Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith], who is yet another valued member of the House Committee on Agriculture. (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not intend to take long so we can move to a vote on the gentleman's amendment. I would just point out, in response to the gentlewoman from Colorado, who might want to visit with the assistant secretary of trade for agriculture, Secretary Schroeder, that we are spending 50 percent less under this bill than the previous bills, that we do provide conservation compliance for 7 years. The farmer is not going to leave the farm when he has to maintain the conservation compliance. I think we will have more crop land in production. As a result, our consumers will probably spend less than a dime of their disposable income dollar for the very valuable market basket of food. And we have reduced the payment that is being made available to farmers from 50,000 down to 40,000. That is a 20-percent drop. We currently have something called zero 85 and zero 92 in current farm program law. I know that is very difficult to understand from the nonagriculture sector, but it allows the farmer to let the ground lay fallow for environmental purposes. Out in my country, we do not get much rain so there are some years that the farmer would like to have the ground lay fallow. It is called summer fallow. That is why we have the program that if you say, OK, if you let the ground lay fallow and you improve your conservation practice, you get 85 percent or 92 percent in regards to your payment. Some program, it is an environmental program. Farmers are not simply going to walk off the farm and not farm in regards to these payments. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons already delineated, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], another real-life farmer and a very valued member of the Committee on Agriculture. (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, at long last the House of Representatives will now consider a farm bill, and in this regard I would like to make some commentary as to the reasons why we on the Republican side adopted the policy approach that we have. In that regard I think, unfortunately, during most of the debate in this regard to this year's farm bill, much of the rhetoric has ignored several basic facts. There are dramatic changes taking place that involve U.S. agriculture. Farmers are competing for increased demand in a growing global marketplace. The Congress is serious, finally, about a balanced budget. The political climate will not permit any rubber-stamped acceptance of status quo policies in agriculture or anywhere else. Farmers and ranchers know, boy do they know, the current farm program is outdated and in need of reform. So the question is, what kind of policy takes these givens into account and makes sense? After conducting 19 hearings, traveling over 60,000 miles, and listening to over 10,000 farmers and ranchers, agribusiness men and women, and many others involved in agriculture, this is what farm country told us: One, they are sick and tired of regulatory overkill and demand regulatory reform; two, they strongly support a balanced budget. They know a balanced budget will save agriculture and farmers and ranchers $15 billion in lower production costs. They also requested a consistent and aggressive export program, and they want more flexibility and ability to respond to market signals and to make their own financial decisions. So taking all of these points into account, we have proposed an innovative approach to farm program policy. It has received the most debate of any farm program proposal in modern history. It was originally called freedom to farm, and is now before us as the Agricultural Market Transition Act. Let me explain the policy rationale. The original New Deal farm programs over 60 years ago were based on principles of supply management. If you control supply, you raise prices. Over the last 20 years, the principal justification for the programs has been that farmers received Federal assistance in return for setting aside a portion of their wherewithal, that is, their acreage. That assistance was largely in the form of something we called deficiency payments to compensate farmers for prices below a Government-set target price for their production. Today, unfortunately, that system has collapsed as an effective way to deliver assistance to farmers. Worldwide agricultural competition takes our markets when we reduce production. The more we set aside, the more our competitors overseas simply increase their production by more than we set aside. They steal our market share. In short, the supply management rationale not only fails under close scrutiny by the many critics of ag policy, it has enabled our competitors to increase their production and we lose the market share. As I have indicated, the Freedom to Farm Act, Agriculture Market Transition Act, was born of an effort to create a new farm policy from an entirely new perspective. Acknowledging that budget cuts were inevitable, that we must meet our budget responsibilities, freedom to farm set up new goals and new criteria for farm policy. No. 1, get the Government out of farmers' fields. No longer do you put the seed in the ground to protect your acreage base to receive a Government subsidy. Return to farmers the ability to produce for the markets, not the Government programs. And to provide a predictable and guaranteed phasing down of Federal financial assistance. By removing Government controls on land use, freedom to farm effectively eliminates the No. 1 complaint of farmers about the programs: bureaucratic redtape, paperwork, all of the regulations and the Government interference. Endless waits at the county ASCS office or the SCS office will end. Hassles over field sizes, whether the right crop was planted, or the correct amount of acres would be a thing of the past. Environmentalists should be pleased that the Government no longer forces the planting of surplus crops and what we call monoculture agriculture. And a producer who wants to introduce a rotation on their farm for various environmental or agronomic reasons would be free of the current restrictions. This bill builds on the conservation compliance requirements, the environmental requirements, if you will, of 1985 and 1990, of the 1985 and 1990 farm bills, and positively impacts 300 million acres. This bill is the most environmentally responsible farm program in 60 years. We will have more to say about that in the future debate. Under freedom to farm, farmers can plant or idle all their acres at their discretion. They are in control. The restrictions on what they can plant are greatly reduced. Response to the market would assume a larger role in our farmer planning. And divorcing payments from production and, by the way, we already started that when yields were frozen in 1985 and we went to flex acres and we froze target prices and we cut target prices, that has already happened, that would end any pressure from the Government in choosing crops with which to pursue. So all production incentives would come from the marketplace and the individual farmer. In return for this, we proposed a guaranteed payment, the guarantee of a fixed, albeit it declining, payment for 7 years would provide the predictability and consistency that farmers have wanted and provide certainty to creditors as a basis for lending. Listen up, Mr. and Mrs. American farmer and your banker and your farm credit troop, any other lending institution, sit down with your banker, your lender, 7 years, you know what you are going to get. You can plan on it. It is a risk management account. You do not have to wait on the Congress. The current situation in wheat, corn, and cotton country, under which our prices are very high but we do not have any crops but large numbers of producers have lost their crops due to weather or pests, that would be corrected by this kind of a payment system. These producers this year cannot access the high prices. They do not have a crop. And instead of getting help when they need it the most, the old system really cuts off their deficiency payments and even demands they pay back the advance deficiency payments. What a time. We are blowing away in the Great Plains. We are bone dry. We have prairie fires. We do not have any crops. The