Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 2066, the Healthy Meals for Children Act of 1996. I know the Chairman of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, Mr. Goodling, has sought a remedy for the problems caused by the implementation of the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 and this bill represents that corrective action. When Congress passed and the President signed the 1994 amendments, we all believed that schools would be allowed to use a food-based system to meet the dietary guidelines for the school meals programs. Unfortunately, the regulations implementing the 1994 amendments did not provide this flexibility to schools. Local school employees involved in the planning and preparation of school meals work very hard to make sure that the meals are nutritious and good tasting. A meal not eaten provides no benefit to anyone. Their challenge is to balance good nutrition with what children will eat. The bill under consideration today provides for the flexibility and I am pleased to support it. When these regulations were proposed in 1994, a hearing was held in the Committee on Agriculture. Members of the committee made it clear that the proposed rules would tie the hands of local schools and impose financial hardships on these schools, especially those in rural areas. Despite the concerns expressed, the Department of Agriculture went ahead and finalized the rules. Since that time local schools have continued to express their concerns. Therefore it was necessary to bring a second bill to the House to ensure that local schools are provided with the flexibility that will allow them to prepare nutritious meals that meet the dietary guidelines. There is a practical case to be made that local schools administrators should be able to decide how best to meet the needs of children participating in the School Lunch Program. No Federal regulation can guarantee that a nutritious school lunch will be consumed by children in school. No school lunch, no matter how nutritious, improves the diets of children if that lunch is not eaten. This bill represents a commonsense approach to health and nutritious meals in our schools. Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the administration fully supports this bill and I urge all Members to support H.R. 2066.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill H.R. 2149, so as to eliminate the regulation by the Federal Maritime Commission [FMC] of manufactured and processed goods including many agricultural food and fiber products. As I understand it, existing maritime law permits ocean carriers to organize into consortiums, known in the trade as shipping conferences that may collectively fix their rates, set sailing schedules, and make other business arrangements. I am informed that the United States is the only country that maintains a government agency--FMC--to regulate ocean shipping. The apparent primary purpose of FMC is to collect and enforce thousands of transportation rates and prices--tariffs--and business contracts filed by ocean carriers and make them publicly available. The Transportation Committee states that a report prepared by the Department of Agriculture in 1993 found that a ``cartel premium'' attributable to conference market power amounts to some 18 percent of the cost of ocean transportation of manufactured or processed agricultural exports. The Committee on Agriculture for a number of years has enacted legislation urging the Secretary of Agriculture to expand on value- added--high value--processed products so that not only will the United States enhance its dollar value and volume of agricultural exports but also enhance rural development by giving jobs to our domestic work force by processing and adding value to our raw commodities and compete in foreign markets. However, to be competitive we need to diminish or eliminate that 18-percent cost of exporting U.S. value-added products and keep that advantage here in the United States to help our domestic farmers, agricultural industries and laborers. The following groups, among about 40 or more, that support this bill include American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest and Paper Association, American Frozen Food Institute, American Meat Institute, Calcat Ltd., Con Agra, Inc., Florida Citrus Packers, National Broiler Council, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Sun Diamond Growers of California, and Weyerhaeuser Co.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota. The biggest beneficiaries of public ocean transportation contracts are the foreign-dominated ocean shipping cartels. Public contracting as continued under the Oberstar amendment to my way of thinking would simply enhance the ability of these cartels to fix prices for the transportation of goods in the import and export trade. The data on ocean shipping confirms that over 85 percent of U.S. goods are carried aboard foreign vessels, and this amendment would, in my opinion, simply permit that to continue. Meanwhile, under the Shuster bill, the committee bill, we would save 18 percent of transportation costs, according to a Department of Agriculture report. I have got the report right here. Everybody interested in agriculture, everybody interested in rural America, everybody interested in the balance of payments benefits that agriculture provides, everybody who voted for a new change, a market- oriented farm policy, everybody who voted for freedom to farm, regardless of your personal opinion about all