[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 93 (Monday, July 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be 
laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2302

   (Purpose: To make funds available to carry out the Northern Great 
                     Plains Rural Development Act)

  Mr. DASCHLE. I have an amendment at the desk. I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle], for himself 
     and Mr. Kerrey, proposes an amendment numbered 2302.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 52, line 23, after ``$47,500,000,'' insert the 
     following: ``of which $1,000,000 shall be available to carry 
     out the Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act (if 
     enacted); and''.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment to the 
fiscal year 1995 Agriculture appropriations bill (S. 4554) to 
appropriate $1 million to implement the Northern Great Plains Rural 
Development Act (S. 2099). These funds will be used to create a 
commission to study and prepare plans for rural development in the 
Northern Great Plains States of South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, 
Iowa, and Minnesota. The Northern Plains States share common problems 
that are perhaps most notably manifested in the outmigration of our 
young people. All too often these most valuable of our natural 
resources are being forced to choose between professional opportunities 
outside the area or consignment to low-wage jobs in their home 
communities where they would prefer to live.
  In so many of our rural communities, our young people are gone. Our 
greatest harvest every graduation is the harvest of talent, the harvest 
of youth and vitality.
  The only problem with that harvest is that the custom combine crews 
that come in are businesses from every part of the country and the 
world.
  That concern continues to be very pervasive among all the States in 
rural America but in particular in the Northern Great Plains. It is a 
common problem, a problem that is associated with North and South 
Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and other States.
  We all have, in various ways, expressed our concern about that 
problem for a long period of time. Governors have come to us to talk 
about the mutual concern that they have, the mutual need that they have 
to address it in ways which go beyond the borders of any one State.
  And so it came to us as an issue, as all of us have come to grapple 
with economic development. It is not just an outmigration issue. It is 
a very serious concern about the economic consequences of the loss of 
our young people, the loss of opportunities, the loss of the vitality 
of our towns.
  Each Northern Plains State is confronting separately problems that do 
not stop at geographic borders but are common to the Northern Plains. 
There is growing recognition that only through a cooperative, regional 
approach will we be able to most effectively meet the challenges of the 
21st century.
  And so for the last couple of years, as we have begun to try to 
address these problems in a more meaningful way, we concluded that 
really what we needed to do was devise a strategy, a strategy that 
looked at what we could do as a region, what we could do as a nation, 
to develop better resources and a better understanding of the options, 
the opportunities that we have available to us.
  As we looked for answers, as we looked for that strategy, we found 
that the South had done something very similar in devising a regional 
approach to this economic development problem. Our idea is patterned 
after the successful Lower Mississippi Delta Commission which the 
chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and other 
distinguished Members of this body worked so diligently to establish.
  Several years ago, in fact in 1988, the Lower Mississippi Delta 
Commission was passed in an effort to create this regional strategy, in 
an effort to look at effective ways to deal with attrition, more 
effectively with the problems of the lack of competition in our small 
communities, the belief that our small communities really ought to have 
the same opportunities as do the large ones.
  The Mississippi Delta Commission has been a big success in part 
because of the involvement of the chairman and the ranking member 
currently in the Chamber. They realized back then, as they do today, 
that the regional approach to economic development, the regional 
approach to the problem shared by all of the States in the South, was 
really one approach that ought to be looked at elsewhere.

