Dave Obey

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as we draw to the conclusion of this bill, I just want to remind Members of the shortcomings which will still lead people like me to vote against it on final passage, even though I fully recognize that the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has done everything he could within the totally inadequate allocation provided to him to produce a bill that would be worthy of the House's support. I would point out that in a letter from the Executive Office of the President it is made clear that ``Given the severe underfunding of critical programs and highly objectionable language provisions in the bill, the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill if it were presented to him in its current form.'' I think it is useful to underline what a few of those reasons are. First of all, with respect to food safety, this bill underfunds the budget request for USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, which inspects meat and poultry, by over $14 million. This bill severely underfunds Department efforts to deal with market concentration and abusive practices within the industry. It falls some $53 million short of the budget request in dealing with problems such as citrus canker in Florida, the Asian longhorn beetle infestation that is killing hardwood trees in New York and Illinois, the plum pox outbreak in Pennsylvania, bovine TB in Michigan, Pierce's disease in California's grape industry, Mediterranean fruitflies, and similar problems. Those may seem like small problems if one does not farm. If one farms, they are huge obstructions to making a living. This bill does not sufficiently respond to those problems. In the area of conservation programs, it falls $70 million short of the budget request for conservation operations at the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and we are told that will require the elimination of about 260 staff who help farmers and ranchers design and implement measures to reduce soil erosion, protect water supplies, and the like. It also is $180 million below the administration's request for rural development. It is short on P.L. 480, overseas food donation programs. The agricultural research and extension program would be $63 million below the request. The bill contains the dangerous rider which restricts FDA and USDA actions to reduce Salmonella contamination in eggs. Most importantly, in my view, there is a huge hole in this bill because it contains nothing to deal with the problem of collapsing prices on the farm, and whether we are talking about dairy, where I come from, or other commodities, the fact is that farmers are in dire straits because of the collapse of market prices. The collapse of market prices in my view has been brought on by the ill-advised Freedom to Farm Act, which creates a very weird situation. I know of no other field, no other economic field in this country in which, if we had an oversupply of product, we would not cut back on production in order to bring ourselves into some equilibrium between supply and demand. Only in agriculture do farmers face the practical reality that if they individually want to try to beat the problem, they have to increase rather than decrease production. That produces a national farm policy which makes no sense. In the process it drives down the price paid to individual farms and farmers. For all of those reasons, while I respect greatly the gentleman from New Mexico and I believe that he has done the best job he can given the allocation made available to him, that allocation is woefully inadequate. It does not meet the needs of the next 5 years in agriculture, and until it comes back from conference with what I would hope would be some rational compromises on some of these items, I personally will not be in a position to support the bill. I regret that, but I think that this bill has a long way to go before it is going to receive a presidential signature. Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would simply emphasize again the Office of Government Ethics itself opposes this amendment, saying that the Government would be deprived of much of the best and most relevant outside expertise in many areas. This amendment is well meaning, but its principal victim if it passes will be children who will get sick and die because of the lack of adequate vaccines.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think the Burton amendment is a well-meaning amendment that will do little to help ethics, but it will do irreparable harm to vaccine development. The amendment blows up a carefully balanced process proposed in 1989 by President Bush which allows narrow and necessary conflict of interest waivers to enhance the government's ability to support the development of crucial vaccines. The amendment is opposed by the Office of Government Ethics itself, and that agency says, ``The government would be depriving itself of much of the best and most relevant outside expertise in many areas. The amendment would prohibit waivers for financial interests that are so insubstantial, remote, or inconsequential that they are typically permitted even for regular full-time government employees.'' They go on to say, ``Existing law strikes the correct balance between protecting the government from inappropriate conflicts of interest and recognizing the need for temporary experts who may have unavoidable conflicts in relevant fields of inquiry.'' In short, even the agency that enforces government ethics says this is a bad idea. It may be well meaning, but it certainly, in the way it would be implemented, would wreck our vaccine development program.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will certainly support this amendment, but I must say that I will be amused to see those persons in this Chamber who will today vote for this amendment who just a short time ago voted to prevent us from being able to directly attack the problem of pricing for prescription drugs. The fact is if this amendment passes what we will be saying is that, for instance, American senior citizens will not have to worry about whether they are being penalized when they go to Canada to buy drugs that are cheaper than they would be if they bought the very same brand name product in the United States. To me, if this House wants to do something really significant, it would pass the Allen bill, which would simply require that in addition to providing a prescription drug benefit for all seniors under Medicare, that it would also guarantee that Medicare would be able to assure that drug prices charged to Medicare and to senior citizens under Medicare would have to be at the same lower price that drug companies make available their products to their most favored volume customers. That is what we really ought to do. This amendment goes as far as it can go, but I would say that I do not think seniors should be fooled that they have gotten much help from folks who vote for this amendment who last week voted against our being able to expand Medicare coverage for every single American, and, for that matter, to attack the price issue at the same time. Senior citizens should not have to leave America in order to be treated like Americans. They ought to be able to get the right treatment here at home, and they would if this Congress had guts enough to take on the pharmaceutical industry. It does not, so I guess this is the best we are able to do under the circumstances. That is not the fault of the gentleman who offers the amendment, but it is the fault of every other Member of this House who chose last week to make a decision that prevented us from providing real direct help to seniors on the issue of prescription drug price. I do not think that many seniors are going to be fooled by people who will cast that vote last week and then run to embrace this amendment this week. I think they will recognize tokenism when they see it.