[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]

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

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                    Amendment No. 2303, As Modified

  Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I think this amendment is ready to be 
submitted for approval or disapproval. There may be some that will 
speak. However, the Bumpers-Cochran committee amendment addresses 
comprehensively the overall matter pertaining to disaster relief and, 
therefore, I think any Senator who has not spoken yet will have an 
opportunity to speak at that particular time.
  I ask unanimous consent that any of those that would like to file 
statements, that they can be received and be printed in the Record 
relative to this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I ask that amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2303), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
committee amendment be temporarily laid aside in order to offer an 
amendment. Wait a minute. The Heflin amendment I believe is the pending 
amendment, is it not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Helms amendment to the committee amendment 
is pending.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Then I ask unanimous consent that the committee 
amendment be temporarily laid aside in order to offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2321

        (Purpose: To provide disaster assistance for 1994 crops)

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

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] for himself, Mr. 
     Cochran, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dole, and Mr. Coverdell, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2321.

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

       On page 32, strike line 21 and all that follows through the 
     colon on line 10 on page 33, and insert in lieu thereof:
       Such sums as may be necessary from the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation shall be available, through July 15, 1995, to 
     producers under the same terms and conditions authorized in 
     chapter 3, subtitle B, Title XXII of Public Law 101-624 for 
     1994 crops, including aquaculture and excluding ornamental 
     fish, affected by natural disasters: Provided, That such 
     amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, and 
     that such funds shall be available only to the extent an 
     official budget request for a specific dollar amount, that 
     includes designation of the entire amount of the request as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 as amended, is 
     transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided 
     further, That these funds shall be made available upon 
     enactment of this Act:

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, this is an amendment that Senator 
Cochran and I are offering on behalf of the administration. It is a 
disaster bill which covers all disasters for the 1994 crop year and 
goes until July 15, 1995. In other words, that is the timeframe in 
which farmers will have to file claims.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I support, of course, the amendment 
that I am cosponsoring with the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. We 
feel that this will extend the benefits of current disaster law to 
those who suffered crop damage in this 1994 crop year and that it ought 
to be adopted by the Senate.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, just for the Record, I would like to 
state that this bill is an appropriation of such sums as shall be 
necessary, but that carries with it the burden of getting a 
proclamation by the President of an emergency. I just wanted to make 
the record clear on that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2321) was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the 
Bumpers-Cochran amendment to make available emergency appropriations 
for disaster assistance to agricultural producers. Michigan has been 
hard hit by record winter freezes and extremely heavy rains at prime 
harvest time. Fruit, dry bean, cucumber/pickle, sugar beet, corn and 
other program and non-program crops have been devastated by terrible 
weather in 1994.
  Approximately 40 counties all over Michigan have experienced fruit 
crop and tree losses this year, in some cases 100 percent of the crop 
and trees are completely wiped out. According to the ASCS State survey 
of January freeze damage, 95 percent of Michigan's potential peach crop 
this year was destroyed and about 40 percent of the trees have died so 
far. Apple, cherry, plum and other tree fruits have also sustained 
serious damage. Thousands and thousands of acres of prime Michigan 
cropland were covered with standing water as late as July 12, 1994, 
making harvesting or salvage impossible.
  This amendment will provide qualifying growers that experienced 
severe losses in the 1994 crop year with disaster payments to help them 
recover and replant, in some cases. Such benefits will be provided 
under the terms and conditions of the 1990 farm bill. Based on informal 
reports, growers' losses in Michigan could amount to more than $60 
million. Information is still coming in to the ASCS office from around 
the State, so this estimate could go even higher.
  As I understand it, President Clinton, OMB, and Secretary Espy have 
agreed to this emergency designation and the Department of Agriculture 
is working to prepare a comprehensive crop damage assessment for 
Michigan and other States that have also experienced major agricultural 
damage.
  Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


                           amendment no. 2322

        (Purpose: To provide 1994 crop loss disaster assistance)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk, under 
the same unanimous-consent request that the pending committee amendment 
be set aside, and ask that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2322.