of the farm program policies, pay attention. The Department of Agriculture says: A cartel premium attributable to conference market power, the ability to set rates above the competitive level, amounts to some 18 percent of the cost of ocean transportation. Turn it around. Look at the benefit to our farm exports if we turn it around. The annual gain in agriculture revenues from increased exports resulting from lower shipping costs would produce an expected gain of $406 million, 8.1 percent of the total revenues, including more commodities, more markets. It would simply magnify the economic effect. I am quoting from the Maritime Policy and Agriculture Interests Impacts of the Conference System of the Department of Agriculture. My experience in the Marine Corps leads me to understand that there are very few merchant ships left that are registered in the United States. Now, think a minute. If you publicize the contracts that primarily benefit our foreign competitors by allowing them to estimate a U.S. exporter's shipping costs, that simply permits the foreign carriers to have a great advantage over our U.S. carriers. It is not only going to hurt them, it is going to hurt all of the exporters, all of the added value product exporters, and all we are trying to do in regard to agriculture today. I am informed by the distinguished chairman that U.S. shippers, especially the small shippers, support the bill without such an amendment. So I would urge Members, all members of the House Committee on Agriculture, all members of the various task forces on either side of the aisle, to oppose this amendment, and to support not only the U.S. business, but simply U.S. agriculture, who trade overseas. So support the U.S. farmer and the producers who really wish to enhance our agriculture exports. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Oberstar amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago today, the Nation was gripped by the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK. We looked on in shock and horror as rescue workers and members of the community tried valiantly to reach the victims still trapped in the rubble--victims who were young and old, victims who were somebody's child or parent, husband or wife, brother or sister, friend or colleague. The magnitude of the tragedy was incomprehensible, the sense of loss overwhelming. We were left, in the words of the Roman philosopher Virgil, with ``a grief too much to be told.'' As the hours and days passed, our grief continued to mount. Mixed with the grief was a sense of empathy and compassion so strong that it gave birth to courage and hope and a resolute spirit. We watched the faces of thousands of heroes as they reached out with gestures large and small. We knew as a community and as a nation that we would endure. Some 168 lives were lost that day, including the lives of 7 employees from the Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS]. A little over a month after the bombing, we paid tribute to the seven APHIS employees on the floor of this Chamber. Last year in this Chamber I paid tribute to Olen Bloomer, Jim Boles, Peggy Clark, Dick Cummins, Adele Higginbottom, Carole Khalil, and Rheta Long. I spoke of the lives they had led--good, productive, loving lives--and remembered their dedication to their work and their families. Today, we honor their memory and we remember as well the other victims, the survivors, and all the people whose lives were so sadly transformed by the events in Oklahoma.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to entertain a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. I would ask the sponsor of the just-passed Congressional Review Act of 1996, the gentleman from Illinois and chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary [Mr. Hyde], whether the bill, if signed by the President this week will apply to the Department of Agriculture's rules that will be promulgated under the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the conference report. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Missouri, ``Mr. Emerson, we love you, man.'' And to Mr. Pomeroy and Mr. Taylor and Mr. Volkmer, good friends of mine all, I have a lengthy, lengthy refutation as to why freedom to farm is not welfare, and how we have halved the budget in regards to agriculture and saved $10 billion. But I am just going to autograph what I have down here, and turn it in, and revise and extend. The Market Transition Payment and the Welfare Myth The political rhetoric: Currently within the agricultural community there are some who seem to be concerned with the appropriateness of federal payments--``market transition payments'' under the Agricultural Market Transition Act--for farmers during periods of high prices. Some even liken market transition payments to welfare. Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, in recommending a Presidential veto of the Balanced Budget Act, restated this position: . . . As we move to balance the budget, farmers should not receive windfall payments when market conditions are good. They should receive assistance when in greatest need--when prices are low, as provided for by the current structure of programs. . . . I have highlighted ``market conditions'' and ``low prices.'' This statement may reflect the Secretary's thinking, but is the statement accurate in the real world of agriculture? First, farm programs are not welfare and partisan statements equating farm programs with welfare do a disservice to farmers and ranchers. Check Webster's--Agriculture doesn't fit the definition of welfare: One of the most unfair arguments against farmers is to say that agriculture payments--of any kind--are welfare payments. Under current law, to receive ``welfare,'' whether it's food stamps or Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), an individual simply meets the definition of ``disadvantaged'' to receive government assistance. In total contrast, farmers work on their land, and receive a payment for agreeing to a variety of conditions. FIRST, farmers must adhere to environmental mandates--conservation compliance and wetlands requirements--in return for a federal payment. There is a clear exchange of beneficial environmental practices for benefits received by farmers in the program. Second, the federal payment helps to offset unfair trading practices under which farmers live. Farmers are at the mercy of many trade restrictions. Major markets in the Middle East such as Iran and Iraq are under export embargoes. Threats to continued trade with China also pose significant concern in American agriculture. And finally, due to federal assistance, U.S. farmers can ensure a stable and affordable food supply for American consumers. A federal payment is a small price for a national food supply that guarantees the basic staples of bread, meat and milk at the lowest prices in the world. What about ``high and low prices'' and farm income: Those who call a market transition payment ``welfare'' follow the basic proposition that Congress cannot justify paying farmers when prices are high because they would get an enormous ``windfall.'' For this scenario to work, farmers must be selling above average quantities of commodities at very high prices. But, does that often happen? The answer is no. Here's how it really works: Think of the basics of supply and demand: When supplies are tight, prices go up; when supplies are excessive, prices drop. Supply--tight or excessive--usually determines a windfall profit. Farmers receiving a windfall through a market transition payment during periods of high commodity prices, as Secretary Glickman indicates, depends upon whether farmers actually have a commodity to sell. Follow this example: Consider the two following scenarios that a wheat farmer could face: High prices: Wheat: $5.00 per bushel; average production: 15/bu./acre; Gross Revenue acre: $75/acre. Low Prices: Wheat: $3.00 per bushel; Average Production: 40 bu./acre; Gross Revenue/Acre: $120/acre. Who's right?: Under the current government program in the situation outlined above, the farmer should receive a payment in the year of relative low prices even though his income is higher. In fact, those who complain about giving a payment when prices are high cannot justify their view when you compare farmers' gross revenues. When you actually look at the real world facts, the rhetorically-popular ``welfare'' argument no longer hold up. Market transition payments allow farmers to manage their own destinies: A market transition payment gives the farmer responsibility for his own economic life. Just as farmers will need to look to the market for production and market signals, the Agricultural Market Transition Program will require farmers to manage their own finances to meet market swings. Government is out of the business of running the farm. Don't believe us--check with the economists: The economic consulting firm of Abel, Daft, Earley and Ward looked at the calculations and agreed. They said, ``variations in production more than offset variations in market price, usually in the opposite direction. While market prices typically are lower with a larger crop, the positive impact of an increase in crop size on crop value more than offsets the negative impact of a lower market price. And, the reverse is true as well. The increase in market price associated with a small crop is typically not sufficient to offset the negative effect a small crop has on crop value.'' How to avoid a $2 billion payback disaster: The facts prove that the market transition payment is NOT welfare for farmers. Indeed, it actually corrects a major flaw in the present target price system. High prices, but no crop, means farmers have to pay back their advance deficiency payments. Without a crop or federal payment, farmers have repeatedly called for disaster assistance in the past--which costs billions of dollars. That's why the market transition payment is a sound basis for the transition out of a 60-year-old government-run farm program. The key in looking at the policy options is to consider farm income, not high price. What about ``market conditions'': Market conditions involve much more than price. One ``market condition'' could be the circumstance of weather-related factors. The market transition contract will provide payments in lean years as well as in a year such as this when production is down in various regions of the country, but prices are strong. One thing is very clear: The market transition payment is not a welfare payment. the federal agricultural improvement and reform act is responsible to taxpayers 1. Average expenditures for commodity and export programs in this farm bill are significantly less than previous farm bills. Average expenditures for commodity and export programs (CCC expenditures): 1985 Act-$15.5 billion per year; 1990 Act- $10.6 billion per year; HR 2854-$6.7 billion per year. 2. Budget Certainty. Expenditures are capped so that ag program spending is no longer an open-ended entitlement. CBO is the 1985 farm bill would cost $55 billion over 5 years--it cost nearly $80 billion. The 1990 farm bill was supposed to cost about $41 billion-- instead it cost $56 billion. Under this bill there is budget certainty--expenditures will not exceed $47 billion on farm programs and ag. export promotion programs. 