  As a result of that realization, Mr. President, the five States in 
the Upper Great Plains--Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, 
and Nebraska--joined together several months ago to introduce and pass 
legislation which created the Northern Great Plains Rural Development 
Commission. All the Senators who represent those five States were 
cosponsors of this legislation. It passed the Senate unanimously last 
month. It is now pending in the House, and our expectation is that at 
some time in the not too distant future, the legislation will pass over 
there. It recognizes the common problems and the need for a common 
strategy. It recognizes that the Lower Mississippi Delta Commission has 
done an extraordinary job in giving some guidance to the South as they 
begin to approach their problems in a more collective way. The Northern 
Great Plains Rural Development Commission will bring together private 
and public interests for the common goal of improving the rural economy 
of our area. And, like the Lower Mississippi Delta Commission, this new 
commission will not go on forever. It will be sunsetted after 2 years.
  Our hope is to repeat in the Northern Great Plains what they have 
been able to do effectively in the Mississippi Delta region. And so in 
passing the legislation to create the Commission, we now realize, of 
course, that in order to expedite this process, to get it underway just 
as quickly as we can, we also need to provide the Commission with a 
minimal level of funding. So that is really what my amendment does. It 
provides $1 million to implement the Development Act, the Northern 
Great Plains Rural Development Act, S. 2099, and to allow the 
Commission to be implemented just as quickly as it becomes enacted. 
This legislation would then take $1 million from the rural grant funds 
available and earmark them specifically for the Northern Great Plains 
Rural Development Commission.
  I emphasize that it would only do so if the legislation is enacted. 
So we are not here appropriating funds without sufficient authority. It 
would only take place if the legislation were enacted, which, indeed, 
we hope it will be so enacted.
  The Northern Great Plains Rural Development Commission will not just 
produce another study to be placed on a shelf to collect dust. It will 
achieve tangible results through the development of a 10-year rural 
development strategy and a blueprint for the region to implement its 
findings region-wide.
  Mr. President, if the Senate approves this amendment today, and the 
House concurs with our action, I pledge to return in 2 years to report 
on the strategies and initiatives developed by the Commission. That 
report will reflect the personal, organizational, and civic aspirations 
of over 10 million people, thousands of farms, businesses and 
factories, and hundreds of communities. I am confident that the legacy 
of the Northern Great Plains Rural Development Act will be one of which 
the entire Senate will be proud.
  I really believe that this is an opportunity to demonstrate, not only 
in the five States of the Northern Great Plains but certainly in all 
rural regions, that a collective strategy, an action-oriented plan that 
recognizes common problems, is the only way that rural communities are 
going to address outmigration and other rural problems effectively.
  So it certainly merits the support of my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] is 
recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we have had an opportunity to look at 
this on our side. We note it is a bipartisan initiative. It is also, in 
addition, to fund the enactment of the legislation that would create 
the commission, or recognizes it in Federal law.
  We have no objection to the amendment and we recommend to the Senate 
that it be approved.
  Mr. BUMPERS. We have no objection on this side, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  The amendment (No. 2302) was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 
p.m., July 19, the Senate vote on or in relation to the committee 
amendment beginning on page 86, line 9; that there be no second-degree 
amendments in order thereto, and that the time tomorrow between 2:15 
and 2:30 be for debate on the committee amendment with the time equally 
divided and controlled in the usual form, and that the amendment be 
laid aside until 2:15 p.m. tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    rural business enterprise grant

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention of 
my colleagues a proposal for a rural business enterprise grant through 
the RDA which will help small businesses in rural Alaska. I received 
this proposal from the Alaska Village Initiatives but it arrived late 
in the appropriations process. I ask my colleagues from Mississippi and 
Arkansas to urge the Department of Agriculture to give special 
consideration to this proposal.
  It involves a grant to the Alaska Village Initiatives to establish a 
technical assistance program to provide rural small businesses with 
management, marketing, finance, and operational skills. A goal of the 
project will be to give assistance to rural businesses statewide, 
especially communities with high unemployment rates. Some of the 
villages in Alaska have unemployment rates as high as 60 to 80 percent.
  The Alaska Village Initiative has experience helping rural Alaskans 
and they have identified special difficulties faced by rural business 
owners. Some of these difficulties are a lack of capital, inadequate 
infrastructure and communication, lack of business experience and 
skills, limited markets, high labor and freight costs, and higher than 
average cost of living. Rural Alaskans also face regionwide high 
unemployment, rampant social problems, high crime rates, and economic 
development obstacles that hinder enterprise development. These 
problems are magnified for rural Alaskans, many of whom are Natives, 
because of the isolated location of villages, most of which are not 
connected by roads.
  The Village Initiatives Program will help small business men and 
women learn skills necessary to successfully compete in the 
marketplace. This program ensures that rural business owners are able 
to create and execute business plans, to understand financial 
information, operate ongoing successful businesses, and device market 
strategies.
  The assistance provided in this program is graduated according to 
skill level and it allows for individual progress over time. This 
program also allows for client differences that come from experience 
and knowledge. Instead of offering solutions to problems the program's 
technical assistance provides a framework in which the user can choose 
and apply a solution. When one skill is mastered the client can move on 
to a new and more advanced skill. Also, when clients learn this new 
knowledge they can pass on these newly acquired skills to others in the 
community. These skills will be useful throughout their lives and will 
strengthen the human resources of their community.
  At this time, I am informed, there is no such program dedicated to 
the needs of rural small businesses and there are no assistance 
programs designed for them. This program meets the RDA's rural business 
development goals; and so again I ask both Senators' support in 
obtaining special consideration from the Department of Agriculture for 
the RDA to fund this highly useful program to help rural Alaskan small 
businesses.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague from Alaska. 
Rural small businesses in Alaska merit assistance and the Alaska 
Village Initiatives could be very helpful. I urge the Department of 
Agriculture to give consideration through the RDA, to the Alaska 
Village Initiatives proposal that the Senator from Alaska discussed. I 
can see how this program can help develop marketable skills for these 
businesses.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I too, like my colleagues, feel that this 
is a worthwhile program to help rural Alaskan small businesses. I urge 
the Department of Agriculture to evaluate carefully the proposal 
submitted by the Alaska Village Initiatives and give the proposal the 
same status and consideration as the committee gave to other programs 
mentioned in our subcommittee's report to assist local businesses in 
growing and creating jobs.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank both of my colleagues for this 
accommodation.


