Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, obviously the rules implementing the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act will have a large economic impact on the agricultural community and farmers. I ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, if the Department of Agriculture were to issue major rules under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, will they be held up for 60 calendar days by the Congressional Review Act?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The House has before it today a historic conference report, H.R. 2854, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. I call it historic because the Committees on Agriculture have produced a farm bill that represent a major departure from the past and a bold plan in regard to the future. Mr. Speaker, I have some 16 pages of very pertinent comments in regard to the Freedom to Farm concept that we have passed, but I am going to revise and extend my remarks and we are going to hope to try to conclude this. The Senate has passed the similar conference report 74 to 26, and the reason that we are trying to expedite this bill is to get it to the President as fast as possible. We have assurance from the Secretary of Agriculture that the President will sign it, and farmers have been waiting and waiting and waiting. And so as soon as we conclude this debate, we will try to make it just as short as possible to accommodate not only every farmer and rancher of America, but my colleagues here who I know wish to go home. Mr. Speaker, the House has before it today an historic conference report--H.R. 2854--the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. I call it historic because the Agriculture Committees have produced a farm bill that represents a major departure from the past and a bold plan for the future. Embodied in the Conference Report before us today is what is commonly referred to as the Freedom to Farm concept that I, along with Congressman Barrett of Nebraska, introduced last August. Freedom to Farm was developed after the Committee conducted 19 field hearings and traveled over 60,000 miles last spring listening to over 10,000 farmers, ranchers, and the agribusiness community. The original New Deal farm programs, over 60 years, ago were based on the principal of supply management. Control supply and raise prices. Over the last 20 years the principal justification for the programs has been that farmers receive federal assistance in return for setting aside a portion of their acreage. That assistance was largely in the form of deficiency payments to compensate farmers for prices below a government-set target price for their production. Today that system has collapsed as an effective way to deliver assistance to farmers. Worldwide agricultural competition usurps markets when we reduce production. World demand (along with the Conservation Reserve Program) has tightened supplies so that there have been no set-asides in wheat for five years--and none are projected in the foreseeable future, eliminating that justification for the programs. In short, the supply management rationale not only fails under close scrutiny by the many critics of agriculture policy, it has enabled our competitors to simply increase their production by more than we ``set aside,'' thereby causing significant impact on American farmers through lost market shares. The budget cuts of the last ten years have produced greater and greater bureaucratic controls on farmers. In fact, decoupling of the payments from production actually occurred ten years ago when Congress froze payment yields to save money. In 1990 the concept of ``unpaid flex acres'' was introduced to further weaken and devalue the programs in a budget-cutting move. For the last ten years, in effect, Congressional farm policy has been driven almost completely by budget reduction, and the 1995 debate reaffirmed the budget as the driving force for program policy. Most in the agricultural community have come to the realization that annual set-asides are counter-productive and only encourage our competitors to plant more and steal market share. However, to eliminate the Secretary of Agriculture's reliance on set-asides would cost either the taxpayers or the farmers $6.6 billion under the present farm program according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The Freedom to Farm Act [FFA] was born of an effort to create a new farm policy from an entirely new perspective. Acknowledging that budget cuts were inevitable, FFA sets up a new set of goals and criteria for farm policy; Get the government out of the farmers' fields; return to farmers the ability to produce for the markets, not government programs; provide a predictable and guaranteed phasing down of federal financial assistance. By removing government controls on land use, FFA effectively eliminates the No. 1 complaint of farmers about the programs: Bureaucratic redtape and government interference. Complaints about endless waits at the county office would end. Hassles over field sizes and whether the right crop was planted to the correct amount of acres would be a thing of the past. Environmentalists should be pleased that the government will no longer force planting of surplus crops and monoculture agriculture. Producers who want to introduce a rotation on their farm for agronomic reasons will be free of current restrictions. Allowing farmers to rotate their crops will allow them to reduce the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer. This sample fact makes this bill the most ``green'' or environmentally friendly farm bill in my memory. Under FFA, farmers can plant or idle all of their acres at their discretion. The restrictions on what they can plant are greatly reduced. Response to the market would assume a larger role in farmer planning. Divorcing payments from production (a process already begun when yields were frozen in 1985) will end any pressure from the government in choosing crops to pursue. All production incentives in the future should come from the marketplace. 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. Some of my colleagues have expressed reservations about making high payments during period of high prices. First, the payments will not be high. You can't cut the amount of money we have cut out of agriculture spending over the last 20 years and still have ``high'' payments. No farmer is likely to take his market transition payment and retire. Farmers will continue to farm. Second, under FFA, the payments made to producers must be looked at from a new perspective. It is a transition to full farmer responsibility for his economic life. Just as farmers will need to look to the market for production and marketing signals, the FFA will require that farmers manage their finances to meet price swings. It is true that when prices are high, farmers will receive a full market transition payment. It is equally true that if prices decline, farmers will receive no more than the fixed market transition payment. That means the farmer must manage all his income, both market and government, to account for weather and price fluctuations. In short, the FFP authorizes Transition Payments to farmers--as opposed to the current program's deficiency payments--to serve as a form of compensation as we move U.S. agriculture from an economy heavily influenced by the federal government to one in which the government's role is substantially reduced and the primary influence is the market place. The old program provided market insulation for each bushel of production, but that system is collapsing under the weight of budget cuts. The FFA enhances the farmer's total economic situation--in fact, FFA results in the highest net farm income over the next 7 years of any of the proposals before Congress. This allows the farmer to become accustomed to saving when times are good and using those savings when times are tough. With government assistance declining, it is imperative that producers assume total responsibility for their economic futures. In the years that prices are strong and the farmer receives a payment, it will be his personal responsibility to save that money for the bad year or pay off debt so he can weather the bad years. The severest critics of farm programs at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Economist, and a host of regional newspapers have hailed FFA as the most significant reform in ag policy since the 30's. Many congressional critics have also decided that FFA represents the kind of reform they can support. If the ``welfare'' charge was to be leveled, it should have come from this corner. Instead, they believe FFA is the kind of reform that is needed. Nearly every agricultural economist who has commented on FFA has supported it structure and its probable effect on farmers and the agricultural sector. The only people who are worried about it being classed as ``welfare'' are those populists who want to keep the status quo, some farm groups and others who are supportive of the old farm programs. Agriculture is now at a crossroads. It can either sink deeper into government controls and rapidly sagging government support, or it can strike out in a new direction that at least holds out the prospect of an assisted transition to the private marketplace. H.R. 2854 and the Freedom to Farm Act is that new direction and Congress needs to seize it. Never before has a farm program proposal enjoyed such broad and diverse support as this one. From the Ivory Towers of academia and the think tanks to the editorial board rooms of our nation's newspapers to a broad spectrum of farm, commodity and agribusiness groups, support for this proposal is strong. Most importantly, Freedom to Farm enjoys widespread support among individual farmers across the country who are fed up with convoluted government programs, and exploding government debt. The following groups or individuals have endorsed either the Freedom to Farm Act or that concept as contained in H.R. 2854. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the record at this point a list of groups, organizations, and newspapers who have endorsed the Freedom to Farm concept: farm and trade organizations American Farm Bureau Federation, National Corn Growers Association, National Grain Trade Council, National Grain & Feed Association, American Cotton Shippers, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Iowa Corn Growers Association, Iowa Cattleman's Association, Kansas Farm Bureau, Kansas Association of Wheat Growers, Kansas Bankers Association, Kansas Grain & Feed Association, Kansas Fertilizer & Chemical Association, North Dakota Grain Growers Association, the Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers, the National Turkey Federation, the National Sunflower Association, National Food Processors' Association, Agricultural Retailers Association, American Feed Industry Association, American Frozen Food Institute, Biscuit & Cracker Manufacturers' Association, National Oilseed Processors Association, Millers' National Federation, and the Coalition for a Competitive Food and Agricultural System (representing 126 members). public interest organizations and representatives U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Citizens Against Government Waste; John Frydenlund--The Heritage Foundation; Paul Beckner--Citizens for a Sound Economy; David Keating-- National Taxpayers Union; Grover Norquist--Americans for Tax Reform; Fran Smith--Consumer Alert; Ed Hudgins--The Cato Institute; Jonathan Tolman--Competitive Enterprise Institute. a sampling of newspaper endorsements Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Des Moines Register, USA Today, Dallas Morning News, Chicago Tribune, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Denver Post, Kansas City Star, Wisconsin State Journal, The Daily Oklahoman, The Wichita Eagle, The Indianapolis News, The Hartford Courant, The Louisville Courier Journal, Washington Times, The Garden City Telegram, The Manhattan (KS) Mercury. Also, Feedstuffs, Farm Journal, New England Farmer. economists Prof. Willard W. Cochrane, University of Minnesota, Director Agricultural Economics, USDA, Kennedy Administration; Dr. Lynn Daft, Abel, Daft, Earley & Ward International, Agricultural Counselor, White House, Carter Administration; Dr. Bruce Gardner, University of Maryland, Assistant Secretary for Economics, USDA, Bush Administration; Dr. Dale Hathaway, National Center for Food & Agricultural Policy, Under Secretary for Economics, USDA, Carter Administration; Dr. Robert Innes, University of Arizona, Council of Economic Advisors, Clinton Administration; Dr. D. Gale Johnson, University of Chicago; Dr. William Lesher, Russell and Lesher, Assistant Secretary for Economics, USDA, Reagan Administration; Dr. Lawrence W. Libby, University of Florida; Dr. Don Paarlburg, Purdue University, Special Assistant, President Eisenhower, Director of Agriculture Economics, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, USDA, Nixon- Ford Administrations; Dr. Robert Paarlburg, Wellesley College and Harvard University; Dr. C. Ford Runge, University of Minnesota; Dr. John Schnittker, Schnittker Associates, Under Secretary of Agriculture, USDA, Johnson Administration; Mr. Daniel A. Sumner, University of California--Davis, Assistant Secretary for Economics, USDA, Council of Economic Advisers, Bush Administration; Dr. Robert L. Thompson, Winrock International, Assistant Secretary for Economics, USDA-- Reagan Administration; Dr. Luther Tweeten, The Ohio State University; and Dr. Barry Flinchbaugh, Kansas State University. Clearly the support for the concept of Freedom to Farm is widespread. But this bill is more than just Freedom To Farm. There are other major reforms contained in this package. This bill reforms the dairy industry. It instructs the Secretary to reduce the number of milk marketing orders in the nation. It phases out the price support. This bill provides regulatory relief for farmers in terms of conservation compliance and wetlands by injecting a little common sense into the process. This bill has a very strong trade title. It has strong embargo protection language that reminds the President we can't have a market- oriented farm policy and allow the State Department to destroy those markets through foreign policy embargoes. The American farmer remembers the Soviet Grain Embargo of 1980--that nearly wiped out a generation of farmers. We can't go down that road again and this bill makes it more difficult for a President to choose that path. This bill also contains the Commission on 21st Century Agriculture. As I have alluded to, this is a transition bill. But many farmers have raised the question of a transition of what? This bill charges the Commission to look at where we have been and where we should head and report to Congress on the appropriate role of the Federal government in production agriculture after 2002. This bill also authorizes existing research programs for two years while Congress can undertake an extensive review of the $1.7 billion we spend on agricultural research. The House Agriculture Committee has sent out 57 questions to the research community stakeholders asking them for their guidance and input. On Wednesday, we began the hearing process that will hopefully lead to reform legislation that moves agricultural research in the direction of helping our farmers compete in a global marketplace against very tough competitors. This bill takes a small stab at reforming the way USDA goes about buying its computers. In the past, the USDA through the Commodity Credit Corporation has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on computers and information systems, often without very much Congressional oversight. The result has been the various agencies of the USDA all have different computer systems with little ability to communicate. Several years ago the USDA embarked upon Infoshare supposedly to better manage its computer and information systems. The Clinton administration abandoned that and is proposing to spend $175 million next year on yet another computer purchasing extravaganza. This bill attempts to get a Congressional grip on those purchases and make them subject to greater Congressional review and accountability. This bill reforms and streamlines the current rural development system by establishing the Rural Community Advancement Program [RCAP], which authorizes the Secretary to provide grants, direct and guaranteed loans and other assistance to meet rural development needs across the country. The new program provides greater flexibility, state and local decision making and a simplified, uniform application process. In summary, this bill is truly reform. It moves agricultural program policy into the 21st Century. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 393, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2854) to modify the operation of certain agricultural programs.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following script written by Mr. Bradley Areheart, State winner of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. Mr. Areheart is a junior at Emporia High School in Emporia, KS and plans a career in medicine or politics. He was sponsored by the VFW Post 180 in Emporia. The contest theme this year was ``Answering America's Call.'' Bradley has done a wonderful job of capturing the sense of duty that each of us has toward our fellow Americans and toward our future generations. I encourage each one of my colleagues to read Bradley's message and take his suggestions to heart. Answering America's Call It's 2:00 in the morning and a lady clutches her heart as if struck! A heart attack! She staggers to the phone and frantically dials the numbers 9-1-1. The police dispatcher's voice comes across clearly but in a lethargic sounding tone. The lady, gasping, screams, ``Help me! Help me! I've had a heart attack! Get someone out here!'' ``Wait right there; I'm going to put you on hold,'' is the dispatcher's reply as she picks up another line. A frantic call, put on hold by an apathetic operator. Important? Yes, and that call is not unlike the call being made today. A call of far greater importance to everyone in the United States. That call is America's plea for the future; we have several options as we hear that call. We can answer immediately, ignore it, or