3. Payment limitation is reduced by 20 percent, to $40,000 from the current level of $50,000. 4. Part of the payments are really to compensate producers for the fact that deficiency payments have been capitalized in land values. The transition payments will buffer any shocks to land values that may come about as we move to a more market-oriented agriculture. 5. The Market Transition Payment recognizes the fact that high prices do not translate into high income levels. Often the reason prices are high is because farmers didn't have a crop and a high price times no crops does not equal high income. 6. Payments are based on 85 percent of each farm's former base acres and program yield multiplied by the per bushel payment. Estimated average payments are corn: 36 cents per bushel, wheat: 63 cents per bushel, upland cotton: 7.3 cents per pound and rice: $2.43 per cwt. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC, March 20, 1996. Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Although the Speaker declined to name members from the Committee on Resources as conferees on the House and Senate farm bills, both measures do contain provisions which fall within the Committee on Resources' jurisdiction. I am sending this letter to confirm our continued jurisdictional interest in these provisions and hope that you will take our views into consideration during the conference on S. 1541 and H.R. 2854. Senate bill (S. 1541) Section 313, Wetlands Reserve Program. Section 313 of the Senate bill amends the wetlands reserve program of the Food Security Act. As the primary successor in interest to the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, the Resources Committee received its jurisdiction over ``fisheries and wildlife, including restoration and conservation''. The Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee has successfully argued that the crucial role that wetlands serve as habitat for migratory waterfowl, their contribution to the nutrient base and habitat for many species of fish and wildlife (including endangered species) at critical stages in their development and their function in shoreline protection and flood protection all gave that Committee a strong jurisdictional interest in legislation affecting wetlands. The Merchant Marine Committee's jurisdiction over bills affecting wetlands, including those amending or affecting the Food Security Act, have long been recognized, with the Committee receiving sequential referrals on the wetlands provisions of the farm bills in both 1985 and 1990. The 1985 Food Security Act report (H. Rept. 99-272, Part II) states ``(t)he Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee's jurisdiction over fish and wildlife, including habitat, provides the basis for Committee jurisdiction over legislation affecting wetlands''. Most recently, the Merchant Marine Committee was also represented on the 1990 conference on the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act. Finally, the Resources Committee itself has received referrals of wetlands bills in the past (see H.R. 1203, a bill to promote the conservation of migratory waterfowl and to offset or prevent the serious loss of wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other essential habitat, referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in the 99th Congress). The changes proposed to the wetlands reserve program in section 313 of the Senate bill will enhance benefits for fish and wildlife while also recognizing landowner rights. We have no objection to including the measure in the conference report as long as our jurisdictional interests in this matter continue to be recognized. Section 545. Cooperative Work for Protection, Management, and Improvement of the National Forest System. The Committee on Resources has jurisdiction over ``forest reserves . . . created from the public domain''. This provision would affect the operation of these forests. With this understanding of our jurisdictional interest, however, we have no objection to having the provision included in the conference report. Section 554, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. This section establishes a $50 million Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program overseen by the Secretary of Agriculture. The program will provide payments to landowners to develop ``upland wildlife, wetland wildlife, threatened and endangered species, fisheries and other types of wildlife habitat approved by the Secretary.'' We are sympathetic to the policy underlying this measure, which is similar to provisions included in H.R. 2275, reauthorizing the Endangered Species Act of 1972, However, we also believe that, based on the arguments outlined above, the Committee on Resources would be the primary committee of jurisdiction should this provision be introduced as a separate bill. We have no objection to its inclusion in the conference report, but will fully exercise our jurisdiction over the implementation of the program in the future. Section 557, Clarification of Effect of Resource Planning on Allocation or Use of Water. Section 557 amends the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act to ensure that private property rights, including water