[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              TEFAP FUNDING FOR AGRICULTURE APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will not be offering an amendment today 
regardinf the subcommittee's decision to cut TEFAP food purchases to 
zero, but I am very concerned with this decision.
  As a subcommittee chairman myself, I am quite mindful of the tight 
fiscal constraints placed upon the Subcommittee on Agriculture 
Appropriations. However, to cut funding for TEFAP at a time when record 
numbers of Americans are applying for food stamps and when our Nation's 
food banks are being forced to turn away the hungry because they cannot 
meet the demand, is unfair.
  TEFAP is the first and last line of defense against the growing 
problem of hunger in America.
  Children account for 45 percent of food pantry clients. More than 27 
million Americans relied on emergency food assistance last year. 
Without food purchases for this program, I am afraid many food sites 
will cease to exist. Many food banks will close, especially those in 
the rural areas.
  Food stamps alone cannot fight hunger nor will food stamps be able to 
fill the void created by the loss of these commodities. A recent study 
by Second Harvest, the Nation's largest network of food banks, reported 
that 82 percent of food stamp recipients run out of food before their 
next food stamp allotment. In short, TEFAP fills the hunger gap.
  When natural disasters struck in Florida, California, and the 
Midwest, TEFAP played a major role in feeding the victims. Whether by 
flood, earthquake, or hurricane, when disaster victims were cold and 
scared, after they had lost their homes and businesses the emergency 
food provided by TEFAP kept the victims from going hungry. Readily 
available food stocks combined with the distribution network which 
TEFAP has in place has made the difference in people's lives.
  Mr. President, I am aware of the tight budgetary decisions which all 
of us in this chamber must face, but cutting TEFAP at this time is 
unacceptable. I hope the Senate conferees will be mindful of the plight 
of millions of hungry Americans and agree to the House funding level of 
$80 million.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the Food Bank 
of Alaska and 5,600 needy Alaskan families that depend upon The 
Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP] as a reliable source of 
nutrition, to urge Chairman Bumpers and the other conferees to support 
the House figures of $40 million for administrative costs and $40 
million for commodity purchases.
  TEFAP, a Federal commodity food distribution program, was established 
in 1981 to both provide food to the rising number of people not 
receiving adequate nutrition from other sources and to reduce the large 
stocks of surplus accumulated through the USDA price support system. 
This successful Federal program efficiently distributes large amounts 
of staple food items to low-income people through the assistance of 
local food banks. Due to its success, Congress has continued to 
reauthorize TEFAP and support funds to purchase foods as the original 
surpluses declined. With this kind of purchasing power, the Government 
is able to buy staple goods in cost-savings bulk quantities that far 
surpass the ability of a family with an income 150 percent below the 
poverty level.
  In Alaska, most TEFAP recipients are children, elderly, and members 
of the working poor. Participating families have an income below 150 
percent of the Federal poverty level. TEFAP commodities supplement 
monthly family budgets without attaching the welfare stigma and help to 
relieve families from having to make the choice of whether to ``heat or 
eat.''
  During the disaster relief efforts following the January 17 
earthquake in Los Angeles, TEFAP distributed nearly 900,000 pounds of 
food quickly and efficiently within a few days. When natural disasters 
hinder access to food markets, cash, and food stamps are not useful, 
while the real food items provided by TEFAP are critical.
  I encourage Chairman Bumpers and the conferees to support the House 
figures of $40 million for TEFAP administration and $40 million for 
TEFAP commodity purchases. Local organizations have reached out in 
every way to provide hungry families with nutritious food sources at 
times when their budgets are tight. Without assistance from TEFAP in 
each of our States, hunger levels will rise and poor nutrition will 
cause schoolchildren to suffer during the important development years 
and health care costs to rise.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 4554, the fiscal 
year 1995 Agriculture Appropriations Act. I commend the committee for 
doing a thoughtful and responsible job in assessing individual programs 
and promoting productive national policies.
  The committee product before us addresses important needs at both the 
regional and national levels. Given current budget constraints, this is 
a difficult task. The bill would appropriate $3 billion less than the 
committee recommended in last year's bill, $4 billion less than what 
was finally appropriated in all of fiscal year 1994, and almost $450 
million less than the President's budget. This legislation does a good 
job of doing more with less.
  With the discretionary spending caps now in place, one portion of 
Federal spending--discretionary appropriations--is feeling the effects 
of an increase in discipline. That's good for the economy and will, I 
believe, force some necessary reevaluation of Federal programs. And no 
category of Federal spending has taken a greater hit in recent years 
than the agricultural sector. It's past time to make sure that the 
scrutiny and budget discipline applied to agriculture up to now be 
expanded to other areas, including, especially, entitlements.
  Individual projects and regional programs often have a beneficial 
application or impact at the national level. We should remember that 
fact in assessing their worth and apply that as a threshold test in our 
funding decisions. I believe the bill before us reflects exactly that 
approach.
  Every bill can be improved or damaged in conference. I look forward 
to continuing to work with my colleagues to find those few areas in 
which this bill could be made even better, to protect the sound policy 
decisions embodied in this bill from attack by the other body, and to 
economize on Federal spending wherever possible.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Senators Reid and Bryan.
  Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator yield? My understanding is my amendment 
was to be the next in order. I do not want to interfere with the 
Senator's plans.
  Mr. REID. I have been here all day, off and on. I do not know whose 
understanding that was.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I do not enjoy refereeing fights like 
this, but let me just say that the rule is--I regret if there was a 
misunderstanding--the rule is whoever is recognized first. I think 
Senator Brown obviously has been here all day and so has Senator Reid 
been here all day. I think that the Reid amendment is probably going to 
be accepted. So that will alleviate some pain on this side.
  But let me say also before we even get into that, I think once we 
dispose of the Reid amendment and go to the Brown amendment, it is 
going to be a fairly long evening after that. What I would like to do 
is to let the Senator--could the Senator accept a time agreement at 
this point?
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Fifteen minutes?
  Mr. REID. I have about 15 minutes I would like to speak.
  Mr. BUMPERS. You would like 15 minutes?
  Mr. REID. Yes, although I have to be candid with my friend from 
Arkansas, if the chairman of the subcommittee is willing to accept the 
amendment, I can reduce my remarks to 10 minutes.
  I will say through the Chair to my friend from Arkansas, if the two 
managers are going to accept the amendment, I can reduce my time to 10 
minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Why do we not just solve this by starting the debate and 
letting the distinguished Senator from Mississippi and I look at the 
amendment and see whether or not we can accept it. If we can, we will 
interrupt you at a proper time and tell you the answer is yes.
  Mr. REID. I also say to my friend from Colorado, one reason that I 
worked very hard to get the floor is what we do on an informal basis 
here is go from side to side, and the last amendment had been offered 
by my friend from North Carolina.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, my personal preference is not to do that 
side-to-side thing. I know that has been done a lot around here. I 
prefer to use the rule of the Senate, whoever gets recognized first. I 
do my very best to make certain that the Republican side is not 
discriminated against; if they have two in a row, that is fine with me. 
I would rather not, at this point, go side to side.