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one of the best substitutes for thinking that I have seen on the floor in quite some time. The gentleman has given as one of his reasons for proposing this 1 percent cut the fact that he does not like the fact that there are some agriculture commodity supplementals that have been passed by the Congress. The fact is, those are not in this bill. They do not have diddly to do with this bill. They ought to be in this bill, because, I promise you, before the Congress is finished, it will respond to the problem on the farm with respect to prices. The Senate has already passed $1.2 billion in additional assistance to farmers who are being crippled by low prices, thanks to the spectacular failure of the Freedom to Farm Act; and before this bill is finished, the House will have to accept some of what the Senate is talking about with respect to dairy funding, with respect to livestock funding and the rest. But the fact is, right now the bill the gentleman is trying to cut does not contain those items, and because he does not like the fact that somewhere along the line those items might be funded, he apparently is willing to cut funding for child nutrition, to cut funding for agencies that protect the public against diseased food and items like that. The gentleman would cut the regulation and safety of drugs and medical devices by FDA, he would cut rural water and sewer and housing and economic development, he would cut vital conservation programs on the farm, he would cut the APHIS program to help control plant and animal pests and diseases. I just went through several national forests over the past 2 weeks and saw the incredible damage done to those forests by pests. In fact, I saw some spectacular damage in California. I would ask the gentleman whether he believes that pest control programs in California are really a waste of the taxpayers' money or not. It is destroying the timber harvests, it is destroying agricultural products of all kind, and, whether the gentleman recognizes it or not, forests are an agricultural product. At least they are seen that way by a lot of people who harvest forests for a living. I would say that if the gentleman is comfortable in cutting USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, which is responsible for the inspection of meat and poultry, he may be comfortable doing that. I am not. If the gentleman is comfortable saying that 74,000 fewer low- income pregnant women and children will be served by the WIC program, he may be comfortable with that. I am not. Mr. Chairman, with that, I think we ought to just let the chips fall where they may. I intend to oppose the amendment, and I would hope that other thoughtful Members of the House would as well.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, since no one else seems to at the moment be prepared to address an urgent item, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, let me simply take some time right now to indicate that I think the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) has done a lot of hard work trying to essentially squeeze a small amount of dollars into an even smaller bag. I think the problem is that because of the unrealistic limitation placed upon this subcommittee by the full committee allocation, which was made necessary by what I consider to be a misguided budget resolution which passed this place, it means that this bill falls far short in a number of areas. It certainly falls far short with respect to food safety items. It falls far short with respect to resources needed to deal with market concentration. The average farmer is in danger of becoming a serf because of the huge concentration that we see in the poultry business, the meat packing business of all kinds, frankly. That is happening in other sectors of agriculture as well. The problems in agriculture, pests and diseases, the bill falls very, very short of where it needs to be. The conservation programs fall some $70 million short of the budget request. If we look at other problems, rural development, especially rural housing is $180 million below the budget request. PL-480 overseas food donation program is significantly below the request. Agriculture research and extension programs are $63 million below the request. There are a number of problems associated with this bill, including the rider restricting egg safety measures to reduce salmonella contamination in eggs. I would also say that this bill is totally absent any solution to the price problems being faced by many farmers. We have a collapsing price as far as dairy farmers are concerned. Many other farmers are facing similar problems with the products that they produce. And this bill will not be made whole until we move to conference, where we will be faced with a number of Senate amendments that would add literally billions to try to help farmers get out from under the impact of the misguided Freedom to Farm Act that passed this body several years ago. So I just wanted to put on record now what my reasons would be personally for opposing the bill when the time comes, although I recognize that the gentleman from New Mexico has been given virtually no maneuvering room in solving some of these problems. The fault lies not with him. The fault lies, in my view, with the budget resolution which was adopted in the first place, which makes it virtually impossible for this House to meet its responsibilities to farmers, to consumers of agriculture products, and to those interested in the issue of rural development as well.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I will not try to get into the merits of the subject, but speaking to the point of order, the gentleman from Florida is obviously correct in his point of order because the Committee on Rules did not protect this section of the bill under the agreement worked out on the majority side of the aisle, which means at this point that there is no provision in law that will protect farmers; ability to export to the countries named either in this bill or in the supplemental appropriations bill. I personally find that to be regrettable. But because of the decision of the Committee on Rules to not protect this section of the bill and because of the agreement that was reached by the majority party caucus, farmers are left in never-never land on this subject. Because of that decision, the gentleman is free to make the point of order, and there is no way to stop it from being stricken.