                             fda user fees

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I will shortly enter into a colloquy with 
Senators Kennedy, Kassebaum, Hatch, and Cochran. The colloquy deals 
with a provision in our bill which requires the Food and Drug 
Administration to raise $151 million in user fees from the industries 
they regulate.
  First, I want to state that I have been concerned by this issue, and 
we have rejected unauthorized user fees in the past. But because of the 
budget constraints this year and the demands on the subcommittee for 
funding, we had no choice except to raise $151 million in unauthorized 
FDA user fees.
  I might also note that the President had requested $252 million in 
user fees. In any event, Senators Kennedy, Kassebaum, and Hatch have 
raised serious and legitimate questions and concerns about the ability 
of the FDA to actually raise this amount of money in the short period 
of time in which they would have to raise it.
  I share their concerns and we will do our very best, of course, to 
come up with a solution to this problem and at the same time meet what 
all of us consider to be our legitimate concerns.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, Senators Kassebaum, Hatch, and I wish to 
engage in a colloquy with our esteemed colleague with regard to 
provisions in the legislation before us today authorizing the Food and 
Drug Administration [FDA] to collect $151 million in user fees from 
FDA-regulated industries.
  We recognize the extraordinarily difficult funding constraints under 
which the chairman and his colleagues developed the fiscal year 1995 
appropriations measure we are considering today. Nevertheless, we are 
very troubled by provisions in H.R. 4554, as reported by the 
subcommittee, authorizing the FDA to collect $151 million in user fees 
from the food, medical device, and other FDA-regulated industries.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. It is important to stress that the user fee 
provisions are a major change in public policy and should first be 
considered and, if appropriate, authorized by the Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources, which has jurisdiction over the Food and Drug 
Administration [FDA].
  It is my understanding that the FDA has neither a plan nor an 
infrastructure in place that would allow it to collect $151 million in 
unauthorized user fees in fiscal year 1995. If these user fees remain 
in the final version of this legislation, the agency will be forced to 
institute significant layoffs, jeopardizing vital public health 
programs and reversing recent progress the agency has made in ensuring 
the timely processing of applications for the approval of new 
technologies.
  The report accompanying this legislation states that ``the Committee 
believes meat and poultry inspection services are too important to be 
left to assumed funding.'' I would argue that such FDA functions as 
assuring the safety of the Nation's blood and organ supply, assessing 
the safety and efficacy of medical devices, and ensuring that Americans 
have timely access to new, potentially life-saving technologies, and 
ensuring the safety of the Nation's food supply are also too important 
to be left to assumed funding.

  We are all sympathetic to the very tight allocation under which the 
subcommittee worked and to the many competing demands for funds. I 
would note, however, that the House version of this legislation does 
not include FDA user fees, and I would encourage my colleagues to 
recede to this position in conference.
  Mr. HATCH. I have a range of concerns about this language and the 
negative impact it is sure to have if enacted. While I will explain 
these concerns in more detail later, let me say now I am extremely 
hopeful that this can either be corrected on the floor or that my 
colleagues will work in conference to see that the House position on 
FDA user fees is retained.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It is our understanding that since the proposed $151 
million in user fees replaces direct appropriations for the FDA, the 
resulting level of direct appropriations in the legislation may be too 
low to allow the FDA to collect prescription drug user fees under the 
Prescription Drug User Fee Act--legislation that the administration has 
hailed as a landmark achievement.
  The Prescription Drug User Fee Act requires that appropriations for 
the FDA must be equal to or greater than the appropriations for fiscal 
year 1992, multiplied by an adjustment factor. The proposed 
appropriation of only $687,733,000--the net spending authority after 
all user fees are deducted--is far below this threshold.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I agree that there is a serious question as to whether 
FDA could raise the level of new FDA user fee collections assumed in 
the President's fiscal year 1995 budget.
  The administration has not submitted a legislative proposal to the 
Congress to establish and collect these fees. I am troubled by the fact 
that while $252 million in collections from new user fees are proposed 
in the President's fiscal year 1995 budget request for the FDA, 
administration officials are unable to tell the Congress how FDA will 
levy the fees assumed, what the fees will be, or who they affect. FDA 
indicated in its official testimony to the subcommittee that there are 
many complex issues associated with collecting substantial new user 
fees and that there is not yet a proposal to accomplish this but that 
virtually all FDA activities are being looked at as possible 
candidates, with the exception of activities covered by specific 
current or proposed user fee authority.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I find it very difficult making this recommendation for 
FDA user fees for exactly the reasons that have been outlined here 
today. In the past, we have rejected these user fees, and we have urged 
past administrations not to include them in their budgets until they 
are specifically authorized by the authorizing committees.
  As you can well imagine, we had to consider many competing demands in 
trying to agree on an appropriations bill that could meet the targets 
with which we were presented. I intend to work in conference committee 
to find the resources necessary for the FDA to meet its many 
responsibilities without relying on new unauthorized user fees, if at 
all possible.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I concur with the concerns expressed by Senators 
Kassebaum, Kennedy, and Hatch on the FDA user fee issue. New user fee 
collections should not be used to reduce FDA's direct appropriations 
requirement, as the President's budget proposes, unless separate 
statutory authority to establish and collect such fees has been enacted 
into law. This is an issue which should appropriately be addressed by 
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, which has jurisdiction over 
this matter. It is my hope that the conference committee will be able 
to provide the necessary funding for the FDA without relying on 
collections from unauthorized user fees.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I share the concerns of my colleagues 
regarding language in the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA and 
related agencies fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill which directs the 
FDA to collect $150.8 million in general purpose user fees. I have 
heard numerous individuals and organizations in Indiana who are opposed 
to these fees--not all of whom would be subjected to the fees 
themselves.
  The Food and Drug Administration has the responsibility of protecting 
the public health and safety. Therefore, payment for these services 
should be made by the general public--those who benefit from the 
services. I have very strong concerns regarding the indiscriminate 
collection of fees from companies or industries which do not benefit 
from their relationship with the Food and Drug Administration.
  FDA policy and Congress authorize the collection of user fees when 
the company or industry upon which the fee is imposed is specifically 
benefiting from those fees. Not all industries which fall under FDA 
jurisdiction will benefit from the collection of user fees. Therefore, 
these user fees amount to an additional tax on industries which will 
not benefit--this is not fair.
  In addition to the economic deficiencies in this decision, I have 
doubts that the Food and Drug Administration can efficiently collect 
these fees, new fees from new industries, without an increase in the 
size of the food and drug administration. Even so, it is not fair to 
place this burden on the Food and Drug Administration when there have 
been no hearings or other oversight functions from the appropriate 
authorizing committee.
  The FDA council, a coalition of consumer groups, professional 
societies, and industry, expresses it well when they say that,