just like the apathetic operator, put it on hold. However, in my mind, we have only one clear option. If we are to be responsible, caring citizens, we must answer America's call. Former Secretary of State Cordell Hull said, ``I am certain that however great the hardships and the trials which loom ahead, our America will endure and the cause of human freedom will triumph.'' How truly this reflects the time since the foundation of our nation. In the 1700's America sounded a call for freedom from oppression so 50 brave Americans answered this call and signed the Declaration of Independence. The early part of this century saw America facing the perils of the depression and Franklin Roosevelt rose to meet the call by instilling hope and providing employment. In 1941, when the Japanese bombed our ships in Pearl Harbor, courageous Americans answered the call to arms and continued to fight until the Japanese surrendered. Indeed, history is filled with stories of how Americans have always met their country's call. But what if these calls had been left unanswered or put on hold? What would become of them? And more importantly, what would become of our country? We cannot be half-hearted and we haven't been. We confront situations like a raging bull who has his eyes fixed only on the matador. And that's how things get done--full force? America answers the call because of patriotic citizens and leaders who see a light at the end of the tunnel. America will continue to answer the call because of compassion, pride, and love of country. I am a youth of today, but a leader of tomorrow. I face certain responsibilities: the responsibility of speaking up for what's right, setting an example, and a willingness to fight for my country. But currently, America's call is for the future. A call that is widespread and impossible to ignore. It's a call to return to basic values and truths that have always made America so great. The call is for safer streets, moral integrity, and family values. Former president Dwight Eisenhower said that ``the problems of America are the family problems multiplied a million fold.'' And isn't that evident in today's society? As tomorrow's leaders, my generation must answer the call to become responsible, moral, intelligent, and patriotic citizens. The ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not just empty words and must be stressed for all citizens. We cannot accept the attitude ``It doesn't matter how I act; I'm just one person.'' Instead, we must share the feelings of so many Americans who say'' ``I love my country; I sincerely care about its future.'' That attitude must now direct all of us. There's an African proverb that says ``it takes an entire village to raise a child.'' The time has come for all of us in the village to accept responsibilities. You see, we can determine needs and become catalysts for change. America's future demands the commitment of everyone to not only hear, but also answer America's call. Whether it be a call to arms or a call to peace. Today's call is not an emergency 911 situation because America maintains her greatness at home and abroad. Our commitment must be to maintain that greatness and preserve our freedoms and liberties for future generations. I want to make sure that America is never like the woman making the 911 call, who despite her efforts to get help, is ignored. When my generation answers the call to become responsible citizens, we will be there to be counted. I promise my contributions by pursuing higher education, voting, and maintaining my morals and integrity. When everyone in my generation follows this lead, we will truly be answering America's call.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the managers may have until midnight Monday, March 25, 1996, to file the conference report on H.R. 2854, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2854) to modify the operation of certain agricultural programs, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota, not only for his motion to instruct, but for his leadership in regard to the continuation of an outstanding program, the conservation reserve program. The gentleman has essentially described the House position, and the gentleman has very eloquently stated the positive aspects of this program. I want all Members to understand that every member of the Committee on Agriculture is supportive of his motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hostettler]. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, we can probably discuss the baseline, which, to all listening and watching this debate, is not what Cal Ripken runs around, and we can run around our own baselines in regards to the budget, if we so choose. But let me simply say that when the gentleman brings that up, I am always interested in the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] and others on that side who have indicated that we are really cutting all of these funds for agriculture and we are making a significant contribution to the deficit. Of course, you are also complaining that we are spending too much and also at the wrong time and with the wrong folks. So you are trying to have it, I guess, both ways. But we are losing $8 billion, already did, in the first baseline, and we would lose another 6, and that is the money available to agriculture in March if we do not move and pass a bill. Somewhere we are going to save about $5.6 billion in this ag budget, which is our contribution to a balanced budget. That adds up, if we do not move and pass the Freedom to Farm Act to guarantee these market transition payments, to about $20 billion. Now, you know, my colleagues across the aisle have given many, many speeches, as I have, on how much we have given in agriculture. But then when we find out that we end up with policy rubble on our hands with the continuation of the current policies, they are strangely silent. This bill locks up more farm-income farmers and still meets our budget responsibilities than any other bill. We are simply redebating the issue. We do not need to do that. I know Members want us to bring this to a conclusion. So I rise in opposition to the bill. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would simply point out to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge], who is a very valued member of the House Committee on Agriculture, that had the President not really vetoed the balanced budget, we would have a farm bill months ago. I understand that there are some concerns about structure of the farm bill. But in terms of the timeliness, and we all know it is time- sensitive, that that has been a problem. To my good friend from Texas, I understand the concern in regard to oil seeds. That is one of the few diversified crops that we have on the Great Plains. It is a burgeoning crop. It is one we want to move toward. In the Senate bill there is $132 million dedicated to that purpose, but there is a cap on that loan to prevent any further budget hemorrhaging. Perhaps when this bill goes to the Senate, we can accommodate that in some respect Let me say again that I think everybody on the committee, if not everybody in the Congress, is supportive of the very valuable rural development programs that have been described, and the chairman, the former chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], has been a champion in this respect, as has the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], who has just done an outstanding job in that regard in the past. But this is $3.5 billion, again. If this substitute passes, why, we are, you know, we are looking at a bill that will be over the December baseline for agriculture. I do not know how you bring a bill to the floor of the House and if it is over budget and over the baseline. I do not know how you pass it. These are many fine programs. I would say that in the Senate, again, the Senate has committed $300 million for a fund for rural America for 3 years. You know that that is going to be extended for the next 4. So that is $700 million. I think it would be appropriate when we get to conference to take a look at that. So, from the standpoint of cost in terms of the $3.5 billion, and once again using CCC moneys that historically go to farm programs as opposed to rural development programs, we must oppose the bill.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] a valued member of the committee.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I have indicated, I rise in opposition to the amendment, basically for three reasons. One is in reference to the oilseed or the proposed oilseed loan program. The Senate version of this added $132 million to the cost of their farm bill proposal. I do not know what the CBO estimate is of the gentleman's amendment. But I will move on to two other considerations. This amendment strikes provisions that repeal a multitude of what I think are outdated statutes, as they refer to agriculture. We are talking about something here called permanent law or permanent agriculture law of either the 1938 or the 1949 farm bills. They have not been used for all practical purposes for decades. With a few exceptions, which our bill does recognize, these statutes really represent farm policy that is woefully outdated. It simply does not apply to the modern-day world of agriculture. I think we need to clean up the agriculture statute and get rid of these policies and provisions out of date, out of sync with today's markets and farm management systems. So for that reason we oppose the amendment. I want to make it clear since Secretary Glickman, a good friend and a colleague, a former member of the House Committee on Agriculture, has pointed out that we in no way, we have to pass a farm bill, we in no way could go back to the 1949 act, and we all know that, and so I asked the Secretary, and I have asked the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and I have asked the chairman emeritus of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] if they could propose a different kind of permanent farm law. It is the 1949 act that I strongly object to, and it is just completely outdated. Those proposals have not been forthcoming. We have talked about it, and the gentleman from Texas has at least mentioned the possibility of the 1990 act in terms of permanent law. But since their substitute does contain the very awkward and very expensive permanent law for 1949, I think that is a very poor choice. Then again this amendment also creates something called the Investment for Agriculture and Rural America Fund, similar to the Fund for Rural America that has passed in the other body, and this amendment would make $3.5 billion in CCC moneys, as the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has pointed out, available for rural development and conservation extension and research, purposes. I support these initiatives. They are very fine initiatives. And the gentleman from Texas is right. We have been sorely pressed in agriculture, and these, as my colleagues know, these kinds of initiatives and these programs would be of tremendous help to our small communities all throughout the country. But I do think, with all due respect and some reluctance in opposing this bill, that this amendment goes too far by giving these programs access to mandatory spending out of the CCC authority; the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has certainly mentioned that. The CCC has traditionally been reserved for use on farm and commodity and other related activities as opposed to this kind of spending. We oppose this amendment, and I want all of my colleagues to understand this, we oppose this amendment because of its high cost. It virtually wipes out any budget savings achieved by the current bill, and its lack of details relative to how the Secretary would be allowed to spend these funds is very unclear and because it funds again wide discretionary programs out of mandatory spending accounts. Now, I would like to say that in trying to work with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and also the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton], who has been an eloquent champion in behalf of rural development on the committee, that we considered a very similar bill in committee. I indicated at that time that I would do my very best to try to work for additional funding for rural development, and I have tried, and when we go to conference I will try again, and in the other body there is $300 billion made available to the Fund for Rural America, but $3.5 billion, as I indicated in the committee, is simply too much. We really abrogate what we do in terms of our budget savings, and the structure of this really troubles me. We do not want to get into an even-numbered year debate where we are saying that the money is being used for a secretary slush fund or something like that, and so consequently we are in opposition to the amendment for those reasons. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana, [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, who, in the words of our Speaker, has made heroic efforts in order to bring our spending under control.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent at this point to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Chambliss] as it relates to the production flexibility contract that is contained in this bill.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I notice on line 11 of the amendment, it says, ``Shall use the funds to conduct restoration activities in the Everglades ecosystem, which may include acquiring private acreage in the Everglades.'' Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified to change ``may'' to ``shall.'' We can answer the problems with the budget in part and the problems by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] in terms of other very fine environmental programs.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, as the distinguished and very impressive chairman of the Appropriations Committee has pointed out, the road to bankruptcy is paved with good intentions. And as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has pointed out in opposition to the bill, there are other environmental programs that certainly are very meritorious. I think in my discussions with the gentleman from Florida, he has indicated that Federal land exchange is a better way to address this issue or certainly would be helpful, no cost to the taxpayer, wise use of surplus government lands. It would protect the Everglades and protect the other environmental programs that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] wants to fund. It would also address the budget issues that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has. Modification of Amendment Offered by Mr. Roberts to the Amendment offered by Mr. Foley

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Idaho for his remarks and his leadership. Let me simply respond by saying last summer, as I indicated during the debate on the last amendment, along with the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Allard, the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. de la Garza, and Mr. Johnson, we sent out a comprehensive questionnaire in regards to research. We asked the researchers and the users what can be done better, how we can spend the $1.7 billion annual commitment to agriculture research and extension to make sure that our producers and consumers will have a competitive and safe food supply in the 21st century? Now, in addition to the survey, I would tell the gentleman, the House Committee on Agriculture has had the GAO, the General Accounting Office, conduct the first accounting of our Federal agriculture research investment since 1981. The GAO will deliver this report to the committee by the end of next month. Finally, we have scheduled a series of hearings this March, and plan on producing a comprehensive rewrite of our Federal research program. Unfortunately, I must say the other body has chosen simply to clean around the edges, leaving in place some of our research policies that fail to meet the needs of the agriculture sector as we transition into a free market. That is unacceptable. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Committee on Agriculture in our efforts to modernize the current research program. So, pending our comprehensive legislation on agriculture research when we get to the conference on this bill, I am going to look forward to working with the gentleman in addressing how we can secure the additional funds that we need. The Senate has something called the Fund for Rural America. The gentleman has talked to me about his suggestions, for suggesting that within the Fund for Rural America, to make sure that some of that money does go to research and the needs of farmers. I look forward to the gentleman's suggestions for change and to working with him to make sure the Fund for Rural America serves farmers and consumer research needs. I thank the gentleman for his commentary and his leadership.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth]. I do want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], all strong defenders of export programs, the Public Law 480 program. The issue here is not so much about substance. The Roth amendment does contain some very good provisions in trade policy. There is no question about it. And the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] has worked very hard. The chairman of the full committee has worked very hard, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. But the Roth amendment also preempts what I consider to be a careful and reasoned formulation of agriculture trade policy and strategy for the next 7 years. Seven years, that is a long time. We are passing a 7- year farm bill for the first time in the history of the Congress. We want the consistency and the predictability because this is a very important matter. Now, what the Roth amendment does, it sets forth a 7-year plan for U.S. food assistance and a 7-year plan for an agriculture trade strategy and our export programs. This is being accomplished without the benefit of any discussion or consultation or consultation, talk, two-way street, with members of the committee of shared jurisdiction, not sole jurisdiction, shared jurisdiction. We are talking about the