Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the gentleman's timely remarks and his tribute and for his leadership in naming Ed's hometown post office in his name. He was a good friend, a colleague and a mentor for many of us. Like Mr. de la Garza, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, the chairman emeritus of the committee, has indicated, we have worked together long and hard on many matters in regard to farmers and ranchers and agriculture in general. I would think the gentleman from Illinois is certainly following his example on the House Committee on Agriculture in terms of his demeanor and in working hard for agriculture and his farmers and ranchers. I would only add that Ed Madigan is now certainly sorely missed by his friends and colleagues. We certainly need him in the midst of the agriculture debate that we are having in regard to the reconciliation bill. One thought is that I would not be surprised if the good citizens of his hometown of Lincoln, IL, will now be assured of the best postal service of any in the country. Ed would not have it any other way.

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

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I realize there is a great deal of concern on the part of my Democrat colleagues regarding this debate and vote. They say the President' budget is not really a budget, it is more like a plan or a proposal or an internal working document. In any case, they say that we should not be voting on it, whatever it is. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that the agriculture title of the President's budget is very real. There are 187 pages of specific policy recommendations from the Office of Management and Budget. Just for the record, when specific and real budgets were presented by Republican Presidents in the past years, the Democratic majority made it a regular ritual to call for a vote and to put everybody on the record, so today it is no different. Mr. Speaker, despite all of the welcome and helpful efforts of various Democrats, those who call themselves the Blue Dogs, those who are part of the coalition group, this document right here really contains the only current and specific policy recommendations on agriculture by this administration. What are the proposals for farm country? Well, farmers are not freed from massive USDA regulation. The Secretary of Agriculture is given broad authority to arbitrarily establish mandatory land set-asides. The budget that the President vetoed deregulates all of that practice. The President revives the off-farm income means test for farm programs that calls for farmers and ranchers to surrender their income tax return to the Department. That is the very reason the House overwhelmingly rejected this idea earlier this year. Marketing loans and other programs that farmers file for all year are wrecked by the President's plan for cotton, rice, and peanuts. Sugar farmers do not have that problem. The President simply eliminates their program after 2 years, with no mechanism to ease the transition. There are new taxes in the form of user fees and assessments. They are levied on producers to finance marketing orders and the peanut program. There is a new tax levied on the crop protection industry. Assessments on dairy farmers are retained and the scheduled decrease is canceled. All Republican dairy proposals are premised on eliminating the assessments entirely. The bulk of the agriculture savings in the President's budget comes from increasing the acres for which no payments will be made. That is a straight cut in income support. There is no protection against any future budget cuts though deregulation; no effort to help farmers make an assisted transition to market-oriented farming. The President offers farmers cuts in income, more cuts to come, and the status quo. The President has stressed how important it is to protect farmers in this budget process; that cuts in ag should be limited to $5 billion instead of the $12 billion in the balanced budget that he vetoed. But the crucial issue is how much help farmers will get, not about how much is cut. The budget he vetoed contained $44 billion as an investment in farm program reform over 7 years. The President's budget contains only $37 billion. I want to make it very clear to those who care about the future of American agriculture what is at stake in this debate. If we can bring the Federal budget into balance, interest rates will fall, and farmers who are among the heaviest users of credit in this country will save $15 billion in borrowing costs. If we fail in this task, if we fail, if we delay, the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, has warned that interest rates will sharply rise, heavily impacting farmers. The longer we delay, the worse agriculture will fare in this budget process as we struggle with a collapsing baseline. My colleagues, America needs a balanced budget bill that will really balance the budget. The President has vetoed one serious budget effort. We need to send a strong signal to the President that a status quo ag policy that does not preserve an adequate investment in agriculture is a nonstarter. Let us renew our efforts for a budget plan that truly balances the budget and treats our farmers fairly.