       Any proposed user fees for the FDA should require analysis 
     by the appropriate authorizing committees in the House and 
     Senate. Thoughtful deliberation went into writing user fees 
     for the drug industry and the same is occurring for the 
     medical device industry. It is clear the same should occur if 
     user fees are to be applied to other FDA regulated 
     industries.

  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I would like to express my support 
for the comments my colleagues are making here today. I oppose the 
provision in H.R. 4554 that directs the Food and Drug Administration to 
collect $150 million of its budgetary request of $997 million through 
general-purpose user fees.
  As I stated last year on this topic, there are many reasons why I 
oppose this provision. I am not generally opposed to user fees for 
recipients of public services; however, revenue raising of this 
magnitude by an agency charged with critically important regulatory 
responsibilities should not be imposed cavalierly.
  Before they are imposed, I believe we need to undergo a debate by the 
committee of jurisdiction--Labor and Human Resources--as well as public 
comment to determine how best we should proceed.
  I am also concerned that this provision statutorily precludes 
implementation of the Prescription Drug User Fee Acts of 1992. That 
bill triggers user fees for prescription drug manufacturers only if the 
appropriations stay above a designated appropriations baseline. The 
purpose of that provision was to prevent precisely what is happening 
here--the assessment of user fees as a substitute for adequate 
appropriations for the Food and Drug Administration.
  Imposing user fees on medical devices also creates problems. If we 
impose these fees, if should only occur after a full airing of the how 
these fees will address the backlog of device applications and how 
these problems will be prevented into the future. Hearing on this topic 
have, as yet, not been held.
  I would also like to emphasize Senator Kassebaum's point that FDA 
does not have the infrastructure in place that would allow it to 
collect $150 million in user fees. I must ask, how can we expect to 
obtain these funds if we don't know how to collect them?
  I believe that the Labor and Human Resources Committee needs to 
complete a careful and in-depth analysis of the present problems facing 
the FDA and the industries it oversees. How we protect the public and 
assure that new drugs and medical devices get to the market is 
important to health care reform in this country. Thus, we do not want 
to impose user fees in a way that might harm this process.
  Mr. FORD. I would like to underscore much of what my colleagues have 
said regarding user fees to fund FDA activities. I have many 
reservations about this type of approach to solving shortfalls in 
funding and further its implications in the larger debate over the 
funding and structure of several important operations at the FDA. The 
FDA is charged with a wide range of decisions that in some cases are 
between life and death. The operations of this important agency should 
not be subject to hasty decisions about prospective funding mechanisms. 
I thank my colleagues for allowing me to join them in encouraging a 
remedy to this situation in conference. This user fee issue is not an 
approach that should be entered into lightly if at all. Hearings should 
be held, experts called in and the whole matter exposed to the bright 
light of public debate.