current farm program says pay back advanced deficiency payments, and we get no payment, no disaster payments or no help. The freedom to farm ensures that whatever financial assistance is available will be delivered regardless of the circumstances, because the producer signs a contract with the Federal Government for the next 7 years. High prices, high payments, oh, we have heard a lot of criticism about that. First, the payments will not be high. You cannot cut annual spending in half compared to the last farm program bill over the last 5 years and have high payments. That does not work. No farmer, let me repeat this to all of the critics and you will hear it in this debate, no farmer is going to take his market transition payment and retire. Farmers will continue to farm. Second, under freedom to farm, 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, a risk management account. Just as farmers will need to look to the market for production and marketing signals, freedom to farm will require that farmers manage their finances to meet all the 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 his income, both market and Government, to account for weather and price fluctuations. But under this plan, he makes the decision, not Washington, not Congress, not the ASCS office, not the SCS office. He makes that decision. In short, under freedom to farm, we authorize the market 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 our Government role is substantially reduced and the primary influence is the marketplace. The old program did provide market insulation for each bushel of production. But that system is collapsing under the weight of budget cuts. You have heard the former chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas, the Hon. Kika de la Garza, chairman emeritus of the committee. You have heard the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], a leader in the farm community, a spokesman for agriculture. You have heard me, you have heard others talk about how farmers have already given at the office in regards to their budget responsibilities and that $65 billion in budget authority has already been cut from farm programs over the last 10 years. True. Nobody knows that in Washington, or very few know it in Washington. Not many people in the press understand that, that we have already cut ag spending 9 percent a year for about the last 9 or 10 years. Well, what is to prevent the continued slow asphyxiation in regards to budget cuts and the amount of money that we should have in regard to a responsible farm program? Under freedom to farm, we enhance the farmers' total economic situation. In fact, under freedom to farm it results in the highest net farm income over the next 7 years of any of the proposals before Congress. You represent farmers. Under this plan you have more investment in production agriculture, more farm income than any other plan. We lock it up, and we still meet our budget responsibilities. Now, if you believe there will be no more budget cuts and no more budget reconciliations and no more budget battles, freedom to farm is not for you. If you believe that if farmers just hang on a little longer, their prospects for more Government support will improve in this climate, freedom to farm is not for you. If you believe that farm programs will not continue under the budget gun, that we will not have our fingers, our arms, our legs on the budget chopping block, freedom to farm is not for you. If, however, you believe that there will be more reconciliations, that the heat on farm programs--and you will hear amendments about that in the debate on down the road during the amendment process--if you think that this heat on farm programs will only increase and that Congress needs more than deep budget cuts to present to farmers and not so slow asphyxiation, then freedom to farm makes sense. Now, the severest, the severest critics of farm programs in the press, on television, major newspapers, have hailed the freedom to farm as the most significant reform in ag policy since the 1930's. We have received national acclaim from our critics of farm program policy that this is long-needed, long-awaited reform. Our congressional critics have also decided that our freedom to farm program represents the kind of reform that they can support, and they believe that it is the kind of reform that is needed. Nearly every agriculture economist who has commented on freedom to farm has supported its structure and its probable effect on farmers in the ag sector. We are at a crossroads now, folks. We can either sink deeper into Government controls and rapidly sagging Government support and a lack of investment in regards to our ability to feed this Nation and the troubled and hungry world, or we can strike out in a new direction that at least holds out the prospect of assisted transition to a private marketplace, a market-oriented agriculture. The Freedom to Farm Act is that new direction. We need to seize it. Now is the time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. de la GARZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2854 as currently presented to the House, and in support of three en bloc amendments which I will be offering. Let me preface this by saying that my opposition is in no way indicative of the actions of the chairman of the committee but, rather, Mr. Chairman, in past years we have had the opportunity to prepare comprehensive farm policy in a deliberate, all-inclusive manner. When we have been required to comply with budget reconciliation instructions, the House Committee on Agriculture has complied to the tune of $50 billion in savings from 1981 through 1993. However, in this particular farm bill, if you call it a farm bill, national farm policy for the next 7 years was developed by the Republican leadership. Mr. Chairman, Americans are the best fed people in the world. They have a stable and abundant supply of nutritious food and pay a lower percentage of their disposable income for food than any other of the industrialized nations in the world. I would like to think that the House Committee on Agriculture, on a bipartisan basis and in spite of what editorial writers say, has played a constructive role in this success story. But that is no more, unfortunately. For example, last year Speaker Gingrich, the Republican leader, and the Republican whip wrote a letter to the gentleman from Kansas, Chairman Roberts. That letter dictated to the Committee on Agriculture, in no uncertain terms, the specific policy option that the committee was to choose in order to meet its reconciliation savings. No room was left for the committee to deliberate, for the committee to obtain views of farmers, of consumer groups, of the administration. That leadership-dictated policy was the foundation of what is now included in H.R. 2854. Mr. Chairman, the policy included by decree of the gentleman from Georgia, Speaker Gingrich, in the bill now before the House was first introduced as a bill in August. In a blatant rejection of our sacred principles of open government, our committee did not hold one single hearing on this proposal and still has not to this day. There were other hearings held to gather information, much before this time, but none on the proposal itself. Mr. Chairman, farmers in every region of this country have very grave concerns about the agriculture provisions before this House. They represent a sudden and dramatic abandonment by the Government of its role in sharing the farmer's risk. Farmers are particularly concerned that a sudden withdrawal of the Federal Government may make the difference in their fight to stay on the farm. Yes, they may know that each year they will get a cash payment, but if prices collapse next year, will that payment be enough? If wheat prices fall to $2.50, how many wheat farmers will be out of business in Kansas, in the Dakotas, in Washington States? If cotton prices fall back down to 45 cents, how many cotton growers spread out all over the South and areas of the Southwest will survive? If corn prices are under $2, where will the corn belt be? What if milk prices fall to $9. How many of New England's dairy farmers make it? Mr. Chairman, farmers will hope for the best. But if the best does not materialize and a substantial base of our food and fiber production capacity is lost, will we feel that it was worth