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, one of the key reform goals of this Congress is to examine all aspects of the Federal Government's involvement in the day-to-day lives of our citizens, and determine which of those Federal roles would be more efficiently managed on the local level and/or by the private sector. The portions of the Pick- Sloan project in Kansas and Nebraska, appear to fit this category. However, the procedures established that allow the Bureau of Reclamation to transfer title--and the management and financial responsibilities--to the irrigation districts are often contentious and inordinately time consuming. Today I am introducing a bill to expedite this process and so all interested parties can raise their issues and concerns relative to the title transfer of the Kansas and Nebraska Pick-Sloan projects. There are sure to be provisions in this bill that some may find problematic. The introduction of this legislation will encourage a comprehensive discussion on this transfer to ensure all appropriate issues are adequately addressed. The Missouri River Basin, Kansas and Nebraska, Pick-Sloan Facilities Transfer Act will contribute to our continuing efforts to reduce and reform the role of the Federal Government. And by the consideration of this act, Congress will provide an opportunity for all interested parties to register their concerns so they can be properly addressed.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting the following section-by- section analysis of H.R. 2517 into in the Record at this time. The analysis follows: Brief Explanation Title I of the bill will reduce projected agriculture spending for farm commodity programs by $13.4 billion over the period, fiscal year 1996 through 2002. It consists of the final consideration by the Committee on Agriculture of the Chairman's reconciliation recommendations that are patterned in large part after H.R. 2195, the Freedom to Farm Act. The latter bill is designed to reform U.S. agricultural policy to perhaps the greatest extent since the 1930's. The title also conforms to the reconciliation instructions directed to the Committee on Agriculture in House Concurrent Resolution 67, the Current Resolution on the Budget--Fiscal Year 1996. The provisions in the title I recognize the realities of a post-GATT and NAFTA world trade environment within which U.S. farmers and producers must compete as we approach the 21st Century. The balance of the budget savings within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture designed to achieve the budget reductions required by H. Con. Res. 67 were realized with the House passage of H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act, under Title V, Food Stamp Reform and Commodity Distribution, that is now scheduled for a House-Senate conference.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in admiration and respect for the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and his able staff, but in reluctant opposition to the bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this bill for several reasons. Earlier this year the Committee on Agriculture and the Appropriations Committee conducted a series of discussions and meetings with leadership over the issue of mandatory and discretionary spending and which committee should receive credit for any reductions in these accounts. From these talks an agreement was forged with the Speaker, the Appropriations chairman, the Budget chairman and myself as chairman of the Agriculture authorizing committee, in which the Appropriations Committee pledged, for the purpose of deficit reduction, to stay within the bounds of discretionary accounts and the Agriculture authorizing committee would in turn stay on the mandatory side of the ledger. This was a fair compromise. I am including a copy of that agreement for publication in the Record. This bill before us today is a disappointing violation of the spirit and letter of that agreement. It's not only disappointing for what it will do to the policy reform efforts the Committee on Agriculture is attempting, but also for the precedent it sets for the next 7 years of budget deficit reduction efforts in the Congress. This bill avoids the tough choices required in budget balancing and it is crafted using accounting gimmickry--the bill merely shifts funds from the mandatory side of the ledger over to the discretionary side-- simply put: robbing Peter to pay Paul. I have no doubts that this bill's supporters can make good justifications for every project and program in this document. Each probably has considerable merit. There is only one very troubling problem: each account that is maintained and increased is done so at the expense of farm commodity and conservation programs. At a time when the Agriculture Committee is laboring to reform outdated New Deal Era farm programs and help farmers and ranchers adapt to a market driven economy, cuts made to mandatory programs will cripple this effort by making it impossible for the Agriculture Committee to make necessary changes. I am further opposed to this bill because it represents business as usual. First, and foremost, when the other body marked up the 1996 Agriculture Appropriations bill, they added $1.2 billion in spending over the House passed level. Conferees agreed to keep over $600 million of this amount in the bill before us today. It should be instructive for my colleagues to look at what this bill before us does in terms of additional spending. The bottom line: we are spending $3.0 million more on special research grants at a time when there is a growing consensus that we should be putting more money into competitive research grants. To this end we in the Agriculture Committee have been conducting an extensive review of the $1.7 billion we spend on agricultural research and extension each year. We have sent out an extensive set of questions to our Nation's agricultural research community and asked for their input on how to better direct limited research dollars. I believe this $1.7 billion can be spent in a more efficient manner and I will work with the Appropriations Committee next year to coordinate the overhaul of our Nation's research effort. Equally disappointing is the House's capitulation to the Senate's spending on CSREES