                       rangeland research grants

  Mr. HATCH. I rise to express my concern regarding one small provision 
of the bill before us today, the Department of Agriculture 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1995. Although minor, this item 
will have a significant impact on specific agriculture research 
projects being undertaken in Utah.
  I refer to the section of the report accompanying the bill that 
provides funding for rangeland research grants--section 1480--for the 
Cooperative State Research Service [CSRS]. In his budget request, 
President Clinton requested an amount of $475,000 for these CSRS 
grants. This amount was equal to last year's appropriation and was 
provided in this year's House bill. Unfortunately, the Senate 
subcommittee did not provide funding for these grants. It has created a 
situation where the continued existence of these grants, which are 
supported by the administration and the House, is threatened by this 
body.
  Last week, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt stated at a Senate field 
hearing held in Richfield, UT, that ``grazing is * * * an enduring, 
important, positive part of the West's landscape.'' An important 
component of the positive impact from grazing is the research that 
precedes the implementation of proper grazing techniques and resource 
management practices of our rangelands. Since the Secretary has 
recognized the importance of grazing to the health of our rangelands, I 
believe it is appropriate for the Senate to provide the funding to keep 
the rangeland research alive.
  In Utah, research funds have been utilized on projects involving 
invader plants, riparian issues, and research on utilization standards. 
There is no doubt in my mind that the health and wealth of the 
resource--our rangeland--will be threatened if this research does not 
continue because funds are not provided in this year's funding bill.
  I would like to encourage my colleagues participating in the upcoming 
conference to accept the House position on rangeland research grants. 
May I inquire of my colleague from Arkansas, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, if he can tell me whether this position could be pursued 
in conference.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I appreciate my colleague from Utah expressing his 
support for the continued funding of rangeland research grants by the 
Department of Agriculture. I am pleased to learn that these grants have 
proven their effectiveness in his State. While I am not in a position 
to indicate what will happen in conference on this or any other 
subjects in this bill, I can assure my colleague that I will review his 
comments carefully on this matter and keep them in mind during 
conference. Again, I appreciate his comments on this issue.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. I ask unanimous consent that a 
partial list of projects directly related to rangeland research 
currently under way at Utah State University be printed at the end of 
my comments. These projects are not all funded through the rangeland 
research appropriation to CSRS, but many of them are related directly 
to projects which are funded through the agency's competitive grants 
program.
  There being no objection, the partial list was ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

       Rangeland Research at Utah State University--Partial List

       Determining and improving the carrying capacity of private 
     and public rangelands.
       Modes and mechanisms of Scarpie infection in sheep.
       Biological control of rangeland pests.
       Germ cell and embryo development in range cattle.
       Improving ruminant utilization of low quality forages via 
     genetic section.
       Evaluation of grazing systems and animal response to 
     southern Utah forested ranges.
       Grazing livestock nutrition and management to improve 
     production efficiency.
       Improvement of grass and legume forages.
       Improving stress resistance in forages of the western U.S.
       Watershed management and nutrient composition and 
     concentration in rangeland soils.
       Control of toxic and noxious weeds on rangelands.
       Sustainable agriculture systems in range and ranch 
     management.
       Reducing riparian damage through animal social learning.
       Stability of plant communities in sagebrush dominated land.
       Rangeland monitoring and assessment.
       The spread of Utah Juniper on Utah ranges.
       The economics of pasture management practices in Utah.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I wish to send to the desk an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will inform the Senator from Alabama 
he needs to seek unanimous consent to set aside all other committee 
amendments to offer his amendment.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all other 
amendments that are now pending be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2303

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2303.

