AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in House section
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
(House of Representatives - June 12, 1996)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H6194-H6236]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, the Animal Damage Control Program
represents one of the most efficient and cost-effective programs within
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It benefits the general public as
well as the agricultural industry. Without animal damage control,
studies have indicated that agriculture's annual losses would total in
excess of $1 billion. In 1994 in Oregon alone, the National
Agricultural Statistics Service estimated that 4,275 sheep and 15,200
lambs were lost to predators.
What kind of signal are we sending to these ranchers? When urban
residents are robbed of their private property, they rely on publicly
financed services to regain their property. It this a subsidy to
private property owners? Is the taking of private property in the East
worthy of publicly financed services, while in the West it is not?
Mr. Chairman, ranchers are hard-working, tax-paying citizens who
contribute mightily to their communities. And the Animal Damage Control
Program is a tool they rely on to maintain a successful operation. It
should be protected.
Oppose the DeFazio amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the DeFazio amendment, and I want to state
that predator control is not only a western issue; it is an issue
throughout the entire country. I think that we need to retain this
program because we retained other predator control programs that
pertain to our police protection. This is just another form of that,
and we need it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown].
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the DeFazio amendment that would cut $13.4 million from the fiscal year
1997 budget for animal damage control.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of my good friend, the chairman of
the committee, to understand my position because I hope I understand
his. I have a small spread in California. I engage in predator control.
I believe in predator control. I will not describe the type of predator
control that I use, but I think it is reasonably effective.
What I am suggesting here in this effort to cut the budget for animal
damage control is that we can do this job more effectively and in a
more principled fashion than we do. I believe in strong cooperation on
the part of the Government, the Department of Agriculture in this case,
to help the farmers, ranchers, and other people of this country. I have
demonstrated that time after time.
On the other hand, I do not believe in an unnecessary and less than
beneficial subsidy that is being used to support this program.
As I think we all know, the Department of Agriculture is authorized
to levy fees to support this program, but have never used that
authority. We move in that direction in almost every other area in
which we are providing services to a segment of the business community,
and it is my view that we should be moving in this direction as far as
the Animal Damage Control Program is concerned.
In previous legislation the Congress has indicated that there are
preferred ways to carry out this operation and they do not require the
extensive use of the kinds of traps, snares, poisons, aerial hunting,
and other things that are going on today under the name of controlling
animal damage. There are more effective ways, and the Congress has
directed that these be used.
We have GAO reports that the ADC has been using these methods that I
[[Page
H6195]]
have described in essentially all instances, despite the Department's
written policies and procedures which call for preference to be given
to nonlethal methods. Now I confess that I am an unabashed animal lover
and like to protect their lives where possible, and I think in this
case we can achieve the control of predator damage by the use of
nonlethal technologies, and that we can do it cheaper and we can
distribute the costs of doing this in a more equitable fashion by
levying fees which would be levied on the people who get the benefit
from the program.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin].
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending
amendment which would reduce funding to the Animal Damage Control
Program.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is at the very best
uninformed, and possibly at the worst, mean-spirited. When we talk
about predators, we are not talking only about coyotes, we are talking
about the wolf which has been introduced into Wyoming, into my State,
which is an endangered species. The grizzly bear is an endangered
species. Eagles and hawks, many of them are endangered species.
We do not have any right or any will to kill these predators, and we
cannot legally do that to protect our livestock. I believe in predator
control, but when an endangered animal, an endangered species kills
some livestock, the only way that the owner of that livestock can get
compensated is through the Animal Damage Control Program.
{time} 1130
I would suggest that, if the gentleman who offered the amendment had
a dog that was worth $10,000 and this dog was in his very own yard, and
there are bulls that are worth that much, much more than $10,000, but
this dog was in its very own yard and my dog went over and killed his
dog, then he would say that I ought to be responsible to pay him back
for the value of his dog. This is all this predator control program
does.
If a species or if a predator, including an endangered species, kills
a cow, a bull, a sheep, whatever, all we are asking is that a portion,
a very small portion of the value of that livestock be given back to
the owner of the livestock. That is what we are asking. This is not a
subsidy. It is merely paying someone for a small portion of what is
rightfully theirs.
The animal loss in the livestock industry is enormous, as the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley] stated earlier. Aside from the
livestock issues, there have also been wildlife losses, not just in
Wyoming but in Oregon and across the western United States, due to
predation. It is the livestock producers who, by controlling predators,
who keep the burgeoning numbers of coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, and
brown bears down, who have provided the most protection for wildlife,
which are preyed upon by these same destructive animals. The Animal
Defense Control Program is the last line of defense for the wildlife
that we enjoy and that everyone wants to preserve in our State.
If Members have any real interest in protecting wildlife, they will
vote against this amendment, because the ranchers and the livestock
growers are the ones who are helping control the predators, and they
need the animal control money to enable them to do that.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The issue here is a subsidy, subsidy. That side of the aisle is
consistently against government programs and subsidies except when it
goes to their own parochial interests. This bill does nothing, nothing
to prevent predator control by individuals, by counties, by States. As
I said previously, when I was a county commissioner, we canceled the
predator control program, walked away from the Federal match. They
engaged in private predator control, and the losses did not go up. But
that is the issue here.
Will we continue a $13.4 million subsidy to a selected few of the
livestock producers in the Western United States?
As I stated earlier, yes, the losses are largely due to predation.
Almost 3 percent of the losses last year were due to predation. The
other 97 percent were due to a number of causes, some of which are not
preventable, like weather, but others which could be preventable with
research, like respiratory problems, 27 percent; digestive problems, 25
percent. Fifty-two percent of the losses in this industry were due to
respiratory and digestive problems.
Maybe we should invest this money in our veterinary schools. Maybe we
should invest it in a vaccination program for livestock. I do not know.
But there would be a heck of a lot better return than the 3 percent
that was due to predation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New Mexico for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeFazio amendment.
It is bad news, it is bad news for agriculture. It is bad news for
consumers. It is bad news for the environment. And it is bad news for
America's children.
Here is the bad news the DeFazio amendment has for agriculture. In
1994, 520,000 sheep and lamb were killed by predators, direct losses to
agriculture from wildlife damage totaled $461 million. The DeFazio
amendment says too bad, so sad, let us increase these losses.
The DeFazio amendment would cut animal damage control that is
essential for the continued viability for many American ranches already
battered by the drought. Let us not forget about the drought. The
DeFazio amendment would punish these ranchers with increased losses. My
friends, that is wrong, it is just plain wrong.
Here is the bad news the DeFazio amendment has for consumers. Higher
grocery bills are on the way for millions of American families
struggling to make ends meet. These higher costs are courtesy of the
DeFazio amendment which will increase predator damage and reduce
supply.
At the same time, ADC plays a vital role in the safety of millions of
air travelers. By 1991, 635 airports participated in the ADC program.
The importance was illuminated when a bird strike at Kennedy Airport in
New York caused severe damage to a plane and, more importantly,
threatened the lives of 300 passengers. The DeFazio amendment says so
sad, too bad, we should accept this level of risk.
That is wrong. It is plain wrong. We should reject this amendment for
that reason as well.
Here is bad news the DeFazio amendment has for the environment. ADC
activities protect threatened and endangered species from predators.
The black footed ferret, the San Joaquin kit fox, the desert tortoise,
the Aleutian Canadian goose might well be extinct were it not for ADC
protection from predators. The DeFazio amendment says too bad, so sad,
we may as well terminate these species. That is wrong, plain wrong,
another reason to reject this amendment.
Finally, and most troubling, the DeFazio amendment delivers bad news
to America's children. Rabies is rearing its horrifying face across
America. Between 1988 and 1992, rabies cases have doubled. New York
reported 1,761 new cases, while 640 of my fellow Texans were treated
for rabies. Predators also directly threaten our youth. In Los Angeles,
a 3-year-old girl was killed in her front yard by a coyote. ADC fights
these threats. The DeFazio amendment tells us not to worry about the
predator threat. It is not important, too bad, so sad.
This is wrong. We should reject the DeFazio amendment. If we care
about either agriculture, consumers, the environment or children, we
should stand strong and reject the DeFazio amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman should read the amendment before he rises with such
extraordinary charges that the amendment will be responsible for the
collapse of American democracy and the final victory of the
totalitarian Soviet state, which I think was part of the statement
there.
It has exceptions for human health and safety. It has exceptions for
endangered or threatened species. The endangered, threatened species
are often dealt with in a better manner by fish
[[Page
H6196]]
and wildlife, who has a line item in their budget. All this does is
eliminate a subsidy for a ridiculous anachronistic program first
implemented in 1931 that has no discernible impact.
It has had an impact, and it is inadvertent, against nontarget
species, poisoning of nontarget species, the destruction of predators
which, like coyotes, in many cases prey on rodents or on groundhogs and
gophers and things which cause problems with pastures and with horses
breaking their legs. So the gentleman, by killing coyotes, is
responsible for people whose horses have put their legs in gopher
holes, broken them, fallen and then been killed.
I will not make that charge, but his charges were equally
irresponsible.
This is an absurd subsidy to a selected few, a very small percentage
of privileged western livestock producers. It is something that if they
need, they can contract for themselves without a subsidy from the U.S.
taxpayers to continue this ineffective and indiscriminate program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
have listened attentively to much of the debate. I think that the
proponent of this amendment is completely overlooking the reason why
some of us believe that it is a good program.
If you have ever talked to a rancher that has lost 200, 300, 400, or
500 kid goats, baby goats just born, if you have talked to ranchers
that have lost 200 or 300 or 400 baby lambs that have just been born,
then the 3-percent figure in the Nation makes no sense whatsoever to
that individual.
This program is designed to take care of a problem. When there is no
problem, when you do not have an undue number of coyotes or other
predator animals in an area, you do not have a program. But when you do
have one, and it becomes a problem, then you have a need for a program,
and it does not just benefit the rancher.
Living in my part of the country today, as my friend and neighbor
from San Antonio just pointed out, rabies, we have a serious problem
that we are trying to contain and control. It is spread by coyotes and
bobcats. And it is a problem that is now coming within the city limits
of some of our towns in the southern part of Texas.
This program, as it is designed, is designed to be a responsible way
to deal with problems like this. So I would hope that my colleagues,
both sides of the aisle, would not support this amendment. It does
nothing other than create some tremendous economic problems for certain
ranchers, and it is not just in the far west, it is in Texas, it is in
Oklahoma, it is in New Mexico, in all areas in which you have for
whatever reason a problem with predatory animals.
I would hope that Members would not support this amendment. I think
the committee has done a very responsible job. They have had a
difficult time with the amount of moneys available. They have put the
moneys where they believe is in the best and highest priority. I
believe that it is something that almost every one of us can find a way
to justify and support.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from New Mexico
[Mr. Skeen] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining and has the right to close,
and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of red herrings drug across the floor
here. Rabies is not affected by this amendment. Human health and safety
activities are totally exempt. Whether it is rabid animals or problem
animals, those things can still be taken care of by ADC.
We have heard about environmental concerns from the other side. I am
pleased to finally hear environmental concerns from the other side from
the gentleman from Texas, maybe not a first but definitely somewhat
unprecedented.
We accommodate endangered and threatened species in this amendment.
It does not affect control efforts that deal with the preservation or
safety of endangered or threatened species.
Quite simply, the amendment goes to the heart of this issue, which
is, should the U.S. taxpayers subsidize a program of poisoning,
baiting, killing, shooting from airplanes and others of predator
species that may or may not be a particular problem, should they
continue to avoid their mandate that they use other controls, should we
spend $14 million doing this? Maybe we should go out and have a Federal
program to acquire dogs. We could buy Great Pyrenees, kuvasz,
Komondors, Bouvier des Flandres. You can get a heck of a lot of them
for $14 million, and if they live 10 years, we would not have to spend
any more money.
The issue is, many ranchers have become dependent upon practices that
are not the most prudent practices, to have calving or birthing of
lambs in areas that are problem areas without any herders present,
without themselves being present.
As we saw earlier, actually more of the livestock die with calving
problems, 17 percent, than with the predation problems, 3 percent. But
in any case, they are saying we need this program. If they need the
program, they should pay for it themselves. They should go to their
county or State, have the county or State pay for it.
It is time to put this Federal anachronism to bed. At a time when we
are cutting back on every other program here in order to get to a
balanced budget, we should no longer subsidize the indiscriminate
killing by the animal disease control people and we should continue in
the areas of health, safety, airports, and endangered species.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me say to the gentleman, who is existing in oblivious and
euphoric unawareness, that is the closest I can come to being real kind
about this issue, I understand his problem. He feels so good that he is
cutting money.
Let me say to the gentleman, by cutting funding for the program there
will not be any personnel available to take care of the health and
safety issues that he is espousing because that is built into the
program.
{time} 1145
I ask the Members to vote ``no'' on this issue. Let us go back a
little bit in history. We had the perfect answer to the kind of
predatory control in the United States at one time with the formula
known as 1080. It did not cost near as much as it does for the program
that we have today because it took care of the problem. It was benign
and it was species-specific. But, no, the animal rights people decided
that this was a lethal method that was objectionable to them, and we
did away with it, we banned, the use of 1080 in Western ranges.
So they came up with this program, and it is a participation program
in which ranchers, farmers, and others put up money, that is to some
degree, matching the Federal funding that is involved.
Yes, we want to cut the budget, and how, but we need to take care of
a problem that is so onerous and so critical to those people who are
livestock raisers and grazers. The are not being subsidized. They are
paying their part because they have to spend enormous amounts of time
checking traps and doing whatever they do to keep their predator
control situation under absolute control.
So I say to the gentleman, ``Get out of the county courthouse that
you were sitting in so comfortable; get out there and live with a
family for a little while that has a predator problem so that you
actually understand what predator control means.''
This program also assists those who have trouble going in and out of
airports with huge flocks of birds that fly through jet engines and
things of that kind. We are using a mental approach and a research
approach to solving that problem; lethal means, are used as a last
resort.
I agree with the gentleman that there ought to be a better system. We
had a better system at one time, but it was not looked upon with great
favor. In our great wisdom we banned it by executive decree, and I
think that was a horrible mistake.
So I say to the gentleman and to those who are interested in this
particular thing that I sure would appreciate a ``no'' vote because I
think it has a devastating effect, and the gentleman, giving him all
due credit, does not know what he is talking about.
[[Page
H6197]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
Currently, the Federal Government spends $27 million on the Animal
Damage Control Program. Various activities covered under this program
include prevention of the spread of rabies and control of bird flocks
near airports. I strongly support these programs because they protect
human health and safety. However, there are other activities within the
ADC program which serve as an unnecessary subsidy to livestock
producers. By the Federal Government paying for predator control,
livestock owners are not encouraged to deter predators and improve the
protection of their herds. By leaving newborn calves and lambs in
fields far from the protection of the barn, livstock producers are
enticing animals such as wolves, mountain lions, and foxes to prey on
this young stock. In addition, the Department of Agriculture is already
authorized to levy fees for predator control services but will not do
so while the Federal government continues to pay the bills.
By cutting this program in half, we will focus the remaining money on
the more beneficial programs that protect human health and safety. In
these times of budgetary constraints, supporting this amendment will
save taxpayer money and provide an incentive for livestock producers to
take responsibility for protecting their herds.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
DeFazio amendment, which would reduce funds for the Animal Damage
Control Program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
This is not a well-known program, but it is an important program for
California and the United States.
ADC's activities range from preventing bird strikes to aircraft at
JFK International Airport in New York, to seeking solutions to the
severe problem of canine rabies in Texas, to protecting threatened and
endangered species in California.
In California, ADC has worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to protect the western snowy plover, the California clapper rail, the
desert tortoise, and the California least tern.
In addition, ADC works with ranchers and grazers to prevent losses
due to predation.
Losses of sheep and goats due to predation averages approximately $24
million a year. Cattle losses due to predation average approximately
$40 million annually. In the absence of an operational ADC program,
these losses will increase dramatically.
The effect of the DeFazio amendment would be significant and
devastating. Seven ADC States offices would be closed, including the
gentleman's home State and six other Western States. Twenty ADC
district offices will close from Wisconsin to my home State of
California. Approximately 200 field positions would be subject to
reduction-in-force. Matching cooperative would decrease by 50 percent--
amounting to a $10 million loss in cooperative funding.
In short, this is an effective program throughout the United States,
and this amendment would severely reduce its effectiveness.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the DeFazio amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139,
noes 279, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 230]
AYES--139
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chrysler
Coburn
Cox
Coyne
Cummings
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Farr
Fawell
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Fox
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Goss
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Jackson (IL)
Johnston
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Obey
Olver
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Petri
Porter
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Woolsey
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--279
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rush
Salmon
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--16
Bass
Calvert
Chapman
Clyburn
Conyers
Emerson
Frelinghuysen
Gillmor
Inglis
Lewis (CA)
Lincoln
Martini
McDade
Moran
Pryce
Schiff
{time} 1207
Messrs. KILDEE, FATTAH, and ROSE changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mrs. KENNELLY, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Messrs. COX of California,
BILBRAY, SCHUMER, LEWIS of Georgia, and NEUMANN changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 230 on
H.R. 3603 I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
personal explanation
Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, this morning during rollcall votes 229 and
230 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I
[[Page
H6198]]
would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 229, and ``nay'' on
rollcall vote No. 230.
amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 1.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
At the end of the bill (page 69, after line 5), insert the
following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for market access activities under
section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5623), or made available for the salaries of employees of the
Department of Agriculture who provide assistance under such
section, may be used to provide assistance to eligible trade
organizations (as defined in such section) to promote the
sale or export of alcohol or alcoholic beverages.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN pro temprore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, I would ask the gentleman, did he request 10 minutes?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New
Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Yes, 10 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Five and five?
Mr. SKEEN. Five and five, yes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, that is fine with me, and
I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will each be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think many people that saw the news yesterday that
Seagrams Liquor Co. is now going to begin advertising directly hard
liquor on television, were shocked at that development.
