Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I really had not thought of that proposal because it is so farfetched from democracy as we know it and participation in the election process as we know it. It could happen. It could happen. I have confidence it would not happen, but, then, one never knows. Could I ask the distinguished Senator a question? And that is this: Right now, in the campaign process, we have regular contributions. As the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has pointed out, there are limits in terms of giving; in terms of individuals it is $1,000 an individual, et cetera. And he uses that as a reference point from which to control the total spending. But in the real world, what we have found, more specifically in this last election cycle, those regular contributions are reported. If there is one thing I agree very strongly with the Senator from South Carolina on, it is we need full public disclosure. He referred to Steve Forbes. As a matter of fact, he was very candid with regard to Mr. Forbes' candidacy, and what happened to my dear friend and former senior Senator from Kansas, Bob Dole, in his campaign. So, public disclosure, I think, is very important. I think the American people are six jumps ahead of the whole process. If they discover where the money comes from and the amount of money spent, they make the appropriate decision. But we have other contributions. We have independent expenditures, and in the Colorado case it is very clear where the court is. So here is the challenger and the incumbent limited in terms of spending, and then in comes a ``independent expenditure,'' which we all know in some cases are not quite so independent. Then, second, we have other expenditures. They are called ``educational ads.'' How on Earth do we control those expenditures with the campaign limits envisioned in many of the alleged campaign reform bills? I can tell you, we have colleagues who subscribe to State campaign limits, only to find we have these other contributions coming in, these other expenditures, and, frankly, they were beaten about the head and shoulders so much in the last part of the campaign, they had to violate that campaign limit or they would have been defeated, paying a fine, filling out paperwork. It is a very unfair system. I do not see anything in this particular endeavor that would prevent that. That is a long question for the Senator to answer.

Mr. ROBERTS. That might be a little harsh.

Mr. ROBERTS. That is correct.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I, too, would like to pay tribute to our Republican leadership in this great battle, this epic battle where we try to achieve some financial stability for future generations, more especially the Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch. There were some comments that were made by a scholar over 200 years ago about the fall of the Greek Republic. It was prefaced by this statement: When historians look back upon great civilizations, they invariably identify a time when society chose growth or decay. Such is the time today in this body. And this scholar said this about the fall of the Greek Republic: The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back again into bondage. And then he made this prediction, which I think applies to the vote that will be forthcoming: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. I think those are sobering thoughts. Can our American system meet the challenges of future generations? We will have that vote this afternoon. The voters did not vote for a majority to continue down that path that was followed by the Greek Republic. That is why we need the balanced budget amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today, as was indicated by my colleagues, Senator Thomas and Senator Grams, to speak to the Medicare Payment Equity Act of 1997. Like my colleagues have indicated, this legislation will hopefully end the longstanding unfairness that denies the Medicare beneficiary in rural counties the same services and benefits that their urban peers receive. As has been indicated by both of my colleagues, all Americans, whether they live in the city or whether they live in the country, pay the same 2.9 percent of payroll to the Medicare trust fund all during their working lives. All Americans who choose Medicare part B pay the same monthly premium, but that is where the similarities stop. Based on the geographic area where seniors choose to retire, they receive vastly different choices and benefits. Seniors living in New York City or in Miami, as has been indicated by my colleagues, are offered more options to the Medicare system than almost all of Kansas' 400,000 seniors who rely on Medicare. Many of these plans have no additional premiums, and they may include extra benefits, such as prescription drug coverage or hearing aids or eyeglasses, just to name a few. Let me demonstrate what I am talking about. When a Kansas senior citizen visits a relative in Miami or New York or Phoenix or some other metropolitan area and talks to his brother, his cousin or any relative and learns that they receive, under their managed care plan under Medicare, free eyeglasses, free prescription drugs, even exercise lessons, of course, then that senior citizen goes back to Kansas or Wyoming or Minnesota, or any other rural area, and they do not have that opportunity. Yet, they pay the same amount. Why does this happen? The difference is really due to the payment formula used to finance the managed care plans under Medicare. I am going to quarrel a little bit with the description of managed care. I know that has a connotation in some areas, quite frankly, as rationing health care. I know that is harsh. Why don't we use the term ``physician service network''? The acronym--everything has to have an acronym in Washington--is PSN. It allows the local hospitals, local doctors, local administrators and the boards to join together, which they are already doing, and offer, yes, a managed care plan, but it is a physician service network. We have something like that in Kansas in Salina where about 13 hospitals have joined together under something called ``the sunflower network.'' We hope and we think that if we can offer that option to our seniors, we can hold the Medicare costs down, but we can bring them better delivery. It is a voluntary plan, it is not mandatory, and certainly we think that is part of the overall Medicare reform plan. Basically, under the current system, Medicare rewards any beneficiaries who live in an inefficient medical market and punishes those who participate in health plans that operate in efficient markets. Medicare pays these health plans a capitation payment based on regional fee-for-service costs. This payment is known as the adjusted average per capita costs--here is another acronym--AAPCC rate. That is extremely important in regards to the health care field. The variation in the AAPCC rate is extreme. As has been indicated by my colleagues, for example, the AAPCC rate in Richmond, NY, is $767 per Medicare beneficiary, while the AAPCC rate for my constituents in Republic County, KS--Belleville is the county seat--there it is only $265. This county is almost the lowest paid county in the United States. In fact, 93 percent of all counties in Kansas are at or below the national average of $467. Clearly, there are cost factors that account for some of this difference, but as Senator Thomas has pointed out, a difference of over $500 is simply unexplainable. This legislation really does address this issue by creating a new payment formula for managed care plans. Specifically, our bill establishes a minimum payment for rural counties of 80 percent of the national input price adjusted capitation rate. This will ensure all payments, even those in rural counties, will cover the comprehensive benefits. This legislation also includes an aggressive blend of national and local rates that will raise the lower payment areas closer to the average, while taking into account actual input cost differences that exist from one region to another. This rate, which is based on an average of 3 years of past data, will smooth the payments and reduce all of the volatility price differences. It is a transition. Finally, this legislation excludes the disproportionate share of payments and graduate medical education funds from the calculations of the formula. Mr. President, this inequity must stop. Until we end this inequity, Medicare beneficiaries will not have the choices they deserve. We will not control the Medicare costs that in some areas are out of control. Hospitals and doctors will not have the tools they need to compete in today's physician service network markets, and Medicare will continue to overpay health plans in inefficient markets. I want to add one other thing, lest people misunderstand. This is not an either/or choice. Senator Thomas, Senator Grams, myself, and Senator Burns are not trying to take away anything from Dade County, FL, or New York or any other urban area. Under our formula, the premiums will increase by 2 percent. That is not the idea here. We are merely trying to equalize this on a transition basis. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of the Medicare Payment Equity Act. That is precisely what it is. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I truly appreciate this opportunity to speak in behalf of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and in this regard I especially thank several of my colleagues: Mr. Hatch, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee--and I associate myself with all of his remarks--Mr. Domenici, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, and Mr. Craig, the Republican policy chairman, for their longstanding leadership and efforts in behalf of this legislation that I feel, in effect, would simply protect the financial and economic future of our children and their children. For those who have had the perseverance and the tenacity to pursue this goal, it has at times been a very lonely trail. Whatever success we might achieve, and that I hope we will achieve, it has been in large part due to the efforts of these Senators and their leadership role, and the American people should certainly be aware of that. I have read some interesting commentary in regard to this effort. Our opponents predict dark budget clouds for Social Security and any other programs deemed essential by Senators regarding their particular and parochial interests; but contrary to that dire prediction, if we total the sum of the balanced budget parts, I see and predict a very bright future. I see a nation with 6.1 million more jobs in 10 years. I see lower interest rates that will directly affect the daily lives and pocketbooks of every citizen in terms of the amount of the hard-earned income they pay now for living essentials--health care, housing, education, loans, food and transportation. If you ask the American people, with a 2 percent drop in interest rates, how would you like 6 months of groceries free as compared to what you are paying now, or corresponding savings in your health care premium costs, mortgage payment or student loans, and if you compare those savings in their pocketbooks with the marginal reductions in the amount of growth in Federal programs in this city, why, put that way, the American people support a balanced budget. They are six jumps ahead of Washington. So the question is how, how do we achieve a balanced budget? In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton said, ``Don't give me a balanced budget amendment. Give me a balanced budget.'' I agree with that. I must say I do agree. But with all due respect to the President, many of my colleagues and I have done just that but to no avail. During the last session of Congress, we sent two balanced budgets to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and despite exhaustive effort and despite a lot of rhetoric to the contrary, in reality I think they were dead on arrival. However, I must say that passing the balanced budget amendment in the House last year and two budgets that were in fact in balance, despite the Presidential vetoes, this action did provide the kind of fiscal backbone and tenacity not seen in the Congress for decades. In my own case, I was very proud of our efforts within the House Agriculture Committee, as chairman, in enacting farm program and food stamp reform that also produced an estimated $350 billion in savings over the life of the budget agreement. It can be done. They said it could not be done, but it can be done. And with our reform of farm program policy passing by overwhelming margins--318 in the House, 74 in the Senate--we also proved there is bipartisan support for true reform and budget savings. We also achieved very considerable budget savings in discretionary spending at the conclusion of the appropriations process, all 13 major spending bills--something unique to the last Congress. So we made some progress. But that was last year. And last year, despite our successes and a reduced deficit, we fell short of the final goal, a budget that is truly, truly in balance. However, the real problem is that while there is considerable talk about accepting responsibility and standing foursquare for a balanced budget, there are serious differences of opinion as to how to bring the budget into balance. I don't know how many times I have heard my Kansas constituents say, ``Pat, why can't you and Senator Kassebaum and Senator Dole--Bob and Nancy--work together and bring this budget into balance?'' Well, which programs would be cut? In most cases, I know, our constituents certainly come to Washington and say, ``Yes, I want to balance the budget; yes, I know we have to quit this business of mortgaging the future of our young people, our children and their children; but, you know, my program is a little different. My program really represents an investment.'' And, in many cases, that is true. But, do we have the political wherewithal to address the real entitlement question, and that is our individual freedom and the future of our kids and their kids? In that, if you total up all the spending, you reach a certain level, as evidenced by all of the budget reports on the floor of the Senate, where that is the key question, not each individual program. So, do we have the political wherewithal to save and restore Medicare and other entitlements? In this regard, the President and many of our friends across the aisle stated over and over again they are for a balanced budget, but not that budget, that budget meaning any cuts in their favorite and priority programs. And I must say, despite the fact that a Republican Congress and the President were within $10 a month difference last year in regard to preventing Medicare bankruptcy, $10 a month, some even say $7, because of the fact we were not able to reach agreement and the fact that the Democratic Party made a conscious decision to make Medicare a top issue in last year's campaign, I am not overly confident any budget agreement can be worked out without a great deal of difficulty--unless we have to--unless there is some outside discipline that will force Congress to get the job done. The lure of political opportunism may be just too great. The coming debate in regard to Social Security is a classic example. I have here the report in regard to the balanced budget amendment legislation we are considering. On page 33, the minority views begin. And I note, as I thumb through some of the commentary, that it is merely a repeat of what many of us on this side of the aisle experienced in 30-second spots. So the real question is, does the Congress have the fortitude and the perseverance and the tenacity to truly balance the budget? As has been said by many of my colleagues, despite very good men and women of both parties with the best of intentions, it is now the 28th year in which a majority in Congress has failed in efforts for the Federal Government to live within its means and to prevent the mortgaging of our children and their children--28 years. There is the evidence right down there, right next to Senator Craig. As a matter of fact, I think it stacks so high that we are in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration code, and maybe the fire code. So we all agree that we must make progress toward a balanced budget. Then during the course of our political deliberations, we most generally agree to disagree on how to achieve this goal. I think it is clear that, if there is anything to be learned during the time we have regretfully experienced ever-increasing deficits and political discord, it is that we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to simply get the job done. Now, the minority says in the beginning of their views: The real question this year is not whether to reduce the deficit but by how much and what cuts to make in order to bring the budget into balance. That is the real work that lies before us. And amen to that. And I credit the minority for starting off with that paragraph. But, as has been said before, we now have the President's budget, and in that regard I am going to quote from today's issue of the Washington Post. This is an independent observation, not known for conservative views--some conservative views. When they shine the light of truth into darkness, it is usually to the left-field bleachers as opposed to the right-field bleachers. But the Post says this morning: ``For the first time in 30 years, we'll be able to tell the American people that we have brought fiscal sanity back to their Government,'' declared Clinton's Budget Director, Franklin D. Raines, at a news conference. And the Post goes on to say this, and this a wake-up call to the American people: But, in many respects, [the President's] fiscal 1998 budget falls well short of the administration's soaring rhetoric. On issues such as deficit reduction, Medicare, tax cuts and welfare, congressional Republicans and many independent budget analysts charge [the President's] plan is crafted less to impose fiscal discipline than to gain political advantage in the budget battle to come. That is the Washington Post. That is not some Republican on Senate floor. In assembling its blueprint for wiping out the deficit by 2002 and beyond, the administration offers dozens of new spending initiatives, including almost $60 billion of additional entitlement programs [I thought we were going to scale those back], while providing sketchy information about spending cuts. Clinton is relying heavily on new fees and deferred spending reductions to reach balance. About 75 percent of all the proposed spending cuts would take effect after 2000, a strategy that would put off most of the pain--most of the discipline, if you will--until after President Clinton leaves office. A respected columnist, second to none, the dean of the political writers in Washington, David Broder, added this in today's issue of the Post: The numbers in the latter document [I am talking about the budget] are immensely revealing. After pages of pat-myself- on-the-back rhetoric, the gauzy camouflage is pulled aside. And you can learn that there's really not that much wrong with this budget except that it adds another $1.2 trillion to the statutory national debt in the next 5 years, fails to start addressing the baby-boomer retirement problem, further squeezes the share of money available for needed domestic programs, shifts burdens to the States, shortchanges the cities and stagnates investments in nonmilitary research and development, the real seed corn for the future. Other than that, it's a fine, forward-looking budget plan. That is by David Broder and I think it deserves significant attention for those involved in this debate as well as all of the American people. Mr. President, with the fall of the Greek Republic as an example, there is an often-quoted and pessimistic theory that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. The argument and prediction is