Committee on Agriculture. In terms of practical effect, the Roth amendment rejects the ideas of members of the Committee on Agriculture. We do not have a chance. We have 30 members of the House Committee on Agriculture who have pending amendments that would like to offer either improving amendments or to work out some kind of compromise in regards to the entire trade and export picture. Now, members of the Committee on Agriculture have introduced a comprehensive bill, called farm bill II. Actually it is called the Agriculture Trade and Regulatory Relief Act. It is to provide farmers with regulatory relief that will certainly enable them to compete in a very competitive global environment. It is the intention of the chairman to consider this bill, have the final product reflect the views of the members of the Ag Committee. The Roth amendment does actually preclude this step for agriculture trade and other programs. So the amendment effectively ends the discussions and reforms of important agriculture exports programs. I am talking about the market promotion program, something of intense and personal interest by many Members, the export enhancement program. It cuts off debate on this very important subject. This is wrong, especially in a time that our competitors are re-arming and setting up programs to gain control of the global market share. I am concerned that the Roth amendment, by setting a goal of increasing ag exports up to $60 billion by 2002, it effectively holds our current trade levels in place. That is not the intent. But I am concerned about it if you do not have any discussion about it now. According to the Department of Agriculture, agriculture exports will reach the $60 billion level this year. This year. The Roth amendment could maintain the status quo for agriculture trade. That would be a disaster. The Roth amendment also terminates, listen to this one, it terminates all agriculture export programs if the unilateral goals of the amendments trade strategy are not met. Hello? A trade strategy in which not one member of the Committee on Agriculture and only a few in the Committee on International Relations actually participated should not dictate the future of American agriculture. Members of the Committee on Agriculture want to participate in the formulation of an agriculture and trade policy. We want to work with you. We will dance with you. We will dance with you until closing time. But closing time is already here. We did not even get to dance. All Members will be precluded from participating in this debate under the Roth amendment. Amendments Members want to include in the farm bill title included, and these are amendments we already had pending that we were going to consider in farm bill II on both sides of the aisle, protection from trade embargoes that have a detrimental effect on agriculture producers. We have five embargo protection bills pending in the Committee on Agriculture. What is going to happen if you go to the Senate and you want embargo protection, and the Senators sit there and stare you in the face and say ``Outside the scope. Can't do that.'' Everybody knows the shattered glass effect of embargoes. We need that protection. We have a tight stocks situation right now, rumors of embargoes. We needed this amendment in this bill. We should require the secretary to monitor the compliance of the World Trade Organization. My goodness, we have heard about that and all the trade problems in the recent presidential debate. The chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Mr. Lugar, and myself, sent a letter to the President, we have to maintain strong oversight in regards to our NAFTA and GATT trade treaties. We have not done that. We need to give the Secretary strong authority to monitor those and take the appropriate action. Not in this bill. The reform of the credit worthiness standards for the Credit Guarantee Program, so that financing requirements can better match the credit guarantee, we need to update these credit programs. We have pending amendments on that in the Committee on Agriculture. Finally, significant reform of the Market Promotion Program. We have many amendments that want to improve and reform the Market Promotion Program. A very critical program, very controversial. We need to fix it. It is not contained in this amendment. The Export Enhancement Program, we are already hearing commentary that with the tight stocks situation, we do not need the Export Enhancement Program anymore. That is not right. We need to better tailor that program. These are essential programs needed to counteract the trade practices of our competitors. We want to ensure they are responsible and flexible and respond to the current trade situation. Now, I do not mean to get obstreperous or very parochial in regards to my dear friends who have worked so hard on the Committee on International Relations in behalf of a very fine trade amendment. Members of the Senate have done the same thing. But, folks, you just ran an end run around the committee of jurisdiction, shared jurisdiction, and we have no opportunity to offer amendments on the very key items that we are having here today. What a way to run a railroad. Now we have already heard complaints in this body, and I share the frustration of those who say they are being denied the process. I really think had we been able to consider this in farm bill II, and we had a commitment by the leadership to bring that bill to the floor as soon as possible, we would have had hearings in the next several weeks and we would have done this, that would have been the appropriate way. That is why I oppose this amendment. We have an opening on the Committee on Agriculture, on the other side, but maybe we could work that out. If the gentleman from Wisconsin wants to run the committee, we might consider that. I oppose the bill. I am considering the vote. I am unhappy. And the process has been very untoward. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of the bill H.R. 2854, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering, and cross-referencing and the insertion of appropriate headings.