rights, will be recognized and protected in the course of special use permitting decisions. The Committee on Resources shares jurisdiction over these laws based on its jurisdiction over ``forest reserves and national parks created from the public domain''. Section 557 would affect the management of National Forests created from the public domain. We agree with the policy underlying these amendments and would have no objection to including the provision in the conference report with this recognition of our shared jurisdiction. Section 824, Aquaculture Assistance Programs. The Committee on Resources enjoys jurisdiction over aquaculture, as outlined in the discussion below. The amendments made by this section to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 implement the National Aquaculture Act referenced below for the Department of Agriculture. Although we prefer that all aquaculture activities take place as part of the larger aquaculture plan developed under the National Aquaculture Act, the amendments made by this section are acceptable and we have no objection to including this provision in the final conference report. Section 872, Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center. This provision is a slightly modified version of H.R. 33, a bill introduced in the 104th Congress by Congresswoman Lincoln to transfer a fish laboratory in Arkansas from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture. The bill was referred solely to the Committee on Resources, and passed by the House of Representatives on December 18, 1995, by voice vote under Suspension of the Rules. With this understanding of our jurisdiction, we have no objection to including this measure in the conference report, with one change. We noticed after passage in the House that the bill contains a typographical error: it refers to ``station and stations''; it should be ``station or stations'' to execute properly. Section 873, National Aquaculture Policy, Planning and Development. This section amends the National Aquaculture Act of 1980. The bill creating that Act (H.R. 20, 96th Congress) was referred originally to the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. I was an original cosponsor of the measure. After it was reported, it was sequentially referred to the Committee on Agriculture. The reauthorization of the law in 1984 was provided for in H.R. 2676 (98th Congress); the referral pattern is the same. The law was again reauthorized in 1985 as part of the Food Security Act of 1985, which incorporated the National Aquaculture Act reauthorization measure H.R. 1544, a bill referred originally to Merchant Marine and sequentially to Agriculture. Finally, the Act was reauthorized in 1990 in the Food Security Act of 1990. As stated earlier, the Merchant Marine Committee received a sequential referral of the 1990 and 1985 farm bills, including a referral of sections of the bills dealing with aquaculture. In addition, in the 103rd Congress, Congressman Studds introduced H.R. 4853, which amended the National Sea Grant College Program Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act to enhance marine aquaculture in the United States. This bill was referred solely to the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Mr. Studds also introduced H.R. 4854, which amended the National Aquaculture Act of 1980; that bill was jointly referred to the Merchant Marine and Agriculture Committees. Finally, in the 103rd Congress, Congresswoman Lambert introduced H.R. 4676, a bill which looks remarkably similar to Section 873. This bill was also jointly referred to Merchant Marine and Agriculture Committees. It is very clear that the Committee on Resources has a substantial jurisdictional interest in aquaculture. Section 873 makes radical changes to the National Aquaculture Act, including changing the definition of ``aquaculture'' to exclude private ocean ranching of Pacific salmon in a State where such salmon is prohibited by law. In addition, the section adds a definition of ``private aquaculture'' to include the activities of ``the Federal Government, any State or local government, or any Indian tribe recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.'' Most importantly, the amendments to the National Aquaculture Act strips the co-equal decision making authority of the Secretaries of Interior, Commerce and Agriculture in developing Federal aquaculture policy, and gives this authority to the Secretary of Agriculture, with a mere consultative role for the other Secretaries. In short, if adopted, these proposed amendments would cede authority for all forms of aquaculture, both onshore and offshore, to the Department of Agriculture. This is a major policy departure from the original Act, In the 1980 law, it is clear that all three Departments will have equal status in developing policy, regulations and the continuing assessment of aquaculture in the United States. In fact, the Act authorizes equal funding for the three Departments for Fiscal Years 1991, 1992 and 1993. While changes to the National Aquaculture Act may be warranted, we have not addressed this issue during the 104th Congress. Therefore, until the Committee on Resources has had an opportunity to examine the need for change in United States aquaculture policy and these specific changes, we ask that you drop this provision from any conference agreement at this time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson]. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], a valued member of the committee.