a democracy can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy. That was predicted about the Greek Republic. It happened. If that prediction is true, it is a terrible prospect for our future. Mr. President, I don't buy it. I think the American people are willing to sacrifice and invest in the future if we but set the example and get the job done. I must say, when we look at our most recent history, and the fact our best efforts fell short during the last session of Congress--and, goodness knows, we worked hard--I believe this debate, this legislation and this time represents our very best opportunity to set our Nation's fiscal house in order. In his State of the Union Address, President Clinton said, ``we need action.'' And I agree. It is, indeed, time for action. And for action that gets the job done, we need a constitutional amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to speak in behalf of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I especially thank two of my colleagues, Mr. Domenici, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, and Mr. Hatch, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for their longstanding leadership and efforts in behalf of this legislation and in effect, enabling us to protect the financial and economic future of our children and their children. Mr. President, for those who have had the perseverance and tenacity to pursue this goal, it has at times been a lonely trail. Whatever success we might achieve and I hope that we will achieve has been in large part due to the efforts of these two Senators. I have read some interesting commentary regarding this effort. Our opponents predict dark budget clouds for Social Security and any other program deemed essential to a particular economic interest group. But, contrary to that dire prediction, I see a bright future with the sum of the balanced budget parts. I see a nation with 6.1 million more jobs in 10 years. I see lower interest rates that will directly affect the daily lives and pocketbooks of every citizen in terms of the amount of hard-earned income they pay now for living essentials, health care, housing, education loans, food, and transportation. With a 2-percent drop in interest rates, how would you like 6 months of groceries free or corresponding savings in your health care premium costs, mortgage payment, student loan? Compare those savings with the marginal reductions in the amount of growth of Federal programs. In his State of the Union Address, the President said: ``Don't give me a balanced budget amendment; give me a balanced budget.'' I must say I agree. But, with all due respect, Mr. President, many of my colleagues and I have done just that to no avail. During the last session of Congress, we sent two balanced budgets to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and despite exhaustive effort, we were not able to reach agreement or accommodation. However, I must say that passing the balanced budget amendment and two budgets that were, in fact, in balance did provide the kind of fiscal backbone and tenacity not seen in the Congress for decades. In my own case, I was proud of our efforts within the House Agriculture Committee in enacting farm program and food stamp reform that also produced an estimated $33 billion in savings over the life of the budget agreement. So, I agree with you. It can be done. And, with our reform of farm program policy passing by overwhelming margins, we also proved there is bipartisan support for true reform and budget savings. We also achieved considerable budget savings in discretionary spending at the conclusion of the appropriations process; something unique to the last Congress. However, the real problem is that while there is considerable talk about accepting responsibility and standing four square for a balanced budget, there are serious differences of opinion as to how to bring the budget into balance. Which programs will be cut? Do we have the political wherewithal to save Medicare and other entitlements? In this regard, the President and many of our friends across the aisle stated over and over again they are for a balanced budget but not that budget--that budget meaning any cuts in their favorite and priority programs. And, I must say, despite the fact that a Republican Congress and the President were within $10 a month difference in regard to preventing Medicare bankruptcy, the fact we were not able to reach agreement and the fact that the Democrat Party made a conscious decision to make Medicare a top issue in last year's campaign, I am not overly confident any budget agreement can be worked out--unless we have to--unless there is some outside discipline that will force Congress to get the job done. The lure of political opportunism is just too great, the coming debate regarding Social Security being a classic example. The real question is, does the Congress have the fortitude, the perseverance and the tenacity to balance the budget? Despite good men and women of both parties and the best of intentions, it is now the 28th year in which a majority in the Congress has failed in efforts for the Federal Government to live within its means. We all agree we must make progress toward a balanced budget and then during the course of political deliberations we most generally agree to disagree as to how to achieve this goal. It is clear that if there is anything to be learned during the time we have regretfully experienced ever increasing deficits, it is that we need a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to get the job done. With the fall of the Greek Republic as an example, there is a theory that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. The theory is it can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy. That is the theory. If true, it is a terrible prospect. Mr. President, I choose not to accept that dire prediction but I must say given our most recent history and given the fact our best efforts fell short during the last session of Congress, I believe this debate, this legislation, and this time represents our vest best opportunity to set our Nation's fiscal house in order. As President Clinton stated, ``We don't need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, we need action.'' Again, with due respect to the President, it is indeed time for action and for action, we need a constitutional amendment to get the job done.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, as the 104th Congress nears adjournment today, it is a proper time to review the changes that have been made in farm programs under the Agricultural Market Transition Act [AMTA]--I refer to it as freedom to farm--and what farmers and producers can expect, during the 1996 through 2002 period, in the way of guaranteed fixed, albeit declining, payments on their production flexibility contracts with the Federal Government--the Commodity Credit Corporation. Nearly all U.S. farmers and producers have signed up for the production flexibility contract with the U.S.D.A. Consolidated Farm Service Agency, and from all reports I believe it is widely endorsed by farmers, consumers, rural communities, and rural credit providers, and many others. It reverses 60 years of over-regulation of farmers and producers by the Federal Government and gives them the flexibility to apply good financial management practices and good environmental management practices on their farms. The reason that I make this statement today is to provide some legislative history and background for those farmers who have signed a contract with the U.S.D.A. Commodity Credit Corporation and may be aware that President Clinton released a statement on April 4, 1996, when he signed the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-127) claiming he planned to submit legislation in 1997 to amend the FAIR Act. I will review the provisions of the enactment of the Freedom to Farm Act (Public Law 104-127), its legislative history, and analyze a recent and relevant Supreme Court decision that sets forth standards for Federal Government liability under similar contracts. Title I of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (Public Law 104- 127, 110 Stat. 896, April 4, 1996) states in section 101(b), as noted in pertinent part below, part of the purpose of the act: (b) Purpose.--It is the purposes of this title-- (1) to authorize the use of binding production flexibility contracts between the United States and agricultural producers to support farming certainty and flexibility while ensuring continued compliance with farm conservation and wetland protection requirements; The conference report (H. Rept. 104-494, dated March 25, 1996) explains the origin of the language in section 101(b) quoted above and adoption of the House provision by the conferees: Subtitle A--Purpose and Definitions ``(2) Purpose The House bill states that it is the purpose of this title to authorize the use of binding production flexibility contracts between the United States and producers; to make recourse marketing assistance loans; to improve the operation of the peanut and sugar programs and; to terminate price support authority under the Agricultural Act of 1949. (Section 101) The Senate amendment has no comparable provision. The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an amendment deleting the reference to the Agriculture Act of 1949 and adding a reference to the establishment of the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture. (Section 101). When the farm bill (later to become Public Law 104-127) was debated on the House floor an inquiry was made about the contractual aspects of production flexibility contract. (See 142 Congressional Record, H1539 daily ed. Feb. 29, 1996, (statement of Rep. Roberts)): Let me first say that it is clearly the intent of Congress that the market transition payment provided by the 7-year production flexibility contract is an express and unmistakable contract between the United States and the owner and operator of farmland. Because the market transition payment is based on the 7-year contract it is the intent of the legislation that the payment is guaranteed. When the conference report was taken up on the House floor, the production flexibility contract was explained as follows (See 142 Congressional Record, H3141 daily ed. Mar. 28, 1996, (statement of Rep. Roberts)): The guarantee of a fixed (albeit declining) payment for seven years will provide the predictability that farmers have wanted and provide certainty to creditors as a basis for lending. The current situation in wheat, corn and cotton under which prices are very high, but large numbers of producers have lost their crops to weather or pests would be corrected by FFA. Those producers last year could not access the high prices without crops, and instead of getting help when they need it most, the old system cuts off their deficiency payments and even demands that they repay advance deficiency payments. FFA insures that whatever government financial assistance is available will be delivered, regardless of the circumstances, because the producer signs a binding contract with the Federal government for the next seven years. The debate of title I of the conference report on the FAIR bill in the House and in the Senate is replete with references to ``contract,'' ``guarantee,'' ``binding contract'' and similar references. The Production Flexibility Contract (U.S.D.A.