buildings and facilities account. Having no compunction about dipping into mandatory accounts to pay for these new university research buildings, the Senate decided it was critical to fund $57 million worth of new buildings. No less alarming is the level spent in this bill for salaries and expense at the Consolidated Farm Services Agency and the Natural Resources Conservation Service agency; $1.5 billion, $1.5 billion to administer $7 billion worth of mandatory farm and conservation programs. That's 20 cents for every dollar spent on commodity and conservation programs. We can and should spend less in this area-- taxpayers demand nothing less. The Appropriations Committee should look to this and other accounts like it next year before it comes over to the Agriculture Committee's mandatory accounts for its required savings. The bottom line on this bill is truly found on its bottom line: it spends over $600 million more than the bill we in this body passed over 2 months ago. I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report. I include for the Record a letter from Chairman Livingston to me, as follows: House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, July 13, 1995. Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Roberts: This is to confirm the agreement relating to budget responsibilities in future agriculture appropriations and authorization legislation. We all recognize the need to reform our budget process. A part of that reform should be a review of both mandatory and discretionary spending accounts. We further recognize that there are gray areas--areas where appropriations reductions to mandatory spending can advance our mutual policy and deficit reduction goals. However, as a general policy it is our intention that beginning in FY 1997 all discretionary spending reductions will be attributed to the Appropriations Committee, and all mandatory spending reductions will be attributed to the Agriculture Committee. Any future situation that deviates from the general policy will require consultation and agreement between the two committees. But as part of an effort to move the FY 1996 Agriculture Appropriations Bill through the House, this agreement will provide a clear basis for managing the federal funds devoted to supporting farmers and the rural sector as we move toward a balanced budget. Sincerely, Newt Gingrich, Speaker. John Kasich, Chairman, Budget Committee. [[Page H 9911]] Bob Livingston, Chairman, Appropriations Committee.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Rahall amendment that would kill the effort to repeal the national speed limit. I oppose this amendment on two fronts. First, reasons for the original speed limit are no longer valid. In 1973, because of the OPEC oil embargo, the Federal Government mandated that States lower speed limits to conserve oil. This original directive was in the interest of national security. The oil crisis has eased, automobiles are safer, and get far better mileage. In short, there is little reason to keep the mandate in place. Second, and more importantly, the 55 m.p.h. speed limit is disregarded by an average of 7 out of 10 drivers. It is a law that breeds contempt of the law and the men and women who must enforce the unenforceable. Highway patrolmen are a limited resource. If more officers are required to enforce speed limits, fewer can be assigned to other safety activities, such as removing drunk drivers or stopping drug trafficking. Numerous studies have shown that raising the speed limit to 65 m.p.h. does not increase the overall speed on interstates. The truth remains this--repeal is not a move by the Federal Government to raise speed limits, it simply gives States, which are in the best position to set speeds, the power to do so. Furthermore, interstates and Federal roads were built with taxpayers' money. This Congress should have gotten the message last November. The Federal Government doesn't have any money--it takes it from our citizens in the form of taxes. I urge colleagues to oppose the Rahall amendment and support speed limit repeal.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am rising in support of an amendment that will be offered later in the debate to restore approximately $9 million for rural health care research. As a past cochairman of the House Rural Health Care Coalition, and that involves about 140 Members who are obviously very much interested in the rural health care delivery system, we have really worked very hard to strengthen and preserve the rural health care research. Our coalition was organized back in 1987, and we have been able to establish a Federal office of rural health policy. We have worked very hard to try to eliminate the urban-rural Medicare reimbursement differential with State offices of rural health and the rural health transition grant program. I know that we have very severe budget responsibilities, Mr. Chairman. However, let me point out that these are just a few of the letters I have from my small community hospitals in my 66 countries out on the prairie, pointing out the value of the $9 million, and note I said ``million,'' not ``billion,'' in regard to research. I just cannot stress how important it is that we maintain a presence for rural health at the Federal level. We have been working for years to overcome our physical and our age and our geographical barriers to health care. Let us not put up one more barrier by removing the rural health research component. So, when the amendment is introduced as of later this afternoon, I certainly urge all Members to support it.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Hickory, NC [Mr. Ballenger], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Economic and Education Opportunities.