THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

That would be just my personal suggestion to the leadership of what could

[Page: H2533]  GPO's PDF

   I would again point out that those of us who supported the Blue Dog budget, the majority of Democrats, we budget for this. This is not something that will break the budget, as visioned by the Blue Dog and a majority of the Democrats in this House.

   That is a suggestion. I hope the Speaker does it next Tuesday, because if we do, hopefully at that point can move quickly and before the end of next week we can resolve this question and avoid further inconveniencing so many family farmers that will be inconvenienced because we have been unable to deal in a rational way with this situation.

   If I might, just for a moment, switch subjects and talk about another very important happening this week for agriculture, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. BERRY) and I about a year ago requested a meeting with the Vice President of the United States to express our concern of the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act, something that deals with the technology that is used by our farmers and ranchers that allows us to always say to the American people and to the world that, are we not blessed to live in a country that has the most abundant food supply, the best quality of food , the safest food supply to our people at the lowest cost of any other country in the world? And we do this because of the utilization of technology.

   In our visit with the Vice President, we pointed out that there were some at EPA that were interpreting the law as passed by the Congress in ways that was going to be very detrimental to production agriculture. He agreed, and for the last year we have seen continuous improvement. We have seen EPA and USDA begin to work together, which the Vice President suggested should be done.

   It is amazing to me that we would have to have a Vice President of the United States instructing two agencies of the United States government to work together. But he did, they did, they are, and it is working.

   There was a track committee put together, a committee of about 54 men and women, producers, chemical companies, environmentalists, consumers, all who have a vested interest in seeing that these decisions are made based on sound science and in the best interests of consumers. This committee has been working until last week, when for some strange reason the environmental community and the consumer community decided to pull out of the discussion.

   I encourage them to come back to the table, come back to the table and continue to do as they were doing over the last year, working in a constructive way in order that we might in fact continue to have this most abundant, safe food supply.

   Please, do not be, as some are accusing you of, of saying because you cannot have your way, I am going to take my bat and ball and go home. Please come back to the table. Please come back to the discussions, and let us make sure that all decisions, though, are based on sound science, not on an individual interpretation of what is good and bad.

   There are those among us who believe that pesticides, those things that kill insects, should not be used because if used improperly, they will kill humans. Everyone agrees to that. But everyone does not agree that we ought to eliminate pesticides, because if we would eliminate the technology, we would not have the best-fed Nation. In fact, we would have a starving world in a very short period of time.

   One of the things the Vice President instructed us all to do is to have these discussions in the open, in sunshine, in transparency, as the word is called. Let everyone present their views.

   This seems to be what is bugging some folks in the environmental community. They do not want to have to honestly debate their views with others in the scientific community who may have a different view.

[Time: 14:45]

   I know the gentleman from Arkansas has been a real leader in this effort, for which I have commended him. I was glad to work with him all of last year, and I know he shares this frustration. But it is something that we need to talk about over and over and as openly as we can to make sure that more of the American people understand we cannot have this abundant food supply without using technology.

   Both the gentleman from Arkansas and I are farmers in real life. We do not wish to use any product that will do harm to ourselves, our families, those who work for us, and certainly not to those who consume the products which we produce. It is in our best interest that we use sound science.

   We were making great progress. I do not understand why some now decide that they do not want to even play anymore, but I hope that they will reconsider that decision. If not, then I certainly hope that the process will go forward without them. But if it goes forward without them, it will not work nearly as smoothly and good for the Nation as a whole as if they come back to the table and work together.

   Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman once again and thank him for his leadership and the great wisdom he brings to this body and the always thoughtful suggestions and effort that he makes.

   I would like now to read a statement from our colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. MINGE). He says: ``I rise today to highlight the long delay in passing the emergency supplemental funding for the Farm Service Agency lending programs and FSA staffing budget.

   ``This is truly an emergency in every sense of the word. Tracy Beckman, FSA Director in the State of Minnesota, has told me that he will be forced to lay off FSA employees because of the delay in passing the emergency supplemental. The demand for loans and other FSA services is skyrocketing because of the commercial banks' concern about declining farm incomes. Many producers are having a difficult time securing private sector operating loans. FSA has to step in to fill the gap with guaranteed and direct loans to producers. Demands for loans this year is up 75 percent from a year ago, the Secretary of Agriculture tells me.

   ``Minnesota FSA will approve more loan applications by the end of the fiscal year than they have funding. If this supplemental is not approved, they will be unable to deliver the funds to the farmers because their accounts can have run dry. Planting season has arrived, and those farmers without operating loans are going to be left high and dry.