-CCC Form 478) speaks in terms of contract acreage, contract crop, and the ability of CCC representatives to enter onto the producer's farm to determine ``compliance with the contract.'' The fact that the production flexibility contracts were intended to carry with them a guarantee of payment barring failure of the producer to comply with certain statutorily express conditions for compliance is clearly illustrated. Given that, it should follow that these production flexibility contracts represent vested legal rights in owners or producers that could be altered by subsequent enactment, except that those legal rights could be enforceable against the Government for damages if for some reason funding were not made available during the 7-year period of the contract contemplated in the AMT Act. The ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of United States versus Winstar Corp. et al., U.S. , No. 95-865 slip op. (July 1, 1996) should serve as a precedent and should apply in the event there is an amendment to the Agricultural Market Transition Act prior to 2002 that could have the effect of breaching the contractual obligations of the Government to fulfill the provisions of the Production Flexibility Contract. The Winstar case held that Federal bank regulations that implemented the 1989 Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) (Public Law 101-73, see particularly 12 U.S.C. 1464(t)) imposed new capital requirements on savings and loan associations in derogation of promises made in pre-1989 agreements that allowed financial institutions willing to take over failing institutions to use certain accounting devices to satisfy capital requirements and this constituted a breach of contract for which the Government was liable for damages. The Untied States in the Winstar case raised the unmistakability defense to the effect that a public or general sovereign act such as FIRREA's alteration of capital reserve requirements (that reversed the earlier permission of certain savings and loan institutions to use certain accounting devices) could not trigger contractual liability for the Government. However, the unmistakability defense or doctrine states that ``sovereign power, even when unexercised, is an enduring presence that governs all contracts subject to the sovereign's jurisdiction, and will remain intact unless surrendered in unmistakable terms.'' Merrion versus Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 148 (1982). The application of this doctrine turns on whether enforcement of the contractual obligation alleged would block the exercise of a sovereign power of the Government. United States versus Winstar Corp. et al., U.S. , No. 95-865 slip op. at 39 (July 1, 1996). As opposed to attempts to bind Congress from enacting regulatory measures inconsistent with the contracts, the contracts in Winstar allocate or shift the risks incurred by the parties. The plaintiff Winstar did not assert that the Government could not change the capitalization requirements applicable to the plaintiff, but that the Government assumed the risk that where subsequent changes prevented the plaintiff from performing under the agreement that the Government would be held liable for financial damages. So long as such contract is reasonably construed to include a risk-shifting component that may be enforced without effectively barring the exercise of that power, the enforcement of the risk allocation raises nothing for the unmistakability doctrine to guard against, and there is no reason to apply it. Id. at 41. Under the production flexibility contract, risks are allocated among the parties. As opposed to prior farm programs, the producers agree to accept the risk of fixed payments unrelated to national supply or established target prices in exchange for the Government's acceptance of the risk of less control over supplies of various types of agricultural commodities. As in Winstar, the issue does not turn on whether the Government can subsequently change the rules under which producers operate if they elect to participate in a program, the issue is whether enforcing the risks shifted among the parties will infringe upon the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States. Where changes in the production flexibility contract by the Government result in a financial liability to the producer, the Government is liable to the producer for a breach of contract and damages. This liability does not infringe on the Government's sovereignty and does not violate the unmistakability doctrine. The Government in Winstar, supra, also asserted that under the sovereign acts doctrine, ``whatever acts the government may do, be they legislative or executive, so long as they be public and general, cannot be deemed specially to alter, modify, obstruct or violate the particular contracts into which it enters with private persons.'' The Court in the Winstar case held that the sovereign acts doctrine: * * * balances the Government's need for freedom to legislate with its obligation to honor its contracts by asking whether the sovereign act is properly attributable to the Government as contractor. If the answer is no, the Government's defense to liability depends on the answer to the further question, whether that act would otherwise release the Government from liability under ordinary principles of contract law. Id. at 57. In answering the first question, the Court looked at whether the action by the Government having an impact on the public contract was merely incidental to the accomplishment of a broader governmental objective. The greater the Government's self-interest, the more suspect the claim that the private contractor bear the financial burden of the Government's action. Id. at 60. In Winstar, the Court found that a substantial purpose of the Government's action was to eliminate the very accounting formula that the acquiring thrifts had been promised. Thus, the Government's self-interest was so substantial that the statute was not a ``public and general'' act for purposes of the sovereign acts defense. Id. at 61. Any changes to the statutory authority for production flexibility contracts would no doubt follow the same analysis as that relied upon by the Court in Winstar. To the extent that the farm programs would be altered, it would be likely that the Government would have substantial self-interest in any relief it might obtain from risks allocated it under the contract. Most likely this would result in some legislative change to reduce the amount of money paid to producers. While such change would likely be for the ``public and general'' benefit, it would undercut the allocation of risks between the parties to the contract and as such, would substantially be in the Government's self-interest. Finally, the Government in Winstar asserted the defense of impossibility. To invoke the defense of impossibility, the Government would have to show that the nonoccurrence of regulatory amendment was a basic assumption of the contracts. That is the parties assumed that the statute on capitalization requirements would not change. As the Court notes, a change was both foreseeable and likely in that case. Id at 67. The production flexibility contract states in the appendix to Form CCC-478 (the production flexibility contract) that if the statute on which the contract is based is materially changed during the period of the contract, CCC may require the producer to elect between modifications of the contract consistent with the new provisions and termination of the contract. This statement itself is an acknowledgment that the Congress very well may change the Agriculture Market Transition Act prior to its expiration in 2002. Further, if Congress changes the program, it is reasonable and expected that the contracts would be modified accordingly. However, as was true with the plaintiff in Winstar case, producers have no desire to assert that Congress cannot change the underlying statute, but instead, may pursue a claim for breach of contract and damages where any legislative change results in changes to the contract and producers incur financial damages. The acknowledgement of possible legislative change to the production flexibility contract should only serve to weaken any further Government defense of impossibility.