[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 137 (Tuesday, September 27, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 27, 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--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the conference report on 
H.R. 4554.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4554), making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1995, and for other purposes, having met, after full and free 
     conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by all of the 
     conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 20, 1994.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move that the Senate adopt the 
conference report on H.R. 4554.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the conference 
report? If not, the question is on agreeing to the motion.
  So the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
concur en bloc with the amendments of the House to the amendments of 
the Senate in disagreement, and that all the preceding motions be 
considered en bloc and tabled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:
       Resolved, That the House agree to the report of the 
     committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two 
     Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4554) entitled ``An Act making appropriations for 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
     and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1995, and for other purposes.''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendments of the Senate numbered 5, 18, 24, 29, 58, 83, 
     95, 96, and 101 to the aforesaid bill, and concur therein.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 11 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, amended to 
     read as follows: ``$475,000 for rangeland research grants as 
     authorized by subtitle M of the National Agricultural 
     Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as 
     amended; $8,990,000 for contracts and grants for agricultural 
     research under the Act of August 4, 1965, as amended (7 
     U.S.C. 450i(c));''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 15 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment, insert: 
     ``$433,438,000''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 25 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment, insert: 
     ``$443,651,000''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 26 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, amended to 
     read as follows:
       In fiscal year 1995 the agency is authorized to collect 
     fees to cover the total costs of providing technical 
     assistance, goods, or services requested by States, other 
     political subdivisions, domestic and international 
     organizations, foreign governments, or individuals, provided 
     that such fees are structured such that any entity's 
     liability for such fees is reasonably based on the technical 
     assistance, goods, or services provided to the entity by the 
     agency, and such fees shall be credited to this account, to 
     remain available until expended, without further 
     appropriation, for providing such assistance, goods, or 
     services.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 32 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter stricken by said amendment, insert: 
     ``: Provided, That until October 1, 1995, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may collect and use such sums as may be necessary 
     for the delivery of catastrophic risk protection under 
     subsections (b) and (c) of section 508 of the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Act, as that Act would be amended by section 
     6(a)(3) of H.R. 4217 as passed by the House on August 5, 
     1994, if such provision or similar provision is enacted into 
     law: Provided further, That in addition to amounts otherwise 
     appropriated in this Act, there are hereby appropriated such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the 
     crop insurance fund established under section 516 of the 
     Federal Crop Insurance Act, as that Act would be amended by 
     sections 8 (b) and (c) of H.R. 4217, if such provision or 
     similar provision is enacted into law''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 33 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert:


                          disaster assistance

       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 these 
     funds shall be made available upon enactment of this Act: 
     Provided further, That such funds shall also be available for 
     payments to producers for 1995 through 1996 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 such funds shall also be 
     available to fund the costs of replanting, reseeding, or 
     repairing damage to commercial trees, including orchard and 
     nursery inventory, as a result of 1994 weather-related 
     damages: Provided further, That the terms and conditions of 
     section 521, paragraph (a)(3) and (4), paragraph (b)(3), 
     subparagraph (c)(2)(C), and subsections (d) and (e), as 
     amended in section 201 of S. 2095 (as reported by the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on June 22, 
     1994) shall apply to all claims for assistance made under 
     this paragraph; Provided further, That such amounts and uses 
     of funds made available under the paragraph are designated by 
     Congress as emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, and that such funds and uses 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, is transmitted by the President to the Congress.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 34 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert: 
     ``$556,062,000, and the unobligated and uncommitted portion 
     of the fiscal year 1994 appropriation for the Conservation 
     Reserve Program shall be transferred to this account''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 37 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, amended to 
     read as follows: ``(of which $10,000,000 shall be available 
     for the watersheds authorized under the Flood Control Act 
     approved June 22, 1936 (33 U.S.C. 701, 16 U.S.C. 1006a), as 
     amended and supplemented): Provided, That, for fiscal year 
     1995 only, not to exceed 10 per centum of the foregoing 
     amounts shall be available for allocation to any one State''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 41 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment, insert: 
     ``$2,200,000,000''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 42 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the sum proposed by said amendment, insert: 
     ``$244,720,000''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 57 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter stricken by said amendment, insert:


                 Rural Water and Waste Disposal Grants

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     may use 1980 or 1990 census information for grant eligibility 
     of projects submitted to the agency prior to the availability 
     of 1990 census information in amounts not to exceed total 
     project cost overruns.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 70 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the sum named in said amendment insert: 
     ``$500,000''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 75 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said 
     amendment, insert: ``and section 601 of Public Law 96-597 (48 
     U.S.C. 1469d), $28,830,710,000''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 76 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, amended to 
     read as follows: ``: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     in this Act shall be used to cash out food stamp benefits 
     beyond a total of 25 projects and the total participation in 
     such projects shall not exceed 3 per centum of the estimated 
     national household level participating in the Food Stamp 
     Program''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 84 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, insert:
       The stay (published at 58 Fed. Reg. 47962) of the 1987 food 
     additive regulation relating to selenium (21 Code of Federal 
     Regulations 573.920) is suspended until December 31, 1995.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 89 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, amended to 
     read as follows: ``: Provided, That the Commission is 
     authorized to charge reasonable fees to attendees of 
     Commission sponsored educational events and symposia to cover 
     the Commission's costs of providing those events and 
     symposia, and notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, said fees shall 
     be credited to this account, to be available without further 
     appropriation''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 91 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed by said amendment, insert: 
     ``, unless additional acres in excess of the 100,000 acre 
     limitation can be enrolled without exceeding $93,200,000: 
     Provided, That the unobligated portion of the fiscal year 
     1994 appropriation shall be transferred to and merged with 
     the appropriation for the Soil Conservation Service, 
     Conservation Operations''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 94 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       Restore the matter stricken by said amendment, amended as 
     follows:
       In lieu of the sum named in said amendment, insert: 
     ``$25,650,000''.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 98 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with the following amendments:
       Delete the matter inserted by said amendment, and on page 
     61, line 12, of the House engrossed bill strike 
     ``$94,500,000'' and insert in lieu thereof $84,500,000, and 
     on page 79, line 18, of the House engrossed bill strike 
     ``$850,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof $800,000,000
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 100 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, insert:
       Sec. 725. The Secretary shall take reasonable steps to 
     ensure that no funds made available under this Act be used to 
     provide any direct individual Federal benefit or assistance 
     to any individual applying for such benefit or assistance 
     unless said individual meets all eligibility criteria for the 
     benefit or assistance.
       Resolved, That the House recede from its disagreement to 
     the amendment of the Senate numbered 102 to the aforesaid 
     bill, and concur therein with an amendment as follows:
       In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, insert:
       Sec. 727. 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.), the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall not require any repayment 
     under subparagraph (G) or (H) of section 114(a)(2) of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1445j(a)(2)) for the 1993 
     crop of a commodity prior to March 1, 1995.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate, 
the conference report on H.R. 4554, the appropriations bill for 
agriculture, rural development, and related agencies for fiscal year 
1995. I hope my colleagues will support it.
  As was the case when we considered the bill on the Senate floor, it 
is an extremely tight bill. So tight that, in my opinion, it does not 
do justice to agriculture programs in this country. We have devastated 
conservation programs. We have slashed rural housing programs. We have 
drastically reduced the farm loan programs. Rural electrification and 
telephone programs are cut back significantly. The P.L. 480 program is 
below this year's level by 16 percent.
  None of these cuts are popular. In my opinion, they are not wise 
either.
  The only programs that did well are the nutrition programs. And that 
is because they are either mandatory programs, or very politically 
popular. Food stamp funding is at an all-time high of $29 billion. 
Child nutrition programs take up $7.5 billion of the total. The WIC 
program is funded as proposed by both the House and Senate at $3.47 
billion, a $260 million increase to the 1994 level.
  Mr. President, I want to stress that well over half of the funding in 
this bill--58 percent--or $40.3 billion is for domestic food programs 
that go predominantly to urban areas.
  The conference agreement provides funding levels similar to the 
Senate bill for agricultural research, rural development, conservation, 
extension, and inspection programs.
  The food Safety and Inspection Service is funded at exactly this 
year's level, which is $17 million less than what the 
President proposed. I don't know exactly how this agency will make it 
through the year at this level, but I hope it figures it out while 
still maintaining the safety of the Nation's meat and poultry supply.

  Probably the most significant change the conferees made to the Senate 
bill affects the Food and Drug Administration. The bill does not 
require the additional $163 million in user fees that the Senate bill 
originally contained. Total salaries and expenses of FDA are set at 
$905,894,000. This amount represents an increase of $36,271,000 to the 
1994 level, but a reduction of $18.6 million to the overall level the 
Senate had proposed.
  In order to accommodate this change to the Senate level of funding, 
other changes had to be made. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program 
is funded at $84.5 million instead of $94.5 million in both the House 
and Senate bills. Instead of capping funding at $90 million for the 
Market Promotion Program, the conferees agreed to a level of $85.5 
million. Similarly, the Export Enhancement Program is capped at a level 
of $800 million, instead of $850 million as proposed by both the House 
and Senate. The Sunflower and Cottonseed Oil Assistance Program is 
capped at $25,650,000--a level lower than what was proposed by either 
the House or the Senate.
  Another reduction to both the House and Senate levels was made in the 
rural housing section 502 program. The direct loan level is set at $1.2 
billion in the conference agreement. The House level was $1.3 billion 
and the Senate level was $1.4 billion. This is a cut that is 
particularly troublesome and, in my opinion, unwise. But, as I stated 
earlier, the conferees were constrained in our options and we had to 
make many unpopular and unwise decisions.
  Finally, the conservation operations account of the Soil Conservation 
Service has a direct appropriation of $556 million. However, we have 
provided for the transfer of unused balances in both the Wetlands 
Reserve Program and the Conservation Reserve Program to conservation 
operations. We expect the level for this account to be at approximately 
$587 million--about $4 million less than this year.
  In summary, the conference bill totals $69 billion in total new 
obligational authority.
  I commend the conference report to my colleagues and recommend that 
it be accepted.
  Mr. President, I want to thank everybody who cooperated in allowing 
us to submit this conference report tonight.
  I will make about 30 seconds' worth of observations and say that this 
is only the second year I have chaired this subcommittee. But I can 
tell you, this has been one of the most trying experiences I ever had.
  We were required under the allocation system of the Senate, to make 
very dramatic cuts from what we have been allowed to do in the past. We 
had numerous requests from Senators wanting money for projects in their 
States. Obviously, we all like to accommodate Senators on both sides of 
the aisle.
  I might say--and without any real denigration of anybody--that 
sometimes the Senators who plead the longest and the hardest for 
projects in their States get them and wind up voting against the bill. 
I must say I take exception to people who play that game of getting 
something in the bill and then voting against the bill and going home 
and telling their constituents what great fiscal conservatives they are 
by voting against the bill, when they were at the trough.
  Having said that, I consider this to be a truly fine bill, within the 
limits of the amount of money we had to spend. We had to make some 
draconian cuts, even in 550 and housing. We made other cuts in TEFAP; 
for example, which is a commodities program for poor people, and it is 
always very difficult to cut programs like that. We had to cut the 
export promotion program and others that have almost universal support 
in the Senate.
  In any event, I will close by saying that I sincerely appreciate and 
publicly thank my distinguished colleague from Mississippi, Senator 
Cochran, for his usual courtesies and fine spirit of cooperation in 
getting this bill passed and getting it out of conference and here this 
evening.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas for his kind comments and also for his excellent work, his 
hard, and effective work in getting this bill to this point where we 
tonight present a conference agreement that totals $68 billion in 
funding for the next fiscal year for the programs and activities under 
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
  I might point out to the Senate that this is nearly $3 billion below 
the fiscal year 1994 enacted level and $461 million below the level 
requested by the President for these programs. If people are interested 
in our exercising some fiscal restraint and imposing reductions in 
spending, they can point to this bill as an example of just that.
  Including congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior-
year spending actions, this conference agreement provides total 
discretionary spending for fiscal year 1995 of $13.4 billion in budget 
authority and $13.9 billion in outlays. These amounts are within the 
subcommittee's revised 602(b) discretionary spending allocations.
  The committee of conference on this bill considered 102 amendments in 
disagreement between the two Houses. While not all issues were settled 
as I would have preferred, I believe we have reached an agreement which 
meets the many funding requirements covered by the bill within the 
limited resources available. The conference committee did not have an 
easy task. Major funding differences between the House and Senate bills 
had to be compromised to achieve a total net reduction in discretionary 
spending of $1.2 billion below the fiscal year 1994 level.
  Approximately $40.2 billion, close to 60 percent of the total new 
budget authority provided by this bill, is for domestic food programs 
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This represents a 
net increase of $805 million above the fiscal year 1994 level for these 
programs, which include food stamps; the special supplemental food 
program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; the school lunch and 
breakfast programs; and the Emergency Food Assistance Program.
  The $260-million increase above fiscal year 1994 for the Women, 
Infants, and Children [WIC] Program, as recommended in both the House 
and Senate bills, remains the single largest program funding increase 
provided by this bill.
  For the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the conference agreement 
provides $65 million, $15 million below the House bill recommendation 
for commodity purchases and $25 million above the budget request level 
recommended in the Senate bill. The conference agreement also reduces 
the Commodity Supplemental Food Program $10 million below the Senate 
bill level in light of the anticipated balance of carryover funds which 
will be available for the program at the beginning of the new fiscal 
year.
  The conference agreement provides $144.8 million above the Senate 
bill appropriation for salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug 
Administration. As my colleagues will recall, the bill, as passed by 
the Senate, assumed that new FDA user fee collections, as requested by 
the President, would be available to partially fund these FDA costs in 
fiscal year 1995. The House lodged a constitutional objection to this 
user fee provision and returned the bill to the Senate. To get this 
bill into conference, the Senate dropped the objectionable provision, 
leaving a gap of $160 million between the House and Senate recommended 
appropriation levels for FDA salaries and expenses.
  The conferees have provided $819.971 million, $6.6 million above the 
fiscal year 1994 level and $15 million below the House bill level for 
FDA's salaries and expenses appropriation. As I said, this is $145 
million above the Senate-passed bill level.
  To get where we are, to keep this bill within its spending targets, 
many agriculture and rural development programs have suffered funding 
reductions.
  Total funding for agricultural programs has been reduced by $2.6 
billion below the fiscal year 1994 level; funding for USDA conservation 
programs has been reduced a total of $654 million below current levels; 
Farmers Home and Rural Development programs by a total of $297 million; 
and USDA's foreign assistance activities, including Public Law 480, 
have been reduced by a total of $216 million below fiscal year 1994 
levels.

  The USDA conservation programs have been hit particularly hard. 
Funding of $6.6 is provided for the Forestry Incentives Program, 52 
percent below the program's current funding level. Funding of $4.5 
million is provided for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 
Program, 33 percent below the fiscal year 1994 level. The watershed and 
flood prevention program has been reduced 32 percent, from a fiscal 
year 1994 appropriation level of $220.8 million to $70 million. I would 
like to add here that I am hopeful the administration will maximize 
funding for this particular program in fiscal year 1995 by 
supplementing this appropriation with any of the fiscal year 1994 
supplemental funds not required for emergency work, as directed by both 
the House and Senate.
  Other reductions in agriculture and rural development programs below 
the levels recommended in the Senate-passed bill include: $2.5 million 
for Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization; $2.4 
million for the Agricultural Research Service; $17.2 million for the 
Food Safety and Inspection Service; $200 million in authority for 
direct Section 502 rural low-income housing loans; and $71.3 million in 
direct rural water and sewer facility loan authorizations.
  In addition, the Senate bill limitation on funding for the Market 
Promotion Program has been reduced from $90 million to $85.5 million; 
the limitation on Export Enhancement Program subsidies has been reduced 
from $850 million to $800 million; and the limitation on cottonseed and 
sunflower oil assistance subsidies [COAP and SOAP] from $27 million to 
$25.65 million.
  Mr. President, I realize that sacrifices are required of everyone if 
we are to reduce the Federal budget deficit. However, I regret that the 
resources allocated for this bill prevent us from maintaining and 
increasing funding for the FDA and our Nation's feeding programs as 
well as these programs so essential to agriculture and to rural 
America. These are beneficial programs. They help America's farmers to 
be competitive both here and abroad; they provide essential services to 
people in rural towns and communities across this Nation; they work to 
conserve and protect our Nation's natural resources.
  Mr. President, again, I would point out to my colleagues that there 
are genuine costs in this bill. Senators and others have heard 
criticism and cynical comments about how you hear about spending 
reductions or cutting spending, but you never see it really happen. I 
am here to tell you tonight that it really happened in this bill. There 
are substantial reductions in spending, and many that were very 
difficult for us to agree upon.
  Mr. President, I want to thank our hardworking staff members. They 
have done an outstanding job, and without their help, we would not have 
been successful in getting this conference agreement, this legislation, 
to this point.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I echo Senator Cochran's comments about 
the hardworking staff. They have done an excellent job on this, and I 
also echo what he said about the $3 billion that we have cut out of 
this bill this year.
  People--if they are really serious about deficit reduction--have to 
do these things, painful and unpleasant as they are. We have done it. I 
dare say that if every committee or subcommittee of the Appropriations 
Committee had to take the same kind of percentage cut we did, you would 
see the deficit down to less than it is this year or going to be next 
year. That concludes our statements.


                agricultural research facilities closure

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my great 
disappointment and frustration with actions taken by the Committee of 
Conference on the Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill.
  I have been fighting for years to bring some sanity to the way we 
fund agricultural research facilities. The plain and simple truth is 
that too many USDA research facilities are underutilized, falling 
apart, and ill-equipped to carry out modern scientific research.
  Just 2 months ago, the Senate approved, by a vote of 76 to 23, an 
amendment offered by Senator Lugar and myself to close 19 USDA research 
facilities, as recommended in the President's budget.
  The conference report before us today, however, keeps open 10 of 
those facilities for another year, for further evaluation.
  I want to make sure it is perfectly clear what we are talking about 
here. These are Federal laboratories--payed for with Federal tax 
dollars, staffed with Federal employees, and designed to meet national 
research objectives--that the Federal government wants to close. If the 
President and the USDA have concluded they are no longer justifiable, 
how can we possibly insist on keep them open?
  We do not need to keep these facilities open for another year--we do 
not even need to keep them open for another day--and we certainly do 
not need any further evaluation. The facilities proposed for closure 
were identified after an extensive evaluation process spanning two 
administrations. We have all the information we need.
  Let me give you just one graphic example. One of the facilities that 
the conference report recommends keeping open has only five scientists 
and 89 separate buildings. That's almost 18 buildings per scientist.
  We have all agreed that the Department of Agriculture must be 
restructured and downsized. The Senate made clear its commitment to 
reform on April 13, 1994 when it passed our major USDA reorganization 
bill 98 to 1. It reconfirmed that commitment just last month when it 
again passed the USDA reorganization bill as an amendment to our crop 
insurance reform bill.
  Everyone supports reform, but when it comes down to actually doing 
the work--when we start on the road to reform--roadblocks are thrown up 
before us.
  It is this kind of action that makes the American people so 
disillusioned about the Federal Government. This is a test of whether 
we are serious about budget reform. If we cannot support the President 
and shut down these 10 outdated research facilities, how will we ever 
cut a $200 billion deficit?
  Closing these 10 facilities makes good sense. It would save more than 
$7.5 million per year, and allow USDA to direct its limited resources 
to higher priority research programs. We all know the value of 
agricultural research--and that is why we must be a handle on 
facilities spending.
  We can spend our money on research that is going to take us into the 
next century, or we can spend it on buildings that were built a half 
century ago. But we cannot do both.
  I realize that this appropriations bill is critical to American 
farmers and I will not hold it hostage over this issue. But refunding 
these research facilities is an outrageous and infuriating waste of 
millions of dollars--and let me assure you, and all our colleagues, 
that you have not heard the last of this. I will not give up this 
fight.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I share the chairman of the Senate 
Agriculture Committee's deep disappointment with the conference 
committee's decision to reject our amendment and recommend continuation 
of 10 Agricultural Research Service facilities proposed for closure by 
the Department of Agriculture.
  Mr. President, the Agriculture appropriations bill passed by the 
other body recommended only five ARS facilities for continuation. The 
Senate voted overwhelming against placing any limits on the Secretary's 
authority to close all 10 research facilities for continuation. This 
conference agreement ignores the guidelines passed by both bodies and 
recommends continuation of 10 facilities.
  Mr. President, this conference agreement has broader implications. 
It's not just a matter of the conference agreement adding facilities 
instead of subtracting. Congress has failed a key test in our ability 
to oversee the downsizing of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  Earlier this year, this body voted 98 to 1 in favor of reorganizing 
and streamlining the Department of Agriculture. When the chairman and I 
offered the Senate a concrete opportunity to further this effort by 
affirming the Secretary's authority to close ARS facilities, members 
voted 76 to 23 in support of our amendment to the bill before us. The 
Senate has spoken clearly on this issue.
  I want to remind my colleagues that the facilities the Department of 
Agriculture recommended for closure were not chosen at random. Two 
different administrations, representing two different political 
parties, thorougly reviewed ARS facilities using objective criteria. 
And yet that is apparently not good enough for some in Congress.
  By rejecting the chairman's and my amendment, Congress is telling the 
Department and the taxpayers that it wants to hang on to virtually 
every outpost of the Federal Government's agricultural research 
network, no matter how outdated, no matter how duplicative. I do not 
believe that is the message the voters want to hear.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a brief 
discussion with the Senator from Mississippi regarding the 
establishment of an important research center in the Midwest. I had 
urged the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture to consider 
funding the establishment of the center in this year's appropriation, 
but I understand the numerous projects competing for funding. It is my 
hope that the project could be a priority in next year's funding 
legislation. I would also encourage the administration to include the 
project in future budget proposals.
  There is great interest in utilizing vegetation in filter strips 
along streams, around sink holes, in buffer strips around cropland, as 
cover crops to reduce surface runoff and as vegetative terraces in 
breaking long erosive slops. I believe that the establishment of a 
Plant Materials Center at the University of Northern Iowa would be a 
great asset to the Midwest in the research and development of 
appropriate vegetation to most fully accomplish these goals. I know 
that the Senator from Mississippi shares my concern for providing 
beneficial information and practices to our Nation's farmers and would 
ask whether he would join me in my support for the development of the 
center.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Iowa for his 
interest in improving the information available to our Nation's 
farmers. I know that a center for the development of plants in the 
upper Midwest area would be beneficial in enhancing the available 
knowledge in the field and would be a worthy project. I would be glad 
to give every consideration to the establishment of a Plant Material 
Center in Iowa in next year's funding legislation. I would also think 
that the administration might consider including the project in next 
year's budget. I know that all citizens in the upper Midwest would 
benefit from the research and development that could be accomplished at 
such a center.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank my friend for his interest in the development 
of the Plant Material Center. I feel that the research from such a 
center could be put to use by Federal, State and county agencies as 
well as private individuals. It could be utilized for roadside native 
prairie planting, CRP prairie planting, prairie reconstruction projects 
and wet prairie plantings in the Wetland Reserve Program. I believe the 
benefits derived would be widespread and the knowledge gained 
invaluable in better utilizing the plant species available for use in 
the region. I again thank my colleague for his cooperation. I know that 
he will give his full attention and consideration to the establishment 
of this important center.


                   lake champlain-related provisions

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I address my remarks to the Senator from 
Arkansas, the floor manager of this conference report. I very much 
appreciate the two Lake Champlain-related provisions the subcommittee 
included in the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service 
section of Senate Report 103-290. These two provisions--one relative to 
the Water Quality Incentives Program and the other to Agricultural 
Conservation Program cost share assistance--are authorized under the 
Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990. Both are central to 
long-term efforts to stabilize and improve the water quality of this 
large, magnificent lake.
  Neither of these provisions are referred to directly in House Report 
103-734, the measure presently under consideration. However, it is my 
understanding that in the absence of conference report language to the 
contrary, the two provisions I have cited in Senate Report 103-290 
remain in effect. Does the Senator share this interpretation?
  Mr. BUMPERS. In response I would direct my friend's attention to the 
first sentence of the second paragraph under Congressional Directives 
on page 7 of the conference report. It states: ``Report language 
included by the House which is not changed by the report of the Senate, 
and Senate report language which is not changed by the conference are 
approved by the committee of conference.''
  Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate my friend's response, and his consideration 
for the concerns I and several of our colleagues have expressed in 
Senate report language.


                   child and adult care food program

  Mr. LEAHY. Several years ago, the Congress authorized demonstration 
projects for proprietary day care centers within the USDA-funded 
nutrition programs. These Child and Adult Care Food Program projects 
have been conducted in Iowa and Kentucky for the last 4 years.
  Since 1992, the Department has continued to operate them under 
guidance from the Appropriations Committee.
  They are very worthwhile demonstration projects which the Department 
will continue to operate in fiscal year 1995. The evidence shows that 
the projects are well-targeted nutrition programs that help low-income 
working families whose children are in child care.
  Is it the Senator's understanding that the Department will continue 
to operate these important projects?
  Mr. BUMPERS. I expect USDA to continue to operate these projects as 
they have been. This act provides the fiscal year 1995 appropriation 
requested for the Child and Adult Care Food Program which I understand 
includes funding to continue these projects.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I agree with the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], 
that USDA has accounted for this demonstration project in its budget, 
and this project will continue to be funded.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate the Senators' position, Senator Bumpers and 
Senator Cochran, since these projects meet important needs and have 
been successful. I likewise understand that these projects are included 
in USDA's budget and will receive funding for fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I, too, agree with these assertions. As Senator Leahy 
mentioned, the projects have reached thousands of low-income children 
in Kentucky and Iowa. Because of this demo child care centers have 
improved the nutritional quality of the meals they serve to the 
children. It is my understanding as well that USDA has accounted for 
this project in their baseline, and the project will continue to be 
funded.


                repayment of advance deficiency payments

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I wish to clarify a matter of interest 
with the chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee. Section 727 of H.R. 
4554 would mandate that deficiency payments provided to producers 
affected by a natural disaster for the 1993 crop year would not become 
due before March 1, 1995. Accordingly, I would like to clarify that CCC 
would continue to have discretionary authority to begin the set off 
demand process for collections under the CCC Charter Act for those not 
covered by section 727, and that there is no scorekeeping effect for 
collections made on or after March 1, 1995, provided they are made 
within the fiscal year.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator from Iowa is correct. Section 727 would not 
restrict or limit the authority for beginning the collections process 
provided under the CCC Charter Act.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the chairman for the consideration he has given 
to farmers and ranchers who have experienced hardship in recent years.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Agriculture, 
Rural Development, and related agencies conference report.
  The conference report provides $67.5 billion in new budget authority 
and $43.2 billion in new outlays for the Department of Agriculture, 
Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies for fiscal year 
1995.
  When outlays from prior-year budget authority and other completed 
actions are taken into account, the Senate-reported bill totals $58.1 
billion in budget authority and $50.3 billion in outlays for fiscal 
year 1995.
  Based on CBO estimates, the Senate subcommittee is $1.5 billion in 
budget authority below its 602(b) allocation and essentially at its 
outlays allocation. The conference report is $295.7 million in budget 
authority below and $25.7 million in outlays above the President's 
request.
  It is $65.8 million in budget authority and $1.0 million in outlays 
above the House-passed bill. The conference report is $90.8 million in 
budget authority and $66.3 million in outlays above the Senate-passed 
bill.
  Mr. President, the conference report also includes report language 
which states: ``The conferees expect the Office of Management and 
Budget and the Congressional Budget Office to continue to provide 
conservation reserve program costs in their baselines . . .''
  If this would have been statutory in nature, the bill would have been 
subject to a 60 vote budget-point-of-order.
  Since the language is not statutory it will not determine the CBO 
baseline.
  I bring this up today because the budget committee has a uniform set 
of rules and procedures and we should not change those rules and 
procedures in a piecemeal fashion.
  I commend the distinguished subcommittee chairman and ranking member 
for their support of $3.47 billion for the WIC Program, an increase of 
$260 million over the 1994 level.
  I appreciate thee subcommittee's support for a number of ongoing 
projects and programs important to my home State of New Mexico as it 
has worked to keep this bill within its budget allocation.
  I urge the adoption of the bill.
  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. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________