we are not going to overly reward those who are performing this service.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would just take a second to point out that we are taking the Secretary's advice in the original mark of the committee, which was at $154 million, and we agree that there should be negotiations. In fact, the proposal was the administration's Department of Agriculture's request. So I do not think we need to add to it.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey amendment. As I recall what happened in the committee, when we were working through this issue, it was quite well discussed in the committee; the administration had asked for $154 million for the actual sales commissions. This is money, $154 million, that goes to agents who are brokering crop insurance in our country and their commissions. It is $154 million. It is not an insignificant amount of money. And, in fact, at that level we estimated every sales agent would receive a 24.5 percent commission. Now, that is a pretty healthy commission, even at 24.5 percent. What happened once the bill came out of the subcommittee and moved to the full committee, at that point in the manager's amendment the proposal was to increase the sales commissions to $188 million, which would raise the amount of commission back to the level of about 27 percent. So we are really talking about whether somebody who is selling insurance out there is making a 27-percent commission or if they are making a 24.5-percent commission. And if the GAO study had not been so clear on abuses in the program, I think that people who hold my opinion on this would not feel so strongly. We really do not believe, and we have taken the advice of the Department of Agriculture on this, we do not believe this is going to in any way diminish the amount of crop insurance available to farmers but, in fact, will put in the kind of regimen that we need in that program to make sure we counter abuses. Mr. Chairman, I do not really know why the proponents of the higher level of commission were able to prevail at the full committee level, but it seems to me we are being responsible in this amendment. We are trying to cut back on the abuses that the GAO identified.

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. As ranking member on the agriculture subcommittee, I have to say what a true tragedy it is that a subcommittee that has labored hard to bring a bill to the floor that can pass has now been handcuffed under this rule, and tomorrow it is almost laughable that key amendments will be limited to 5 minutes on each side, not even enough time to explain to our colleagues what the content of these amendments are and to fully appreciate the debate on both sides. Whether we are talking about crop insurance, peanuts, whether we are talking about the WIC Program, our Members will be handcuffed and it is wrong. It is wrong for the Committee on Rules to do this to the Committee on Appropriations.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the bill that we are debating today includes additional funds for the department for hazardous waste management, and it appears to me in reading the legislation that we would be able to accommodate this particular site with the appropriated dollars in the bill. So our major concern regarding funding has been met in the legislation, and we would agree to the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], our good friend, for the cooperation that he has exhibited since the time that we were in the subcommittee and the full committee, it truly is appreciated, and for his remarks concerning his report language amendment in full committee. I concur with his assessment that the report language he references has no standing since there is no funding in the Cooperative State Research Facilities account. I would like to note for the Record that the subcommittee received numerous, numerous requests from Members on both sides of the aisle for funding for research buildings, and I am sure that all these proposals have merit, and should funding be made available in this account, I would expect that each proposal that qualifies for these funds would be judged on their merits. Mr. Chairman, I also want to say that I thank the gentleman and supported his amendment, especially because it is done within the context of the additional money that was included within the subcommittee allocation. So it is within the budget constraints that we are forced to abide by, and I want to thank the gentleman for working with us on this and we accept his amendment.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] that we have read his amendment and are agreeable on this side. I understand that the gentleman has a particular problem in that the State cannot accept this facility because of cleanup requirements and that the State of Texas cannot, therefore, take this facility, and it is going to revert back to the department. One of my concerns when we first read the amendment was that there be sufficient funding in the legislation for cleanup purposes which, as I understand it, total around $3 million. Will the gentleman confirm that for me, please?

Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. KAPTUR

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to commend our chair, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], an outstanding Member of this House to work with; all of the members of our subcommittee and the committee staff, for their wonderful leadership in putting together a solid bill. It will help keep our Nation at the leading edge for food, fiber, fuel, and forest production, as well as research, trade, and food and drug safety. There is no question that agriculture is America's lead industry. Our farmers and our agricultural industries remain the most productive in the world, and they well understand, as we do, how difficult it is to maintain our Nation's commitment to excellence in agriculture in tight budgetary times. Our bill appropriates $3.7 billion or 7 percent less than last year's budget, and $2.8 billion less or 5 percent less than the amount requested by the administration. Over two-thirds of the bill's spending is dedicated to mandatory programs, largely nutrition programs like the school breakfast and lunch programs and the Food Stamp Program, which comprise nearly 70 percent of the funding in this bill. The committee provided $35.8 billion in mandatory programs, which is a decrease of $4.3 billion below the amount available for fiscal year 1997, and $2.4 billion below the budget request. The bill includes a total of $13.65 billion for discretionary programs, which is $599 million more than the amount appropriated in the last fiscal year, and $424 million less than the budget request. Mr. Chairman, those who serve farmers and work with agriculture are taught over and over again that there is a big difference between money and wealth. Our job on this Committee on Agriculture is to help create the wealth of America through the investments that we make in food, fiber, fuel, and forestry, all essential components of production agriculture. Market-oriented farm policy means farming for the market, not the Government, and requires investments in research, some of it high risk, in conservation, in sustainability, in education and technology transfer, which will keep agriculture competitive as we move into the new century. Overall, the bill represents a fair, bipartisan approach. The committee did face tough choices, given our spending constraints. There are no funds in this bill for any Member for university facilities. Our committee turned down over a dozen requests for university research facilities. Further, we were only able to fund $50 million of over $200 million in requests for agricultural research. I am not proud of the fact that we can only provide $50 million. That is only a quarter of what we were asked to provide, but that is the reality in today's world. Facing tight budget constraints, we did our best to shift research needs to priority areas. But in every case where a priority program received additional funding, some other budget function had to be cut. Farm ownership and operating loans sustained a major cut in this bill, and were reduced $229 million below FY 1997 levels. This will have an impact. APHIS, the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service budget, was reduced by approximately 4 percent, at a time when we are experiencing increasing problems with inspection at our ports of entry. The Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation operations programs, the primary source of technical assistance to producers and landowners, was cut by $10 million over last year's level, and more than $112 million below the President's budget request. With the increasing public concern about food safety, I am pleased with the increase we were able to include for the food safety initiative under both the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration, as well as the Youth Tobacco Prevention initiative proposed under the FDA. It is also noteworthy that this bill includes, after great compromise on the committee and struggle, an $118 million increase for the women, infants, and children feeding program, which will allow the program to maintain its current participation level of 7.4 million participants. This bill also includes an $800,000 increase to upgrade investigative activities of the Grain Inspectors' Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration regarding concentration in those industries. This increase is critical for monitoring and analyzing anticompetitive practices in the meatpacking industry, where now three huge firms control 80 percent of the meat that consumers in this country purchase. Mr. Chairman, I continue to have serious reservations about some amendments which were adopted in full committee, and hope that these issues can be resolved during this floor debate. For example, our subcommittee, after considerable debate, provided $152 million for sales commissions to private crop insurance agents, as requested by the administration. However, at the full committee level, the chairman's en bloc amendment included a further increase of $36 million. There are many other programs that are of higher priority in this bill than underwriting private insurance agents, particularly in light of the April GAO report on abuses discovered in the crop insurance program. In its report, GAO stated that expenses reimbursed with taxpayer funds appeared excessive, and I underline ``excessive,'' or did not appear to be reasonably associated with the sales and service of Federal crop insurance. These include, and I quote from the report, agent's commissions that exceeded the industry average, unnecessary travel-related expenses, questionable entertainment activities like skyboxes, expenses associated with acquiring competitors' businesses, profit-sharing bonuses, and lobbying. GAO suggested that future reimbursement rates could be reduced. Consequently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicated to our committee that $152 million would be sufficient funding for this program for fiscal year 1998, and that these funds would provide assurance that valuable crop insurance products would be delivered by private crop insurance companies and their agents. I strongly support the crop insurance program as a continuing safety net for our Nation's producers, but certainly a 24.5 percent level of commission, 24.5 percent, should be sufficient to encourage private companies to provide this service. Some might say it may even be too generous. Providing an additional $36 million increase to raise those commissions from 24.5 percent to about 27 percent of the value of the insurance policy is simply not the highest priority use of this subcommittee's limited funding. I also remain concerned about some of the reductions proposed for salary accounts in the Department of Agriculture, particularly reductions in the Farm Service Agency, and the potential for disruption of the delivery of programs and services to farmers at the local level. I strongly oppose the amendment adopted in full committee that would eliminate the salaries for the deputy and assistant deputy administrator of the Farm Services Agency. While we realize that the farmers and landowners in one State, Washington State, are very disappointed with the results of the 15th consecutive conservation reserve program sign-up, we strongly oppose this punitive and misguided attempt to effect a change through micromanagement of a Federal agency. There remains in this bill, language adopted in full committee which seems to give special preference and consideration to one university building under the CSREES buildings and facilities account. With limited Federal funding available for priority programs, this subcommittee agreed in fiscal year 1997 that it would end the practice of building academic research facilities for universities. While we followed this approach in subcommittee markup and provided no funding in this account, the language adopted in the full committee markup subverts an established process and I think compromises us at the conference committee level. It appears to give preference to one university while disallowing other priority proposals from consideration. The full committee also adopted an amendment that authorizes on this appropriations bill by changing the designation of a community in California from a rural to an urban community. I have extremely strong reservations about the intent of this language, since no hearings were held on the subject. I underline, no hearings were held on the subject. It sets a very bad precedent, including unintended consequences that we may not fully appreciate. This language should be stripped from the bill. Traditional farm programs continue to receive a decreasing portion of Federal support, and in my view, we should target our scarce agricultural dollars to smaller family farmers to assure competition in our industry now dominated by megagiants. I opposed last year's farm bill because I do not believe that it did enough to insure against undue risk to family farmers and to provide them with a safety net when times turn bad. While the farm bill made progress by enacting a $40,000 payment limitation, I remain concerned that large corporate farmers can still have undue call on Federal payments. In recent decades, America has slowly eroded the historic basis of American agriculture, the family farmer, and is moving in the direction of giant corporate farms. We must address the increased concentration in agricultural markets that is squeezing family farmers out of business. In the final analysis, a concentrated production system risks price manipulation and lack of competition. Commodity prices must be maintained at a level high enough to compensate for the costs of production, and to maintain standards of living in order to attract and retain farmers and farm production. On the international front, we must also negotiate reciprocal trade agreements which encourage and enhance the ability of our farmers to compete in world markets. On agricultural trade, we must work harder to recapture lost markets and increase exports. As American agricultural exports grow, foreign agricultural imports to our country are being shipped in greater magnitude. Since 1981, our agricultural exports have exhibited a rather roller coaster ride, first declining from $43.8 billion to a low of $26 billion in 1986, and then rising to a record high of $60 billion in 1996, but at the same time agricultural imports have increased from $10.8 billion to approximately $30 billion in 1996, now equaling half of our exports. In many cases, these products our own farmers could be producing and marketing. In closing, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] for putting together the best bill we could under current fiscal circumstances. Let me remind our colleagues in closing that the agriculture portion of Federal spending has taken more than its share of budget cuts in these past several years. Overall spending on programs in our committee's jurisdiction has declined from $70.8 billion in fiscal year 1994 to $49.45 billion in fiscal year 1998 projected. Employment at USDA has declined by approximately 13,000 since 1993. County-based office staffing has been reduced by 13.7 percent since fiscal year 1993 and will be reduced further for a total cut of 40 percent by fiscal year 2002. I think our subcommittee has met the challenge to reduce Federal spending. I am not quite sure how much more we can do. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the gentleman from New Mexico for his cooperation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], the extremely talented, knowledgeable and experienced ranking member of the authorizing committee.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia].

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].