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to restore to the Secretary of Agriculture the optional authority to extend existing Conservation Reserve Program [CRP] contracts. This action is necessitated by a provision contained in the 1997 agricultural appropriations law that rescinded that long-standing authority at a time when the Secretary is attempting to implement a revised CRP that currently does not have final regulations in place. Contracts covering 24 million acres, or two-thirds of the existing enrolled acres, are scheduled to expire next September and must be considered for re-enrollment before that time. Congress devoted considerable time and resources during the farm bill to insuring the continuation of the CRP with its important conservation and environmental benefits. The administration was tasked with proposing new regulations for the CRP by early June of this year to give farmers sufficient time to understand the revised program and make decisions on their participation. Unfortunately, USDA's proposed regulations did not appear until mid- September. The proposed changes are so massive and so many factors are still unknown, it is unlikely that farmers will have the final details well into next year. If the proposed changes are contained in the final rules, it is clear that many weeks of intensive work by USDA will be needed to apply the general rules to each individual farmer's land before the producer will know whether he is eligible and whether he wants to make a bid to enter the program. It was the clear intent of Congress to give the producer the maximum flexibility in making the decision on whether or not to continue his land in the CRP. Farmers cannot sensibly make that decision until all the information is available to them. The slightest delay in USDA's schedule will create chaos on the farm with an arbitrary deadline forcing a decisions for which the producer has insufficient information. If this situation arises, which in the mind of this Member is a probability rather than a possibility, it is imperative that the Secretary of Agriculture retain the authority to extend existing contracts so that properly thoughtful decisions can be made that will affect farmers and our environment for a decade to come. By eliminating the limitation on the Secretary's authority contained in this year's agricultural appropriations law, this bill will insure that USDA has the flexibility to implement the Conservation Reserve Program successfully and avoid a train wreck next August.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, as the adjournment of the 104th Congress nears adjournment today, it is a proper time to review the changes that have been made in farm programs--I refer to it as Freedom To Farm--and what farmers and producers can expect, during the 1996 through 2002 period, in the way of guaranteed fixed--albeit declining--payments on their production flexibility contracts with the Federal Government--the Commodity Credit Corporation. Nearly all U.S. farmers and producers have signed-up for the production flexibility contract with the USDA Consolidated Farm Service Agency, and from all reports I believe it is widely endorsed by farmers, consumers, rural communities, and rural credit providers, and many others. It reverses 60 years of over-regulation of farmers and producers by the Federal Government and gives them the flexibility to apply good financial management practices and good environmental management practices on their farms. The reason that I make this statement today is to provide some legislative history and background for those farmers who have signed a contract with the USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation and may be aware that President Clinton released a statement on April 4, 1996 when he signed the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform [FAIR] Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-127) claiming he planned to submit legislation in 1997 to amend the FAIR Act. I will review the provisions of the enactment of the Freedom to Farm Act (Public Law 104-127), its legislative history, and analyze a recent and relevant Supreme Court decision that sets forth standards for Federal Government liability under similar contracts. Title I of the ``Agricultural Market Transition Act'' (Public Law 104-127, 110 Stat. 896, April 4, 1996) states in section 101(b), as noted in pertinent part below, part of the purpose of the Act: (b) Purpose.--It is the purposes of this title-- (1) to authorize the use of binding production flexibility contracts between the United States and agricultural producers to support farming certainty and flexibility while ensuring continued compliance with farm conservation and wetland protection requirements;. The conference report (H. Rept. 104-494, dated March 25, 1996) explains the origin of the language in section 101(b) quoted above and adoption of the House provision by the conferees: subtitle A--purpose and DEFINITIONS (2) Purpose The House bill states that it is the purpose of this title to authorize the use of binding production flexibility contracts between the United States and producers; to make nonrecourse marketing assistance loans; to improve the operation of the peanut and sugar programs and; to terminate price support authority under the Agricultural Act of 1949. (Section 101). The Senate amendment has no comparable provision. The Conference substitute adopts the House provision with an amendment deleting the reference to the Agriculture Act of 1949 and adding a reference to the establishment of the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture. (Section 101). When the farm bill--later to become Public Law 104-127--was debated on the House floor an inquiry was made about the contractual aspects of production flexibility contract. (See Congressional Record, February 29, 1996, H. 1539): Let me first say that it is clearly the intent of Congress that the market transition payment provided by the 7-year production flexibility contract is an express and unmistakable contract between the United States and the owner and operator of farmland. Because the market transition payment is based on the 7-year contract it is the intent of the legislation that the payment is guaranteed. When the conference report was taken up on the House floor, the production flexibility contract was explained as follows (Congressional Record, p. H3141, March 28, 1996): The guarantee of a fixed (albeit declining) payment for seven years will provide the predictability that farmers have wanted and provide certainty to creditors as a basis for lending. The current situation in wheat, corn and cotton under which prices are very high, but large numbers of producers have lost their crops to weather or pests would be corrected by FFA. Those producers last year could not access the high prices without crops, and instead of getting help when they need it most, the old system cuts off their deficiency payments and even demands that they repay advance deficiency payments. FFA insures that whatever government financial assistance is available will be delivered, regardless of the circumstances, because the producer signs a binding contract with the Federal Government for the next seven years. The debate on Title I of the conference report on the FAIR bill in the House and in the Senate is replete with references to ``contract'', ``guarantee'', ``binding contract'' and similar references. The production flexibility contract (USDA--CCC Form 478) speaks in terms of contract acreage, contract crop, and the ability of CCC representatives to enter onto the producer's farm to determine ``compliance with the contract''. The fact that the production flexibility contracts were intended to carry with them a guarantee of payments barring failure of the producer to comply with certain statutorily impress conditions for compliance is clearly illustrated. Given that, it should follow that these production flexibility contracts represent vested legal rights in owners or producers that could be altered by subsequent enactment, except that those legal rights could be enforceable against the Government for damages if for some reason funding were not made available during the 7-year period of the contract contemplated in the AMT Act. The ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of United States Winstar et al, 116 S. Ct. 2432 (1996) should serve as a precedent and should apply in the event there is an amendment to the Agricultural Market Transition Act prior to 2002 that could have the effect of breaching the contractual obligations of the Government to fulfill the provisions of the production flexibility contract. The Winstar case held that Federal bank regulations that implemented the 1989 Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) (Public Law 101-73, see particularly 12 U.S.C. 1464(t)) imposed new capital requirements on savings and loan associations in derogation of promises made in pre-1989 agreements that allowed financial institutions willing to take over failing institutions to use certain accounting devices to satisfy capital requirements and this constituted a breach of contract for which the Government was liable in damages. The United States in the Winstar case raised the ``unmistakability defense'' to the effect that a ``public or general'' sovereign act such as FIRREA's alteration of capital reserve requirements (that reversed the earlier permission of certain savings and loan institutions to use certain accounting devices) could not trigger contractual liability for the Government. However, the unmistakability defense or doctrine states that ``sovereign power, even when unexercised, is an enduring presence that governs all contracts subject to the sovereign's jurisdiction, and will remain intact unless surrendered in unmistakable terms.'' Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 148 (1982). The application of this doctrine turns on whether enforcement of the contractual obligation alleged would block the exercise of a sovereign power of the Government. U.S. versus Winstar Corp., supra. As opposed to attempts to bind Congress from enacting regulatory measures inconsistent with the contracts, the contracts in Winstar allocate or shift the risks incurred by the parties. The plaintiff Winstar did not assert that the Government could not change the capitalization requirements applicable to the plaintiff, but that the Government assumed the risk that where subsequent changes prevented the plaintiff from performing under the agreement that the Government would be held liable for financial damages. So long as such contract is reasonably construed to include a risk-shifting component that may be enforced without effectively barring the exercise of that power, the enforcement of the risk allocation raises nothing for the unmistakability doctrine to guard against, and there is no reason to apply it. United States versus Winstar, supra. Under the Production Flexibility Contract, risks are allocated the parties. As opposed to prior farm programs, the producers agree to accept the risk of fixed payments unrelated to national supply or established target prices in exchange for the Government's acceptance of the risk of less control over supplies of various types of agricultural commodities. As in Winstar, the issue does not turn on whether the Government can subsequently change the rules under which producers operate if they elect to participate in a program, the issue is whether enforcing the risks shifted among the parties will infringe upon the sovereign jurisdiction of the United States. Where changes in the Production Flexibility Contract by the Government result in a financial liability to the producer, the Government is liable to the producer for a breach of contract and damages. This liability does not infringe on the Government's sovereignty and does not violate the unmistakability doctrine. The Government in Winstar, supra, also asserted that under the sovereign acts doctrine, ``whatever acts the government may do, be they legislative or executive, so long as they be public and general, cannot be deemed specially to alter, modify, obstruct or violate the particular contracts into which it enters with private persons.'' The Court in the Winstar case held that the sovereign acts doctrine: * * * balances the Government's need for freedom to legislate with its obligation to honor its contracts by asking whether the sovereign act is properly attributable to the Government as contractor. If the answer is no, the Government's defense to liability depends on the answer to the further question, whether that act would otherwise release the Government from liability under ordinary principles of contract law. In answering the first question, the Court looked at whether the action by the Government having an impact on the public contract was merely incidental to the accomplishment of a broader government objective. The greater the Government's self-interest, the more suspect the claim that the private contractor bear the financial burden of the Government's action. In Winstar, the Court found that a substantial purpose of the Government's action was to eliminate the very accounting formula that the acquiring thrifts had been promised. Thus, the Government's self-interest was so substantial that the statute was not ``public and general'' act for purposes of the sovereign acts defense. Any changes to the statutory authority for Production Flexibility Contracts would no doubt follow the same analysis as that relied upon by the Court in Winstar. To the extent that the farm programs would be altered, it would be likely that the Government would have substantial self-interest in any relief it might obtain from risks allocated it under the contract. Most likely this would result in some legislative change to reduce the amount of money paid to producers. While such change would likely be for the ``public and general'' benefit, it would undercut the allocation of risks between the parties to the contract and as such, would substantially be in the Government's self-interest. Finally, the Government in Winstar asserted the defense of impossibility. To invoke the defense of impossibility, the Government would have to show that the nonoccurrence of regulatory amendment was a basis assumption of the contracts. That is the parties assumed that the statute on capitalization requirements would not change. As the Court notes, a change was both foreseeable and likely in that case. The Production Flexibility Contract states in the Appendix to Form CCC-478 (the Production Flexibility Contract) that if the statute on which the contract is based is materially changed during the period of the contract, CCC may require the producer to elect between modification of the contract consistent with the new provisions and termination of the contract. This statement itself is an acknowledgement that the Congress very well may change the Agriculture Market Transition Act prior to its expiration in 2002. Further, if Congress changes the program, it is reasonable and expected that the contracts would be modified accordingly. However, as was true with the plaintiff in Winstar case, producers have no desire to assert that Congress cannot change the underlying statute, but instead, may pursue a claim for breach of contract and damages where any legislative change results in changes to the contract and producers incur financial damages. The acknowledgment of possible legislative change to the Production Flexibility Contract should only serve to weaken any future Government defense of impossibility.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I have asked permission to revise and extend my remarks for the last time. Mr. Speaker, like others before me, I rise to voice my strong support for the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Act, and I also want to thank my chairman, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], who has been an outstanding leader in this effort, the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], a distinguished gentleman and friend, and that great athlete, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], for his help in regards to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I am interested in this because it contains a particular park designation, the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve Act, that will create the first and only unit of the national park system solely devoted to the preservation of the tallgrass prairie ecosystem. Mr. Speaker, like others have already stated on the floor, if the good Lord and certain Senators are willing, we will get this package through. I would urge my colleagues to contact everyone in the other body to that goal. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time for the last time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Senate Foreign Relations room in our U.S. Capitol, I joined the many friends and colleagues of Dr. Jerry Waters in paying tribute to an outstanding public servant and to wish him well upon his retirement. Jerry Waters, a native of St. Francis, KS, first came to Washington to work for Senator Jim Pearson. Prior to coming to our Nation's Capital, Jerry was a political science professor at Kansas State University. Jerry came to Washington with the intent of staying but 1 year but his devotion to and performance of duty was such that he stayed to his State's and Nation's benefit. Serving as administrative assistant to Jim Pearson, Jerry was responsible for hiring quality staff and one such staffer was the daughter of our former Governor and Kansas political legend, Alf Landon. Yes, we can thank Jerry Waters, in part, for Senator Nancy Kassebaum's outstanding service. Another former Waters' staffer is the current Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman. In his capacity as administrative assistant, Jerry played a key role in ensuring that agricultural policy was commensurate with the needs of both Kansas and our Nation's farmers. During this time, Dr. Jerry Waters became a recognized expert in agriculture and transportation public policy. After Senator Pearson retired, Jerry moved to the private sector as a consultant and has worked for the farmer-owned Farmland Industries System representing them and the farmers and consumers they serve in Washington. His expertise has resulted in sound agricultural policy accomplishment. Part of the reason that Dr. Jerry Waters has achieved significant success in our Nation's capital has been the fact he has never lost touch with Kansas. Some 30 years after coming to Washington, he still owns a farm in his hometown of St. Francis. Mr. Speaker, I also speak for many, many colleagues and friends-- people who have in their own right achieved success in Washington in saying that we have been fortunate to have had Jerry as a mentor, advisor, and friend. I am reminded of the true adage that there are no self made men and women in public service, that it is your friends who make you what you are. In this regard, Jerry Waters is a man who has always kept his word and whose integrity and keen sense of purpose have been an example to us all. He is a man of great institutional memory and knowledge buttressed by his love and respect for the Congress and the people we serve. On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, Jerry has been a close friend whose advice I have always solicited and from which I have always benefitted. I shall always remember with fondness and a sense of accomplishment the days when Jerry, Bill Kats of then-Congressman Bob Dole's office, Lester Rosen, of Congressman Garner Shriver's office and Charles Freburg of Congressman Mize's office and myself in Senator Frank Carlson's office, were the Kansas delegation administrative assistants. Jerry showed me the ropes just as he has for so many others in government, in academia, in the business community and in public service. He remains one of my dearest, longtime friends. I speak for all of his friends and colleagues in wishing he and Jan the very best during their retirement years.