[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 95 (Wednesday, July 20, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 20, 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.


       Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 16, lines 4 through 7

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to table committee amendment No. 4 
on page 16, lines 4 through 7.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion 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 pending now before the Senate is 
the committee amendment on page 32.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Colorado 
[Mr. Brown].


                           Amendment No. 2318

  (Purpose: To ensure that there will be no net cost to taxpayers if 
  protectionist trade practices are adopted by the United States with 
                          respect to tobacco)

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2318.

  Mr. BROWN. 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:

       At the appropriate place in the committee amendment, insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC.  . NO NET COST TO TAXPAYERS TOBACCO ASSESSMENT TO OFFSET 
                   CERTAIN TOBACCO IMPORT LIMITATIONS.

       The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 is amended by 
     inserting after section 320C (7 U.S.C. 1314i) the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 320D. NO NET COST TO TAXPAYERS TOBACCO ASSESSMENT TO 
                   OFFSET CERTAIN TOBACCO IMPORT LIMITATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Each domestic producer of tobacco shall 
     remit to the Secretary a nonrefundable no net cost to 
     taxpayers assessment in an amount determined under subsection 
     (b) if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(1) a tariff-rate quota pursuant to Article XXVIII of the 
     General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is established with 
     respect to tobacco;
       ``(b) Amount.--
       ``(1) In general.--In consultation with the Secretary of 
     the Treasury, the Secretary shall determine the amount of the 
     no net cost to taxpayers assessment required to be remitted 
     by each producer under subsection (a) based on--
       ``(A) the quantity of tobacco produced by the producer; and
       ``(B) the requirement that the total of the amounts 
     assessed against all producers shall be equal, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, to the cost incurred by the Federal 
     Government as a result of the conditions described in 
     subsection (a), as determined under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Cost to the federal government.--The cost to the 
     Federal Government referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
     equal to--
       ``(A) in the case of a quota referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1), the dollar value associated with the tariff-rate 
     quota imposed on tobacco imported into the United States By--
       ``(i) a country with initial negotiating rights status; and
       ``(ii) a country that imports at least 10 percent of any 
     kind of tobacco into the United States;
       ``(B) in the case of a quantitative limitation or fee 
     referred to in subsection (a)(2), the dollar value associated 
     with the limitation or fee; and
       ``(C) the dollar value associated with any addition tariff, 
     fee, or assessment imposed, in response to the establishment 
     or imposition of a quota, limitation, or fee referred to in 
     subsection (a), by a country described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(c) Collection.--An assessment imposed under this section 
     shall be--
       ``(1) collected by the Secretary and transmitted to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury for deposit in the general fund of 
     the Treasury; and
       ``(2) enforced in the same manner as provided in section 
     320B.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has the floor.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, in the last reconciliation act, there were provisions 
affecting the tobacco industry. Those measures had some dramatic impact 
on the tobacco industry itself. To simplify, it involved two basic 
functions:
  First, it instituted a domestic content provision for U.S. tobacco 
products manufactured into cigarettes. That 75-25 provision we felt at 
the time violated the GATT agreement.
  It also included an import duty assessment which was used to 
subsidize the tobacco loan program.
  It is unique in two areas:
  First, in that we adopted a system that would, in effect, subsidize a 
farm program which we had been assured was paying its own way. That I 
think is a problem.
  Second, the domestic content provision went directly contrary to the 
trade agreements we had signed both in GATT and the North American 
Free-Trade Agreement. We said at the time that it was GATT illegal and 
violated the agreement and would subject this country to retaliation 
and, what is more important, would subject this Nation to ridicule.
  Ironically, this Nation had been the lead objector when several other 
countries had instituted a domestic content provision with regard to 
tobacco. And yet we found ourselves doing exactly the same thing to 
which we had objected.
  In the debate I think Members will recall we talked about how this 
would be a poster child duplicity with regard to the tobacco industry.
  The events that have occurred since then tend to prove out those 
concerns. Ironically, GATT has acted and ruled that these provisions 
were GATT illegal, and they opened the United States up for 
retaliation. There is a provision winding its way through Congress that 
attempts to deal with it, and this provision in my mind at least is 
even worse than what we have on the books now. It does provide for an 
import duty on tobacco which would help maintain the high price, or 
relatively high price of the world market that exists now. Under 
article 28 it opens up a provision for other countries to retaliate 
against us.
  What are the problems if this solution goes forward? The first 
problem is that there indeed may be a cost and a retaliation against us 
of a significant amount. As it is set up now, it will not be the 
tobacco growers who pay for that cost. But it may well be the taxpayers 
or other commodities that pay for that cost.
  Second, you continue to have a circumstance where the tobacco loan 
program is subsidized from the import duties that come in. The bottom 
line is this: You violate our trade agreements, you subsidize tobacco, 
and you end up setting an example of trade practices that are 
absolutely contrary to what we are preaching to the rest of the world.
  Mr. President, I personally believe it is a mistake to subsidize 
tobacco. I would like to see it done away with. Mr. President, I 
personally think it is a mistake to violate trade agreements. I would 
like to see those changed.
  The amendment before the body though is a very limited amendment. It 
simply says there is going to be no net cost to the taxpayer. It simply 
says those who get the benefit of this program have to pay any costs 
that are added to it. Mr. President, it does not go as far as I would 
like to. I would like to do away with the loan program. I would like to 
do away with the subsidy. I would like to do away with the import duty. 
I would like to do away with the trade violations. This amendment does 
not. It simply says that the taxpayers are not going to get stuck, 
there is going to be no net cost to the taxpayers for this new program.
  Why bring it up on the appropriations bill? The very diligent 
chairman and ranking member worked hard to bring this bill to the floor 
to process it through the Senate. I am sure that they are not anxious 
to have new amendments added. But the problem is similar to what we 
faced last year. The tobacco subsidy, or what turned out to be the 
domestic content in the tobacco subsidy measure, was put on in 
reconciliation and brought out in a way so that it was almost 
impossible to amend.
  The measure that is winding its way through Congress through the 
article 28 provisions is that included in the GATT authorization fast-
track legislation which means it will come to the floor in a way so we 
cannot amend it because it will be a part of fast track. Imagine a 
major subsidy program being put forth in a way that you cannot amend it 
or deal with it. I think that is a mistake. That is why we have to deal 
with it under these circumstances.
  I want to mention a memo which I received from the Congressional 
Research Service on this subject. Let me emphasize here that they were 
responding to my inquiry. They are not in the process of taking a 
position on legislation one way or another. But I think the background 
that they spell out is important, and will be of interest to everyone.
  Their memo to me says:

       As a signatory on the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
     Trade, GATT, the United States has a legal obligation to not 
     increase its tariffs or impose quantitative import barriers 
     beyond the levels previously negotiated and agreed to with 
     other members of the GATT. As a practical matter, the U.S. 
     tariff schedule contains tariffs to which the U.S. is bound. 
     On January 1, 1994, the United States implemented a 
     requirement on U.S. cigarette manufacturers that at least 75 
     percent of tobacco in cigarettes would be grown domestically. 
     This requirement was mandated by the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1993 which we referred to a minute ago. 
     Implementing regulations were published in the Federal 
     Register on January 11, 1994. It was estimated by the USDA 
     that this requirement would increase the usage of domestic 
     tobacco, and, conversely, reduce the usage of imported 
     tobacco by 188 million pounds in 1994. As a result, the cost 
     of tobacco to domestic manufacturers in 1994 would increase 
     about $200 million.

  In parentheses, they say because the cost of domestic tobacco is 
about double the cost of foreign tobacco.
  As an aside, that is part of the problem. The tobacco loan program 
tries to maintain an artificially high price for U.S. tobacco. It has 
been mandated by previous law although that was changed with the 
legislation we referred to that it not cost the taxpayers any money. 
That has become an almost impossible burden. That burden, that 
inability to maintain an artificially high price, is what has led to 
the effort of the domestic content. And, when it was ruled as GATT 
illegal, it led to the current effort.
  Let me continue on with the memo--

       A GATT dispute resolution panel is expected to rule that 
     this requirement violates U.S. obligations under the GATT.

  I might add here that that ruling has come down.

       With this outcome the United States will be required to 
     negotiate with economically injured foreign countries to 
     agree on acceptable compensation. The agreement reached in 
     the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations specifies that 
     tariffs on agricultural commodities shall be reduced by 15 
     percent over a period of years. The agreement also requires 
     that quantitative import barriers, i.e. quotas, will be 
     converted to tariffs which will then be subject to the same 
     15 percent reduction in the future. The proposed legislation 
     will implement the Uruguay Round agreement which includes a 
     provision that is amending Section 125 of the Trade Act of 
     1974 that allows the President to replace the 75 percent 
     domestic content requirement with the tariff rate quotas. The 
     tariff would be limited to 350 percent ad valorem above the 
     rate existing on January 1, 1975. This amendment is 
     consistent with article 28 of the GATT which allows for the 
     modification or withdrawal of previously negotiated 
     concessions with possible compensation. The proposed 
     legislation does not provide for the compensation that will 
     likely be negotiated with the injured parties.

  Mr. President, that is the purpose of my amendment; to simply say 
that we ought to make sure that the taxpayer is not stuck with the bill 
here, to simply require that these new provisions of this new tariff 
that would maintain an artificially high price on tobacco, to make sure 
that when the retaliation comes about under article 28 that the 
taxpayers are not left footing the bill.
  So what we are asking for is simply that the tobacco folks end up 
paying for the costs that this amendment may well impose on other 
people.
  The CRS goes on:

       Proposed method for providing compensation * * * if the 
     economically injured companies are awarded compensation of 
     about $200 million per year, or its equivalent in monetary 
     compensation, the source of compensation must be provided. 
     One way to generate the necessary $200 million a year is to 
     assess all domestic tobacco subsidies. Such an approach would 
     generate revenues already in place under the authority of the 
     no net cost tobacco price support program. So the 
     administrative mechanism is already in place to collect 
     import protection compensation assessment.

  Mr. President, in thinking about what is involved here, you can make 
an analogy to the automobile industry. I mention this because I think 
others can understand more easily what goes on here. Let us assume our 
automobile market is going through difficult times. And the producers 
say, ``We would like to get a higher price for our automobiles and have 
more savings.'' So they convince the Government to put a huge import 
duty on vehicles. What that import duty does is keep foreign vehicles 
out of the country. It allows the domestic manufacturers to increase 
their price, and increase their market share. The problem is the 
consumer is taken.
  What is more, under these circumstances our trade laws allow for 
retaliation by protectionist practices. What would then happen would be 
that the consumer is not only hurt but the taxpayer is hurt or another 
commodity is hurt. The other commodity can be hurt because we have 
assigned an agreement that allows retaliation against other 
commodities.
  So for example, corn growers could find their markets undercut or 
facing new tariffs or new quotas as they try and sell into the markets 
overseas.
  I thought yesterday that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky made 
a very excellent point. As I understood what he said, he pointed out 
that there were a number of claims the United States had against other 
countries for unfair trade practices and that they remain unresolved 
and unsatisfied. I assume he points that out to point out that there 
are avenues that we can follow up in this area that may not cost the 
taxpayers money. I think he makes a valid point, and I think it is 
appropriate for him to point out that other countries have followed 
some of these practices as well, and that we may well have an ability 
to offset the impact there.
  I simply want to make sure that the taxpayer does not get stuck with 
the bill here though.
  That is the purpose of my amendment. Indeed, if we are able to work 
something out that does not cost the taxpayers any money, this 
amendment will not have harmed anyone. But it does provide valid, 
important insurance to make sure that the taxpayers are not put to the 
sword in terms of additional subsidies to the tobacco industry.
  We ought to ask this industry to stand on its own 2 feet. I want to 
simply add a note because I think it is important for the discussion. I 
know that many who will take the floor today are honestly concerned 
about the welfare of tobacco producers in this country. But I think it 
is worthwhile noting the impact of that 75-25 rule. There is an article 
that appears in the export leaf tobacco publication in which they quote 
tobacco officials as saying: ``We growers have the concern that we may 
have shot ourselves in the foot with the 75-25 rule.''
  In reality, what has happened is the law, as it is now in place and 
will be in place with these changes, gives processors a major reason to 
take jobs overseas. They will be saddled and stuck and imposed with a 
significantly higher--almost double, if you believe the CRS comment on 
prices--cost of raw materials in this country than they can obtain 
overseas. What it says is that if you are going to export product, you 
better well manufacture it overseas, because if you export it to the 
United States, it is going to be dramatically and significantly more 
expensive.
  For those who are concerned about it, let me recommend the October 
1993 publication of Tobacco Report. The headline speaks for itself: 
``Backlash.''
  The reality is that, in the longrun, tobacco producers have not been 
helped by these programs. They have been dramatically harmed. I think 
it is appropriate that we not ask the taxpayers, though, to foot the 
bill.
  Mr. President, I want to read into the Record a statement by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, which speaks on this domestic content 
requirement. This is from January 11, 1994:

       A seventy-five percent domestic tobacco content requirement 
     is expected to increase the usage of domestic tobacco by 188 
     million pounds for 1994, which will cost domestic 
     manufacturers about $200 million. Since the cost of domestic 
     tobacco is about double that of imported tobacco, domestic 
     cigarette manufacturers are expected to shift cigarette 
     production to foreign-based operations.

  Mr. President, let me emphasize this is not Hank Brown speaking; this 
is the U.S. Department of Agriculture. ``Shift production'' to foreign-
based operations, is what they say.

       As this shift in production occurs, domestic cigarette 
     production is expected to decline about 9 percent a year for 
     the next 4 years. This will result in a loss of about 1,100 
     jobs in domestic cigarette manufacturing plants. The use of 
     domestically produced tobacco will eventually decline to a 
     level less than if there were no domestic content 
     requirement. Domestic cigarette output is expected to decline 
     by 40 percent by 1998.

  Some may disagree with this assessment by the Department of 
Agriculture, Mr. President, even though industry officials and the 
Department of Agriculture have somewhat similar provisions. But ask 
yourself: Does any manufacturer volunteer to be noncompetitive? Does 
anyone want to have double the price of raw material that they process 
if they have a choice?
  This entire program is one that is designed to destroy jobs in 
America, to run the export business outside the United States, to 
provide a premium for people to shut down plants here and open them up 
overseas. And yes, Mr. President, ironically, it will mean, according 
to the Department of Agriculture, less U.S. production because they 
will lose even that.
  It is a self-defeating program for tobacco, and it is a self-
defeating program for our trade policy. It is a self-defeating program 
for tobacco producers.
  Mr. President, it is a mistake for American policy. We should not be 
in the business of subsidizing tobacco. That is what this amendment 
does. This amendment says ``end the subsidy to tobacco.'' If there is a 
cost to this program, they should pay for it themselves.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I had to restrain myself because the 
distinguished Senator from Colorado was so wrong as it relates to the 
tobacco program. It proves that here is an individual that has not 
grown up in the culture of tobacco, has not grown up in understanding 
this part of our economic life, and has gone to meddling. He talks 
about saving taxpayers money. That is the neon sign turned on here, to 
say, ``We want to save taxpayers money.'' We do not want to cost the 
taxpayers money. No one wants to do that. No one wants to do that.
  But he said there is a subsidy for tobacco. I hope the Senator will 
listen. The program pays its way with no net cost. The program pays its 
way with no net cost assessment. Whatever the cost might be, the farmer 
and the manufacturer pay for it.
  The farmer he wants to tax is now paying his full weight. So there is 
really no subsidy. In addition to this, farmers and purchasers pay a 
budget deficit assessment. How many farmers in Colorado pay a budget 
deficit assessment? We pay about $25 million--not much, but it sure 
does reduce the income of the tobacco farmer because he is assessed a 
budget deficit assessment.
  In addition to that, farmers pay inspection and grading fees to cover 
any cost. The Senator from Colorado says there is a subsidy. Well, I 
say to him that there is no subsidy. Any way you look at, there is not 
a subsidy.
  Mr. President, we have a statement of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture that he has all blown up over there. That is the proposed 
rule; that is not the final rule. I get a bill that is written and 
introduced, and it is not the final product. This is the proposed rule.
  I wish the Senator would read the final rule and put the final rule 
up here where people can read it. That is a proposed rule, and they 
know that. I have a copy of it. It is the same thing he has blown up 
over there. So that is not the final rule; it is the proposed rule. 
Where in the world did he get $200 million? He pulled that out of the 
air, because that was up front. It was on this proposed rule, not the 
final rule.
  Let us talk a little bit about the final rule. He talks about the 
cost. Let us talk about the final rule for just a moment. The domestic 
marketing assessment, the DMA, provisions of the 1993 act are expected 
to increase the usage of domestic tobacco by 220 million pounds for 
marketing year 1994. Even if cigarette production declines--I want to 
underscore ``declines''--to the extent forecast in the final regulatory 
impact analysis, by the 6 year, with DMA provisions, extra domestic 
tobacco required to avoid any additional assessments by cigarette 
manufacturers will still be 115 million pounds.
       The increase in the use of domestic tobacco is expected to 
     draw down current loan stocks--

  Loan stocks, so we can pay them back and the farmer makes that loan 
good.

       The increase in the use of domestic tobacco will draw down 
     the loan stocks and flue-cured tobacco by 159 million pounds 
     in 1994. Consequently the Commodity Credit Corporation loan 
     outlays for tobacco for the year 1994 are estimated to be 
     about $320 million less.

  Think about that now. And we are being fussed at. We are being fussed 
at.

       These actions should, in subsequent years, reduce the 
     amount of the no-net-cost tobacco payment program paid for by 
     domestic burley and flue-cured tobacco. Additionally, DMA in 
     place about 8,000 farms--

  Think about this now--

     --about 8,000 farms may remain in operation over the next 6 
     years that would otherwise go out of business.

  I do not understand why we are trying to hurt the U.S. farmer when we 
ought to be trying to help the U.S. farmer.
  Now, Mr. President, the Senator from Colorado fundamentally 
misunderstands what the article 28 process is all about.
  Our trade representative is attempting to negotiate the best possible 
deal to stabilize our markets without requiring any compensation to 
other countries. Compensation is mere hypothetical. The trade 
negotiator has outlined his strategy.
  I doubt seriously the Senator from Colorado has even attempted to 
discuss it with the trade representative and understand the strategy 
has been developed for zero compensation, unless the amendment of the 
Senator from Colorado passes. Then we have real trouble.
  Consider how bizarre this amendment really is. The negotiations have 
barely begun under article 28 of GATT. This is not a law, I say to the 
Senator. We have had a hard time explaining that to him. Article 28 is 
under GATT. It is a portion of how we negotiate.
  But the Senator from Colorado is actually undercutting our 
negotiating position. He is saying to the importing countries: Hold 
out. Do not compromise. You have friends in the U.S. Senate who do not 
care about U.S. farmers.
  He is saying to these other countries: Do not negotiate in good 
faith. Hold out and then seek compensation from good old Uncle Sugar, 
and when you do, be assured that you will put U.S. farmers at an even 
greater disadvantage because if you seek compensation they will have to 
pay new assessments. So do not negotiate in good faith.
  So, we are hurting in trying to work it out under the procedures that 
we have used for a long time.
  Mr. President, if this amendment passes, boy, you wheat growers 
better look out; you rice growers better look out; and any other 
agricultural product better look out; you are next, because in the 
attempt to get to tobacco--and I hope my colleagues will understand 
this--in an attempt to get to tobacco, you put everything else at a 
disadvantage. You are not zeroing in on just tobacco. You are setting a 
precedent here for all other commodities that might have a problem and 
be negotiated under article 28 of GATT.
  Mr. President, this amendment, I think, demonstrates more about how 
our trade policy gets screwed up in this country than any other example 
I can think of.
  I wonder which country the Senator from Colorado is worried about. 
Who does he think might seek compensation? Is he worried about other 
countries, or is he worried about the United States? Is he worried 
about the farmers in Brazil, Zimbabwe, or some other place more than he 
is worried about the United States farmer?
  Could it be Zimbabwe? Mr. President, according to the Foreign 
Agricultural Service, Zimbabwe still completely prohibits the import of 
our tobacco or tobacco products. Meanwhile the amount of tobacco sent 
from Zimbabwe to this country escalated from 3,000 metric tons in 1990 
to 22,000 metric tons in 1992, and it continues to grow.
  I do not understand why this amendment was even brought up unless it 
was to get to tobacco. And when you do that you put all other 
commodities in jeopardy.
  Yet the Senator from Colorado is saying: Zimbabwe do not worry. I 
will protect you. Keep banning U.S. products from your own country. I 
will guarantee you access to our markets, and on top of that I will 
penalize U.S. farmers if you seek compensation. What do you have to 
lose?
  What do you have to lose? They do not have anything to lose, but our 
U.S. farmers have a great deal to lose.
  Mr. President, is it China the Senator from Colorado is seeking to 
help? China has a monopoly, and the only way to enter their market is 
by dealing with the monopoly. They have an import quota on our 
cigarettes. They have a higher tax on our products than their own. That 
is discrimination. They control the number of retail outlets where our 
products can be sold. They have discriminatory fees. Yet the Senator 
from Colorado is saying: Come on over. Come on over. I will protect 
you, but you keep banning our products.
  Mr. President, does the Senator think they will seek compensation? 
Does the Senator know how many nontariff barriers exist in the sale of 
U.S. products there?
  How about Brazil? Does the Senator from Colorado know how prohibitive 
it is to get the required import license to sell in Brazil?
  This is some vision of free trade. The Senator from Colorado is 
anxious to help every country in the world except one. He is anxious to 
help farmers all over the world except in one place, and that one place 
is the United States.
  Mr. President, the Brown amendment is poorly timed. It is poor trade 
policy. It is legislation on an appropriations bill. It is legislation 
on an appropriations bill, and it will assure that we have a full 
debate, if it is passed, on increased grazing fees.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from 
Kentucky yield for a question?
  Mr. FORD. I am glad to yield for a question.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  I associate myself with the views that he has just expressed.
  My concern is the concern of many Senators, and that is jobs within 
their States.
  Would the Senator from Kentucky be able to advise the Senate with 
respect to, if the Brown position were to prevail--that is the position 
of the Senator from Colorado--what would be the impact on our job 
situation?
  Mr. FORD. It would be lost, somewhere in the neighborhood of 8,000 
farms.
  Mr. WARNER. Eight thousand.
  Mr. FORD. Eight thousand farms. That was the estimate that we had.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would that not be from the sector of the 
very small farmer?
  Mr. FORD. There is no question about it.
  I say to my good friend from Virginia that 69 percent of those 
allotment holders in my State have other jobs. So it becomes a husband, 
wife, and family operation. There are 105,000 allotments in my State. 
So when you have the small family farm and they raise this crop, it is 
an income I think I recall of about $5,000 per year that goes to that 
small family farm that they would not otherwise get. That would be 
deteriorated considerably under the Brown amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator.
  I find that that same profile is present in the Commonwealth of 
Virginia. It is the small family. No one gets rich. It really provides 
that margin by which these families can maybe survive.
  Mr. FORD. It keeps them above the poverty level.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator for his question and thank him for his 
support.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator for his question and I thank him for 
his support.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Kentucky 
[Mr. McConnell].
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, picking up on the exchange between my 
colleague from Kentucky and the Senator from Virginia, Senator Ford was 
talking about the typical number of acres of tobacco in Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. The typical number in Kentucky is three-fourths of an acre.
  Mr. McCONNELL. And I believe the Senator said that 69 percent have 
another job.
  If you were setting out to produce tobacco efficiently, if efficiency 
was the only goal, obviously the way we produce it is not very 
efficient; but it puts income in the hands of an enormous number of 
medium- and low-income families in our State, over 60,000 quota 
holders, the average one being three-fourths of an acre.
  And for these folks, it is Christmas money, sold at auction in 
November and December, and Christmas money for a lot of medium- and 
modest-income people.
  So, Mr. President, we are fighting, Senator Ford and myself--and the 
Senator from Virginia made the observation as well that this is also 
the case in Virginia--fighting for the livelihood, the very livelihood 
of an awful lot of medium- and low-income people in our States.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado undermines the 
U.S. Trade Representative's negotiating authority in his efforts to 
obtain a GATT-legal approach to implement the tobacco import law which 
was enacted last year through the extraordinary efforts of the senior 
Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford.
  On June 28, USTR notified the GATT counsel of our intention to enter 
into negotiations with interested parties under article 28 of the GATT. 
By initiating article 28, we would be in GATT compliance and would be 
negotiating with those countries who have rights under article 28.
  Under that article, U.S. negotiators will try to set the tariff rate 
quota at the lowest level possible without triggering compensation to 
affected countries--without triggering compensation to affected 
countries. By setting the TRQ at such a level, domestic growers will be 
provided some protection from increased tobacco imports, which would 
replace U.S.-produced tobacco.
  Mr. President, in the absence of import restraints, U.S. imports of 
foreign tobacco are likely to rise, gaining a greater share of U.S. 
consumption. The Foreign Agricultural Service periodically produces a 
document called Import Requirements and Restrictions for Tobacco and 
Tobacco Products in Foreign Markets. The report, Mr. President, details 
taxes, tariffs, and nontariff restrictions affecting trade.
  Tobacco is a highly protected commodity around the world, not just 
here in the United States. Countries such as Brazil, Zimbabwe, and 
Thailand have protectionist trade barriers against our products. These 
countries were involved in bringing the tobacco import law issue before 
GATT.
  It is very important, Mr. President, to allow the article 28 
negotiations to work before we propose such dramatic measures as those 
contemplated by the Brown amendment.
  Again, I point out that our negotiators will try to set the tariff 
rate quota at the lowest level without--without--having to pay 
compensation. However, this amendment undermines our ability to achieve 
the best possible outcome with those countries with whom we must 
negotiate under article 28 of the GATT.
  The tobacco producers in the Commonwealth of Kentucky already pay for 
research, a no net cost assessment, a budget deficit fee, and fees for 
grading and inspection. I do not know of any other commodity, Mr. 
President, under the same amount of pressure, taxation, and unfair 
harassment. They pay more than their fair share.
  So I commend my colleague from Kentucky for his outstanding work in 
this area. I certainly hope that the Brown amendment will not be 
successful and, at the appropriate time, I will be making a motion to 
table.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor. I think it is 
proper for me to do that.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran].
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I truly regret having to oppose this 
amendment, because I have the utmost respect for the Senator from 
Colorado. He is one of the finest, most conscientious, and likable 
Members of this body.
  I know he feels very strongly about issues relating to the tobacco 
industry and tobacco program. He described the fact that he would like 
to kill the program, kill the subsidies, and absolutely do away with 
any kind of support for tobacco farmers or the industry. Those views 
are well known. We respect his intelligence and his commitment and the 
way he uses his ability to try to influence policy in these areas.
  But my reason for having to oppose the amendment has to do with the 
fact that this amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this bill. 
The bill that we have before the Senate right now is an agriculture 
appropriations bill, reported by the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee to the full Committee on Appropriations. This amendment 
does not change one word in this bill. It does not increase or decrease 
any of the funding levels contained in this appropriations bill.
  As a matter of fact, you can read the title of the amendment and see 
that it has nothing to do with an agriculture program or the tobacco 
program. It relates to a trade issue. The stated purpose of the 
amendment is, and I am going to read it:

       To ensure that there will be no net cost to taxpayers if 
     protectionist trade practices are adopted by the United 
     States with respect to tobacco.

  That is a trade issue that relates to a provision of the GATT 
legislation that is under consideration here in the Senate by the 
Finance Committee.
  I hope the Finance Committee members--certainly the chairman and 
ranking member of the committee--will take note that this is an 
amendment that seeks to usurp the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee 
on an issue that is contained in GATT legislation that is being 
considered by the Finance Committee.
  So my quarrel is not with the distinguished Senator from Colorado. It 
is to try to keep the committee structure and the rules of the Senate 
in our minds as we proceed to consider our legislation.
  If every committee is going to have its jurisdiction usurped by the 
amendment process when legislation gets to the floor, we need to 
abolish all of the committees. We do not need committees.
  We undertook in the Rules Committee--and my friend from Kentucky is 
chairman--to look at the proposals for restructuring committees and 
reorganizing the Senate to make it more efficient, to be sure that 
Senators were not stretched too thinly over too many subject matter 
areas with their committee assignments, trying to make the Senate a 
more efficient place for the consideration of legislation. We could 
throw all of that out the window if we are now going to just ignore the 
rules, ignore committees' jurisdiction, and have amendments of this 
kind adopted to legislation that have nothing to do with the subject of 
the amendment.
  So I hope the Senate will support a motion to table the amendment 
when it is made.
  We could make a point of order under rule XVI, but the issue of 
germaneness would be raised by the proponent of the amendment, and the 
Chair, under the Senate's rules, would have to submit that issue of 
germaneness to a vote. We would have to vote on that. Senators might 
not focus on the nuances involved, and it may be best, in terms of 
saving time for everybody concerned, to simply have a motion to table 
the amendment.
  I strongly urge Senators to support the motion to table when it is 
made. This amendment seeks to impose sanctions on an industry for 
engaging in what the amendment defines as ``protectionist trade 
practices.'' That is what this amendment does.
  It purports to be a new section of the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 
1938. If you read the amendment as it starts off, it says, ``This is to 
amend the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 by adding a new section as 
follows.'' And then the rest of the amendment follows, and it has 
nothing to do with the tobacco program. That is the part of the 
Agriculture Adjustment Act that the amendment seeks to amend. But it 
does not change anything in the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938. It 
does not change the subsidy program. It does not alter it one whit.
  It imposes sanctions against an industry if it engages in 
protectionist trade practices. That is a trade issue. That is a GATT 
issue. That is a matter of public policy, true enough. But it does not 
have anything to do with appropriations for Agriculture Department 
activities and that is what the bill before the Senate deals with.
  I hope the Senate will vote to sustain the motion to table when it is 
made.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, a number of important points have been 
made. I thought I would try to respond succinctly. I know Members are 
anxious to move ahead with the bill. It is appropriate they should. Let 
me deal with them in order.
  First of all with regard to employment, because I think that is a 
concern of every Member here. The distinguished Senator from Kentucky 
had expressed his concern about what would happen with regard to 
employment in the industry. The distinguished Senator from Virginia had 
also.
  If we follow the course that is now proposed, employment will drop 
and drop dramatically. That is not an assertion by Hank Brown. That is 
an assertion by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and their experts 
that deal with this. The provision that has been put in place, which I 
think is foolish policy, is one that will lead to the loss of 11,000 
manufacturing jobs according to the USDA, and additional loss of jobs 
in regard to farmers.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? I 
apologize for doing this but I think it is important I ask him a 
question.
  Mr. BROWN. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. FORD. The Senator is making his statement as it relates to the 
law that is now in effect and not the proposal as it relates to article 
28 under GATT, which is being repealed?
  Mr. BROWN. The distinguished Senator is exactly correct.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator. That means then----
  Mr. BROWN. Let me finish, if I could. The Senator is exactly correct. 
What I quoted from is a Department policy from USDA which relates to 
the domestic content and import duty.
  Mr. FORD. It relates to the blowup on the chart which is the proposed 
rule and not the final rule, and so the estimates after the final rule 
are different than what the Senator is quoting.
  I am not trying to make things something that they are not. But what 
you have here is you have taken the proposed rule and not the final 
rule. You are quoting to us the no net cost--or domestic content law, 
and you are not quoting from the trade--GATT article 28 position. That 
is somewhat different than the figures that were given by the law.
  I think in fairness to me that I ought to raise this question.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator rising and 
pointing that out. I want to assure the Members that we have been very 
clear and very straight and very up front. This is a statement by the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture. It deals with the concept and the 
projection of a policy that involves having domestic tobacco prices 
double the world market. That is what costs jobs.
  When they say they are eventually going to have less domestically 
produced tobacco, the reason they are saying that is because foreign 
tobacco will cost half what domestic tobacco does and you will have the 
manufacturers move offshore. They will initially move offshore for the 
foreign tobacco but they will also move eventually for tobacco produced 
domestically.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BROWN. Regular order, Mr. President. I have the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BROWN. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. FORD. Under the imports that come, and they are made--and tobacco 
used for imports, 99 percent of that is given a credit. So there is no 
imposition on imported tobacco that is used to make cigarettes that are 
exported to other countries. That is as far as the imports, imported to 
the United States, made into cigarettes and it is exported. And they 
get full credit for it. There is nothing there that hurts more than the 
cheap tobacco on ours. It is not the top grade. Some say it is better 
quality.
  But I say to the Senator that for an import of tobacco that is made 
into cigarettes to be exported, there is full credit given. The 
countries can send as much in here as they want to, as it relates to 
exports.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Senator for his comment. I want to go back to 
the point. If you insist that U.S. tobacco is going to be double what 
the world market is, you put manufacturers and processors at a 
disadvantage. You make it advantageous to process the product overseas 
and ship it in. That was why, in relating to the policy of having 
double the market price, the USDA statement relates not only to 
processing jobs but eventually to tobacco-producing jobs. If you are 
concerned about jobs, you ought to be alarmed about the program.
  Let me emphasize my amendment does not go to solve that problem. I 
wish it did. It does not. My amendment simply says we are not going to 
subsidize tobacco. But I must say again, I think the fundamental 
problem with regard to employment relates to the phenomenon of having 
double the price in the United States. That eventually will cost a 
number of jobs and that is widely documented.
  Mr. President, the second item that was brought up was with regard to 
undercutting the efforts of our negotiators. Let me emphasize that is 
not the case and that is not part of this amendment in any way. This 
amendment simply says that tobacco has to pay its own way. We are not 
going to subsidize it in this area. It in no way curtails the ability 
of our negotiators to go out and negotiate a good deal. As a matter of 
fact, let me assure the Senator, I wish our negotiators luck. I hope 
they negotiate as good a deal as possible. I hope they hold the 
penalties and retaliation against the United States for violating the 
fundamental approach under GATT--I hope they hold those penalties to as 
small as possible. But let us not kid ourselves. This amendment does 
not have anything to do with curtailing their ability. This amendment 
has to do with whether or not you subsidize tobacco.
  One other thing I might mention. There has been a suggestion or 
implication, even, that my comments with regard to possible 
compensation were out of line. For those who think that, let me refer 
them to the Uruguay Round Tariff Agreements Draft Implementing 
Proposal. This comes out of the Subcommittee on Trade and the Committee 
on Ways and Means, June 29, 1994.
  Why is that important? It is the House that has marked up the 
authorizing legislation with regard to these trade agreements and 
ratification of GATT. It is because that is on fast track that we will 
be unable to address it when it gets to the floor. That is, these 
ratifications and the measure that is coming over is going to be on 
fast track and literally will not be subject to amendment. There is no 
way to touch it. That is why we have to act here.
  More important, in their description of the measure they are sending 
us is this language. Present law: Article 21 of the GATT--this is from 
the Ways and Means Committee.

       Article 28 of the GATT provides for the modification or 
     withdrawal of previously negotiated concessions with possible 
     compensation to all contracting parties that constitute 
     principal or substantial suppliers of the products concerned 
     and/or old or initial negotiations rights with respect to 
     such products.

  That is by the Ways and Means Committee themselves in the document 
they produced dealing with the markup that they just got through as it 
deals specifically with tobacco. The suggestion that there is no 
possibility of compensation being involved here is news to Ways and 
Means.
  They hold a different view, and it is in the very documents 
themselves.
  Mr. President, a third item that was brought up I think deals with 
the subsidies. We have just reconfirmed with CRS that, indeed, separate 
duties are assessed on imported tobacco. And under the law now, those 
are forwarded to support of the tobacco program. In other words, the 
changes that occurred last year included a new duty that goes to 
subsidized tobacco. This program is not self-supporting, it is 
subsidized by import duties, and no Member should be unaware of that.
  What we literally have is a program on the books to subsidize tobacco 
at the same time we have other programs on the books to urge people not 
to use it. A contortionist would admire our flexibility, but, Mr. 
President, this is not serious Government. To have a product you 
subsidize at the same time you urge people not to use it involves an 
exceptional rate of flexibility to the point of ludicrousness. This is 
the laughingstock of the country. How many people believe it makes 
sense to subsidize a product and then turn around and urge people not 
to use it? We ought to make up our mind. Either we want to promote the 
use of it or we want to discourage it. But to do both at the same time 
is absurd.
  I want to deal lastly with the question of why here. The 
distinguished ranking member on the Appropriations Committee who deals 
with this has been most indulgent and has worked very hard with us. I 
think he and the chairman have a right to expect this bill will receive 
expeditious consideration and move through without amendments that are 
harmful to the good job they intend.
  The simple fact is why it has to be offered here is because, simply 
and flatly, just as it was done last year, the plans are this year to 
hustle this through in a way so that you cannot amend it, to get a new 
subsidy in place and not get a record vote on it, to do it in a way so 
we are not allowed to object to it on the floor. And that is one reason 
why it being included in the fast-track legislation is so devastating. 
We are literally left with no choice.
  Does it relate to what is being considered? Let me refer Members to 
page 65, 66 and 67 where they deal specifically with the Commodity 
Credit Corporation, and on 67 these words appear:

       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
     products.

  The subject of tobacco and tobacco programs are clearly included in 
this bill. It is germane to what is being legislated in this bill. I 
want to mention that because I think it is important for Members to 
know that there simply is no choice. We have to bring it up here 
because we do not have another forum.
  It boils down to one simple basic question: Do you want a subsidy for 
the tobacco program or do you not? If you do want it, you will want to 
vote against the Brown amendment or you will want to vote to table it. 
If you think you should end the subsidy, then you will want to vote for 
the amendment.
  I believe the key ingredient to getting our economy in order is to 
eliminate programs like this. The incredible approach of Congress to 
subsidize a product at the same time we urge it not be used, I think, 
defies the imagination and would astound most of the American people.
  I want to reiterate one point: Very sincere concerns were expressed 
about jobs on this floor. I must say I believe, as truly as I am 
standing here, in the long run in terms of jobs for tobacco growers or 
in terms of jobs for processors, that they are very much in interest in 
doing away with this program.
  I hope that out of this conference will come an effort to address 
that because this amendment does not deal with that. It does not do 
away with the program, which I wish it did. But eventually we have to 
deal with it because what we have established here is a train wreck. 
When you establish the domestic price is going to be double what the 
world market is, you have doomed yourself to be noncompetitive, and 
that is what the current policy is right now.
  Mr. President, I yield back.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am not going to go through the ritual of commenting 
on my distinguished friend from Colorado. He is my friend and he is 
distinguished and he is sincere, but he is sincerely wrong on this 
question.
  I remember Lewis Carroll's ``Through the Looking Glass,'' when I was 
a little boy. I had to memorize some of it. And I say to my friend from 
Kentucky that Humpty-Dumpty was quoted by Lewis Carroll as saying 
something like this:
  ``When I use a word, it means precisely what I intend for it to mean, 
nothing more, nothing less.''
  My distinguished friend from Colorado is using the word ``subsidy'' 
in exactly that fashion. If we started talking about grazing fees, and 
we have talked on this floor from time to time about grazing fees and 
subsidies, I remind my friend that a great deal of support has come to 
him and others who are interested in that issue. But the truth of the 
matter is, what the Senator is calling a subsidy is, in fact, a tax on 
the growers of tobacco. It punishes the farmers for finding what you 
would call a GATT-legal way of solving their problems under article 28 
of the GATT agreement.
  It completely undermines the United States negotiating position under 
article 28 for tobacco, and those negotiations have just begun. But let 
me emphasize, there is no subsidy for the tobacco program. We solved 
that some years ago when we had this no net cost program enacted. 
Tobacco has its problems, as does anything else, including cattle and 
other agricultural commodities.
  Second, Mr. President, the problem is that several countries have 
challenged the domestic content law for tobacco. The Senator from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ford], has proposed a solution to replace the domestic 
content law by using article 28 of GATT. This would help the U.S. 
tobacco growers keep their farms by limiting the amount of foreign 
tobacco.
  As for the amendment of my friend from Colorado, do you know who the 
greatest advocates of that amendment are? The tobacco growers in 
Communist China, the tobacco growers in Argentina and other foreign 
countries. They are praying that the Senator's amendment is adopted 
because that will disrupt the tobacco growers of the United States and 
put the tobacco growers overseas in the driver's seat.
  The tobacco that some would like to pour into this country is of low 
quality and high nicotine. A lot is being said about nicotine, but you 
``ain't'' seen nothing yet, Mr. President, until you look at the 
nicotine content in some of the Chinese and Argentine tobacco and 
others.
  Some of us have a great interest in the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade--GATT--and I am having a big problem with it because the 
sovereignty of the United States of America is in the balance, and we 
may as well face it in terms of this amendment.
  Foreign countries love to challenge any U.S. law that helps U.S. 
workers or farmers. Let me say that this is just the tip of the 
iceberg, and that is one of the reasons I am opposed to the fast track 
on this GATT proposal.
  In any case, one of the distinguished Senators from Kentucky, I am 
confident, will move to table this amendment. Whichever one does, or if 
both of them do, I want to join in the motion to table. Unless there is 
some danger of this amendment being approved, I hope this will be the 
end of it for this bill at this time. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the heart of the amendment we are debating 
is on page 3. Let me just quote it to Members:

       (B) the requirement that the total of the amounts assessed 
     against all producers shall be equal, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, to the cost incurred by the Federal Government 
     as a result of the conditions described in subsection (a), as 
     determined under paragraph (2).

  That is basically what this is. This simply says, look, if it ends up 
costing the taxpayers money, the program has to pay for it, the tobacco 
folks have to pay for it. All we are doing is asking for them to pay 
the cost that they incur to the Federal Government.

  Now, some of my good friends here have indicated a couple things that 
I think are worth commenting on. One, that there is no subsidy in the 
program. I was not aware, and I suspect other Members were not aware, 
that included in the provisions last year was a subsidy for tobacco. I 
know for a long time it was a question about whether you subsidize the 
tobacco loan program. This body had acted to make that loan program 
self-supporting.
  What Members were not aware of, or at least this Member was not aware 
of--and I suspect some others--until recently was that included in what 
came about last year was a new tariff on imported tobacco that was 
remitted to subsidize and support the tobacco program. So the old saw 
that there is no subsidy here was not accurate. That was changed last 
year. There is a subsidy. And this amendment is necessary to keep the 
retaliation that comes against the United States from being a subsidy 
as well.
  One other thing. There has been a question raised as to whether or 
not there ever would be compensation required by the United States. Let 
me simply to that say we have not only quoted the House Ways and Means 
Committee report, which indicates that is a possibility, but that is a 
subject that has been discussed with the U.S. Trade Representative, and 
as a matter of fact I have a list of options here that spell out a 
variety of those options that do involve the potential of subsidy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that set of options, 
tobacco restrictions options which make it clear that there is a 
possibility of this costing us money and compensation being involved, 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Tobacco Restriction Options


                trq of a would require compensation of b

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Thousand          
                                                       metric    Million
                                                        tons    dollars 
                                                             A         B
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All supplying countries maintain 1990-92 avge.,                      
 imports provides growth for Prin, Subs, INR                            
 suppliers only.....................................       201         0
2. All supplying countries maintain 1990-92 avge.,                      
 import growth for Prin, Subs, INR suppliers but                        
 excludes Can, Mex, PRC.............................       192         0
3. Actual imports 1990-92 avge., all countries......       143         0
Assumes no obligation to countries other than Prin,                     
 Subs, INR; enables 14,000 MT to be offered to other                    
 countries (27,000 MT if Can, Mex, PRC are excluded)                    
4. Subs, Prin and INR suppliers only--including                         
 adjustment for growth..............................       129         0
5. Subs, Prin, INR suppliers only--including growth                     
 but excluding Can, Mex, PRC; no offers to suppliers                    
 with shares less than 10%..........................       116         0
(note: any quota shares offered to countries with                       
 shares below 10% would increase compensation costs)                    
6. Actual imports 1990-92 avge., Subs, Prin, INR                        
 suppliers only.....................................        70       154
If Can, Mex, PRC excluded...........................  ........       117
(note: any quota shares offered to countries with                       
 shares below 10% would increase compensation costs)                    
7. Actual imports 1990-92 avge., Prin, Subs, INR                        
 suppliers (excluding Can, Mex, PRC)................        67       126
(note: any quota offered to countries with shares                       
 below 10% would increase compensation cost)                            
8. Domestic content equivalent quota................        57       188
If Can, Mex, PRC excluded...........................  ........       150
(note: any quota offered to countries with shares                       
 below 10% would increase compensation costs)                           
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Allowable imports may be above quota levels set depending on the  
  extent of imports from Canada and Mexico.                             

