Pat Roberts

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Would the gentlewoman please clarify for me and the membership what calendar year does her amendment apply to--1995? 1996?--and what duties it would impose on the Secretary or other Federal agencies?

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, let me keep on with my questioning if I might. Would the gentlewoman advise me whether the Secretary would verify the information received on off-farm income and what the Secretary would do with that information?

Mr. ROBERTS. That the Secretary would put into place appropriate steps to carry out the amendment?

Mr. ROBERTS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point of order and ask the gentlewoman for several clarifications, if I might. Would the gentlewoman advise me as to how people would make known to the Secretary of Agriculture that a person has an annual adjusted gross off-farm income in excess of $100,000 and what the Secretary would do to obtain such information?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, has the gentlewoman explained her amendment?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment until the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] has explained her amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. In the saddle. My concern is this. My concern is that the agreement has been reached between two of our colleagues, and I was a tad sarcastic when I said neither were members of the authorizing committee and the appropriating committee, reserving 1 hour of debate, which is essential to the market promotion program, which is a very important program not only for the farm program but for American export and all of that. However, we have at least 8, 10, 15 other amendments on means testing, the farm program, on the Export Enhancement Program, on the Food for Peace Program and on and on. Now, we are not going to have an hour of debate in that regard. We are going to announce that we are going to roll the votes until tomorrow. I doubt if there are more than six people on the floor when we announce that, and so the debate will not be heard, but we will come in very quickly as of tomorrow, and we will vote, and we will roll those votes, and I have a little problem with that because it is so late at night. I think each issue deserves this kind of a policy debate, and I will tell you that if some of these key amendments are passed which I consider to be very counterproductive I will urge every member of the Committee on Agriculture to vote no, and this bill will go down. Now I am not for that. I am not for that. But I think we are getting a little far afield here in terms of reasoned debate on the very key amendments that affect our Nation's policy. If that is what we are going to do I guess we will just have to go and do it. I do not want to be obstreperous, well, I do want to be obstreperous; I do not want to really pose an obstacle, but the gentlewoman is going to offer an amendment here on means testing. It should have a 30 to 45 minutes at least an hour debate. It will gut the current farm program. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. If that is how we are going to do this, why, fine, but I am just telling you this is a hell of a way to run a railroad.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I would tell my dear friend and all the sheep that he has and the one he rode in on with a saddle. With a saddle.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, everyone else objected this evening, I just thought it was my turn. Under my reservation, I would like to ask the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico what the arrangement is in regard to the many amendments we have pending, and of course the very important amendment by the two gentlemen who are not on the Authorizing Committee and not on the Appropriations Committee, but must have 1 hour of debate and an immediate vote as opposed to the 10 or 15 or 20 other votes that affect policy, but we are going to debate them tonight, not have votes, roll them over into the next day so nobody will know what they are voting on. Mr. Chairman, is that the business of the committee?

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I share the concern in reference to the food stamp program. This appropriations bill actually increases that. It was this gentleman on the Committee on Agriculture that made a very determined effort simply not to block grant the food stamp program. I would say what has already been said by my colleague from New Mexico and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, this bill allows us to privatize. We are going to do that. The OMB wanted to do it immediately. We would end up here with a situation where many rural telephone companies would not have access to the money to borrow from. It would cause utter chaos in the communications system out in our rural areas. It is really not commensurate with the food stamp program. We will privatize. We will get there from here. I would just urge the gentleman to allow us to do this work under the bill that we would like to do, and I will be happy to work with the gentleman in regard to food stamps.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to emphasize the gentleman has been a real leader in the unfunded mandates effort several Congresses ago when it was not popular, and now when it is, and his efforts to put an office of risk assessment within the Department of Agriculture was a real initiative, a real reform effort in the Committee on Agriculture during the last session. Unfortunately, because of the budget pressures, it was not funded. We need this money. It is a good effort and I commend the gentleman and I support the amendment wholeheartedly. amendment offered by mr. skeen as a substitute for the amendment offered by mr. condit

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

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also take this opportunity to congratulate my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Walsh], and also especially my good friend and former colleague Secretary Glickman, for their hard work and statesmanship, I think, in resolving this very complex problem. This agreement in part grew out of a meeting between Secretary Glickman, the former chairman and current distinguished ranking minority member of the House Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. de la Garza], the current chairman of the appropriate subcommittee that will be bringing a meat inspection, a food safety inspection bill to the floor, the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Gunderson], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer], and probably the godfather of all meat inspection legislation in regards to sound science, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Stenholm], and myself. I would like to thank each of these individuals for really coming together in a bipartisan spirit to underscore the importance of restoring really some credibility to the rulemaking process. By doing so, I think it is obvious we have averted what had been a very divisive debate on meat inspection policy. I think that really food safety goals are better served by careful, reasoned discussion than by real emotional rhetoric. It is understandable but I think this process certainly is preferable. Secretary Glickman has assured Mr. Walsh that he will personally take control of the rulemaking process for the Mega Reg. Secretary Glickman has also pledged that he will ensure all stakeholders, as has been indicated, consumers, small and large processors, scientists, inspector unions and producers, all now will have an opportunity to really participate in developing a balanced and workable inspection regulation. Our problem is not that we have too little inspection and also regulation. Our problem is that we have the wrong kind. We do not need some more additional regulatory burdens. We need a sound-science, risk- based system. So, again, I want to really credit the Secretary and I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Gunderson] who will be bringing to the committee and to the floor a total comprehensive food safety plan. We are talking about meat. We are talking about poultry. And we are talking about seafood. So your House Committee on Agriculture will address this. It will be commensurate with the rulemaking process of the Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. ROBERTS

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes, I would tell the gentleman. And after the Committee on Agriculture finishes its consideration of the sugar program, if he is not satisfied with the committee's actions, I can assure the gentleman and his colleagues that they will have an opportunity to amend the sugar program during the farm bill debate. Many are called; few are chosen. The gentleman from Florida will be one of the chosen.

