Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], a very valued member of the committee. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].

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

Mr. ROBERTS. It will only take 30 seconds.

Mr. ROBERTS. OK. Again, let me say to the gentleman that we all stand in admiration of the gentleman's efforts to cut spending. Nobody has done more in the Congress. But what I would like to try to point out is that we do have two separate pastures in regard to our financial obligation in regard to agriculture. One is the mandatory pasture, and one is the discretionary pasture. The gentleman has done yeoman work in regards to the discretionary part of the funding. We are in charge of the mandatory part. Now, we started out at $56.6 billion.

Mr. ROBERTS. Bless your heart. Well, do not wander off.

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not have any time. I would just like to respond to the gentleman.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry for the delay. I was taking Mr. Livingston's pulse. He seemed to be worked up about the budget. I can get worked up about the budget. I can get worked up about entitlement programs. But this is not an entitlement program. This is the continuation of a strong difference of opinion between our good friends in the Committee on Appropriations, and let me say at the outset, that we have no better chairman of the Committee on Appropriations that the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], who has done precisely what he said he has done in regards to getting our discretionary, I emphasize the word discretionary, spending down to reasonable levels. He deserves every accolade in that respect. But the difference in regard to the LEAP program and the EQUIP program here is that we pay for it. We paid for it out of farm programs payments, out of the CCC fund used by Agriculture that is in the mandatory spending category. That comes under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Agriculture, and we are cutting those funds dramatically, and in addition to cutting those funds and meeting our budget responsibilities, we also cut them again to provide two vitally needed environmental programs, actually three, EQUIP, LEAP, and the conservation reserve program, and we pay for it. How do we pay for it? Our farmers know that in facing all of the regulatory overkill and their responsibilities as stewards of the soil, they need programs by which the Federal Government is also in partnership with them to reach our environmental responsibilities and our goals. So we reduced those expenditures. This is paid for, and it is capped. It is capped ever year. Now, I understand that the gentleman from Louisiana and my good friends on the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, who do a splendid job for us most of the time, would like to have control over these funds. But, in effect, we have already paid for them out of the farm program benefits that would have gone to farmers. So we are meeting our budget responsibilities, and we are doing that. And this is the most budget conscious, responsible farm bill that we have ever had. And the program is capped. And we have paid for it, and our farmers have paid for it. It is not a new entitlement. It is a great leap forward, if you will, for the most, for the strongest and the most proenvironmental farm bill that has ever been written. I would like to at least say I had not expected this kind of a fiscal tirade here this morning, and so if I could be granted some additional time through my friend from New York, I would like to say something positive about the legislation. This has been a very difficult time, a difficult amendment, but it has been worked out through the diligence of my committee colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], and my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and many others, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson], on that side of the aisle, myself, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], and many members of the Committee on Agriculture as a means of addressing several important positive environmental programs. It is a capstone to a truly environmental farm bill. Under the freedom to farm concept, which is the foundation, we really free farmers from the restrictions of 50 years of federally mandated mono-agriculture. American agriculture will be more environmentally friendly. Our farmers will be free to respond to market signals. They will now be able to rotate their crops and instead of planting the same crop time after time after time after time to protect their acreage base in order to get the Government subsidy, they will follow the market signals and what they should be doing in regard to their environmental responsibilities. That means fewer pesticides. That means less fertilizer. And it means more integrated farm management. Now, past environmental programs have impacted only a few million acres. Every one of the environmental programs that we have heard about in this Congress before have been piecemeal. Under the freedom to farm bill, we will encourage sound conservation and environmentally positive activity on 300 million acres of U.S. farmlands. That is good for all Americans, and it is also good for the farmer and rancher. I could go down a long list of environmental and wildlife groups that support this amendment and that also understand it is fiscally responsible because we do pay for it. We have the