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the last point that I will simply 
reiterate, the question before us is simply this: Do you want to 
subsidize tobacco or not? I am a Member who believes they should stand 
on their own two feet and that you should not ask the taxpayers to 
subsidize them. If you feel as I do, I hope you will support the Brown 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I will take just 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, if the Senator from Colorado interprets a 
tariff as a subsidy, and then he voted for NAFTA, he voted for the 
biggest subsidy bill we have ever had.
  Now, tariffs are not a subsidy. The tobacco that comes in here pays 
the same thing as the North Carolina farmer. He pays the budget deficit 
that we pay. He pays the no-net assessment. That kind of makes things a 
little bit even where you stick it to and gouge the American farmer and 
the foreign grower gets off.
  So if a tariff is a subsidy, Mr. President, we are in real trouble. 
We better go back and look at our whole trade program. The Agriculture 
Department ought to have some long and big hearings, which you have not 
had here.
  And so, Mr. President, I have 10 reasons here and could go on about 
why this amendment should be tabled, but I will not.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment by 
the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] concerning the tobacco program. 
This amendment attempts to impose an additional tax burden on the 
tobacco farmers of my State. Currently, the tobacco farmers have 
enormous taxes imposed on their corp. An acre of tobacco currently 
raises over $37,500 in Federal taxes. This translates into about $5 of 
taxes for every tobacco plant.
  Mr. President, this amendment will affect the many tobacco farmers 
whose only income is from their small tobacco allotment. In my State of 
South Carolina, there are over 52,000 acres of tobacco grown with a 
farm value of over $190 million. This is only the value to the farmers. 
The money from this crop is turned over in the local economy several 
times to provide for the local economy. Agriculture in South Carolina 
and several other southern States is unique. We do not have large 
quantities of land to produce crops. Therefore, tobacco is well suited 
to the land use of the South.
  Mr. President, this amendment would cause severe economic harm to the 
farmers of my State. Therefore, I intend to vote to table this 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote to table the Brown amendment. 
The GATT dispute resolution panel has not yet ruled that the U.S. 
requirement regarding specific U.S. tobacco content levels violates 
U.S. obligations under the GATT. I cannot vote for an amendment that 
assumes GATT will call into question specific domestic activities in 
advance of a GATT ruling. And, we should preserve our options with 
respect to opposing or appealing GATT rulings.
  My vote does not mean that I support any tobacco subsides. I believe 
the Brown amendment is putting the cart before the horse regarding 
possible implications of GATT before we have either the specific GATT 
panel ruling on this issue or the completed Uruguay round implementing 
legislation to review.
  Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment 
offered by my colleague from Colorado [Mr. Brown] which would specify 
that no cost shall be incurred by the Government for additional tobacco 
program costs resulting from enforcement of the 75 percent domestic 
content requirement for tobacco products.
  This amendment sends a strong message that the domestic content 
requirement should never have been legislated in the first place. It is 
a serious GATT problem--the United States will be challenged on this 
after the World Trade Organization is established in 1995. It is likely 
we would lose that challenge and be required to pay compensation if we 
are not willing to change our discriminatory domestic content 
requirement. That compensation could be directed against U.S. tobacco 
exports--or it could negatively affect any other U.S. industry, 
including other agriculture commodities.
  I was also interested in the USDA study cited by my friend from 
Colorado which indicated that tobacco companies would shift cigarette 
production abroad as a result of the domestic content requirement. Over 
1,100 jobs would be lost as a result. Once production shifts abroad, of 
course, the use of domestic tobacco will also decline in the United 
States.
  The moral of the story is that not only are domestic tobacco 
companies negatively affected, but the growers wind up shooting 
themselves in the foot by supporting this kind of unwarranted 
protection.
  I urge the support of my colleagues for this important amendment.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, whether it is disproportionate tax levies on 
tobacco in health care legislation, a hostile congressional inquiry 
into the possible affects of nicotine, or now this amendment, which is 
clearly injurious to domestic tobacco producers, undermining the 
livelihood of hardworking individuals in the tobacco industry appears 
to be fair game these days among some legislators.
  I am very much opposed to Senator Brown's effort to circumvent normal 
procedures for congressional consideration of an international trade 
agreement. Let me explain.
  U.S. law presently requires tobacco producers and manufacturers to 
include a certain percentage of domestically grown tobacco in the 
products they sell. These domestic content provisions ensure that our 
tobacco farmers get a fair shake, and do not suffer at the hands of 
foreign tobacco sellers attempting to establish U.S. market share 
through cutrate pricing.
  Under GATT, current domestic content provisions will likely be 
replaced by an equivalent import restriction mechanism called tariff-
rate quotas. These are designed to provide continued assistance and 
support to tobacco farmers in Virginia and many others across the 
country. That's only fair, since some foreign tobacco producers are 
prepared to ignore the rules of fair trade merely to gain a foothold in 
the U.S. market.
  On the heels of the administration's decision, which I strongly 
supported, not to force thousands of tobacco farmers into such a 
position of competitive disadvantage, U.S. trade officials are now 
considering whether and how to provide compensation to countries that 
would be required to abide by the new tariff-rate quota schedule.
  Mr. President, Senator Brown's amendment requires the tobacco 
industry itself to bear the burden of compensation to foreign 
countries, stating that there can be no net cost to taxpayers for such 
action. His idea, however, really puts the cart before the horse: the 
Finance Committee is only at a preliminary stage considering this 
matter, the administration hasn't offered a detailed plan for 
compensation, and the House Ways and Means Committee has stated it is 
only prepared to address the issue at a later date.
  Mr. President, notwithstanding the merits or lack thereof involved 
with this amendment, the Senator from Colorado is simply amending the 
wrong bill at the wrong time. Initial consideration of this matter 
belongs with members of the Finance Committee and the appropriate 
vehicle for adding language would be the GATT implementing legislation. 
My friend from Colorado's decision to address this issue on the Senate 
floor, and on the Agriculture Appropriations bill, represents 
legislating on an appropriations bill at its worst.
  Finally, Mr. President, it is worth noting that we maintain tariffs 
on a range of foreign imports for numerous reasons, among them to deny 
our markets to unfair traders, to provide interim protection for 
certain import-sensitive industries, and other reasons as well. Senator 
Brown's assertion that domestic content requirements for tobacco, 
whatever form they take, amount to Government subsidies is just plain 
wrong. When cause is shown that a domestic industry faces unfair 
competition from abroad, the Government has an obligation to take 
appropriate steps to defend the interests of the American workers 
involved. This amendment is directly contrary to that fundamental 
principle.
  Accordingly, I will vote to table the Brown amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Very shortly, it will be my intention to move to table 
the Brown amendment on behalf of Senator Helms and myself.
  As colleagues are weighing how they should vote on that motion, I 
would like them to focus on the fact that this is not simply a vote on 
tobacco. It is a precedent-setting vote on how the United States can be 
expected to deal with other trade disputes. The amendment offered by my 
friend from Colorado creates a novel and potentially dangerous remedy 
for all trade disputes that other countries raise against the United 
States, as has been pointed out before.
  If the Brown amendment is passed and its basic principle becomes law, 
then any foreign country that claims to have suffered from unfair trade 
treatment by the United States will try to obtain money damages 
directly from any and all domestic producers who have apparently 
benefited from the allegedly unfair treatment. As strange as that 
sounds, that is indeed the precedent established by the Brown 
amendment.
  Simply put, the Brown amendment forces U.S. citizens--American 
farmers and producers--to put up money for foreign farmers and 
producers who are allegedly harmed by U.S. import laws.
  Now, let us run that by one more time. The Brown amendment would 
force U.S. citizens--American farmers and producers--to put up money 
for foreign farmers and producers who are allegedly harmed by U.S. 
import law. I cannot imagine anything more frightening than that.
  Let no Senator comfort him or herself with the thought that this 
proposal will only be limited to tobacco. I can just imagine that GATT 
negotiators from other countries will hear about this debate and this 
amendment and will positively salivate at the prospect that they might 
get hard currency compensation directly from U.S. producers if they can 
demonstrate that some aspect of our trade law is unfair and hurts any 
foreign producer.
  Should the Brown amendment pass, I would not be at all surprised to 
see foreign GATT negotiators try to apply the Brown amendment concept 
to a broad array of crops as well as manufactured goods. What will our 
negotiators be able to say in response? Congress will have established 
a clear principle that U.S. farmers and other producers can be forced 
to pay direct compensatory damages to foreign producers whenever unfair 
trade treatment is alleged. And what exactly is an unfair subsidy or 
restriction or tariff? One could argue, it seems to me, that favorable 
grazing fees, which I personally have supported consistently here, 
could be considered an excessive subsidy which should require U.S. 
ranchers to pay a direct compensatory penalty to foreign livestock 
producers.
  Now, the U.S. Trade Representative is working to ensure that our 
tobacco-import restrictions are GATT legal, so that no compensation 
would be required in any event. Thus, the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Colorado is flatly unnecessary, and yet it establishes a 
dangerous precedent that ought to send a shiver down the spine of every 
U.S. producer who could be held to the very same standard.
  Finally, in addition to being totally unnecessary and a terrible 
precedent for all American farmers and producers, the Brown amendment 
will severely harm many thousands of farmers and their families, none 
of whom consider themselves to be particularly privileged or coddled. 
These people work hard. They work their soil. They pay their taxes. 
They build their communities. They raise their families. And this 
amendment will make all of that much harder by taking money out of 
their pockets and giving it to foreign countries. So I think this is 
really a terrible idea, Mr. President. I certainly hope the Senate will 
reject it.
  At this point, if debate is concluded, on behalf of Senator Helms and 
myself I move to table the Brown amendment.
  Mr. FORD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table amendment No. 2318 offered by the Senator from Colorado to the 
committee amendment on page 32. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 213 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bond
     Boren
     Breaux
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lott
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--37

     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Brown
     Bryan
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Durenberger
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hutchison
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Metzenbaum
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pell
     Reid
     Roth
     Smith
     Specter
  So the motion to table the amendment (No. 2318) 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.


                           amendment no. 2305

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to express my 
support for the amendment offered yesterday by the Senator from Arizona 
[Mr. McCain], and the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] to remove from 
this bill an ill-conceived provision which would prevent States from 
fully implementing welfare reforms. The provision to which I am 
referring would prevent States from cashing out food stamp benefits if 
they had not already received a waiver to do so by July 1, 1994.
  This provision sends a very dangerous message to the States. It tells 
them, not to be implement innovative reforms of their welfare system. 
With welfare reform at the top of the minds of most people in America, 
this is exactly the wrong message to send.
  Currently, Mr. President, 20 States have implemented or are about to 
implement welfare reform programs which rely on the cashing out of food 
stamp benefits. Many others are looking at ways to reform their welfare 
systems which may or may not include converting food stamp benefits to 
cash.
  The point is that the Federal Government should provide a great deal 
of flexibility to the States to implement innovative welfare programs. 
Far too often we feel that all wisdom lies in the Halls of Congress. In 
the real world, outside the Capital Beltway, bold and effective 
programs are being proposed every day which are years ahead of where we 
are at in the Congress. It is unfortunate that this one line buried 
deep within the Agriculture appropriations bill could undermine all the 
accomplishments of the States.
  It is ironic that while many of the welfare reform proposals which 
have been introduced here in the Senate rely on cashing out of food 
stamp benefits, including the bill proposed by President Clinton, the 
sponsors of this bill seek to prevent States from cashing out food 
stamp benefits.
  In Washington State we had an extensive study of a cashout program. A 
major part of the Family Independence Program [FIP] was conversion of 
food stamp benefits into cash. This program's authorization has 
concluded and a report was recently released detailing findings from a 
study of the program. The report found that the food stamp conversion 
program resulted in significant administrative costs savings and did 
not threaten the nutritional health of recipients. I ask unanimous 
consent that a section of the report focusing on the cashout program be 
inserted in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  The overall savings of the program were remarkable.

       The cost of the coupon system for all 115,360 food stamp 
     households in Washington State as of July 1991 was $953,301 
     per month (or $6.84 per case). Cashing out food stamps for 
     just the AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children 
     program) and FIP households in the State would save $173,625 
     per month (or $1.25 per case). Cashing out food stamp 
     benefits for all food stamp households in the State * * * 
     would save $243,136 per month (or $1.75 per case).

  In total, cashing out food stamps for just AFDC and FIP households 
would save the State of Washington just over $2 million each year. It 
would save Washington nearly $3 million each year to cash out all of 
its food stamp recipients. Clearly, food stamp cashout programs can be 
justified on a cost savings basis.
  The arguments that we have heard today rely mainly on the fact that a 
person who receives cash tends to spend less money on food than do food 
stamp coupon recipients. It is an argument based on the belief that if 
given the chance to control their own lives, welfare recipients would 
make the wrong decisions. Perhaps they would make some mistakes, but I 
believe that many people would make the right decisions.
  Well, again, let us look at Washington State.
  While Washington State's experience did indicate that cashout 
families spent about $7 less per month on food purchases than did 
coupon households, the program also found that this decreased spending 
did not threaten the health of the recipients. The mean food energy and 
protein was still ``higher than the relative RDAs''--recommended daily 
allowance. Cashout families ingested 132 percent of the RDA for food 
energy and 243 percent of the RDA for protein. This was slightly less 
than that ingested by coupon families. The report goes on to say that, 
``The same was true for vitamins A, C, and B6, calcium, iron, folacin, 
and zinc.'' The report goes on to say that,

       Per dollar spent on food, however, nutrient availability 
     was actually higher for cash than for coupon households for 
     several of the nutrients. In other words, the dollars spent 
     by cashout households on food bought more nutrients per 
     dollars spent.* * * And cashout families also were more 
     likely to participate in the commodities program (20 versus 8 
     percent) and WIC [the special food supplemental program for 
     women, infants and children] (49 percent versus 37 percent * 
     * *) than were coupon households.

  Clearly, Mr. President, the moneys spent by the cashout families were 
not wasted. In fact, one might argue that they actually made wiser 
purchases than did coupon families by seeking out foods with higher 
nutritional values and participating in other programs.
  Let us also look at what these families did with the money that was 
not spent on food. Cashout families spent more on housing and utilities 
and transportation expenses than did coupon families. Notably, cashout 
families spent less on recreation than did coupon families. Like most 
families in America, cashout families were forced to make difficult 
decisions on budgeting and shuffled their moneys according to their 
needs. As the report concludes, ``These budgeting choices are clearly 
not easy.'' But, I would add, these choices are essential to preparing 
families for the realities they will face once off of welfare.
  One final point raised by the survey touched on the benefits of the 
cashout program which cannot be measured in dollars or RDA's. 
Participants in Washington State's cashout program found checks to be 
less embarrassing and allowed the recipients to feel more dignified. 
The importance of maintaining ones dignity cannot be overstated. If we 
truly want welfare recipients to become independent we must implement 
programs which will not only empower them financially but also builds 
their self-esteem and self-reliance.
  Mr. President, if we are truly interested in reforming the welfare 
system in a way that achieves cost savings and promotes independence, 
we will continue to allow States to enact reforms without Federal 
interference. I am pleased that yesterday the Senate adopted the McCain 
amendment to remove the ban on food stamp cashout programs from this 
otherwise very good bill.

                               Exhibit 1

 Chapter VI--Food Stamp Cashout Under FIP: Administrative Costs, Food 
                      Use, and Recipient Attitudes

     (Some charts referred to have been omitted)
       A major component of the FIP benefit structure was 
     substitution of cash for food stamp coupons by incorporating 
     the food stamp benefit amount into the public assistance 
     check. This chapter reports on the effect of this food stamp 
     cashout on administrative costs, and on food use, and 
     recipient* attitudes.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes to appear at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                          administrative costs

       The administrative cost estimates are derived by summing 
     costs across a large set of discrete activities within four 
     functional categories.\12\ The functional categories are: 
     authorization, issuance, daily reconciliation, and monthly 
     reconciliation. Authorization involves determination of 
     eligibility for new applicants, as well as periodic 
     recertification of eligibility for on-going participants. 
     Issuance is actual delivery of food assistance to the 
     recipient and all activities related to lost or stolen 
     coupons or checks. Daily reconciliation involves reviewing 
     and recoding daily transactions and balancing records for the 
     coupon stock. Monthly reconciliation involves reconciliation 
     of state and federal records, and preparation of monthly 
     management information reports. Figure VI.1 shows the overall 
     operation of the coupon and check delivery systems in terms 
     of these four functional categories.
       The administrative costs for each functional category for 
     the check and coupon systems were estimated through the 
     following sequence: Document all administrative activities at 
     the state and local levels, by type of staff conducting the 
     activity; Measure the amount of time required each time an 
     activity was performed (i.e., minutes per unit of activity);
       Measure the number of times per month each activity was 
     performed (i.e., frequency);
       Compute the minutes per month for each activity (amount of 
     time per activity times frequency); and
       Compute the cost of each activity based on the amount of 
     time and the salary costs of the staff performing the 
     activity.
       Administrative costs were included in the calculation of 
     the cost difference when there was a difference between the 
     two systems in either frequency of performance or unit cost 
     per case. If an activity served both AFDC and food stamp 
     delivery purposes under the cashout system, but was specific 
     to the AFDC system under the coupon system, the cost of that 
     activity was included in the costs of each system (see 
     further discussion of joint costs below).


                         Coupon and Check Costs

       Table VI.1 presents cost estimates for the coupon and check 
     systems, as well as an estimate of the actual monthly savings 
     per case cashed out.\13\ As the right-hand column indicates, 
     the check system cost less to administer than the coupon 
     system. Monthly net savings for each cashed-out FIP household 
     were estimated at $1.84.

  TABLE VI.1--SELECTED ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS PER HOUSEHOLD PER MONTH OF THE FIP FOOD STAMP CASHOUT DEMONSTRATION 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Selected Coupon System Costs         Selected Check System Costs    
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Cost   
               Activities                              Direct    Joint FSP/                Joining    difference
                                         Direct FSP     AFDCa       AFDC     Direct FSP   FSP/AFDC     (coupon- 
                                                                                                        check)  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorization:                                                                                                  
    Application, Expedited Benefits and                                                                         
     Identification Costs..............       $1.44  ..........  ..........       $0.92  ..........        $.052
    Holding and Redirecting Benefits...  ..........  ..........       $2.26  ..........       $2.92      ($0.66)
    Disbursement/Mailing of Food Coupon                                                                         
     Authorization Cards and Checks....      b$0.23       $0.26  ..........       $0.03       $0.26       $0.20 
Issuance:                                                                                                       
    Disbursement/Mailing of Coupons....      c$1.21  ..........  ..........       $0.07  ..........       $1.14 
    Duplicate Issuance.................       $1.05       $0.28  ..........  ..........       $0.82       $0.51 
Daily Reconciliation...................       $0.05  ..........  ..........       $0.00  ..........       $0.05 
Monthly Reporting......................       $0.08       $0.19  ..........  ..........       $0.19       $0.08 
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................       $4.06       $0.73       $2.26       $1.02       $4.19       $1.84 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aTo preserve comparability, direct costs for AFDC activities under the coupon system are only included when     
  those activities are subsumed under joint activities in the check system.                                     
bThis figure is calculated using observed proportions of direct authorization/coupon issuance in coupon sites.  
cThis figure is based on observed proportions of (i) over-the-counter food coupon authorization redemption, (ii)
  regular mail coupon delivery, (iii) certified mail coupon delivery. In Washington State the least cost private
  sector charge for redeeming an authorization card was $1.40.                                                  
                                                                                                                
Source: Tabulations by the Urban Institute.                                                                     

       A distinction is made in the table between ``joint'' and 
     ``direct'' activities. A joint activity is one that serves 
     both a public assistance and a food stamp purpose. For 
     example, an individual who moves may contact her/his 
     financial worker to request that her food stamp and AFDC 
     benefits be redirected through a local office closer to her 
     new home. A direct activity serves only one program. For 
     example, the activities associated with providing needy 
     households with expedited food stamp benefits are relevant 
     only to the food stamp program.
       The feature of the Washington State cashout design that is 
     most important for administrative costs is that cashout 
     enables food stamp benefits to be included in the welfare 
     check distribution system. Under the coupon system, food 
     coupon authorization cards (FCAs) are mailed separately from 
     AFDC checks, lost benefits are replaced separately for the 
     two programs, and the control and reconciliation systems are 
     separate. Activities directly attributable to food benefit 
     delivery under the coupon system account for over 62 percent 
     of the costs that are affected by cashout. Under the check 
     system, most food benefit activities are absorbed in the 
     system designed to deliver other forms of income assistance. 
     This closer integration reduces the proportion of the costs 
     directly attributable to food benefit delivery under the 
     check system to 21 percent.
       Authorization. Authorization costs were estimated in three 
     categories, as shown in the Table VI.1. The check system 
     resulted in an estimated $0.52 reduction in application, 
     expedited benefits, and identification costs per household 
     per month over the coupon system. Because no identification 
     cards had to be issued under the cashout system but are 
     required for clients to pick up their coupons, cashout 
     eliminates the costs of preparing and delivering 
     identification cards.
       Holding and redirecting benefits (joint costs) were more 
     expensive under cashout than under the coupon system. It is 
     not clear that this should be included as a cashout cost, 
     however, because the increased incidence of holds and 
     redirects under FIP was not due to cashout. Because of the 
     wide range of activities under FIP and the differential 
     rewards associated with them, more frequent contact with CSO 
     workers was required. Holds on benefits was the typical way 
     of ensuring that the extra contact occurred. Excluding holds 
     and redirects from the cost comparison increases the overall 
     cost savings of the check system relative to the coupon 
     system from $1.84 to $2.50 per case per month.
       The authorization disbursement function saved $0.20 per 
     case per month. We define disbursement of FCAs and checks as 
     an authorization rather than an issuance activity because 
     FCAs and checks authorize the client to receive the direct 
     medium of exchange (coupons or cash money). The FCA activity 
     is a direct cost of the coupon system. Mailing checks, in 
     contrast, is a joint activity. The main direct cost of food 
     benefits disbursement under cashout is the cost of printing 
     and stuffing into the envelope the ``FIP remittance letter,'' 
     telling the client the proportion of the benefit that is the 
     food benefit.
       Issuance. The major savings on issuance, and indeed the 
     largest savings achieved by cashout, comes from reduced costs 
     of coupon disbursement. The only coupon disbursement that 
     occurred under cashout involved the expedited benefits issued 
     to new cases. Reduced coupon issuance accomplished savings of 
     $1.14 per case per month. Cashout also reduced the 
     administrative cost of duplicate issuance by $0.51 per case 
     per month. The primary reason was the reduced loss and theft 
     resulting from combining what were two benefits under AFDC/
     food stamps into one check under FIP/cashout. A second reason 
     was the greater efficiency of the duplicate issuance process 
     itself, because control systems for checks are simpler and 
     more automated than for coupons.
       Daily Reconciliation. Daily reconciliation was costless 
     under cashout because it is a normal function of the banking 
     system. This resulted in a savings of $0.05 per case per 
     month.
       Monthly Reconciliation. Monthly reconciliation under 
     cashout was also handled as a routine activity by the banking 
     system. The $0.08 per case per month saved is the CSO's cost 
     of preparing the required monthly reports under the regular 
     food stamp program.