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 88, after line 12 insert:
       Sec. 742. In addition to funds made available elsewhere in 
     this Act, there are hereby appropriated as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act the following, to remain available 
     through September 30, 1995:
       Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants, $10,000,000;
       Very Low-Income Housing Repair Grants, $15,000,000;
       Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:
       For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: emergency 
     loans, $7,670,000.
       Provided, That these amounts are designated by Congress as 
     an emergency requirements pursuant to section 251 
     (b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, and that such amounts shall 
     be available only to the extent the President designates such 
     use an emergency requirements pursuant to such Act.
       Of the amount appropriated in the Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act of 1994, Public Law 103-211, for Watershed 
     and Flood Prevention Operations, $23 million is transferred 
     to the Emergency Conservation Program.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, this amendment that I have sent to the 
desk deals with the disaster assistance that is needed relative to the 
flooding that has occurred in the States of Alabama, Georgia, and 
Florida.
  The President has already announced that there would be the same 
disaster program dealing with the floods in Georgia, Alabama, and 
Florida as was used pertaining to the Mississippi Valley flooding last 
year.
  My amendment addresses some particular needs relative to rural 
America, particularly where there has been flooding and other 
disasters.
  The money that we seek here in these programs will enable the people 
of South Alabama, South Georgia and North Florida to put their lives 
back together in the aftermath of the flood which has devastated much 
of this rural region.
  Included in my amendment is $10 million for rural water and sewer 
systems. The emergency water system grants included in this package 
will help rural water and sewer systems repair and rebuild their 
damaged systems. This money is extremely important because currently 
there are a number of citizens in the flood areas that do not have 
suitable drinking water. In fact the drinking water is polluted and 
there are not, in many instances, properly working sewer systems.
  This amendment also contains $23 million for the Emergency 
Conservation Program. This program provides cost share moneys to 
individuals to help clean up the debris left in the wake of the flood.
  This amendment also includes additional money for the Emergency 
Watershed Program as well. The language in this amendment calls on the 
USDA to use money left over from last year's flooding problems in the 
Midwest. Such sums as necessary will be set aside to fund the watershed 
program in this tri-State region of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. This 
program, which is administered through the Soil Conservation Service, 
provides money to help repair washouts, gullies, damaged levees and 
terraces.
  I was down in Alabama a week ago from this last Saturday and flew 
over much of the farmlands, and you could see the gullies and you could 
see many of the terraces that had been destroyed. This section of 
Alabama had just gone through a detailed soil conservation program in 
which farmers had adopted and implemented and put into practice all of 
the various procedures that the Soil Conservation Service had required, 
and the flood has caused tremendous damage to this, and there is a need 
for help and assistance in getting these farms back to where they were 
prior to this flood. From the damages that I witnessed firsthand, the 
money will be sorely needed.
  Also included in this amendment is money for farmers who have lost 
their crops as a result of the flooding. While no dollar figure is 
attached to this provision, it is understood that such sums as 
necessary will be appropriated to meet these needs. Additionally, $25 
million will be made available in emergency farm loans to farmers who 
have suffered major losses. I have personally talked to President 
Clinton about this matter, and he has assured me that farmers in the 
Southeast will be treated just like the farmers in the Midwest were 
last year. I commend the President and OMB on behalf of the farmers in 
this tri-State region for their assistance in this matter.
  This bill also includes $15 million for housing repairs in flood 
affected areas. I also have a commitment from the administration that 
additional money for rural housing assistance will be forthcoming once 
we have a better idea as to the total amount of the damage. By the time 
this bill is in conference, we should be able to lock down the exact 
figures for additional housing money. It is also my understanding that 
additional moneys will be provided in the business and industry loan 
portion of this bill.
  This program is operated through the Farmer's Home Administration. 
This money would be used to help small businesses get back on their 
feet after the flood waters have receded.
  Mr. President, I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility 
to come to the aid of the tri-State area of Georgia, Florida, and 
Alabama at this time because our local communities clearly do not have 
the necessary resources to pay for the entire cost of the cleanup.
  I would like to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for working with us and their 
staffs for working with my staff to ensure that the people of this tri-
State region are assisted in this time of need.
  Now, Mr. President, we understand that probably it would not be 
appropriate to put in statutory language to the effect that such funds 
as are necessary will be provided for watershed and flood prevention 
operation.
  These funds shall be made available for the Emergency Supplemental 
Act of 1994. Also, business and industry loans should be made available 
through existing 1994 funds.
  But we would expect that in conference there would be statements in 
the report of the conferees pertaining to that which would give 
direction to the Department of Agriculture pertaining to the watershed 
flood prevention operation and to the business and industry loans that 
I have just mentioned.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Has the distinguished Senator completed his statement in 
support of his amendment.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I think so, yes.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] is 
recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me first of all commend the Senator 
from Alabama, my friend and neighbor, for offering this amendment. It 
is an effort to extend the provisions of existing law in other 
legislation which have been passed by the Congress to the victims of 
the disasters that have recently befallen those three States the 
Senator mentioned.
  There are other Senators who have brought to the attention of the 
managers amendments that are intended to be offered to this bill on the 
same subjects. Specifically, we have heard from Senator Coverdell of 
Georgia, who has brought to our attention an amendment to extend 
deficiency payments to farmers in advance as a way to help compensate 
them for damages that have been sustained or will be sustained as a 
result of these terrible floods that have hit the States of Georgia, 
Alabama, and Florida.
  We also understand there is another amendment under development and 
preparation by Senator Coverdell similar to the amendment that has now 
been offered by Senator Heflin.
  Senator Bumpers and I, for example, have also prepared an amendment, 
which we are prepared to offer to the bill, to provide disaster 
assistance for 1994 crops. That would be based upon the provisions of 
the 1990 farm bill that had as a title ``Disaster Assistance'' and 
provided certain procedures be followed in order to have eligible 
farmers given disaster benefits.
  Part of that is the fact that Congress must declare that an emergency 
exists in order to qualify this disaster for those benefits. The 
President must also agree by issuing a declaration that an emergency 
exists and that this disaster is of the kind and quality contemplated 
in the law.
  So what Senator Heflin is doing is something that is consistent with 
the efforts that others are also trying to develop to make sure that 
those who have suffered from this recent disaster are qualified and 
eligible for the same kind of disaster benefits that were made 
available in the Midwest floods and that have been made available to 
others in similar circumstances.
  So, on the part of this Senator, I want to state my support for the 
effort that is being made and commend Senator Heflin for bringing this 
suggestion to the attention of the Senate.
  I might just point out that in our State and in the State of Arkansas 
and some other States earlier this year, there were disasters which 
occurred as a result of freezing temperatures. Immense damage was 
sustained by pecan orchards, peach orchards, and other agriculture 
activities over a large area, particularly in my State. I do not think 
we have seen a disaster quite like the damage that was occasioned by 
reason of the freeze earlier this year.
  So one of the suggestions being made--it is already in the committee 
bill now before the Senate, and to clarify the matter in later 
amendments which I hope can be included in a disaster amendment--is the 
fact that these victims are also entitled to share in whatever disaster 
assistance may be made available by the administration.
  I might just say, before we take final action on this amendment, I 
hope we will have an opportunity to consider similar amendments that 
have been prepared and any suggestions that other Senators would like 
to make on this subject. But it is important that we take action and it 
be included in this bill.
  So for that reason, I want to commend the Senator from Alabama and 
assure him of our cooperation in trying to make sure that we do address 
this issue and we do so in a way that is as sensitive and as generous 
as can be under the terms of existing law and our behavior in 
circumstances like this in the past.
  (Mrs. BOXER assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I wish to thank the distinguished 
Senator from Mississippi for his kind words and for pointing out the 
fact that other Senators are working on this problem.
  I have had discussions with Senator Nunn pertaining to this issue. I 
believe that he will be speaking on this issue, and perhaps may be 
offering something himself relative to it.
  But I also particularly want to point out that in the beginning I 
mentioned not only this flooding, but other disasters. I had in mind 
also the same thing--I did not deal with it in detail--that Senator 
Cochran brought out about the freezes, in particular in the northern 
part of Mississippi and in the northern part of Alabama and other 
States.
  So the overall package that we are all working on is designed to take 
care of all disasters--whether freezes, floods, droughts, insect 
activity, worms; we have had beet army worms that have been disastrous 
that have occurred and in the cotton areas. We feel like it will be 
comprehensive to the extent of taking care of all of those situations 
that exist.
  So I will be looking forward to working with Senator Coverdell and 
Senator Nunn and any other Senators; Senator Graham and Senator Mack 
ought to have some ideas pertaining to this. I think the idea right now 
is to hold it over until we get to adoption of this amendment, and then 
take action on it, as well as action on the other amendments.
  I might say, of course, that the House, having passed a bill and then 
the Senate taking care of this and including the disaster assistance 
program in this, when it goes to conference there may have to be some 
adjustments of the figures. But the figures that we have, and as we 
have put in our amendment today, have come as a result of working with 
the Department of Agriculture and also OMB relative to the needs of the 
TriState area.
  I think we will have a little better idea by the time this goes to 
conference as to what the final figures might be.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Heflin amendment is the pending business.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendment be set aside in order to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2304