Mr. ROBERTS. As the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary may know, we in the conference on H.R. 2854 did not contemplate such prompt enactment of the congressional review bill. I would inform the chairman that H.R. 2854 requires that the Secretary of Agriculture, within 45 days of enactment, offer market transition contracts available to eligible producers. These contracts must not be further delayed, or they will not be effective for the 1996 planting season. Moreover, these contracts are worth billions of dollars, and they are certainly going to qualify as major rules under the Congressional Review Act. Would the chairman agree that these major rules are the type that are contemplated by his committee as qualifying for the emergency exemption available to the President?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske]. (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman emeritus of the Committee on Agriculture for yielding to me. Note for my colleagues in the House, I know the hour is late, but note that I said the chairman emeritus of the House Committee on Agriculture. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Kika de la Garza, is not the ranking member. He has been our leader, and in words that I cannot describe, the real chairman emeritus of the committee. The fourth farm bill. He has seen us through the despair and the farm crisis days of the 1980's. He has seen us during unprecedented good times in the modern miracle of agriculture. He is without question the international secretary of state of agriculture. He has led the committee with comity, with leadership, with decency and always with a revering institutional memory of our committee. I think it is time that the House of Representatives rise and a thank you and a tribute to Kika de la Garza. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Speaker, I accept your ovation on behalf of all of those who were the wind beneath my wings when we flew. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I thank all of my colleagues, and one final time, let me say that a long time ago I went on a submarine. I asked the commander how long he could keep that submarine underwater. We knew that the other side knew where our troops were, where our ships were, where our planes were. The only thing the other side did not know was where that submarine was under the ice cap. Because of this deterrent peace and democracy came out the winner throughout the world. When I asked the commander how long, he said, ``As long as I have food for my crew.'' Mr. Speaker, it was farmers and ranchers of America for whom we worked tonight that brought the peace, that brought democracy, that made us the leader in the world we are today, and I dedicate this, my last words, to them who have kept us fed--the best fed people in the world. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report on H.R. 2854. I do this with the recognition that this conference report is not perfect. Most legislation that we pass in Congress is not perfect. As I have said before, legislation is the art of the possible, and what is possible at this moment may not be possible 1 hour from now. However, as with any legislation, we as elected representatives must evaluate and decide whether or not, in its entirety, a specific piece of legislation addresses the concerns of our constituents. I have decided that this bill does just that. When the Agriculture Committee started the legislative process on H.R. 2854 we were very much divided, not only along regional lines, as most farm legislation is, but also along partisan lines. I am glad to report that the partisan differences have disappeared and we were able to come together as a body to do what is best for American agriculture. When we started this process, I had three major areas of concern. First was the lack of recognition that agriculture has contributed more to deficit reduction than any other major entitlement program--and continues to do so. Yet, we were being asked to cut more than any other sector. This bill saves over $2 billion from the December baseline, and we are proud of the fact that agriculture is the only entitlement program to enact real budget deficit reduction this Congress. Clearly, agriculture has more than met its responsibility to budget deficit reduction. Indeed, with this bill, agriculture--once again-- continues to contribute more than its fair share to budget deficit reduction. Once again, agriculture leads the way to a balanced budget. My second concern was centered on the lack of a safety net for farmers and therefore for consumers. Let everyone understand, to the extent that there is volatility in commodity prices, consumers will pay. We tried to design agricultural programs in the past that would ameliorate wide fluctuations. Were the programs perfect? No. Is this program