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

       On page 33, line 10, before the colon, insert:
       : Provided further, That such funds shall also be available 
     for payments to producers for 1995 through 1998 orchard crop 
     losses, if the losses are due to freezing conditions incurred 
     between January 1, 1994, and March 31, 1994, and Federal Crop 
     Insurance is not available for affected orchard crop 
     producers: Provided further, That the use of funds for this 
     purpose is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, and 
     that such use shall be available only to the extent the 
     President designates such use an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to such Act: Provided further, That such funds made 
     available from the Commodity Credit Corporation shall be 
     available to fund the costs of replanting, reseeding, or 
     repairing damage to commercial trees (regardless of the age 
     of the damaged trees), including orchard and nursery 
     inventory, as a result of 1994 weather-related damages: 
     Provided further, That the use of funds for these purposes is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, and that 
     such use shall be available only to the extent the President 
     designates such use an emergency requirement pursuant to such 
     Act.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, in February of this year, many counties 
in Mississippi suffered severe damage due to a winter storm of freezing 
rain and ice. This storm caused extensive damage to commercial orchard 
crops. For example, it is estimated that it may be 8 to 10 years before 
normal production will be realized for up to one-half of Mississippi's 
pecan orchards. This devastating ice storm not only affected 
Mississippi, but also other States in the Midsouth and the Eastern 
portion of the country.
  This amendment will provide disaster assistance for orchard crop 
losses suffered in 1994 due to freezing weather conditions, subject to 
an emergency designation. Given the extensive damage of the trees, 
which will affect production for several years, this amendment provides 
assistance to eligible orchard crop producers through 1998.
  Also affected by this year's freezing weather conditions were 
commercial tree producers. Severe damage was incurred on 3.7 million 
acres of forestland in Mississippi. It is also estimated that the cost 
of cleanup and tree repair will exceed $1,000 per acre. This amendment 
also provides assistance for replanting, reseeding, and repairing 
damaged trees. The fact that crop insurance was not available for the 
producers suffering losses makes the passage of this amendment very 
critical.
  For the information of Senators, this amendment deals with orchard 
crop losses that occurred in several States during the freezing weather 
that occurred in the early months of this year. Pecan orchards and 
peach orchards suffered severe damage.
  This amendment is designed to make available to those who suffered 
this damage opportunities for disaster assistance under the same 
precedents that were provided by Congress and the administration during 
recent disasters that occurred in other parts of the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2322) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam 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. 2323

 (Purpose: To extend the deadline for repayment of deficiency payments 
    for producers who have been substantially affected by a natural 
                  disaster during the 1994 crop year)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, under the same unanimous-consent 
request that the pending committee amendment be set aside, I send an 
amendment in behalf of the Senator from Georgia, Senator Coverdell, to 
the desk and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] for Mr. 
     Coverdell proposes an amendment numbered 2323.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . REPAYMENT OF DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS.

       In any case in which the Secretary of Agriculture finds 
     that the farming, ranching, or aquaculture operations of 
     producers on a farm have been substantially affected by a 
     natural disaster in the United States or by a major disaster 
     or emergency designated by the President under the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) during the 1994 crop year, the Secretary 
     of Agriculture shall not require any repayment under 
     subparagraph (G) or (H) or section 114(a)(2) of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1445j(a)(2)) for the 1994 
     crop of a commodity prior to January 1, 1995.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, the Senator from Georgia [Mr. 
Coverdell] in this amendment suggests that deficiency payments that are 
made to disaster victims in the recent floods in the States of Georgia, 
Alabama, and Florida be given additional time for repaying any advanced 
deficiency payments that would be made to those disaster victims.
  This has precedent in other disaster legislation that has been 
adopted by the Congress in other situations similar to that that exists 
in those three States, and we recommend that the amendment be agreed 
to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. We have no objection on our side, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2323) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam 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.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam 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. NUNN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, as the Senator from Arkansas and the 
Senator from Mississippi know so well, we in Georgia and also Florida 
and Alabama have had some devastating floods in the last 2 weeks. We 
are dealing with the terrible aftermath of that tragic flood of 
historic proportions that we are going to have to deal with for months 
and, in some cases, for years to come. I know in this bill there have 
been two or three important amendments that deal with this kind of 
flood disaster. I would be very grateful to the Senator from 
Mississippi and the Senator from Arkansas if they could describe 
briefly for me, making clear for the Record, what kind of disaster 
assistance is provided for in this bill.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, if I may respond to the Senator from 
Georgia, this is a fairly simple, straight-on amendment to this bill, 
which is offered, really, on behalf of the administration, that 
authorizes such sums as shall be necessary to cover crop losses for 
1994, with such loss claims acceptable until July 15, 1995.
  It is subject to a Presidential declaration of emergency. As you 
know, under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, in order not to have 
to come up with an offset for such sums as shall be used, the President 
must declare an emergency. So this is a simple appropriation of such 
sums as shall be necessary to accommodate farmers, especially in 
Georgia and Florida and also Alabama. There may be another State or two 
that will qualify under this, but the central reason for this, of 
course, is the floods that devastated the Senator's State.
  Mr. NUNN. So we can be assured by that language that there will be 
enough funding to cover whatever existing claims there are under the 
present law?
  Mr. BUMPERS. No question about it. The only thing pending is the 
emergency declaration by the President, and I think that is just an 
absolute given. There is not any question that he will do that.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield for a further 
response?
  Mr. NUNN. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I might add, the Senator from Georgia is a cosponsor of 
the Heflin amendment that has been adopted. While it cannot put 
landowners back in the same position they were before the floods, it is 
a responsive and timely disaster assistance package. It is patterned 
upon the Midwest flood and previous disaster packages. For example, 
there is a further amendment in a package of four amendments that deals 
with advanced deficiency payments and waives the time limit for 
repayment, if any repayment is required, by farmers. This is identical 
to relief provided to farmers affected by the devastating floods which 
hit the Midwest. Those who were damaged in this disaster will be given 
a break on the advanced deficiency payment program as well.
  I think as a package, these amendments do provide a sensitive 
response from the Congress to the needs of those flood victims, but 
there is really no way to erase the damage they suffered.
  Mr. NUNN. There is no such thing as putting people back 100 percent 
to where they were.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator has been there and he has seen the damage 
for himself.
  Mr. NUNN. That is right.
  Mr. COCHRAN. But we appreciate the efforts the Senator and his staff 
have made to direct us in the right direction on this issue.
  Mr. NUNN. I thank my friends and appreciate very much their 
leadership, and also the staff which have been working with our staff 
and Senator Coverdell's staff and Senator Heflin's staff, and others to 
make sure we have in here the maximum amount of help we can give, based 
on the existing law.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam 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. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       vote on amendment no. 2320

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, unless there is further debate, we are 
prepared to vote. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the Helms 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct; the yeas and nays have 
been ordered.
  If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 2320. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 214 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pressler
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                                NAYS--41

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Chafee
     Cohen
     Danforth
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Durenberger
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wofford
  So the amendment (No. 2320) was agreed to.
  Mr. HELMS. 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. 2324

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

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2324.

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

       In the amendment strike all after ``Administration,'' on 
     line 24 and insert the following: ``to remain available until 
     expended, provided that the preceding shall take effect one 
     day after the date of this bill's enactment.
       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no employee 
     of the United States Department of Agriculture shall be 
     peremptorily removed without a hearing from his or her 
     position because of remarks made during personal time 
     regarding Departmental policies, or proposed policies.''

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of the 
Senators, we will have a rollcall vote, I hope, immediately.
  First of all, let me say that I voted against the Helms amendment, 
not because I did not think part of it was correct, but I thought it 
ought to include as a general governmental policy--certainly it should 
have included women, minorities, people of religious faiths, and so on.
  So this amendment is designed to simply say you cannot be removed 
from your office for disagreeing with the policies of the department 
where you work, or proposed policies, and that includes everybody. That 
includes everybody we intend to protect: women, minorities, sexual 
orientation, what have you. So I am prepared to vote on it. It is a 
simple, straightforward amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 215 Leg.]

                               YEAS--100

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford
  So the amendment (No. 2324) was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                    peanut research, stillwater, ok.

  Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I rise to engage the subcommittee chairman 
to clarify some details concerning peanut research in Stillwater, OK.
  The subcommittee has been most helpful in recent years in trying to 
help us maintain some very vital research on peanut pathology and 
physiology. Peanut production in the United States is separated by 
climate and soil type into three separate areas: the Southwest, the 
Southeast, and the Virginia/Carolina area. Each are distinct areas with 
their own advantages and challenges from Mother Nature. While there are 
common challenges to production, they each grow different types of 
peanuts and face different diseases and insects. Thus research needs 
are different and require localized research. In Oklahoma, we face a 
serious challenge from a fungus called sclerotinia blight. In some 
years, major economic loss occurs because of that blight.
  In the past, we had three strong scientists working on these 
challenges, but budget realities have reduced this effort to one 
outstanding scientist, Dr. H.A. Melouk, a plant pathologist. He is well 
respected by his scientific peers and has become a hero to peanut 
producers desperate for research answers to production.
  Our request to the subcommittee the past 3 years has been for an 
increase to $500,000 in order to add an additional scientist at 
Stillwater. We saw this as a compromise, once having three full-time 
scientists, now only one. Budget realities have prevented the 
subcommittee from honoring our request, but the subcommittee has been 
fair in assuring that the research effort would continue while we 
search for proper funding. Further, the subcommittee and USDA were 
helpful in transferring $50,000 last year for equipment and in 
providing for a graduate student to assist with the research work.
  I would like to ask Chairman Bumpers to clarify my understanding of 
the subcommittee's action. I understand that the subcommittee has not 
been able to honor our request for full funding at $500,000, but does 
direct that the research continue at Stillwater.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is correct.
  Mr. BOREN. Current funding at the Stillwater station is $323,300, 
which includes $50,000 added for the graduate student assistant. Am I 
correct that the base funding received for the station will be 
continued at $323,300?
  Mr. BUMPERS. This is my understanding.
  Mr. BOREN. I thank Chairman Bumpers for his assistance in clarifying 
this matter and I also appreciate his leadership in keeping agriculture 
strong.


                    amendment no. 2314, as modified

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may make a 
technical change to amendment No. 2314, which was agreed to yesterday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 24, line 24, strike ``$55,728,000'' and insert 
     ``$57,454,000''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
committee amendment be set aside for the purpose of offering an 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2325

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds made available under this act to 
 make payments to, or permit loan forfeitures by, a person to support 
          the price of honey for the 1994 and 1995 crop years)

  Mr. COCHRAN. On behalf of the Senator from Colorado, Mr. [Brown], 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 Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Brown, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2325.

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

       Strike line 15, on page 82, through line 5 on page 83, and 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 723. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR HONEY PAYMENTS OR 
                   LOAN FORFEITURES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of 
     the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act shall be used by the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 
     for a total amount of payments and/or total amount of loan 
     forfeitures to a person to support the price of honey under 
     section 207 of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1446h) 
     and section 405A of such Act (7 U.S.C. 1425a) in excess of 
     zero dollars in the 1994 and 1995 crop years.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to carry 
forward modified language in the bill relating to the support price of 
honey. It continues the prohibition against the use of funds in the 
bill for such purposes. It has been cleared on this side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Mr. BUMPERS. The amendment is cleared on this side, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2325) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


      Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 70, lines 21 through 25

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
committee amendment on page 70, lines 21 through 25.
  Is there further discussion on the amendment?
  If there is no further discussions, the question is on agreeing to 
the committee amendment.
  The committee amendment on page 70, lines 21 through 25, was agreed 
to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


Excepted Committee Amendment on Page 80, line 10 through Page 81, line 
                                   18

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the remaining committee 
amendment on page 80, line 9.
  Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, my notes indicate line 10. Did you say 
line 9?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The question is on agreeing to the remaining committee amendment on 
page 80, line 10 through page 81, line 18.
  The committee amendment on page 80, line 10 through page 81, line 18 
was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, just 30 seconds to thank my very 
distinguished ranking member, Senator Cochran, for the cooperation he 
has given throughout the markup of the bill, getting it out of 
committee, and here on the floor. He has been an absolutely exemplary 
person to work with and I want to publicly express my appreciation for 
that.
  I want to also thank Rocky Kuhn and Dan Dager. Obviously, I am fairly 
new at this. This is only the second one I have handled. A competent 
staff is absolutely essential to moving a bill like this, and I want to 
express publicly my gratitude to them.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in just a moment we will be voting on 
final passage of this bill.
  Let me assure Senators that this is an example of restraint and of 
budget responsibility. This bill is $4.1 billion below last year's 
total appropriated level of funding for the accounts under the 
jurisdiction of this committee. For total discretionary spending, it is 
$1.3 billion below last year's level.
  I want to thank the distinguished manager of the bill, my friend from 
Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, for his courtesies and for his hard work in 
getting this bill to the Senate floor and in helping us ensure passage 
of the bill today.
  I also want to thank Rebecca Davies of our staff and Mark Keenum of 
my personal staff for their excellent assistance.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I intended to bring up my amendment, 
subject to the conversation I had with the floor leader, and I would at 
this time do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold for a moment.
  Is there a sufficient second on the request for a rollcall vote?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 2326

       (Purpose: To condition the use of funds made available 
     under this Act on an increase in the maximum amount of 
     certain rural development loans)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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 Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2326.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 56, line 7, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``Provided further, That, notwithstanding 
     subsection (a) of section 310B of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(a)), a loan made, 
     insured, or guaranteed under such subsection may exceed 
     $25,000,000, but may not exceed $50,000,000, in principal 
     amount''.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, my amendment would simply increase the 
loan guarantee ceiling under the Department of Agriculture Rural 
Industrial Assistance loans from $25 million to $50 million.
  I want to point out, it would no way obligate the Department of 
Agriculture to guarantee a loan of that principal amount--it would 
merely provide them with the flexibility in the event that such a loan 
guarantee is determined to be in the interest of the Government.
  I might add that these are not Government funds. These are funds from 
the private sector with a guarantee, the maximum guarantee is 90 
percent. So the private sector is involved in an equity position in the 
sense of having exposure.
  It would simply provide for the creation of larger projects, to 
develop more jobs and, I think, give the flexibility to the Secretary 
of Agriculture to basically do more with this worthwhile program.
  Again, it would not incur a specific obligation inasmuch as the 
Federal Government is not funding the loan--just the guarantee.
  The loan program I am specifically referring to is the Farmers' Home 
Business and Industry [B&I] Loan Program. This is a highly successful 
program designed to improve economic and environmental climate in rural 
areas. The emphasis is rural: It cannot be used within a city with a 
population of 50,000 or more, or in its immediate area with a 
population density of 100 or more persons per square mile; priority is 
for projects in open country, rural communities, and towns of 25,000 or 
less.
  The Government can guarantee loans made by a federally regulated bank 
or credit union. The Government guarantees 90 percent of principal and 
interest for loans of $2 million or less; 80 percent of principal and 
interest for loans of $2 to $5 million; and 70 percent of loans over $5 
million.
  Current statutory maximum is $25 million per guaranteed loan. My 
amendment merely gives the Secretary discretion to guarantee up to $50 
million.
  B&I loans can be used to: finance business and industrial 
construction; conversion, acquisition and modernization; finance 
purchase and development of land, easements, equipment, facilities, 
machinery, supplies, or material; supply working capital; finance 
housing development sites; provide startup and working capital; and 
control pollution.
  Guaranteed loans can be approved for: individuals, public and private 
organizations, cooperatives, federally recognized Indian tribal groups; 
in short, virtually any legal entity.
  The program has a very low default rate--less than 5 percent since 
1985.
  It is an expanding, highly successful program that works.
  In 1994, the loan level was $249 million. The Department of 
Agriculture expects to fully utilize their loan guarantee authority, 
just as they did in 1993. This year, because of the success of the 
program and its low default rate, the administration sought to increase 
the program's loan authority to $1.1 billion. The committee recommended 
$500 million.