Mr. OBEY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, but I was momentarily distracted. Did the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) just raise a point of order against the Nethercutt provision on the embargo?

Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate his consideration.

Mr. OBEY. I would also appreciate it if the chairman would also help us to explore the possibility of helping growers through the current difficult times with direct payments. The Cranberry Industry estimates that $20 million will improve income by about $3 to $4 per barrel for each grower. This bill already includes $100 million direct assistance to apple and potato growers. We have helped pork farmers, dairy farmers, wheat, corn, cotton, rice, oilseeds, and many others. Would the chairman of the subcommittee be willing to work with me to ensure that America's cranberry growers receive the same kind of consideration in this respect that many other farmers have received?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, with respect to that product, cranberry growers, as we know, like all farmers today, it seems they are in dire straits due to overproduction, massive overproduction and lower prices. It costs about $35 per barrel to produce cranberries. Some growers in my district are getting as little as $9 or $10 a barrel for their crop. The USDA recently announced its support for industry-proposed volume controls that are desperately needed to get a handle on overproduction. That is part of the solution, but will add to the farm income problems those cranberry growers are facing, so it seems to me we have to look for more things that can be done. Another part of the solution might be for USDA to purchase surplus products. USDA has been very responsive so far looking for opportunities to purchase surplus product, but much more needs to be done if we are to restore balance to supply and demand. As we know, cranberries are among the specialty crops eligible for purchase by the Secretary, with $200 million provided from the recently-passed crop insurance bill. Would the chairman work with me to urge USDA to aggressively use the authority it has to purchase surplus cranberry products in a way that will make a significant difference to the industry?

Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman. Now I would like to turn to another subject, Mr. Chairman. That is the Dairy Export Incentive Program. I am concerned that the USDA is not being aggressive enough in encouraging dairy exports through the Dairy Export Incentive Program, or DEIP, which allows us to compete in world markets with highly subsidized exports in the European Union. About 10 percent of DEIP contracts are apparently canceled, I understand due mainly to price undercutting by our competitors. For whatever the reason, we apparently have about 40,000 metric tons of canceled nonfat dry milk contracts dating back to June of 1995. This canceled tonnage can be reprogrammed for export by allowing exporters to rebid for them, but the Foreign Agricultural Service appears reluctant to do that, perhaps fearing that it may be taken to the WTO court by the European Union. Mr. Chairman, as we know, DEIP saves money. It is cheaper to export surplus nonfat dry milk than it is for USDA to buy it and store it. Removing this product from the domestic market would have a beneficial impact on dairy prices. As such, again, I would ask the chair of the subcommittee to help me convince USDA to propose a solution to resolve the problem by the time we have reached conference on this bill, one that might include establishing a procedure for automatic rebidding of canceled tonnage.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. Let me turn to another subject, that of ultrafiltered milk. It seems there is always some new issue popping up in the dairy area. There are growing fears about the damaging impact on domestic dairy producers from imports of dry ultrafiltered or UF milk. Ultrafiltration is an important technology widely used in cheese plants for about 15 years to remove water, lactose, and minerals and allow manufacturers to manipulate the ingredients in cheese to arrive at the desired finished product. The use of liquid UF milk from another location has been approved by FDA on a case-by-case basis, but there is another problem. The problem is the threat of unlimited imports of dry UF milk from places like New Zealand following a petition to FDA earlier this year by the National Cheese Institute to change the standards of identity for cheese. I understand that there are no quotas or tariffs on this product, which is currently used in bakery mixes, ice cream, and other products that do not have the strict standards of identity that cheese has. There have also been newspaper reports suggesting that dry UF milk is already being imported for use in American cheese plants, in violation of FDA regulations. We need to know what the facts are so we can develop an appropriate response. At a minimum, we need to understand first how much UF milk is coming into the country and what it is used for. I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee if he would be willing to work with us to get answers to those questions through the GAO and other sources.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, in full committee I offered an amendment to deal with the concentration of economic power in the processing industry in this country. We cannot offer that amendment on the floor because of budget limitations, but I want to make clear that before this bill returns from conference, it ought to do a number of things. I wanted to add funding for the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration, for instance, and to the Agriculture Department's Office of General Counsel to bring both accounts up to the amount requested by the President. The reason that I wanted to do that is very simple: we can throw all the money in the world that we want to at farm programs, but unless we deal with the fact that the agriculture industry is largely dominated by oligopolies, we are not going to do very much to help either the consumer or the farmer in the process. There are four companies that now control 81 percent of cattle purchases, beef processing and wholesale marketing, and in only 5 years we have seen the margin between the price paid to farmers and wholesale price of beef jump by 24 percent. It just doesn't apply to the beef industry. If you look at the pork market, four companies now control 56 percent of the pork market, and the margin between the wholesale price of pork and the price paid to the farmer has jumped by more than 50 percent. We have had a continuous consolidation in the grain industry and in the dairy industry and an amazing concentration of economic power in the poultry industry, where giant corporations such as Perdue and Tyson's are not only squeezing farmers, but also abusing workers and wreaking havoc on the environment in the process. To really address these problems, it seems to me we need substantive legislation, for example to grant the Agriculture Department authority to review mergers and acquisitions affecting farming and food, and we need to do a variety of other things. That, obviously, is beyond the scope of this bill. But this bill, for instance, in addition to the other funding shortfalls that I have discussed, also has a serious shortfall in the Office of General Counsel. We need to correct those problems when this bill comes back from conference. As I say, we are precluded from offering an amendment to do anything major on this right now because of the Budget Act, but it is my full intention to see to it that when we go to conference, this matter is corrected; because until we do correct it, the consumers are going to continue to get euchred by the situation, and so will virtually every small farmer in America.

Mr. OBEY. I thank the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise the question of cranberries.

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a series of discussions with the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen). Mr. Chairman, as we know, the Senate bill provides direct payments to dairy farmers estimated at $443 million to offset the record low prices we have seen for much of the past year. I would simply ask the chairman if he would be willing to work with me to ensure that direct payments for dairy farmers are included in the bill when it emerges from conference.

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. So the gentleman will rise to strike the last word and recognize the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters)?

Mr. OBEY. So the gentlewoman would be able to offer those amendments, even though they would be subject to a point of order? The gentlewoman cannot get a vote on the amendment, obviously, but we could strike the last word so that she can make the point that she wants on each of the three amendments?

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, could I ask the gentleman from New Mexico (Chairman Skeen) a question under the reservation of objection of the gentlewoman from Ohio? Could I ask whether or not, since it is my understanding that the amendments of the gentlewoman from California are subject to points of order, is it possible under the unanimous consent request that the gentleman is proposing, for those to be handled under the pro forma procedure laid out in the unanimous consent request?

Mr. OBEY

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the House to understand that all the agriculture commodity issues have been deferred so that they will be dealt with on the regular Agriculture Appropriations bill. With respect to the Colombia provision that the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) just mentioned, I think that is a profound mistake. I voted against it. I lost. I do think that we are in better shape in the conference report than we were in the original bill because we now do have the Byrd language, which will require a new authorization for that operation if new funds are asked for the year 2002 or beyond. We also have the human rights language that Senator Leahy pushed in this bill. This bill does contain the disaster assistance, which cannot be delayed any longer. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)