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation which is vital to the future health of the Nation's livestock and poultry industry in rural districts throughout this country. H.R. 2508, the Animal Drug Availability Act, is a noncontroversial, bipartisan bill that streamlines and significantly improves the process by which animal drugs are approved. The bill expands the types of studies FDA can accept as proof of a drug's efficacy; requires FDA and drug companies to agree to test protocols before a company submits a drug application for approval; eliminates time-consuming field investigations, unless they are the only way to prove a drug's efficacy; eliminates some efficacy testing when a company seeks to use two individually approved drugs in combination; creates veterinary feed directive drugs which increase veterinarian involvement in dispensing animal drugs; and eliminates much of the licensing paperwork for feed mills that dispense animal drugs. The bottom line: this bill is perhaps the most significant thing this Congress can do to help the livestock and poultry industry reduce their cost of production and become more competitive. The cumbersome and lengthy process of getting animal drug approvals from FDA has led to several U.S. animal drug companies setting up plants overseas. Passage of this bill will also help stem the flow of jobs--well paying jobs--from this country. I am pleased to finally get a chance to discuss and vote on this important piece of legislation and I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of its passage.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1720, the Government-Sponsored Enterprise Privatization Act of 1996. In particular, I am pleased that H.R. 1720 includes the privatization of the Student Loan Marketing Association, or Sallie Mae. Sallie Mae has fulfilled the mission of its Federal charter. However, as a for-profit, stockholder owned company, Sallie Mae wishes to continue to operate without the support of U.S. taxpayers and without restrictions from the U.S. Government. Sallie Mae's interest in privatization clearly shows that it remains committed to continuing its strong record in providing student loan servicing for hundreds of thousands of Americans. H.R. 1720 is an excellent example of how a properly managed Government program can use Federal resources to serve the American public and successfully make the transition to private business without Government assistance.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, as a cofounder and former chairman of the Rural Health Care Coalition, I rise in support of this bill. I thank Mr. Archer, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Goodling, and Mr. Hastert for their leadership and perseverance. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to H.R. 3103, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. This bill includes sensible, workable provisions to expand access to affordable health care insurance for America's families. This legislation is especially important to my constituents in Kansas. Ten percent of Kansans lack any form of health insurance. These folks are generally small business owners or self-employed farmers and ranchers. This bill takes several steps to bring relief to these individuals and their families by expanding their insurance options. first, this legislation will make health insurance portable. Under H.R. 3103, the 4 million Americans who are staying in their jobs just to maintain their health insurance benefits will finally be free to pursue other opportunities. This ``job lock'' is a real problem for not only the employer and the employee, but also for the economy. Today, too many working parents are afraid to pursue new opportunities, start a new career or become an entrepreneur because they don't want to lose the health insurance they now have. Second, this legislation will limit the preexisting condition requirements that currently prevent 21 million Americans from getting health insurance coverage. I have heard horror story after horror story about families that have lost everything just because their insurance company won't cover Dad with his heart condition or the new baby who was born with diabetes. Third, this legislation will make health insurance affordable. Individuals who lose coverage through their employer will now be able to purchase affordable health insurance on their own. This legislation will also bring some well-deserved relief by increasing the tax deduction for health insurance for self-employed individuals, including the small business owners, farmers, and ranchers in Kansas, from the current 30 percent to 80 percent. This increase in deductibility is something that my colleagues and I on the Rural Health Care Coalition have been working toward for years. Finally, this legislation takes the first step to make health insurance accountable through a limited medical savings accounts demonstration project. It's time that we all took an active role in the health care decisions that affect our daily lives and pocketbooks. Medical savings accounts will put families in control of their health care. In Kansas, which is home to over 65,000 small businesses, these MSA accounts provide the opportunity for individuals to choose where to spend hard-earned health care insurance dollars. My colleagues, the time has finally come. We have agreed on real reform that will get at the root of one of the most serious flaws in our health care system. I applaud Chairman Archer and all those who have worked tirelessly on this effort and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the conference agreement.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank my colleagues for their reluctant attention. Mr. Speaker, in a year that has been described by many as one of gridlock and finger-pointing and wheel-spinning and even-numbered year partisan rhetoric, we are about to achieve a remarkable accomplishment. This House and the Senate, and now finally the President, have responded to the American public. Simply put, this conference report represents real accomplishment, real welfare reform. We urged the President to sign this conference report. He has. There are good reasons why. Seventy-five percent of the food stamp reforms in this conference report represent the same things that were proposed by this administration. I do not care whether we are talking about budget savings, the work requirement, the program simplification, the tougher penalties for fraud and abuse, or keeping the program at the Federal level as we go through the welfare reform transition. We have tried to work with the administration. We have done that. The President will sign the bill. Mr. Speaker, this road has not been easy. We have been working in this House for 18 months. The very first hearing held by me in the Committee on Agriculture was on fraud and abuse, and the critical and urgent need for reform of the Food Stamp Program. The new Inspector General at the Department of Agriculture showed a videotape of organized crime members trading food stamps for cash, and eventually using that cash for drugs and guns. That tape made national news, and it confirmed the suspicions of many taxpayers and citizens. Following that hearing, our late colleague and dear friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, Bill Emerson, held four extensive hearings and formulated the principles that guided the reform that is now before us. First, the original Republican plan was to make sure that as we go through welfare reform, no one would go hungry, that we would keep a reformed Food Stamp Program as a safety net so food can and will be provided while States are undergoing this transition. Second, we wanted to eliminate as much paperwork and redtape and regulation as possible. We wanted to harmonize the welfare and the Food Stamp Program requirements. This bill does that. Third, having seen the program costs soar from $12 to $27 billion in 10 years, regardless of how the economy has performed, we wanted to take the program off of automatic pilot. We have done that. Fourth, the food stamps must not be a disincentive to work. In this bill, able-bodied participants, those from ages of 18 to 50 with no dependents, no kids, no children, only the able-bodied, these folks, less than 2 percent of those on food stamps, they must work in private sector jobs and not be rewarded for not working. Fifth, after hearing firsthand from the Inspector General, we tightened the controls on waste and abuse. We stopped the trafficking with increased and tough penalties. Mr. Speaker, these principles do represent real reform of the Food Stamp Program. All are incorporated in the conference agreement. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' I want to thank my colleagues for a tremendous team effort, more especially the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], more especially the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], more especially the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and more especially, underscored three times, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], who said the work we have accomplished is significant. We have true reform. We have a real welfare reform bill. But now the work really starts. This bill is not perfect. We have a lot ahead of us and a lot of challenges. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the conference report.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3900 which requires the USDA to publish its regulations governing the Conservation Reserve Program by September 1, 1996. Since its inception in 1985, the CRP has been a valuable tool for America's farmers. The CRP allows producers to protect fragile, highly erodible land from further deterioration by signing contracts to remove the land from production and place it under a managed conservation practice in exchange for fixed annual payments. While the CRP has achieved considerable reductions in wind erosion, it also provides excellent wildlife habitat for pheasants, quail, and other animals that inhabit the American plains. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the regulations governing the future of the CRP have been repeatedly delayed by the USDA. Farmers need to know all of the details of the Federal agricultural policies that affect their ability to make commonsense farm management and production decisions. For weeks I have been hopeful that the USDA would issue its policy guidelines regarding the future of the CRP so that farmers could have full knowledge of the rules that will govern their program participation before they signed up for the 7-year farm program. Unfortunately, in the more than 3 months that have passed since the new farm bill was enacted, USDA has provided only the barest of details. While the USDA has allowed CRP contract holders to extend their contracts for an additional year, farmers have no certainty regarding the long-term future of the CRP. With the world currently experiencing a grain supply shortage, many farmers worry that the CRP will be abandoned completely. At the same time, others worry that continuing to extend the CRP on a year-to-year basis discourages farmers from doing what they do best--feed a hungry and troubled world. Mr. Speaker, farmers need long-term guidance from the USDA so they can make crucial production decisions. The new farm bill required that the USDA publish its CRP regulations within 90 days of passage--they are already 2 weeks pass that deadline. With farmers already preparing to plant next year's wheat crop this fall, it is important that they know what the CRP rules will be both for next year and for the years to come. The CRP debate has dragged on for long enough. America's farmers deserved an answer long before now. They should not have to wait any longer. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], a former member of the House Committee on Agriculture, a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations, and a gentleman who has worked long and hard on the Delaney Clause. (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman of the Committee on Commerce, without whose effective leadership we would not be here today passing a critical reform on the Suspension Calendar.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1627, the Food Quality Protection Act, represents nearly a decade of effort to modernize the Federal pesticide regulatory system. Today the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Commerce will accomplish what many thought simply could not be done; that is, successful consideration on the floor of a pesticide reform bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been cosponsored by over 240 Members. This bill was made possible by a recognition from all sides of the debate that the proper use of safe pesticides is a critical element in protecting public health and ensuring a safe, abundant, and affordable food supply for our American consumers. To that end, H.R. 1627 does provide wide latitude for the Environmental Protection Agency to adapt its regulatory system to meet the constantly improving scientific information that is available. H.R. 1627 reforms the outdated Delaney clause to allow modern science, rather than arbitrary rules, to be used in evaluating pesticide risks and benefits. Just as important, because the new standard will be narrative rather than specific, this legislation will allow the regulatory process to be adjusted as scientific risks and benefit assessments simply progress. H.R. 1627 also provides additional incentives to register new, safer pesticides through new authorities that allow the EPA to streamline the pesticide registration procedures, including antimicrobial pesticides. In addition, the bill provides several incentives for interested parties who wish to pursue the registration of so-called ``minor use'' pesticides to ensure their availability in critical public health and agricultural use situations. This bill requires the Federal Government to fully consider any special risk to infants and children in regulatory actions. Specifically, when there is not enough reliable data on the risks to infants and children submitted to support the setting of a food tolerance, the bill provides the EPA administrator the flexibility to adjust a pesticide food tolerance to ensure that infants and children are indeed safe. In the National Academy of Sciences report, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children, the NAS highlighted the EPA's current practice of applying an additional tenfold safety factor to the established thousandfold safety margin in order to ensure safety for fetal development. In addition, the bill does provide the EPA the additional flexibility to apply a safety factor of less than ten-fold if the administrator determines such a level will be safe for infants and for children. To further protect infants and children, the bill requires the EPA, the Department of Agriculture, and the FDA to coordinate their efforts to collect accurate dietary information on the eating patterns of U.S. consumers of all ages to ensure the EPA has reliable data from which to make rational science-based regulatory decisions. H.R. 1627 also provides the EPA the resources necessary to continue the long-delayed reregistration of existing pesticides. Over the next 5 years the EPA administrator is authorized to collect up to $76 million in reregistration fees from the pesticide industry to help the agency meet the task of completing the reviewing of the data of pesticides registered prior to 1985. To ensure these funds are used only for the reregistration program and to enable Congress to meet its oversight responsibilities relative to the program goals, this legislation requires a stringent annual financial and performance audit of the monies collected and appropriated for the reregistration program. Everyone involved in this legislation had made significant compromises to reach the goal of passing a valuable reform, a critical reform of pesticide law. As we near the finish line, it is important to commend everyone involved on both committees in Congress and many others for the hard work that certainly brings us to this point. I personally would like to mention the contributions of our former colleague and the former Secretary of Agriculture, the late Edward Madigan; our former colleague, the late Mr. Bill Emerson of Missouri; the chairman emeritus of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas Mr. Kika de la Garza, the godfather of this entire effort; the gentleman from Texas, Mr. George Brown; the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stenhom, who has been a valuable help to us down through the years; the gentleman from California, Mr. Condit; the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bliley; Mr. Bruce, a former colleague from Illinois; Mr. Lehman, a former colleague from California, and Mr. Rowland, a former colleague from Georgia. The ultimate success of this reform will rest with the professionalism and the common sense of the Environmental Protection Agency. Congress will be watching closely as we try to implement these reforms. We will, to ensure that science, not emotion, is the basis of the pesticide regulation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time in coming. I am speaking of the amendment to FIFRA and the food and drug law. Today we have a package before this House that makes amendment to how we regulate pesticides, and it is on the suspension calendar. It is hard to believe that we have come all this way. Mr. Speaker, let me echo appreciation to all of those Chairman Roberts has mentioned as having worked on this effort. I would like to add only our former colleague from Iowa, Mr. Berkley Bedell, who diligently worked on this issue and had it almost to the brink of passage at one time. Mr. Speaker, I have no objections to the present bill. However, I have concerns about how it will be implemented. One of the biggest hurdles, if not the biggest, to getting where we are today has been the infamous or famous Delaney clause. Whatever one's perspective might be, the Delaney clause was a political outgrowth of the public's fear in the 1950's of the disease that was being increasingly diagnosed: cancer. Americans were facing this mysterious killer more frequently. Interestingly, at the same time medicine was improving and physicians were diagnosing more cancer. Today we have the capability to measure to parts per trillion. There is no justifiable reason for a test based on zero tolerance like we have with the Delaney clause. Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that all of the areas that have been covered by the chairman of the committee, minor use crop protection, antimicrobial pesticide registration reform, and public health pesticides, were all very diligently and studiously worked on by members of the Committee on Agriculture. I would like to commend our friends from the Committee on Commerce, the chairman, the ranking member, and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, for all the work they have done, and for their diligence in seeing that the needs of society are met to the extent that it is possible. I have always maintained, Mr. Speaker, that Americans enjoy the safest, least expensive, and most abundant food supply in the world and that legislation is the art of the possible. We are here with that, with what is possible. It is not perfect. This is what could be agreed upon. Probably in the future it might be further looked at, but for now it is the extent of what is possible, considering all of the areas of concern. To all of those from the Committee on Commerce, we commend them and appreciate their work and cooperation. Mr. Speaker, commending my colleagues from the Commerce Committee on the work that they have done, I yield half of my time, 10 minutes, to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], and I ask unanimous consent he be permitted to control that time. He was chairman of the subcommittee and did tremendous work, and now is the ranking member of that committee.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1627, as amended.