the risk? All these questions, Mr. Chairman, and we have no answers; not even opinions. All we had in the Committee on Agriculture this year were a few votes. No discussion. No consideration of the views of farmers, the consumers, the businesses that thrive on the products of agriculture, those hearings on which we have always heavily relied. The policy before the House was not aired out in the Committee on Agriculture, it was dictated by the Republican leadership. When a bipartisan majority of our committee defeated this bill last fall, the Republican leadership nevertheless packaged it with tax cuts and health care program changes and forced it on the floor. Mr. Chairman, it was inevitable that the President would veto that bill and he did, and I agree that it should have been vetoed. Rather than acting quickly to move farm policy forward, our committee sat until the end of January and did nothing. Only in the hours before a 3- week congressional break did our committee finally act, and again I respectively state this is through no fault of the chairman of the committee. The actions were held in other areas by other people. Mr. Chairman, a further frustration to us is that farm policy continues to be driven by outdated decisions. The Republican leadership continues to insist on cutting over $13 billion from agriculture programs. We know that these cuts were not conceived in the context of any consideration to good farm policy. We were cutting acting with numbers in a vacuum only. We have to attach faces and places to legislation. This has not been done to this day. Rather, the decision to cut the very heart out of farm programs was integral to the radical Republican policy of cutting $270 billion out of the rate of increase in Medicare and providing for a $245 billion tax cut. This has fluctuated, it has changed up and down, and the administration has become involved in these overall considerations, all of it outside of the realm of the members of the Committee on Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, all parties have now conceded that any tax cut will be for less, as will reductions in health care program spending as we move forward to a balanced budget. No committee in this House has provided more for a balanced budget than the Committee on Agriculture. Had every committee done what we have done, we would not be worrying about a balanced budget at this point in time. If the enormous tax and Medicare cuts have been abandoned, is it not also time to recognize that the size of the cuts ordered for agriculture should be reexamined? Those policies were after all the driving force behind the Republican decision to cut $13 billion from agriculture. Mr. Chairman, we are in a difficult position. Time is not available to fully address the errors that have been committed in this flawed process. There will be some who would say, well, there will be a conference. Conference has limitations, limitations that restrict activity by members of the conference. Farmers who should have already made crucial farming decisions are kept waiting. The very fact that we have not acted yet has jeopardized agriculture. Action in farm policy for 1996 must be taken and taken quickly. In that light, our No. 1 priority is to make what changes we can in this flawed bill to strengthen our farm economy and its rural base. Mr. Chairman, the bill is titled the ``Agriculture Market Transaction Program,'' and we believe that few have escaped the meaning of the term ``transition'': That the Federal Government will withdraw completely from its partnership with the producer in providing for the food security of our Nation. And I have just come back from my district and other parts of Texas, and they now say that ``this bill is not what we were talking about.'' We want to reduce regulation; we want to reduce needless spending. We did not want to say ``take the Government completely out as we act in unison, together, for the betterment of America.'' So they did not say that we should withdraw completely from the partnership with the producer in providing for the food security of our Nation. However, if such a transition is to occur, we believe that now is an appropriate time for investments to be made with the posttransition period in mind. Regretfully, the rule does not provide for that. It is limited in scope, it is limited as to how many amendments, what type of amendments. Many of you heard the chairman of the Committee on Rules: We did this because we did not want this many more amendments from Wisconsin, and so on. Toward the end, Mr. Chairman, we proposed to increase the Department of Agriculture's authority to invest in the rural infrastructure, water deliveries, sewage disposal. We propose to increase this authority to make investments that conserve and protect our natural resources, and we propose to make crucial investments in agriculture research, education and extension. Yesterday I was in my district, for a meeting of rural housing representatives and all you need to do is go down there and you will see the immense need in rural housing, and as I told them and I repeat to you today, the creature of G-d has a certain level of dignity mandated by laws beyond, beyond our country and beyond this Chamber. The human dignity that needs to be addressed includes decent housing so that those of higher intellect have a decent place to live. Only within government can we form a partnership. Earning a minimum wage is not going to allow someone to buy housing for them and for their family, and we have hundreds of thousands of those people, but yet we are not addressing those areas. We propose to ensure that our highly productive oilseed industry, which will receive no benefit from the bill's contract payments, is able to continue to compete effectively in world markets. We would delete the set level for the oilseed market loan in the bill, which is set at an arbitrary fixed amount, dealing in a vacuum, and replace it with a formula based on actual market prices. Finally, we believe that our agriculture sector is so important to our Nation that we deserve a farm policy debate in 2002. To ensure that debate, we propose to retain permanent farm support authority. Therefore, on behalf of Democratic members of the Committee on Agriculture, I will offer three amendments en bloc, the first, authored by the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton]. The amendment would provide the Commodity Credit Corporation with the authority to dispense $3.5 billion of its funds for rural development conservation and research, education and extension. The second was written by the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], who has been a tremendous inspiration in this endeavor. It would set the loan rate for oilseed marketing assistance loans at 85 percent of the 5-year average price for oilseeds, excluding the high and the low years. The third would strike the provision of the committee substitute which repeals the permanent farm law. Mr. Chairman, I am dismayed over this process. Our people deserve better from this Congress. We have been the partnership. The experts and the major periodicals in New York and San Francisco and Orange County; I keep reading editorials form Orange County about the farm, farm products, farm process, farm policy. We have in my family seven grandchildren who know more about farm policy that the editorial writers from Orange County, CA, Mr. Chairman. Also, I ask the committee and the Members to stay with us on the amendments that we will be opposing. Many of those amendments that were granted are aimed at satisfying the needs of major media. They have not spoken to agriculture. They have not spoken to rural America. They have not spoken to the people. They are looking at that headline in the major periodical. Would you trust a newspaper in New York City to set the policy for the farmers and ranchers of America? And, needless to say, Mr. Chairman, of all of the matters involving the budget, we have met our commitment. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, let me say that everything that we do as far as production in this country, manufacturing, industrial production, everything is in deficit as far as international trade is concerned. Everything is deficit. That is the free market. It is in deficit. Dollars are flowing out, dollars we do not have. The only thing that is bringing money back, green back, green dollars back, is agriculture. The only thing that is positive is agriculture. And yet they say subsidy, subsidy, subsidy. Look at this chart. You cannot see the line at the bottom. That is how much of an impact we make on the budget, seven-tenths of 1 percent is agricultures share of the trillions of dollars we spent on the budget. And then here is a major one. The green is agriculture. The red is everything else. The red is in deficit, has been. Except for selling a few high tech items and airplanes, agriculture is the only one bringing money back from abroad. So saying we need a new direction, we need another this, another that, what we need is, with the help of the good Lord, a little more rain here and less rain there, and a policy that manages, I do not care how you slice it. Every company, every industry manages, manages, and we cannot go and face the world because all other countries, most of them camouflage support of their agriculture and we would be the only one that does not support agriculture under the guise of satisfying our New York newspaper who says the free market. The free market has never existed. There has always been some manipulation. There will be more manipulation, and we are shooting ourselves in the foot when we yield to those pleas for liberators so that we can be eaten by those that camouflage their intentions and their agriculture. We need strong agriculture, we need to have a program where the government participates, and this program unfortunately phases out. Yes, you will get a little money. If somebody goes to Las Vegas and they win the first thing on the machine and second thing on the machine, they say we got it. Stay there long enough and you have lost it all. This is what this is going to do, show a little money, show a little candy up front. Eventually, 7 years, we are off and away and we will be as loose as that satellite that broke from the tether up in the skies the other day. It is loose out there and heaven knows where it is going to be. We do not want American agriculture to be in that condition. So I urge Members to support those amendments that might make this a little better, oppose those that try and destroy programs that have worked. We are the best fed people in the world, we spend less money than everyone else in the world, and, oh, the sugar, sugar, sugar. We are talking about jobs, jobs for Americans, and if you open up and the world unloads all the sugar, we are not going to have a sugar program and the people are not going to have lower prices in sugar. Even now when we did not have a sugar program the prices skyrocketed, skyrocketed to the consumer. When we have held it down to a level, when we have reduced, the product at the retail store did not come down, the product that they talk about the consumer as being gouged, that did not come down at all, the soft drinks, all of the cookies, all of the candies. They did not come down at all. We kept paying the same. But yet they blame it all on the program. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Members that have listened will agree with us also that we need stability. Stability can only be done in a partnership. That partnership has worked and is working, and I hope that we continue it.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the time for managing the debate in opposition to the Solomon amendment and the responsibility for allocation of that time to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to share the time allocated to me with respect to managing the debate on the amendment with the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], and that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk Management and Specialty Crops, be responsible for controlling our respective time limitations.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I want to inform Members that the House will go into session tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock in order to expedite consideration of the farm bill, and to accommodate Members there will be no 1-minutes. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson]. The gentleman from Wisconsin has worked harder and longer, with more criticism, and yet should have received more credit than any other member of the Committee on Agriculture. His service to the House as the designated expert, having more expertise in dairy, has been simply outstanding.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, well, there he goes again. I think every farmer and rancher in America would prefer and agree with the goal of the gentleman from Massachusetts. It is just that the road he is taking will certainly put the farmer and rancher in the ditch, as well as a majority in the House and Senate. It is time to change our farm program policy. I know that. Everyone knows that. We have to move away from what we call the command and control policies. We have to meet our budget responsibilities. It is time to give farmers the ability to respond to market signals. That is what we are trying to do to environmental signals--let me get back to the environment in just a minute--and the diversification to get us out of mono-agriculture to free up the farmer to get him into diversified agriculture without having first to get permission from Washington. But the gentleman's amendment retains the current target price deficiency payment. It is a restricted system. Anybody that has closely inspected the current farm program knows in wheat country, for instance, we have not had a setaside requirement for 5 years. So the supply management rationale that has served us well in the past certainly does not apply here. The gentleman reduces target prices 4 percent per year through the year 2002. I do not know about President Reagan. I remember when President Reagan was President and Mrs. Stockman's very brilliant son, David, was the OMB Director. I remember a joint effort on the part of both Democrats and Republicans to try to not only meet our budget responsibilities but to do so in a bipartisan and salutary manner. I do not think it can all be applied in regard to President Reagan. The gentleman's amendment terminates the target price and the marketing loan mechanism for all commodities in 2003. It does not provide any incentive in terms of flexibility, which is the other side of the coin. If you reduce the farm program payments or the market transition payments, you give the farmer the freedom to plant. I want to quarrel with the gentleman's description that there is no work requirement. In the first place, these payments are roughly half what has been provided in the past 5 years. In the second place, there is a conservation compliance requirement. When the farmer and his banker, his lender, sit down and say in the next 7 years I know precisely what I am going to get in regard to assistance from the Federal Government to enable us to make this market transition, there is a requirement there. There is a responsibility. You have to have the responsibility of really putting forth or participating in your conservation compliance plan. That is costly. It costs money. It costs a lot of money. But we are the stewards of the soil. We know that in terms of our responsibilities in reference to the farm program. No farmer is going to comply with conservation compliance and go through all those costs in the strongest environmental bill we have had in the history of farm programs and then walk away from it. No farmer going through the terrible difficulty we are going through in the high plains with wind blowing and prairie fires and high prices and no crops is going to put the seed in the ground simply because of this payment. He is going to farm. Farmers farm. Talk to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] in regard to the weather stress and the infestation and what we are going through in terms of farm country. And in terms of when the payment is made, for goodness sake, 15 bushel of wheat at $5, and we are in a world of trouble in Kansas, 45 bushel of wheat at $3; and then we pay them a deficiency payment? We are better off under the old system. We want to talk about saying oh, people do not live there on their farms? It is true that some of our more senior farmers somewhere moved to the county seat, and it is true they have rented out their ground. It is true that perhaps their son and daughter are farming. Big woop. I mean, that landlord has to share part of the risk of farming. If you take that away in terms of these payments, look at what will happen with the capitalized land values, look at what will happen in terms of investment in farm ground. We would be in a recession immediately. So I guess in summing up, I would simply say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who I have admired for many years for his eloquency, his sense of humor and pertinence, and maybe impertinence on some issues, and his friendship, that what he has basically done is just taken the current farm program and reduced it with no flexibility, and we have not reformed anything. I do quarrel with his description in terms of the work requirement and in terms of the landlord-tenant relationship which would be completely discombobulated under his plan. I recognize his intention, and I share his view in regard to the entitlement programs in reference to AFDC, welfare reform, food stamps, et cetera, et cetera. We need to do better and we should. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to share the time allocated to me with respect to managing the debate on this amendment with the ranking minority Member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], and that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Risk Management and Specialty Crops, be responsible for controlling our respective time limitations.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I have been keeping notes of some of the comments made by my colleagues and friends across the aisle who have been making wild-eyed speeches. While I am sure this is not the best bill possible, I may vote for it, and some of those concerns I think certainly ring true in terms of just this gentleman's concern and frustration; but I would like the opportunity to, if not set the record straight, to at least play the record that I want to hear and let people make up their minds. No hearings, no hearings, no hearings, never had any hearings other than the 60,000 miles, the 19 hearings, and the 10,000 farmers and ranchers we visited with. Now it is true that the subject of those hearings was not a specific bill labeled ``Freedom to Farm,'' but those hearings certainly served as a backdrop and a blueprint for that. No hearings? Well, we had a budget task force. We have tried to work together to try to reach our budget responsibilities in the past, and it became obvious that that was going to be very, very difficult for several reasons, No. 1, the budget number was really tough on the Republican side, but we were going to reach a balanced budget. That is the thing that really drove this debate, that is, to get to a balanced budget, save the farmer and rancher $15 billion. During the budget task force hearings, we asked the minority which way do you want to go? Do you want to keep the current system, current structure? I said no, I think we are going to die. I think we are going to have policy rubble. I think we are going to lose $8 billion in the baseline, fancy word for how much money is available in agriculture. Then another $6 billion, then budget cuts, then another appropriations process, then future budget cuts, and you add it all up, it is $20, $25 billion; you end up with rubble. I think we need a different approach. We settled on freedom to farm, which locks up more farm income, more money for production and agriculture than any other. Then we had two markups in committee that went on for hours. Started at 9, 10, 11, 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, clear into the morning, one or two, same people on the floor doing the criticizing said they have not had any say in this with regards to this. Who were those people in the committee hearing, the markup that offered the amendments? Pros and cons debated? This chairman tried to be very fair in regards to offering ample time to each and every member. It was not a hearing, no, but it was a markup, and everybody certainly knew the pros and cons of the legislation, and every farm organization in America has had this and they have had it back to the county organizations, and guess what. Most of them are for it and they penciled it out. I mean the farmer. I mean the producer finally figured out that he was going to get a payment this year, next year, did not have to pay back the advanced deficiency payments. Yes, we have had hearings all throughout farm country. Every economist that has taken a look at this has said there is more farm income in this than any other program. Yes, all the Nation's press have weighed in. No, I really do not check with the New York Times and the San Francisco paper. I might check the Dodge City Globe. They are for it. But yes, they say yes, this is the best reform and the best program we can put together, and public opinion does count. Now, this has been the most discussed and, quite frankly, I understand the concern of my dear friends across the aisle, cussed farm program reform we have ever had. Let us not talk anymore in regards to the hearings. Not enough money? I usually do a glasses show. I take glasses and I pour out all the water in regards to losing the baseline in the next budget appropriations, factor when we get cut and cut and cut again, and then we say guess what, the glass that has the most water is freedom to farm. Too much money? First there is not enough money, then there is too much money. Can we please quit referring to farm programs as welfare programs? The payment that we are now providing is significantly less than the last 5 years when the then-majority did not do any complaining about farm programs. Too much money? They are complaining about when the farmer receives it. The real issue is that the farmer, in receiving this payment, will have a risk management account. He makes that decision, not when prices are high and the farmer has no crop. So consequently in regards to what we are trying to accomplish here, and we will continue the tap dance in regards to setting the record during the amendment process.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry], a distinguished champion of agriculture.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and commend him for the outstanding job that he has done as an excellent subcommittee chairman in addressing reform in many of our farm programs, particularly in regard to sugar and peanuts, the programs that probably come under the most criticism. (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], a valued member of the committee. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], a good friend and a good champion for the farmer. (Mr. LIGHTFOOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, it is a personal privilege and pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], a close friend and colleague and esteemed subcommittee chairman, the gentleman who knows more about nutrition and food stamps than perhaps anybody else in the Congress, a valued member of the committee. (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin], a valuable member of the Republican Task Force on Agriculture.