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration. I offer this amendment on behalf of 
Senator Leahy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2304.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On the appropriate page insert at the end of Sec. 716 the 
     following ``, unless additional acres in excess of the 
     100,000 acre limitation can be enrolled without exceeding 
     $93,200,000, provided that the unused portion of the fiscal 
     year 1994 appropriation shall be used in addition to the 
     $93,200,000.''

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
H.R. 4554, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, 1995 which 
will correct a funding problem for the Wetlands Reserve Program.
  This bill appropriates $93.2 million for the Wetlands Reserve Program 
an increase of $26.5 million from last year. However, the bill also 
imposes a 100,000 cap on the amount of acreage allowed into the 
program.
  I am opposed to this cap for three reasons.
  First, farmers want to do more to protect wetlands. This year, six 
times as many eligible farmers asked to participate in the program than 
could be enrolled.
  Second, the effect of this cap is to transfer money that was set 
aside for this program in the 1990 farm bill to a host of other items 
funded by the appropriations bill.
  Third, this cap undercuts the cost-effective administration of this 
program by the Department of Agriculture. This cap prohibits the 
Department of Agriculture from enrolling more than 100,000 acres, even 
if they can be enrolled with the appropriated funds. In other words, if 
USDA enrolls cheaper acres into the program, they cannot use the 
savings to allow more farmers to participate in the program. Our 
farmers lose because they cannot participate in the program and the 
public loses because valuable wetlands that could be permanently 
protected are not enrolled.
  My amendment would remove the cap from this bill. In addition, my 
amendment would remove the 75,000-acre cap imposed in fiscal year 1994. 
By removing the cap imposed in fiscal year 1994 and in this bill, the 
Department of Agriculture will be able to enroll over 50,000 additional 
acres into the Wetland Reserve Program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, this is an amendment dealing with the 
wetland reserve, which has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, we have reviewed the amendment on this 
side and have no objection to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2304) was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                               USER FEES