                             overall costs

       The overall administrative cost implications of cashing out 
     food stamps were estimated by comparing the per case costs 
     under a baseline scenario with the costs under full cashout 
     of public assistance cases within the state. The cost of the 
     coupon system for all 115,360 food stamp households in 
     Washington State as of July 1991 was $953,301 per month (or 
     $6.84 per case). Cashing out food stamps for just the AFDC 
     and FIP households in the state would save $173,625 per month 
     (or $1.25 per case). Cashing out food stamps for all food 
     stamp households in the state (both public assistance and 
     nonpublic assistance cases) would save $243,136 per month (or 
     $1.75 per case).


                    food use and recipient attitudes

       The analysis of the effect of cashing out food stamps on 
     food use and recipient attitudes is based on data collected 
     during in-person interviews conducted over the three-month 
     period between the beginning of August and the end of October 
     1990. The interview was administered to a sample of 1,199 
     one- and two-parent cases. The analysis is based on a sample 
     of 780 cases: 399 cashout households and 381 coupon 
     households. The reduced sample size resulted from a decision 
     to restrict the analysis to ``new'' applicants (i.e., those 
     who applied for public assistance at the treatment and 
     comparison sites after FIP was implemented and were, 
     therefore, automatically assigned to cashout status in the 
     FIP sites). Cases that were already on AFDC when FIP was 
     implemented were excluded because, in the FIP sites, such 
     cases were allowed to choose whether to stay on coupons or 
     switch to cash. Those who chose to switch to cash might (and 
     in fact did) have different characteristics from those who 
     chose to remain on coupons, possibly biasing the results.
       The interviews recorded information on the numbers and 
     types of meals eaten from the household food supply by 
     household members and guests, and the number of meals eaten 
     away from home by each family member. For each type of food 
     used in the household, interviewers recorded the exact type 
     of food, its form when brought into the house (fresh, frozen 
     or canned), the quantity brought into the house, the quantity 
     used, the price paid and the source (purchase, WIC, gift, 
     payment-in-kind).\14\ Income and program participation data 
     provided by respondents were checked for accuracy against 
     data from program administrative records, and no substantial 
     differences were found.
       The primary measure of the net impact of cashout on food 
     use and recipient attitudes is the simple difference between 
     the mean outcome values for check and coupon households. 
     Regression adjustments were applied to selected outcomes to 
     test for differences in the two samples that were not the 
     result of cashout and might bias the simple difference in 
     means as a measure of cashout's impact. These regression-
     adjusted estimates are not reported because they led to 
     essentially the same results, indicating that any differences 
     in household characteristics between the two samples did not 
     measurably influence food use.
       Nutritional status is measured as nutrient availability, 
     meaning the nutrients present and available in the food used 
     at home, whether those nutrients were actually consumed. The 
     seven nutrients used in the analysis are those classified by 
     the Joint Nutrition Monitoring Evaluation Committee (DHHS/
     USDA, 1986) as having priority status or warranting special 
     consideration in public health monitoring: Vitamin A, Vitamin 
     C, Vitamin B6, Calcium, Iron, Folacin, and Zinc. Some 
     measures of nutrient availability in the study use the 
     Recommended Daily Allowances (RDAs) as a benchmark. RDAs are 
     recommended average intakes, not necessarily minimum 
     requirements. Therefore, levels of availability lower than 
     the RDA point to potentially elevated nutritional risk, not 
     necessarily inadequate intake.


                                food use

       Cashout under FIP significantly reduced the amount 
     households spent on food purchased for home consumption 
     (Table VI.2, Panel 1). FIP households spent $65 on food used 
     at home compared to $73 for coupon households. Correcting for 
     the number of meals eaten at home (ENUs) and for household 
     composition (AMEs) yield very similar percentage differences. 
     In contrast, FIP had no impact on the share of total monthly 
     expenditures spent on food purchased for use away from home. 
     Both check and coupon households spent about 3 percent of 
     their total monthly budget on food away from home.
       The difference in total expenditures on food by check and 
     coupon households is reflected in the proportions of their 
     total budgets households spent on food versus other needs 
     (Table VI.2, Panel 2). Check households spent a significantly 
     lower share of their total budget on food than coupon 
     households, although the difference is not large (36 versus 
     39 percent). This difference was compensated for by check 
     households spending somewhat more on shelter (42 versus 40 
     percent) and on transportation (10 versus 9 percent).

            TABLE VI.2--HOUSEHOLD FOOD EXPENDITURES PER MONTH           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Meana       Difference (check-
                                    ----------------       coupon)      
                                                    --------------------
                                     Check   Coupon   Absolute   Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Panel 1: Value of Food Used at Home                  
                                                                        
Food used at home ($):                                                  
    Purchased Food.................    50.8    60.5    ***-9.7     -16.1
    Nonpurchased Food..............    14.6    12.2        2.3      18.9
                                    ------------------------------------
      Total........................    65.3    72.8    ***-7.4     -10.2
                                    ====================================
Food Used at Home per ENU ($):                                          
    Purchased Food.................    28.3    33.4    ***-5.1     -15.4
    Nonpurchased Food..............     9.0     9.0        0.02      0.2
                                    ------------------------------------
      Total........................    37.3    42.4    ***-5.1     -12.1
                                    ====================================
Food used at home per AME ($):                                          
    Purchased Food.................    24.7    29.3    ***-4.6     -15.7
    Nonpurchsed Food...............     7.9     7.2        0.7      10.0
                                    ------------------------------------
      Total........................    32.6    36.5    ***-3.9     -10.7
                                    ====================================
                                                                        
  Panel 2: Distribution of Total Monthly Budget by Expenditure Category 
                                                                        
All Food...........................  \1\36.                             
                                          0  \1\38.                     
                                                  8    ***-2.7      -7.0
  Food Use at Home.................  \1\32.                             
                                          7  \1\35.                     
                                                  3    ***-2.6      -7.5
  Food Used away from Home.........  \1\3.3  \1\3.4       -0.1      -2.5
All Shelter........................  \1\42.                             
                                          3  \1\40.                     
                                                  3       *2.1       5.1
  Housing..........................  \1\31.                             
                                          7  \1\30.                     
                                                  7        1.0       3.3
  Utilities........................  \1\10.                             
                                          8  \1\9.9        0.9       8.7
Transportation.....................  \1\10.                             
                                          3  \1\8.9      **1.4      16.1
Clothing...........................  \1\5.4  \1\5.8       -0.5      -8.2
Recreation.........................  \1\3.3  \1\3.5       -0.2      -6.3
Other..............................  \1\2.8  \1\3.2       b0.3      12.0
                                    ====================================
Sample Size........................  \1\399  \1\381  ..........  .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Tabulations by the Urban Institute.                             
Percent difference=(mean check--mean coupon)/mean coupon.               
* (**) (***) Difference is significantly different from zero at the .10 
  (.05) (.01) level, two-tailed test.                                   
n.c.=not computed.                                                      
aIndividual budget shares are calculated on an observation-by-          
  observation basis. Missing values are deleted in comparison of means  
  but treated as zeros in calculation of total household expenditures.  
bStatistical significance not computed.                                 
                                                                        
\1\Percent.                                                             

       The lower dollar amount spent on food by check households 
     is reflected in the lower quantity and nutritional value of 
     the household food supply available to cashout than to coupon 
     households. With respect to quantity, check households used 
     on average 40 pounds of food per week per ENU, compared to 44 
     pounds for coupon households (not shown). With respect to 
     nutrient availability, the mean for food energy and protein 
     was significantly less for check than for coupon households, 
     although still higher than the relevant RDAs (132 versus 144 
     percent of the RDA for food energy, 243 versus 265 percent of 
     the RDA for protein). The same was true for Vitamins A, C, 
     and B6, Calcium, Iron, Folacin, and Zinc. Per dollar spent on 
     food, however, nutrient availability was actually higher for 
     cash than for coupon households for several of the nutrients. 
     In other words, the dollars spent by cashout households on 
     food bought more nutrients per dollar spent.
       Finally, cashout was associated with changes in the 
     locations in which households bought food and the extent to 
     which they participated in other food assistance programs. 
     Cashout households spent less of their food budget at 
     supermarkets (84 versus 89 percent of the budget share going 
     for food) and more at types of food outlets less likely to 
     accept coupons. And cashout households also were more likely 
     to participate in the commodities program (20 versus 8 
     percent) and WIC (49 versus 37 percent of households with 
     pregnant women or children under age 5) than were coupon 
     households.


                           recipient attitude

       Members of both the FIP and AFDC groups saw advantages to 
     both check and coupon issuance. The three most commonly 
     mentioned advantages of checks over coupons were that: (1) 
     checks can be used for other necessities (51 percent of check 
     recipients and 42 percent of coupon recipients), (2) checks 
     are less embarrassing (28 percent of check recipients and 13 
     percent of coupon recipients), and (3) checks allow you to 
     feel more dignified (18 percent of check recipients and 5 
     percent of coupon recipients). Consistent with the findings 
     on food purchasing patterns, 9 percent of check households 
     and 8 percent of coupon households noted that checks offer 
     more choice of food stores.
       The primary advantages of coupons over checks relate to 
     household budgeting. Over 73 percent of coupon respondents 
     agreed or strongly agreed that food stamps give more control 
     over the household budget, compared with 35 percent of check 
     households. Over 80 percent of coupon households agreed or 
     strongly agreed that food stamp coupons are helpful in 
     budgeting, compared with 57 percent of check households.


                              conclusions

       In recent years, the possibility of issuing food stamp 
     benefits in the form of checks instead of coupons has 
     received increasing attention. Supporters argue that cashing 
     out benefits would save administrative costs, give clients 
     more freedom of choice in spending decisions, and reduce the 
     stigma associated with coupon use. Opponents argue that it 
     may lead clients to increase spending on nonfood needs and on 
     prepared food or food eaten away from home--resulting in 
     lower diet quality.
       The FIP cashout demonstration is one among several testing 
     some or all of these hypotheses. The earliest two were the 
     SSI/Elderly demonstration and the Puerto Rico Nutrition 
     Assistance Program. More recent demonstrations have been 
     implemented in Alabama (two demonstrations) and San Diego 
     County, California.
       The FIP results provide further support for the findings in 
     other demonstration contexts that cashing out food benefits 
     does indeed achieve administrative cost savings. The two 
     early demonstrations did not show evidence of reduced food 
     use or nutrient availability as a result of cashout, possibly 
     because of the particular populations examined or 
     methodological constraints on the evaluations. However, the 
     FIP experience is consistent with the results in two of the 
     three other recent demonstrations. Cashout can reduce the 
     money welfare clients spend on food and the quantity of food 
     and nutrients available to them.
       However, most households' nutrient availability under FIP 
     was still well above the RDAs for food energy, protein, and 
     the seven nutrients examined, and cashout households were 
     able to spend higher proportions of their incomes on shelter 
     and transportation. These budgeting choices are clearly not 
     easy. Check households report somewhat greater difficulty in 
     budgeting food expenses than those receiving coupons. Both 
     check and coupon households see cashout as reducing the 
     stigma of receiving food assistance. An important issue for 
     policymakers is how to evaluate the tradeoff between greater 
     spending flexibility, reduced stigma, and lower 
     administrative costs, on the one hand, and reduced food 
     expenditures and nutrient availability, on the other.


                               footnotes

     \11\This chapter is based on N. Young and R. Yudd. 
     ``Administrative Costs in the Washington State Food Stamp 
     Cashout Demonstration.'' Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 
     1993; and B. Cohen and N. Young. ``Evaluation of the 
     Washington State Food Stamp Cashout Demonstration.'' 
     Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
     \12\The administrative cost study is based on three data 
     sources. The primary data collection instrument was an 
     Administrative Cost Survey (ACS) of 49 local CSO staff in 
     treatment and comparison sites. In addition, state-level 
     interviews were conducted with DSHS and State Treasurer's 
     Office staff involved with both the regular coupon system and 
     FIP's cashout component. DSHS Office of Workload Analysis 
     time estimates by task were also used. The ACS and state-
     level interviews were conducted during the period April 
     through September 1991.
     \13\Fixed costs, such as rent for the Direct Mail Unit and 
     CSO costs due to maintaining an open food stamp window every 
     day, were not included in the cost comparisons, since these 
     costs were unaffected by the FIP cashout. Estimates suggest 
     that total fixed costs are no more than 5 percent of total 
     administrative costs.
     \14\AME units adjusts household size for the age and sex of 
     household members by weighting each member by her or his 
     nutritional requirements relative to the dietary 
     recommendation for food energy for an adult male. ENU units 
     adjusts household size for each nutrient relative to an adult 
     male and then further adjusts for the proportion of meals 
     eaten at home and the number of meals served to guests. The 
     benefit unit used for this analysis, referred to throughout 
     as ``household,'' is the food consumption unit (FCU), defined 
     as people living together who eat from the same food supply. 
     For measures of food use, we adjust the FCU for household 
     size to correct for specific household and individual 
     characteristics (adult male equivalent units--AMEs) and for 
     the number of meals served to guests or eaten away from home 
     (equivalent nutrition units--ENUs).


                           amendment no. 2313

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, regarding an amendment I offered 
yesterday on behalf of Senators Hollings, Murray, and Gramm, I 
neglected to explain its purpose. The amendment adds $5,000,000 for the 
U.S. Vegetable Lab in South Carolina; it adds $1,908,000 for the animal 
disease biotechnology facility in Washington; and it adds $1,000,000 
for the plant stress lab in Texas.


                            1994 crop losses

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my gratitude to the 
managers of the fiscal year 1995 agriculture appropriations bill, 
Senators Bumpers and Cochran, for their assistance in offering an 
amendment to the appropriations bill providing such funds as necessary 
for 1994 crop losses. I am also pleased to cosponsor Senator Heflin's 
amendment, which will provide additional assistance to flooded areas 
through emergency community water assistance grants, very low-income 
housing repair grants, and the Emergency Conservation Program.
  Senator Heflin shared with the Senate Monday his observations of the 
flooding in Alabama, and I can only concur with his assessment of the 
devastation. I might add that according to the Georgia State ASCS 
office, as of Friday, July 15, 35,000 acres of cotton had been impacted 
by floodwater in Senator Heflin's native Worth County, GA. Worth is 1 
of 45 counties declared a disaster area in Georgia.
  Mr. President, farmers in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida are certainly 
not strangers to disaster. Our farmers have extensive experience with 
drought, but flooding is something else entirely. It is unprecedented. 
My staff and I have spoken with plant pathologists, farmers, 
historians, and other experts and the conclusion is the same: we simply 
do not know how this flood will affect Georgia agriculture. In the 
meantime, our farmers are contractually bound to deliver peanuts, 
cotton, pecans, peaches, and soybeans that are under water, or feed 
cattle that have drowned or have nothing to eat.
  Under the terms of the 1990 farm bill, the most a farmer with a total 
loss can hope for is 42 percent of the value of his crop, and as our 
colleagues know, in 1990, 1991, and 1992 disaster payments were 
prorated 50.04 percent. Mr. President, because of the scale of last 
year's flooding, I supported an amendment offered by Senators Harkin 
and Bond to last year's supplemental appropriations bill which allowed 
for full funding of disaster payments for 1993 crop losses. The 
flooding we have seen in south Georgia is no less devastating, and I am 
pleased that Senators Bumpers and Cochran have indicated that their 
amendment will provide full benefits for 1994 crop losses.
  Does the Senator from Arkansas intend to propose an amendment 
providing emergency funding for disaster assistance for 1994 crop 
losses?
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is correct. Senator Cochran and I will be proposing 
a manager's amendment to the 1995 agriculture appropriations bill which 
will provide such funds as necessary for 1994 crop losses.
  Mr. NUNN. Will the amendment provide for full disaster benefits to 
producers who experience crop losses this year?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes. Our amendment will provide full disaster assistance 
to producers who have experienced losses in 1994 in accordance with 
chapter 3, subtitle B, title 22 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, 
and Trade Act of 1990.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank Senators Bumpers, Cochran, and their staffs for 
their support on this vital matter and I look forward to working with 
him to ensure expeditious consideration and enactment of this 
legislation.


                 centers for wood utilization research

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Senator 
Bumpers, in a colloquy regarding the Cooperative State Research Service 
[CSRS] special research grants.
  As the manager of the bill may be aware, the Centers for Wood 
Utilization Research in Michigan, Mississippi, and Oregon, have been 
funded through CSRS grants for several years. The Michigan State 
University program began in 1986. The programs' purpose is to stimulate 
new knowledge and capability that will help maintain a vigorous, 
competitive domestic forest products industry. These centers are 
strategically located to allow research to focus on the utilization and 
harvesting of eastern hardwood, southern pine, and western softwood 
species. Last year, a new program was added in Maine for softwood 
resources in that State, and in North Carolina which focusses on tools 
and machinery.
  Presently, the House and the Senate committees' reports do not 
specifically mention the Michigan program as eligible to continue 
participating in this program. Loss of the program in Michigan would 
greatly reduce the rapid exchange and adaption of advances in fiber 
recycling, wood preservation, automated lumber processing, etc. that 
goes on between programs. Without Michigan's contribution, the research 
aspect focussed on wise utilization of hard wood species would be 
eliminated.
  The center at Michigan State University has achieved great success. 
The center has developed: First, processes for manufacturing composite 
boards for recycled paper, which reduce harvest of hardwoods and 
resolves environmental problems associated with de-inking; second, a 
computerized laser machining process for hardwood lumber that reduces 
harvest by almost 25 percent through increased efficiency and which 
eliminates many health hazards in the work place, and, third, a process 
for manufacturing thermoplastics from wood, which allow substitution of 
wood for nonrenewable resources.
  Mr. President, I could continue to extol the virtues of the Michigan 
center's participation in this program. However, I will conclude by 
requesting that the Senator from Arkansas act in the conference 
committee to continue his previous support for the Michigan program.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from Michigan presents a persuasive case. I 
will present the Senator's case to the conference for its 
consideration.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator for his attention and consideration. 
Lastly, I encourage the Senator to recede to the House levels for the 
CSRS grants for improved fruit practices in Michigan, sustainable 
agriculture, and the Michigan Biotechnology Institute.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I will surely do what I can in conference to support the 
useful research conducted through these grants, which have been funded 
in past years.


                   cooperative development foundation

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman about the 
$2 million in the bill for rural technology and cooperative development 
grants. This program has been used by a national network of cooperative 
development centers working through the Cooperative Development 
Foundation to promote the creation of cooperatives as an economic 
development tool. This would be the third consecutive year that funding 
has been provided for this program by the Subcommittee. In fiscal year 
1993, 70 percent of the $1 million appropriated went to a unified 
application presented through the Cooperative Development Foundation.
  It is my understanding that the $1.5 million appropriated for fiscal 
year 1994 has not yet been allotted by USDA, but will hopefully be 
allocated in the near future.
  It has been my experience that the CDE effort closely matches the 
intent of the Congress in authorizing this program. Eight centers 
spread across the country serve as catalysts by bringing together 
resources already available on the local level to create cooperatives 
that provide economic opportunity to local citizens.
  Mr. President, is it the intent of the subcommittee that this program 
should continue to be funded on a national level, with the department 
allocating the funding directly to entities like the Cooperative 
Development Foundation, instead of distributing this small amount of 
funding to each State for their individual distribution?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I would answer my friend that I expect the Department to 
administer this program in such a manner that it will provide the 
greatest benefits. I am familiar with the work of the Cooperative 
Development Foundation and am supportive of it. I expect the Department 
will again consider this foundation for funding under this program.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President. I thank the chairman for his work on behalf 
of this program.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to commend the Agriculture 
Appropriations Subcommittee on the bill they reported out. They had 
severe budgetary constraints with immense pressure to increase funding 
for numerous programs that were worthy of funding.
  However, Mr. President, I do have some concerns with the bill as 
reported out of committee.
  I am disappointed that we could not provide more money to the Soil 
Conservation Service for the purpose of improving water management, 
water quality, and watershed planning.
  I also want to express my deep concern about the proposed closing of 
the USDA Agricultural Research Service [ARS] at the University of 
Kentucky. As you know, the President's budget zeroed out funding for 
all tobacco research offices including the ARS research office located 
at the University of Kentucky in Lexington.
  The decision on closing the office seems to relate to the fact the 
programs in Kentucky are oriented toward tobacco. The programs carried 
out by the agriculture research unit have been of long standing, and 
they are well integrated into the cooperative efforts of the Kentucky 
Agricultural Experiment Station; the results of their research have 
been very positive benefiting farmers and industry in Kentucky and the 
region.
  The total loss of Kentucky jobs will number 16--8 research scientists 
and 8 technical support staff. These scientists will have to leave 
their research and relocate to other States, making Kentucky one of the 
few State's in the country without a USDA research unit. I am fully 
aware of the budgetary constraints that this committee has faced; 
however, I cannot understand how a positive impact can be made on the 
Federal budget by this closing. Kentucky is a leading agriculture 
State, it stands to reason that the agriculture sector should benefit 
from a USDA research unit.
  This research is important to all types of crops--not necessarily 
just tobacco. Tobacco plants are used in basic research all the time--
naturally that research would benefit research for other crops and 
plants as well.
  Let me just give you some examples of the varying research that is 
conducted at the university research center. Research is conducted on 
the physiology and biochemistry between tobacco and black shank fungus. 
Mention black shank fungus to tobacco farmers and you will see them 
cringe. Black shank lives in the soil and attacks the roots and stem of 
the plants. It can eventually destroy the roots, causing the plants to 
die from lack of water. Last year in Kentucky, we had black shank in 
almost every county, and although we may never get rid of the fungus--
we can control it. The University of Kentucky Ag Research facility did 
extensive tests on how to control this disease that can wipe out burley 
tobacco and bankrupt a farmer.

  As a plant, tobacco is very useful in studying various disease 
processes and genetics. The University of Kentucky is responsible for 
several research projects involving the scientific value of the tobacco 
plant. For instance, using tobacco cells and a tobacco virus, research 
has shown that amino acids in viral proteins have the capability of 
preventing insects from transmitting a virus. The phenomenon of 
pathogen-derived resistance [PDR] is also being investigated in order 
to create a resistance to plant viruses. In addition, the University of 
Kentucky uses tobacco to research plant immunization as an alternative 
to pesticide applications. With a certain chemical compound, plants can 
be triggered to resist infectious agents. The value of these projects 
researched by the University of Kentucky is very important to the 
present scientific and agricultural community, and to the future.
  As I said before, these examples of research are vital not only to 
tobacco but extremely beneficial for research of other plants and 
crops. The research conducted is being carried out by the Departments 
of Plant Pathology, Agronomy, and Entomology.
  The research being conducted today, and hopefully in the future, may 
unlock a cure for Parkinsons disease, AIDS, or help in the treatment of 
severely burned patients. We cannot afford not to continue this vital 
research.
  I am also disturbed about zeroing out the Market Promotion Program 
and the Foreign Market Development Programs. These programs have been 
extremely important in helping U.S. agriculture build, maintain and 
expand export markets. They have also promoted greater awareness and 
demand among foreign consumers for U.S. produced agricultural 
commodities and products.
  I urge my colleagues to continue support for USDA's Market Promotion 
Program and Foreign Market Development Programs.
  Mr. President, I am fully aware of the need to provide the necessary 
revenues to allow the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] to operate in 
an efficient manner. However, I seriously question whether granting FDA 
the authority in this bill to impose user fees on food products is the 
solution to this issue. User fees, in effect, would constitute an 
inappropriate tax on products, essential to the health and well being 
of the American public--a tax, of $600 million over the next 4 years. 
Although the user fees initially would be paid by food companies, these 
costs would be passed back to the producer or on to the consumer in the 
form of an indirect tax on basic necessities.
  Furthermore, even leaving aside the policy considerations, I am led 
to believe that it would be almost impossible for the FDA to design, 
give appropriate notice and opportunity for comment, and implement 
these fees in time to raise the revenues contemplated by the 
appropriations bill. If so, the essential functions of the FDA would be 
compromised and the public interest would not be served, and Congress 
would be at fault for not acting responsibly during the appropriations 
process.
  The House did not direct the FDA to implement user fees. In fact, 
they prohibited FDA from imposing such fees. I believe the conferees 
should adopt the House position and look for other means to fund the 
FDA appropriations.
  Last, I would like to add that I strongly support the bill language 
to prohibit FDA from lowering the selenium supplementation in animal 
feed from 0.3 to 0.1 parts per million until additional studies are 
completed. The problem is FDA is going to implement this change on 
September 13 without sound scientific study. Without sufficient 
quantities of selenium, animal immune systems are weakened, and when 
stressed the animals die. Selenium in feed is used to maintain healthy 
poultry, hogs, lambs, and calves.
  Mr. President, I commend the managers of this bill for their hard 
work and difficult decisions they have made to bring this bill before 
us.