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would eliminate the requirement that all agricultural producers must buy a Federal crop insurance policy if they are to retain their eligibility for USDA programs. In return for this flexibility, producers will give up any possible Federal assistance for weather- related losses. The one problem with the new catastrophic crop insurance program is it imposes a government program on someone who doesn't want it. Because any person who receives a USDA payment must purchase a catastrophic policy, we have seen landlords with a minimal interest in a farming operation faced with buying insurance coverage they do not want and do not need. As I cited in Subcommittee hearings recently, nine persons with an interest in three crops in two counties were required to buy three policies in the two counties costing $2700. This figure does not include the costs to the tenant farmer. I can assure my colleagues this implementation of crop insurance reform was not what the Committee intended and needs to be fixed. The bill I am introducing will strike this onerous requirement and instead require the producer to sign a waiver acknowledging his refusal of crop insurance with the understanding there will be no disaster assistance provided in the event the producer suffers a weather-related disaster. In addition to the commonsense this brings to the program, the Congressional Budget Office estimates this provision will save nearly $180 million during the period 1996 through 2002. That is good news during these times of budget cuts. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill also deals with a problem summer- fallow farmers experienced this spring with failed wheat acres. Current law restricts a producer who intends to plant a substitute crop to do so only on those acres where the failed crop was planted. This does not work in high plains winter wheat country where a substitute crop will not grow on ground where the failed crop was growing. There is insufficient moisture to grow a substitute crop. The amendment I am introducing today would allow the crop to be planted on summer fallow ground where there would be moisture sufficient to grow a substitute crop so long as the producer maintained compliance with his conservation plan. These amendments are necessary for the credibility of the crop insurance program and the flexibility producers need in order to plant substitute crops. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is obvious in this debate the high road of environmental humility and common sense is not bothered by heavy traffic on this floor. This is a rehash of the debate we had during the clean water debate of several months ago. It is a clear-cut issue. I want to talk about the permit activity of section 404. That is the way that our wetlands program is being administered. It is a classic example of regulatory overkill. Nobody wants to stand in the was of protecting the Nation's true wetlands. We reformed it during the consideration of H.R. 961, and we defeated several amendments, including an amendment by the gentleman from New York who gives new meaning to perseverance. The gentleman talks about cavalier treatment. The cavalier treatment comes from Federal enforcement trivializing the rights of ordinary citizens and farmers and ranchers in my district and all across this country. I am talking about the taking of private property for no environmentally sound purpose or reason, or public need. We have got at least four Federal agencies in the wetland regulatory soup. We have low spots in the field throughout farm country being designated a wetland. No self-respecting duck would ever land there. This is ridiculous. Later in September the House Committee on Agriculture will bring to this floor a farm bill that will rely less on Federal spending, it will get the Government out of agriculture, but we made a deal to the Nation's farmers and ranchers we will move to a more market-oriented farm policy, but please, please, we must have regulatory reform. Rid us of the cost burdens that are unnecessary, and costly, and drowning us in red tape and intrusion. Defeat the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter from our Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Dan Glickman. You know who is into market promotion big time under GATT, under free trade? Not the United States, not McDonald's, not Gallo. It is the European Union. As has been stated, they are spending more for wine export promotion than we invest in all of our products. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] should introduce their bills in the British Parliament and the French Assembly and the German Bundestag. It is easy to say the check goes to McDonald's. It does not. It goes to the United States Poultry, Egg and Potato Council, and McDonald's matches that contribution so that that customer in McDonald's in Bangkok will eat American French fries and American Egg McMuffins, representing 2,000 jobs in New Jersey, 10,000 jobs in New York, and I would tell the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], 30,000 jobs in Ohio, not Chinese products.