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, the administration's fiscal year 1995 
request for the Food and Drug Administration includes $645 million in 
budget authority and $343 million from user fees--one-third of the 
FDA's budget, $252 million would come from new user fees.
  Specifically, the FDA proposed to collect $79 million under the 
Prescription Drug User Fee Act, $24 million from yet unauthorized new 
medical device user fees, $6.5 million in fees from the Mammography 
Quality Standards Act, and $5 million from fees for certification and 
Freedom of Information Act requests.
  The agency has no detailed plans for how to collect the other $228 
million, and, indeed, I have serious concerns about their plans for the 
$24 million in device fees.
  When FDA Commissioner Kessler testified before the House in March of 
this year, the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee chairman asked 
him when the Congress would see the details of their whole user fee 
proposal. Commissioner Kessler responded, ``There are many complex 
issues associated with collecting substantial new user fees. We do not 
yet have a detailed proposal to accomplish this.''
  Commissioner Kessler added,

       I can assure you we are still evaluating candidates for 
     such fees. We are looking at virtually all FDA activities 
     except those covered by specific current or proposed user 
     fee authority. Activities left to consider include the 
     food and animal drug activities of the Agency, our 
     activities at the National Center for Toxicological 
     Reserach, generic and over the counter drug programs, 
     blood banks, most of our import and domestic inspection 
     activities, and our enforcement and compliance activities.

  In other words, Commissioner Kessler is looking at imposing user fees 
on almost every activity of the agency.
  When the FDA testified before the Senate subcommittee 2 months later, 
in May of this year, he was unable to provide any additional details. 
Yet, the bill before us proposes $150 million in user fees.
  It is very clear to me that the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee, under the capable leadership of our colleagues from 
Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, and from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, were 
in a difficult situation. The subcommittee's allocation was tight, and 
I am very sympathetic to the hard task my Appropriations Committee 
colleagues faced in trying to fund adequately all of the programs at 
the Agriculture Department, as well as the FDA.
  In this context, I can understand the committee's willingness to 
examine a revenue-raising provision advanced by the administration. It 
is some consolation that the committee only allowed for $150 million in 
new user fees, as opposed to the request which was over $100 million 
higher.
  Nevertheless, I have a range of concerns about this language and the 
negative impact it is sure to have if enacted. I am extremely hopeful 
that, if this cannot be corrected on the floor, my colleagues will work 
in conference to see that the House position on FDA user fees is 
retained.
  I know that our time is short, here, so I will summarize my concerns.
  First, as I have detailed, I do not think it is possible for the FDA 
to implement user fees of this magnitude in the coming fiscal year.
  Second, the user fees in this bill would supplant direct 
appropriations, and could not be used as revenues to assist FDA in 
fulfilling its mission. This, of course, is in contrast to the 
prescription drug user fees which had been authorized in advance for a 
specific purpose. If anything, the prescription drug user fee precedent 
should convince us not to move too quickly on other FDA fees, as thus 
far it has not shown the promise for which we had hoped when Public Law 
102-571 was enacted 2 years ago.
  Third, the basic premise of a user fee is that it is not a tax and 
that it goes to support a specific service or activity that is provided 
in return. When we are considering ``fees,'' which could amount to one-
third of the agency's funding, I think you have to seriously question 
whether in fact these are taxes in user fee clothing.
  Fourth and finally, I think that this represents questionable public 
policy. Let's just look at one potential user fee--medical devices. The 
medical device industry is one of the Nation's most competitive 
industries in the global marketplace. It is comprised of a range of 
manufacturers, both small and large, all of which are contributing to a 
positive trade balance in devices. That is something of which we can be 
proud. A user fee for devices would amount to a tax on innovation, a 
tax which would hit very, very hard at small manufacturers, 
discouraging their innovation and investment, and possibly driving them 
out of business.

  When the prescription drug user fee was considered 2 years ago, we 
were looking at an FDA center that was basically strong but 
overburdened with too much paperwork and too few personnel. Leaving 
aside my concern that the process could be streamlined, I agreed to 
work with my colleagues to craft a proposal after industry signaled 
that it was warranted and workable.
  There is no such agreement with the medical device community, as was 
evident from a hearing last week held by my distinguished colleague in 
the House of Representatives, Henry Waxman. At that hearing, Wayne 
Barlow, president of a small Utah manufacturing company and chairman of 
the Utah Biomedical Industry Council, testified on behalf of 200 
companies. Utah, I might add, has led the Nation in growth of its 
registered device manufacturers, with a 19-percent increase from 153 
companies in 1991 to 182 companies in 1992.
  I agree with what Mr. Barlow told the committee, which essentially 
was that the problem with medical device approvals does not stem 
primarily from resources, but rather from the agency's management of 
the program and from its regulatory overreach which consumes an ever-
growing amount of resources.
  For these reasons, again, I hope that we can eliminate the user fee 
provision from the final bill and retain the House language.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk processed to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________