Mr. ROBERTS. The road to a good farm program is paved with good intentions. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] and some of his other colleagues have serious concerns about the sugar program, as well as other farm programs. I want to assure him, as I have assured the gentleman from New Mexico and the gentlewoman from New York, that the Committee on Agriculture plans to pursue a market- oriented policy to this program. It is my hope that we can come to an agreement on policy changes that all Members of this body will be happy with and that we can avoid a protracted floor fight at the time of the farm bill. With that in mind, I would ask the gentleman, as I have asked the other Members of this body, to withdraw his amendment and permit the authorizing committee to address these issues.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skeen en bloc amendment. This amendment reflects the work done between the authorizers and appropriators to put forward a bill that both committees can support. This amendment makes the difficult choices in discretionary spending to reach the requirements of the budget resolution. Many of the spending choices reflected in the en bloc amendment are painful. I wish we didn't have to make them, but we do. Later this year, the Agriculture Committee will be bringing a farm authorization bill to the floor that will contain ever harder choices. The en bloc amendment before us today will allow the House to make clearer and more accurate decisions on how we should approach all farm and rural spending. The gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and his colleagues on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee have faced up to their budget responsibilities and provided in this amendment honest spending reductions in their discretionary area of responsibility. Adoption of this amendment is crucial to securing the support of all the agriculture community for this bill. I strongly urge the House to pass the Skeen en bloc amendment.

Mr. ROBERTS. We have very good intentions.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I will tell the gentlewoman, the answer is a firm yes. If the Committee on Agriculture cannot reach an agreement on reforming the program that satisfies the concerns of you and your colleagues, I can assure you, as I have said in my previous colloquy with the gentleman from New Mexico, that you and your colleagues will have an opportunity to address these issues simply during the farm bill debate.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentlewoman, and I appreciate the question, the answer is no. I know that you and some of your other colleagues have serious concerns about the peanut program. I want to assure you that the Committee on Agriculture has heard those concerns and is working on some real policy changes and a plan to reform the program. It is my hope that we can come to an agreement on a reform plan that all the Members of this body will be happy with and that we can avoid a protracted floor fight at the time of the farm bill. With that in mind, I would ask the gentlewoman if she would consider withdrawing her amendment and let us continue the progress, and let me add, we are making real progress, to address your concerns about this program and the concerns of the growers and everybody connected with the program.

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

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his question, and I thank my longtime friend and colleague from New Mexico for the opportunity to really discuss this problem. Let me say that I would like to associate myself with the remarks from the distinguished gentleman from Illinois in regard to the accolades that are due to the gentleman from New Mexico. They are not loose, as he has described. There is a snug-fit accolade that is well deserved on the floor of the House. The gentleman from New Mexico should wear it proudly. Let me begin by saying how much the members of the authorizing committee appreciate the hard work that the gentleman and the members of his subcommittee and staff have really put into fashioning this very, very difficult bill. We have worked very closely with him to develop the legislation on the floor today, and this bill has our support. However, it would be unfortunate if the hard work he has done to really create a good bill was overshadowed by some amendments that are really inappropriate. I do share the concern that this bill should not be the vehicle to take up major farm policy debates. The Committee on Agriculture will be bringing a major and comprehensive reauthorization of all farm programs to the floor later this year. During the course of committee consideration of the farm bill, we will be considering major changes of all the programs addressed by the amendments that are proposed here today. The difference is that in the farm bill these changes can be considered, in the context of the total policy package that will provide long-term coherent framework for the farm and rural sector. The Committee on Agriculture encourages all Members of the House to bring their concerns to us and work with us as we mark up the farm bill. Let me repeat that: To every Member who has a concern about agriculture program policy, to all watching in their offices and all the staff that may be watching, the committee encourages all Members of the House to bring their concerns to us and work with us as we mark up the farm bill. Bring [[Page H 7243]] them to me or bring them to the former chairman and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza]. Let me assure the Members with interest in specific policy changes that, if the farm bill we bring to the floor does not satisfy the Members' policy concerns, there will be an opportunity for any Member to bring those concerns before the House at that time. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] shares in that concern and also shares in regard to that policy opportunity. Today we need to get down to the serious business of appropriating funds for rural America in the fiscal year of 1996. Issues concerning farm policy for the rest of this century should be deferred until the authorizing committee brings the farm bill to the floor. That will be in September. I urge my colleagues to withhold their amendments until the Committee on Agriculture has had time to consider the issues individually. This is not the appropriate time or place for authorizing amendments.