                           Amendment No. 2310

(Purpose: To provide that none of the funds made available in this act 
    may be used to provide any Federal benefit or assistance to any 
individual or entity in the United States unless the Federal entity or 
official to which the funds are made available takes reasonable actions 
 to determine whether the individual is in a lawful immigration status 
                         in the United States)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the senior Senator from 
Nevada that there is a pending amendment.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr. 
     Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 2310.

  Mr. REID. 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:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to provide any Federal benefit or assistance to 
     any individual or entity in the United States unless the 
     Federal entity or official to which the funds are made 
     available takes reasonable actions to determine whether the 
     individual is in a lawful immigration status in the United 
     States.
       (b) In no case may a Federal entity, official or their 
     agent discriminate against any individual with respect to 
     filing, inquiry, or adjudication of an application for 
     funding made available in this Act on the basis of race, 
     color, creed, handicap, religion, sex, sexual orientation, 
     national origin, citizenship status or form of lawful 
     immigration status.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``Federal 
     benefit or assistance'' does not include search and rescue; 
     emergency medical care; emergency mass care; emergency 
     shelter; clearance of roads and construction of temporary 
     bridges necessary to the performance of emergency tasks and 
     essential community services; warning of further risks or 
     hazards; dissemination of public information and assistance 
     regarding health and safety measures; the provision on an 
     emergency basis of food, water, medicine, and other essential 
     needs including movement of supplies or persons; reduction of 
     immediate threats to life, property and public health and 
     safety; and programs funded under title IV of this Act.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an amendment that requires the 
Federal authorities responsible for distributing the benefits under the 
act to take reasonable action to determine whether the recipient is in 
a lawful immigration status in the United States. It is a short, 
simple, and commonsense amendment, and it is one this body has 
supported in earlier appropriations measures.
  All my amendment says is that the Federal authority responsible for 
distributing the funds made available under this act must take 
reasonable action to ensure the money goes to those individuals 
lawfully within the United States.
  I add also, Mr. President, that this amendment, with respect to 
programs that are aimed at benefiting children or those programs 
providing emergency types of assistance, does not apply. So the 
amendment that is at the desk offered on behalf of the two Senators 
from Nevada, I repeat, does not prohibit children from receiving these 
benefits even though these children, for some reason, may not be 
lawfully within the country. The programs that provide emergency types 
of aid or assistance are also not prohibited under this act.
  Some may ask why an amendment like this is needed as part of a bill 
dealing with agricultural appropriations. I ask that those who question 
the relevancy of this amendment look carefully at the existing Federal 
law with respect to receipt of benefits, and then look at some of the 
programs provided in this bill.
  Some may argue that there are already laws on the books that dictate 
who is and who is not entitled to receive Federal benefits.
  Mr. President, this simply is not the case. Yes, with respect to 
certain Federal entitlement programs, there exists laws governing 
eligibility, but these laws have been promulgated on a program-by-
program basis. There are no uniform Federal regulations governing who 
is eligible to receive what benefits under which federally funded 
program.
  In addition to the statutory inconsistency over who is entitled to 
receive Federal benefits, many individuals unlawfully within the 
country may gain access to these benefits by fraudulently claiming U.S. 
citizenship or because the administering agency fails to verify the 
resident status of the applicants.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, was 
required by the Immigration Reform Control Act to verify that all 
applicants for housing assistance are legal residents. But HUD has 
failed to approve regulations to implement this mandate, so those not 
legally within the country have access to housing assistance.
  Let me be clear about what my amendment does not do. It does not 
establish a uniform Federal policy. It in no way applies to legal 
immigrants or others who have played by the rules and who are in this 
country lawfully. And it does not apply to the distribution of funds or 
essential benefits provided in title IV. Title IV covers many of the 
federally funded programs that go toward providing benefits for 
children.
  I, in this amendment, want to exclude federally funded programs that 
benefit infants and children. It is simply unfair and only penalizes 
the child for the parent's action.
  Is there a problem with illegal immigrants availing themselves of 
some of the programs? I believe that is the case, but as far as I am 
concerned, that is evidence of our failure to enact and enforce 
meaningful immigration laws that would curtail the flow of illegal 
immigration and prevent the fraudulent procurement of taxpayer-
supported Federal entitlements.
  Finally, my amendment does not apply to the distribution of any funds 
used for the purpose of providing emergency medical assistance. I think 
the same reasoning that applies to the distribution of benefits to 
children's programs should apply here. It is an issue of humanity, and 
no one in the United States should ever be denied medical assistance in 
an emergency.
  So again let me repeat, this amendment simply says that to the extent 
that Federal funds are being made available, the authorities 
responsible for distributing these funds must take reasonable action to 
ensure that such Federal funds do not go to individuals unlawfully 
within the United States.
  Who would support this kind of amendment? Well, when it was offered 
during earthquake relief efforts, this amendment was supported by 
Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Emergency Management 
Association, and the Small Business Administration. The two Senators 
from California, who have both done so much to reform our current 
immigration laws, also contributed significantly to the passage of the 
amendment. And in the end the amendment was accepted without even being 
put to a vote in this body.
  I might also add, Mr. President, that this amendment has worked. It 
was successfully implemented, and those who legitimately applied for 
relief received their compensation in a timely manner. Federal funds so 
desperately needed by the victims of the California earthquake were not 
fraudulently misappropriated.
  After it passed this body, we went to conference with the House, and 
we were able to work out basically the same language that is in this 
amendment, in the appropriations conference committee dealing with 
earthquake relief.
  So why can we not do the same thing on this bill? Why can we not ask 
that Federal authorities do more to ensure that those people who play 
by the rules and are in this country lawfully be provided greater 
protection from fraud? In these times of tight budgetary restrictions, 
we ought to do more to ensure that the dollars we appropriate go to 
those who are legally entitled to receive them. So I respectfully 
suggest that the people we serve expect nothing less from us.
  If we appropriate billions of dollars to Federal agencies, why can we 
not place a small burden on them requiring that they make sure the 
money goes to those who are lawfully within the country? There are 
those who are afraid to take any action to clarify and strengthen our 
existing immigration laws out of fear of being labeled anti-immigrant.
  Mr. President, my father-in-law was born in Russia, my mother-in-law 
Lithuanian extraction, my grandmother English. I am very proud of my 
immigrant status. I believe this is a country of immigrants, and we 
should do everything we can to maintain our immigrant tradition. It is 
good for the country. But we must be more responsible in our 
policymaking.
  They say we cannot do anything that could be characterized, even 
unfairly, as immigrant bashing. We should stay away from that. If there 
is a disagreement, you do not attack the individual. You attack the 
idea. This idea embodied in this amendment is that we ought to be more 
responsible about the way we distribute Federal funds.
  The current laws are too open for abuse. There is not enough that is 
being done to protect the integrity of the system. This is evidenced by 
the proliferation of State lawsuits against the Federal Government 
seeking reimbursement for costs arising out of Federal inaction in the 
area of immigration reform. People may disagree about whether the 
Federal Government ought to reimburse the States for costs borne by our 
failed policies, but no one disagrees that a problem exists and the 
Federal Government must step in to address it.
  It is becoming clear that meaningful immigration reform will probably 
not take place this year in an overall sense. I spoke to the Senator 
from Wyoming this morning. He has been so involved in this, and served 
on the committee, and has legislation which goes by his name, and he 
still feels there is hope we can do something this year.
  But even if we cannot, it does not mean that we have to ignore the 
issue entirely. To stand by idly and do nothing is a recipe for 
disaster. It only exacerbates and escalates what all agree is a 
realistic problem, and some say is a crisis.
  According to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, millions of 
people are in the country unlawfully. The obvious relevance of this 
fact to the bill we are now considering is that millions and millions 
of people could attempt to avail themselves of these scarce dollars, 
and even, Mr. President, whether it is millions, hundreds of thousands, 
thousands, or hundreds, we should stop it.

  What additional evidence is necessary before we take appropriate 
measures to address this problem? Is it going to require the 
bankrupting of States before we recognize this and do something to deal 
with it? I hope it does not.
  This amendment is an opportunity for this body to say we recognize 
there is a problem and we are going to direct the Federal agencies we 
are charged with overseeing to take reasonable action to ensure that 
the money and benefits they distribute go to those who play by the 
rules. It is an opportunity for us to stand up and take the lead in 
this inherently Federal issue. Let us show the States that we recognize 
the problem and are willing to take measures to remedy the problem.
  There may be some who argue that this is too great a burden to place 
on Federal agencies, that it is too costly and unworkable. These 
bureaucratic naysayers are missing the forest through the trees. There 
are laws on the books restricting eligibility of certain Federal funds. 
We are simply asking that they take reasonable steps to ensure that 
these laws are enforced. I believe that the people we represent 
understand this and would expect nothing less than our taking action to 
ensure that the laws we pass are upheld.
  I believe that the amounts of money appropriated for some of these 
programs merit the requirements set out in this amendment. This bill 
appropriates $2.6 billion--in fact, more than that--in housing units. 
While this money is to be used for purposes of benefiting rural 
housing, it is not asking too much to require that Federal authorities 
responsible for its distribution take reasonable action to assure the 
money goes to individuals who are of lawful immigration status in the 
United States.
  I respectfully suggest that there is too much at stake to do anything 
less. This amendment provides a moderate, minimum verification 
requirement.
  This bill also contains the Rural Housing Insurance Fund. This fund 
may be used to ensure or guarantee rural housing loans, loans for 
purchasing new or existing rural homes, loans for modernizing or 
improving rural dwellings, loans for rural rental and cooperative 
housing, rural housing site loans, and mobile home park loans. There 
are billions of dollars here that should be administered fairly and 
promptly. So should not the Federal Government take reasonable action 
to determine whether the recipient is of lawful immigration status in 
the United States? The answer is clearly yes, and that is all this 
amendment does.
  This bill appropriates over $100 million for emergency disaster 
loans. Why should we not ask Federal authorities charged with 
distributing these emergency disaster loans to take reasonable steps to 
ensure that the money goes to those people who are of lawful 
immigration status in the United States? This body overwhelmingly 
supported the same requirement during the earthquake relief efforts and 
it is only consistent we do the same here.
  I would add that when I offered the amendment to the earthquake 
relief supplemental, people said, well, why are you only picking on 
California? This was not the case, of course. And I have always 
insisted that this type of amendment is germane and appropriate to any 
appropriations measure acted on by this body.
  There is no need to recite the many other meritorious and valuable 
programs that will benefit people as a result of the appropriations 
bill we are going to pass. But I believe the point is that the money 
should go to those people who are lawfully within the country.
  In this bill, there is a tremendous amount of money to be made 
available for millions of people and thousands of business entities, 
and as we are all aware these dollars are very hard to come by. I do 
not think there is a Member of this body who would argue that 
individuals who are in this country unlawfully ought to be entitled to 
receive any Federal benefits. Absent greater enforcement of the 
existing laws, absent some type of reasonable agency action to verify 
the legal immigration status of an applicant, it is likely that 
individuals who are in this country unlawfully will avail themselves of 
some of the Federal benefits made available under this bill. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment that will prevent 
fraud and ensure that those who play by the rules are rewarded for 
doing so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Nevada?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that a Senator who 
is not in the Chamber wishes to speak on the amendment, and that he 
will be here momentarily. I know of no other Senators on this side of 
the aisle who desire to speak.
  It is our understanding that the managers are prepared to recommend 
that the Senate accept this amendment. Pending the arrival and the 
confirmation of that in the Chamber by the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas, if there is no one seeking recognition, I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum having been suggested, 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment.
  One of the issues that has become so very important to the general 
public during economically difficult times is that of providing 
publicly funded benefits to persons who are unlawfully in the country.
  This amendment will require persons or agencies distributing 
federally funded benefits to make a reasonable effort to determine the 
lawful status of persons applying for the assistance.
  Although it is intended to deny illegal aliens federally funded 
benefits, it will not deny them food, medicine or shelter, if required 
on an emergency basis.
  We passed a similar amendment to improve the integrity of the 
earthquake relief supplemental appropriations bill in January, and for 
the same reasons we passed that measure, we should accept this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment by 
the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we recommend the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Nevada.
  The amendment (No. 2310) was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk which has 
been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inform the Senator from 
Arkansas that there is a pending amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside temporarily so I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2311

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, which 
has been cleared on both sides, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself and 
     Mr. Cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 2311.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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 56, line 19, strike ``$198,000,000'' and insert: 
     ``$297,000,000''.
       On page 57, line 3, strike ``$40,000'' and insert 
     ``$60,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment? If not, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas.
  The amendment (No. 2311) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 see Senator Brown. I want very much for 
him to be recognized. It would be handy to go ahead I think and 
recognize the Senator from Colorado. I will ask the Senator from 
Colorado if he would yield to me for a discussion of how many 
amendments we have remaining.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the Senator's 
amendment has a great deal of my interest, I say to the floor manager. 
I would not want to lose my right to the parliamentary procedure here 
by yielding back to the Senator from Arkansas to get back to the 
Senator from Colorado, and that would be a unanimous-consent agreement. 
I do not want to agree to that right now. I say that to my friend, 
unless he wants a quorum call. I will be glad to visit on that.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would like to have now the attention of 
my distinguished colleague and ranking member while we talk just a 
moment about what we have left to do here.
  I am talking now about the amendments that are likely to require 
rollcall votes. Mr. President, I am not sure these amendments are in 
sufficient order to take up the time of the Senate to discuss them. But 
I will just mention a few of the amendments as I have them that are 
likely to require rollcall votes.
  The first one is by Senator Lautenberg. If I could have the attention 
of the Senator from Kentucky, there is an amendment by Senator 
Lautenberg which would restore House language on tobacco research.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I say to the floor leader that I have been 
able to discuss this amendment with the distinguished Senator from New 
Jersey. He is fencing tobacco. But he is allowing us to continue 
research on alternate crops and other things. We have a colloquy which 
we would be willing to put into the Record. So I was able to sit down 
and to work it out with the Senator from New Jersey, and am more than 
willing to allow it to go through under those circumstances, I say to 
the floor manager.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from North 
Carolina has an additional amendment. I do not know what amendment it 
is. I do not know whether it is controversial nor whether it will 
require a rollcall vote.
  There is an amendment by Senator Hatch which would curb the amount of 
money the FDA is using for cellular phones. I do not know whether 
Senator Hatch is going to offer that amendment or not.
  There is another amendment by Senator Murkowski which would raise the 
$50 million cap on the business and industrial loan program of the 
Farmers Home Administration which, if it is offered, might require a 
rollcall vote.
  Then there is an amendment by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. 
Coverdell], to advance efficiency payments to farmers in the areas that 
have been recently devastated by floods in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, 
and perhaps one other State.
  There is an additional amendment by Senator Coverdell. But I am not 
sure what it is.
  Then I have on my list two amendments by Senator Conrad--I understand 
those are no longer relevant.
  Then there is an amendment by Senator Danforth, and all my note says 
is ``grain.'' I do not know what that amendment is.
  Then there is the amendment of the Senator from Colorado on tobacco.
  Mr. President, I do not see all that much involved here in disposing 
of these amendments. It seems to me that we are likely to have about 5 
amendments that are going to require rollcall votes. But the principal 
purpose of reading the list as I have them is to encourage any other 
Senators who have amendments, if it is not on this list, to let us know 
as quickly as possible because I am quite sure the majority leader is 
going to want to get an agreement as early as possible, possibly 
tonight or in the morning, to make this an exclusive list so we can 
finish this bill at the earliest possible time tomorrow.
  Does the Senator from Mississippi wish to add anything, if I 
misstated anything on any of those amendments?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield, 
our Cloakroom has put out a request of all Republican Senators to let 
us know about amendments that they plan to offer to the bill. I can 
recite to the manager the list that this hotline produced of amendments 
by the following Senators:
  Senators Coverdell; Cochran; Dole; Danforth; Murkowski; Brown, two 
amendments; McCain; Hatch; Helms, two amendments; McConnell, two 
amendments; Specter, and Gramm.
  If any Senators on this side of the aisle plan to offer amendments 
that were not disclosed in this statement that I just made, I hope they 
will please let me know. But I do have that list that I can provide to 
the manager at this time.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the list that the Senator from 
Mississippi just read is considerably greater and more comprehensive 
than I had anticipated. I see no point in pursuing this any further 
this evening. I do not think we can get an agreement on anything.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Heflin amendment.
  Mr. BROWN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the Heflin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order, and I ask 
unanimous consent to move to the committee amendment on page 32, line 
20.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BROWN. Obviously, at some point the committee amendments will be 
before us----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator that the 
parliamentary status is, the Senator having called for the regular 
order--the business before the Senate is the first committee amendment 
in a series of committee amendments on page 10, line 24.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, obviously, any Member is within his rights 
to object to moving to another part in the committee amendments. 
Obviously, we will reach those at some point. So my sense is that if 
Members are unwilling to grant us permission to move on to page 32, I 
assume we should go ahead and deal with the committee amendments prior 
to that at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senate that under the 
regular order, the amendment previously identified by the Chair is the 
first in the series of committee amendments to be considered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first excepted committee amendment on page 
10, line 24.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I urge adoption of that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the first excepted committee amendment 
on page 10, line 24.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 absence of a quorum having been suggested, 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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.


                           Amendment No. 2312

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself and Senator Cochran and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inquire of the Senator, does 
the Senator seek unanimous consent to set aside the pending committee 
amendment?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments be set aside in order to offer this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not, I do not expect, but once this amendment is accepted, then we are 
back to where we are now before the Senator asked for the committee 
amendment to be set aside?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the agreement as outlined is agreed to, 
that will be the procedure.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I might advise the Senator from Kentucky, we have a 
series of about six amendments which have been cleared and agreed to. 
We will offer those seriatim.
  Mr. FORD. That suits me fine. I do not want to slow up anything the 
Senator is trying to do. I am just trying to protect my own interests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the unanimous consent 
request propounded by the Senator from Arkansas is agreed to.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself and 
     Mr. Cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 2312.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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 14, line 24, strike ``$1,500,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$4,350,000'';
       On page 16, line 3, strike ``$420,233,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof: ``$423,083,000''; and
       On page 83, strike lines 6 through 16 and insert in lieu 
     thereof:
       ``Sec. 724. No funds shall be available in fiscal year 1995 
     and thereafter for payments under the Act of August 30, 1890, 
     and the tenth and eleventh paragraphs under the heading 
     ``Emergency Appropriations'' of the Act of March 4, 1907 (7 
     U.S.C. 321 et seq.).

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this amendment is technical in nature. In 
current law, there is a permanent appropriation under the Morrill-
Nelson Act of $2,850,000 for higher education in agriculture. The House 
prohibited the permanent appropriation and instead appropriated the 
$2,850,000 outright to the Challenge Grant Program within the bill. The 
approach is supported by the land grant and other institutions.
  The purpose of this amendment is to make this approach permanent so 
that these funds will always be part of the annual appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2312) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments be temporarily laid aside in order to offer an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2313

(Purpose: Add funds for ARS building and facilities and CSRS buildings 
                            and facilities)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, which 
has been cleared on both sides. The amendment is on behalf of Senators 
Hollings, Gramm of Texas, and Murray.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for Mr. Hollings, 
     for himself, Mr. Gramm, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2313.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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 12, line 23, strike ``38,718,000'' and insert: 
     ``$43,718,000''.
       On page 16, line 15, strike ``59,836,000'' and insert: 
     ``62,744,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2313) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments be set aside in order to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2314

    (Purpose: To provide $1,726,000 for egg product inspection from 
               appropriated funds rather than users fees)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself and Senator Kerrey of Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for Mr. Kerrey, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2314.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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 23, line 1, strike ``533,929,000'' and insert 
     ``$533,094,000''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me state my support for this 
amendment. It deals with a situation that relates to a user fee issue 
which the committee feels should be corrected and we recommend the 
adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2314) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside for the purpose of offering this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2315

   (Purpose: To provide additional funding for the Soil Conservation 
     Service's Conservation Operations and funding for grants for 
   accommodating medical and special dietary needs of children with 
                             disabilities)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. 
Dole], I send and amendment to the desk and ask it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Dole, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2315.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 34, line 17, strike ``$582,141,000'', and insert 
     ``$591,049,000''.
       On page 71, line 3, strike ``$767,156,000'', and insert 
     ``758,248,000''.
       On page 61, line 18, after the word ``Institute'', insert 
     the following '': Provided further, That $859,000 shall be 
     available to provide grants to states for non-recurring costs 
     in providing for the special dietary needs of children with 
     disabilities''.


                           soil conservation

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, my congratulations to the chairman and 
ranking member for putting together this appropriations bill. I know 
they worked hard in developing a bill which would receive widespread 
support. As I indicated earlier, one of my concerns with the bill is 
the funding reduction for the Soil Conservation Service Conservation 
operations budget. The committee reduced funding by nearly $9 million. 
In the scheme of things, this amount may seem small. However, when we 
take a look at the impact on America's farmers, the consequences are 
significant.
  In the 1985 Food Security Act, Congress established the Conservation 
Reserve Program, the Highly Erodible Land Program and the Wetlands 
Conservation Program. These programs directed America's farmers to 
develop plans in an effort to conserve soil and water on America's 
farmland. The results of these efforts in my home State of Kansas alone 
have been 121,000 miles of terraces constructed, 160,000 acres of 
waterways installed, and 2.9 million acres of permanent vegetation 
established. I believe most of us agree that these efforts have helped 
save millions of acres of soil and have improved water quality. 
Although these efforts reflect a great deal of progress, much remains 
to be done. In Kansas, 15,000 miles of terraces remain to be built, and 
3,200 acres of waterways need to be installed just this year alone.
  Farmers have done an excellent job of complying with the requirements 
of the 1985 farm bill. Working as partners with the Soil Conservation 
Service and local conservation districts, they have proven that as 
farmers, they are also environmentalists.
  I believe Congress should send a message to the countryside that we 
are still supportive of efforts which conserve soil and water. My 
amendment restores funding for the Soil Conservation Service 
Conservation Operations budget to last year's level. We can not expect 
farmers to implement conservation plans without some type of technical 
assistance. The nearly $9 million cut in funding for this program takes 
us in the wrong direction and I believe sends the wrong message.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. This 
money will assist producers in their efforts to be good stewards of the 
land.


GRANTS FOR ACCOMMODATING MEDICAL AND SPECIAL DIETARY NEEDS OF CHILDREN 
                           WITH DISABILITIES

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, Senator Leahy and I are concerned that many 
of our Nation's school children are not participating in the National 
School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs because they have 
disabilities or eating disorders that prevent them from eating the 
meals as served.
  In compliance with USDA child nutrition regulations and section 504 
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, many schools around the country are 
working to make the programs accessible to these children. However, to 
accomplish this task these schools need specific technical guidance.
  Section 123 of the Better Nutrition and Health for Children Act of 
1994 requires USDA to provide guidance to assist schools and other 
institutions in accommodating the special dietary needs of these 
children. The guidance will give meal providers a greater understanding 
of how they can meet these needs. In many cases, accommodation may 
require no more than substituting fruit for a piece of cake or making 
available a special plate or cup. In other cases, the preparation of 
special meals may be necessary. The guidance will help providers 
determine what is appropriate for each child.
  Section 123 also contains an authorization of $1 million for grants 
to States to cover nonrecurring costs associated with accommodating 
special needs children. These funds would be awarded on a competitive 
basis and could be used to purchase items such as special feeding and 
food preparation equipment. Other appropriate uses would be for 
providing training or purchasing education videos, manuals or other 
training materials which deal with accommodating children with special 
dietary needs.
  Mr. President, I would like to offer an amendment to fund these 
grants at the level of $859,000. I am concerned that this segment of 
the school population is not being addressed in the current nutrition 
education guidance issued by USDA. A popular maxim among those of us 
here in Congress who actively support school meal programs is that a 
hungry child cannot learn. This is doubly true of children with special 
dietary needs. For a child with diabetes or severe allergies, 
appropriate nutrition can mean the difference between sickness and 
health. For a child with a severe disability, appropriate nutrition can 
mean the difference between being alert and responsive or passive and 
withdrawn. These grants will assist the food service community in 
providing for the special needs of these children.
  Mr. President, in closing I want to thank the distinguished chairman 
of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Leahy, for his support and 
cooperation in this effort to meet the needs of children with 
disabilities. This focused attention to their needs will assure their 
full participation in the child nutrition programs. I urge my 
colleagues to give their support.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with the 
distinguished Republican leader on this amendment to help schools 
assist students with disabilities so that these students will enjoy the 
benefits of the school lunch program.
  Senator Dole has my full support and I commend him for his efforts 
this year, and in prior years, to make certain that all Americans live 
up to their full potential. The child nutrition bill--the Better 
Nutrition and Health for Children Act--authorizing funding for this 
important purpose and this amendment gets the job done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2315) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments be set aside temporarily in order to offer an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2316

    (Purpose: To increase funding for the Great Plains Conservation 
                        Program, with an offset)

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

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for Mr. Conrad, 
     for himself and Mr. Bumpers, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2316.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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 38, line 15, strike ``$11,672,000'' and insert 
     ``$18,672,000''.
       On page 71, line 3, strike ``$758,248,000'' and insert 
     ``$754,587,000''.
       On page 71, line 21, strike ``$159,708,000'' and insert 
     ``$163,369,000''.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my amendment would restore $7 million in 
funding for the Great Plains Conservation Program. The program, run by 
USDA's Soil Conservation Service, offers long-term technical assistance 
and cost-sharing to help protect agriculture lands in this region. The 
contracts, 3 to 10 years in length, allow landowners and operators to 
apply soil and water conservation resource management systems suited to 
their own needs.
  The program is used by over 600 farmers and ranchers in North Dakota 
alone. It is a unique program targeted to total conservation treatment 
of entire farm or ranch units with the most severe soil and water 
resource problems. Program participation is voluntary and is carried 
out by applying a conservation plan on the entire operating unit.
  The Great Plains Conservation Program has been in operation since 
1958 and has treated over 154 million acres. Funding for the program 
remained constant at about $20.4 million from 1987 to 1991 when funding 
was increased by about 20 percent.
  I appreciate the support of the chairman of the Agricultural 
Appropriations Subcommittee Mr. Bumpers and the ranking member Mr. 
Cochran in this effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2316) was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendments be set aside in order to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2317

  (Purpose: To permit the Secretary of Agriculture to make available 
      certain amounts for FmHA farm ownership or operating loans)

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

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for Mr. Conrad, 
     for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Dorgan, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2317.

  Mr. BUMPERS. 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 47, line 25, insert before the period the 
     following: ``: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, from the date of enactment of this Act 
     until September 30, 1994, the Secretary of Agriculture--
       ``(1) may transfer funds so as to make available--
       ``(A) the amounts that would otherwise be available for 
     gross obligations for the principal amount of farm ownership, 
     operating, or emergency loans; and
       ``(B) the amounts that would otherwise be available for the 
     cost of farm ownership, operating, or emergency loans 
     (including the cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a));

     for any of such gross obligations or such costs; and
       ``(2) may not expend any funds, or disburse any new loans, 
     after September 30, 1994, made available by a transfer 
     described in paragraph (1) for fiscal year 1994''.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment today on behalf 
of myself and Senators Leahy and Dorgan. This amendment would allow the 
Secretary of Agriculture to shift unused funds from various Farmers 
Home Administration [FmHA] farmer programs to its direct and guaranteed 
operating loan programs and other underfunded farmer loan programs.
  FmHA is already out of money for direct operating loans for fiscal 
year 1994. This shortfall is due to very high demand for the program, 
FmHA's renewed commitment to assisting borrowers, and interest rates 
changes that have reduced the amount FmHA can lend with the credit 
subsidy appropriated. This program has been severely cut since 1985, 
when actual obligations were $3.6 billion--six times this year's 
levels.
  There remains a very high, unmet demand for these loans. FmHA has no 
funds available to make approximately 3,000 direct operating loans for 
which it has already approved applications. In addition, more funding 
is needed for guaranteed operating loans because of a recent mandatory 
funding shift to the beginning farmer downpayment loan program. This 
amendment will allow FmHA to meet some of this demand.
  While FmHA has some excess funds available in other programs, such as 
emergency loans and beginning farmer downpayment loans, it does not 
have the authority to shift significant amounts between accounts. This 
amendment will give the Secretary the authority to shift these funds as 
needed to fund direct and guaranteed operating loans and farm ownership 
loans. With this amendment, FmHA expects that it will be able to make 
an additional $54 million in direct operating loans and $150 million in 
guaranteed operating loans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2317) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the agriculture, 
rural development, and related agencies appropriations bill as reported 
by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
  The Senate-reported bill provides $67.4 billion in new budget 
authority and $43.1 billion in new outlays for the Department of 
Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for 
fiscal year 1995.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the Senate-reported bill totals $58 
billion in budget authority and $50.2 billion in outlays for fiscal 
year 1995.
  Based on CBO estimates, the Senate subcommittee is $525.3 million in 
budget authority below the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation and 
essentially at the subcommittee's outlays allocation. The Senate-
reported bill is $561.6 million in budget authority and $266.9 million 
in outlays below the President's request.
  I recognize the difficulty of bringing this bill to the floor under a 
constrained 602(b) allocation.
  I commend the distinguished subcommittee chairman and ranking member 
for their support of $3.47 billion for the WIC Program, an increase of 
$260 million over the 1994 level.
  I appreciate the subcommittee's support for a number of ongoing 
projects and programs important to my home State of New Mexico as it 
has worked to keep this bill within its budget allocation.
  Mr. President, the House-passed bill included $5 million for the 
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program which is $3.4 million 
below the President's request and $8.8 million below the current level. 
This bill does not provide funding for this program.
  This program assists landowners and others in the Colorado River 
Basin in establishing irrigation management systems and related lateral 
improvement measures to decrease salt load and sedimentation levels in 
the Colorado River.
  This enhances the supply and quality of water available for use in 
the United States and the Republic of Mexico.
  I would respectfully appreciate the support of the chairman and 
ranking member for this program in conference.
  I urge the adoption of the bill.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas suggests the absence 
of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Simpson pertaining to the introduction of S. 2294 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I will offer an 
amendment that is designed to make sure that the new tobacco subsidy 
program that is incorporated in the agreements with regard to trade is 
amended so that we make a clear policy that there can be no net tax 
consequence or no cost to the taxpayer.
  My hope had been to move to that section of the bill where I am 
allowed to offer my amendment tonight. We have already tried to do 
that. Permission was denied. I wanted to alert the body that I am going 
to persist in this effort to make sure that the taxpayer is not stuck 
with additional costs because of protectionist trade practices.
  There are specific provisions in article 28 under the GATT which 
allows for a compensation to other countries that are impacted by 
restricted trade practices. It is very clear that the restrictions on 
tobacco fall into that category. It is quite clear that they will 
result in retaliation against America; that the taxpayers or other 
products will be impacted by that. The substance of my amendment will 
simply be to make it clear there is no net cost to the U.S. taxpayers 
for this protectionist action.
  Mr. President, I simply want to make clear that we intend to pursue 
this. It is unfortunate we cannot move ahead tonight. This certainly is 
not going to be a reason to back down or fail to offer this 
alternative.
  The last observation I want to make, I understand distinguished 
Members standing up for their State, and I understand their good will 
and effort and sincerity in that effort, but there is another factor 
that I must say I truly believe. Insisting that tobacco sell for a 
price in this country dramatically higher than it does around the 
world, when you have in existence a GATT agreement and a variety of 
other agreements, including the North American Free-Trade Agreement, 
that that runs counter to, is a losing policy. It is a losing policy 
because if it costs significantly more to buy American tobacco, and you 
do not allow other tobacco in the country, you simply are going to move 
the processing of tobacco out of the country.
  So, if we continue on this current policy, or we continue on the 
protectionist attitude toward tobacco, what we will do is not only lose 
those jobs that process tobacco, but we will also lose the entire 
tobacco program and the tobacco growth here. The reason we will is, in 
spite of the protectionist efforts, we will have moved the customer 
offshore. There is no restriction on sending in the finished product. 
Until there is, there is simply no way to achieve what the folks have 
tried to in this area.
  Lastly, Mr. President, let me say I think it is terribly important 
that we as a country commit ourselves to compete long range. To begin 
to believe that we can hide from competition, that we can sell off our 
markets, that we can artificially price our commodities, I believe, is 
a mistake.
  No one in the world is as efficient or productive in growing tobacco 
as Americans. We are the ones who showed the world how to do it. We 
were the colonies that prospered, when no other crop seemed to grow 
well. We are the people who know how to compete better than anybody in 
the world.
  I believe the sooner we move to a competitive policy in this area, 
the better off this Nation will be.
  Is it a painful transition? Yes. But to believe that it is in the 
long-term interest of tobacco growers to hide from the market and to 
run manufacturing offshore, I believe, is a mistake.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it sounds good, they are doing things, and 
we want to be competitive, and all that. The Senator from Colorado 
fundamentally misunderstands what the article 28 process is all about. 
His proposal does not even fit in the negotiations and the tariffs that 
are used under GATT.
  So we talk about paying, are you going to pay another country cash? 
Are you going to send them a check? That is not the way you do trade. 
Our trade representative is attempting to negotiate the best possible 
deal to subsidize markets without requiring any compensation to any 
country. Compensation is mere hypothetical because the outlined 
strategy by our trade representative is for zero competition.
  If my colleague from Colorado would like to know something about 
tobacco, would like to know something about world trade, or wants to 
know something about taxes, wants to know something about tariffs, 
wants to know something about nontariff restrictions, here are 132 
pages, single spaced, what other countries do to us. And you are trying 
to move in and make it even worse--132 pages of restrictions, taxes and 
tariffs that other countries do.
  I want to tell you, Mr. President, the understanding here is that we 
try to be fair, we try to help everyone. There is nothing fair about 
this amendment at all.
  I wish to say one thing. When we start talking tomorrow, it may be a 
while because I intend to see, No. 1, that this amendment that the 
Senator from Colorado has does not pass; No. 2, if it gets into a 
position at some point that this amendment passes, the Senate will vote 
on increased grazing fees. We may not get it on as a second-degree, may 
not get it on this way, but I promise Senators that they will have a 
chance, if this amendment is passed, to vote on increased grazing fees 
before this bill is passed.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wish to move to reconsider the vote by 
which the committee amendments were adopted en bloc yesterday.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table, Mr. President.
  Mr. BROWN. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the 
distinguished floor leader would advise me as to what particular 
committee amendments those were?
  Mr. COCHRAN. To respond, if the Senator will yield, these are the 
amendments that were adopted yesterday en bloc. There were several 
amendments that were excepted from the en bloc adoption, and this 
motion to reconsider simply is a technical step to ensure that that is 
final action by the Senate.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator for his explanation.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my intention, at the appropriate 
time, to move to table two Committee amendments to this bill or have 
the floor managers do this. This action will restore House language 
that prohibits the Department of Agriculture from spending money on 
research related to the production, processing or marketing of tobacco 
products.
  Mr. President, I want to make one thing clear up front. My tabling 
motions, if successful, will not prohibit the expenditure of funds for 
research on converting tobacco producing farms to farms that grow 
alternative crops. I support these efforts and I sympathize with those 
tobacco farmers who desire to convert their fields and grow other 
crops. I also want to make clear that the House prohibition does not 
cover health and safety research grants for tobacco farmers and those 
who work in tobacco fields.
  Mr. President, for many years, Congress has funded USDA research to 
help the tobacco industry better produce tobacco. Some of these grants 
were given out to universities and USDA research stations to help the 
tobacco industry better grow tobacco. In effect, the U.S. Government is 
encouraging and promoting tobacco products through this research.
  At the same time, we spend millions of dollars discouraging the use 
of the same product. The Department of Health and Human Services spends 
approximately $140 million each year for this purpose. How ironic! How 
stupid!
  But to make matters worse, we spend approximately $21 billion a year 
in Medicare and Medicaid expenses for the health care costs of those 
who suffer from tobacco-related illnesses.
  Mr. President, the American people simple do not understand this 
contradiction. Why do we spend money promoting a product at the same 
time we spend money trying to discourage the use of the very same 
product? Mr. President, I do not have an answer to this question. I do 
not think anyone has an answer.
  Mr. President, if we restore the House language, we will in effect 
cut $7 million in taxpayers money that is being spent by USDA to 
promote the production of tobacco. This language passed the House 
without opposition. President Clinton proposed eliminating half of this 
money in his fiscal year 1995 budget submission. Now it is time for the 
Senate to go on record to cut all $7 million of USDA tobacco-related 
research.
  Mr. President, some of my colleagues may wonder why I often take the 
floor to fight against tobacco use and the tobacco companies. If anyone 
thinks taking on this fight is easy--I can say candidly that it is not. 
I take the floor time and time again because tobacco-related illness is 
the largest cause of premature death in this country. In 1993, it 
caused approximately 420,000 premature deaths. This is more deaths each 
year than those that result from alcohol, heroin, crack, automobile and 
airplane accidents, murders, suicides, and AIDS--combined.
  Furthermore, recent reports revealed in the newspapers and at House 
hearings indicate that the tobacco companies have manipulated the 
nicotine levels in their cigarettes to keep people addicted for life.
  And the tobacco companies claim that nicotine is only to enhance the 
flavor of a cigarette. But the Commissioner of the FDA, David Kessler, 
a pediatrician, states that nicotine is an addictive drug. A drug more 
addictive than cocaine. It is no wonder that when teenagers start to 
smoke, they end up being adult smokers.
  Mr. President, even the general counsel for the Brown and Williamson 
tobacco company stated 31 years ago in an internal memo that

       We are, then, in the business of selling nicotine, an 
     addictive drug in the release of stress mechanism.

  This is not a government official calling nicotine an addictive 
drug--not an antismoking advocate. This is a tobacco company employee.
  Mr. President, as some may know, the tobacco industry has put 
together a front group called the Council for Tobacco Research. 
According to press reports, this front group was established in 1954, 
by the industry in consultation with major public relations firm, to 
supposedly fund scientific research on tobacco. Each year, the council 
funds approximately $20 million a year in so-called independent 
research on tobacco.
  I would say to my colleagues, if the $7 million in USDA research is 
important to the tobacco industry and to the farmers who they buy 
tobacco from, then the Council for Tobacco Research should use some of 
their $20 million a year they have to pay for it. If not, I am sure 
that the seven tobacco companies, whose profits are estimated at over 
$7 billion annually, could find some extra money to pay for the $7 
million in USDA tobacco-related research.
  Mr. President, we are living in a new era--one of increased awareness 
about the dangers of tobacco use. In 1964, the Surgeon General Luther 
Terry issued the first surgeon general's report on the dangers of 
smoking. Since then, there have been over 20 additional surgeon general 
reports documenting the dangers of smoking. Furthermore, there have 
been over 40,000 studies that have showed causation between smoking and 
illnesses like heart disease and lung cancer.
  Mr. President, since that first surgeon general's report we have lost 
over 9 million people to tobacco-related illnesses. 9 million people 
lost. This is a tragedy. Our Government should do whatever it can to 
discourage tobacco use. We should raise the excise tax on tobacco 
products to help pay for health care reform and discourage tobacco use 
among young people.
  We should strongly consider having the FDA regulate cigarettes as a 
drug. Currently, the FDA regulates nicotine patches for those who are 
trying to quit smoking but does not regulate the nicotine in cigarettes 
that killed 420,000 persons in 1993. We spend FDA resources to regulate 
drugs that try to save lives but don't regulate a product that takes 
lives. This doesn't make any sense.
  We should also pass legislation to protect people from breathing 
secondhand smoke--a group A carcinogen that causes 3,000 lung cancer 
deaths per year and thousands of respiratory illnesses each year in our 
children. As my colleagues may know, I authored the law that banned 
smoking on airplanes. In addition, earlier this year, the Congress 
passed a provision in the Goals 2000 bill that I wrote that prohibits 
smoking in public schools, day care centers and other federally funded 
programs that serve children.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, I urge you to support my efforts to cut 
Federal funding for tobacco-related research. This will save $7 million 
and send a signal to the American people that we will no longer promote 
a product that kills.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my intention now to move to 
table two committee amendments to this bill which would restore House 
language tied to the Agricultural Research Service [ARS] and the 
Cooperative State Research Service [CSRS] that states ``none of the 
funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be available to carry out 
research related to the production, processing, or marketing of tobacco 
products,'' But before I do that, I would like to enter into a colloquy 
with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, the majority whip.
  Mr. FORD. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, the Senator from New 
Jersey seeks to table the two mentioned committee amendments to this 
bill. Since the referenced language is not specific, I would like to 
ask the distinguished Senator from New Jersey a few questions about the 
intent of the House language and his attempts to restore it. First, it 
is the intent of the Senator from New Jersey to prohibit the use of ARS 
and CSRS funds for research related to using the tobacco plant as a 
model for various types of genetic and biotechnology research?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No.
  Mr. FORD. Is it the intent of the Senator from New Jersey to prohibit 
the use of ARS and CSRS funds for tobacco research related to the 
health and safety of tobacco workers and tobacco farmers?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No.
  Mr. FORD. Is it the intent of the Senator from New Jersey that his 
amendments would not prohibit ARS and CSRS from funding tobacco-related 
research relating to the development of alternative crops for farmers 
who grow tobacco?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No.
  Mr. FORD. Is it the intent of the Senator from New Jersey to reduce 
the overall funding level of the Cooperative State Research Service?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No.
  Mr. FORD. I thank my friend from New Jersey for taking the time to 
clarify his intentions.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend from Kentucky. I think we have 
reached a reasonable compromise on this issue. I appreciate his 
willingness to work together with me on this issue and many others. Mr. 
President, at this time I move to table the committee amendment on page 
12 lines 14 to 17 and the committee amendment on page 16 lines 4 to 7. 
I understand that there is no request for the yeas and nays, so I move 
that the two amendments be tabled en bloc by voice vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Now, Mr. President, I move to table the committee 
amendment at page 12, lines 14 through 17. As I understand it, that is 
the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. 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.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the committee 
amendment on page 16, line 3.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The committee amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the committee 
amendment on page 16, line 4.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas suggests the absence 
of a quorum. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________