that come about in the middle of a quarter as a result of the application of
fee provisions shall not apply to sugar that is exported on a bill of lading
to the United States from the country of origin before the adjustment was
made in the fee. He advised that the Administration would like to continue
to have the flexibility to continue to protect those persons who had exported
sugar prior to the time the adjustment in fee was made. Mr. Richmond stated
he had no problem with the proclamation's language and would like to have
it included in the Committee report. Discussion occurred and there was no
objection to including the language.

Mr. Harkin offered the following amendment concerning wage standards:

Page 19, section 205, add new section:

"(e) Wage standards. Provided, That no sugar shall be
imported from any country wherein the legal minimum wages
in effect in such country are not being enforced for sugar
growers and producers."

Discussion occurred and by a voice vote the Harkin amendment was not

approved.

Mr. Thomas offered the following amendment allowing the production of monosodium glutamate:

On page 20, line 14, strike the word "or" and insert a
comma and on line 15 immediately after the word "acid"
insert the words "or monosodium glutamate".

Discussion occurred and by a voice vote the Thomas amendment was

approved.

Mr. Hance offered the following amendment striking the section on compensation insurance:

Page 30, strike out lines 1 through 10, renumber
sections accordingly.

Discussion occurred and by a show of hands vote of 7 yeas-16 nays the amendment was not agreed to.

Mr. de la Garza moved that the amendments adopted by H.R. 2172 be considered as one Committee amendment. Without objection the motion was agreed to.

Mr. de la Garza moved that H.R. 2172, amended, be ordered reported to the House with the recommedation that it do pass. By a voice vote the motion was agreed to. Mr. Kelly requested a recorded vote and 10 Members sustained the request. The vote follows:

Thus, by a roll call vote of 29 yeas-9 nays H.R. 2172, amended, was ordered reported to the House in the presence of a quorum.

Without objection staff was given authority to make technical and clerical corrections to reflect the intent of the Committee. Members were given until noon, Wednesday, May 2, to submit any additional views for inclusion in the Committee report.

At

During the proceedings two recesses were taken at 11:15 a.m. and 11:55 a.m. to enable Members to respond to recorded votes on the House Floor. 12:30 p.m. the meeting was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.

AMENDMENT BY MR. HUCKABY TO AMENDMENT OF MR. de la GARZA

In lieu of the amendment on page 1A, line 1, of the de la Garza amendment, insert the following:

Page 8 of H.R. 2172 (Comm. Print No. 2), strike out lines 20 through 25, and page 9, strike out lines 1 through 14, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"(b) Payments.--(1) If the assured return is not achieved in any

sugar supply year that begins after September 30, 1979, the Secretary shall make payments (subject to the limitations set forth in this subsection) solely to domestic producers of sugarcane and sugar beets at the rate per pound, raw value (but not more than .50 cents per pound, raw value), equal to the amount by which the assured return for such year exceeds the greater of-(A) the average daily price for United States raw sugar imports during such year; or

(B) the price objective for such year.

"(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the total amount which any person engaged in the production of sugarcane or sugar beets shall be entitled to receive as a result of payments made under this section shall not exceed $50,000. The term 'payments' shall not include loans or purchases. The term 'person' as used in this paragraph shall have the same meaning as provided in regulations issued by the Secretary under section 101 of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, except as the Secretary may determine necessary to assure a fair and reasonable application of the limitation to persons engaged in the production of sugarcane and sugar beets.".

On page 2, third from the last line of the de la Garza amendment, strike out "22 cents per hour" and insert in lieu thereof "10 per cent".

On page 3 of the de la Garza amendment, strike out lines 1 through 9, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

-2

Page 25 of H.R. 2172 (Comm. Print No. 2), lines 7 and 8, strike out "in the above table" and insert in lieu thereof "as provided for in paragraph (1) of this subsection"; and

Page 25 of H.R. 2172 (Comm. Print No. 2), strike out lines 9 through 21, and page 26, strike out lines 1 through 6.

EXPLANATION

1.

The amendment continues the payments of .50 cents per pound for each of the 1979-1981 sugar supply years as provided in the de la Garza amendment but requires that the payments be made solely to growers and subjects the payments to a $50,000 limitation.

2. In the interest of compromise with the Administration, the amendment provides that the premium for equipment operators shall be 10 per cent in areas where sugar accounts for at least 25 per cent of the acreage devoted to agricultural production.

3. The amendment eliminates the snapback in wage rates if a payment limitation is later added to the bill.

TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO de la GARZA AMENDMENT

On page 1 of Mr. de la Garza's amendment change the amendment to page 7, line 13, to read as follows:

Page 7, line 13, insert before the period "except that,other than as used in sections 202(a)(3) and (4), the 1978 sugar supply year shall begin with the first supply year quarter after the date of enactment of this Act and end September 30, 1979." (New language is underlined)

Page 8, line 10, strike out "(3)" and "(2)" and insert in lieu thereof "(4)" and "(3)".

EXPLANATION:

The original amendment defines the 1978 sugar supply year to cover the period July 1-September 30, 1978, so that the Administration could protect by import fees and backup quotas provided in the bill the price objective of 15 cents per pound announced administratively for the current year.

The proposed technical clarification would make clear that costs incurred during the twelve-month period October 1, 1978, to September 30, 1979, and not during the three-month period July 1-September 30, 1978, would be used for calculating adjustments in the price objective for the 1980 and 1981 sugar supply year.