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding time to me. It is also good to see the gentleman from New Mexico. It is also good to hear from the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] in his attempt here with this amendment to separate the wheat from the chaff and then try to export the chaff. I rise in opposition to his amendment. Look, here is what this is all about. This is not going to take very long. We must export high-value-added products. That is the future of agriculture program policy. The highest value ag products are branded products. These products are sold by brand loyalty. The European Union has that all figured out. They will not let some branded products in. Here we have a Member of Congress that does not want to let the branded products out. This amendment should be introduced in the Assembly of France or the Bundestag of Germany or the Parliament of maybe Great Britain. I have a better idea. What this is, basically, is just a revote on the previous amendment. You kill the branded products, you kill the program. If that is what you want to do, go ahead and we can have a revote. But if you are really excited about a generic product as opposed to the laundry list of big companies who do such a great job on behalf of our farmers and ranchers and every consumer here with exports, let us just put it in a brown paper bag.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of Agriculture has indicated that they will give every consideration to the small business community, whether it be small meat locker plants or a small meat packing house. I would like to point out that 98 percent of all food-borne illnesses come from handling and preparation. If everybody would simply do what their grandmother and their home economics instructor and their 4-H instructor and common sense and the Department of Agriculture recommends, wash their hands and thoroughly cook their meat, we would not have this problem. And so I can assure the gentleman that Secretary Glickman has in effect assured me and the rest of the Members of the House Committee on Agriculture that the concerns of the small business community will be addressed. I thank the gentleman for raising this issue.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to raise a point of order. I will not raise a point of order. I will simply, for discussion purposes, proceed. I think the House can understand what is apparent here. We have no way of knowing how this is going to be enforced. It is a simple attempt here that the only option the secretary has in this regard, and I am talking about Secretary Glickman, a former friend and colleague of us all, is to somehow sit back and let the information in regard to all farm income simply come to him. Now, maybe a farmer, in a fit of taxpayer-induced guilt, will walk into the secretary's office with a certified copy of his tax return and tell Secretary Glickman that he makes more than $100,000 off the farm and please request that the secretary now pay him. However, barring this kind of situation, this amendment will be, because the secretary cannot, I repeat, cannot, deny any farm program payments for which a producer is eligible under current law without making some kind of active determination that some producers off-farm income exceeds the $100,000. In other words, passively waiting for off-farm income information to come floating into his office is not a basis for denying payments that the courts, the courts will find acceptable when the secretary begins denying payments to producers. Let me also say that other than the point of order concern and that there are no marching orders whatsoever on how this is going to be implemented and that every farmer in America, the 98.3 percent who do not make anything close to $100,000, will have to fill out forms and paperwork if this is administered, and the gentlewoman is careful to say that she will not do that, think of the forms and the regulations that everybody is going to have to put up with. Now, there are several other reasons why this is not a good idea. Mr. Chairman, the real victims here are not the people that have been pilloried simply because they have off-farm income, the doctors, the lawyers, the Sam Donaldsons. Lord knows, I do not care if Sam Donaldson gets a farm program payment. It is the tenant. The tenant will lose their lease. The tenant will be forced to go to cash rent because the landowner will not continue with crop share. This amendment will hurt the very people that we are supposed to be helping. Every farmer in the country, if this is implemented, is going to have to deal with the IRS in some form; 1.7 of America's farmers are in this category. I can tell you if they have off-farm income in excess of $100,000, this will be the lawyer and CPA full employment act of 1995. They will separate out that income, and it will not achieve what is intended. We will not have the savings. Mr. Chairman, I will not raise a point of order. I thank the gentlewoman. I respect the gentlewoman. I urge a no vote on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. So then would the gentlewoman agree that what we have here is the equivalent of a strong intent, and I am not trying to put words in the gentlewoman's mouth, a strong intent, a sense of the House then in terms of intent, sort of a sense of the House resolution that this would be the intent of the gentlewoman? In terms of mandatory legislation, that that would not apply here; this is more of a sense of the House of Representatives that this would be the case?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, so the answer is no.

Mr. ROBERTS. So the answer is no.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, is there any additional duties required of the secretary under the gentlewoman's amendment?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I will raise the point of order once I get the clarification if, in fact, the gentlewoman can tell me. I am not trying to be argumentative. I am trying to find under clarification whether a point of order should lie against the gentlewoman's amendment. I have discussed this with the gentlewoman prior to discussion as of this late hour. What I am trying to determine is will her amendment in any way require anybody to come in and ask for information of our Nation's farmers. Will her amendment require anybody to go and obtain information? If the information does come in, will anybody verify it?

Mr. ROBERTS. In other words the gentlewoman cannot tell me whether this is applicable to crop year 1996 or 1995. I am just asking the gentlewoman a simple question. Mr. Chairman, I can understand the concern of the gentlewoman because she does not know. In order to implement her amendment, and this is the final question, and we will get to the end of this, would the Secretary obtain income tax returns from the IRS, or require producers to bring in a tax return, or require producers to certify their off-farm income in order to verify any off-farm income?

Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to know if the gentlewoman's amendment, if the restriction that somehow the Secretary of Agriculture would administer without the gentlewoman telling the Secretary how to administer it, would that be applicable to 1995, or 1996, or what year?

Mr. ROBERTS. I am just reserving the point of order under the 5 minutes. If I could, I will reclaim my time for clarification to determine if this gentleman would raise a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I think it is extremely important to know how the gentlewoman's amendment would be administered if, in fact, it even would be administered.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I would really hope it would not come to this, to get back into this whole argument on the disaster program and crop insurance. The mandatory crop insurance program is underfunded. It is not working well in high-risk agriculture country mainly because of the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois. Now we will adhere to our responsibilities in regards to crop insurance, and we are trying to move away from the disaster program. But to try to rewrite an unworkable crop insurance bill right in the middle of an appropriation bill when we are trying to do it in the farm bill is just not the way to do business. I want water and sewer programs, but that was a very untoward remark by the gentleman from Illinois, and I resent it.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank my good friend and colleague from New Mexico for yielding me the time. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The amendment, while I am sure really redirects funds into an important program, and the gentleman and I have discussed this at length, for example, the cuts in the water and sewer programs which we all hope can be restructured, and we all hope that we can find additional funds for these very important programs, but the gentleman's amendment also restructures, or throws a monkey wrench is a better word, into an important reform of the crop insurance and disaster program that was just implemented by the Committee on Agriculture just this past year. This major new reform that was designed to save the taxpayers billions of dollars and move our farmers away from dependence on the Government disaster programs really has not had a chance to work, and already the gentleman has simply brought an amendment that has not been considered by the authorizing committee. We have had no hearings, and it would fundamentally change the protections designed for the livestock industry. We left the livestock disaster program in place because there was no other way to cover them. As I have indicated, it is entirely possible that some changes in the newly reformed crop insurance disaster protection program will be needed. As a matter of fact, we are going to have a major overhaul of the crop insurance program. It is underfunded, and it is mandatory, and we have several proposals that I think would be very, very salutory. But these proposed changes should receive the same careful consideration as the original reform provisions. For example, this amendment does not make it clear how we are to treat a livestock producer who grows 25 percent of his feed and then purchases the rest. Is this producer to lose all of his disaster protection because he is prudent enough to provide a fraction of his own feed? Mr. Chairman, these are exactly the kind of problems that caused us, after long thought, to design the program in its present state. Certainly a more careful consideration should be given before the program is changed or simply used for a bank for vitally needed sewer and water programs. We should reject this amendment. I would only add that this amendment also abridges the agreement that the authorizers and the appropriators have reached, at least on our side of the aisle, after many, many meetings, and the $60 million that would be used by the gentleman would be into a situation where we would either double-score it and it would not count in regards to our scoring responsibilities or the Ag Committee is going to have to go find another $60 million to cut in regards to our budget responsibilities. We have an agreement with the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and the chairman of the committee, and the chairman of the Committee on the Budget that the appropriators will make the appropriate cuts in regards to their budget responsibilities and the authorizers in our pasture will make our cuts. I know the gentleman is extremely concerned about the water and sewer programs. This is the wrong way to go about it. I will be more than happy to work with the gentleman to find some money in the appropriate discretionary account. And one last thing: In the last several weeks we have had a real disaster in farm country more especially with our cowboys in reference to the terrible weather, 100 degrees, 105 degrees, 110 degrees. In feedlots all across the country and on ranches all across the country we have had heavy livestock losses, and all prices in the livestock sector are very depressed. This is exactly the wrong time to take the emergency program for livestock producers that we hope we will not use during a time when they are experiencing very heavy losses due to weather-induced conditions. So, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman to perhaps work with us, perhaps maybe withdraw his amendment, but if he insists on going on ahead, we will have to oppose it very, very strongly.