                          The Alaska Situation

  We have a situation in Alaska where the U.S. Forest Service 
unilaterally terminated a 50-year timber supply contract in the Tongass 
National Forest.
  The effect of this contract termination was to permanently close a 
pulp mill, the only year-around employment for 400 residents of Sitka, 
AK.
  In addition to the jobs in the mill, another 700 jobs in the forest 
were jeopardized, along with a significant portion of the local tax 
base and $70 million in city bonding authority.
  It is a certainty that extended litigation will result as a 
consequence of this contract termination, exposing the government to 
potential payments of hundreds of millions of dollars.
  There has been some interest expressed, however, in reopening the 
pulp mill as a medium-density fiberboard [MDF] plant. While such a 
plant would not fully replace the jobs that were lost as a result of 
the Federal contract termination, it would provide some badly needed 
year-round employment.
  In addition, the medium-density fiberboard production process, unlike 
the process that makes dissolving pulp, is a closed system that is 
environmentally more benign.
  Moreover, the MDF plant would make use of wood chips and pulp logs 
that cannot be used for dimensional lumber, thus providing a means of 
value-added production for all of the timber harvested in the forest.
  It is possible to envision a situation where the financing for 
conversion to a MDF plant might occur with a Department of Agriculture 
Business and Industry loan guarantee.
  It is also possible to envision a situation where the Government may 
find it in its best interests to promote such a conversion as a means 
to avoid extended litigation. My amendment merely allows us to keep the 
door to those possibilities open.
  Mr. President, I believe this is a superb, well managed program. All 
we are proposing to do is give the Secretary greater discretion in 
providing higher loan guarantees for extraordinary projects of merit.
  I know it has been discussed at some length with both floor leaders. 
It is my understanding that on our side there is no objection. I think 
there is a concern that has been expressed by the Senator from Arkansas 
relative to certain aspects of utilizing the total appropriated and 
authorized amount, as opposed to trying to ascertain the advisability 
of increasing it from $25 million to $50 million. As I said, it would 
simply give the authority, but it would not obligate the Department.
  I would ask if the floor leaders would be inclined to accept the 
amendment or give me some satisfaction that I might pursue an 
alternative.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska wrote me a very 
well reasoned, articulate letter about a fiberboard plant in Alaska 
where an awful lot of people lost their jobs. He is to be commended for 
taking the initiative in trying to resolve a problem that is economic 
that needs to be resolved.
  Under the business and industrial loan program of the Farmers Home 
Administration, the maximum amount that is authorized is $25 million 
for any one loan. But under the Department's regulations, they have 
never loaned more--under their regulations the top is $10 million--than 
$10 million to anybody under that program.
  The Senator really needs $50 million, which obviously I could not--
and the Department could not--accept. But, in recognition of an 
admitted serious problem he has, I have agreed to hold a hearing for 
him on the particular problem and perhaps at some point weigh-in with 
the Department and ask them to raise the loan level with a view toward 
possibly alleviating his problem.
  I have assured him of a hearing. With that, I think the Senator may 
be willing to withdraw his amendment and wait until after the hearing 
to pursue it further.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas, and 
with that assurance I withdraw the amendment at this time and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 2326) was withdrawn.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I commend the chairman and the ranking 
member for their work in putting together this appropriations bill. I 
understand the difficult task they had in allotting fewer dollars for 
more projects. Their job is not easy, nor do I envy them.
  My concern with this bill is the message it sends to those in the 
agriculture community. Conservation funding, which among other things 
is used to assist farmers in implementing congressionally mandated 
conservation compliance plans, has been cut significantly under this 
bill. Although Congress voted to require America's farmers to implement 
conservation compliance plans, we are decreasing the funding needed to 
help these producers comply with these plans. It just doesn't make 
sense. I will offer an amendment which restores funding in the 
conservation operations budget of the Soil Conservation Service to last 
year's level. I am hopeful my colleagues will join me in supporting 
this worthwhile project.
  Meanwhile, the United States negotiated a GATT agreement which 
requires the United States to reduce our trade subsidies over 6 years. 
Yet at the same time, Congress reduces funding for such trade programs 
as the Export Enhancement Program and Public Law 480 ahead of the 
schedule required under GATT. While I appreciate the need to spread 
around the pain, I am concerned about the message these cuts send to 
America's farmers. America's grain exports have steadily declined in 
recent years, and cutting back on America's trade programs is not the 
way to address this situation.
  Mr. President, I realize the Agriculture Appropriations Committee has 
less money to work with this year. I am concerned about the path we are 
headed down in funding for agriculture and believe the time is close 
when we may have to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough.
  Let me emphasize--the appropriators did not have an easy job. In 
spite of that, I will watch this debate closely as I decide whether or 
not to support this appropriations bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I congratulate my colleagues, Mr. Bumpers, 
chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee, and Mr. Cochran, ranking 
member, on the skillful and efficient handling of this important 
Agriculture appropriation bill. Their 602(b) allocation was very 
constrained--$868 million in budget authority and $421 million in 
outlays last year's appropriation levels and $95 million in outlays 
below this year's House allocation. Both Senators Bumpers and Cochran 
are to be commended for their intimate knowledge of the details of this 
legislation. Their expertise enabled them to work within the 
constraints they faced and still get the job done and done well, 
indeed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman and members 
of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee for excellent work on 
our agriculture appropriations, completed under severe funding 
constraints.
  First of all, I understand that funds for capital improvements is 
extremely limited, so I am grateful that the committee was able to 
provide funding to complete the Institute for Agricultural and Rural 
Human Resource Development at Minot State University.
  Let me say a word about crop disaster payments. I would like to point 
out that flooding and excessive rains have ruined crops and prevented 
many fields from being planted in North Dakota. We have joined North 
Dakota authorities in requesting disaster declaration in five counties 
so far. Many farmers in those counties will have severe financial 
losses this year because of the weather conditions, and I hope they 
will be able to qualify for the crop disaster payments we approved here 
today.
  I also appreciate the committee's agreement to include in this bill 
my request that the Secretary of Agriculture conduct a study, in 
cooperation with Canadian authorities, of the potential for United 
States and Canadian farmers to jointly market wheat and barley for 
export.
  Even as our administration prepares to impose limits on our imports 
of Canadian spring wheat, durum, and barley, it is very important that 
the United States and Canada begin moving toward less confrontation and 
more cooperation in the grain trade sector, and this study will help to 
move us in that direction.
  Particularly, I am grateful for the chairman's effort to retain 
Agricultural Research Service [ARS] funding for the Potato Research 
Center that serves growers and processors in the Red River Valley of 
North Dakota and Minnesota. I am very disappointed that this body chose 
to terminate funding for our potato center, and the Northern Plains 
Soil and Water Research Center at Sidney, MT.
  It will cost nearly as much next year to close out ARS operations at 
those research facilities as it would cost to continue the research 
through fiscal year 1995. I seriously question the criteria used at 
USDA to select the East Grand Forks and Sidney centers for closure.
  The Red River Valley potato research center is supported by the State 
experiment stations and the potato growers themselves. The center is 
very important to the future of potato production, processing and 
storage in North Dakota, Minnesota, and across the northern States. 
Farmers understand that, and their commitment is clear: Their own 
association covers about $150,000 of costs annually for the center. It 
is sad that USDA does not understand the vital importance of that 
research center to successful potato production and processing in the 
Red River Valley.
  On another topic, I wish to express some concern about the broad 
authority provided in this bill for $150 million in new user fees to be 
imposed by the Food and Drug Administration upon pharmaceutical 
companies, and manufacturers and distributors of other products.
  While I sympathize with the difficult task of the committee to come 
up with the funds necessary to properly fund the needs of Agriculture, 
I have serious concerns about providing such broad authority for new 
fees.
  In addition, it has been the policy of our Nation that agencies 
created to protect consumers in areas of health and safety are funded 
out of general revenues. That is, when we charge fees to pay the costs 
of such an agency, we try to direct the fees to the sector who is 
benefited. In this case, the general public benefits, but the fees 
would be charged against the manufacturers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further amendment to be 
proposed, the question is on the engrossment of the committee 
amendment, as amended, and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass? The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 8, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 216 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--8

     Brown
     Faircloth
     Gregg
     Helms
     McCain
     Roth
     Smith
     Wallop
  So, the bill (H.R. 4554), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist upon its 
amendments to H.R. 4554 and request a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses and that the Chair be authorized to 
appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The motion was agreed to, and the Presiding Officer (Mr. Mathews) 
appointed Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Kohl, 
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Bond, Mr. 
Gramm, Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Hatfield conferees on the part of the 
Senate.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum has been questioned. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Conrad). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________