 Vote on Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 32, Line 20 Through Page 
                                   33

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the excepted 
committee amendment on page 32, line 20 through page 33?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if I could get some feel from 
the Members of the Senate now as to amendments. I think we are getting 
fairly close to being able to wrap this bill up.
  The amendments that I rather expect a rollcall vote on at this moment 
are the amendment by the Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] dealing with 
cellular phones at FDA, and one by Mr. Helms, the nature of which I do 
not know.
  If I could have the attention of the Senator from North Carolina for 
just a moment.
  Mr. HELMS. Yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from North Carolina has an additional 
amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. Yes, I do. I have one.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Does the Senator anticipate a rollcall vote?
  Mr. HELMS. Yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator tell us something of the nature of the 
amendment?
  Mr. HELMS. I will give the Senator a copy. It is on the way over 
here.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, could I ask a question, if the Senator 
will yield to me?
  We have a committee amendment which is now the pending business 
before the Senate. And the question that I want to raise is whether any 
Senator on this side of the aisle wishes to offer an amendment to that 
committee amendment.
  We had earlier excepted that committee amendment from the en bloc 
amendment that we presented at the beginning of the deliberations on 
this bill. One of the reasons was that the Senator from North Carolina 
[Mr. Helms] wanted us to save that amendment for the purpose of his 
offering a second-degree amendment to it but Senator Brown offered his 
amendment to that amendment.
  So that is my question. Can we go ahead and adopt this committee 
amendment, or does any Senator seek to amend that committee amendment?
  Senator Hatch is ready to offer his amendment. We could either take 
up Senator Hatch's amendment and ask that the committee amendment be 
laid aside or proceed to offer an amendment to the committee amendment. 
That is the procedural situation I want to be sure we all understand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have the feeling we just adopted the 
committee amendment, did we not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We adopted the excepted committee amendment on 
page 32, line 20 through page 33.
  Mr. BUMPERS. We have one other committee amendment.
  I just want to alert the Senator from North Carolina he needs to key 
his amendment to that particular amendment. I say to the Senator from 
North Carolina we have held open one committee amendment on page 71 for 
the benefit of the Senator from North Carolina to offer an amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. I am going to use it in just a minute.
  Mr. BUMPERS. So we have two potential rollcall votes here.
  I have one other that is to be offered by the Senator from Missouri 
[Mr. Danforth]. I wonder if the Senator----
  Mr. DANFORTH. I will not offer an amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. No. That is the best news I have had in 3 days.
  Mr. DANFORTH. The Senator is welcome.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, we have one amendment by the Senator from 
Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] which might require a rollcall vote if he offers 
it. I do not know whether he will offer it or not.
  Mr. President, I see the Senator from Florida on his feet.
  Does the Senator have an amendment?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I do not. I am here to speak on behalf of 
the amendment of the Senator from Alabama at the appropriate time.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Are there any other amendments that any Senator has?
  I have not mentioned Senator Dole. Is his amendment likely to require 
a rollcall vote?
  Mr. DOLE. I doubt it.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me ask the Senator, this is not an amendment that we 
adopted last night on his behalf, is it?
  Mr. DOLE. No.
  Mr. BUMPERS. OK.
  That is where we are. We have four or five that I do not expect to be 
controversial. We should be able to wind down here by midafternoon, 
hopefully.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, there are some 
other amendments that this Senator has been advised may be offered, 
including amendments by Senator Specter, by Senator Gramm, by Senator 
McConnell, by Senator McCain, and an amendment by Senator Brown, unless 
he decided not to offer that amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am not going to offer an amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, Senator Dole has just announced he is not 
going to offer an amendment.
  But with what the distinguished ranking member has just said, I 
suggest Members cancel their plans for the evening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


   Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 71, Lines 21 Through 25, As 
                                Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is aware that the pending business 
is the amendment on page 71, lines 21 through 25, as amended.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2319

    (Purpose: To permit the use of savings from expenses related to 
cellular telephone use by the Food and Drug Administration for medical 
 device approval activities of the Center for Devices and Radiological 
                                Health)

  Mr. HATCH. 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 assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] for himself and Mr. Ford, 
     proposes an amendment number 2319.

  Mr. HATCH. 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 72, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       None of the funds appropriated under this Act may be used 
     by the Food and Drug Administration for the purchase or 
     rental of cellular telephones for use by the Food and Drug 
     Administration, and for the service and airtime fees related 
     to the use of any cellular telephone used by the Food and 
     Drug Administration (except that expenses may be incurred for 
     the service and airtime fees for the use of one cellular 
     telephone). Any funds under this Act that were to be used by 
     the Food and Drug Administration for the purchase or rental 
     of cellular telephones for use by the Food and Drug 
     administration, and for the service and airtime fees related 
     to the use of any cellular telephone used by the Food and 
     Drug Administration (except expenses with respect to the 
     service and airtime fees for the use of one cellular 
     telephone) shall instead be used for the medical device 
     approval activities of the Center for Devices and 
     Radiological Health.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I do not want to take long on this 
amendment. I do not want to inconvenience our colleagues, especially 
the two leaders of the bill. I am hopeful they will take this amendment 
once I explain it.
  The purpose of the Hatch-Ford amendment is to reestablish our sense 
of fiscal priorities with respect to the funding of one tiny agency 
within this bill: the Food and Drug Administration.
  What our amendment does is this. It says that the FDA must take the 
money it has been using to support an inordinately large number of 
cellular telephones and instead put that money to good use. The FDA 
should use the money to speed up medical device approvals.
  The Appropriations Committee has recognized that the FDA's approval 
rate for devices is not what any of us would like. Applications are up, 
and approval times are down.
  In fact, the committee report language is quite strong. It says:

     committee expects the Center to take immediate and forceful 
     action to resolve delay problems and set clear priorities so 
     it can devote its resources to reviewing important new 
     products, which can assist medical providers in diagnosing 
     and treating illnesses and conditions which affect the 
     American patient population

  These lags in approval times are stifling an industry which once was 
among the most competitive in the world. This regulatory confusion 
thwarts innovation and drives companies offshore where they can get 
their products approved in a timely fashion. As the United States slips 
as a worldwide leader, other countries are taking this over.
  Some say that user fees are the answer to this problem. I do not 
happen to agree with that. But I do feel that if resources are the 
problem, this amendment would provide a partial solution.
  If the device approvals are down because we are not devoting enough 
resources to the program, then I think we need to look within the 
Government first to see if we can make the efficiencies we need to 
improve the system before we impose what amounts to a tax on innovation 
on device manufacturers, the majority of which are very small companies 
that really cannot afford it.
  Our colleague in the House, Representative Joe McDade, found out 
earlier this year that the FDA--by their own estimates--is spending 
$288,184 a year to maintain 326 cellular telephones. This is astounding 
to me and it should be to each Member of this body.
  Listen to these figures. The agency has paid $97,800 to purchase 326 
cellular phones. They pay $17 monthly per phone for service charges at 
an annual cost of $66,504. They pay $680 on average for each phone for 
air time. This is a substantial investment. As Representative McDade 
found, this totals almost $300,000 a year just for air time and service 
costs. I simply think expenditures of that amount are a luxury in light 
of other more pressing needs at the FDA.
  The Hatch-Ford amendment allows FDA to retain the use of funds for 
one cellular telephone. I think that is fair. More substantial use of 
these phones is a luxury in a time when we are slashing deeply into 
very vital programs at the Agriculture Department and within the FDA.

  FDA might allege that all of this phone use is needed, but I am not 
reassured. There is no way to prove it. The HHS inspector general has 
never audited the use of cellular phones at FDA. I can say, that I have 
talked to one FDA employee who told me they did not even want a phone, 
but were assigned one which has never been used.
  If there is this deep need for 326 people to have immediate access to 
phones, then I think we should supply them each with a roll of quarters 
to use the pay phones, like most Americans do. That would cost the 
Government $3,260, and save $284,000.
  What this amendment does is say that the FDA can only use 
appropriated funds to support the use of one cellular telephone. The 
rest of the funds they would have used for these phones, over $277,000, 
would be devoted to the Center for Devices to use in speeding up device 
approval applications.
  Based on HHS estimates of the cost of a full-time equivalent at FDA, 
this amendment should allow, then, support of four new device 
application reviewers. In a year, I understand, four examiners could 
review almost 200 applications. This seems to me to be a much more 
beneficial use of our tax money than support of mobile telephones.
  I will be looking for other ways of finding money out of FDA to be 
used to help speed up the medical devices area of FDA and jurisdiction 
of FDA.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by 
my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, because it is absolutely 
imperative that the Food and Drug Administration accepts its 
responsibility to promptly and fairly review for approval applications 
for possibly life-saving medical devices and technologies. This 
amendment will help to ease the extreme backlog of such applications 
that is jeopardizing the lives of Americans in urgent need for these 
devices. In addition, this amendment will make a first step in the 
attempt to aid the American companies in the medical technology 
industry that are losing millions of dollars in lost profits and are 
being forced to move production and jobs to foreign nations, where the 
application approval process is significantly shorter.
  According to the Health Industry Manufacturers Association, more than 
5,000 applications--think about that--5,000 applications are currently 
awaiting review at the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological 
Health. These are devices that could be saving thousands of American 
lives every year. Many of these same devices have already been approved 
for use and are currently saving lives in Europe and elsewhere around 
the world. Let me give you one example out of many that I have recently 
seen:
  A California company named NOVACOR, a division of Baxter 
International, a large health care corporation, has developed a partial 
artificial heart called the left ventricular assist system. I have been 
told that this device is expected to save more than 35,000 lives in 
Europe this year, but it cannot be sold legally in the United States 
because its application for approval is apparently sitting unreviewed 
in a stack of papers somewhere at the FDA. This device not only could 
be saving American lives, but it also could be generating millions, 
possibly a billion, dollars in sales annually in the United States. 
This holdup may be inconvenient for a large and financially secure 
corporation like Baxter, but it would put many smaller entrepreneurial 
firms right out of business.

  A recent survey of the medical device manufacturing industry 
conducted by the Gallup organization and released by the American 
Electronics Association revealed some startling facts: 83 percent of 
U.S. medical manufacturing companies reported excessive delays by the 
FDA for approval of new products; 45 percent said that they have 
changed the focus of their research and development from breakthrough 
technologies to incremental technology improvements; 40 percent of 
those responding to the survey said that they have reduced the number 
of employees in the United States due to FDA delays; 29 percent 
admitted to increasing their investment in non-U.S. operations.
  What is going on at the FDA? This trend must stop now. The United 
States should be promoting and rewarding the entrepreneurial spirit 
that leads to the development of breakthrough devices that are both 
life-saving and financially lucrative. We should be promoting and 
rewarding investment and employment in America, not abroad. We should 
not be penalizing American firms and stunting the growth of a $70 
billion industry with unnecessary delays and overly cautious 
bureaucratic redtape at the FDA. I think that this amendment will help 
to get America back on track by cutting the redtape that currently 
binds the hands of American medical manufacturing firms. The sum of 
$300,000 does not seem like much when lost in a budget of $1.5 trillion 
but if this relatively small amount of money is used to approve one of 
the breakthrough technologies that save just one life, it will be money 
well spent. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this valuable 
amendment.
  And so, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will accept this 
amendment to help save lives of Americans, put people to work, and use 
their entrepreneurial skills.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator for his kind remarks and for his 
support of the amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I support the effort of the Senator from 
Utah and hope that my friend from Arkansas can agree to recommend 
approval of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am agreeable to accepting this 
amendment, but I do want to make a couple of remarks.
  I am not sure how many cellular phones the Food and Drug 
Administration should have. Maybe they should have the 300; maybe they 
should have 30, or maybe they should just have 3.
  But, I also say to my good friend from Utah--and I am not being 
critical of his offering the amendment--but it is punitive in that it 
singles out one agency.
  If we are going to determine how many cellular phones an agency can 
be authorized, we ought to have the Rules Committee tell Senators how 
many cellular phones they can have.
  Mr. FORD. They do.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Well, would the Senator engage me in a colloquy on this?
  Mr. FORD. I would be glad to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. What is the rule on cellular phones in the Senate?
  Mr. FORD. The rule on cellular phones indicate how many we allow you 
to have, which is one. And that cellular phone can be used in your car, 
it can be a portable.
  Mr. BUMPERS. But each Senator is only allowed one cellular phone?
  Mr. FORD. That could be paid for from the budget of the Senate.
  Mr. BUMPERS. What is the average budget of a U.S. Senator; total 
payroll and all?
  Mr. FORD. I do not have the slightest idea, Senator. The mean is 
probably about $1.4 million.
  Mr. BUMPERS. About $1.4 million?
  Mr. FORD. Yes; that is basically your office budget.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let us be generous and assume each Senator has an 
average--some of the Senators from urban States have bigger budgets 
than Senators from small States like mine. But let us just assume, for 
purposes of discussion, that a Senator's budget is $2 million and that 
a Senator is allowed one cellular phone under the rules. Is that 
correct?
  Mr. FORD. That is correct. The Senator can pay for whatever he wants 
to pay for and have as many as he wants to, but I am talking about the 
cost to the taxpayers.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Well, are you telling me I could spend any part of my 
$1.4 million for cellular phones?
  Mr. FORD. No; of your personal money.
  Mr. BUMPERS. But you are saying the Senate will only pay for one 
cellular phone for each office?
  Mr. FORD. We lease it, really. Basically, they are leased and you pay 
your monthly phone bill from that.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If you want to spend your personal money, that is a 
different thing?
  Mr. FORD. Yes. I am not sure about campaign money, but your personal 
money can be used.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Anyway, let us assume that the average budget for a 
Senate office is $2 million and it is allowed one phone.
  Here is an agency with a $1 billion budget, so they should be allowed 
500 phones, and they only have 324, I believe it is.
  Mr. FORD. Senator, you are drawing just dollars to dollars and 
putting that on there. I do not know whether, in your automobile, just 
coming to work and going back is the only time you use your phone.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is where it is; it is in an automobile.
  Mr. FORD. That is it.
  Then the FDA, they may be walking around. They may have one in their 
pocket, they may have a portable. There are a lot of ways to be used. 
But if you are sitting in your office from 8 o'clock in the morning to 
5 o'clock in the afternoon, you do not need a portable telephone or a 
cellular telephone. So each case has to rest on it is own merits.
  I would not want to say the FDA is entitled to 500 telephones because 
they have a huge budget.
  The Defense Department would have to have a telephone company to make 
all of their phones.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I would be embarrassed to ask the Defense Department how 
many cellular phones they have.
  Mr. FORD. You better believe it.
  Mr. BUMPERS. But I was just curious if the Senator knew how many 
field investigators the Food and Drug Administration has?
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Pardon?
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Does the Senator know the answer to the question?
  Mr. HATCH. I do not know the answer to the question how many field 
investigators they have.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes, I yield for a question.
  Mr. HATCH. Let me just say, the Senator from Utah is not trying to be 
critical. I am trying to let the FDA know that a lot of us are very 
unhappy with the way the Medical Device Division is being run. They are 
now on average 18 months behind. Frankly, this is an industry that our 
country was preeminent in the world in, and it is gradually slipping. I 
would be the first person, if FDA could justify the 326 phones--I am 
the first to say efficiency is very important.
  Frankly, I do not think they can justify that. I feel the same way 
about any other agency in the Government. And I certainly feel whatever 
is the norm or whatever is appropriate, we should do as Senators.
  But there is about $300,000 here we can save, where many of these 
people can use their phones in their offices. Frankly, that is all I am 
trying to do here. I think it is a reasonable amendment, and I hope our 
colleagues will accept it. I am certainly willing to do more research 
on it between now and conference to try to justify it even further in 
the eyes of my dear colleague from Arkansas.
  As I understand it, the FDA does have a little under 9,000 employees. 
Those that would have the phones involved here would be 325, because we 
would certainly allow them to have one. I am amenable to any arguments 
they would make with regard to some of these.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dorgan). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I will state for the record I am prepared 
to accept the amendment, although I will not vouch for what will happen 
to it in conference. I do think it is a legitimate issue to be raised. 
My problem is I do not think this is necessarily the right way to 
address it.
  The Department of Agriculture has 1,504 cellular phones; the 
Department of Commerce has 209--they are a bunch of pikers. The 
Department of Energy has 4,300; EPA has 305; FEMA, with a budget much 
smaller than FDA, has 2,776; Health and Human Services has 864; HUD has 
85; Interior has 1,844; the Department of Justice 3,880; Department of 
Labor, 250; State, 337; Department of Transportation, 1,854; Treasury, 
1,648; and the Department of Veterans Affairs, 276.
  I am not sure those figures are really relevant to anything except to 
say, if we are going to check on how many cellular phones any 
particular agency or department can have, that is fine. But just a 
single-shot amendment directed at one agency, FDA, does not seem to me 
to be the best way to deal with the delay in approval of medical 
devices. I am not sure we will keep this in conference.
  Mr. HATCH. You may not. If the Senator will yield, he mentioned that 
all of HHS, of which FDA is a part, only has 864. Almost half of them 
are at FDA, one of the smallest agencies at HHS.
  I do not have any problem with FDA if they can justify these. But I 
do have problems with them coming here asking for user fees, more taxes 
on business, when a lot of these businesses are small businesses, when 
FDA is not doing the job with regard to approvals.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if I may, that is my point. If they are 
not doing a good job with medical devices--we are talking about 
licensing, the procedures for licensing medical devices --if they are 
not doing a good job with that, we ought to replace the person who is 
in charge of it or threaten to cut their budget or do something else to 
get their attention.
  Mr. HATCH. What I am doing here is taking about $300,000 that already 
exists in their budget and transferring it so they get more full-time 
workers who will help cut the times involved here. Then we will find 
other ways of giving them more money when we have a Medical Device 
Division that works and works in the best interests of our country. I 
think what it does is it sends a shot across the bow that says: Look, 
we are going to look for ways of making this system work a little 
better, a little more efficiently, and at a little less cost to the 
American taxpayer and save our industries here from having to go 
offshore.
  That is why I think this is such an important area. That is why I 
chose this one area. I am not saying we should not look elsewhere and 
maybe do more research. I think the Senator makes very good points, as 
he usually does.
  Frankly, we will do even more research in the future, but I think the 
amendment is a well-intentioned amendment and certainly not one to hurt 
FDA but to help them.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I do not want to take more of the Senate's time on this. 
The distinguished ranking member and I are willing to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. I urge the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2319) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. 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.


      Excepted Committee Amendment on page 32, line 20 through 33

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote on the 
previous amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from North 
Carolina is available to offer an amendment to the committee amendment 
that is now the pending business.


      Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 71, Line 21 through 25

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now recurs on the amendment on 
page 71.
  The Chair recognizes Senator Helms.


                           amendment no. 2320

  (Purpose: To protect the first amendment rights of employees of the 
                       Department of Agriculture)

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

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2320.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     employee of the United States Department of Agriculture shall 
     be peremptorily removed without public hearings from his or 
     her position because of remarks made during personal time in 
     opposition to Departmental policies, or proposed policies 
     regarding homosexuals; provided that, any such individual so 
     removed prior to date of enactment shall be reinstated to his 
     or her previous position.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes Senator Helms.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. It occurs to me there may be some 
feeling that I may be engaging in overkill on this matter involving the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture. But I have seldom seen so much 
confusion or so many misstatements of fact than have occurred in this 
instance.
  I received a letter from the distinguished Secretary of Agriculture 
immediately following the vote on my amendment yesterday. When I read 
Secretary Espy's letter, I was astounded at the misinformation that the 
distinguished Secretary obviously had been given by his staff.
  I have high regard for Secretary Espy and he knows that. I recognize 
his is a difficult job. But the fact remains, there are some principles 
involved that need to be defended and that is what I am trying to do.
  Just the other day a citizen from another State called and said, in 
effect, Senator I see you on C-SPAN frequently and I watch the general 
Senate proceedings with some regularity. I hear constantly the words 
``choice'' and ``first amendment rights'' and things of that sort. Then 
it seems to me, the gentleman said, that these words are not really 
understood by Senators who are using them.
  I told him that regular viewers of C-SPAN--and he apparently is one 
of them--can no doubt identify those Senators who frequently engage in 
various exhortations, a little bit piously, I might add, but it is 
always when they feel that a politically correct issue is at hand.
  They use the word ``choice'' with reference to abortion, and I feel 
obliged so often to ask, choice to do what? Choice to kill a human 
being yet to be born? Is that a viable choice?
  First amendment rights--it depends on whose ox is gored. In this 
case, it happens to be a long-time employee of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture whose first amendment rights are being callously violated 
because he took a stand, on his own time, to state his conviction about 
special rights for homosexuals. Immediately, the bureaucracy at the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture pounced on this man and shifted him out 
of a job the Department admits he performed commendably. I described 
all of this in the discussion of my amendment yesterday.
  The pending amendment is going to identify those Senators who really 
believe in the first amendment, particularly the protection of free 
speech, not merely and solely for the politically correct, but for 
everybody, including this beleaguered employee of the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture who dared--can you believe it--who dared to say that he 
personally wished that this country would move more toward Camelot and 
not toward Sodom and Gomorrah.
  As I have stated, that is when the bureaucracy pounced on him and 
shifted him out of the job that he has done so well for so long--simply 
because he took exception to special privileges being given by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to homosexuals and lesbians.
  I have a few things I wish to say about a letter from Secretary Espy 
which was hand delivered to me and which reached me yesterday just 
after the vote began on my amendment. I have prepared a tentative 
response to the Secretary, and since this is a public issue now, I am 
going to discuss what I consider to be discrepancies in his letter to 
me.
  First of all--and the letter was two pages long, single spaced--the 
Secretary said:

       There is no gay rights agenda at the USDA.

  He also said that:

       The Department has not adopted a policy of allowing gay 
     couples to have family benefits.

  Let me say that I hope this is correct, inasmuch as Congress has not 
authorized the Department to implement any homosexual agenda, including 
the policy toward same-sex homosexual couples.
  Secretary Espy also suggested that Dr. Mertz' statements--Dr. Mertz 
is the USDA employee who was shifted from his longstanding job because 
he made statements that offended the homosexual community--statements, 
the Secretary wrote that ``indicate he strongly disagrees with and 
cannot faithfully implement current policy in equal employment 
opportunity.''
  I am tentatively prepared to say to the Secretary that inasmuch as he 
contends that the policies Dr. Mertz questions do not, in fact, exist 
and are not authorized by law, how on Earth did the Secretary, or those 
who advise the Secretary, conclude that Dr. Mertz ``strongly disagrees 
with current policies in equal employment opportunity''?
  The Secretary, in his letter, said that he does not believe the 
Department should implement a pro-active policy regarding acceptance of 
the homosexual organization, GLOBE.
  That leads me to believe the Secretary has not been shown by his 
staff a memorandum dated March 25, written and distributed by Secretary 
Espy's own Assistant Secretary for Administration. It was addressed to 
Pat Brown, a homosexual activist with ``USDA GLOBE.'' I am going to 
send the Secretary a photostat of the memorandum written by his own 
Assistant Secretary for Administration.
  The memorandum officially and specifically sanctions this outfit 
``USDA GLOBE.'' I put it in the Record yesterday, and it can be found 
on page S9229.
  The memo sanctions this homosexual group and entitles its members to 
use Department resources and facilities for their homosexual activity.
  The Secretary also must have missed some of the news accounts about 
what is going on in his own Department. The Washington Times, on July 
4, detailed an official USDA memorandum dated June 22 of this year 
notifying the cotton division of the creation of USDA GLOBE--reminding 
these employees of equal opportunity and civil rights policy 
statements.
  By the way, insofar as I have been able to determine, the USDA is the 
first Federal agency to recognize a GLOBE chapter as an officially 
chartered employee organization.
  The Secretary of Agriculture indicated he did not know anything about 
this. I am going to take him at his word. He has to travel a lot. He is 
not in Washington a great deal. Sometimes some of us have difficulty 
reaching him. But I am going to take him at his word and assume that he 
did not and does not, in fact, know of what is going on behind his back 
among his top-level bureaucrats in USDA.
  I shall tentatively tell him in my response that I am going to be 
very interested as to how he reconciles his statement that there is 
``no gay rights agenda'' with the creation of a job within the Foreign 
Agriculture Service described as the gay-lesbian and bisexual program 
manager.
  I talked about that on this floor in connection with my amendment of 
yesterday. I am going to send the Secretary a copy of the Foreign 
Agriculture Service solicitation for those interested in being hired 
for the job which, by the way, has already been filled at a salary of 
$1,000 a week, $52,000 a year, plus all of the costs of furnishing his 
office with assistants, secretaries, travel, and other expenditures.
  I want the Secretary to know that I am interested in how he 
reconciles the statement in his letter of yesterday, that the USDA has 
``no gay rights agenda,'' with the Secretary's own remarks during 
USDA's so-called diversity conference held on April 12 and 13 in which 
Secretary Espy, said this:

       Change is here. We have to learn how to lead and manage 
     effectively employees with different lifestyles. I don't have 
     any delusion that this is easy, but those who do not work 
     hard to learn and utilize the skills you will be discussing 
     need to think seriously about making a career change. You--

  The Secretary said

     will be held accountable.

  Now, the Secretary, in his letter delivered to me late yesterday 
evening, apparently inferred that Dr. Karl Mertz wrongfully and 
``unilaterally declared personal leave so as to make [his] statements 
and that [Mr. Mertz] instantly resumed on-the-clock status after having 
made them.''
  That is a direct quote from the Secretary, and it is absolutely 
unfair to Dr. Mertz, as is the Secretary's claim that Dr. Mertz' 
statements qualify as ``official''--which, of course, they were not.
  The fact is, Dr. Mertz never pretended that anything he said during 
his television interview was ``official.'' He took pains to make it 
clear that he was speaking as an individual being interviewed by a 
television station in Biloxi, MS.
  The Secretary may wish to check with his offices in Athens, GA, where 
it is my understanding that employees there are permitted to take 
annual leave simply by having their secretaries notify their 
supervisors.
  But Dr. Mertz went beyond that. He arranged for an electronic mail 
message--a copy of which I have at hand--and which was to be sent a day 
in advance to his supervisor, Korona Prince, regarding his desire to 
take annual leave. Dr. Mertz also telephoned Marguerita Moody in 
Washington, telling her of his decision to take personal leave.
  And also, if the manner in which Dr. Mertz took his personal leave, 
to which he was entitled, was an issue in his dismissal from his 
position, why was this not cited in the memorandum he was provided by 
Ms. Prince notifying him of his dismissal from the position he had held 
so long and performed the duties of so well?
  Furthermore, the Secretary in his letter said that he had been 
assured that Dr. Mertz' career has not been negatively impacted. Maybe 
the Secretary assumes that all that is important to Dr. Mertz is his 
grade level, his pay, and his promotion potential. Does it matter that 
Dr. Mertz has been shoved out of a job for which he has been commended 
for year after year? It just seems to me that the Secretary ought to 
consider this and at least talk to Dr. Mertz himself. He may find that 
Dr. Mertz cares more about principle than he does money. Maybe Dr. 
Mertz values doing a good job and deriving satisfaction from his work.
  But nobody at the USDA was interested in that. Dr. Mertz committed 
the unpardonable sin of saying that this country and the leadership of 
the USDA may wish that they had done more to pursue higher ideals--that 
was the effect--and not give special treatment and special rights to 
homosexuals and lesbians.
  Now, let me get back to the amendment. I will read it again for the 
purpose of emphasis.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no employee of 
     the United States Department of Agriculture shall be 
     peremptorily removed without public hearings from his or her 
     position because of remarks made during personal time in 
     opposition to departmental policies, or proposed policies 
     regarding homosexuals; provided that, any such individual so 
     removed prior to the date of enactment shall be reinstated to 
     his or her previous position.

  Now, I wish Senators could go back and read the complete file on the 
Mertz case. There has been much in the media about it. But sometimes in 
the press of activities of the Senate, Senators miss some things that 
go on, like ships passing in the night.
  On June 13, the Washington Times had a news article, entitled, 
``Man's Opinion Leads to Transfer.'' In the Wall Street Journal on 
April 27, there was an article entitled ``A Different Kind of Whistle-
Blower.'' I ask unanimous consent that both of these articles be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HELMS. Yesterday, I went into some detail concerning the 
circumstances surrounding the very summary punishment of Dr. Karl Mertz 
by his superior at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And let me say 
again, I am willing to accept the Secretary's word that he was unaware 
of what was being done by some of his associates in the Department.
  But a few words of background about Dr. Mertz. For 7 years, Dr. Mertz 
has been an Equal Employment Opportunity manager for the 10-State 
Southeastern region of the Agricultural Research Service Headquarters 
in Athens, GA. Dr. Mertz, on March 28, was shoved out of his job 
without any hearing and moved to another position where he says he has 
little to do and the taxpayers' money is being wasted.
  Let me reiterate that Dr. Mertz was on annual leave when he was 
interviewed by television station WLOX in Biloxi, MS, about proposals 
within the Agriculture Department, that were very much in the news at 
that time, to provide same-sex partners, two men in love with each 
other, homosexuals, with the same taxpayer-paid benefits provided to 
spouses of legally married heterosexual employees.
  Now, Dr. Mertz, in response to that question, first made clear that 
the views he was about to express were personal views; that he was not 
speaking for anybody else. He said, ``I am speaking as a Christian. I'm 
not speaking for the USDA.'' And here is what he said:

       We need to be moving toward Camelot, not Sodom and 
     Gomorrah, and I'm afraid that's where our leadership is 
     trying to take us.

  He did not make that statement out of the blue. He was asked about 
the controversy then in progress at the USDA about gays and lesbians 
taking over the U.S. Department of Agriculture and being accorded all 
sorts of rights and privileges. So he said it and the upper level 
bureaucrats at the U.S. Department of Agriculture got their dander up.
  When Dr. Mertz arrived back in Atlanta that evening, he received a 
call at his home from a USDA bureaucrat in Washington telling him that 
the Department had already been informed by homosexual activists about 
Dr. Mertz' comment.
  Dr. Mertz heard nothing further until March 28 when he was summoned 
by Mary Carter, Director of the southeastern region of the Agricultural 
Research Service, and she did not even ask anything about his side of 
the story. She just tore into him. She handed him a memorandum 
informing him that he had been transferred out of his job, a job which 
the Department had acknowledged, over and over again, that Dr. Mertz 
had performed commendably for 7 years.
  Any Senator who doubts that Dr. Mertz' performance at USDA was 
exemplary should review the USDA performance appraisals signed, by 
guess who? The very same person, Korona Prince, who signed the memo 
informing Dr. Mertz that he had been transferred out of his job.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of these performance reviews be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I put them in 
the Record because I want it to be clear that this man had performed 
commendably in the job to which he had been assigned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2)
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, as I say, it was the same Korona Prince who 
signed the memorandum advising Dr. Mertz of his reassignment to another 
position. The memo said something to the effect that Dr. Mertz had the 
right as a private citizen to express his opinions, but he was being 
shifted out of his job precisely because he expressed his opinion. Here 
is what the memorandum said.

       As a private citizen, you have every right to express your 
     opinions freely, and we have no intention of doing anything 
     to compromise your rights or the rights of any other 
     employee.

  She continues:

       However, you must recognize the fact that in publicly 
     disagreeing with an admittedly controversial position of the 
     department leadership * * *.

  Let me parenthetically remind Senators what the Secretary said, 
``Well, we don't want anything like that going on at the USDA.'' He 
said that in his letter delivered yesterday evening to this Chamber.
  Back to the memorandum, Korona Prince said:

       However, you must recognize the fact that in public 
     disagreeing with an admittedly controversial position of the 
     departmental leadership * * *.

  By golly, she knew what the Department leadership had decided on this 
business of catering to the homosexuals and lesbians.
  She said:

       You have made it difficult for employees and managers of 
     the agency to accept that you actively support these same 
     policies in your official assignment. It is therefore 
     necessary that you be reassigned to another position.

  There was no hearing; she did not even ask him what he thought, and 
in effect said: ``Out you go. We are going to put you someplace to get 
rid of you.''
  Just a minute, Mr. President. Just a minute. What is going on at the 
USDA?
  Acceptance and promotion of the homosexual agenda by the departmental 
leadership has no basis in law. It has no basis in any action of 
approval by the U.S. Senate. The Senate has never approved any USDA 
policy implementing the homosexual agenda.
  But this woman--Korona Prince--laid down the law to this hapless 
employee who dared to say that the USDA ought to be pursuing Camelot 
instead of Sodom and Gomorrah.
  I wish there could be a poll taken of the people in the United States 
of America asking whether they agree with Dr. Mertz or with the USDA 
leadership that kicked him out of the job he had done so well for so 
many years. But, Mr. President, I think I know how that poll would come 
out.
  So, Dr. Mertz was stripped of his title, stripped of his staff, and 
assigned to a job outside of his area of expertise which he had 
developed throughout his professional career. One of the people in the 
news media asked him, ``What do you think about your new job?'' He 
said, ``I am wasting the taxpayers' money. I am in a job that is 
unnecessary.''
  Senators may wish to review the text of an article published in my 
State by the Charlotte Observer on July 17, and a copy of the 
memorandum that I just read a minute ago written by Korona Prince to 
Karl Mertz dated March 25 of this year.
  I ask unanimous consent that both be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 3)
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the bottom line is that Dr. Mertz lost his 
job because he exercised a right protected under the first amendment of 
the U.S. Constitution. He was stripped of his job, he was stripped of 
his responsibilities; stripped of everything important to him in 
relation to his career. He was slapped down because he dared to state a 
general evaluation of perversion. He offended the homosexuals and 
lesbians at USDA, and I guess everywhere else because he expressed what 
he thought as a Christian.
  Back to Secretary Espy, on April 12-13 they conducted what they 
called a diversity conference at USDA. What do you suppose the 
Secretary said? I referred to this earlier in my remarks. And I am 
going to refer to him again because I think it is important. He said:

       Change is here. We have to learn how to lead and manage 
     effectively employees who are different from us * * *. We 
     have to manage people of different ethnic and religious 
     groups, people with different lifestyles, and we have to know 
     how to get the best out of this diversity * * *. I do not 
     have any illusions that this is easy. But those who do not 
     work hard to learn and utilize the skills you will be 
     discussing, need to think seriously about making a career 
     change.

  What he was saying was--this was the Secretary--either conform, or 
you get out. He said, ``You will be held accountable.''
  Anybody who doubts the force of Secretary Espy's threat ought to talk 
to Dr. Karl Mertz. Shortly after reading the article in the June 16 
Washington paper, I called Dr. Mertz. I had never met him, but I 
quickly perceived that he was a gentle man, a decent person, with a 
very strong sense of right and wrong. And he is absolutely crushed by 
what has happened at the hand of the bureaucrats and, yes, the 
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dr. Mertz also 
confirmed everything I have said here today and yesterday.
  After that, I called Secretary Espy to see what could be done to 
reinstate Dr. Mertz. Mike Espy is a nice guy, and he said, ``I am 
unaware of all of this.'' He said he did not know the circumstances 
surrounding Dr. Mertz's transfer but that he would look into the matter 
and get back to me.
  I followed up on June 27 with a letter to the Secretary. I did not 
hear from him, until yesterday evening after I had finished the debate 
and the vote had begun on my amendment in the Senate. I received not 
just one letter from the Secretary yesterday evening, I received two 
regarding the removal of Dr. Mertz from his management position at the 
USDA.
  I must say, Mr. President, having received two letters, both dated 
July 19--yesterday--was interesting, to say the least. To add to the 
confusion, Secretary Espy made statements about homosexual activities 
within USDA that contradict actions already taken by the USDA and made 
public in the media and elsewhere. As for Dr. Karl Mertz, the Secretary 
remains opposed to Dr. Mertz exercising his freedom of speech under the 
first amendment.
  So the inescapable point is this: It is important that the Federal 
Government correct the wrong which has been inflicted upon this one 
individual--Dr. Mertz--and this apparently will not occur without 
action by Congress, and that is the reason we are discussing the 
pending amendment.
  I think, Mr. President, it is also imperative that other employees of 
the USDA--as a matter of fact, throughout the Federal Government--be 
assured that they are able to exercise, without fear of reprisal, their 
first amendment rights to question the controversial proposals under 
consideration at USDA, and which may well spread to other agencies of 
the Federal Government. The pending amendment will accomplish most of 
these goals. I am going to insist on a rollcall vote because I think 
that every American citizen is entitled to know how his or her Senators 
vote on this question.
  I said yesterday that, in a way, we may be standing at the crossroad 
of twisted values, and the first amendment rights of a faithful 
respected USDA official who dared to speak his conscience when asked 
the question of what, to him, was a matter of moral and spiritual 
significance. If he loses that right, we all lose, and that is why this 
amendment is so enormously important.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Times, June 13, 1994]

                    Man's Opinions Lead to Transfer


         he spoke against gay rights at agriculture department

                            (By Ruth Larson)

       Karl Mertz has spent his professional life helping 
     guarantee equal employment opportunities for federal 
     employees, but voicing his personal opinions on homosexuality 
     cost him his job at the Department of Agriculture.
       For seven years Mr. Mertz, 49, was the equal employment 
     opportunity manager for the 10-state Southeastern region of 
     the Agricultural Research Service, based in Athens, Ga. On 
     March 28 he was removed from his GM-13 post for remarks made 
     during a March 4 TV interview.
       In the interview, Mr. Mertz took exception with USDA 
     policies on homosexuals. In particular, he opposed 
     departmental proposals that partners of homosexual workers be 
     offered the same benefits as spouses of heterosexual workers.
       ``USDA has had a reputation, rightly or wrongly, of having 
     a plantation mentality, and no one would deny we need to get 
     away from that kind of situation,'' Mr. Mertz said. ``But we 
     need to be moving toward Camelot, not toward Sodom and 
     Gomorrah, and I'm afraid that that's where our leadership is 
     trying to take us.''
       As an EEO manager, Mr. Mertz enforced the Civil Rights Act, 
     which forbids discrimination based on race, sex age or 
     religious beliefs.
       Mr. Mertz was on annual leave at the time of the interview, 
     and the segment, which aired that evening on WLOX-TV in 
     Biloxi, Miss., made clear that his comments reflected his 
     personal views.
       In a telephone interview, Mr. Mertz said his reassignment 
     to work force forecasting--a job in which he has ``no 
     experience, no training and no interest''--was in retaliation 
     for his views.
       ``I believe that my freedoms of speech and religion have 
     been trampled,'' Mr. Mertz said in a letter to The Washington 
     Times. ``Furthermore, I sincerely believe that USDA and the 
     Agricultural Research Service have created, and are expanding 
     upon, a work environment hostile to heterosexual employees.''
       Mr. Mertz has filed a complaint with the Office of Special 
     Counsel, arguing that he was removed without due process and 
     that he suffered reprisals for exercising his First Amendment 
     right to free speech.
       Government employees who disclose fraud or abuse are 
     protected under whistleblower laws. But their rights under 
     the First Amendment must relate to matters of public concern, 
     and their interests are weighed against the government's, an 
     administration officials said.
       USDA spokesman Tom Amontree declined to comment on the case 
     because it is a personnel issue.
       But at a department diversity conference in April, 
     Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy urged participants to 
     cultivate increased sensitivity when managing ``people of 
     different ethnic and religious groups, people with 
     different lifestyles, people of the opposite sex.''
       Homosexual advocacy groups decried Mr. Mertz's view.
       ``It undermines the whole concept of the discrimination-
     free workplace, and it's particularly inappropriate coming 
     from an EEO manager,'' said Gregory King, spokesman for the 
     Human Rights Campaign Fund.
       Mr. Mertz said that when he arrived home in Atlanta the 
     evening the interview was broadcast, a senior USDA official 
     called to tell him Mr. Espy had received complaints from 
     homosexual groups.
       On March 28, Mr. Mertz was handed a letter telling him he 
     was being removed from the EEO staff. The letter said his 
     statements in the interview ``reflect a disagreement with 
     departmental civil rights policy'' that could hamper his 
     ability to handle EEO duties.
       ``As a private citizen you have every right to express your 
     opinions freely. . . . However, you must recognize the fact 
     that in publicly disagreeing with an admittedly controversial 
     position of the departmental leadership, you have made it 
     difficult for employees and managers of the agency to accept 
     that you actively support these same policies in your 
     official assignment,'' the letter said.
       Mr. Mertz was allowed to retain his grade and salary in the 
     move.
       ``Getting that letter was a shock,'' Mr. Mertz said. ``No 
     due process--I'd broken no laws. In fact, the things we're 
     being asked to do, accepting the homosexual lifestyle, are 
     illegal. They're not part of the civil rights law, they're 
     not the law of the land, and they are a personal affront to 
     all I believe.''
                                  ____


             [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 27, 1994]

                   A Different Kind of Whistle-Blower

                             (By Max Boot)

       Karl Mertz is a whistle-blower. But unlike most members of 
     that species, he's not exposing sexual harassment on the job 
     or military contractors who overbill the government. He's 
     blowing the whistle on a less publicized kind of fraud: the 
     promise that affirmative action policies will result in a 
     more ``just'' society.
       Mr. Mertz has seen how such policies operate from the 
     inside. Since 1987, he's been a senior Equal Employment 
     Opportunity manager at the Agriculture Department in Atlanta, 
     a commissar in the battle against racism, sexism and other 
     ``isms.'' Before that, he performed similar jobs for the 
     Labor Department and the Army. It's a calling for which he 
     has impeccable credentials: After getting a Vanderbilt 
     doctorate, he went to work as a Methodist pastor in 
     Mississippi and promptly got in trouble with the locals for 
     preaching racial tolerance.
       Like most Americans, Mr. Mertz is dedicated to ``equal 
     opportunity'' for all, no matter what race, creed or sex. But 
     he quickly found that those rules don't apply to white males 
     like himself. When he's applied for numerous EEO jobs at 
     other federal agencies since 1984, he's been turned down 
     cold. At the Internal Revenue Service, he got top scores on 
     his exam but didn't even land a job interview; all eight 
     finalists were black females. Mr. Mertz tried pursuing a job-
     discrimination claim against the government, but when that 
     proved fruitless he decided to express his frustration on 
     CNN.
       On the program, aired Feb. 20, Mr. Mertz declared: ``People 
     in the '60s set up a big policy machine and said we're going 
     to try and open up doors for people who have been wrongly 
     excluded from society, and then they put the machine in gear, 
     and kind of turned their backs on it. Now it's rumbling 
     across the landscape doing pretty much what it wants.''
       Mr. Mertz tells some hair-raising stories about what the 
     machine is doing. Agriculture Department managers hire 
     ``twofers'' (say, a black female) or ``threefers'' (say, a 
     disabled Hispanic female) in order to get a bonus for meeting 
     affirmative action quotas. Postdoctoral fellowships are 
     funded for one year if the recipient is a white male, two 
     years if he (or, more likely, she) is a minority. And--get 
     this--a new training program at the department, designed 
     to build self-esteem, is open only to senior African-
     American male managers. ``These people are already in 
     senior positions!'' Mr. Mertz exclaims. ``Why spend 
     taxpayers' money to boost their self-esteem?''
       Mr. Mertz has had to live with such programs for a while. 
     What he wasn't prepared for was Agriculture Secretary Mike 
     Espy's gay-rights agenda, part of the Clintonites' kowtowing 
     to a key group.
       At a Washington meeting of the department's affirmative-
     action administrators on Feb. 25, Mr. Mertz listened to a 
     report by the head of the department's gay employees group. 
     An outline distributed by the gay activist during her 
     presentation states: ``Until our relationships are recognized 
     and respected and benefits are available to our partners and 
     families, we are not full members of Team USDA.'' Top 
     executives pledged to hold ``sensitivity training'' to spread 
     this message among the ranks, and to punish those who don't 
     toe the line.
       In other words, homosexual employees aren't just asking to 
     be left alone--Mr. Mertz is in favor of that. They want other 
     employees to actively approve of their lifestyle. And Mr. 
     Espy is backing the gay-rights agenda with taxpayer-funded 
     indoctrination courses for the department's workers. ``I was 
     pushed as far as I could go,'' Mr. Mertz says.
       A week later, on March 4, Mr. Mertz attended a departmental 
     conference in Biloxi, Miss. Afterward, a local TV reporter 
     asked him to comment on the gay-rights policy. After making 
     clear that he was voicing his own views, not the 
     department's, the Christian expressed his disapproval of 
     homosexuality and said that the Agriculture Department should 
     be headed ``toward Camelot, not Sodom and Gomorrah.''
       When he got home to Atlanta later that night, Mr. Mertz 
     received a phone call from a Washington-based Agriculture 
     Department bureaucrat who said he had heard about the TV 
     interview from gay activists. Then silence--until March 28, 
     when Mr. Mertz was summoned into the office of Mary Carter, 
     South Atlantic area director of the department's Agriculture 
     Research Service.
       Without waiting to hear his side of the story, Ms. Carter 
     handed him a memorandum announcing that his TV interview 
     ``reflect[s] a disagreement with Departmental Civil Rights 
     Policy, which could seriously undermine your ability to 
     perform your responsibilities.'' Then without hint of due 
     process, he was transferred, effective immediately, to a 
     newly created job dealing with something called ``work force 
     forecasting.''
       Ms. Carter insists that the reassignment ``isn't 
     punishment,'' but try telling that to Mr. Mertz. ``I've been 
     stripped of a title, stripped of support staff, stripped of 
     working in the field of my expertise,'' he complains.
       The truly noxious part of this is that Mr. Mertz is being 
     punished for exercising his First Amendment rights, not--as 
     the memo claims--failing to do his job. In a telephone 
     interview, Ms. Carter couldn't name a single instance when 
     Mr. Mertz had failed to enforce department policy for 
     homosexuals or anyone else. In fact, Mr. Mertz's evaluation 
     forms give him high marks in every category, including 
     ``supports EEO and Civil Rights Programs.''
       Given what's happened, it's a bitter irony that Mr. Espy's 
     statement on civil rights policy says: ``I am especially 
     concerned about allegations of a `culture of reprisal' at 
     USDA.'' The secretary was writing about reprisals for filing 
     affirmative action complaints, but that concern is equally 
     pertinent here.
       Mr. Mertz is appealing for help from those who 
     traditionally champion the cause of whistle-blowers, ranging 
     from the federal Office of Special Counsel to ``60 Minutes'' 
     to various government-watchdog groups. It will be 
     interesting--and highly telling--to see what support he gets.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

     Supervisory Appraisal of Demonstrated Performance or Potential

       Position: Equal Employment Manager, GM-260-14.
       Name of applicant: Dr. Karl Mertz.


        section 1--demonstrated performance or potential rating

       1. Managerial and technical EEO knowledge (and skills 
     sufficient to plan, organize, direct, staff and evaluate an 
     equal employment opportunity program): Exceptional.
       2. Ability to communicate in writing: Exceptional.
       3. Ability to communicate orally: Exceptional.
       4. Skill in fact finding, analysis and problem resolution: 
     Exceptional.
       5. Knowledge of statistical and reporting techniques (in 
     order to develop profiles, prepares reports, analyze needs, 
     determine effectiveness): Above averages.


                    section ii--narrative statement

       1. Graduate school and extensive government training in 
     EEO/AA and management have been evident in the regulatorily 
     correct and innovative programs designed and administered by 
     the incumbent.
       2. Written work is timely, exacting and thorough, probably 
     due to training as a college newspaper editor, and previous 
     government experience writing EEO audit reports and proposed 
     disposition of complaints.
       3. A forceful and thought provoking speaker, with related 
     ``A'' work in college and grad school, who has won several 
     professional association elections, and made numerous 
     regional and national speeches.
       4. A.E.P.P.s and Accomplishment Reports/ Updates have been 
     through and well received by E.E.O.C. and internal reports 
     have been accurate, thorough and well reasoned.
       5. Incumbent has gone beyond report requirements, producing 
     same on potential adverse impact, participation rates in 
     awards, etc., and representation levels in special programs.
       Appraiser's signature: K. Prince.
       Employees signatures: Karl Mertz.

                  Performance Appraisal of K.C. Mertz


                              instructions

       Blocks 1 through 10, completed by NFC, should be reviewed 
     and, if necessary, corrected.
       Block 11. Enter funding unit number.
       Block 14. Enter brief description of performance elements.
       Block 15A. Check performance elements identified as 
     critical.
       Blocks 15B. 15C, 15D. Rate actual performance by entering 2 
     for critical elements and 1 for non-critical elements in 
     appropriate column.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        15A--Critical    15B--Exceeds fully     15C--Meets fully     15D--Does not meet 
                      14--Performance elements                             element           successful            successful         fully successful  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Affirmative Employment Program Management........................  X                                    2  ....................  ....................
2. Special Emphasis Program Management..............................  ................                     1  ....................  ....................
3. Research Apprenticeship & Summer Intern Prog. Mgmt...............  ................  ....................                     1  ....................
4. Technical Advice & Assistance....................................  X                                    2  ....................  ....................
5. Reporting Requirements/Special Projects..........................  ................                     1  ....................  ....................
6. Supervision & Human Resource Management..........................  ................                     1  ....................  ....................
7. Supports EEO & Civil Rights Programs.............................  X                                    2  ....................  ....................
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................................  ................                     9                     1  ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Summary Rating: Superior.
       Supervisor's Signature: Korona I. Prince.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 3

            Man's Transfer After Remark on Gays Angers Helms

       Washington.--Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., is blocking a key 
     presidential appointment because of a dispute involving free 
     speech and gay rights.
       Helms has served notice that he'll stall indefinitely the 
     Senate nomination of Mary Schapiro to the Commodity Futures 
     Trading Commission until he gets answers on why a midlevel 
     government employee has been transferred from his post.
       The employee, Karl Mertz, was Equal Employment Opportunity 
     manager for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Athens, 
     Ga., before he made some controversial remarks concerning 
     homosexuals to a Mississippi television station in March.
       ``We need to be moving toward Camelot, not Sodom and 
     Gomorrah,'' Mertz said after a regional Department of 
     Agriculture meeting in Biloxi. Even though the subject was 
     related to agriculture department policy, he said he told the 
     reporter he was speaking as a private citizen--not as a 
     government official.
       Mertz had been concerned that top Agriculture Department 
     officials were pressing for policies such as extending job 
     benefits to partners of gays--something Mertz believes is 
     beyond the law. He said he also felt top officials are 
     pushing him and other employees to accept homosexuality as a 
     legitimate lifestyle. And he finds the gay lifestyle 
     ``immoral.''
       After learning of Mertz's remarks, his superiors removed 
     him from his post and put him in a position of little 
     responsibility, he said.
       ``I'm wasting the taxpayers' money. I'm in a job that's 
     unnecessary,'' said Mertz in an interview Friday.
       Mertz said he believes gays should have equal rights on the 
     job and shouldn't be harassed. But he said government 
     officials shouldn't be trying to get him to accept 
     homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle.
       David Smith, spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 
     said Mertz's new post is justified.
       Mertz had a position of enforcing equal job opportunities 
     within the Department of Agriculture and, as such, shouldn't 
     have made any derogatory remarks toward gays, said Smith.
       ``Jesse Helms wouldn't be supporting this gentleman's case 
     if he was making inflammatory statements based on someone's 
     religion, race or gender,'' Smith said.
       Mertz, who thinks he has a right to speak his mind without 
     being punished, is grateful to Helms.
       ``I don't agree with Sen. Helms on everything he stands 
     for--I oppose the death penalty, for instance--but I'm glad 
     to get his help.''
                                  ____



                               U.S. Department of Agriculture,

                                   Washington, DC, March 25, 1994.
     To Karl C. Mertz, EEO Manager, South Atlantic Area.
     From Korona I. Prince, Director, EEO Staff.
     Subject: Reassignment from the EEO Staff.

       As you are no doubt aware, some of your recent activities 
     have caused quite a bit of concern at the Department of 
     Agriculture. Your statements in the interview that occurred 
     on March 4 reflect a disagreement with Departmental Civil 
     Rights Policy, which could seriously undermine your ability 
     to perform your responsibilities for the agency in your 
     current assignment. As a private citizen you have every right 
     to express your opinions freely, and we have no intention of 
     doing anything to compromise your rights or the rights of any 
     other employee. However, you must recognize the fact that in 
     publicly disagreeing with an admittedly controversial 
     position of the Departmental leadership, you have made it 
     difficult for employees and managers of the agency to accept 
     that you actively support these same policies in your 
     official assignment. It is, therefore, necessary that you be 
     reassigned to another position.
       One of the areas identified by the ARS Human Resources 
     Management Task Group for action was the development of a 
     work force forecasting system. This is critical for the 
     strategic management of human resources, which, in turn, is 
     critical to our continued success. Dr. Mary Carter has long 
     been an active proponent of this initiative. Consequently, 
     the agency has identified a position to be located on the 
     staff of the Director of the South Atlantic Area to develop 
     and implement an Agency wide work force forecasting system. 
     You are assigned to this position effective March 28, 1994. 
     There will be no impact on your grade or pay. This also 
     provides an opportunity for you to use your expertise to 
     provide an important service for the Agency's long term 
     success.
       Dr. Carter and Dr. James Hilton, who will be your immediate 
     supervisor will work with you in developing the details of 
     your new assignment.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment there is not.
  Mr. HELMS. 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. HELMS. 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 North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. 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.
  The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wanted to ask the Senator from North 
Carolina if he could tell me what is the hiring policy at the 
Department of Agriculture of homosexuals.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, that is precisely the point. The mice have 
been running the store at the USDA, judging by a letter I received from 
Mike Espy, the Secretary of Agriculture, yesterday evening.
  They moved on their own volition apparently without any knowledge of 
the Secretary--according to him--to dismiss Dr. Mertz. Dr. Mertz was 
transferred out of the job that he had been so successful and 
commendably in for several years.
  The amendment simply says that if the USDA, or implicitly any other 
Federal agency for that matter, proposes to deprive an employee of his 
or her first amendment rights, they had better have a hearing on it.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me say to the Senator from North Carolina, I would 
yield to nobody in my defense of the Constitution and especially first 
amendment rights: speech, religion, and so on.
  But I was curious, since, allegedly, the action against Dr. Mertz was 
taken because he criticized, on a television station, the Department's 
hiring policy, specifically that it was going too far in the hiring of 
homosexuals.
  Mr. HELMS. I do not think he even mentioned the word ``homosexual.'' 
He said, and I think I can quote it without any paper in front of me, 
``We should be pursuing Camelot and not Sodom and Gomorrah.'' The 
television reporter's question was based on the furor that was going on 
in Washington as a result of the policy of the USDA favoring 
homosexuals and lesbians, including providing spousal benefits--paid 
for by taxpayers--to the partners of homosexual employees.
  That is all the guy said.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That was my question. If he was objecting to the policy 
of the Department on homosexuality, I was wondering what the policy was 
that he was objecting to.
  Mr. HELMS. He was objecting to the policy that had been established 
and that is being considered. Secretary Espy to this day says that we 
have no policy, and so forth, but I am putting in the Record the 
memoranda and the statements by various officials documenting the 
policy. If a USDA employee does not favor special privileges for 
homosexuals and lesbians he or she had better get ready to pack it and 
get out. I say that is a perfect outrage.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I do not know of any official policy that favors the 
hiring of homosexuals. If there is such a policy, it certainly ought to 
be reviewed very carefully. I do not believe there is one.
  Mr. HELMS. In fact, it is de facto. The Senator is right. The Senate 
never approved of such a policy.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator is saying at lower echelons it is occurring?
  Mr. HELMS. Well, it is in fact pretty high. The Secretary's 
administrative assistant wrote one of the memoranda that I put in the 
Record yesterday. I am willing to accept Secretary Espy's word that he 
did not know anything about that.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Secretary's word?
  Mr. HELMS. Yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. But the memorandum the Senator says he put in the Record 
was written by whom?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Wardell Townsend.
  Mr. HELMS. It is Wardell Townsend, I am advised.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Townsend.
  Mr. HELMS. Wardell Townsend.
  Mr. BUMPERS. To summarize, what did he say in the memorandum and who 
was it to?
  Mr. HELMS. Let me refer to the previous information I relied upon. I 
cannot remember all of it verbatim. I will have it in just a minute.
  Wardell Townsend wrote a memorandum dated March 25 to Pat Browne, a 
homosexual activist with USDA GLOBE, which is a gay and lesbian 
organization at the USDA, a copy of which I inserted in the Record 
yesterday.
  The memo officially sanctioned GLOBE at USDA, entitles its members to 
use Department resources and facilities. We will retrieve the copy of 
the memorandum.
  Mr. BUMPERS. What is his title at the Department?
  Mr. HELMS. Wardell Townsend's?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Mr. HELMS. He is identified as Assistant Secretary for 
Administration.
  Mr. BUMPERS. He is saying that an organization of gay men and lesbian 
women can use the resources of the Department for the purposes of the 
organization?
  Mr. HELMS. I have a photostat of his memorandum, dated March 25.
  It says: ``Subject: Establishment of USDA GLOBE.''

  It is addressed to Pat Browne, Spokesperson, USDA GLOBE.

       In keeping with the Secretary's April 15, 1993, EEO and 
     Civil Rights Policy Statement, I am pleased to officially 
     sanction the creation of USDA GLOBE by approving the attached 
     bylaws. With this approval, USDA GLOBE will exercise all of 
     the rights and responsibilities of other officially 
     sanctioned employee organizations.

                                         Wardell C. Townsend, Jr.,
                           Assistant Secretary for Administration.

  I ask the page to hand this to Senator Bumpers.
  Mr. BUMPERS. He says he is pleased to officially sanction the 
creation of USDA GLOBE by approving the attached bylaws.
  So I assume that organization was set up and the bylaws were sent to 
him and he approved them.
  Mr. HELMS. Yes.
  And in the mission statement:

       The mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Gay, 
     Lesbian, and Bisexual Organization is to create a work 
     environment free of discrimination and harassment based on 
     sexual orientation.

  It says:

       The purpose of USDA GLOBE is to:
       A. Promote understanding of issues affecting gay, lesbian, 
     and bisexual employees in the USDA.
       B. Support the USDA policy of nondiscrimination based on 
     sexual orientation.
       C. Provide outreach to the gay, lesbian, and bisexual 
     employees in the Department.
       D. Serve as a resource group to the Secretary on issues of 
     concern to gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees.
       E. Work for the creation of [a] diverse work force that 
     assures respect and civil rights for gay, lesbian, and 
     bisexual employees.

  And get those words ``assures respect for.''
  Now I do not know what it is going to take to compel those of us who 
do not respect homosexuality.

       F. Create a forum for the concerns of the gay, lesbian, and 
     bisexual community in the Department.

  And they do not do that for anybody else, you see.
  And then it has, in parentheses:

       (Followed by sections on meetings, dues, government, 
     officers and election process, duties of the officers, 
     filling vacant positions, voting, forming committees, forming 
     chapters in field locations, and amendments. The bylaws are 
     also signed by Wardell C. Townsend, Jr.)

  I am reading from the document itself, which is a USDA document.
  I ask the page to give that to the Senator.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, I wonder if the Senator knows the names of 
other officially-sanctioned organizations. Is there one for women or 
minorities, or does the Senator know?
  Mr. HELMS. Not that I know of.
  Mr. BUMPERS. When Secretary Townsend wrote his memo, he says, ``With 
this approval, USDA GLOBE will exercise all of the rights and 
responsibilities of other officially sanctioned employee 
organizations.''
  No. 1, that suggests there are other such sanctioned organizations; 
but, No. 2, I wonder what the rights bestowed upon them are.
  Mr. HELMS. I have no idea. I am afraid to venture a guess.
  Mr. BUMPERS. You are also saying that the Secretary says not only did 
he not know anything about this, but he did not sanction it, and that 
it is not official Department policy? Is that correct?
  Mr. HELMS. In fact, in his letter that I received last night, the 
Secretary said:

       I don't believe the Department should implement a proactive 
     policy regarding GLOBE.

  That is the end of his quote.
  I got a little editorial comment from my associate here. He said that 
they have already chartered it and, of course, they have, and that is 
just the point I am making.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Now the Secretary says,

       Contrary to the Wall Street Journal article and Dr. Mertz' 
     assertions, there is no gay rights agenda at the Department 
     and there certainly will be no seminars or sensitivity 
     training sessions to promote acceptance of alternate 
     lifestyles.

  Mr. HELMS. I will tell you, Senator, that is in the letter that he 
sent to me, as well.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Right; that is what I am reading from.
  Mr. HELMS. My answer to that is, he had better call a staff meeting 
this afternoon and break the news to those people who are acting, 
obviously----
  Mr. BUMPERS. You do not believe that they know there is no such 
rights policy?
  Mr. HELMS. Well, I think they just do not care. I think the 
Secretary--well, let me restate that--I hope the Secretary is being 
caught in the middle in this thing, because I want to believe 
everything he says, especially when he says ``I did not know about this 
and I did not know about that.''
  He had better get all the mice together and say, ``Look, get out of 
the cheese factory,'' because they are really playing games without the 
benefit of any approval by the U.S. Senate, let alone, according to 
Mike Espy's letter, the Secretary of Agriculture himself.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator's amendment just says that Dr. Mertz ought 
to be reinstated, pending a public hearing.
  Let me ask the Senator, if Dr. Mertz had said in this television 
broadcast that he thought the Department's policy on the hiring of 
minorities, for example, was wrong and that he thought the Department 
had gone too far in favoring minorities, would the Senator agree that 
that also should be addressed?
  Mr. HELMS. Well, he has taken care of that himself in what he has 
written and what he said to me.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am not asking about this particular case. I am asking 
about a hypothetical case.
  Incidentally, would this apply to any employee, not just the head of 
their EEOC division?
  Mr. HELMS. I think any employee who is kicked around because he----
  Mr. BUMPERS. Because he disagrees with policy.
  Mr. HELMS. Because he does not support special status and privileges 
for homosexuals and lesbians.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The U.S. Government does have an official policy of 
nondiscrimination. You cannot discriminate against people because of 
their religion. You cannot discriminate against them because they are 
women. You cannot discriminate against them because of their color.
  But if--just as a hypothetical case--somebody was heading up the EEOC 
division at USDA and he said, ``Our policies which implement the 
nondiscrimination policy against women are going too far; we have got 
too many women in the Department,'' would the Senator be willing to say 
that they, too, should have a public hearing if they are removed?
  Mr. HELMS. Of course not. The Congress has acted on that. And Dr. 
Mertz himself spoke to me about the rights of the handicapped and 
others protected under the Civil Rights Act, with which he fully 
agreed.
  And, incidentally, the quote in the paper said he did not agree with 
Jesse Helms on everything, but he appreciated my help on this.
  But you have to factor in the sensitivity of those of us who feel 
that there is a spiritual and moral aspect to this playing to the 
homosexual and lesbian crowd. It makes it different from anything else. 
Homosexuals are a separate minority. If they would keep their mouths 
shut and go about their business with whatever their sexual orientation 
is, nobody would know anything about it. But, no, they march in the 
streets and they defy anyone who finds their conduct to be offensive 
and degrading.
  A bunch of them climbed up on my house in Arlington a few years ago 
and hoisted a 35-foot canvas condom over the roof of our home.
  They do not like me and I do not like what they do. I wish they would 
shut up and go to work and keep their private matters to themselves--
and get their mentality out of their crotches.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, when we started this colloquy, I thought I was 
on your side, particularly on the first amendment. And under the first 
amendment, people do not have to shut their mouths. They have a right 
to speak.
  Mr. HELMS. Well, they could speak, just so long as they do not offend 
others, I suppose.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is not the test.
  Mr. HELMS. Legally, they could speak any way they want to. That is 
what the first amendment is all about.
  And I think you are still on my side in this matter.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I take it the Senator's answer is that if the same 
situation occurred and somebody had said that this policy of hiring 
women down there is out of control, the place is being run by women and 
the Secretary called the guy in who said that and said, ``I am going to 
have to move you to another job. If you cannot implement our policies 
in a fair way regarding hiring women, then we are going to have to move 
you to another spot,'' the Senator would not protect that person?
  Mr. HELMS. No, I would not. Because it has been decided by the 
Congress of the United States that gender is a protected class under 
the Civil Rights Act.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is right. This hypothetical employee is saying this 
policy is wrong. That is all he is saying: ``I think this policy is 
wrong. I do not care whether the Congress passed a bill, what our 
policy is, this business of equal protection for women and equal rights 
for women is a bad policy.''
  Mr. HELMS. Here is what Dr. Mertz said on the Biloxi television 
station in response to a specific question by the television reporter 
with reference to a brouhaha going on in Washington about an outrageous 
USDA policy being implemented without the approval of Congress and 
apparently without the full knowledge of the Secretary. He said this: 
``We need to be moving toward Camelot, not Sodom and Gomorrah, and I am 
afraid that's where our leadership is trying to take us.''
  Mr. BUMPERS. Is that all he said?
  Mr. HELMS. That is all he said. That is all he is charged with 
saying.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I suppose one could construe that any way one wanted to.
  I must tell the Senator, I am mildly troubled about this. I have a 
tendency--my strong penchant is for nondiscrimination against anybody. 
If you will permit me to quote Dr. Martin Niemoeller. You have heard it 
numerous times, and I have quoted him in numerous speeches. In 
referring to World War II, he said:

       In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I 
     didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came 
     for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. 
     Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up 
     because I wasn't a trade unionist. They came for the 
     Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. 
     Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to 
     speak for me.

  I always keep that in the back of my mind, how those things can 
happen in a country.
  So my personal philosophy has always been fairness to all of our 
people. We are all different. My mother had three children and she said 
we were all totally different. You have to deal with each child 
separately because they have different personalities, they have 
different looks, and so on.
  Consider the fact that in this great Nation we have 250-million-plus 
people and each is unique. The Senator and I do not look alike. We do 
not have the same philosophies. We are friends and we enjoy a cordial 
relationship off the floor.
  My position is the same as that of Senator Mike Mansfield, who used 
to say: ``We are all equal. We have a right to say what we want to on 
the floor and express our views.'' That is what the Senator is doing 
here with his amendment, and I am a great defender of that.
  I am troubled about moving somebody out of a position simply because 
he stated an opinion, which incidentally does not sound like a very 
strong opinion to me, one way or the other. But I have heard a lot of 
politicians say we ought to be moving toward Camelot, because that 
evokes nostalgia for Jack Kennedy, who is greatly revered in this 
country. I sometimes wish we were moving more toward Camelot, too. We 
all share the same concerns about family breakdown, the crime rate, and 
lack of health care for people, particularly poor people.
  But let me just pursue the point I was going to make a moment ago. 
The Secretary says there is no such policy. The Senator is saying there 
may not be, but some of his underlings are carrying on and acting as 
though there is. Is that a fair statement?
  Mr. HELMS. Yes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Dr. Townsend says here, ``Pursuant to the Secretary's 
April 15 civil rights policy statement.'' That was over a year ago.
  I do not know what his statement was.
  Mr. HELMS. And you do not know what interpretation Mr. Townsend was 
putting on whatever statement he was referring to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. He may have been 180 degrees from what the Secretary 
intended.
  Mr. HELMS. But going back to the Senator's analogy about no one stood 
up--it may be Dr. Mertz feels that there are some Christian principles 
that ought to be stood up for, too. I certainly do. The Bible is pretty 
specific about perversion to those of us who are literalists in reading 
the Bible. I thought the statement by Dr. Mertz was mild. It just shows 
you how utterly sensitive the homosexual activists are. They want to 
slap you down and climb up on your roof at your home, and all that sort 
of thing. That will never deter me. I do not think it is going to deter 
Dr. Mertz.
  I understand Dr. Mertz is a Democrat. I believe he may be a liberal 
Democrat.
  Mr. BUMPERS. You have my attention now, if he's a Democrat.
  Mr. HELMS. This is not a political matter. I resent what the USDA did 
to an obviously fine man. I think the Senate ought to speak out and 
right the wrong that has been done to him.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, let me just pursue one other point. The Senator 
says he would not feel the same way if the head of the EEOC said he 
believed in discriminating against women. How would the Senator feel, 
in the same scenario, if somebody went on the television and said, 
``You cannot get a job down at USDA unless you are black. I am head of 
EEOC, but I am telling you we have too many blacks in that Department, 
and they feel because there are so many of them they do not have to do 
their jobs.''
  Would you feel that, if they removed a person who said something like 
that in contravention of congressional intent, Department policy, 
everything, that person should be reinstated?
  Mr. HELMS. This is so hypothetical; I cannot imagine anybody saying 
any such thing.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I cannot either, but we are just using hypothetical 
cases here. These things do happen.
  Mr. HELMS. But your case is so hypothetical. My personal opinion--I 
do not want to deprive anybody of his rights--but nobody ought to be 
saying that sort of thing. But that is hypothetical.
  What I am saying is what Dr. Mertz said is not hypothetical. And what 
was done to him is not hypothetical.
  Mr. BUMPERS. My point is, I know for a fact that there are racists in 
this country who do not believe in the Government policy on 
nondiscrimination against minorities. I know there are people who still 
have a tough time accepting women in the workplace. There are still 
careers that are not open to women.
  What if a similar situation occurs and the employee says, ``You know, 
at the personnel office at USDA, they are hiring a lot of right-wing 
fundamentalists. This place is being taken over by them.'' Senator, you 
know you have been accused of being in that category from time to time. 
How do you feel about that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. I pay no attention to it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair. We are discussing this as friends. Let 
me say when you get to the rights of women, I am boxed in. I am married 
to one; I am the father of two, and the grandfather of five.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I get those humility lessons every evening at my house, 
so I understand what that is like.
  But back to the point. What if somebody obviously had a bias against 
the so-called Christian right and felt that the Department's policy of 
nondiscrimination based on religion was being violated because they 
were hiring too many of them? What if that employee was fired or 
transferred to another job? Do you think he should be protected?
  Mr. HELMS. I do not know that I follow what the Senator is saying.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
and I be permitted to exchange these views in a colloquy without having 
to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me just restate the principles as 
clearly as I can.
  Let us assume that in a parallel situation, the head of the EEOC 
office of the Dallas IRS--I think that is a big IRS center--takes leave 
time and goes on Dallas television and says, ``My job has become really 
troublesome to me. I don't like these so-called religious 
fundamentalists, and yet the personnel office is hiring those people in 
great numbers and they are taking over our office. I don't care that 
the Government policy, the IRS policy, or our office policy is 
nondiscriminatory regarding religion. I think they ought to start 
curbing the hiring of them even though it is a direct violation of the 
Constitution, official policy, congressional policy, and every other 
policy.''
  If he is removed for saying that because they do not think he can 
perform his job as an equal opportunity officer and hear discrimination 
cases when he feels so strongly against a particular religious 
philosophy, would you not protect him the same way you would protect 
Dr. Mertz?
  Mr. HELMS. I think he would already have built-in protections. In 
this case, it is not at all analogous to Dr. Mertz and what happened to 
him, because the Congress has included religion in the Civil Rights 
Act. But it has not included homosexuals. But even so, I believe you 
will find that there will be an automatic hearing if one were 
requested.
  Mr. BUMPERS. There are parts of the Senator's amendment with which I 
am troubled; parts of it with which I agree. I am quite sure the 
Senator will prevail here. I know how these votes go in the Senate, so 
I feel fairly sure he will prevail on it.
  Mr. HELMS. I am not sure. We will soon see.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I would be willing to take this amendment to conference 
and discuss it with the House and see if we could work something out. 
Whether the amendment is adopted here or not, it is likely to be 
reworked in conference to make sure it covers people of every stripe 
and to make sure it complies with all Government policy, not just in 
this one area.
  I am troubled by this. I am troubled that someone is transferred or 
demoted because he expressed an opinion.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, perhaps I should reiterate my earlier 
response to Senator Bumpers' speculation about possible consequences if 
a USDA employee should voice his or her opposition to equal employment 
protections for women, blacks, and religious people in the same manner 
that Dr. Mertz stated his low-key remark about USDA's proposed 
homosexual policies.
  Just suppose, Senator Bumpers speculated hypothetically, someone in 
Dr. Mertz' position questioned the Department's workplace policies 
regarding, for example, women and blacks--then should an inquiry be 
conducted as to that person's ability to enforce USDA policy? The 
answer to Senator Bumpers' hypothetical question is that Congress has 
voted on, and enacted legislation, regarding policies involving women 
and blacks.
  That is not the situation in the case of Dr. Mertz. Dr. Mertz 
questioned the USDA's unilaterally proposed policies to protect a class 
of citizens--homosexuals--even though Congress has never voted to 
protect them.
  So, the focal point of Dr. Mertz' situation is that some bureaucrats 
at the Department of Agriculture have taken action regarding 
homosexuals--action not authorized by Congress--to give homosexuals the 
special protections of title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Dr. 
Mertz, therefore, believes the Department's policies in favor of 
homosexuals violate current law as decreed by Congress, and he is 
right.
  Unless and until Congress votes to include homosexuals as part of 
title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it is neither appropriate nor 
accurate to compare Dr. Mertz' comment about homosexuals with comments 
about women and blacks.
  Government agencies should not be permitted to deny Federal employees 
the right--on their personal time--to question policies which are not 
law. And Dr. Mertz should not be removed from his job for questioning a 
policy that even Agriculture Secretary Espy has disavowed in writing.
  Mr. President, I have been informed that Senator Bumpers plans to 
offer, after my amendment is vote on, an amendment which is known as a 
CMF amendment so that Senators voting against my amendment will have a 
cover-my-fanny vote which they can use back home to try to explain why 
they voted against my amendment. I do not believe anybody back home 
will be fooled, however.
  I think we have one or two people on our side who wish to be heard, 
who want to come over and speak on this.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote against the Helms amendment.
  I am, of course, concerned about any instance in which any Federal 
employee may have been unfairly removed from his or her position merely 
for the expression of views about the agency's personnel policies.
  However, in my view, by focusing on the alleged facts of one specific 
personnel case, this amendment is too narrowly drawn. The Senate should 
not substitute its judgment in a particular personnel decision, 
particularly where adequate procedures are already in existence.
  If existing Federal personnel policies are inadequate to protect the 
first amendment rights of Federal employees, those policies should be 
examined by the Congress and strengthened.
  But, new procedures should not be imposed to protect only rights 
limited to remarks made ``in opposition to Departmental policies, or 
proposed policies regarding homosexuals'' as the Helms amendment would 
do. If such additional safeguards are to be legislated, they should 
protect all speech.
  I support the broader approach to be offered by Senator Bumpers.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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 believe we have cleared it on both sides 
that we would put aside the Helms amendment and go to the Heflin 
amendment on flood relief. I just want to be sure that is agreeable 
with everybody.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator seek unanimous consent for 
that purpose?
  Mr. HEFLIN. Yes. I was just giving an opportunity for all interested 
parties to be alerted to it, if there is any problem with it. I just 
want to clear it.
  There is nobody in the Chamber. I wish to wait to be sure. I do not 
want to take any advantage of anybody relative to the matter.
  I intend to go to the Heflin amendment which is the flood relief 
package if it is agreeable on all sides. I have talked to Senator 
Helms, and he is agreeable to setting aside his amendment, and the 
managers, at least Senator Bumpers is agreeable. Actually, he has gone 
to lunch and asked me to handle it. I just want to be sure that from 
the Republican side there is no objection to it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Helms amendment be set aside and 
that we proceed to the consideration of the Heflin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears no 
objection, and the Helms amendment is set aside. The Chair recognizes 
the Senator.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 2303, AS MODIFIED

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification of my 
amendment which really only means a reassignment of paragraphs. The 
last paragraph is to be transposed above the next to the last 
paragraph. I send that modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understands that the Senator is 
offering it to amendment 2303, and the Senator has sent the 
modification to the desk. The Senator has a right to modify his 
amendment.
  The modification 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, $70,670,000.
       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.
       These amounts are designated by Congress as 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.

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I have spoken before on this, and we want 
to give an opportunity for a number of people who desire to be 
cosponsors of the amendment to come forward and make speeches. Senators 
Nunn and Coverdell, as I understand, Graham and Mack are cosponsoring 
this amendment. I ask that they be made cosponsors of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I do not think I have to go into any great 
detail to speak of the devastation that has taken place in Georgia, 
Alabama, and Florida as a result of the terrible rains that lasted for 
days and weeks recently. Hurricane Alberto seemed to hover over that 
area, a tri-State area, and it continued to rain and rain and rain. The 
television has shown many, many pictures of the devastation that took 
place, and from it you can get a gripping feeling of the anguish and 
the anxiety and the terrible loss that has occurred. There has been a 
terrible loss of lives, people injured, businesses, homes destroyed, 
and farmlands destroyed.
  The amendment is on the agriculture appropriations bill. I think some 
felt my amendment would be a comprehensive disaster bill, but it is, of 
course, limited here to the agricultural phase of it, and those phases 
that are connected with the Department of Agriculture such as rural 
areas, rural housing, crop losses, the losses pertaining to soil 
conservation practices, the damage that has been done to water systems 
and sewer systems in the rural areas.
  The amendment that I have offered has been cleared through the 
Department of Agriculture. They have made estimates relative to the 
amount of damages in the different categories that we have listed in 
our amendment.
  I met with the President on Sunday afternoon and discussed this and 
some other things with him, and the OMB has been consulted. They have 
approved these figures. We will have to leave open such things as crop 
damage because you will not really know about crop damage until the 
final harvest period comes, and then you are able to calculate it. So 
it is left in sort of a broad, flexible manner.
  I have a letter here from the Acting Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget that I ask unanimous consent be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 1994.
     Hon. Howell Heflin,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Heflin: I want to assure you that the 
     Administration will promptly use existing funds in the Soil 
     Conservation Service (SCS) to meet the estimated $25 million 
     in emergency watershed needs in areas affected by recent 
     floods in the Southeast. $341 million in emergency funds were 
     appropriated to the SCS Watershed and Flood Prevention 
     Operations account in P.L. 103-211 this February. Over $150 
     million is currently available to meet emergency watershed 
     protection needs stemming from natural disasters. No 
     additional legislative action is necessary to direct needed 
     funds to the Southeast. The Administration will move 
     expeditiously to make the necessary funds available.
       Please call me if you have any questions about this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Alice M. Rivlin,
                                                  Acting Director.

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, there are several points that I want to 
make. There are all sorts of devastation that took place. This 
devastation was recognized by the President.
  I want to commend the President for immediately coming back from 
overseas where he was meeting with the superpowers, the heads of state 
of a great number of leading nations of the world, discussing various 
things. And the first thing that he did upon arrival in the United 
States was to go to inspect this area of the country that had such a 
terrible disastrous consequence as a result of these rains.
  Therefore, I congratulate him on his choice of what he would give 
priority to in regard to his time when he came back to the United 
States when so many other matters were pressing for attention at that 
particular time.
  This amendment covers a number of things. We are pleased that it 
covers the areas that normally are not looked at in a situation of 
disaster relief.
  I flew over and inspected numerous farms. I saw the devastation that 
was taking place relative to the soil conservation practices. In my 
section of Alabama which has been affected by these floods, they had 
just finished the soil conservation practices creating terraces and 
other good soil conservation practices. But the floods caused gullies 
to be created over all of the farms, which caused the terraces to be 
destroyed. There is a need for some specific language in this amendment 
to take care of those aspects.
  There are also aspects dealing with water systems and sewer systems. 
They have become polluted, many of them placed out of operation, and 
need to be restored. So these are matters that we feel are important.
  I see Senator Graham has come to the floor. I would be delighted at 
this time to yield the floor and allow Senator Graham to speak on this 
subject.
  Mr. Graham addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, thank you.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by our friend and colleague, Senator Heflin from Alabama.
  Mr. President, 12 counties in my State have now been declared as 
disasters as a result of the floods throughout the Southeast. Many of 
these communities had previously been affected by floods--in 1975, and 
again as recently as 1990.
  Therefore, the people in the affected regions know all too well the 
damage and devastation which floods can cause. In 1990, three of the 
effected counties today, Holmes, Washington, and Jackson, were declared 
disaster areas when the flooding in Alabama caused a dam to break. 
These same 3 counties are among the 13 which have now been declared 
disasters as a result of the floods of 1994.
  Many of these communities are heavily dependent upon agriculture. 
This flood hit them the hardest. The waters of the Apalachicola River 
as well as the Choctawhatchee and the Chipola have engulfed fields of 
wheat, peas, cotton, corn, soybeans, tomatoes, and livestock. It is 
expected that the entire 4,000-acre unharvested watermelon crop has 
been lost. All told, 4,000 family farms were affected by this storm and 
floods.
  Most panhandle farmers have had only 3 rain-free days since June 1. 
Many crops were already under stress because of rain which had already 
prevented farmers from taking equipment into the soggy fields. Farmers 
have done little or no field work for weed, insect or disease control 
for nearly 7 weeks.
  This flood has put an almost unbearable strain on the farmers' and 
the residents' ability to recover. On July 11, I visited the flood-
ravaged towns of Caryville and Blountstown. I met with the people who 
only 4 years ago were engulfed by the 1990 flood. In Caryville, for 
example, many people with whom I spoke had not yet decided if they can 
afford to rebuild their town and their farms. Some are considering 
moving their homes and businesses altogether. Some of the saddest of 
those persons affected by these floods were those who in 1992 had lived 
in the path of Hurricane Andrew, and they left the southern part of the 
State for the north feeling that would give them sanction. Yet, they 
found disaster a second time.
  Mr. President, assistance for these farmers and residents is needed 
and is needed now. After Hurricane Andrew, we learned much about the 
consequences of bureaucratic delays in distributing aid, and waiting 
any longer to provide help to the flood victims in this disaster would 
be to fail to learn those lessons of the recent past.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Alabama would provide $10 
million in emergency community water assistance grants, $15 million in 
very-low-income housing repair grants, and $7.67 million for emergency 
direct loans under the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program for 
victims of the flood.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators from Alabama, Georgia, 
and my colleague from Florida in supporting this amendment.
  I ask my colleagues to help us provide some assistance to these rural 
communities in a time of tremendous need.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I want to also point out that most of this 
in Alabama is in the ryegrass area of southeast Alabama. Also the rains 
have affected the crops in a very disastrous manner in Mobile, Baldwin, 
and other counties in south Alabama.
  There have been also, previous to this, freezes that have occurred 
back earlier in the year that would have been subject to the language 
of this bill, and as the result of the excess water and wetter 
conditions, you have insects. We are particularly concerned about the 
army beet worm.
  I see that Senator Shelby and Senator Coverdell are on the floor. I 
would be glad to yield the floor at this time if they want to speak.
  Mr. CONRAD. Before the Senator yields the floor, would the Senator 
yield for a question?
  Mr. HEFLIN. Yes.
  Mr. CONRAD. The State of North Dakota now has 24 counties that have 
been declared disaster areas as a result of flooding. We had floods 
last year; the 50-year flood that never left.
  I was just wondering if the Senator could tell me if all crops 
qualify under the Senator's amendment.
  Mr. HEFLIN. It is my understanding if your counties and areas have 
been declared as disaster areas, they would be covered under this 
amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. This is not limited then to program crops?
  Mr. HEFLIN. No; it would be a comprehensive agricultural disaster 
bill.
  Mr. CONRAD. The same formula would apply as we have had in the past 
disasters in the disaster bill of last year?
  Mr. HEFLIN. My understanding is that what the President asked for as 
the effort in the Mississippi Valley last year would be the same 
program that would apply here.
  Mr. CONRAD. So the 50 percent cut that had been applied in disasters 
the previous years in the disaster formula would not apply this year?
  Mr. HEFLIN. That is correct.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator.
  I just want to say that I strongly support this amendment. I am very 
hopeful that we can adopt this amendment today.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished 
Senator from Alabama and our colleague, the Senator from Mississippi, 
for their arduous work on this amendment, of which I am a cosponsor.
  I just returned from the ravages of the flood in Georgia. It is even 
yet very difficult to comprehend the damage that has been left in the 
wake of this flood.
  I commend the Senator for the work and effort that he has made to 
alleviate some of the anxiety and concern about the extended buildback 
that will be necessary.
  I want to publicly acknowledge the work of the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I, too, rise to support the amendment 
offered by my colleague, the distinguished Senator, Senator Heflin.
  We have all seen the tremendous toll the flood has taken on the 
States and citizens of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Senator Heflin 
and I both have seen extensive damage and destruction that have 
immobilized many communities in southern Alabama and other States and 
which have left many families homeless.
  Eight counties in my State of Alabama have already been designated 
disaster areas, and the damage and losses continue to mount.
  The amendment offered by the senior Senator from Alabama, among other 
things, would allow this body to provide the kind of immediate relief 
that these Florida, Georgia, and Alabama communities, and perhaps 
others, need now.
  The amendment would provide emergency funding for water and sewer 
systems. In Alabama, many water and sewer facilities have been knocked 
out or severely damaged by the flooding, leaving many citizens without 
water. I am sure the same is true in Georgia and Florida. Funding for 
these grants would help get these facilities running again.
  Funding, Mr. President, is also provided for general cleanup and 
housing repairs. Thousands of citizens have been left homeless or have 
returned to find what is left of their homes. Helping these families 
put their homes and lives back together should be a priority of any 
emergency relief, and this amendment would provide that kind of 
assistance.
  Finally, Mr. President, this amendment makes funding available to the 
many farmers who have seen their crops destroyed by floodwaters and 
their property turned into wetlands.
  Mr. President, while all the damage from the flood has yet to be 
calculated, the cost in losses now suffered by the citizens of Florida, 
Georgia, and Alabama, can be mitigated now by providing the kind of 
immediate assistance found in this amendment.
  I commend my senior colleague, Senator Heflin, for offering this 
important, and I think necessary, legislation in a timely manner. I ask 
my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the 
Senators who have worked to craft this amendment, particularly Senator 
Heflin of Alabama. It necessarily becomes a time when farmers have not 
been able at this point to fully assess the exact damages that will be 
sustained as a result of the flooding that hit Georgia, Alabama, and 
Florida, but there is no doubt that those farmlands have been severely 
affected by these floods.
  We are no strangers in the State of Mississippi to flood damage. I 
can tell you from our experiences that farmers are going to need help. 
This bill is a very serious effort to respond to the needs that the 
agriculture sector will have to try to recover from this disaster. I am 
glad that the Senator from Alabama, Senator Heflin, has included as 
cosponsors Senators on this side of the aisle, who have been eager to 
do something that will help these farmers get back on their feet. I 
know Senator Coverdell from Georgia, who has already expressed his 
support for the legislation, and Senator Mack of Florida, are both 
cosponsors of the bill. All of the Senators from the affected area are 
involved in trying to make sure that the administration responds and 
that the Congress also responds in a generous and helpful way to their 
needs at this very difficult time.
  We have other provisions that will be introduced as part of a package 
of amendments to this legislation, seeking to address other disaster 
assistance needs. For example, the Senator from Georgia, Senator 
Coverdell, has an amendment that will make available advance deficiency 
payments to farmers, and the managers will be accepting that amendment 
and recommending acceptance of the Heflin amendment as well.
  Then Senator Bumpers and I will offer an amendment that will provide 
disaster assistance for all 1994 crops under the current disaster law, 
because there were damages sustained, for example, in our State of 
Mississippi earlier this year in a very severe freeze. A lot of orchard 
crops, such as pecan orchards and peach orchards, were seriously 
affected. Under some of the disaster law, those crops encounter 
particular difficulties in fitting into some of the benefit formulas, 
because their losses are going to be sustained over a period of years. 
Their losses cannot be assessed in 1 year. It may take 3, 4, or 5 years 
for some of these orchard crops to recover to the point where they are 
in full production again. It is hard to measure those damages and make 
available benefits under those situations that are the same or would be 
fair as it is to other annual crops.
  So my purpose in rising at this point is to express the support that 
we feel for the Heflin amendment, urge the Senate to approve it, and to 
say that this, together with other amendments that will be offered, we 
hope, will successfully address the needs of those who have encountered 
disasters this year.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, over the past few weeks, the floods in 
Georgia, Alabama, and Florida have been well documented by the media. 
The primary attention has been focused on the response stage of 
disaster assistance. Teams from FEMA, the Georgia Emergency Management 
Agency, and other relief agencies have done an exemplary job in seeing 
to the immediate needs of those affected by the devastating floods and 
heavy rains in south Georgia. These agencies have provided housing, hot 
meals, water, and clothing to over 20,000 flood victims. On behalf of 
Georgians throughout the State, I want to thank these agencies and the 
many people who have worked behind the scenes, the sandbaggers, the 
debris removers, the water truck operators; men and women working side 
by side to hold their communities together.
  Now comes the hard part, as the waters recede. Families and 
individuals must now build back their homes, businesses, and 
communities. I term their mission, Operation Buildback. Congress must 
play a role in Operation Buildback by providing assistance that will 
benefit the victims in the long-term or help them get their lives back 
to some form of normalcy.
  This will not be an easy process for any of these brave citizens, but 
this is especially true for farmers. Georgia suffered great crop and 
land damages in our agricultural community. On initial estimates, we 
are anticipating nearly 1,000,000 acres in their tri-state area to have 
some crops or farmland affected by the heavy rains and flooding. In 
Georgia, we have nearly 500,000 acres of farmland affected by the 
floods, a good portion of that will be totally lost. Our two crops hit 
the hardest by this disaster, peanuts and cotton, have damage to over 
300,000 acres. Our initial estimates of land damages to ponds, dams, 
terraces, and other land structures is $23,000,000. The losses of these 
key agricultural tools will take months and possibly years for our 
farmers to replace, not to mention the tremendous costs involved.
  I would like to thank my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, 
and his staff members Becky Davies and Mark Keenum for their fine work 
in addressing the needs of those farmers affected by 1994 disasters. I 
would also like to thank Senator Bumpers who worked together with 
Senator Cochran to include various amendments that provide assistance 
to the farmers I mentioned previously. Finally, I would like to thank 
my colleague from Alabama, Senator Heflin, who has introduced an 
amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, which provides approximately 
$100,000,000 in comprehensive assistance to these affected farmers. The 
efforts of my colleagues will result in the following: 100 percent 
funding of the Federal formula for disaster payments; $10,000,000 for 
emergency community water assistance grants; $15,000,000 for very low 
income housing repair grants; $25,000,000 for emergency loans under the 
Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program account; $23,000,000 for the 
Emergency Conservation Program; and $25,000,000 for the Emergency 
Watershed Program.
  I encourage the Senate to adopt this package because I believe it 
will address the needs of farmers devastated by the floods and other 
disasters. I encourage my colleagues also to adopt an amendment I have 
drafted that would provide a deferment period, until January, 1995, to 
those farmers who received advance deficiency payments and must now pay 
them back. This amendment, which mirrors language passed in response to 
the Midwest floods of 1993, would give farmers, just coming off of 
disasters, an opportunity to regroup before starting their repayments 
in January of 1995.
  It is imperative that Congress act expediently to provide the kind of 
assistance I have just outlined, which would benefit our agricultural 
system over the long haul. I encourage my colleagues to support my 
efforts along with those of Senators Cochran, Heflin, and Bumpers, in 
regard to disaster relief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Conrad and Senator Dorgan be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. We have several who want to come to the floor and speak. 
Most of them have.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Moseley-Braun). Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________