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, today we are introducing what some have called Farm Bill II. More accurately we are calling it the Agriculture Regulatory Relief and Trade Act of 1996. This is a small step toward providing American farmers with the regulatory relief that will enable them to compete in a very competitive global environment. Many of my colleagues have seen the Agriculture Policy Ledger. The Agriculture Committee has told farmers that there will be less money in the future but in return we have also promised less Government involvement in their lives. The Contract With America contained many of those promises. The Clean Water Act adopted by this House and awaiting action in the Senate would go a long way in addressing a wetlands regulatory nightmare. I am firmly committed that we should consider many of the policy issues impacting farmers in a calm and careful manner. This bill will lay the cornerstone for the Agriculture Committee's effort to provide some regulatory relief to producers in the agricultural policy area. This bill reflects our commitment to a two-track approach. The first track, the Agricultural Market Transition Act, contains the major spending items in the agriculture budget. The second track, the one that we are embarking on today, deals with many of the policy issues under the House Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction. I firmly believe rolling all of the budget and policy issues into one huge farm bill is a mistake. The Senate chose to pursue this approach and in that process ended up spending at least $800 million above the December CBO baseline. In fact, when you compare the Agriculture Market Transition Act to the Senate bill, we save over $5.4 billion more than they do. regulatory relief and reauthorizing the crp The conservation title of the Agriculture Regulatory Relief and Trade Act fulfills a promise we made to our producers during the 1994 elections and the budget debate--in return for reduced Government support, we reduce the Government's involvement in their lives. The 1985 farm bill established a partnership between the Federal Government and the farmers. That agreement in essence said we will provide income support payments in return for compliance with government regulations. However, since that time we have reduced payments by nearly two- thirds. At the same time Government regulations have increased exponentially. This is the first step towards stopping increased Government regulation on producers and making the regulations that remain meet the common sense tests that all regulations should have to meet--technical and economic feasibility and a focus on results, not on process. The bill that I am introducing today with my subcommittee chairmen meets these tests. It protects the environment and allows producers to use their own innovation to meet environmental goals instead of forcing them to use the innovations of Government bureaucrats. This legislation will also halt several instances of regulatory overkill that have plagued producers since these laws were passed. This legislation goes a long way toward ending this overkill and putting producers back in charge of their land. Specifically, this legislation will expedite procedures that producers must go through when requesting variances from conservation compliance due to circumstances beyond their control. Conservation systems and plans are clearly defined so that they are technically and economically achievable, are based on local resource conditions and can be met in a cost effective manner. Penalties will remain in place for producers who violate compliance, but will be tempered when producers unknowingly violate compliance. This legislation also encourages producers to request technical assistance from NRCS without fear of being found out of compliance and then penalized. We also move forward in reducing the paperwork burden on producers by consolidating cost-share programs that producers use to meet environmental goals. Through consolidation we allow producers to fill out one set of paperwork to access cost share programs, instead of the current system that requires producers to identify their needs then identify which government program they can access and then filling out duplicative government forms. This is common sense and should expedite the process. Finally, this legislation authorizes a new program for livestock produces to improve water quality. This is a mandatory program that is fully paid for and should help livestock operations improve the quality of rural areas. In addition, this bill provides for the reauthorization of the Conservation Reserve Program up to 36.4 million acres. This program has been a very valuable program that has been enormously popular with farmers, environmentalists, sportsmen and conservationists. Our provision is a simple reauthorization of the program, without modifications to the criteria for enrollment in the CRP. Mr. Speaker, this is common sense reform that both sides of the aisle should be able to support. Government Credit Reform Farmers and ranchers learned the hard way in the late 1970's and 1980's that they could not borrow their way to prosperity. All of us here in Washington concerned with Federal farm policy know that American taxpayers are increasingly unwilling to pay for a continuation of status quo farm policy. USDA farm credit programs that have resulted in billions and billions of dollars going uncollected are high on that list of benefits we can no longer afford. The bill introduced today seeks to realign Federal lending policies that have been patched together during the last two decades in response to the farm problems in the 1970's and 1980's. Statutory prescriptions that read like regulations are eliminated or streamlined by this bill. USDA farm loans should be used for income generating purposes to enhance our farmers survivability, not support environmental policies that are contained in regulatory activities under other laws. In that regard, the local Farm Service Agency credit office should not be a procurement agency for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The bill strikes this law. We all have heard the stories about the farm and home borrower who got his debt written down one day and bought a new pickup the next. Or, farmers, who are always the last to plant in the spring and leave their crops in the fields all winter, are first in line at the county office when it comes time to get their debt forgiven. Of course, a lot of this is coffee shop talk but, on the other hand, the General Accounting Office [GAO] has spent a number of years examining USDA lending practices and has found USDA to be lax or deliberately permissive in response to congressional wishes. There have been nearly a dozen of these GAO reports over the years. As a 1992 report says, ``Lenient loan-making policies, some congressionally directed, have further increased the government's exposure to direct loan losses.'' The GAO says the old FmHA provided $38 million in new loans to some 700 borrowers who had already defaulted on loans resulting in losses of $108 million. Half of these borrowers became deliquent on their second round of loans. This is nothing but throwing good money after bad, and I might add it has done nothing for the farmers but delay the inevitable. This kind of policy cannot continue. GAO looks at one borrower who ``* * * received a $132,000 direct farm operating loan from the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) even though, just 2 months earlier, he had received about $428,000 in debt relief. By March 1991, he was $28,000 past due on payments.'' This may be a single instance but is not likely to be unrepresentative when you consider the aggregate losses of billions. Unfortunately, the disposition of inventory property, including provisions that make otherwise viable farming units into easements for environmental purposes--all at taxpayers' expense--has been just as irresponsible. This legislation is designed to change those policies as well. Trade Farmers know that there will be less money to spend on production agriculture in the future. The money we do spend must be spent wisely. Farmers must be prepared to respond to agriculture trade in a post NAFTA and GATT world. GATT and NAFTA opened up the world markets. We still must be competitive and fight for market share. That is the goal of this trade title, to give farmers and ranchers the tools necessary to respond to the exploding world demand we see in the Pacific Rim countries, China, and Latin America. In the 70's exports were largely bulk grains. Today we are seeing more grain than ever move overseas, but it is in the form of processed products, beef, pork, and poultry. Red meat exports are three times the 1986 level. Poultry exports are six times the 1986 level. The bill we are introducing today continues and fully funds the Market Promotion Program. While the MPP program has come under attack, I remind my colleagues that farmers and ranchers produce a commodity. By the very definition a commodity is just that--nondifferentiated. One bushel of wheat pretty much looks like another bushel of wheat. Any economist will tell you that the way to move more of a commodity is turn it into a value added product. Differentiate the product and you will add value. Convince the overseas consumer that U.S. poultry or beef is better and you have sewn up market share. That is the goal of the MPP program and we need to retain the MPP program. Exports are moving toward value added products and MPP will facilitate that movement. Specifically, the trade title allows credit guarantees for high value and value-added products with at least 90 percent U.S. content by weight. Next, it provides protection to producers of any agriculture commodity who suffers a loss due to an embargo imposed for reasons of national security, foreign policy, or limited domestic supply. The Secretary is given the flexibility to use the funds of the various export programs in ways that better accomplish the programs' objectives and to ultimately increase U.S. agriculture exports. The Secretary is given the responsibility to monitor compliance with the agriculture provisions and sanitary and phytosanitary measures of the Uruguay Round Agreement. The Secretary will report any country failing to meet its commitments under the Uruguay Round Agreement to the U.S. Trade Representative for appropriate action. rural development The committee considered three important objectives when developing the rural development title: flexibility, local planning and decisionmaking, and sustainability. The rural development reforms included in this package meet all three. In regards to flexibility, GAO issued a number of reports concerning the cumbersome and counterproductive regulations associated with present rural development programs. The programs are small and narrowly focused and each is equipped with its own rules and regulations. Many communities do not bother applying for funding due to the time and money involved in completing an application. And, since every rural development dollar is designated for a particular use, applicants often apply for available, instead of needed, funding. The Senate bill makes some improvements in terms of how rural development money can be spent. However, all the regulations, limitations, and restrictions would still apply. Our bill provides maximum flexibility by consolidating all rural development funding and including precious few regulations. The regulations are essentially two-fold. First, the money must be used for rural development activities currently eligible for funding. And, second, the money must be used to the benefit of small towns, particularly those with 10,000 people or less. That's it. This kind of flexibility cuts costs and confusion, saves time and energy, and allows rural America to get down to the business of rural development rather than bogged down in the business of bureaucracy. A theme that dominated one GAO report is the need for local leadership and long-range planning in rural development. According to the report, ``each area has unique qualities that require customized, rather than off-the-shelf, solutions to its economic problems.'' The report continues, ``While the effectiveness of Federal programs may be uncertain, their inefficiency in delivering benefits is self- evident.'' Finally, the report concludes by recommending ``* * * exploring alternatives to the current set of Federal rural development programs, not merely better ways to coordinate them.'' While the Senate bill does throw a bone or two at State and local government, it jealously holds control of rural development programs in Washington-- settling for off-the-shelf solutions to local problems. Our reform bill promotes local solutions to local problems by distributing consolidated rural development funds to the States. In turn, each State may administer its own rural development programs in close consultation with local government and the private sector. It is worth noting that State and regional governments already administer 4 out of the 5 major sources of Federal funding for water and waste projects. The States will gain one more if Senators Chafee and Kempthorne's safe drinking water amendments become law. It just makes sense to turn these rural development programs--which include water and waste--over the States to maximize coordination and get the job done. Finally, in regard to sustainability, we all know that Federal funding for rural development is shrinking, In a single year--from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1996--funding for rural development will be cut anywhere from 25 to 43 percent, depending on how USDA arranges its portfolio--ratio of grants to loans and loan guarantees. With the possibility of even deeper cuts coming in order to balance the budget and to provide increased funding for some programs that usually see annual increases, rural development programs may be sacrificed. What will rural towns, hospitals, and water districts do when the money runs out? The Senate bill would wait and see. Our reform bill preempts the problem. It transfers administration of rural development to the States and requires each State to establish a revolving fund to be used for rural development. By capitalizing State revolving loan funds, which grown in size and operate in perpetuity, States can continue to provide rural development financing long after Federal funding comes to an end. In addition to sustainability, there's also efficiency in the State revolving fund. Even EPA Administrator Browner agrees that States-- through State revolving funds--can actually provide more money at lower interest rates than traditional Federal programs--and do it all faster. One final point in regard to rural development. I asked the administration and many Democrats on the committee who had concerns about this title to work with me to achieve flexibility, State, and local planning and decisionmaking, and sustainability. But, all I ever heard was the status quo. In light of GAO's criticism of current programs, I think we owe rural America better than that. Research The bill provides for a simple 2-year reauthorization of the research, education, and extension functions of USDA. Research should be the cornerstone of our farmers ability to compete in world market places. A simple extension of authorities will allow the committee to finish the work we have begun on an extensive review of the Federal research programs. The Agriculture Committee has embarked on an extensive review of the Federal research effort. Last summer, I along with Representatives Allard, de la Garza, and Johnson sent out a comprehensive questionnaire. We asked researchers and research users what can be done better and how can we spend the $1.7 billion annual commitment to agricultural research and extension to make sure producers and consumers will have a competitive and safe food supply in the 21st century. In addition to the survey which I just discussed, the House Agriculture Committee has had the General Accounting Office conduct the first accounting of our Federal agricultural research investment since 1981. This report will be delivered 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, the other body has chosen to simply clean around the edges leaving in place research policies that fail to meet the needs of the agricultural sector as we transition into the free market. That is unacceptable and I urge my colleagues to support the Agriculture Committee in our effort to modernize USDA's research program. This is a board overview of the Agriculture Regulatory Relief and Trade Act. Taken together, it's a strong package that will relieve the regulatory burden in rural America, reduce redtape and provide a consistent and dependable export policy.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] and I have discussed this at length. I think the gentleman has made a very reasonable request. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. It may not be appropriate, but it sure as hell is true.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Agriculture and Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the bill H.R. 2854, the Agriculture Market Transition Act, and that it shall be in order today to consider the bill in the House, and that all points of order against the bill and against its consideration be waived; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture; (2) one amendment, if offered, by Representative de la Garza of Texas or his designee, said amendment to be debatable for not to exceed 1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and a Member opposed thereto, and all points of order against the amendment be waived; and (3) one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I know that the Agriculture Market Transition Act, H.R. 2854, has been cleared for floor consideration by the Republican side. Am I to understand that the Democrat side has objection to consideration of this bill?

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, we all know that welfare reform has become a front-burner topic in this town and throughout the Nation. Last November the American public spoke decisively on wanting change. Welfare reform was a central theme in last fall's election. The House of Representatives has responded to the American public and I believe that real welfare reform can be found in the conference report before the House today. The changes incorporated in the conference report on H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act, represent real change. I congratulate members of the Committee on Agriculture and all Members who worked diligently on reforming the Food Stamp Program and the present welfare system. The very first hearing held by me in the committee was on enforcement in the Food Stamp Program. Following that hearing, the chairman of the subcommittee held four hearings on the Food Stamp Program. From the testimony received in these hearings the committee formulated the principles that guided its reform. The conference agreement reflects these principles. First, keep the Food Stamp Program as a safety net so that food can be provided as a basic need while States are undergoing the transition to State-design welfare programs. Second, harmonize welfare and the Food Stamp Program for families receiving benefits from both programs. Third, take the Food Stamp Program off automatic pilot. Fourth, able-bodies participants without dependents must work in private sector jobs. Fifth, tighten controls on waste and abuse and curb trafficking with increased penalties. The Food Stamp Program provides benefits to an average of 27 million people each month at an annual cost of more than $25 billion. For the most part these benefits go to families in need of help and are used to buy food. There is no question in my mind that the Food Stamp Program helps poor people and those who have temporarily fallen on hard times. However, there is also no question in my mind that it is in need of reform. The conference agreement reflects the principle that the Food Stamp Program should remain a Federal program. States will be undergoing a transition to State-designed welfare programs. During this period the Food Stamp Program will remain the safety net program and able to provide food as a basic need while this transition is taking place. The Food Stamp Program will remain at the Federal level and equal access to food for every American in need is ensured. Given the hearing record, public support for real reform, and the dollars involved, the conference committee could not continue the program without significant reforms. The five hearings held in the Committee on Agriculture between February 1-14, 1995, dictated the course of the changes needed in the Food Stamp Program. The agreement in the welfare reform conference adopted these changes. The Food Stamp Program is taken off of automatic pilot, except for annual increases in the cost of food, and control of spending for this program is returned to Congress. The food stamp deductions are kept at the current levels instead of being adjusted automatically for increases in the Consumer Price Index. Food stamp benefits will increase to reflect increase in the cost of food. Food stamp spending will no longer grow out of control. Oversight from the Agriculture Committee is essential so that when reforms are needed, the committee will act. States are provided the option of harmonizing their new AFDC programs with the Food Stamp Program for those people receiving assistance from both programs. Since 1981, the committee has authorized demonstration projects aimed at simplifying the rules and regulations for those receiving assistance from AFDC and food stamps. States have complained for years about the disparity between AFDC and food stamp rules. This bill provides them the opportunity to reconcile these differences. It is now time to provide all States with this option. The conference agreement on H.R. 4 contains a strong work program. Abled-bodied persons between the ages of 18 and 50 years, with no dependents, will be able to receive food stamps for 4 months. Eligibility will cease at the end of this period if they are not working at least 20 hours per week in a regular job. This rule will not apply to those who are in employment or training programs, such as those approved by the Governor of a State. A State may request a waiver of these rules if the unemployment rates are high or if there are a lack of jobs in an area. Republicans are not heartless, we just expect able-bodied people between 18 and 50 years, who have no one relying upon them, to work at least half-time if they want to continue to receive food stamps. It is essential to begin to restore integrity to the Food Stamp Program. Incidences of fraud and abuse and losses to the program are steadily increasing and the public has lost confidence in the program. There are frequent reports in the press and on national television concerning abuses in the Food Stamp Program. Abuse of the program occurs in three ways: fraudulent receipt of benefits by recipients; street trafficking in food stamps by recipients; and trafficking offenses made by retail and wholesale grocers. H.R. 4 doubles the disqualification periods for food stamp participants who intentionally defraud the program. For the first offense the disqualification period is changed to 1 year; for the second offense the disqualification period is changed to 2 years. Food stamp recipients who are convicted for trafficking food stamps with a value over $500 will be permanently disqualified. Trafficking by unethical wholesale and retail food stores is a serious problem. Benefits Congress appropriates for needy families are going to others who are making money from the program. Therefore the conference agreement limits the authorization period for stores and provides the Secretary of Agriculture with other means to ensure that only those stores abiding by the rules are authorized to accept food stamps. Finally, the conference includes a provision that all property used to traffic in food stamps and the proceeds traceable to any property used to traffic in food stamps will be subject to criminal forfeiture. The electronic benefit transfer [EBT] systems have proven to be helpful in reducing street trafficking in food stamps and have provided law enforcement officers a trail through which they can find and prosecute traffickers. EBT systems do not end fraudulent activity in the Food Stamp Program; but they are instrumental in curbing the problem. Additionally, EBT is a more efficient method to issue food benefits for participants, States, food stores, and banks. For all of these reasons we include changes in the law to encourage States to go forward with EBT systems they deem most appropriate. Also the bill we are considering today lifts the restriction placed on State EBT systems by the Federal Reserve Board. This restriction is known as regulation E and it has hindered State progress on converting a coupon delivery system to an EBT system. Mr. Speaker, this bill and the Agriculture Committee's contribution to the bill represent good policy. We have kept the Food Stamp Program as a safety net for families in need of food. We have taken the program off of automatic pilot and placed a ceiling on spending. We save $30 billion over 7 years. Congress is back in control of spending on food stamps. If additional funding is needed Congress will act to reform the program so that it operates within the amount of funding allowed or provide additional funding when necessary. States are provided with an option to harmonize food stamps with their new AFDC programs. We take steps to restore integrity to the Food Stamp Program by giving law enforcement and USDA additional means to curtail fraud and abuse. We encourage and facilitate EBT systems. We begin a strong work program so that able-bodied people with no dependents and who are between 18 and 50 years can receive food stamps for a limited amount of time without working. This represents good food stamp policy. I hope all Members will agree with me and support the conference agreement on H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995.