Farm Bureau, Meat Institute, Sheep Industry Association, Soybean Association, Equipment Manufacturers' Institute. And I will make this part of the Record. In this regard, these are the organizations that support the conservation reserve program, and I certainly want to thank also the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Pete Geren] for his efforts in this regard. But the conservation reserve program has been a monumental success. It reduces soil erosion. It improves the surface and ground water quality on environmentally sensitive lands. It sets aside huge blocks of land in the Great Plains and cornbelt for wildlife habitat. We have economic studies that generally have concluded that the CRP has provided public benefits totaling $12.5 billion since 1985, when the CRP was enacted. That is $8.6 billion for fish and wildlife, $3.1 billion in water quality improvements, $1.3 billion in soil productivity, and a half a billion dollars in benefits generally caused by wind erosion. So it is a plus. As well as paying for this, there is a positive benefit. So this amendment assures the continuation of these benefits and will improve our Nation's water quality. Now, under the terms of the compromise amendment offered today by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], the CRP will be continued at its current level of 36.4 million acres. I think I have extolled the virtues of the CRP program enough for Members. I want to say finally, Mr. Chairman, the amendment does establish a few environmental quality incentive program, or EQUIP, for livestock men and other agriculture producers. This new program is similar to the one adopted by the other body. We have cost share and incentive payments made to producers for structural and land management practices. Let me just say this: This is the strongest proenvironment farm bill ever passed in this Congress. Under freedom to farm, the farmer will not longer be trapped into monoagricul- ture, putting the seed in the ground to protect his acreage base in order to receive the deficiency payment or the subsidy payments. He has the flexibility. It means less pesticides, less fertilizer, a proenvironment farm bill. It also locks in the ability of farmers to participate in their conservation compliance plan for 7 years. Otherwise, if you extend the current farm bill, they will probably get out of the farm program, and there is no conservation compliance. Then we have the three programs: the conservation reserve program, EQUIP, and LEAP. They are all good programs, and they are paid for, and they are capped, and it is out of the mandatory fund. So I know, while the argument of the gentleman from Louisiana can be very, very persuasive in his efforts to reduce our budget exposure, we have already paid for this, Mr. Chairman, lock, stock, and barrel. It is capped, and there will be no more money spent on a so-called entitlement program that is permitted in this program. As I have said, our farmers have already sacrificed their program benefits to pay for these environmental programs.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard], a distinguished subcommittee chairman of the sometimes powerful House Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for asking that important question. 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.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object and I shall certainly not object, under my reservation I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and again thank him for the splendid work he is doing. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, as the gentleman knows, you are looking at possibly the strongest possible defender of the CRP. To have those acres remain in the Great Plains, where we truly need it in this criteria, there is an out-option. The farmer may leave the Conservation Reserve Program, but not, of course, in terms of the highly environmentally sensitive ground. When he does that, on his own volition, the Secretary then has the same number of acres and money and he can apply it to other sensitive acres. But there is no criteria to move this program from one section of the country to another.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. It used to be in this body, where we delegated responsibility, we appropriated the credit and sifted the blame. Through the leadership of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], we do not do that anymore. Let me point out to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, we started with $56.6 billion in the mandatory account, went down to $43 billion, went down to $38 billion, went down to $36 billion. These are farm program payments. The reason we went from 38 to 36 is to pay for this. It is paid. It is capped. It is paid. This is not a new entitlement payment program. We paid for it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, we will try very hard to address the gentleman's concerns in regards to the previous amendment that he described that he has withdrawn. It is my understanding that the gentleman has or is going to offer his traditional buy American amendment. We have no opposition to that, and we wish to thank the gentleman.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, in order to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] as it relates to the amendment just voted on. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my distinguished colleague and my friend, the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo].