   ``Mr. Speaker, now is the time to approve these truly emergency funds. We must not delay action on this matter because of disputes between Congress and the White House on other matters. The supplemental bill threatens to be bogged down with millions of nonemergency spending, and I worry that this may sink the ship.

   ``The President requested $6 billion to fund the air campaign against Yugoslavia. Some on the other side of the aisle want to pass as much as $20 billion. The Senate majority leader suggested $10 or $11 billion. I do not understand how funds the administration has not even requested could be remotely considered emergency spending. We must remember these are Social Security funds that we are spending. If we are going to continue to claim to be fiscally responsible, we must be honest with ourselves about what is emergency funding and what is desirable funding. Whatever happened to not opening the Social Security lock box unless it is an absolute emergency?

   ``I propose that we develop and pass in the shortest possible time frame a freestanding emergency agriculture spending bill to provide critical guaranteed and direct operating loans that our farmers need to get into the field and the FSA staff to deliver these programs. These are truly emergency funding needs. We must move forward with a clean bill for agriculture now, and not hold hostage these funds for America's farmers in a raid on the Social Security Trust Fund to benefit nonemergency defense spending.''

   That is the statement from our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. DAVID MINGE), and I know that he has great concern for America's farmers and for the future of American agriculture.

   In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just once again make the plea to the Speaker to let this legislation move forward

[Page: H2534]  GPO's PDF

   In conclusion, I would also want to thank Secretary Dan Glickman at the Department of Agriculture for the great job he has done in every possible way to deal with this emergency situation and, at the same time, make available as many funds as he can to serve this program. I think it is a shameful thing that we have allowed partisan politics to bring us to this point, and I urge the Speaker to allow this legislation to move forward.

   Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. SHERMAN).

   MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC OPTIONS WITH REGARD TO YUGOSLAVIA

   Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I addressed the House earlier. I had about 15 minutes of things to say and lacked the conciseness and brevity to put it into a 5-minute speech. I guess the next thing to the capacity to brevity is to have a good friend who is willing to yield time.

   If I may inquire as to the level of generosity of my friend, how much time is remaining, Mr. Speaker?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. FOSELLA). The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. BERRY) has approximately 20 minutes remaining.

   Mr. SHERMAN. If I can inquire of the Chair, is it necessary that Mr. Berry remain standing through my speech or can that be waived through unanimous consent?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is necessary for the gentleman to remain on his feet.

   Mr. SHERMAN. Well, then, perhaps brevity is called for, and I thank the gentleman. I did not realize the imposition involved.

   Mr. Speaker, earlier today I stated that we have to reflect on the votes of yesterday, where by a 2-to-1 majority we voted against a unilateral withdrawal. But this was not a ringing endorsement of our current military or diplomatic strategy with regard to Yugoslavia nor is it a call for the introduction of NATO ground troops; rather, it is important that we come up with additional options. I have a few that I believe deserve to be considered, and I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for giving me the opportunity to present them to this House.

   The first of these involves training, though not necessarily arming the Albanians, both those who are citizens of Albania and wish to fight for their brethren and the Kosovar refugees who have escaped from Kosovo.

   Now, there are objections to this strategy. They point out that there is an arms embargo with regard to the nation of Yugoslavia. But this arms embargo would not be violated if we simply provided training while Americans retained custody of the weapons.

   Second, the idea of just arming the Kosovars with the idea that we would just open up a box and distribute rifles does not create an army capable of defeating Milosevic. In fact, the KLA already has plenty of rifles from a variety of sources.

   Now, I am not saying that the time has come to turn over custody of artillery and tanks to the Albanians. But if Milosevic knew that we were training an Albanian force to use heavy weapons, then he would know that he was up against not only the NATO air armada, not only a ragtag band of lightly armed KLA guerillas, but would also know that soon we would be able to unleash a force of heavily armed Albanians.

   Second, I think it is important that we look at our diplomatic strategy and posturing. At this point we seem too tied to the intense vilification of Milosevic. And it is indeed tempting, for he is indeed evil. But let us keep in mind that we have to do business with evil men.

   The Government of China sent its emissary to this Capitol just a few weeks ago. That government is responsible for more deaths than all the Albanians that have ever been alive anywhere since the days of the ancient Eridians. Saddam Hussein, a man with much blood on his hands, has not been deposed by the United States and we have had to reach an accommodation with him. Those who say that our objective should be to remove Milosevic should contemplate the casualties involved in sending American ground troops not only into Kosovo but into Serbia.