In a country that currently is involved in a situation in the United
States of America where the No. 1 killer of people under the age of 24
in this country is alcohol and alcohol-related deaths, when we spend
$15 billion a year of taxpayer funds to fight the war on drugs, and yet
we have the singly most abused drug in this country, alcohol, now
killing many, many more Americans than all other drugs combined, we
have a tragedy on our hands.
We have spent time and time again debating on this floor the need to
cut back programs that provide for the education of our children, that
provide for the research and development of our country, that provide
for the health care of our senior citizens. But in this bill is a
hidden subsidy worth millions and millions of dollars to advertise some
of the most profitable alcoholic beverages abroad. It is a shame and it
is a scam. It ought to come to a stop.
In this Market Access Program, we will be spending millions of
dollars to advertise Ernest and Julio Gallo, the richest winemakers in
the world, who receive $25 million worth of United States taxpayer
money to advertise its wine and brandy in Thailand, the Philippines,
Canada, and England. Jim Beam got over $2.5 million to push its whiskey
abroad. Other whiskey giants like Hiram Walker and Brown-Forman
profited from the Market Access Program.
The MAP program adds insult to injury by asking the taxpayers to foot
the bill of the world's largest foreign alcohol giants. We actually
spend money subsidizing Seagrams, the very company that has gone on
television yesterday to advertise its hard liquor, we are now
subsidizing that Canadian company with United States taxpayer dollars
to advertise their products abroad.
This is a scandal that ought to come to an end. Mr. Chairman, I would
just suggest to the Congress of the United States that it is about time
that if we are going to stand up to the senior citizens and tell them
we spend too much money on their health care, if we are going to stand
up to kids and tell them we spend too much money on their education, if
we are going to stand up to the poor and vulnerable and tell them we
spend too much money on poverty programs, then we can stand up to the
biggest alcohol producers, the biggest winemakers in the world and tell
them we are sick and tired of using taxpayers' money to subsidize their
profits.
{time} 1215
If they want to advertise their alcohol products abroad, let them do
it with their own money. Let them stay out of the taxpayer's back
pocket.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can shed some light on this subject. We
are talking about helping export American agricultural products under
this program. I am specifically talking about small wine grape growers,
most of whom market their products through several large wineries. This
is an amendment to help small agriculture.
Remember, the European Union spends more on the export promotion of
wine than the United States spends promoting all of our agricultural
products. They do a great deal to help their growers promote their
foreign sales. The European Community wine industries are heavily
subsidized to the tune of $1.5 billion, which includes $90 million
alone for export promotion. That is the total amount provided for all
of agriculture in this bill, if it is not reduced or eliminated.
Other countries do even more than the European Union. The Italian
Government through its trade commission is funding an additional $25
million for Italian wines alone. So when it comes to the wine industry,
the MAP program that we are now debating is a program that helps small
business, not visit the giant wineries, not only the names that we have
heard bandied about here on the floor.
In fact in 1994, for example, 101 wineries participated and 89 of
them were small wineries. So there is no question that this is not a
subsidy simply to big agriculture or big vintners.
We are not talking about people who are purveying distilled spirits.
This is wine, a product that we lead not only this hemisphere but this
world in the production of a quality product. MAP promotes independent
businesses. It is important that 90 percent of the small wine grape
growers in this country be given an opportunity to be part of an export
promotion program. This amendment would put an end to it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
suggest to the gentleman that if he reads the fine print of this
legislation, what he will find is there is a big gap. The gap says that
they can put money through the association. It is through those
associations that then launder the taxpayers' dollars that then go into
the pockets of the biggest wineries in the United States. Ernest and
Julio, et cetera.
Mr. FAZIO of California. If I could reclaim my time, the people who
are involved in this program are putting up half the money. This is not
all Government money. Half the money comes from the private sector,
both from the wine grape growers through their association and those
who make wine and help market the product.
This is a program that works for all elements of one of our most
successful agricultural industries. If we want to be successful in
getting down our trade imbalance, if we want to help small growers, we
ought to continue to support this very modest program, which is all we
can afford at the present time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding
time.
[[Page
H6199]]
Mr. Chairman, I think we have to keep in mind in this debate with
respect to the Kennedy amendment that this program helps small farmers.
This helps small farmers out in Washington State who, I might say to my
friend from California, make the best wine in the world.
But also I want the gentleman from Massachusetts to understand that
the USDA directs the Market Access Program to small businesses, small
farms, small wineries. I do not think we want to cede our industry to
the European winemakers.
That is what we are really doing here. We are developing a program
that allows our Government to contribute some money to competition,
unfair competition in my judgment, from foreign governments who assist
their winemakers for shelf space. That is really what we are doing.
What we are doing is developing a program that allows our products in
this country to have some shelf space in foreign markets. That means
jobs to Americans. That means jobs to people in my district, small
wineries. I urge the rejection of this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting to note that people are
talking about how this program assists small vintners. I would
anticipate after a vote on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, offering a
follow-up amendment that would simply limit the subsidy program to go
only to small vintners.
As long as the gentlemen that talked so heartily about the need to
assist those small vintners would put their vote where their mouth is,
I think we might be able to work out a compromise on the underlying
issue about whether or not the program should go directly to those
small businesses.
My true feeling, and I know that the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen]
has offered this amendment with me in the past, I wish he was here--I
do not think he expected the amendment to come up quite so quickly--is
that we do not believe that the U.S. Government ought to be involved in
subsidizing alcohol products abroad. That is the fundamental question
that is involved with this debate. It is fundamentally, I think, wrong
for us to tell people that we do not have money in the coffers of the
Federal Government to provide for the health care and the education of
our people, but we do have money in the coffers to be able to subsidize
alcohol advertising for some of the richest companies in America
abroad.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR of California Mr. Chairman, I say to the last speaker, Wake
up.
We turn on the television set, we see Colombia's Juan Valdez selling
us coffee. We see Mexico selling us Corona beer. This is a global
market. If we want people to buy American, then we have to tell them
what is American.
This is a program that requires that the Government match by private
funds to advertise and to promote these products abroad. If we are
indeed going to sell our products grown in America abroad, we are going
to have to maintain this program. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on
each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from
Massachusetts and the gentleman from New Mexico each have 30 seconds
remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has the right
to close.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that we are hearing Members of
Congress that normally speak out so strongly against corporate
subsidies and say that is how we ought to balance the budget, all of a
sudden switching when it comes to a corporate subsidy that happens to
go to the wine industry.
Let us listen to Edward Nervo of the Famiglia Nervo Vines and Wines
in Sonoma County, CA, who has written to me and said, ``With corporate
welfare programs like these, no wonder the biggies get bigger and the
small fry end up in the frying pan.''
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. I thank my distinguished chairman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say, first of all, the 5 largest recipients
of market access promotion funds purchase over 90 percent of their
grapes from small independent grape growers. This is a program that is
working. It is a public-private partnership that has been improved by
the Congress over the last few years. I just want to remind my
colleagues that this same amendment went down to defeat in this House
last year on a vote of 268 to 130. The American wine industry and the
farmers who depend on that industry need our help to again defeat the
Kennedy amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The amendment was rejected.
amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: At the
end of the bill (page 69, after line 5), insert the following
new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for market access activities under
section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5623), or made available for the salaries of employees of the
Department of Agriculture who provide assistance under such
section, may be used to provide assistance to eligible trade
organizations (as defined in such section) to promote the
sale or export of alcohol or alcoholic beverages unless it is
made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds the the promotion activities
benefit a small-business concern.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will each
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee along
with my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for some language that
they inserted in the ag bill last year as a result of the same debate
that just took place on the House floor. I shall read what those
changes are:
The funds shall not be used to provide direct assistance to
any nonprofit corporation that is not recognized as a small
business concern described in section A of the Small Business
Act. Secondly, a cooperative; or, third, an association
described in the first section of the Act.
Essentially what that is attempting to do is to reform this act so
that the big subsidies do not go to the big companies, Seagrams, Ernest
and Julio Gallo and the other major vintners and major producers of
alcohol that have, I think, very unfairly skimmed money from the
American taxpayer while they are making millions and millions of
dollars in their exports.
The language of this amendment very simply suggests that while what
is really occurring is through this trade association loophole, the
money is now being funneled through to trade associations and then the
trade associations redistribute it to the very big companies.
I had a long talk last evening with the Department of Agriculture
about this loophole that is contained in the law. All that this
amendment would do would be to extend the small business criteria to
any funds that get funneled through the trade association to make sure
that the concerns of my good friend from California, who is so very
worried about those small vintners, will actually make sure the money
goes to those small vintners.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dooley].
[[Page
H6200]]
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
What the market Assistance Program is all about is trying to ensure
that U.S. farmers get their fair share of expanding export markets.
What the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is trying to do now
is define a different criteria and that we try to say that only small
businesses are going to be involved in achieving those expanded
markets.
As a farmer and as any grape farmer or wine grape grower out there
will say, what is important is to increase the sales of wine. What is
important is to assure that U.S. wineries have a fair playing field
when they take on the European Union and the 6-to-1 advantage that they
have in export promotion over U.S. wineries.
What we would be doing in this case if we limit the money on where it
goes, we would be saying to that small grower who is growing grapes
that is selling them to a larger winery that they are not ever going to
benefit from the Market Assistance Program. We would be saying to that
winery out there and that winery who might be owned by an individual
that might be farming 10,000 acres but has his own winery that he is
going to benefit from the Market Assistance Program. That is not fair.
What we are trying to do is to ensure that that average wine grape
grower in California, or other parts of the country, that grows less
than 100 acres of wine that they will have a tool that will ensure that
U.S. wine will be at a competitive advantage or have a fair playing
field when we take on the winemakers and the wine grape growers of the
European Union.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Does the gentleman really believe that
we should be providing Government tax subsidies to the richest
companies in the U.S. regardless of what their profit lines are?
Mr. DOOLEY. Reclaiming my time, what the issue is is that the U.S.
farmer have fair access. In a perfect world if the European Union were
not spending six times the amount that the U.S. Government was to
provide exports, then we would not need this program. But if we want to
ensure that the U.S. farmer has a level playing field, this Government
needs to stand behind them, and that is what the Market Assistance
Program does.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. May I inquire of the Chair how much
time remains on each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has 3 minutes remaining and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Skeen] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to suggest that I do think that we
ought to have some kind of test in this program as to whether or not
companies who are making tens of millions of dollars worth of profit
and then coming in and reaching into the back pocket of the taxpayer
and asking us to subsidize them when they are already making all these
dollars.
{time} 1230
The real question is whether we should be promoting alcohol products
abroad to begin with, but if we are to do it and we have to do it
because the Europeans are subsidizing their industry, I say fine, but
let us not go out and needlessly line the pockets of companies that are
already making tens of millions of dollars' worth of profits.
Come on, Congress of the United States, stand up to the wine lobby.
That is what this is all about. Just for once say to the wine lobby,
look, we will accept that we are going to help out the little guy, but
let us not go out there and line the pockets of the richest wine
companies.
These are people that for all the time have gone out and gotten all
the farm workers picking the grapes and all the rest of it. They make
plenty of profits. Let us stand up to them, for crying out loud. Have a
little heart, have a little soul, and stand up to the big boys every
once in a while. It is good for the soul.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would say to
the gentleman from Massachusetts that the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of Health and Human Services say that a little wine in
each individuals' daily diet is healthy for them. So exporting wine is
something we should not be ashamed of. We should be proud of it, and we
should be out there competing with the rest of the world.
But the point the gentleman does not get is that we are talking about
small growers who own 30, 40, or 50 acres. They are not the ones who
make wine and send it overseas. They have to have a winery buy their
product. We are trying to help, as the gentleman from California [Mr.
Riggs] said, 90 percent of the small grape growers in this country to
find a home for their product. They will find it in many cases
domestically but we are expanding our international markets, and we are
doing it with a cooperative program that is shared between those who
profit and the taxpayer who profits even more by a modest investment in
terms of income producing tax paying jobs.
And I can tell the gentleman, in this MAP Program we get back $16 in
agricultural exports for every dollar that we spend. So please
understand we are talking about small farmers here and a benefit for
taxpayers as well.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has 2 minutes remaining and the gentleman
from new Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to address my
comments to my good friend from California, Mr. Fazio. The truth is
that all this amendment does is limit it to small businesses. All we
are saying is if the gentleman is truly concerned about small
businesses and the small vendor, then he should be supportive of this
amendment.
This amendment simply says that the trade association funding can
only go to businesses that will qualify under the Small Business Act as
small business. Instead of the big boys, the little guy.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I would note, as the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dooley] said, a winery may be called a small
business but 90 percent of the grapes grown by farmers move through the
five largest wineries. So the gentleman is not helping the grower if he
makes this distinction. He is trying to do something that is a worthy
cause, but he is missing by a mile.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the
truth of the matter is, if these people are part of a trade association
they still have access. What this bill does is limit the ability of the
trade associations to go about providing big subsidies to the biggest
wine companies. It does not, in fact, stop us from providing small
businesses with the ability to gain access to the program.
I think the whole program is crazy, but I think it is even crazier to
suggest that what we will do is continue to skip a loophole open that
provides all this money to go to the biggest companies in the country.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, the craziest thing we could do would be to eliminate 90
percent of the wine grape growers, who are small farmers. They do not
make wine and do not export it. They need private sector help to do it.
and this program provides the partnership to do it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter
is, this will have absolutely no impact. And if the gentleman talks to
people seriously about the impact of this whole MAP program, it will
not have a penny's worth of difference in terms of what the actual
sales are.
The gentleman and I both know we can produce wine. People want to buy
the wine and will produce the wine, and it has nothing to do with the
small amount of subsidies that end up going into this program. It is
the principle of the fact that we are providing taxpayer
[[Page
H6201]]
dollars, millions and millions of dollars worth of taxpayer funds, that
go into the back pocket of the biggest companies. That is a scam and a
scandal that ought to be dealt with.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], the remainder of my time.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman from Massachusetts
could devote so much time and energy to helping us address the
competitive and trade disadvantage that our wine exports have against
Chilean and European wines.
But the gentleman was correct when he said last year in conference we
restructured the MPP, now known as the Market Access Program, to
restrict direct participation of for-profit corporations that are not
small businesses while requiring a direct match from any small business
that participates in this program. These reforms should silence this
unwarranted criticism of the Market Access Program.
The accusations that corporations are advertising products at
taxpayers expense are simply not true. The primary emphasis of this
program, as has been pointed out repeatedly over the last few minutes
of debate, is toward the small family farmer. Historically, 60 percent
of market access promotion funds have gone to generic advertising; the
remaining 40 percent is allocated to brand promotion, with priority
again given to small entities.
I quote from the act: In addition, a sizable number of large
corporations receiving market access promotion moneys are actually
grower cooperatives. All benefits those organizations derive from brand
assistance under this program are directly returned to their grower
members, who themselves tend to be small and medium sized operations.
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
(Mr. WARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to conclude by saying the Market
Access Program is not corporate welfare; it is a valuable resource for
America's small farmers to compete in highly restrictive foreign
markets. In fact, this program is pro-trade, pro-growth, and pro-jobs.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, although I have the utmost respect for the
gentleman from Massachusetts, unfortunately, I must rise in strong
opposition to this amendment.
I must do so because this amendment directly and unfairly targets my
constituents in Sonoma and Marin Counties, CA, who produce some of the
world's finest wine. If this amendment passes, however, their world-
famous wine would no longer be able to compete in the world market.
This amendment would devastate the small wine producers in my
district, who rely upon Federal export assistance to enter and compete
in the global marketplace.
Unlike Europe and South America, U.S. wine producers receive no
production subsidies whatsoever. Furthermore, our competitors outspend
the United States in export subsidies by more than 6 to 1!
Mr. Chairman, small California wineries cannot compete in such a
lopsided marketplace without some assistance. And let there be no
mistake, this amendment targets small, family-owned businesses--89 out
of 101 wineries that participate in the Market Access Program are small
wineries.
The Kennedy amendment takes this critical assistance away from small
wine producers and, in doing so, It takes away jobs; it takes away
trade; and, it takes away fairness.
Mr. Chairman, we should be working today to help export California
wine, Not California's jobs. Vote ``no'' on the Kennedy amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote,
and pending that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The Chairman pro tempore. Are there further amendments?
Amendment Offered by Mr. KOLBE
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kolbe: At the appropriate place in
the bill, insert the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to administer a peanut program that maintains a
season average farmers stock price for the 1997 crop of quota
peanuts in excess of $640 per ton.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes with the
time being equally divided and to roll the vote.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment with the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. It is an amendment that simply
carries out the intent of Congress on the peanut program. The farm
bill, the Freedom to Farm Act, made some extremely modest changes to
the peanut program. The change that was supposed to benefit consumers
was a 10 percent reduction in support prices from $678 to $610. This
amendment would ensure that the price of quota peanuts would actually
be $610 per ton, as approved in the recently passed farm bill.
Now, why is this amendment necessary, if all we are doing is seeking
to implement what the farm bill said we were going to do? It is
necessary because the Secretary of Agriculture, not without reason,
since he represents agricultural interests, has chosen to administer
this program in a way that makes sure that peanut prices will continue
to stay at previous, much higher levels.
The Secretary was able to do this, to keep the peanut pries high, by
announcing a national peanut quota production level that is going to be
at least 100,000 tons less than the projected domestic demand. In other
words, the Government is creating an artificial shortage.
Mr. Chairman, what we have is a Government-created artificial
shortage of peanuts and, thus, a consequent higher price for peanuts.
That is contrary clearly to what we intended to do in the farm bill.
At a time when we have a peanut industry that is certainly in a
serious state of decline, with peanut consumption dramatically
declining over the last 5 years, it does not seem to me that we can
afford to let bad government policy excessively inflate the prices for
domestic consumers. Inflate the prices, I might add, to what is now
double, double, the export price. The domestic price of peanuts is
double what our producers get when they sell it into the export
markets. In other words, we have this artificially created price.
Even at $610 a ton, which we are not going to get to because of this
reduction in the quota, U.S. peanuts are 33 percent above the world
price of $350 per ton.