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am one of the strongest supporters of agriculture research in the Congress. Since early last year, I, along with the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Allard, the distinguished chairman emeritus of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. de la Garza, and Mr. Johnson have been conducting a comprehensive review of research programs which aim to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the more than $1.7 billion that we now spend on research. During a time when we are trying to balance the Federal budget and ensure what money we do have is spent wisely, basically what the gentleman from California is proposing is that we spend an additional $2 billion on a new entitlement program without the benefit of a single hearing to discuss how well we are using the $1.7 billion we were already spending. We are going to continue this review of ag research with our very strong support. After all, our farmers and ranchers must be provided the competitive advantage through research to compete in the global marketplace. We will have a series of hearings, which we have scheduled to begin in 2 weeks. Immediately after these hearings, the committee will proceed with marking up comprehensive reform legislation. We are going to focus on priority setting, revitalizing our research programs and underscoring the strong support, bipartisan support in regards to research. Now, let me get to the gentleman's comments in regards to freedom to farm. As we have said before, this bill establishes hopefully a market transition from the command and control style of government support to the free market through a series of fixed and declining payments. We have come from $56 billion in regards to the agriculture baseline for farm program payments to $43 billion, to $38 billion, to $36 billion. That is a tremendous decline. We are meeting our budget responsibilities, 50 percent less in terms of market transition payments as compared to the last 5 years. But the gentleman wants to take another $2 billion from farm income, direct farm income to producers, to agriculture research prior to the comprehensive review of the research programs that we have on the books. The passage of the Dooley amendment, quite frankly, is a killer amendment to freedom to farm. It upsets the process. These payments are declining most rapidly. The income outlook is most uncertain. The gentleman calls it a welfare payment. Again, I think anybody that describes any farm program as a welfare payment does a disservice to agriculture and his constituency. These are not welfare payments. These are declining market transition payments. The farmer has to observe a conservation compliance plan that is most costly, and the gentleman is just dead wrong in his description of what has happened. So this is a killer amendment. I urge opposition to it. And I would say to the gentleman that I have tried my very best to be of help to the gentleman when he has wanted more investment in the market promotion program. I have tried to be of the greatest amount of help possible in regards to the research capability of the wine industry in California. I was just out there. And we have tried to be of help to the gentleman in regards to the cotton program, and we had very damaging amendments. On the whole total subject of research we have tried to be of help. We worked with the gentleman in regards to USDA reorganization. I must say to the gentleman, without any consultation, without any conversation in regards to the Committee on Agriculture chair, this amendment sprung out of nowhere, was made in order and is a killer amendment to the total package of the farm program. I would appreciate it in the future if the gentleman has an amendment of this nature, he would visit with the chair and, as he can indicate, I have a little personal interest in this particular situation, I will continue to help the gentleman on these other matters. I urge opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth], a valued member of the committee.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, Madam Chairman, I am.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I realize this farm bill debate has been like Lonesome Dove; we are almost home, and we have all of our body parts, and we will get there if we will just pay a little bit of attention. This is a revote on some of the amendments that we have just considered. As has been indicated by the gentleman from California, the $3.5 billion in regard to rural development, we all know we would like to have rural development, but it is $3.5 billion. We just voted on that. We have another situation in regard to conservation funding. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and the rest of us put together a package, and this package is another $300 million over that which we cannot afford. Then again, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has pointed out in regard to dairy, there are significant reductions in regard to the dairy program. So this is simply a repeat of past amendments we have had before, and I must say in terms of a motion to recommit with 229 pages that nobody has seen up there--well, somebody had to see it--that nobody has really perused to know what is in it, we at least know in terms of cost and policy these are amendments that we voted on before. We ought to get on with it.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material with respect to H.R. 2854, the bill just passed.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert extraneous matter at this point in the Record. Chairman Archer of the Committee on Ways and Means and I had an understanding that arose as a result of my request to him that his committee forgo markup of H.R. 2854 that had been referred to the Ways and Means Committee as an additional referral. Chairman Archer agreed to this letter in writing and I requested that our exchange of letters be printed in the Record. I wish to comply with that request at this time.