perfect. No. However, this bill does go a long way in addressing flexibility and commodity distortions. Still, I am concerned that the loan rates may be too rigid in times of low prices. We are able to maintain the 1949 Act as permanent law. Although most would not advocate implementing the 1949 Act, it is important in that it reaffirms our future commitment to farmers and it will give us the impetus needed in 7 years to actively address agricultural programs. Frankly, I am concerned about the political ability to maintain these guaranteed contracts in times of high prices or record farm income. However, I must trust that future Congresses will have the wisdom to do what is best for agriculture. My third concern was that the House bill failed to address the totality of circumstances in rural America. Gone is the time when we as policymakers could rely on farm programs alone to provide rural development. The country is much more complex than that today. People need telecommunications and business and industrial development in addition to the very basic infrastructure development of water and waste water facilities. The Fund for Rural America goes a long way in addressing these rural development needs. By providing additional money for research it provides resources for the future of agriculture. It is through research that we will maintain our status as the premier food production system in the world. In addition, by reauthorizing the nutrition programs we ensure that our less fortunate neighbors are not left out. To those who want welfare reform, reauthorizing the programs for 2 years still allows us to do what we need to do to get people to self-sufficiency while at the same time providing certainty to the beneficiaries of the continuation of the programs. Once again, I support this bill. On the whole, it addresses my concerns regarding rural America, and I am hopeful that it will meet the needs of American agriculture and our Nation as we move into the 21st century. To the extent that problems arise during the next 7 years, I am confident that corrective action can be taken to address any such problems. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders]. (Mr. SANDERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk Management and Specialty Crops. (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte]. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was give permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley]. (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, the gentleman is absolutely correct. The intention of this subparagraph is for the NASA Administrator and the Secretary of Agriculture to help the commercial remote sensing industry better meet the needs of the agricultural community through development of new pre- commercial remote sensing technologies and interpretive tools. That way, we will ensure a steady steam of services and products that benefit American agriculture without adding to government expenditures or making American farmers dependent on the provision of government services. The EOCAP (E-OH-CAP) program has the most expertise in bringing these diverse requirements and capabilities together.

Mr. ROBERTS. You are correct. That is not the intention of this language. There are excellent capabilities within NASA and the private sector to use remote sensing data for crop forecasting, precision agriculture, and projecting food yield. We do want to find innovative ways of bringing these capabilities to the benefit of the American farmer. Under Subparagraph (b), NASA and the Secretary of Agriculture should work with the private sector to teach farmers how to obtain and use remote sensing data from commercial data providers for the purposes you mentioned. The NASA Administrator or the Secretary of Agriculture should not interpret this to mean that they are to provide farmers with remote sensing data that the private sector is making available on the market.

Mr. ROBERTS. The gentleman has hit the nail on the head again. This subparagraph is intended to urge the NASA Administrator to provide to the Secretary of Agriculture remote sensing data or interpretative tools that it develops under its normal activities, if and when such data and tools may be helpful in understanding the supply and demand for food and fibers. This is not intended to place any requirements for programs or research efforts on the NASA Administrator that add to NASA's current responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], the coauthor of the Freedom to Farm Act. (Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], who has been such a help to us on the environmental section of the bill. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard], a valued member of the committee. (Mr. ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 the conference report on H.R. 2854 just passed.