So this amendment on
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
(House of Representatives - June 12, 1996)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H6194-H6236]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, the Animal Damage Control Program
represents one of the most efficient and cost-effective programs within
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It benefits the general public as
well as the agricultural industry. Without animal damage control,
studies have indicated that agriculture's annual losses would total in
excess of $1 billion. In 1994 in Oregon alone, the National
Agricultural Statistics Service estimated that 4,275 sheep and 15,200
lambs were lost to predators.
What kind of signal are we sending to these ranchers? When urban
residents are robbed of their private property, they rely on publicly
financed services to regain their property. It this a subsidy to
private property owners? Is the taking of private property in the East
worthy of publicly financed services, while in the West it is not?
Mr. Chairman, ranchers are hard-working, tax-paying citizens who
contribute mightily to their communities. And the Animal Damage Control
Program is a tool they rely on to maintain a successful operation. It
should be protected.
Oppose the DeFazio amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the DeFazio amendment, and I want to state
that predator control is not only a western issue; it is an issue
throughout the entire country. I think that we need to retain this
program because we retained other predator control programs that
pertain to our police protection. This is just another form of that,
and we need it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown].
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the DeFazio amendment that would cut $13.4 million from the fiscal year
1997 budget for animal damage control.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of my good friend, the chairman of
the committee, to understand my position because I hope I understand
his. I have a small spread in California. I engage in predator control.
I believe in predator control. I will not describe the type of predator
control that I use, but I think it is reasonably effective.
What I am suggesting here in this effort to cut the budget for animal
damage control is that we can do this job more effectively and in a
more principled fashion than we do. I believe in strong cooperation on
the part of the Government, the Department of Agriculture in this case,
to help the farmers, ranchers, and other people of this country. I have
demonstrated that time after time.
On the other hand, I do not believe in an unnecessary and less than
beneficial subsidy that is being used to support this program.
As I think we all know, the Department of Agriculture is authorized
to levy fees to support this program, but have never used that
authority. We move in that direction in almost every other area in
which we are providing services to a segment of the business community,
and it is my view that we should be moving in this direction as far as
the Animal Damage Control Program is concerned.
In previous legislation the Congress has indicated that there are
preferred ways to carry out this operation and they do not require the
extensive use of the kinds of traps, snares, poisons, aerial hunting,
and other things that are going on today under the name of controlling
animal damage. There are more effective ways, and the Congress has
directed that these be used.
We have GAO reports that the ADC has been using these methods that I
[[Page
H6195]]
have described in essentially all instances, despite the Department's
written policies and procedures which call for preference to be given
to nonlethal methods. Now I confess that I am an unabashed animal lover
and like to protect their lives where possible, and I think in this
case we can achieve the control of predator damage by the use of
nonlethal technologies, and that we can do it cheaper and we can
distribute the costs of doing this in a more equitable fashion by
levying fees which would be levied on the people who get the benefit
from the program.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin].
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending
amendment which would reduce funding to the Animal Damage Control
Program.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is at the very best
uninformed, and possibly at the worst, mean-spirited. When we talk
about predators, we are not talking only about coyotes, we are talking
about the wolf which has been introduced into Wyoming, into my State,
which is an endangered species. The grizzly bear is an endangered
species. Eagles and hawks, many of them are endangered species.
We do not have any right or any will to kill these predators, and we
cannot legally do that to protect our livestock. I believe in predator
control, but when an endangered animal, an endangered species kills
some livestock, the only way that the owner of that livestock can get
compensated is through the Animal Damage Control Program.
{time} 1130
I would suggest that, if the gentleman who offered the amendment had
a dog that was worth $10,000 and this dog was in his very own yard, and
there are bulls that are worth that much, much more than $10,000, but
this dog was in its very own yard and my dog went over and killed his
dog, then he would say that I ought to be responsible to pay him back
for the value of his dog. This is all this predator control program
does.
If a species or if a predator, including an endangered species, kills
a cow, a bull, a sheep, whatever, all we are asking is that a portion,
a very small portion of the value of that livestock be given back to
the owner of the livestock. That is what we are asking. This is not a
subsidy. It is merely paying someone for a small portion of what is
rightfully theirs.
The animal loss in the livestock industry is enormous, as the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley] stated earlier. Aside from the
livestock issues, there have also been wildlife losses, not just in
Wyoming but in Oregon and across the western United States, due to
predation. It is the livestock producers who, by controlling predators,
who keep the burgeoning numbers of coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, and
brown bears down, who have provided the most protection for wildlife,
which are preyed upon by these same destructive animals. The Animal
Defense Control Program is the last line of defense for the wildlife
that we enjoy and that everyone wants to preserve in our State.
If Members have any real interest in protecting wildlife, they will
vote against this amendment, because the ranchers and the livestock
growers are the ones who are helping control the predators, and they
need the animal control money to enable them to do that.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The issue here is a subsidy, subsidy. That side of the aisle is
consistently against government programs and subsidies except when it
goes to their own parochial interests. This bill does nothing, nothing
to prevent predator control by individuals, by counties, by States. As
I said previously, when I was a county commissioner, we canceled the
predator control program, walked away from the Federal match. They
engaged in private predator control, and the losses did not go up. But
that is the issue here.
Will we continue a $13.4 million subsidy to a selected few of the
livestock producers in the Western United States?
As I stated earlier, yes, the losses are largely due to predation.
Almost 3 percent of the losses last year were due to predation. The
other 97 percent were due to a number of causes, some of which are not
preventable, like weather, but others which could be preventable with
research, like respiratory problems, 27 percent; digestive problems, 25
percent. Fifty-two percent of the losses in this industry were due to
respiratory and digestive problems.
Maybe we should invest this money in our veterinary schools. Maybe we
should invest it in a vaccination program for livestock. I do not know.
But there would be a heck of a lot better return than the 3 percent
that was due to predation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New Mexico for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeFazio amendment.
It is bad news, it is bad news for agriculture. It is bad news for
consumers. It is bad news for the environment. And it is bad news for
America's children.
Here is the bad news the DeFazio amendment has for agriculture. In
1994, 520,000 sheep and lamb were killed by predators, direct losses to
agriculture from wildlife damage totaled $461 million. The DeFazio
amendment says too bad, so sad, let us increase these losses.
The DeFazio amendment would cut animal damage control that is
essential for the continued viability for many American ranches already
battered by the drought. Let us not forget about the drought. The
DeFazio amendment would punish these ranchers with increased losses. My
friends, that is wrong, it is just plain wrong.
Here is the bad news the DeFazio amendment has for consumers. Higher
grocery bills are on the way for millions of American families
struggling to make ends meet. These higher costs are courtesy of the
DeFazio amendment which will increase predator damage and reduce
supply.
At the same time, ADC plays a vital role in the safety of millions of
air travelers. By 1991, 635 airports participated in the ADC program.
The importance was illuminated when a bird strike at Kennedy Airport in
New York caused severe damage to a plane and, more importantly,
threatened the lives of 300 passengers. The DeFazio amendment says so
sad, too bad, we should accept this level of risk.
That is wrong. It is plain wrong. We should reject this amendment for
that reason as well.
Here is bad news the DeFazio amendment has for the environment. ADC
activities protect threatened and endangered species from predators.
The black footed ferret, the San Joaquin kit fox, the desert tortoise,
the Aleutian Canadian goose might well be extinct were it not for ADC
protection from predators. The DeFazio amendment says too bad, so sad,
we may as well terminate these species. That is wrong, plain wrong,
another reason to reject this amendment.
Finally, and most troubling, the DeFazio amendment delivers bad news
to America's children. Rabies is rearing its horrifying face across
America. Between 1988 and 1992, rabies cases have doubled. New York
reported 1,761 new cases, while 640 of my fellow Texans were treated
for rabies. Predators also directly threaten our youth. In Los Angeles,
a 3-year-old girl was killed in her front yard by a coyote. ADC fights
these threats. The DeFazio amendment tells us not to worry about the
predator threat. It is not important, too bad, so sad.
This is wrong. We should reject the DeFazio amendment. If we care
about either agriculture, consumers, the environment or children, we
should stand strong and reject the DeFazio amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman should read the amendment before he rises with such
extraordinary charges that the amendment will be responsible for the
collapse of American democracy and the final victory of the
totalitarian Soviet state, which I think was part of the statement
there.
It has exceptions for human health and safety. It has exceptions for
endangered or threatened species. The endangered, threatened species
are often dealt with in a better manner by fish
[[Page
H6196]]
and wildlife, who has a line item in their budget. All this does is
eliminate a subsidy for a ridiculous anachronistic program first
implemented in 1931 that has no discernible impact.
It has had an impact, and it is inadvertent, against nontarget
species, poisoning of nontarget species, the destruction of predators
which, like coyotes, in many cases prey on rodents or on groundhogs and
gophers and things which cause problems with pastures and with horses
breaking their legs. So the gentleman, by killing coyotes, is
responsible for people whose horses have put their legs in gopher
holes, broken them, fallen and then been killed.
I will not make that charge, but his charges were equally
irresponsible.
This is an absurd subsidy to a selected few, a very small percentage
of privileged western livestock producers. It is something that if they
need, they can contract for themselves without a subsidy from the U.S.
taxpayers to continue this ineffective and indiscriminate program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
have listened attentively to much of the debate. I think that the
proponent of this amendment is completely overlooking the reason why
some of us believe that it is a good program.
If you have ever talked to a rancher that has lost 200, 300, 400, or
500 kid goats, baby goats just born, if you have talked to ranchers
that have lost 200 or 300 or 400 baby lambs that have just been born,
then the 3-percent figure in the Nation makes no sense whatsoever to
that individual.
This program is designed to take care of a problem. When there is no
problem, when you do not have an undue number of coyotes or other
predator animals in an area, you do not have a program. But when you do
have one, and it becomes a problem, then you have a need for a program,
and it does not just benefit the rancher.
Living in my part of the country today, as my friend and neighbor
from San Antonio just pointed out, rabies, we have a serious problem
that we are trying to contain and control. It is spread by coyotes and
bobcats. And it is a problem that is now coming within the city limits
of some of our towns in the southern part of Texas.
This program, as it is designed, is designed to be a responsible way
to deal with problems like this. So I would hope that my colleagues,
both sides of the aisle, would not support this amendment. It does
nothing other than create some tremendous economic problems for certain
ranchers, and it is not just in the far west, it is in Texas, it is in
Oklahoma, it is in New Mexico, in all areas in which you have for
whatever reason a problem with predatory animals.
I would hope that Members would not support this amendment. I think
the committee has done a very responsible job. They have had a
difficult time with the amount of moneys available. They have put the
moneys where they believe is in the best and highest priority. I
believe that it is something that almost every one of us can find a way
to justify and support.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from New Mexico
[Mr. Skeen] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining and has the right to close,
and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of red herrings drug across the floor
here. Rabies is not affected by this amendment. Human health and safety
activities are totally exempt. Whether it is rabid animals or problem
animals, those things can still be taken care of by ADC.
We have heard about environmental concerns from the other side. I am
pleased to finally hear environmental concerns from the other side from
the gentleman from Texas, maybe not a first but definitely somewhat
unprecedented.
We accommodate endangered and threatened species in this amendment.
It does not affect control efforts that deal with the preservation or
safety of endangered or threatened species.
Quite simply, the amendment goes to the heart of this issue, which
is, should the U.S. taxpayers subsidize a program of poisoning,
baiting, killing, shooting from airplanes and others of predator
species that may or may not be a particular problem, should they
continue to avoid their mandate that they use other controls, should we
spend $14 million doing this? Maybe we should go out and have a Federal
program to acquire dogs. We could buy Great Pyrenees, kuvasz,
Komondors, Bouvier des Flandres. You can get a heck of a lot of them
for $14 million, and if they live 10 years, we would not have to spend
any more money.
The issue is, many ranchers have become dependent upon practices that
are not the most prudent practices, to have calving or birthing of
lambs in areas that are problem areas without any herders present,
without themselves being present.
As we saw earlier, actually more of the livestock die with calving
problems, 17 percent, than with the predation problems, 3 percent. But
in any case, they are saying we need this program. If they need the
program, they should pay for it themselves. They should go to their
county or State, have the county or State pay for it.
It is time to put this Federal anachronism to bed. At a time when we
are cutting back on every other program here in order to get to a
balanced budget, we should no longer subsidize the indiscriminate
killing by the animal disease control people and we should continue in
the areas of health, safety, airports, and endangered species.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me say to the gentleman, who is existing in oblivious and
euphoric unawareness, that is the closest I can come to being real kind
about this issue, I understand his problem. He feels so good that he is
cutting money.
Let me say to the gentleman, by cutting funding for the program there
will not be any personnel available to take care of the health and
safety issues that he is espousing because that is built into the
program.
{time} 1145
I ask the Members to vote ``no'' on this issue. Let us go back a
little bit in history. We had the perfect answer to the kind of
predatory control in the United States at one time with the formula
known as 1080. It did not cost near as much as it does for the program
that we have today because it took care of the problem. It was benign
and it was species-specific. But, no, the animal rights people decided
that this was a lethal method that was objectionable to them, and we
did away with it, we banned, the use of 1080 in Western ranges.
So they came up with this program, and it is a participation program
in which ranchers, farmers, and others put up money, that is to some
degree, matching the Federal funding that is involved.
Yes, we want to cut the budget, and how, but we need to take care of
a problem that is so onerous and so critical to those people who are
livestock raisers and grazers. The are not being subsidized. They are
paying their part because they have to spend enormous amounts of time
checking traps and doing whatever they do to keep their predator
control situation under absolute control.
So I say to the gentleman, ``Get out of the county courthouse that
you were sitting in so comfortable; get out there and live with a
family for a little while that has a predator problem so that you
actually understand what predator control means.''
This program also assists those who have trouble going in and out of
airports with huge flocks of birds that fly through jet engines and
things of that kind. We are using a mental approach and a research
approach to solving that problem; lethal means, are used as a last
resort.
I agree with the gentleman that there ought to be a better system. We
had a better system at one time, but it was not looked upon with great
favor. In our great wisdom we banned it by executive decree, and I
think that was a horrible mistake.
So I say to the gentleman and to those who are interested in this
particular thing that I sure would appreciate a ``no'' vote because I
think it has a devastating effect, and the gentleman, giving him all
due credit, does not know what he is talking about.
[[Page
H6197]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
Currently, the Federal Government spends $27 million on the Animal
Damage Control Program. Various activities covered under this program
include prevention of the spread of rabies and control of bird flocks
near airports. I strongly support these programs because they protect
human health and safety. However, there are other activities within the
ADC program which serve as an unnecessary subsidy to livestock
producers. By the Federal Government paying for predator control,
livestock owners are not encouraged to deter predators and improve the
protection of their herds. By leaving newborn calves and lambs in
fields far from the protection of the barn, livstock producers are
enticing animals such as wolves, mountain lions, and foxes to prey on
this young stock. In addition, the Department of Agriculture is already
authorized to levy fees for predator control services but will not do
so while the Federal government continues to pay the bills.
By cutting this program in half, we will focus the remaining money on
the more beneficial programs that protect human health and safety. In
these times of budgetary constraints, supporting this amendment will
save taxpayer money and provide an incentive for livestock producers to
take responsibility for protecting their herds.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
DeFazio amendment, which would reduce funds for the Animal Damage
Control Program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
This is not a well-known program, but it is an important program for
California and the United States.
ADC's activities range from preventing bird strikes to aircraft at
JFK International Airport in New York, to seeking solutions to the
severe problem of canine rabies in Texas, to protecting threatened and
endangered species in California.
In California, ADC has worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to protect the western snowy plover, the California clapper rail, the
desert tortoise, and the California least tern.
In addition, ADC works with ranchers and grazers to prevent losses
due to predation.
Losses of sheep and goats due to predation averages approximately $24
million a year. Cattle losses due to predation average approximately
$40 million annually. In the absence of an operational ADC program,
these losses will increase dramatically.
The effect of the DeFazio amendment would be significant and
devastating. Seven ADC States offices would be closed, including the
gentleman's home State and six other Western States. Twenty ADC
district offices will close from Wisconsin to my home State of
California. Approximately 200 field positions would be subject to
reduction-in-force. Matching cooperative would decrease by 50 percent--
amounting to a $10 million loss in cooperative funding.
In short, this is an effective program throughout the United States,
and this amendment would severely reduce its effectiveness.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the DeFazio amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139,
noes 279, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 230]
AYES--139
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chrysler
Coburn
Cox
Coyne
Cummings
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Farr
Fawell
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Fox
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Goss
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Jackson (IL)
Johnston
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Obey
Olver
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Petri
Porter
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Woolsey
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--279
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rush
Salmon
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--16
Bass
Calvert
Chapman
Clyburn
Conyers
Emerson
Frelinghuysen
Gillmor
Inglis
Lewis (CA)
Lincoln
Martini
McDade
Moran
Pryce
Schiff
{time} 1207
Messrs. KILDEE, FATTAH, and ROSE changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mrs. KENNELLY, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Messrs. COX of California,
BILBRAY, SCHUMER, LEWIS of Georgia, and NEUMANN changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 230 on
H.R. 3603 I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
personal explanation
Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, this morning during rollcall votes 229 and
230 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I
[[Page
H6198]]
would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 229, and ``nay'' on
rollcall vote No. 230.
amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 1.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
At the end of the bill (page 69, after line 5), insert the
following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for market access activities under
section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5623), or made available for the salaries of employees of the
Department of Agriculture who provide assistance under such
section, may be used to provide assistance to eligible trade
organizations (as defined in such section) to promote the
sale or export of alcohol or alcoholic beverages.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN pro temprore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, I would ask the gentleman, did he request 10 minutes?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New
Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Yes, 10 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Five and five?
Mr. SKEEN. Five and five, yes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, that is fine with me, and
I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will each be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think many people that saw the news yesterday that
Seagrams Liquor Co. is now going to begin advertising directly hard
liquor on television, were shocked at that development.
In a country that currently is involved in a situation in the United
States of America where the No. 1 killer of people under the age of 24
in this country is alcohol and alcohol-related deaths, when we spend
$15 billion a year of taxpayer funds to fight the war on drugs, and yet
we have the singly most abused drug in this country, alcohol, now
killing many, many more Americans than all other drugs combined, we
have a tragedy on our hands.
We have spent time and time again debating on this floor the need to
cut back programs that provide for the education of our children, that
provide for the research and development of our country, that provide
for the health care of our senior citizens. But in this bill is a
hidden subsidy worth millions and millions of dollars to advertise some
of the most profitable alcoholic beverages abroad. It is a shame and it
is a scam. It ought to come to a stop.
In this Market Access Program, we will be spending millions of
dollars to advertise Ernest and Julio Gallo, the richest winemakers in
the world, who receive $25 million worth of United States taxpayer
money to advertise its wine and brandy in Thailand, the Philippines,
Canada, and England. Jim Beam got over $2.5 million to push its whiskey
abroad. Other whiskey giants like Hiram Walker and Brown-Forman
profited from the Market Access Program.
The MAP program adds insult to injury by asking the taxpayers to foot
the bill of the world's largest foreign alcohol giants. We actually
spend money subsidizing Seagrams, the very company that has gone on
television yesterday to advertise its hard liquor, we are now
subsidizing that Canadian company with United States taxpayer dollars
to advertise their products abroad.
This is a scandal that ought to come to an end. Mr. Chairman, I would
just suggest to the Congress of the United States that it is about time
that if we are going to stand up to the senior citizens and tell them
we spend too much money on their health care, if we are going to stand
up to kids and tell them we spend too much money on their education, if
we are going to stand up to the poor and vulnerable and tell them we
spend too much money on poverty programs, then we can stand up to the
biggest alcohol producers, the biggest winemakers in the world and tell
them we are sick and tired of using taxpayers' money to subsidize their
profits.
{time} 1215
If they want to advertise their alcohol products abroad, let them do
it with their own money. Let them stay out of the taxpayer's back
pocket.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can shed some light on this subject. We
are talking about helping export American agricultural products under
this program. I am specifically talking about small wine grape growers,
most of whom market their products through several large wineries. This
is an amendment to help small agriculture.
Remember, the European Union spends more on the export promotion of
wine than the United States spends promoting all of our agricultural
products. They do a great deal to help their growers promote their
foreign sales. The European Community wine industries are heavily
subsidized to the tune of $1.5 billion, which includes $90 million
alone for export promotion. That is the total amount provided for all
of agriculture in this bill, if it is not reduced or eliminated.
Other countries do even more than the European Union. The Italian
Government through its trade commission is funding an additional $25
million for Italian wines alone. So when it comes to the wine industry,
the MAP program that we are now debating is a program that helps small
business, not visit the giant wineries, not only the names that we have
heard bandied about here on the floor.
In fact in 1994, for example, 101 wineries participated and 89 of
them were small wineries. So there is no question that this is not a
subsidy simply to big agriculture or big vintners.
We are not talking about people who are purveying distilled spirits.
This is wine, a product that we lead not only this hemisphere but this
world in the production of a quality product. MAP promotes independent
businesses. It is important that 90 percent of the small wine grape
growers in this country be given an opportunity to be part of an export
promotion program. This amendment would put an end to it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
suggest to the gentleman that if he reads the fine print of this
legislation, what he will find is there is a big gap. The gap says that
they can put money through the association. It is through those
associations that then launder the taxpayers' dollars that then go into
the pockets of the biggest wineries in the United States. Ernest and
Julio, et cetera.
Mr. FAZIO of California. If I could reclaim my time, the people who
are involved in this program are putting up half the money. This is not
all Government money. Half the money comes from the private sector,
both from the wine grape growers through their association and those
who make wine and help market the product.
This is a program that works for all elements of one of our most
successful agricultural industries. If we want to be successful in
getting down our trade imbalance, if we want to help small growers, we
ought to continue to support this very modest program, which is all we
can afford at the present time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding
time.
[[Page
H6199]]
Mr. Chairman, I think we have to keep in mind in this debate with
respect to the Kennedy amendment that this program helps small farmers.
This helps small farmers out in Washington State who, I might say to my
friend from California, make the best wine in the world.
But also I want the gentleman from Massachusetts to understand that
the USDA directs the Market Access Program to small businesses, small
farms, small wineries. I do not think we want to cede our industry to
the European winemakers.
That is what we are really doing here. We are developing a program
that allows our Government to contribute some money to competition,
unfair competition in my judgment, from foreign governments who assist
their winemakers for shelf space. That is really what we are doing.
What we are doing is developing a program that allows our products in
this country to have some shelf space in foreign markets. That means
jobs to Americans. That means jobs to people in my district, small
wineries. I urge the rejection of this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting to note that people are
talking about how this program assists small vintners. I would
anticipate after a vote on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, offering a
follow-up amendment that would simply limit the subsidy program to go
only to small vintners.
As long as the gentlemen that talked so heartily about the need to
assist those small vintners would put their vote where their mouth is,
I think we might be able to work out a compromise on the underlying
issue about whether or not the program should go directly to those
small businesses.
My true feeling, and I know that the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen]
has offered this amendment with me in the past, I wish he was here--I
do not think he expected the amendment to come up quite so quickly--is
that we do not believe that the U.S. Government ought to be involved in
subsidizing alcohol products abroad. That is the fundamental question
that is involved with this debate. It is fundamentally, I think, wrong
for us to tell people that we do not have money in the coffers of the
Federal Government to provide for the health care and the education of
our people, but we do have money in the coffers to be able to subsidize
alcohol advertising for some of the richest companies in America
abroad.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR of California Mr. Chairman, I say to the last speaker, Wake
up.
We turn on the television set, we see Colombia's Juan Valdez selling
us coffee. We see Mexico selling us Corona beer. This is a global
market. If we want people to buy American, then we have to tell them
what is American.
This is a program that requires that the Government match by private
funds to advertise and to promote these products abroad. If we are
indeed going to sell our products grown in America abroad, we are going
to have to maintain this program. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on
each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from
Massachusetts and the gentleman from New Mexico each have 30 seconds
remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has the right
to close.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that we are hearing Members of
Congress that normally speak out so strongly against corporate
subsidies and say that is how we ought to balance the budget, all of a
sudden switching when it comes to a corporate subsidy that happens to
go to the wine industry.
Let us listen to Edward Nervo of the Famiglia Nervo Vines and Wines
in Sonoma County, CA, who has written to me and said, ``With corporate
welfare programs like these, no wonder the biggies get bigger and the
small fry end up in the frying pan.''
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. I thank my distinguished chairman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say, first of all, the 5 largest recipients
of market access promotion funds purchase over 90 percent of their
grapes from small independent grape growers. This is a program that is
working. It is a public-private partnership that has been improved by
the Congress over the last few years. I just want to remind my
colleagues that this same amendment went down to defeat in this House
last year on a vote of 268 to 130. The American wine industry and the
farmers who depend on that industry need our help to again defeat the
Kennedy amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The amendment was rejected.
amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: At the
end of the bill (page 69, after line 5), insert the following
new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for market access activities under
section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5623), or made available for the salaries of employees of the
Department of Agriculture who provide assistance under such
section, may be used to provide assistance to eligible trade
organizations (as defined in such section) to promote the
sale or export of alcohol or alcoholic beverages unless it is
made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds the the promotion activities
benefit a small-business concern.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will each
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee along
with my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for some language that
they inserted in the ag bill last year as a result of the same debate
that just took place on the House floor. I shall read what those
changes are:
The funds shall not be used to provide direct assistance to
any nonprofit corporation that is not recognized as a small
business concern described in section A of the Small Business
Act. Secondly, a cooperative; or, third, an association
described in the first section of the Act.
Essentially what that is attempting to do is to reform this act so
that the big subsidies do not go to the big companies, Seagrams, Ernest
and Julio Gallo and the other major vintners and major producers of
alcohol that have, I think, very unfairly skimmed money from the
American taxpayer while they are making millions and millions of
dollars in their exports.
The language of this amendment very simply suggests that while what
is really occurring is through this trade association loophole, the
money is now being funneled through to trade associations and then the
trade associations redistribute it to the very big companies.
I had a long talk last evening with the Department of Agriculture
about this loophole that is contained in the law. All that this
amendment would do would be to extend the small business criteria to
any funds that get funneled through the trade association to make sure
that the concerns of my good friend from California, who is so very
worried about those small vintners, will actually make sure the money
goes to those small vintners.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dooley].
[[Page
H6200]]
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
What the market Assistance Program is all about is trying to ensure
that U.S. farmers get their fair share of expanding export markets.
What the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is trying to do now
is define a different criteria and that we try to say that only small
businesses are going to be involved in achieving those expanded
markets.
As a farmer and as any grape farmer or wine grape grower out there
will say, what is important is to increase the sales of wine. What is
important is to assure that U.S. wineries have a fair playing field
when they take on the European Union and the 6-to-1 advantage that they
have in export promotion over U.S. wineries.
What we would be doing in this case if we limit the money on where it
goes, we would be saying to that small grower who is growing grapes
that is selling them to a larger winery that they are not ever going to
benefit from the Market Assistance Program. We would be saying to that
winery out there and that winery who might be owned by an individual
that might be farming 10,000 acres but has his own winery that he is
going to benefit from the Market Assistance Program. That is not fair.
What we are trying to do is to ensure that that average wine grape
grower in California, or other parts of the country, that grows less
than 100 acres of wine that they will have a tool that will ensure that
U.S. wine will be at a competitive advantage or have a fair playing
field when we take on the winemakers and the wine grape growers of the
European Union.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Does the gentleman really believe that
we should be providing Government tax subsidies to the richest
companies in the U.S. regardless of what their profit lines are?
Mr. DOOLEY. Reclaiming my time, what the issue is is that the U.S.
farmer have fair access. In a perfect world if the European Union were
not spending six times the amount that the U.S. Government was to
provide exports, then we would not need this program. But if we want to
ensure that the U.S. farmer has a level playing field, this Government
needs to stand behind them, and that is what the Market Assistance
Program does.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. May I inquire of the Chair how much
time remains on each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has 3 minutes remaining and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Skeen] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to suggest that I do think that we
ought to have some kind of test in this program as to whether or not
companies who are making tens of millions of dollars worth of profit
and then coming in and reaching into the back pocket of the taxpayer
and asking us to subsidize them when they are already making all these
dollars.
{time} 1230
The real question is whether we should be promoting alcohol products
abroad to begin with, but if we are to do it and we have to do it
because the Europeans are subsidizing their industry, I say fine, but
let us not go out and needlessly line the pockets of companies that are
already making tens of millions of dollars' worth of profits.
Come on, Congress of the United States, stand up to the wine lobby.
That is what this is all about. Just for once say to the wine lobby,
look, we will accept that we are going to help out the little guy, but
let us not go out there and line the pockets of the richest wine
companies.
These are people that for all the time have gone out and gotten all
the farm workers picking the grapes and all the rest of it. They make
plenty of profits. Let us stand up to them, for crying out loud. Have a
little heart, have a little soul, and stand up to the big boys every
once in a while. It is good for the soul.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would say to
the gentleman from Massachusetts that the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of Health and Human Services say that a little wine in
each individuals' daily diet is healthy for them. So exporting wine is
something we should not be ashamed of. We should be proud of it, and we
should be out there competing with the rest of the world.
But the point the gentleman does not get is that we are talking about
small growers who own 30, 40, or 50 acres. They are not the ones who
make wine and send it overseas. They have to have a winery buy their
product. We are trying to help, as the gentleman from California [Mr.
Riggs] said, 90 percent of the small grape growers in this country to
find a home for their product. They will find it in many cases
domestically but we are expanding our international markets, and we are
doing it with a cooperative program that is shared between those who
profit and the taxpayer who profits even more by a modest investment in
terms of income producing tax paying jobs.
And I can tell the gentleman, in this MAP Program we get back $16 in
agricultural exports for every dollar that we spend. So please
understand we are talking about small farmers here and a benefit for
taxpayers as well.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has 2 minutes remaining and the gentleman
from new Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to address my
comments to my good friend from California, Mr. Fazio. The truth is
that all this amendment does is limit it to small businesses. All we
are saying is if the gentleman is truly concerned about small
businesses and the small vendor, then he should be supportive of this
amendment.
This amendment simply says that the trade association funding can
only go to businesses that will qualify under the Small Business Act as
small business. Instead of the big boys, the little guy.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I would note, as the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dooley] said, a winery may be called a small
business but 90 percent of the grapes grown by farmers move through the
five largest wineries. So the gentleman is not helping the grower if he
makes this distinction. He is trying to do something that is a worthy
cause, but he is missing by a mile.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the
truth of the matter is, if these people are part of a trade association
they still have access. What this bill does is limit the ability of the
trade associations to go about providing big subsidies to the biggest
wine companies. It does not, in fact, stop us from providing small
businesses with the ability to gain access to the program.
I think the whole program is crazy, but I think it is even crazier to
suggest that what we will do is continue to skip a loophole open that
provides all this money to go to the biggest companies in the country.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, the craziest thing we could do would be to eliminate 90
percent of the wine grape growers, who are small farmers. They do not
make wine and do not export it. They need private sector help to do it.
and this program provides the partnership to do it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter
is, this will have absolutely no impact. And if the gentleman talks to
people seriously about the impact of this whole MAP program, it will
not have a penny's worth of difference in terms of what the actual
sales are.
The gentleman and I both know we can produce wine. People want to buy
the wine and will produce the wine, and it has nothing to do with the
small amount of subsidies that end up going into this program. It is
the principle of the fact that we are providing taxpayer
[[Page
H6201]]
dollars, millions and millions of dollars worth of taxpayer funds, that
go into the back pocket of the biggest companies. That is a scam and a
scandal that ought to be dealt with.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], the remainder of my time.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman from Massachusetts
could devote so much time and energy to helping us address the
competitive and trade disadvantage that our wine exports have against
Chilean and European wines.
But the gentleman was correct when he said last year in conference we
restructured the MPP, now known as the Market Access Program, to
restrict direct participation of for-profit corporations that are not
small businesses while requiring a direct match from any small business
that participates in this program. These reforms should silence this
unwarranted criticism of the Market Access Program.
The accusations that corporations are advertising products at
taxpayers expense are simply not true. The primary emphasis of this
program, as has been pointed out repeatedly over the last few minutes
of debate, is toward the small family farmer. Historically, 60 percent
of market access promotion funds have gone to generic advertising; the
remaining 40 percent is allocated to brand promotion, with priority
again given to small entities.
I quote from the act: In addition, a sizable number of large
corporations receiving market access promotion moneys are actually
grower cooperatives. All benefits those organizations derive from brand
assistance under this program are directly returned to their grower
members, who themselves tend to be small and medium sized operations.
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
(Mr. WARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to conclude by saying the Market
Access Program is not corporate welfare; it is a valuable resource for
America's small farmers to compete in highly restrictive foreign
markets. In fact, this program is pro-trade, pro-growth, and pro-jobs.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, although I have the utmost respect for the
gentleman from Massachusetts, unfortunately, I must rise in strong
opposition to this amendment.
I must do so because this amendment directly and unfairly targets my
constituents in Sonoma and Marin Counties, CA, who produce some of the
world's finest wine. If this amendment passes, however, their world-
famous wine would no longer be able to compete in the world market.
This amendment would devastate the small wine producers in my
district, who rely upon Federal export assistance to enter and compete
in the global marketplace.
Unlike Europe and South America, U.S. wine producers receive no
production subsidies whatsoever. Furthermore, our competitors outspend
the United States in export subsidies by more than 6 to 1!
Mr. Chairman, small California wineries cannot compete in such a
lopsided marketplace without some assistance. And let there be no
mistake, this amendment targets small, family-owned businesses--89 out
of 101 wineries that participate in the Market Access Program are small
wineries.
The Kennedy amendment takes this critical assistance away from small
wine producers and, in doing so, It takes away jobs; it takes away
trade; and, it takes away fairness.
Mr. Chairman, we should be working today to help export California
wine, Not California's jobs. Vote ``no'' on the Kennedy amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote,
and pending that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The Chairman pro tempore. Are there further amendments?
Amendment Offered by Mr. KOLBE
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kolbe: At the appropriate place in
the bill, insert the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to administer a peanut program that maintains a
season average farmers stock price for the 1997 crop of quota
peanuts in excess of $640 per ton.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes with the
time being equally divided and to roll the vote.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment with the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. It is an amendment that simply
carries out the intent of Congress on the peanut program. The farm
bill, the Freedom to Farm Act, made some extremely modest changes to
the peanut program. The change that was supposed to benefit consumers
was a 10 percent reduction in support prices from $678 to $610. This
amendment would ensure that the price of quota peanuts would actually
be $610 per ton, as approved in the recently passed farm bill.
Now, why is this amendment necessary, if all we are doing is seeking
to implement what the farm bill said we were going to do? It is
necessary because the Secretary of Agriculture, not without reason,
since he represents agricultural interests, has chosen to administer
this program in a way that makes sure that peanut prices will continue
to stay at previous, much higher levels.
The Secretary was able to do this, to keep the peanut pries high, by
announcing a national peanut quota production level that is going to be
at least 100,000 tons less than the projected domestic demand. In other
words, the Government is creating an artificial shortage.
Mr. Chairman, what we have is a Government-created artificial
shortage of peanuts and, thus, a consequent higher price for peanuts.
That is contrary clearly to what we intended to do in the farm bill.
At a time when we have a peanut industry that is certainly in a
serious state of decline, with peanut consumption dramatically
declining over the last 5 years, it does not seem to me that we can
afford to let bad government policy excessively inflate the prices for
domestic consumers. Inflate the prices, I might add, to what is now
double, double, the export price. The domestic price of peanuts is
double what our producers get when they sell it into the export
markets. In other words, we have this artificially created price.
Even at $610 a ton, which we are not going to get to because of this
reduction in the quota, U.S. peanuts are 33 percent above the world
price of $350 per ton.
So this am
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in House section
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
(House of Representatives - June 12, 1996)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H6194-H6236]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, the Animal Damage Control Program
represents one of the most efficient and cost-effective programs within
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It benefits the general public as
well as the agricultural industry. Without animal damage control,
studies have indicated that agriculture's annual losses would total in
excess of $1 billion. In 1994 in Oregon alone, the National
Agricultural Statistics Service estimated that 4,275 sheep and 15,200
lambs were lost to predators.
What kind of signal are we sending to these ranchers? When urban
residents are robbed of their private property, they rely on publicly
financed services to regain their property. It this a subsidy to
private property owners? Is the taking of private property in the East
worthy of publicly financed services, while in the West it is not?
Mr. Chairman, ranchers are hard-working, tax-paying citizens who
contribute mightily to their communities. And the Animal Damage Control
Program is a tool they rely on to maintain a successful operation. It
should be protected.
Oppose the DeFazio amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the DeFazio amendment, and I want to state
that predator control is not only a western issue; it is an issue
throughout the entire country. I think that we need to retain this
program because we retained other predator control programs that
pertain to our police protection. This is just another form of that,
and we need it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown].
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the DeFazio amendment that would cut $13.4 million from the fiscal year
1997 budget for animal damage control.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of my good friend, the chairman of
the committee, to understand my position because I hope I understand
his. I have a small spread in California. I engage in predator control.
I believe in predator control. I will not describe the type of predator
control that I use, but I think it is reasonably effective.
What I am suggesting here in this effort to cut the budget for animal
damage control is that we can do this job more effectively and in a
more principled fashion than we do. I believe in strong cooperation on
the part of the Government, the Department of Agriculture in this case,
to help the farmers, ranchers, and other people of this country. I have
demonstrated that time after time.
On the other hand, I do not believe in an unnecessary and less than
beneficial subsidy that is being used to support this program.
As I think we all know, the Department of Agriculture is authorized
to levy fees to support this program, but have never used that
authority. We move in that direction in almost every other area in
which we are providing services to a segment of the business community,
and it is my view that we should be moving in this direction as far as
the Animal Damage Control Program is concerned.
In previous legislation the Congress has indicated that there are
preferred ways to carry out this operation and they do not require the
extensive use of the kinds of traps, snares, poisons, aerial hunting,
and other things that are going on today under the name of controlling
animal damage. There are more effective ways, and the Congress has
directed that these be used.
We have GAO reports that the ADC has been using these methods that I
[[Page
H6195]]
have described in essentially all instances, despite the Department's
written policies and procedures which call for preference to be given
to nonlethal methods. Now I confess that I am an unabashed animal lover
and like to protect their lives where possible, and I think in this
case we can achieve the control of predator damage by the use of
nonlethal technologies, and that we can do it cheaper and we can
distribute the costs of doing this in a more equitable fashion by
levying fees which would be levied on the people who get the benefit
from the program.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin].
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending
amendment which would reduce funding to the Animal Damage Control
Program.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is at the very best
uninformed, and possibly at the worst, mean-spirited. When we talk
about predators, we are not talking only about coyotes, we are talking
about the wolf which has been introduced into Wyoming, into my State,
which is an endangered species. The grizzly bear is an endangered
species. Eagles and hawks, many of them are endangered species.
We do not have any right or any will to kill these predators, and we
cannot legally do that to protect our livestock. I believe in predator
control, but when an endangered animal, an endangered species kills
some livestock, the only way that the owner of that livestock can get
compensated is through the Animal Damage Control Program.
{time} 1130
I would suggest that, if the gentleman who offered the amendment had
a dog that was worth $10,000 and this dog was in his very own yard, and
there are bulls that are worth that much, much more than $10,000, but
this dog was in its very own yard and my dog went over and killed his
dog, then he would say that I ought to be responsible to pay him back
for the value of his dog. This is all this predator control program
does.
If a species or if a predator, including an endangered species, kills
a cow, a bull, a sheep, whatever, all we are asking is that a portion,
a very small portion of the value of that livestock be given back to
the owner of the livestock. That is what we are asking. This is not a
subsidy. It is merely paying someone for a small portion of what is
rightfully theirs.
The animal loss in the livestock industry is enormous, as the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley] stated earlier. Aside from the
livestock issues, there have also been wildlife losses, not just in
Wyoming but in Oregon and across the western United States, due to
predation. It is the livestock producers who, by controlling predators,
who keep the burgeoning numbers of coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, and
brown bears down, who have provided the most protection for wildlife,
which are preyed upon by these same destructive animals. The Animal
Defense Control Program is the last line of defense for the wildlife
that we enjoy and that everyone wants to preserve in our State.
If Members have any real interest in protecting wildlife, they will
vote against this amendment, because the ranchers and the livestock
growers are the ones who are helping control the predators, and they
need the animal control money to enable them to do that.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The issue here is a subsidy, subsidy. That side of the aisle is
consistently against government programs and subsidies except when it
goes to their own parochial interests. This bill does nothing, nothing
to prevent predator control by individuals, by counties, by States. As
I said previously, when I was a county commissioner, we canceled the
predator control program, walked away from the Federal match. They
engaged in private predator control, and the losses did not go up. But
that is the issue here.
Will we continue a $13.4 million subsidy to a selected few of the
livestock producers in the Western United States?
As I stated earlier, yes, the losses are largely due to predation.
Almost 3 percent of the losses last year were due to predation. The
other 97 percent were due to a number of causes, some of which are not
preventable, like weather, but others which could be preventable with
research, like respiratory problems, 27 percent; digestive problems, 25
percent. Fifty-two percent of the losses in this industry were due to
respiratory and digestive problems.
Maybe we should invest this money in our veterinary schools. Maybe we
should invest it in a vaccination program for livestock. I do not know.
But there would be a heck of a lot better return than the 3 percent
that was due to predation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New Mexico for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeFazio amendment.
It is bad news, it is bad news for agriculture. It is bad news for
consumers. It is bad news for the environment. And it is bad news for
America's children.
Here is the bad news the DeFazio amendment has for agriculture. In
1994, 520,000 sheep and lamb were killed by predators, direct losses to
agriculture from wildlife damage totaled $461 million. The DeFazio
amendment says too bad, so sad, let us increase these losses.
The DeFazio amendment would cut animal damage control that is
essential for the continued viability for many American ranches already
battered by the drought. Let us not forget about the drought. The
DeFazio amendment would punish these ranchers with increased losses. My
friends, that is wrong, it is just plain wrong.
Here is the bad news the DeFazio amendment has for consumers. Higher
grocery bills are on the way for millions of American families
struggling to make ends meet. These higher costs are courtesy of the
DeFazio amendment which will increase predator damage and reduce
supply.
At the same time, ADC plays a vital role in the safety of millions of
air travelers. By 1991, 635 airports participated in the ADC program.
The importance was illuminated when a bird strike at Kennedy Airport in
New York caused severe damage to a plane and, more importantly,
threatened the lives of 300 passengers. The DeFazio amendment says so
sad, too bad, we should accept this level of risk.
That is wrong. It is plain wrong. We should reject this amendment for
that reason as well.
Here is bad news the DeFazio amendment has for the environment. ADC
activities protect threatened and endangered species from predators.
The black footed ferret, the San Joaquin kit fox, the desert tortoise,
the Aleutian Canadian goose might well be extinct were it not for ADC
protection from predators. The DeFazio amendment says too bad, so sad,
we may as well terminate these species. That is wrong, plain wrong,
another reason to reject this amendment.
Finally, and most troubling, the DeFazio amendment delivers bad news
to America's children. Rabies is rearing its horrifying face across
America. Between 1988 and 1992, rabies cases have doubled. New York
reported 1,761 new cases, while 640 of my fellow Texans were treated
for rabies. Predators also directly threaten our youth. In Los Angeles,
a 3-year-old girl was killed in her front yard by a coyote. ADC fights
these threats. The DeFazio amendment tells us not to worry about the
predator threat. It is not important, too bad, so sad.
This is wrong. We should reject the DeFazio amendment. If we care
about either agriculture, consumers, the environment or children, we
should stand strong and reject the DeFazio amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman should read the amendment before he rises with such
extraordinary charges that the amendment will be responsible for the
collapse of American democracy and the final victory of the
totalitarian Soviet state, which I think was part of the statement
there.
It has exceptions for human health and safety. It has exceptions for
endangered or threatened species. The endangered, threatened species
are often dealt with in a better manner by fish
[[Page
H6196]]
and wildlife, who has a line item in their budget. All this does is
eliminate a subsidy for a ridiculous anachronistic program first
implemented in 1931 that has no discernible impact.
It has had an impact, and it is inadvertent, against nontarget
species, poisoning of nontarget species, the destruction of predators
which, like coyotes, in many cases prey on rodents or on groundhogs and
gophers and things which cause problems with pastures and with horses
breaking their legs. So the gentleman, by killing coyotes, is
responsible for people whose horses have put their legs in gopher
holes, broken them, fallen and then been killed.
I will not make that charge, but his charges were equally
irresponsible.
This is an absurd subsidy to a selected few, a very small percentage
of privileged western livestock producers. It is something that if they
need, they can contract for themselves without a subsidy from the U.S.
taxpayers to continue this ineffective and indiscriminate program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
have listened attentively to much of the debate. I think that the
proponent of this amendment is completely overlooking the reason why
some of us believe that it is a good program.
If you have ever talked to a rancher that has lost 200, 300, 400, or
500 kid goats, baby goats just born, if you have talked to ranchers
that have lost 200 or 300 or 400 baby lambs that have just been born,
then the 3-percent figure in the Nation makes no sense whatsoever to
that individual.
This program is designed to take care of a problem. When there is no
problem, when you do not have an undue number of coyotes or other
predator animals in an area, you do not have a program. But when you do
have one, and it becomes a problem, then you have a need for a program,
and it does not just benefit the rancher.
Living in my part of the country today, as my friend and neighbor
from San Antonio just pointed out, rabies, we have a serious problem
that we are trying to contain and control. It is spread by coyotes and
bobcats. And it is a problem that is now coming within the city limits
of some of our towns in the southern part of Texas.
This program, as it is designed, is designed to be a responsible way
to deal with problems like this. So I would hope that my colleagues,
both sides of the aisle, would not support this amendment. It does
nothing other than create some tremendous economic problems for certain
ranchers, and it is not just in the far west, it is in Texas, it is in
Oklahoma, it is in New Mexico, in all areas in which you have for
whatever reason a problem with predatory animals.
I would hope that Members would not support this amendment. I think
the committee has done a very responsible job. They have had a
difficult time with the amount of moneys available. They have put the
moneys where they believe is in the best and highest priority. I
believe that it is something that almost every one of us can find a way
to justify and support.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from New Mexico
[Mr. Skeen] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining and has the right to close,
and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of red herrings drug across the floor
here. Rabies is not affected by this amendment. Human health and safety
activities are totally exempt. Whether it is rabid animals or problem
animals, those things can still be taken care of by ADC.
We have heard about environmental concerns from the other side. I am
pleased to finally hear environmental concerns from the other side from
the gentleman from Texas, maybe not a first but definitely somewhat
unprecedented.
We accommodate endangered and threatened species in this amendment.
It does not affect control efforts that deal with the preservation or
safety of endangered or threatened species.
Quite simply, the amendment goes to the heart of this issue, which
is, should the U.S. taxpayers subsidize a program of poisoning,
baiting, killing, shooting from airplanes and others of predator
species that may or may not be a particular problem, should they
continue to avoid their mandate that they use other controls, should we
spend $14 million doing this? Maybe we should go out and have a Federal
program to acquire dogs. We could buy Great Pyrenees, kuvasz,
Komondors, Bouvier des Flandres. You can get a heck of a lot of them
for $14 million, and if they live 10 years, we would not have to spend
any more money.
The issue is, many ranchers have become dependent upon practices that
are not the most prudent practices, to have calving or birthing of
lambs in areas that are problem areas without any herders present,
without themselves being present.
As we saw earlier, actually more of the livestock die with calving
problems, 17 percent, than with the predation problems, 3 percent. But
in any case, they are saying we need this program. If they need the
program, they should pay for it themselves. They should go to their
county or State, have the county or State pay for it.
It is time to put this Federal anachronism to bed. At a time when we
are cutting back on every other program here in order to get to a
balanced budget, we should no longer subsidize the indiscriminate
killing by the animal disease control people and we should continue in
the areas of health, safety, airports, and endangered species.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me say to the gentleman, who is existing in oblivious and
euphoric unawareness, that is the closest I can come to being real kind
about this issue, I understand his problem. He feels so good that he is
cutting money.
Let me say to the gentleman, by cutting funding for the program there
will not be any personnel available to take care of the health and
safety issues that he is espousing because that is built into the
program.
{time} 1145
I ask the Members to vote ``no'' on this issue. Let us go back a
little bit in history. We had the perfect answer to the kind of
predatory control in the United States at one time with the formula
known as 1080. It did not cost near as much as it does for the program
that we have today because it took care of the problem. It was benign
and it was species-specific. But, no, the animal rights people decided
that this was a lethal method that was objectionable to them, and we
did away with it, we banned, the use of 1080 in Western ranges.
So they came up with this program, and it is a participation program
in which ranchers, farmers, and others put up money, that is to some
degree, matching the Federal funding that is involved.
Yes, we want to cut the budget, and how, but we need to take care of
a problem that is so onerous and so critical to those people who are
livestock raisers and grazers. The are not being subsidized. They are
paying their part because they have to spend enormous amounts of time
checking traps and doing whatever they do to keep their predator
control situation under absolute control.
So I say to the gentleman, ``Get out of the county courthouse that
you were sitting in so comfortable; get out there and live with a
family for a little while that has a predator problem so that you
actually understand what predator control means.''
This program also assists those who have trouble going in and out of
airports with huge flocks of birds that fly through jet engines and
things of that kind. We are using a mental approach and a research
approach to solving that problem; lethal means, are used as a last
resort.
I agree with the gentleman that there ought to be a better system. We
had a better system at one time, but it was not looked upon with great
favor. In our great wisdom we banned it by executive decree, and I
think that was a horrible mistake.
So I say to the gentleman and to those who are interested in this
particular thing that I sure would appreciate a ``no'' vote because I
think it has a devastating effect, and the gentleman, giving him all
due credit, does not know what he is talking about.
[[Page
H6197]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
Currently, the Federal Government spends $27 million on the Animal
Damage Control Program. Various activities covered under this program
include prevention of the spread of rabies and control of bird flocks
near airports. I strongly support these programs because they protect
human health and safety. However, there are other activities within the
ADC program which serve as an unnecessary subsidy to livestock
producers. By the Federal Government paying for predator control,
livestock owners are not encouraged to deter predators and improve the
protection of their herds. By leaving newborn calves and lambs in
fields far from the protection of the barn, livstock producers are
enticing animals such as wolves, mountain lions, and foxes to prey on
this young stock. In addition, the Department of Agriculture is already
authorized to levy fees for predator control services but will not do
so while the Federal government continues to pay the bills.
By cutting this program in half, we will focus the remaining money on
the more beneficial programs that protect human health and safety. In
these times of budgetary constraints, supporting this amendment will
save taxpayer money and provide an incentive for livestock producers to
take responsibility for protecting their herds.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
DeFazio amendment, which would reduce funds for the Animal Damage
Control Program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
This is not a well-known program, but it is an important program for
California and the United States.
ADC's activities range from preventing bird strikes to aircraft at
JFK International Airport in New York, to seeking solutions to the
severe problem of canine rabies in Texas, to protecting threatened and
endangered species in California.
In California, ADC has worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to protect the western snowy plover, the California clapper rail, the
desert tortoise, and the California least tern.
In addition, ADC works with ranchers and grazers to prevent losses
due to predation.
Losses of sheep and goats due to predation averages approximately $24
million a year. Cattle losses due to predation average approximately
$40 million annually. In the absence of an operational ADC program,
these losses will increase dramatically.
The effect of the DeFazio amendment would be significant and
devastating. Seven ADC States offices would be closed, including the
gentleman's home State and six other Western States. Twenty ADC
district offices will close from Wisconsin to my home State of
California. Approximately 200 field positions would be subject to
reduction-in-force. Matching cooperative would decrease by 50 percent--
amounting to a $10 million loss in cooperative funding.
In short, this is an effective program throughout the United States,
and this amendment would severely reduce its effectiveness.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the DeFazio amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139,
noes 279, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 230]
AYES--139
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chrysler
Coburn
Cox
Coyne
Cummings
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Farr
Fawell
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Fox
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Goss
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Jackson (IL)
Johnston
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Obey
Olver
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Petri
Porter
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Woolsey
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--279
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rush
Salmon
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--16
Bass
Calvert
Chapman
Clyburn
Conyers
Emerson
Frelinghuysen
Gillmor
Inglis
Lewis (CA)
Lincoln
Martini
McDade
Moran
Pryce
Schiff
{time} 1207
Messrs. KILDEE, FATTAH, and ROSE changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mrs. KENNELLY, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Messrs. COX of California,
BILBRAY, SCHUMER, LEWIS of Georgia, and NEUMANN changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 230 on
H.R. 3603 I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
personal explanation
Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, this morning during rollcall votes 229 and
230 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I
[[Page
H6198]]
would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 229, and ``nay'' on
rollcall vote No. 230.
amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 1.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
At the end of the bill (page 69, after line 5), insert the
following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for market access activities under
section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5623), or made available for the salaries of employees of the
Department of Agriculture who provide assistance under such
section, may be used to provide assistance to eligible trade
organizations (as defined in such section) to promote the
sale or export of alcohol or alcoholic beverages.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN pro temprore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, I would ask the gentleman, did he request 10 minutes?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New
Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Yes, 10 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Five and five?
Mr. SKEEN. Five and five, yes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, that is fine with me, and
I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will each be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think many people that saw the news yesterday that
Seagrams Liquor Co. is now going to begin advertising directly hard
liquor on television, were shocked at that development.
In a country that currently is involved in a situation in the United
States of America where the No. 1 killer of people under the age of 24
in this country is alcohol and alcohol-related deaths, when we spend
$15 billion a year of taxpayer funds to fight the war on drugs, and yet
we have the singly most abused drug in this country, alcohol, now
killing many, many more Americans than all other drugs combined, we
have a tragedy on our hands.
We have spent time and time again debating on this floor the need to
cut back programs that provide for the education of our children, that
provide for the research and development of our country, that provide
for the health care of our senior citizens. But in this bill is a
hidden subsidy worth millions and millions of dollars to advertise some
of the most profitable alcoholic beverages abroad. It is a shame and it
is a scam. It ought to come to a stop.
In this Market Access Program, we will be spending millions of
dollars to advertise Ernest and Julio Gallo, the richest winemakers in
the world, who receive $25 million worth of United States taxpayer
money to advertise its wine and brandy in Thailand, the Philippines,
Canada, and England. Jim Beam got over $2.5 million to push its whiskey
abroad. Other whiskey giants like Hiram Walker and Brown-Forman
profited from the Market Access Program.
The MAP program adds insult to injury by asking the taxpayers to foot
the bill of the world's largest foreign alcohol giants. We actually
spend money subsidizing Seagrams, the very company that has gone on
television yesterday to advertise its hard liquor, we are now
subsidizing that Canadian company with United States taxpayer dollars
to advertise their products abroad.
This is a scandal that ought to come to an end. Mr. Chairman, I would
just suggest to the Congress of the United States that it is about time
that if we are going to stand up to the senior citizens and tell them
we spend too much money on their health care, if we are going to stand
up to kids and tell them we spend too much money on their education, if
we are going to stand up to the poor and vulnerable and tell them we
spend too much money on poverty programs, then we can stand up to the
biggest alcohol producers, the biggest winemakers in the world and tell
them we are sick and tired of using taxpayers' money to subsidize their
profits.
{time} 1215
If they want to advertise their alcohol products abroad, let them do
it with their own money. Let them stay out of the taxpayer's back
pocket.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can shed some light on this subject. We
are talking about helping export American agricultural products under
this program. I am specifically talking about small wine grape growers,
most of whom market their products through several large wineries. This
is an amendment to help small agriculture.
Remember, the European Union spends more on the export promotion of
wine than the United States spends promoting all of our agricultural
products. They do a great deal to help their growers promote their
foreign sales. The European Community wine industries are heavily
subsidized to the tune of $1.5 billion, which includes $90 million
alone for export promotion. That is the total amount provided for all
of agriculture in this bill, if it is not reduced or eliminated.
Other countries do even more than the European Union. The Italian
Government through its trade commission is funding an additional $25
million for Italian wines alone. So when it comes to the wine industry,
the MAP program that we are now debating is a program that helps small
business, not visit the giant wineries, not only the names that we have
heard bandied about here on the floor.
In fact in 1994, for example, 101 wineries participated and 89 of
them were small wineries. So there is no question that this is not a
subsidy simply to big agriculture or big vintners.
We are not talking about people who are purveying distilled spirits.
This is wine, a product that we lead not only this hemisphere but this
world in the production of a quality product. MAP promotes independent
businesses. It is important that 90 percent of the small wine grape
growers in this country be given an opportunity to be part of an export
promotion program. This amendment would put an end to it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
suggest to the gentleman that if he reads the fine print of this
legislation, what he will find is there is a big gap. The gap says that
they can put money through the association. It is through those
associations that then launder the taxpayers' dollars that then go into
the pockets of the biggest wineries in the United States. Ernest and
Julio, et cetera.
Mr. FAZIO of California. If I could reclaim my time, the people who
are involved in this program are putting up half the money. This is not
all Government money. Half the money comes from the private sector,
both from the wine grape growers through their association and those
who make wine and help market the product.
This is a program that works for all elements of one of our most
successful agricultural industries. If we want to be successful in
getting down our trade imbalance, if we want to help small growers, we
ought to continue to support this very modest program, which is all we
can afford at the present time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding
time.
[[Page
H6199]]
Mr. Chairman, I think we have to keep in mind in this debate with
respect to the Kennedy amendment that this program helps small farmers.
This helps small farmers out in Washington State who, I might say to my
friend from California, make the best wine in the world.
But also I want the gentleman from Massachusetts to understand that
the USDA directs the Market Access Program to small businesses, small
farms, small wineries. I do not think we want to cede our industry to
the European winemakers.
That is what we are really doing here. We are developing a program
that allows our Government to contribute some money to competition,
unfair competition in my judgment, from foreign governments who assist
their winemakers for shelf space. That is really what we are doing.
What we are doing is developing a program that allows our products in
this country to have some shelf space in foreign markets. That means
jobs to Americans. That means jobs to people in my district, small
wineries. I urge the rejection of this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting to note that people are
talking about how this program assists small vintners. I would
anticipate after a vote on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, offering a
follow-up amendment that would simply limit the subsidy program to go
only to small vintners.
As long as the gentlemen that talked so heartily about the need to
assist those small vintners would put their vote where their mouth is,
I think we might be able to work out a compromise on the underlying
issue about whether or not the program should go directly to those
small businesses.
My true feeling, and I know that the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen]
has offered this amendment with me in the past, I wish he was here--I
do not think he expected the amendment to come up quite so quickly--is
that we do not believe that the U.S. Government ought to be involved in
subsidizing alcohol products abroad. That is the fundamental question
that is involved with this debate. It is fundamentally, I think, wrong
for us to tell people that we do not have money in the coffers of the
Federal Government to provide for the health care and the education of
our people, but we do have money in the coffers to be able to subsidize
alcohol advertising for some of the richest companies in America
abroad.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR of California Mr. Chairman, I say to the last speaker, Wake
up.
We turn on the television set, we see Colombia's Juan Valdez selling
us coffee. We see Mexico selling us Corona beer. This is a global
market. If we want people to buy American, then we have to tell them
what is American.
This is a program that requires that the Government match by private
funds to advertise and to promote these products abroad. If we are
indeed going to sell our products grown in America abroad, we are going
to have to maintain this program. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on
each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from
Massachusetts and the gentleman from New Mexico each have 30 seconds
remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has the right
to close.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that we are hearing Members of
Congress that normally speak out so strongly against corporate
subsidies and say that is how we ought to balance the budget, all of a
sudden switching when it comes to a corporate subsidy that happens to
go to the wine industry.
Let us listen to Edward Nervo of the Famiglia Nervo Vines and Wines
in Sonoma County, CA, who has written to me and said, ``With corporate
welfare programs like these, no wonder the biggies get bigger and the
small fry end up in the frying pan.''
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. I thank my distinguished chairman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say, first of all, the 5 largest recipients
of market access promotion funds purchase over 90 percent of their
grapes from small independent grape growers. This is a program that is
working. It is a public-private partnership that has been improved by
the Congress over the last few years. I just want to remind my
colleagues that this same amendment went down to defeat in this House
last year on a vote of 268 to 130. The American wine industry and the
farmers who depend on that industry need our help to again defeat the
Kennedy amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The amendment was rejected.
amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: At the
end of the bill (page 69, after line 5), insert the following
new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for market access activities under
section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5623), or made available for the salaries of employees of the
Department of Agriculture who provide assistance under such
section, may be used to provide assistance to eligible trade
organizations (as defined in such section) to promote the
sale or export of alcohol or alcoholic beverages unless it is
made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds the the promotion activities
benefit a small-business concern.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will each
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee along
with my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for some language that
they inserted in the ag bill last year as a result of the same debate
that just took place on the House floor. I shall read what those
changes are:
The funds shall not be used to provide direct assistance to
any nonprofit corporation that is not recognized as a small
business concern described in section A of the Small Business
Act. Secondly, a cooperative; or, third, an association
described in the first section of the Act.
Essentially what that is attempting to do is to reform this act so
that the big subsidies do not go to the big companies, Seagrams, Ernest
and Julio Gallo and the other major vintners and major producers of
alcohol that have, I think, very unfairly skimmed money from the
American taxpayer while they are making millions and millions of
dollars in their exports.
The language of this amendment very simply suggests that while what
is really occurring is through this trade association loophole, the
money is now being funneled through to trade associations and then the
trade associations redistribute it to the very big companies.
I had a long talk last evening with the Department of Agriculture
about this loophole that is contained in the law. All that this
amendment would do would be to extend the small business criteria to
any funds that get funneled through the trade association to make sure
that the concerns of my good friend from California, who is so very
worried about those small vintners, will actually make sure the money
goes to those small vintners.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dooley].
[[Page
H6200]]
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
What the market Assistance Program is all about is trying to ensure
that U.S. farmers get their fair share of expanding export markets.
What the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is trying to do now
is define a different criteria and that we try to say that only small
businesses are going to be involved in achieving those expanded
markets.
As a farmer and as any grape farmer or wine grape grower out there
will say, what is important is to increase the sales of wine. What is
important is to assure that U.S. wineries have a fair playing field
when they take on the European Union and the 6-to-1 advantage that they
have in export promotion over U.S. wineries.
What we would be doing in this case if we limit the money on where it
goes, we would be saying to that small grower who is growing grapes
that is selling them to a larger winery that they are not ever going to
benefit from the Market Assistance Program. We would be saying to that
winery out there and that winery who might be owned by an individual
that might be farming 10,000 acres but has his own winery that he is
going to benefit from the Market Assistance Program. That is not fair.
What we are trying to do is to ensure that that average wine grape
grower in California, or other parts of the country, that grows less
than 100 acres of wine that they will have a tool that will ensure that
U.S. wine will be at a competitive advantage or have a fair playing
field when we take on the winemakers and the wine grape growers of the
European Union.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Does the gentleman really believe that
we should be providing Government tax subsidies to the richest
companies in the U.S. regardless of what their profit lines are?
Mr. DOOLEY. Reclaiming my time, what the issue is is that the U.S.
farmer have fair access. In a perfect world if the European Union were
not spending six times the amount that the U.S. Government was to
provide exports, then we would not need this program. But if we want to
ensure that the U.S. farmer has a level playing field, this Government
needs to stand behind them, and that is what the Market Assistance
Program does.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. May I inquire of the Chair how much
time remains on each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has 3 minutes remaining and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Skeen] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to suggest that I do think that we
ought to have some kind of test in this program as to whether or not
companies who are making tens of millions of dollars worth of profit
and then coming in and reaching into the back pocket of the taxpayer
and asking us to subsidize them when they are already making all these
dollars.
{time} 1230
The real question is whether we should be promoting alcohol products
abroad to begin with, but if we are to do it and we have to do it
because the Europeans are subsidizing their industry, I say fine, but
let us not go out and needlessly line the pockets of companies that are
already making tens of millions of dollars' worth of profits.
Come on, Congress of the United States, stand up to the wine lobby.
That is what this is all about. Just for once say to the wine lobby,
look, we will accept that we are going to help out the little guy, but
let us not go out there and line the pockets of the richest wine
companies.
These are people that for all the time have gone out and gotten all
the farm workers picking the grapes and all the rest of it. They make
plenty of profits. Let us stand up to them, for crying out loud. Have a
little heart, have a little soul, and stand up to the big boys every
once in a while. It is good for the soul.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would say to
the gentleman from Massachusetts that the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of Health and Human Services say that a little wine in
each individuals' daily diet is healthy for them. So exporting wine is
something we should not be ashamed of. We should be proud of it, and we
should be out there competing with the rest of the world.
But the point the gentleman does not get is that we are talking about
small growers who own 30, 40, or 50 acres. They are not the ones who
make wine and send it overseas. They have to have a winery buy their
product. We are trying to help, as the gentleman from California [Mr.
Riggs] said, 90 percent of the small grape growers in this country to
find a home for their product. They will find it in many cases
domestically but we are expanding our international markets, and we are
doing it with a cooperative program that is shared between those who
profit and the taxpayer who profits even more by a modest investment in
terms of income producing tax paying jobs.
And I can tell the gentleman, in this MAP Program we get back $16 in
agricultural exports for every dollar that we spend. So please
understand we are talking about small farmers here and a benefit for
taxpayers as well.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has 2 minutes remaining and the gentleman
from new Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to address my
comments to my good friend from California, Mr. Fazio. The truth is
that all this amendment does is limit it to small businesses. All we
are saying is if the gentleman is truly concerned about small
businesses and the small vendor, then he should be supportive of this
amendment.
This amendment simply says that the trade association funding can
only go to businesses that will qualify under the Small Business Act as
small business. Instead of the big boys, the little guy.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I would note, as the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dooley] said, a winery may be called a small
business but 90 percent of the grapes grown by farmers move through the
five largest wineries. So the gentleman is not helping the grower if he
makes this distinction. He is trying to do something that is a worthy
cause, but he is missing by a mile.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the
truth of the matter is, if these people are part of a trade association
they still have access. What this bill does is limit the ability of the
trade associations to go about providing big subsidies to the biggest
wine companies. It does not, in fact, stop us from providing small
businesses with the ability to gain access to the program.
I think the whole program is crazy, but I think it is even crazier to
suggest that what we will do is continue to skip a loophole open that
provides all this money to go to the biggest companies in the country.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, the craziest thing we could do would be to eliminate 90
percent of the wine grape growers, who are small farmers. They do not
make wine and do not export it. They need private sector help to do it.
and this program provides the partnership to do it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter
is, this will have absolutely no impact. And if the gentleman talks to
people seriously about the impact of this whole MAP program, it will
not have a penny's worth of difference in terms of what the actual
sales are.
The gentleman and I both know we can produce wine. People want to buy
the wine and will produce the wine, and it has nothing to do with the
small amount of subsidies that end up going into this program. It is
the principle of the fact that we are providing taxpayer
[[Page
H6201]]
dollars, millions and millions of dollars worth of taxpayer funds, that
go into the back pocket of the biggest companies. That is a scam and a
scandal that ought to be dealt with.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], the remainder of my time.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman from Massachusetts
could devote so much time and energy to helping us address the
competitive and trade disadvantage that our wine exports have against
Chilean and European wines.
But the gentleman was correct when he said last year in conference we
restructured the MPP, now known as the Market Access Program, to
restrict direct participation of for-profit corporations that are not
small businesses while requiring a direct match from any small business
that participates in this program. These reforms should silence this
unwarranted criticism of the Market Access Program.
The accusations that corporations are advertising products at
taxpayers expense are simply not true. The primary emphasis of this
program, as has been pointed out repeatedly over the last few minutes
of debate, is toward the small family farmer. Historically, 60 percent
of market access promotion funds have gone to generic advertising; the
remaining 40 percent is allocated to brand promotion, with priority
again given to small entities.
I quote from the act: In addition, a sizable number of large
corporations receiving market access promotion moneys are actually
grower cooperatives. All benefits those organizations derive from brand
assistance under this program are directly returned to their grower
members, who themselves tend to be small and medium sized operations.
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
(Mr. WARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to conclude by saying the Market
Access Program is not corporate welfare; it is a valuable resource for
America's small farmers to compete in highly restrictive foreign
markets. In fact, this program is pro-trade, pro-growth, and pro-jobs.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, although I have the utmost respect for the
gentleman from Massachusetts, unfortunately, I must rise in strong
opposition to this amendment.
I must do so because this amendment directly and unfairly targets my
constituents in Sonoma and Marin Counties, CA, who produce some of the
world's finest wine. If this amendment passes, however, their world-
famous wine would no longer be able to compete in the world market.
This amendment would devastate the small wine producers in my
district, who rely upon Federal export assistance to enter and compete
in the global marketplace.
Unlike Europe and South America, U.S. wine producers receive no
production subsidies whatsoever. Furthermore, our competitors outspend
the United States in export subsidies by more than 6 to 1!
Mr. Chairman, small California wineries cannot compete in such a
lopsided marketplace without some assistance. And let there be no
mistake, this amendment targets small, family-owned businesses--89 out
of 101 wineries that participate in the Market Access Program are small
wineries.
The Kennedy amendment takes this critical assistance away from small
wine producers and, in doing so, It takes away jobs; it takes away
trade; and, it takes away fairness.
Mr. Chairman, we should be working today to help export California
wine, Not California's jobs. Vote ``no'' on the Kennedy amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote,
and pending that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The Chairman pro tempore. Are there further amendments?
Amendment Offered by Mr. KOLBE
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kolbe: At the appropriate place in
the bill, insert the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to administer a peanut program that maintains a
season average farmers stock price for the 1997 crop of quota
peanuts in excess of $640 per ton.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes with the
time being equally divided and to roll the vote.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment with the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. It is an amendment that simply
carries out the intent of Congress on the peanut program. The farm
bill, the Freedom to Farm Act, made some extremely modest changes to
the peanut program. The change that was supposed to benefit consumers
was a 10 percent reduction in support prices from $678 to $610. This
amendment would ensure that the price of quota peanuts would actually
be $610 per ton, as approved in the recently passed farm bill.
Now, why is this amendment necessary, if all we are doing is seeking
to implement what the farm bill said we were going to do? It is
necessary because the Secretary of Agriculture, not without reason,
since he represents agricultural interests, has chosen to administer
this program in a way that makes sure that peanut prices will continue
to stay at previous, much higher levels.
The Secretary was able to do this, to keep the peanut pries high, by
announcing a national peanut quota production level that is going to be
at least 100,000 tons less than the projected domestic demand. In other
words, the Government is creating an artificial shortage.
Mr. Chairman, what we have is a Government-created artificial
shortage of peanuts and, thus, a consequent higher price for peanuts.
That is contrary clearly to what we intended to do in the farm bill.
At a time when we have a peanut industry that is certainly in a
serious state of decline, with peanut consumption dramatically
declining over the last 5 years, it does not seem to me that we can
afford to let bad government policy excessively inflate the prices for
domestic consumers. Inflate the prices, I might add, to what is now
double, double, the export price. The domestic price of peanuts is
double what our producers get when they sell it into the export
markets. In other words, we have this artificially created price.
Even at $610 a ton, which we are not going to get to because of this
reduction in the quota, U.S. peanuts are 33 percent above the world
price of $350 per ton.
So this amendment on
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
(House of Representatives - June 12, 1996)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages
H6194-H6236]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, the Animal Damage Control Program
represents one of the most efficient and cost-effective programs within
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It benefits the general public as
well as the agricultural industry. Without animal damage control,
studies have indicated that agriculture's annual losses would total in
excess of $1 billion. In 1994 in Oregon alone, the National
Agricultural Statistics Service estimated that 4,275 sheep and 15,200
lambs were lost to predators.
What kind of signal are we sending to these ranchers? When urban
residents are robbed of their private property, they rely on publicly
financed services to regain their property. It this a subsidy to
private property owners? Is the taking of private property in the East
worthy of publicly financed services, while in the West it is not?
Mr. Chairman, ranchers are hard-working, tax-paying citizens who
contribute mightily to their communities. And the Animal Damage Control
Program is a tool they rely on to maintain a successful operation. It
should be protected.
Oppose the DeFazio amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the DeFazio amendment, and I want to state
that predator control is not only a western issue; it is an issue
throughout the entire country. I think that we need to retain this
program because we retained other predator control programs that
pertain to our police protection. This is just another form of that,
and we need it.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown].
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the DeFazio amendment that would cut $13.4 million from the fiscal year
1997 budget for animal damage control.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of my good friend, the chairman of
the committee, to understand my position because I hope I understand
his. I have a small spread in California. I engage in predator control.
I believe in predator control. I will not describe the type of predator
control that I use, but I think it is reasonably effective.
What I am suggesting here in this effort to cut the budget for animal
damage control is that we can do this job more effectively and in a
more principled fashion than we do. I believe in strong cooperation on
the part of the Government, the Department of Agriculture in this case,
to help the farmers, ranchers, and other people of this country. I have
demonstrated that time after time.
On the other hand, I do not believe in an unnecessary and less than
beneficial subsidy that is being used to support this program.
As I think we all know, the Department of Agriculture is authorized
to levy fees to support this program, but have never used that
authority. We move in that direction in almost every other area in
which we are providing services to a segment of the business community,
and it is my view that we should be moving in this direction as far as
the Animal Damage Control Program is concerned.
In previous legislation the Congress has indicated that there are
preferred ways to carry out this operation and they do not require the
extensive use of the kinds of traps, snares, poisons, aerial hunting,
and other things that are going on today under the name of controlling
animal damage. There are more effective ways, and the Congress has
directed that these be used.
We have GAO reports that the ADC has been using these methods that I
[[Page
H6195]]
have described in essentially all instances, despite the Department's
written policies and procedures which call for preference to be given
to nonlethal methods. Now I confess that I am an unabashed animal lover
and like to protect their lives where possible, and I think in this
case we can achieve the control of predator damage by the use of
nonlethal technologies, and that we can do it cheaper and we can
distribute the costs of doing this in a more equitable fashion by
levying fees which would be levied on the people who get the benefit
from the program.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming [Mrs. Cubin].
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending
amendment which would reduce funding to the Animal Damage Control
Program.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment is at the very best
uninformed, and possibly at the worst, mean-spirited. When we talk
about predators, we are not talking only about coyotes, we are talking
about the wolf which has been introduced into Wyoming, into my State,
which is an endangered species. The grizzly bear is an endangered
species. Eagles and hawks, many of them are endangered species.
We do not have any right or any will to kill these predators, and we
cannot legally do that to protect our livestock. I believe in predator
control, but when an endangered animal, an endangered species kills
some livestock, the only way that the owner of that livestock can get
compensated is through the Animal Damage Control Program.
{time} 1130
I would suggest that, if the gentleman who offered the amendment had
a dog that was worth $10,000 and this dog was in his very own yard, and
there are bulls that are worth that much, much more than $10,000, but
this dog was in its very own yard and my dog went over and killed his
dog, then he would say that I ought to be responsible to pay him back
for the value of his dog. This is all this predator control program
does.
If a species or if a predator, including an endangered species, kills
a cow, a bull, a sheep, whatever, all we are asking is that a portion,
a very small portion of the value of that livestock be given back to
the owner of the livestock. That is what we are asking. This is not a
subsidy. It is merely paying someone for a small portion of what is
rightfully theirs.
The animal loss in the livestock industry is enormous, as the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley] stated earlier. Aside from the
livestock issues, there have also been wildlife losses, not just in
Wyoming but in Oregon and across the western United States, due to
predation. It is the livestock producers who, by controlling predators,
who keep the burgeoning numbers of coyotes, foxes, mountain lions, and
brown bears down, who have provided the most protection for wildlife,
which are preyed upon by these same destructive animals. The Animal
Defense Control Program is the last line of defense for the wildlife
that we enjoy and that everyone wants to preserve in our State.
If Members have any real interest in protecting wildlife, they will
vote against this amendment, because the ranchers and the livestock
growers are the ones who are helping control the predators, and they
need the animal control money to enable them to do that.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The issue here is a subsidy, subsidy. That side of the aisle is
consistently against government programs and subsidies except when it
goes to their own parochial interests. This bill does nothing, nothing
to prevent predator control by individuals, by counties, by States. As
I said previously, when I was a county commissioner, we canceled the
predator control program, walked away from the Federal match. They
engaged in private predator control, and the losses did not go up. But
that is the issue here.
Will we continue a $13.4 million subsidy to a selected few of the
livestock producers in the Western United States?
As I stated earlier, yes, the losses are largely due to predation.
Almost 3 percent of the losses last year were due to predation. The
other 97 percent were due to a number of causes, some of which are not
preventable, like weather, but others which could be preventable with
research, like respiratory problems, 27 percent; digestive problems, 25
percent. Fifty-two percent of the losses in this industry were due to
respiratory and digestive problems.
Maybe we should invest this money in our veterinary schools. Maybe we
should invest it in a vaccination program for livestock. I do not know.
But there would be a heck of a lot better return than the 3 percent
that was due to predation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bonilla].
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New Mexico for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the DeFazio amendment.
It is bad news, it is bad news for agriculture. It is bad news for
consumers. It is bad news for the environment. And it is bad news for
America's children.
Here is the bad news the DeFazio amendment has for agriculture. In
1994, 520,000 sheep and lamb were killed by predators, direct losses to
agriculture from wildlife damage totaled $461 million. The DeFazio
amendment says too bad, so sad, let us increase these losses.
The DeFazio amendment would cut animal damage control that is
essential for the continued viability for many American ranches already
battered by the drought. Let us not forget about the drought. The
DeFazio amendment would punish these ranchers with increased losses. My
friends, that is wrong, it is just plain wrong.
Here is the bad news the DeFazio amendment has for consumers. Higher
grocery bills are on the way for millions of American families
struggling to make ends meet. These higher costs are courtesy of the
DeFazio amendment which will increase predator damage and reduce
supply.
At the same time, ADC plays a vital role in the safety of millions of
air travelers. By 1991, 635 airports participated in the ADC program.
The importance was illuminated when a bird strike at Kennedy Airport in
New York caused severe damage to a plane and, more importantly,
threatened the lives of 300 passengers. The DeFazio amendment says so
sad, too bad, we should accept this level of risk.
That is wrong. It is plain wrong. We should reject this amendment for
that reason as well.
Here is bad news the DeFazio amendment has for the environment. ADC
activities protect threatened and endangered species from predators.
The black footed ferret, the San Joaquin kit fox, the desert tortoise,
the Aleutian Canadian goose might well be extinct were it not for ADC
protection from predators. The DeFazio amendment says too bad, so sad,
we may as well terminate these species. That is wrong, plain wrong,
another reason to reject this amendment.
Finally, and most troubling, the DeFazio amendment delivers bad news
to America's children. Rabies is rearing its horrifying face across
America. Between 1988 and 1992, rabies cases have doubled. New York
reported 1,761 new cases, while 640 of my fellow Texans were treated
for rabies. Predators also directly threaten our youth. In Los Angeles,
a 3-year-old girl was killed in her front yard by a coyote. ADC fights
these threats. The DeFazio amendment tells us not to worry about the
predator threat. It is not important, too bad, so sad.
This is wrong. We should reject the DeFazio amendment. If we care
about either agriculture, consumers, the environment or children, we
should stand strong and reject the DeFazio amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman should read the amendment before he rises with such
extraordinary charges that the amendment will be responsible for the
collapse of American democracy and the final victory of the
totalitarian Soviet state, which I think was part of the statement
there.
It has exceptions for human health and safety. It has exceptions for
endangered or threatened species. The endangered, threatened species
are often dealt with in a better manner by fish
[[Page
H6196]]
and wildlife, who has a line item in their budget. All this does is
eliminate a subsidy for a ridiculous anachronistic program first
implemented in 1931 that has no discernible impact.
It has had an impact, and it is inadvertent, against nontarget
species, poisoning of nontarget species, the destruction of predators
which, like coyotes, in many cases prey on rodents or on groundhogs and
gophers and things which cause problems with pastures and with horses
breaking their legs. So the gentleman, by killing coyotes, is
responsible for people whose horses have put their legs in gopher
holes, broken them, fallen and then been killed.
I will not make that charge, but his charges were equally
irresponsible.
This is an absurd subsidy to a selected few, a very small percentage
of privileged western livestock producers. It is something that if they
need, they can contract for themselves without a subsidy from the U.S.
taxpayers to continue this ineffective and indiscriminate program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
have listened attentively to much of the debate. I think that the
proponent of this amendment is completely overlooking the reason why
some of us believe that it is a good program.
If you have ever talked to a rancher that has lost 200, 300, 400, or
500 kid goats, baby goats just born, if you have talked to ranchers
that have lost 200 or 300 or 400 baby lambs that have just been born,
then the 3-percent figure in the Nation makes no sense whatsoever to
that individual.
This program is designed to take care of a problem. When there is no
problem, when you do not have an undue number of coyotes or other
predator animals in an area, you do not have a program. But when you do
have one, and it becomes a problem, then you have a need for a program,
and it does not just benefit the rancher.
Living in my part of the country today, as my friend and neighbor
from San Antonio just pointed out, rabies, we have a serious problem
that we are trying to contain and control. It is spread by coyotes and
bobcats. And it is a problem that is now coming within the city limits
of some of our towns in the southern part of Texas.
This program, as it is designed, is designed to be a responsible way
to deal with problems like this. So I would hope that my colleagues,
both sides of the aisle, would not support this amendment. It does
nothing other than create some tremendous economic problems for certain
ranchers, and it is not just in the far west, it is in Texas, it is in
Oklahoma, it is in New Mexico, in all areas in which you have for
whatever reason a problem with predatory animals.
I would hope that Members would not support this amendment. I think
the committee has done a very responsible job. They have had a
difficult time with the amount of moneys available. They have put the
moneys where they believe is in the best and highest priority. I
believe that it is something that almost every one of us can find a way
to justify and support.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from New Mexico
[Mr. Skeen] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining and has the right to close,
and the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of red herrings drug across the floor
here. Rabies is not affected by this amendment. Human health and safety
activities are totally exempt. Whether it is rabid animals or problem
animals, those things can still be taken care of by ADC.
We have heard about environmental concerns from the other side. I am
pleased to finally hear environmental concerns from the other side from
the gentleman from Texas, maybe not a first but definitely somewhat
unprecedented.
We accommodate endangered and threatened species in this amendment.
It does not affect control efforts that deal with the preservation or
safety of endangered or threatened species.
Quite simply, the amendment goes to the heart of this issue, which
is, should the U.S. taxpayers subsidize a program of poisoning,
baiting, killing, shooting from airplanes and others of predator
species that may or may not be a particular problem, should they
continue to avoid their mandate that they use other controls, should we
spend $14 million doing this? Maybe we should go out and have a Federal
program to acquire dogs. We could buy Great Pyrenees, kuvasz,
Komondors, Bouvier des Flandres. You can get a heck of a lot of them
for $14 million, and if they live 10 years, we would not have to spend
any more money.
The issue is, many ranchers have become dependent upon practices that
are not the most prudent practices, to have calving or birthing of
lambs in areas that are problem areas without any herders present,
without themselves being present.
As we saw earlier, actually more of the livestock die with calving
problems, 17 percent, than with the predation problems, 3 percent. But
in any case, they are saying we need this program. If they need the
program, they should pay for it themselves. They should go to their
county or State, have the county or State pay for it.
It is time to put this Federal anachronism to bed. At a time when we
are cutting back on every other program here in order to get to a
balanced budget, we should no longer subsidize the indiscriminate
killing by the animal disease control people and we should continue in
the areas of health, safety, airports, and endangered species.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me say to the gentleman, who is existing in oblivious and
euphoric unawareness, that is the closest I can come to being real kind
about this issue, I understand his problem. He feels so good that he is
cutting money.
Let me say to the gentleman, by cutting funding for the program there
will not be any personnel available to take care of the health and
safety issues that he is espousing because that is built into the
program.
{time} 1145
I ask the Members to vote ``no'' on this issue. Let us go back a
little bit in history. We had the perfect answer to the kind of
predatory control in the United States at one time with the formula
known as 1080. It did not cost near as much as it does for the program
that we have today because it took care of the problem. It was benign
and it was species-specific. But, no, the animal rights people decided
that this was a lethal method that was objectionable to them, and we
did away with it, we banned, the use of 1080 in Western ranges.
So they came up with this program, and it is a participation program
in which ranchers, farmers, and others put up money, that is to some
degree, matching the Federal funding that is involved.
Yes, we want to cut the budget, and how, but we need to take care of
a problem that is so onerous and so critical to those people who are
livestock raisers and grazers. The are not being subsidized. They are
paying their part because they have to spend enormous amounts of time
checking traps and doing whatever they do to keep their predator
control situation under absolute control.
So I say to the gentleman, ``Get out of the county courthouse that
you were sitting in so comfortable; get out there and live with a
family for a little while that has a predator problem so that you
actually understand what predator control means.''
This program also assists those who have trouble going in and out of
airports with huge flocks of birds that fly through jet engines and
things of that kind. We are using a mental approach and a research
approach to solving that problem; lethal means, are used as a last
resort.
I agree with the gentleman that there ought to be a better system. We
had a better system at one time, but it was not looked upon with great
favor. In our great wisdom we banned it by executive decree, and I
think that was a horrible mistake.
So I say to the gentleman and to those who are interested in this
particular thing that I sure would appreciate a ``no'' vote because I
think it has a devastating effect, and the gentleman, giving him all
due credit, does not know what he is talking about.
[[Page
H6197]]
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
Currently, the Federal Government spends $27 million on the Animal
Damage Control Program. Various activities covered under this program
include prevention of the spread of rabies and control of bird flocks
near airports. I strongly support these programs because they protect
human health and safety. However, there are other activities within the
ADC program which serve as an unnecessary subsidy to livestock
producers. By the Federal Government paying for predator control,
livestock owners are not encouraged to deter predators and improve the
protection of their herds. By leaving newborn calves and lambs in
fields far from the protection of the barn, livstock producers are
enticing animals such as wolves, mountain lions, and foxes to prey on
this young stock. In addition, the Department of Agriculture is already
authorized to levy fees for predator control services but will not do
so while the Federal government continues to pay the bills.
By cutting this program in half, we will focus the remaining money on
the more beneficial programs that protect human health and safety. In
these times of budgetary constraints, supporting this amendment will
save taxpayer money and provide an incentive for livestock producers to
take responsibility for protecting their herds.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
DeFazio amendment, which would reduce funds for the Animal Damage
Control Program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
This is not a well-known program, but it is an important program for
California and the United States.
ADC's activities range from preventing bird strikes to aircraft at
JFK International Airport in New York, to seeking solutions to the
severe problem of canine rabies in Texas, to protecting threatened and
endangered species in California.
In California, ADC has worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to protect the western snowy plover, the California clapper rail, the
desert tortoise, and the California least tern.
In addition, ADC works with ranchers and grazers to prevent losses
due to predation.
Losses of sheep and goats due to predation averages approximately $24
million a year. Cattle losses due to predation average approximately
$40 million annually. In the absence of an operational ADC program,
these losses will increase dramatically.
The effect of the DeFazio amendment would be significant and
devastating. Seven ADC States offices would be closed, including the
gentleman's home State and six other Western States. Twenty ADC
district offices will close from Wisconsin to my home State of
California. Approximately 200 field positions would be subject to
reduction-in-force. Matching cooperative would decrease by 50 percent--
amounting to a $10 million loss in cooperative funding.
In short, this is an effective program throughout the United States,
and this amendment would severely reduce its effectiveness.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the DeFazio amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139,
noes 279, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 230]
AYES--139
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blumenauer
Blute
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chrysler
Coburn
Cox
Coyne
Cummings
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Farr
Fawell
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Fox
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Goss
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Jackson (IL)
Johnston
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Obey
Olver
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Petri
Porter
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Torres
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Woolsey
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--279
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rush
Salmon
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Scott
Seastrand
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--16
Bass
Calvert
Chapman
Clyburn
Conyers
Emerson
Frelinghuysen
Gillmor
Inglis
Lewis (CA)
Lincoln
Martini
McDade
Moran
Pryce
Schiff
{time} 1207
Messrs. KILDEE, FATTAH, and ROSE changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mrs. KENNELLY, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, and Messrs. COX of California,
BILBRAY, SCHUMER, LEWIS of Georgia, and NEUMANN changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 230 on
H.R. 3603 I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''
personal explanation
Mr. MARTINI. Mr. Chairman, this morning during rollcall votes 229 and
230 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I
[[Page
H6198]]
would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 229, and ``nay'' on
rollcall vote No. 230.
amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 1.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts:
At the end of the bill (page 69, after line 5), insert the
following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for market access activities under
section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5623), or made available for the salaries of employees of the
Department of Agriculture who provide assistance under such
section, may be used to provide assistance to eligible trade
organizations (as defined in such section) to promote the
sale or export of alcohol or alcoholic beverages.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes, and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN pro temprore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, I would ask the gentleman, did he request 10 minutes?
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New
Mexico.
Mr. SKEEN. Yes, 10 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Five and five?
Mr. SKEEN. Five and five, yes.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, that is fine with me, and
I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will each be
recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think many people that saw the news yesterday that
Seagrams Liquor Co. is now going to begin advertising directly hard
liquor on television, were shocked at that development.
In a country that currently is involved in a situation in the United
States of America where the No. 1 killer of people under the age of 24
in this country is alcohol and alcohol-related deaths, when we spend
$15 billion a year of taxpayer funds to fight the war on drugs, and yet
we have the singly most abused drug in this country, alcohol, now
killing many, many more Americans than all other drugs combined, we
have a tragedy on our hands.
We have spent time and time again debating on this floor the need to
cut back programs that provide for the education of our children, that
provide for the research and development of our country, that provide
for the health care of our senior citizens. But in this bill is a
hidden subsidy worth millions and millions of dollars to advertise some
of the most profitable alcoholic beverages abroad. It is a shame and it
is a scam. It ought to come to a stop.
In this Market Access Program, we will be spending millions of
dollars to advertise Ernest and Julio Gallo, the richest winemakers in
the world, who receive $25 million worth of United States taxpayer
money to advertise its wine and brandy in Thailand, the Philippines,
Canada, and England. Jim Beam got over $2.5 million to push its whiskey
abroad. Other whiskey giants like Hiram Walker and Brown-Forman
profited from the Market Access Program.
The MAP program adds insult to injury by asking the taxpayers to foot
the bill of the world's largest foreign alcohol giants. We actually
spend money subsidizing Seagrams, the very company that has gone on
television yesterday to advertise its hard liquor, we are now
subsidizing that Canadian company with United States taxpayer dollars
to advertise their products abroad.
This is a scandal that ought to come to an end. Mr. Chairman, I would
just suggest to the Congress of the United States that it is about time
that if we are going to stand up to the senior citizens and tell them
we spend too much money on their health care, if we are going to stand
up to kids and tell them we spend too much money on their education, if
we are going to stand up to the poor and vulnerable and tell them we
spend too much money on poverty programs, then we can stand up to the
biggest alcohol producers, the biggest winemakers in the world and tell
them we are sick and tired of using taxpayers' money to subsidize their
profits.
{time} 1215
If they want to advertise their alcohol products abroad, let them do
it with their own money. Let them stay out of the taxpayer's back
pocket.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can shed some light on this subject. We
are talking about helping export American agricultural products under
this program. I am specifically talking about small wine grape growers,
most of whom market their products through several large wineries. This
is an amendment to help small agriculture.
Remember, the European Union spends more on the export promotion of
wine than the United States spends promoting all of our agricultural
products. They do a great deal to help their growers promote their
foreign sales. The European Community wine industries are heavily
subsidized to the tune of $1.5 billion, which includes $90 million
alone for export promotion. That is the total amount provided for all
of agriculture in this bill, if it is not reduced or eliminated.
Other countries do even more than the European Union. The Italian
Government through its trade commission is funding an additional $25
million for Italian wines alone. So when it comes to the wine industry,
the MAP program that we are now debating is a program that helps small
business, not visit the giant wineries, not only the names that we have
heard bandied about here on the floor.
In fact in 1994, for example, 101 wineries participated and 89 of
them were small wineries. So there is no question that this is not a
subsidy simply to big agriculture or big vintners.
We are not talking about people who are purveying distilled spirits.
This is wine, a product that we lead not only this hemisphere but this
world in the production of a quality product. MAP promotes independent
businesses. It is important that 90 percent of the small wine grape
growers in this country be given an opportunity to be part of an export
promotion program. This amendment would put an end to it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
suggest to the gentleman that if he reads the fine print of this
legislation, what he will find is there is a big gap. The gap says that
they can put money through the association. It is through those
associations that then launder the taxpayers' dollars that then go into
the pockets of the biggest wineries in the United States. Ernest and
Julio, et cetera.
Mr. FAZIO of California. If I could reclaim my time, the people who
are involved in this program are putting up half the money. This is not
all Government money. Half the money comes from the private sector,
both from the wine grape growers through their association and those
who make wine and help market the product.
This is a program that works for all elements of one of our most
successful agricultural industries. If we want to be successful in
getting down our trade imbalance, if we want to help small growers, we
ought to continue to support this very modest program, which is all we
can afford at the present time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt].
Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding
time.
[[Page
H6199]]
Mr. Chairman, I think we have to keep in mind in this debate with
respect to the Kennedy amendment that this program helps small farmers.
This helps small farmers out in Washington State who, I might say to my
friend from California, make the best wine in the world.
But also I want the gentleman from Massachusetts to understand that
the USDA directs the Market Access Program to small businesses, small
farms, small wineries. I do not think we want to cede our industry to
the European winemakers.
That is what we are really doing here. We are developing a program
that allows our Government to contribute some money to competition,
unfair competition in my judgment, from foreign governments who assist
their winemakers for shelf space. That is really what we are doing.
What we are doing is developing a program that allows our products in
this country to have some shelf space in foreign markets. That means
jobs to Americans. That means jobs to people in my district, small
wineries. I urge the rejection of this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting to note that people are
talking about how this program assists small vintners. I would
anticipate after a vote on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, offering a
follow-up amendment that would simply limit the subsidy program to go
only to small vintners.
As long as the gentlemen that talked so heartily about the need to
assist those small vintners would put their vote where their mouth is,
I think we might be able to work out a compromise on the underlying
issue about whether or not the program should go directly to those
small businesses.
My true feeling, and I know that the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen]
has offered this amendment with me in the past, I wish he was here--I
do not think he expected the amendment to come up quite so quickly--is
that we do not believe that the U.S. Government ought to be involved in
subsidizing alcohol products abroad. That is the fundamental question
that is involved with this debate. It is fundamentally, I think, wrong
for us to tell people that we do not have money in the coffers of the
Federal Government to provide for the health care and the education of
our people, but we do have money in the coffers to be able to subsidize
alcohol advertising for some of the richest companies in America
abroad.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR of California Mr. Chairman, I say to the last speaker, Wake
up.
We turn on the television set, we see Colombia's Juan Valdez selling
us coffee. We see Mexico selling us Corona beer. This is a global
market. If we want people to buy American, then we have to tell them
what is American.
This is a program that requires that the Government match by private
funds to advertise and to promote these products abroad. If we are
indeed going to sell our products grown in America abroad, we are going
to have to maintain this program. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on
each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from
Massachusetts and the gentleman from New Mexico each have 30 seconds
remaining, and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has the right
to close.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that we are hearing Members of
Congress that normally speak out so strongly against corporate
subsidies and say that is how we ought to balance the budget, all of a
sudden switching when it comes to a corporate subsidy that happens to
go to the wine industry.
Let us listen to Edward Nervo of the Famiglia Nervo Vines and Wines
in Sonoma County, CA, who has written to me and said, ``With corporate
welfare programs like these, no wonder the biggies get bigger and the
small fry end up in the frying pan.''
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
Mr. RIGGS. I thank my distinguished chairman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say, first of all, the 5 largest recipients
of market access promotion funds purchase over 90 percent of their
grapes from small independent grape growers. This is a program that is
working. It is a public-private partnership that has been improved by
the Congress over the last few years. I just want to remind my
colleagues that this same amendment went down to defeat in this House
last year on a vote of 268 to 130. The American wine industry and the
farmers who depend on that industry need our help to again defeat the
Kennedy amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The amendment was rejected.
amendment offered by mr. kennedy of massachusetts
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Massachusetts: At the
end of the bill (page 69, after line 5), insert the following
new section:
Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for market access activities under
section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C.
5623), or made available for the salaries of employees of the
Department of Agriculture who provide assistance under such
section, may be used to provide assistance to eligible trade
organizations (as defined in such section) to promote the
sale or export of alcohol or alcoholic beverages unless it is
made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds the the promotion activities
benefit a small-business concern.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 10 minutes and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] will each
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee along
with my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for some language that
they inserted in the ag bill last year as a result of the same debate
that just took place on the House floor. I shall read what those
changes are:
The funds shall not be used to provide direct assistance to
any nonprofit corporation that is not recognized as a small
business concern described in section A of the Small Business
Act. Secondly, a cooperative; or, third, an association
described in the first section of the Act.
Essentially what that is attempting to do is to reform this act so
that the big subsidies do not go to the big companies, Seagrams, Ernest
and Julio Gallo and the other major vintners and major producers of
alcohol that have, I think, very unfairly skimmed money from the
American taxpayer while they are making millions and millions of
dollars in their exports.
The language of this amendment very simply suggests that while what
is really occurring is through this trade association loophole, the
money is now being funneled through to trade associations and then the
trade associations redistribute it to the very big companies.
I had a long talk last evening with the Department of Agriculture
about this loophole that is contained in the law. All that this
amendment would do would be to extend the small business criteria to
any funds that get funneled through the trade association to make sure
that the concerns of my good friend from California, who is so very
worried about those small vintners, will actually make sure the money
goes to those small vintners.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dooley].
[[Page
H6200]]
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
What the market Assistance Program is all about is trying to ensure
that U.S. farmers get their fair share of expanding export markets.
What the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is trying to do now
is define a different criteria and that we try to say that only small
businesses are going to be involved in achieving those expanded
markets.
As a farmer and as any grape farmer or wine grape grower out there
will say, what is important is to increase the sales of wine. What is
important is to assure that U.S. wineries have a fair playing field
when they take on the European Union and the 6-to-1 advantage that they
have in export promotion over U.S. wineries.
What we would be doing in this case if we limit the money on where it
goes, we would be saying to that small grower who is growing grapes
that is selling them to a larger winery that they are not ever going to
benefit from the Market Assistance Program. We would be saying to that
winery out there and that winery who might be owned by an individual
that might be farming 10,000 acres but has his own winery that he is
going to benefit from the Market Assistance Program. That is not fair.
What we are trying to do is to ensure that that average wine grape
grower in California, or other parts of the country, that grows less
than 100 acres of wine that they will have a tool that will ensure that
U.S. wine will be at a competitive advantage or have a fair playing
field when we take on the winemakers and the wine grape growers of the
European Union.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Does the gentleman really believe that
we should be providing Government tax subsidies to the richest
companies in the U.S. regardless of what their profit lines are?
Mr. DOOLEY. Reclaiming my time, what the issue is is that the U.S.
farmer have fair access. In a perfect world if the European Union were
not spending six times the amount that the U.S. Government was to
provide exports, then we would not need this program. But if we want to
ensure that the U.S. farmer has a level playing field, this Government
needs to stand behind them, and that is what the Market Assistance
Program does.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. May I inquire of the Chair how much
time remains on each side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] has 3 minutes remaining and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
Skeen] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to suggest that I do think that we
ought to have some kind of test in this program as to whether or not
companies who are making tens of millions of dollars worth of profit
and then coming in and reaching into the back pocket of the taxpayer
and asking us to subsidize them when they are already making all these
dollars.
{time} 1230
The real question is whether we should be promoting alcohol products
abroad to begin with, but if we are to do it and we have to do it
because the Europeans are subsidizing their industry, I say fine, but
let us not go out and needlessly line the pockets of companies that are
already making tens of millions of dollars' worth of profits.
Come on, Congress of the United States, stand up to the wine lobby.
That is what this is all about. Just for once say to the wine lobby,
look, we will accept that we are going to help out the little guy, but
let us not go out there and line the pockets of the richest wine
companies.
These are people that for all the time have gone out and gotten all
the farm workers picking the grapes and all the rest of it. They make
plenty of profits. Let us stand up to them, for crying out loud. Have a
little heart, have a little soul, and stand up to the big boys every
once in a while. It is good for the soul.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would say to
the gentleman from Massachusetts that the Department of Agriculture and
the Department of Health and Human Services say that a little wine in
each individuals' daily diet is healthy for them. So exporting wine is
something we should not be ashamed of. We should be proud of it, and we
should be out there competing with the rest of the world.
But the point the gentleman does not get is that we are talking about
small growers who own 30, 40, or 50 acres. They are not the ones who
make wine and send it overseas. They have to have a winery buy their
product. We are trying to help, as the gentleman from California [Mr.
Riggs] said, 90 percent of the small grape growers in this country to
find a home for their product. They will find it in many cases
domestically but we are expanding our international markets, and we are
doing it with a cooperative program that is shared between those who
profit and the taxpayer who profits even more by a modest investment in
terms of income producing tax paying jobs.
And I can tell the gentleman, in this MAP Program we get back $16 in
agricultural exports for every dollar that we spend. So please
understand we are talking about small farmers here and a benefit for
taxpayers as well.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has 2 minutes remaining and the gentleman
from new Mexico [Mr. Skeen] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I want to address my
comments to my good friend from California, Mr. Fazio. The truth is
that all this amendment does is limit it to small businesses. All we
are saying is if the gentleman is truly concerned about small
businesses and the small vendor, then he should be supportive of this
amendment.
This amendment simply says that the trade association funding can
only go to businesses that will qualify under the Small Business Act as
small business. Instead of the big boys, the little guy.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I would note, as the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dooley] said, a winery may be called a small
business but 90 percent of the grapes grown by farmers move through the
five largest wineries. So the gentleman is not helping the grower if he
makes this distinction. He is trying to do something that is a worthy
cause, but he is missing by a mile.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the
truth of the matter is, if these people are part of a trade association
they still have access. What this bill does is limit the ability of the
trade associations to go about providing big subsidies to the biggest
wine companies. It does not, in fact, stop us from providing small
businesses with the ability to gain access to the program.
I think the whole program is crazy, but I think it is even crazier to
suggest that what we will do is continue to skip a loophole open that
provides all this money to go to the biggest companies in the country.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, the craziest thing we could do would be to eliminate 90
percent of the wine grape growers, who are small farmers. They do not
make wine and do not export it. They need private sector help to do it.
and this program provides the partnership to do it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter
is, this will have absolutely no impact. And if the gentleman talks to
people seriously about the impact of this whole MAP program, it will
not have a penny's worth of difference in terms of what the actual
sales are.
The gentleman and I both know we can produce wine. People want to buy
the wine and will produce the wine, and it has nothing to do with the
small amount of subsidies that end up going into this program. It is
the principle of the fact that we are providing taxpayer
[[Page
H6201]]
dollars, millions and millions of dollars worth of taxpayer funds, that
go into the back pocket of the biggest companies. That is a scam and a
scandal that ought to be dealt with.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], the remainder of my time.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I wish the gentleman from Massachusetts
could devote so much time and energy to helping us address the
competitive and trade disadvantage that our wine exports have against
Chilean and European wines.
But the gentleman was correct when he said last year in conference we
restructured the MPP, now known as the Market Access Program, to
restrict direct participation of for-profit corporations that are not
small businesses while requiring a direct match from any small business
that participates in this program. These reforms should silence this
unwarranted criticism of the Market Access Program.
The accusations that corporations are advertising products at
taxpayers expense are simply not true. The primary emphasis of this
program, as has been pointed out repeatedly over the last few minutes
of debate, is toward the small family farmer. Historically, 60 percent
of market access promotion funds have gone to generic advertising; the
remaining 40 percent is allocated to brand promotion, with priority
again given to small entities.
I quote from the act: In addition, a sizable number of large
corporations receiving market access promotion moneys are actually
grower cooperatives. All benefits those organizations derive from brand
assistance under this program are directly returned to their grower
members, who themselves tend to be small and medium sized operations.
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
(Mr. WARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to conclude by saying the Market
Access Program is not corporate welfare; it is a valuable resource for
America's small farmers to compete in highly restrictive foreign
markets. In fact, this program is pro-trade, pro-growth, and pro-jobs.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, although I have the utmost respect for the
gentleman from Massachusetts, unfortunately, I must rise in strong
opposition to this amendment.
I must do so because this amendment directly and unfairly targets my
constituents in Sonoma and Marin Counties, CA, who produce some of the
world's finest wine. If this amendment passes, however, their world-
famous wine would no longer be able to compete in the world market.
This amendment would devastate the small wine producers in my
district, who rely upon Federal export assistance to enter and compete
in the global marketplace.
Unlike Europe and South America, U.S. wine producers receive no
production subsidies whatsoever. Furthermore, our competitors outspend
the United States in export subsidies by more than 6 to 1!
Mr. Chairman, small California wineries cannot compete in such a
lopsided marketplace without some assistance. And let there be no
mistake, this amendment targets small, family-owned businesses--89 out
of 101 wineries that participate in the Market Access Program are small
wineries.
The Kennedy amendment takes this critical assistance away from small
wine producers and, in doing so, It takes away jobs; it takes away
trade; and, it takes away fairness.
Mr. Chairman, we should be working today to help export California
wine, Not California's jobs. Vote ``no'' on the Kennedy amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote,
and pending that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Kennedy] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The Chairman pro tempore. Are there further amendments?
Amendment Offered by Mr. KOLBE
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kolbe: At the appropriate place in
the bill, insert the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to administer a peanut program that maintains a
season average farmers stock price for the 1997 crop of quota
peanuts in excess of $640 per ton.
Mr. SKEEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes with the
time being equally divided and to roll the vote.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment with the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. It is an amendment that simply
carries out the intent of Congress on the peanut program. The farm
bill, the Freedom to Farm Act, made some extremely modest changes to
the peanut program. The change that was supposed to benefit consumers
was a 10 percent reduction in support prices from $678 to $610. This
amendment would ensure that the price of quota peanuts would actually
be $610 per ton, as approved in the recently passed farm bill.
Now, why is this amendment necessary, if all we are doing is seeking
to implement what the farm bill said we were going to do? It is
necessary because the Secretary of Agriculture, not without reason,
since he represents agricultural interests, has chosen to administer
this program in a way that makes sure that peanut prices will continue
to stay at previous, much higher levels.
The Secretary was able to do this, to keep the peanut pries high, by
announcing a national peanut quota production level that is going to be
at least 100,000 tons less than the projected domestic demand. In other
words, the Government is creating an artificial shortage.
Mr. Chairman, what we have is a Government-created artificial
shortage of peanuts and, thus, a consequent higher price for peanuts.
That is contrary clearly to what we intended to do in the farm bill.
At a time when we have a peanut industry that is certainly in a
serious state of decline, with peanut consumption dramatically
declining over the last 5 years, it does not seem to me that we can
afford to let bad government policy excessively inflate the prices for
domestic consumers. Inflate the prices, I might add, to what is now
double, double, the export price. The domestic price of peanuts is
double what our producers get when they sell it into the export
markets. In other words, we have this artificially created price.
Even at $610 a ton, which we are not going to get to because of this
reduction in the quota, U.S. peanuts are 33 percent above the world
price of $350 per ton.
So this am
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