   Mr. Speaker, our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. CURT WELDON), is leading a group to Vienna, and we should praise those efforts, because he is going to reach out to members of the Russian Duma in an effort to enlist Russian support for a negotiated peace. We should remember that negotiation involves give and take.

   All too often we focus on the results of World War II. Glorious as they were, they are not typical. In fact, only one of our foreign wars ended with the unconditional surrender of our adversary. And for us to expect an unconditional surrender of Serbia, whether it is the unconditional surrender of its Kosovo province and all parts of it, or whether it is the surrender of that government and the occupation of all of Serbia, this should not be the expected result nor is it the necessary result.

   I would suggest, and I have suggested this not only to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. WELDON) but several others who are traveling with him, that we propose to the Russians that there be two zones in Kosovo and two separate peacekeeping forces. One zone would be along the border between Kosovo and Serbia and Kosovo and Montenegro and would be patrolled exclusively by Russian peacekeepers.

   This area Serbia would know they would retain rights with regard to. And this area should include the ancient battlefield of Kosovo Polyea, the famous monastery to the south of Pristina, the City of Pec, which was the original site of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and other lands of critical significance to the Serb nation.

   The remaining, I would suspect 70 to 80 percent of Kosovo, would be subject to NATO occupation, a NATO peacekeeping force, and in this area the Albanian Kosovars would live in security and could return from their refugee status.

   If we propose this, Milosevic then has a reason to deal. Because instead of proposing that he lose all rights in Kosovo, we are proposing that he retains rights that he might otherwise lose if he continues to battle us and our Albanian allies in the year to come.

   At the same time, we should work toward any acceptable peace. And an acceptable peace is one that is workable, and where the Kosovars are able to return to Kosovo, or any reasonable part thereof, to live in peace and security and, knowing the generosity of the American and European people, with the aid and trade concessions they need to live prosperous as well as secure lives.

[Time: 15:00]

   Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. BERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

   Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding.

   Mr. Speaker, when I am home traveling in my district and talking to farmers in southern Indiana about this farm crisis that we are in, they always tell me that they do not want any handouts. What they do tell me is they want access to credit.

   I think it is just common sense to provide farmers access to enough credit so they can plant their crops, market their products, and pay their bills. It does not make any sense to me that this has not been a higher priority for this Congress. Every day families across the country are losing their farms. I am especially concerned that this crisis is taking a hard toll on our next generation of farmers.

   I think it is important that the American people understand how great the need is in rural America for this emergency money. The situation in my home State of Indiana is not encouraging. For one thing, many of our loan programs in Indiana are exhausted, or close to it anyway. Our direct operating loan money is, for the most part, exhausted. We are completely all out of guaranteed farm ownership loans. We are short nearly $800,000 for beginning and non-beginning direct farm ownership loans.

[Page: 
H2535]  GPO's PDF

   On March 23, the House of Representatives passed a supplemental appropriations bill that included much needed emergency credit for farmers across this country. I was one of the few Members of my own party to vote for the bill. Two days later, the Senate passed the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill and asked for a conference committee to come together to work out the differences of the House and Senate bills.

   It was only on April 22, almost a month later, that the House leadership agreed to send the emergency bill to conference committee and appoint conferees. In the meantime, farmers in Indiana and all across this country have been waiting for this emergency money.

   Many farmers have not been able to begin spring planting, while others have been forced to sell the family farm. While the farmers have been waiting, Secretary of Agriculture Glickman has been transferring money from different USDA accounts in an attempt to give the States more access to credit for farmers.

   Without the supplemental appropriations to restore to these accounts we have been borrowing from, we are facing layoffs and furloughs at FSA offices. We have had even to borrow money from FSA salary accounts. As a last resort, more and more farmers are being forced to appeal to their local FSA offices for financial assistance, and demand for farm loans has increased by 62 percent over the last year.

   So today I urge the leadership to act on the supplemental bill that this body passed over a month ago. I am truly concerned about Hoosier farmers. It is difficult for me to see this many farmers in need of access to credit. Indiana farmers need our help.

   Every weekend I go back to Indiana to visit with my constituents, and many times my constituents are farmers. I have a lot of them in my district. And each time that I go back, I ask these farmers whether or not, in their view, they believe that a young man or woman in this country can on their own become a farmer, and each and every time all the farmers say no.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents