[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 145 (Monday, September 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13680-S13704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the provisions of the order, the hour of 
10 o'clock having arrived and passed, the Senate will now proceed to 
consideration of H.R. 1976, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1976) making appropriations for agriculture, 
     rural development, Food and Drug Administration, and related 
     agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1996, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on Appropriations, with amendments; as follows:
  (The parts of the bill intended to be stricken are shown in boldface 
brackets and the parts of the bill intended to be inserted are shown in 
italic.)

                               H.R. 1976

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1996, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                         AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and not to exceed $75,000 for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, [$10,227,000] $12,801,000, of which [$7,500,000] 
     $10,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be 
     available for InfoShare: Provided, That not to exceed $11,000 
     of this amount, along with any unobligated balances of 
     representation funds in the Foreign Agricultural Service 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses, not otherwise provided for, as determined by the 
     Secretary.

                          Executive Operations


                            chief economist

       For necessary expenses of the Chief Economist, including 
     economic analysis, risk assessment, cost benefit analysis, 
     and the functions of the World Agricultural Outlook Board, as 
     authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 
     U.S.C. 1622g), and including employment pursuant to the 
     second sentence of the section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed $5,000 is for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, [$3,948,000] $3,814,000.


                       national appeals division

       For necessary expenses of the National Appeals Division, 
     including employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of 
     which not to exceed $25,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, $11,846,000.


                 office of budget and program analysis

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Budget and Program 
     Analysis, including employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed $5,000 is for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109, $5,899,000.

                        Chief Financial Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief Financial 
     Officer, including employment pursuant to the second sentence 
     of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     of which not to exceed $10,000 is for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, $4,133,000: Provided, That the Chief Financial 
     Officer shall reinstate and market cross-servicing activities 
     of the National Finance Center[: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act shall be used to obtain, modify, re-engineer, license, 
     operate, implement, or expand commercial off-the-shelf 
     financial management software systems or existing commercial 
     off-the-shelf system financial management contracts, beyond 
     general ledger systems and accounting support software, at 
     the National Finance Center until thirty legislative days 
     after the Secretary of Agriculture submits to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations a complete and thorough 
     cost-benefit analysis and a certification by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture that this analysis provides a detailed and 
     accurate cost-benefit analysis comparison between obtaining 
     or expanding commercial off-the-shelf software systems and 
     conducting identical or comparable software systems 
     acquisitions, re-engineering, or modifications in-house].

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Administration to carry out the 
     programs funded in this Act, $596,000.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public Law 92-313, including authorities pursuant to the 1984 
     delegation of authority from the Administrator of General 
     Services to the Department of Agriculture under 40 U.S.C. 
     486, for programs and activities of the Department which are 
     included in this Act, $110,187,000, of which 

[[Page S 13681]]
     $20,216,000 shall be retained by the Department for the operation, 
     maintenance, and repair of Agriculture buildings: Provided, 
     That in the event an agency within the Department should 
     require modification of space needs, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture may transfer a share of that agency's 
     appropriation made available by this Act to this 
     appropriation, or may transfer a share of this appropriation 
     to that agency's appropriation, but such transfers shall not 
     exceed 5 percent of the funds made available for space rental 
     and related costs to or from this account. In addition, for 
     construction, repair, improvement, extension, alteration, and 
     purchase of fixed equipment or facilities as necessary to 
     carry out the programs of the Department, where not otherwise 
     provided, $25,587,000, to remain available until expended; 
     making a total appropriation of $135,774,000.

                       Advisory Committees (USDA)

       For necessary expenses for activities of advisory 
     committees of the Department of Agriculture which are 
     included in this Act, [$800,000] $650,000: Provided, That no 
     other funds appropriated to the Department in this Act shall 
     be available to the Department for support of activities of 
     advisory committees.

                       Hazardous Waste Management


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Agriculture, to 
     comply with the requirement of section 107(g) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 
     6001 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as 
     amended, 42 U.S.C. 6961, $15,700,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That appropriations and funds 
     available herein to the Department for Hazardous Waste 
     Management may be transferred to any agency of the Department 
     for its use in meeting all requirements pursuant to the above 
     Acts on Federal and non-Federal lands.

                      Departmental Administration


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For Personnel, Operations, Information Resources 
     Management, Civil Rights Enforcement, Small and Disadvantaged 
     Business Utilization, Administrative Law Judges and Judicial 
     Officer, Disaster Management and Coordination, and 
     Modernization of the Administrative Process, $27,986,000, to 
     provide for necessary expenses for management support 
     services to offices of the Department and for general 
     administration and disaster management of the Department, 
     repairs and alterations, and other miscellaneous supplies and 
     expenses not otherwise provided for and necessary for the 
     practical and efficient work of the Department, including 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to 
     exceed $10,000 is for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall be reimbursed from 
     applicable appropriations in this Act for travel expenses 
     incident to the holding of hearings as required by 5 U.S.C. 
     551-558.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations to carry out 
     the programs funded in this Act, including programs involving 
     intergovernmental affairs and liaison within the executive 
     branch, [$3,797,000: Provided, That no other funds 
     appropriated to the Department in this Act shall be available 
     to the Department for support of activities of congressional 
     relations] $1,764,000.

                        Office of Communications

       For necessary expenses to carry on services relating to the 
     coordination of programs involving public affairs, for the 
     dissemination of agricultural information, and the 
     coordination of information, work, and programs authorized by 
     Congress in the Department, $8,198,000, including employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), of which not to exceed 
     $10,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, and not to exceed $2,000,000 may be used for farmers' 
     bulletins.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General, including employment pursuant to the second sentence 
     of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, 
     $63,639,000, including such sums as may be necessary for 
     contracting and other arrangements with public agencies and 
     private persons pursuant to section 6(a)(9) of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, including a sum not to 
     exceed $50,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; and 
     including a sum not to exceed [$95,000] $125,000 for certain 
     confidential operational expenses including the payment of 
     informants, to be expended under the direction of the 
     Inspector General pursuant to Public Law 95-452 and section 
     1337 of Public Law 97-98: Provided, That funds transferred to 
     the Office of the Inspector General through forfeiture 
     proceedings or from the Department of Justice Assets 
     Forfeiture Fund or the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture 
     Fund, as a participating agency, as an equitable share from 
     the forfeiture of property in investigations in which the 
     Office of Inspector General participates, or through the 
     granting of a Petition for Remission or Mitigation, shall be 
     deposited to the credit of this account for law enforcement 
     activities authorized under the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, as amended, to remain available until expended.

                     Office of the General Counsel

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the General 
     Counsel, $27,860,000.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Economic 
     Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics 
     Service, the Agricultural Research Service and the 
     Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, 
     $520,000.

                       Economic Research Service

       For necessary expenses of the Economic Research Service in 
     conducting economic research and analysis, as authorized by 
     the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) 
     and other laws, [$53,131,000] $53,526,000: Provided, That 
     this appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant 
     to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act 
     of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225).

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

       For necessary expenses of the National Agricultural 
     Statistics Service in conducting statistical reporting and 
     service work, including crop and livestock estimates, 
     statistical coordination and improvements, and marketing 
     surveys, as authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
     1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) and other laws, $81,107,000: 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $40,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109.

                     Agricultural Research Service


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to enable the Agricultural Research 
     Service to perform agricultural research and demonstration 
     relating to production, utilization, marketing, and 
     distribution (not otherwise provided for); home economics or 
     nutrition and consumer use including the acquisition, 
     preservation, and dissemination of agricultural information; 
     and for acquisition of lands by donation, exchange, or 
     purchase at a nominal cost not to exceed $100, [$705,610,000] 
     $707,000,000: Provided, That appropriations hereunder shall 
     be available for temporary employment pursuant to the second 
     sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $115,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available for the operation 
     and maintenance of aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed 
     one for replacement only: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 
     U.S.C. 2250 for the construction, alteration, and repair of 
     buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the 
     cost of constructing any one building shall not exceed 
     $250,000, except for headhouses or greenhouses which shall 
     each be limited to $1,000,000, and except for ten buildings 
     to be constructed or improved at a cost not to exceed 
     $500,000 each, and the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the 
     current replacement value of the building or $250,000, 
     whichever is greater: Provided further, That the limitations 
     on alterations contained in this Act shall not apply to 
     modernization or replacement of existing facilities at 
     Beltsville, Maryland: Provided further, That the foregoing 
     limitations shall not apply to replacement of buildings 
     needed to carry out the Act of April 24, 1948 (21 U.S.C. 
     113a): Provided further, That the foregoing limitations shall 
     not apply to the purchase of land at Beckley, West Virginia: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $190,000 of this 
     appropriation may be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for the Office of the Under Secretary for 
     Research, Education and Economics for the scientific review 
     of international issues involving agricultural chemicals and 
     food additives: Provided further, That funds may be received 
     from any State, other political subdivision, organization, or 
     individual for the purpose of establishing or operating any 
     research facility or research project of the Agricultural 
     Research Service, as authorized by law: Provided further, 
     That all rights and title of the United States in the 
     property known as USDA Houma Sugar Cane Research Laboratory, 
     consisting of approximately 20 acres in the City of Houma and 
     150 acres of farmland in Chacahula, Louisiana, including 
     facilities and equipment, shall be conveyed to the American 
     Sugar Cane League Foundation: Provided further, That all 
     rights and title of the United States in the Agricultural 
     Research Station at Brawley, California, consisting of 80 
     acres of land, including facilities and equipment, shall be 
     conveyed to Imperial County, California: Provided further, 
     That all rights and title of the United States in the Pecan 
     Genetics and Improvement Research Laboratory, consisting of 
     84.2 acres of land, including facilities and equipment, shall 
     be conveyed to Texas A&M University: Provided further, That 
     the property originally conveyed by the State of Tennessee to 
     the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research 
     Service, in Lewisburg, Tennessee be conveyed to the 
     University of Tennessee.

[[Page S 13682]]

       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.

                        buildings and facilities

       For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
     extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
     facilities as necessary to carry out the agricultural 
     research programs of the Department of Agriculture, where not 
     otherwise provided, $30,200,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That funds may be 
     received from any State, other political subdivision, 
     organization, or individual for the purpose of establishing 
     any research facility of the Agricultural Research Service, 
     as authorized by law.

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service


                   research and education activities

       For payments to agricultural experiment stations, for 
     cooperative forestry and other research, for facilities, and 
     for other expenses, including [$166,165,000] $171,304,000 to 
     carry into effect the provisions of the Hatch Act (7 U.S.C. 
     361a-361i); [$20,185,000] $20,809,000 for grants for 
     cooperative forestry research (16 U.S.C. 582a-582-a7); 
     [$27,313,000] $28,157,000 for payments to the 1890 land-grant 
     colleges, including Tuskegee University (7 U.S.C. 3222); 
     [$31,930,000] $40,670,000 for special grants for agricultural 
     research (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)); [$11,599,000] $9,769,000 for 
     special grants for agricultural research on improved pest 
     control (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)); [$98,165,000] $99,582,000 for 
     competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)); [$5,051,000] 
     $5,551,000 for the support of animal health and disease 
     programs (7 U.S.C. [195] 3195); [$1,150,000] $500,000 for 
     supplemental and alternative crops and products (7 U.S.C. 
     3319d); $500,000 for grants for research pursuant to the 
     Critical Agricultural Materials Act of 1984 (7 U.S.C. 178) 
     and section 1472 of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, as 
     amended (7 U.S.C. 3318), to remain available until expended; 
     $475,000 for rangeland research grants (7 U.S.C. 3331-3336); 
     $3,500,000 for higher education graduate fellowships grants 
     (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(6)), to remain available until expended (7 
     U.S.C. 2209b); $4,350,000 for higher education challenge 
     grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(1)); $1,000,000 for a higher 
     education minority scholars program (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(5)), to 
     remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); $4,000,000 
     for aquaculture grants (7 U.S.C. 3322); [$8,000,000] 
     $8,112,000 for sustainable agriculture research and education 
     (7 U.S.C. 5811); $9,207,000 for a program of capacity 
     building grants to colleges eligible to receive funds under 
     the Act of August 30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328), 
     including Tuskegee University, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); and [$6,289,000] $10,686,000 for 
     necessary expenses of Research and Education Activities, of 
     which not to exceed $100,000 shall be for employment under 5 
     U.S.C. 3109; in all, [$389,172,000] $418,172,000.
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to carry out research related to the production, 
     processing or marketing of tobacco or tobacco products.


              native american institutions endowment fund

       For establishment of a Native American institutions 
     endowment fund, as authorized by Public Law 130-382 (7 U.S.C. 
     301 note.), $4,600,000.


                        buildings and facilities

       For acquisition of land, construction, repair, improvement, 
     extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or 
     facilities and for grants to States and other eligible 
     recipients for such purposes, as necessary to carry out the 
     agricultural research, extension, and teaching programs of 
     the Department of Agriculture, where not otherwise provided, 
     $57,838,000, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b).


                          extension activities

       Payments to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
     Guam, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern Marianas, and 
     American Samoa: For payments for cooperative extension work 
     under the Smith-Lever Act, as amended, to be distributed 
     under sections 3(b) and 3(c) of said Act, and under section 
     208(c) of Public Law 93-471, for retirement and employees' 
     compensation costs for extension agents and for costs of 
     penalty mail for cooperative extension agents and State 
     extension directors, [$264,405,000] $272,582,000; payments 
     for the nutrition and family education program for low-income 
     areas under section 3(d) of the Act, [$59,588,000] 
     $61,431,000; payments for the pest management program under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, $10,947,000; payments for the farm 
     safety program under section 3(d) of the Act, [$2,898,000] 
     $2,988,000; payments for the pesticide impact assessment 
     program under section 3(d) of the Act, $3,363,000; payments 
     to upgrade 1890 land-grant college research, extension, and 
     teaching facilities as authorized by section 1447 of Public 
     Law 95-113, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3222b), [$7,664,000] 
     $7,901,000, to remain available until expended; payments for 
     the rural development centers under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     [$921,000] $950,000; payments for a groundwater quality 
     program under section 3(d) of the Act, [$10,897,000] 
     $11,234,000; payments for the agricultural telecommunications 
     program, as authorized by Public Law 101-624 (7 U.S.C. 5926), 
     [$1,184,000] $1,221,000; payments for youth-at-risk programs 
     under section 3(d) of the Act, [$9,700,000] $10,000,000; 
     payments for a Nutrition Education Initiative under 3(d) of 
     the Act, $4,265,000; payments for a food safety program under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, [$2,400,000] $2,475,000; payments 
     for carrying out the provisions of the Renewable Resources 
     Extension Act of 1978, [$3,241,000] $3,341,000; payments for 
     Indian reservation agents under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     [$1,697,000] $1,750,000; payments for sustainable agriculture 
     programs under section 3(d) of the Act, $3,463,000; payments 
     for rural health and safety education as authorized by 
     section 2390 of Public Law 101-624 (7 U.S.C. 2661 note, 
     2662), $2,750,000; payments for cooperative extension work by 
     the colleges receiving the benefits of the second Morrill Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 321-326, 328) and Tuskegee University, 
     [$24,708,000] $25,472,000; and for Federal administration and 
     coordination including administration of the Smith-Lever Act, 
     as amended, and the Act of September 29, 1977 (7 U.S.C. 341-
     349), as amended, and section 1361(c) of the Act of October 
     3, 1980 (7 U.S.C. [301n] 301 note), and to coordinate and 
     provide program leadership for the extension work of the 
     Department and the several States and insular possessions, 
     [$6,181,000] $10,998,000; in all, [$413,257,000] 
     $437,131,000: Provided, That funds hereby appropriated 
     pursuant to section 3(c) of the Act of June 26, 1953, and 
     section 506 of the Act of June 23, 1972, as amended, shall 
     not be paid to any State, the District of Columbia, Puerto 
     Rico, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Northern 
     Marianas, and American Samoa prior to availability of an 
     equal sum from non-Federal sources for expenditure during the 
     current fiscal year.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs to 
     administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress 
     for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
     Agricultural Marketing Service, and the Grain Inspection, 
     Packers and Stockyards Administration, $605,000.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, including those 
     pursuant to the Act of February 28, 1947, as amended (21 
     U.S.C. 114b-c), necessary to prevent, control, and eradicate 
     pests and plant and animal diseases; to carry out inspection, 
     quarantine, and regulatory activities; to discharge the 
     authorities of the Secretary of Agriculture under the Act of 
     March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C. 426-426b); and to 
     protect the environment, as authorized by law, [$333,410,000] 
     $329,125,000, of which $4,799,000 shall be available for the 
     control of outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal 
     diseases and for control of pest animals and birds to the 
     extent necessary to meet emergency conditions: Provided, That 
     in fiscal year 1996, amounts in the agricultural quarantine 
     inspection user fee account shall be available for authorized 
     purposes without further appropriation: Provided further, 
     That no funds shall be used to formulate or administer a 
     brucellosis eradication program for the current fiscal year 
     that does not require minimum matching by the States of at 
     least 40 percent: Provided further, That this appropriation 
     shall be available for field employment pursuant to the 
     second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 
     (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $40,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That 
     this appropriation shall be available for the operation and 
     maintenance of aircraft and the purchase of not to exceed 
     four, of which two shall be for replacement only: Provided 
     further, That, in addition, in emergencies which threaten any 
     segment of the agricultural production industry of this 
     country, the Secretary may transfer from other appropriations 
     or funds available to the agencies or corporations of the 
     Department such sums as he may deem necessary, to be 
     available only in such emergencies for the arrest and 
     eradication of contagious or infectious diseases or pests of 
     animals, poultry, or plants, and for expenses in accordance 
     with the Act of February 28, 1947, as amended, and section 
     102 of the Act of September 21, 1944, as amended, and any 
     unexpended balances of funds transferred for such emergency 
     purposes in the next preceding fiscal year shall be merged 
     with such transferred amounts: Provided further, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to law 
     (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the repair and alteration of leased 
     buildings and improvements, but unless otherwise provided the 
     cost of altering any one building during the fiscal year 
     shall not exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value 
     of the building.
       In fiscal year 1996 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.

                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance, 
     environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration, 
     modernization, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, 
     as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and 

[[Page S 13683]]
     acquisition of land as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 428a, [$12,541,000] 
     $4,973,000, to remain available until expended.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service


                           marketing services

       For necessary expenses to carry on services related to 
     consumer protection, agricultural marketing and distribution, 
     transportation, and regulatory programs, as authorized by 
     law, and for administration and coordination of payments to 
     States; including field employment pursuant to section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $90,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, [$46,662,000] 
     $46,517,000, including funds for the wholesale market 
     development program for the design and development of 
     wholesale and farmer market facilities for the major 
     metropolitan areas of the country: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 
     2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the 
     current replacement value of the building.
       Fees may be collected for the cost of standardization 
     activities, as established by regulation pursuant to law (31 
     U.S.C. 9701).


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Not to exceed $58,461,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for administrative 
     expenses: Provided, That if crop size is understated and/or 
     other uncontrollable events occur, the agency may exceed this 
     limitation by up to 10 percent with notification to the 
     Appropriations Committees.

    funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (section 32)


                     (including transfers of funds)

       Funds available under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 
     1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c) shall be used only for commodity program 
     expenses as authorized therein, and other related operating 
     expenses, except for: (1) transfers to the Department of 
     Commerce as authorized by the Fish and Wildlife Act of August 
     8, 1956; (2) transfers otherwise provided in this Act; and 
     (3) not more than $10,451,000 for formulation and 
     administration of marketing agreements and orders pursuant to 
     the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, 
     and the Agricultural Act of 1961.
       In fiscal year 1996, no more than $23,900,000 in section 32 
     funds shall be used to promote sunflower and cottonseed oil 
     exports as authorized by section 1541 of Public Law 101-624 
     (7 U.S.C. 1464 note), and such funds shall be used to 
     facilitate additional sales of such oils in world markets.


                   payments to states and possessions

       For payments to departments of agriculture, bureaus and 
     departments of markets, and similar agencies for marketing 
     activities under section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing 
     Act of [1956] 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), [$1,000,000] 
     $1,200,000.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     United States Grain Standards Act, as amended, for the 
     administration of the Packers and Stockyards Act, for 
     certifying procedures used to protect purchasers of farm 
     products, and the standardization activities related to grain 
     under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, 
     including field employment pursuant to section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $25,000 for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109, [$23,058,000] 
     $23,289,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available pursuant to law (7 U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration 
     and repair of buildings and improvements, but the cost of 
     altering any one building during the fiscal year shall not 
     exceed 10 percent of the current replacement value of the 
     building.

                    inspection and weighing services


        limitation on inspection and weighing services expenses

       Not to exceed $42,784,000 (from fees collected) shall be 
     obligated during the current fiscal year for inspection and 
     weighing services: Provided, That if grain export activities 
     require additional supervision and oversight, or other 
     uncontrollable factors occur, this limitation may be exceeded 
     by up to 10 percent with notification to the Appropriations 
     Committees.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Food Safety to administer the laws 
     enacted by the Congress for the Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service, [$450,000] $440,000.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

       For necessary expenses to carry on services authorized by 
     the Federal Meat Inspection Act, as amended, the Poultry 
     Products Inspection Act, as amended, and the Egg Products 
     Inspection Act, as amended, [$540,365,000] $568,685,000, and 
     in addition, $1,000,000 may be credited to this account from 
     fees collected for the cost of laboratory accreditation as 
     authorized by section 1017 of Public Law 102-237: Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall not be available for shell egg 
     surveillance under section 5(d) of the Egg Products 
     Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1034(d)): Provided further, That 
     this appropriation shall be available for field employment 
     pursuant to section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 
     U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $75,000 shall be available 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That 
     this appropriation shall be available pursuant to law (7 
     U.S.C. 2250) for the alteration and repair of buildings and 
     improvements, but the cost of altering any one building 
     during the fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent of the 
     current replacement value of the building.

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by Congress for the Consolidated 
     Farm Service Agency, Foreign Agricultural Service, and the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation, $549,000.

                    Consolidated Farm Service Agency


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration 
     and implementation of programs [delegated to the Consolidated 
     Farm Service Agency by the Secretary under the Federal Crop 
     Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
     Act of 1994] administered by the Consolidated Farm Service 
     Agency, [$788,388,000] $805,888,000: Provided, That the 
     Secretary is authorized to use the services, facilities, and 
     authorities (but not the funds) of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation to make program payments for all programs 
     administered by the Agency: Provided further, That other 
     funds made available to the Agency for authorized activities 
     may be advanced to and merged with this account: Provided 
     further, That these funds shall be available for employment 
     pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) of the 
     Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     [$500,000] $1,000,000 shall be available for employment under 
     5 U.S.C. 3109.

                         state mediation grants

       For grants pursuant to section 502(b) of the Agricultural 
     Credit Act of 1987, as amended (7 U.S.C. 5101-5106), 
     [$2,000,000] $3,000,000.


                        dairy indemnity program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses involved in making indemnity 
     payments to dairy farmers for milk or cows producing such 
     milk and manufacturers of dairy products who have been 
     directed to remove their milk or dairy products from 
     commercial markets because it contained residues of chemicals 
     registered and approved for use by the Federal Government, 
     and in making indemnity payments for milk, or cows producing 
     such milk, at a fair market value to any dairy farmer who is 
     directed to remove his milk from commercial markets because 
     of (1) the presence of products of nuclear radiation or 
     fallout if such contamination is not due to the fault of the 
     farmer, or (2) residues of chemicals or toxic substances not 
     included under the first sentence of the Act of August 13, 
     1968, as amended (7 U.S.C. 450j), if such chemicals or toxic 
     substances were not used in a manner contrary to applicable 
     regulations or labeling instructions provided at the time of 
     use and the contamination is not due to the fault of the 
     farmer, $100,000, to remain available until expended (7 
     U.S.C. 2209b): Provided, That none of the funds contained in 
     this Act shall be used to make indemnity payments to any 
     farmer whose milk was removed from commercial markets as a 
     result of his willful failure to follow procedures prescribed 
     by the Federal Government: Provided further, That this amount 
     shall be transferred to the Commodity Credit Corporation: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary is authorized to utilize 
     the services, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation for the purpose of making dairy indemnity 
     disbursements.


              OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 2501 of the 
     Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 2279), $2,000,000, to remain available until expended.


           agricultural credit insurance fund program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928-1929, to 
     be available from funds in the Agricultural Credit Insurance 
     Fund, as follows: farm ownership loans, [$585,000,000] 
     $610,000,000, of which $550,000,000 shall be for guaranteed 
     loans; operating loans, [$2,300,000,000] $2,450,000,000, of 
     which $1,700,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed 
     loans and $200,000,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed 
     loans; Indian tribe land acquisition loans as authorized by 
     25 U.S.C. 488, $750,000; for emergency insured loans, 
     $100,000,000 to meet the needs resulting from natural 
     disasters; and for credit sales of acquired property, 
     [$22,500,000] $21,696,000.
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: farm ownership 
     loans, [$28,206,000] $34,053,000, of which $20,019,000 shall 
     be for guaranteed loans; operating loans, [$91,000,000] 
     $111,505,000, of which $18,360,000 shall be for unsubsidized 
     guaranteed loans and $17,960,000 shall be for subsidized 
     guaranteed loans; Indian tribe land acquisition loans as 
     authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, $206,000; for emergency insured 
     loans, $32,080,000 to meet the needs resulting from natural 
     disasters; and for credit sales of acquired property, 
     [$4,113,000] $3,966,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, [$221,541,000] 

[[Page S 13684]]
     $227,258,000, which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     following accounts in the following amounts: [$208,446,000] 
     $214,163,000 to ``Salaries and Expenses''; $318,000 to 
     ``Rural Utilities Service, Salaries and Expenses''; and 
     $171,000 to ``Rural Housing and Community Development 
     Service, Salaries and Expenses''.

                              CORPORATIONS

       The following corporations and agencies are hereby 
     authorized to make expenditures, within the limits of funds 
     and borrowing authority available to each such corporation or 
     agency and in accord with law, and to make contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the 
     programs set forth in the budget for the current fiscal year 
     for such corporation or agency, except as hereinafter 
     provided.

                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

       For payments as authorized by section 516 of the Federal 
     Crop Insurance Act, as amended, such sums as may be 
     necessary, to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b).

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund


                 reimbursement for net realized losses

       For fiscal year 1996, such sums as may be necessary to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized 
     losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed (estimated to 
     be $10,400,000,000 in the President's fiscal year 1996 Budget 
     Request (H. Doc. 104-4)), but not to exceed $10,400,000,000, 
     pursuant to section 2 of the Act of August 17, 1961, as 
     amended (15 U.S.C. 713a-11).


       operations and maintenance for hazardous waste management

       For fiscal year 1996, the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     shall not expend more than $5,000,000 for expenses to comply 
     with the requirement of section 107(g) of the Comprehensive 
     Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as 
     amended, 42 U.S.C. 9607(g), and section 6001 of the Resource 
     Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6961: 
     Provided, That expenses shall be for operations and 
     maintenance costs only and that other hazardous waste 
     management costs shall be paid for by the USDA Hazardous 
     Waste Management appropriation in this Act.

                                TITLE II

                         CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

                   Office of the Under Secretary for

                   Natural Resources and Environment

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Forest 
     Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
     $677,000.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service


                        conservation operations

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the provisions of 
     the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-590f) including 
     preparation of conservation plans and establishment of 
     measures to conserve soil and water (including farm 
     irrigation and land drainage and such special measures for 
     soil and water management as may be necessary to prevent 
     floods and the siltation of reservoirs and to control 
     agricultural related pollutants); operation of conservation 
     plant materials centers; classification and mapping of soil; 
     dissemination of information; acquisition of lands, water, 
     and interests therein for use in the plant materials program 
     by donation, exchange, or purchase at a nominal cost not to 
     exceed $100 pursuant to the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U.S.C. 
     428a); purchase and erection or alteration or improvement of 
     permanent and temporary buildings; and operation and 
     maintenance of aircraft, [$629,986,000] $637,860,000, to 
     remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), of which 
     not less than $5,852,000 is for snow survey and water 
     forecasting and not less than $8,875,000 is for operation and 
     establishment of the plant materials centers: Provided, That 
     appropriations hereunder shall be available pursuant to 7 
     U.S.C. 2250 for construction and improvement of buildings and 
     public improvements at plant materials centers, except that 
     the cost of alterations and improvements to other buildings 
     and other public improvements shall not exceed $250,000: 
     Provided further, That when buildings or other structures are 
     erected on non-Federal land, that the right to use such land 
     is obtained as provided in 7 U.S.C. 2250a: Provided further, 
     That this appropriation shall be available for technical 
     assistance and related expenses to carry out programs 
     authorized by section 202(c) of title II of the Colorado 
     River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, as amended (43 
     U.S.C. 1592(c)): Provided further, That no part of this 
     appropriation may be expended for soil and water conservation 
     operations under the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-
     590f) in demonstration projects: Provided further, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225) and not to exceed $25,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided 
     further, That qualified local engineers may be temporarily 
     employed at per diem rates to perform the technical planning 
     work of the Service (16 U.S.C. 590e-2).


                 RIVER BASIN SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS

       For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation, 
     and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, in 
     accordance with section 6 of the Watershed Protection and 
     Flood Prevention Act approved August 4, 1954, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 1006-1009), $8,369,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $60,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.


                           WATERSHED PLANNING

       For necessary expenses for small watershed investigations 
     and planning, in accordance with the Watershed Protection and 
     Flood Prevention Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-1008), 
     $5,630,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109.


               watershed and flood prevention operations

       For necessary expenses to carry out preventive measures, 
     including but not limited to research, engineering 
     operations, methods of cultivation, the growing of 
     vegetation, rehabilitation of existing works and changes in 
     use of land, [and only high-priority projects authorized by 
     the Flood Control Act (33 U.S.C. 701, 16 U.S.C. 1006a),] in 
     accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 
     Act approved August 4, 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 
     1007-1009), the provisions of the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 
     U.S.C. 590a-f), and in accordance with the provisions of laws 
     relating to the activities of the Department, $100,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b) (of which 
     $15,000,000 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 this appropriation shall be available for 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $200,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109: Provided further, That not to exceed $1,000,000 of this 
     appropriation is available to carry out the purposes of the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-205), as 
     amended, including cooperative efforts as contemplated by 
     that Act to relocate endangered or threatened species to 
     other suitable habitats as may be necessary to expedite 
     project construction.


                 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

       For necessary expenses in planning and carrying out 
     projects for resource conservation and development and for 
     sound land use pursuant to the provisions of section 32(e) of 
     title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, as amended 
     (7 U.S.C. 1010-1011; 76 Stat. 607), and the provisions of the 
     Act of April 27, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and the provisions 
     of the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451-
     3461), $27,000,000, to remain available until expended (7 
     U.S.C. 2209): Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and not to exceed $50,000 shall be available for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109.


                      FORESTRY INCENTIVES PROGRAM

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to 
     carry out the program of forestry incentives, as authorized 
     in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2101), including technical assistance and related expenses 
     $6,325,000, to remain available until expended, as authorized 
     by that Act.


             COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM

       For necessary expenses for carrying out a voluntary 
     cooperative salinity control program pursuant to section 
     202(c) of title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity 
     Control Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1592(c)), to be used to 
     reduce salinity in the Colorado River and to enhance the 
     supply and quality of water available for use in the United 
     States and the Republic of Mexico, $1,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), to be used for the 
     establishment of on-farm irrigation management systems, 
     including lateral improvement measures, for making cost-share 
     payments to agricultural landowners and operators, Indian 
     tribes, irrigation districts and associations, local 
     governmental and nongovernmental entities, and other 
     landowners to aid them in carrying out approved conservation 
     practices as determined and recommended by the Secretary, and 
     for associated costs of program planning, information and 
     education, and program monitoring and evaluation.


                    [watershed surveys and planning

       [For necessary expenses to conduct research, investigation, 
     and surveys of watersheds of rivers and other waterways, and 
     for small watershed investigations and planning, in 
     accordance with the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention 
     Act approved August 4, 1954, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1001-
     1009), $14,000,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall 
     be available for employment pursuant to the second sentence 
     of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), 
     and not to exceed $110,000 shall be available for employment 
     under 5 U.S.C. 3109.


                         [conservation programs

       [For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in 
     planning and carrying out projects for resource conservation 
     and development and for sound land use pursuant to the 
     provisions of section 32(e) of title III of the Bankhead-
     Jones Farm Tenant Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1011; 76 Stat. 
     607), and the provisions of the Act of April 27, 1935 (16 
     U.S.C. 590a-f), and the provisions of the Agriculture and 
     Food Act of 1981 (16 U.S.C. 3451-

[[Page S 13685]]
     3461), to carry out the program of forestry incentives, as authorized 
     in the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 
     2101), including technical assistance and related expenses, 
     and for carrying out a voluntary cooperative salinity control 
     program pursuant to section 202(c) of title II of the 
     Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, as amended (43 
     U.S.C. 1592(c)), to be used to reduce salinity in the 
     Colorado River and to enhance the supply and quality of water 
     available for use in the United States and the Republic of 
     Mexico, to be used for the establishment of on-farm 
     irrigation management systems, including related lateral 
     improvement measures, for making cost-share payments to 
     agricultural landowners and operators, Indian tribes, 
     irrigation districts and associations, local governmental and 
     nongovernmental entities, and other landowners to aid them in 
     carrying out approved conservation practices as determined 
     and recommended by the Secretary, and for associated costs of 
     program planning, information and education, and program 
     monitoring and evaluation, $36,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209, 16 U.S.C. 590p(b)(7)): 
     Provided, That this appropriation shall be available for 
     employment pursuant to the second sentence of section 706(a) 
     of the Organic Act of 1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed 
     $50,000 shall be available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109.]


                        wetlands reserve program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the wetlands reserve 
     program pursuant to subchapter C of subtitle D of title XII 
     of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3837), 
     [$210,000,000] $77,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the Secretary is authorized to use 
     the services, facilities, and authorities of the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation for the purpose of carrying out the 
     wetlands reserve program.

                    Consolidated Farm Service Agency


                   agricultural conservation program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry into effect the program 
     authorized in sections 7 to 15, 16(a), 16(f), and 17 of the 
     Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act approved 
     February 29, 1936, as amended and supplemented (16 U.S.C. 
     590g-590o, 590p(a), 590p(f), and 590q), and sections 1001-
     1004, 1006-1008, and 1010 of the Agricultural Act of 1970, as 
     added by the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1501-1504, 1506-1508, and 1510), and including not 
     to exceed $15,000 for the preparation and display of 
     exhibits, including such displays at State, interstate, and 
     international fairs within the United States, [$75,000,000] 
     $50,000,000, to remain available until expended (16 U.S.C. 
     590o), for agreements, excluding administration but including 
     technical assistance and related expenses (16 U.S.C. 590o), 
     except that no participant in the agricultural conservation 
     program shall receive more than $3,500 per year, except where 
     the participants from two or more farms or ranches join to 
     carry out approved practices designed to conserve or improve 
     the agricultural resources of the community, or where a 
     participant has a long-term agreement, in which case the 
     total payment shall not exceed the annual payment limitation 
     multiplied by the number of years of the agreement: Provided, 
     That no portion of the funds for the current year's program 
     may be utilized to provide financial or technical assistance 
     for drainage on wetlands now designated as Wetlands Types 3 
     (III) through 20 (XX) in United States Department of the 
     Interior, Fish and Wildlife Circular 39, Wetlands of the 
     United States, 1956: Provided further, That such amounts 
     shall be available for the purchase of seeds, fertilizers, 
     lime, trees, or any other conservation materials, or any 
     soil-terracing services, and making grants thereof to 
     agricultural producers to aid them in carrying out approved 
     farming practices as authorized by the Soil Conservation and 
     Domestic Allotment Act, as amended, as determined and 
     recommended by the county committees, approved by the State 
     committees and the Secretary, under programs provided for 
     herein: Provided further, That such assistance will not be 
     used for carrying out measures and practices that are 
     primarily production-oriented or that have little or no 
     conservation or pollution abatement benefits: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed 5 percent of the allocation for 
     the current year's program for any county may, on the 
     recommendation of such county committee and approval of the 
     State committee, be withheld and allotted to the Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service for services of its 
     technicians in formulating and carrying out the agricultural 
     conservation program in the participating counties, and shall 
     not be utilized by the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
     for any purpose other than technical and other assistance in 
     such counties, and in addition, on the recommendation of such 
     county committee and approval of the State committee, not to 
     exceed 1 percent may be made available to any other Federal, 
     State, or local public agency for the same purpose and under 
     the same conditions: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     [$11,000,000] $15,000,000 of the amount appropriated shall be 
     used for water quality payments and practices in the same 
     manner as permitted under the program for water quality 
     authorized in chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the 
     Food Security Act of 1985, as amended (16 U.S.C. 3838 et 
     seq.).


                      conservation reserve program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the conservation 
     reserve program pursuant to the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3831-3845), $1,781,785,000, to remain available until 
     expended, to be used for Commodity Credit Corporation 
     expenditures for cost-share assistance for the establishment 
     of conservation practices provided for in approved 
     conservation reserve program contracts, for annual rental 
     payments provided in such contracts, and for technical 
     assistance.

                               TITLE III

           RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

    Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community 
                              Development

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development 
     to administer programs under the laws enacted by the Congress 
     for the Rural Housing and Community Development Service, 
     Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service, and the 
     Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture, 
     $568,000.


                  RURAL COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees and grants, 
     as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1928, and 1932, and 86 Stat. 
     661-664, as amended; and 42 U.S.C. 1485 and 1490(a), 
     $528,839,000, to remain available until expended, to be 
     available for loans and grants for rural water and waste 
     disposal and solid waste management grants, new construction 
     of section 515 rental housing, direct loans and loan 
     guarantees for community facilities, loan guarantees for 
     business and industry assistance, and grants for rural 
     business enterprise: Provided, That the costs of direct loans 
     and loan guarantees, including the cost of modifying such 
     loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated, $20,044,000 shall be for 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as authorized 
     by Public Law 103-66: Provided further, That if such funds 
     are not obligated for empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities by June 30, 1996, they shall remain available for 
     other authorized purposes under this head: Provided further, 
     That of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed 
     $4,500,000 shall be available for contracting with the 
     National Rural Water Association or an equally qualified 
     national organization for a circuit rider program to provide 
     technical assistance for rural water systems: Provided 
     further, That of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed 
     $20,000,000 shall be available for water and waste disposal 
     systems to benefit the Colonias along the United States/
     Mexico border, including grants under section 306(c).
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants, $58,051,000, 
     of which $57,614,000 shall be transferred to and merged with 
     ``Rural Housing and Community Development Service, Salaries 
     and Expenses''; ``Rural Utilities Service, Salaries and 
     Expenses''; and ``Rural Business and Cooperative Development 
     Service, Salaries and Expenses''.

            Rural Housing and Community Development Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Rural Housing and Community 
     Development Service, including administering the programs 
     authorized by the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act, as amended, title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as 
     amended, and cooperative agreements, [$42,820,000] 
     $50,346,000: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944, and not to exceed $500,000 
     may be used for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.


              rural housing insurance fund program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For gross obligations for the principal amount of direct 
     and guaranteed loans as authorized by title V of the Housing 
     Act of 1949, as amended, to be available from funds in the 
     rural housing insurance fund, as follows: [$2,250,000,000] 
     $2,700,000,000 for loans to section 502 borrowers, as 
     determined by the Secretary, of which $1,700,000,000 shall be 
     for unsubsidized guaranteed loans; $35,000,000 for section 
     504 housing repair loans; $15,000,000 for section 514 farm 
     labor housing; $150,000,000 for section 515 rental housing; 
     $600,000 for site loans; and [$35,000,000] $42,484,000 for 
     credit sales of acquired property[: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture may make loans under section 502 of 
     such Act for properties in the Pine View West Subdivision, 
     located in Gibsonville, North Carolina, in the same manner as 
     provided under such section for properties in rural areas].
       For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, including the 
     cost of modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as follows: section 502 
     loans, [$118,335,000] $212,790,000, of which $2,890,000 shall 
     be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans; section 504 housing 
     repair loans, $14,193,000; section 514 farm labor housing, 
     $8,629,000; section 515 rental housing, $82,035,000[, 
     provided the program is authorized for fiscal year 1996]; and 
     credit sales of acquired property, [$6,100,000] $7,405,000.
       [In addition, for the cost (as defined in section 502 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) of guaranteed loans 
     under a demonstration program of loan guarantees for 
     multifamily rental housing in rural areas, $1,000,000, to be 
     derived from the amount 

[[Page S 13686]]
     made available under this heading for the cost of low-income section 
     515 loans and to become available for obligation only upon 
     the enactment of authorizing legislation.]
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, [$385,889,000] 
     $389,818,000, of which [$372,897,506] $376,860,000 shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for ``Rural 
     Housing and Community Development Service, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.


                       rental assistance program

       For rental assistance agreements entered into or renewed 
     pursuant to the authority under section 521(a)(2) or 
     agreements entered into in lieu of forgiveness or payments 
     for eligible households as authorized by section 502(c)(5)(D) 
     of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, [$535,900,000] 
     $540,900,000; and in addition such sums as may be necessary, 
     as authorized by section 521(c) of the Act, to liquidate debt 
     incurred prior to fiscal year 1992 to carry out the rental 
     assistance program under section 521(a)(2) of the Act: 
     Provided, That of this amount not more than $5,900,000 shall 
     be available for debt forgiveness or payments for eligible 
     households as authorized by section 502(c)(5)(D) of the Act, 
     and not to exceed $10,000 per project for advances to 
     nonprofit organizations or public agencies to cover direct 
     costs (other than purchase price) incurred in purchasing 
     projects pursuant to section 502(c)(5)(C) of the Act: 
     Provided further, That agreements entered into or renewed 
     during fiscal year 1996 shall be funded for a five-year 
     period, although the life of any such agreement may be 
     extended to fully utilize amounts obligated.


                self-help housing land development fund

       For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized by 
     section 523(b)(1)(B) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended 
     (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $603,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $31,000.


               [community facility loans program account

                    [(including transfers of funds)

       [For the cost of direct loans, $34,880,000, and for the 
     cost of guaranteed loans, $3,555,000, as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 1928 and 86 Stat. 661-664, as amended: Provided, That 
     such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974: Provided further, That such sums shall remain 
     available until expended for the disbursement of loans 
     obligated in fiscal year 1996: Provided further, That these 
     funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for the 
     principal amount of direct loans not to exceed $200,000,000 
     and total loan principal, any part of which is to be 
     guaranteed, not to exceed $75,000,000: Provided further, That 
     of the amounts available for the cost of direct loans not to 
     exceed $1,208,000, to subsidize gross obligations for the 
     principal amount not to exceed $6,930,000, shall be available 
     for empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as 
     authorized by Public Law 103-66: Provided further, That if 
     such funds are not obligated for empowerment zones and 
     enterprise communities by June 30, 1996, they remain 
     available for other authorized purposes under this head.
       [In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $8,836,000, of which 
     $8,731,000 shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses''.]


                 very low-income housing repair grants

       For grants to the very low-income elderly for essential 
     repairs to dwellings pursuant to section 504 of the Housing 
     Act of 1949, as amended, $24,900,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


                 rural housing for domestic farm labor

       For financial assistance to eligible nonprofit 
     organizations for housing for domestic farm labor, pursuant 
     to section 516 of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1486), $10,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                  mutual and self-help housing grants

       For grants and contracts pursuant to section 523(b)(1)(A) 
     of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1490c), $12,650,000, to 
     remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).


              supervisory and technical assistance grants

       For grants pursuant to sections 509(f) and 525 of the 
     Housing Act of 1949, $1,000,000.


                 rural community fire protection grants

       For grants pursuant to section 7 of the Cooperative 
     Forestry Assistance Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-313), 
     [$1,000,000] $3,000,000 to fund up to 50 percent of the cost 
     of organizing, training, and equipping rural volunteer fire 
     departments.


                 compensation for construction defects

       For compensation for construction defects as authorized by 
     section 509(c) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, 
     $495,000, to remain available until expended.


                   rural housing preservation grants

       For grants for rural housing preservation as authorized by 
     section 552 of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act of 
     1983 (Public Law 98-181), $11,000,000.

           Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Rural Business and 
     Cooperative Development Service, including administering the 
     programs authorized by the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act, as amended; section 1323 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985; the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926; 
     for activities relating to the marketing aspects of 
     cooperatives, including economic research findings, as 
     authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946; for 
     activities with institutions concerning the development and 
     operation of agricultural cooperatives; and cooperative 
     agreements; [$9,520,000] $9,013,000: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of 706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944, and 
     not exceed $250,000 may be used for employment under 5 U.S.C. 
     3109.


           [rural business and industry loans program account

                    [(including transfers of funds)

       [For the cost of guaranteed loans, $6,437,000, as 
     authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1928 and 86 Stat. 661-664, as amended: 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That such 
     sums shall remain available until expended for the 
     disbursement of loans obligated in fiscal year 1996: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross 
     obligations for the principal amount of guaranteed loans of 
     $500,000,000: Provided further, That of the amounts available 
     for the cost of guaranteed loans including the cost of 
     modifying loans, $148,000, to subsidize gross obligations for 
     the loan principal, any part of which is guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $10,842,000, shall be available for empowerment zones 
     and enterprise communities, as authorized by Public Law 103-
     66: Provided further, That if such funds are not obligated 
     for empowerment zones and enterprise communities by June 30, 
     1996, they remain available for other authorized activities 
     under this head.
       [In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $14,868,000, of which 
     $14,747,000 shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses''.]

              rural development loan fund program account

       [For the cost of direct loans as authorized by the rural 
     development loan fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)) for empowerment 
     zones and enterprise communities, as authorized by title XIII 
     of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, $4,322,000, 
     to subsidize gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans, $7,246,000.]
       For the cost of direct loans, $17,895,000, as authorized by 
     the Rural Development Loan Fund (42 U.S.C. 9812(a)): 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations for 
     the principal amount of direct loans of $30,000,000: Provided 
     further, That through June 30, 1996, of these amounts, 
     $6,484,000 shall be available for the cost of direct loans, 
     for empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as 
     authorized by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1993, to subsidize gross obligations for the principal 
     amount of direct loans, $10,870,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan programs, $1,476,000, of which $1,470,000 
     shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``Salaries and Expenses''.

            rural economic development loans program account


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the principal amount of direct loans, as authorized 
     under section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act, for the 
     purpose of promoting rural economic development and job 
     creation projects, $12,865,000.
       For the cost of direct loans, including the cost of 
     modifying loans as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $3,729,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, [$584,000] $724,000, which shall 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     ``Salaries and Expenses''.


 alternative agricultural research and commercialization revolving fund

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Alternative 
     Agricultural Research and Commercialization Act of 1990 (7 
     U.S.C. 5901-5908), [$5,000,000] $10,000,000 is appropriated 
     to the alternative agricultural research and 
     commercialization revolving fund.


                   [rural business enterprise grants

       [For grants authorized under section 310B(c) and 310B(j) (7 
     U.S.C. 1932) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
     Act to any qualified public or private nonprofit 
     organization, $45,000,000, of which $8,381,000 shall be 
     available through June 30, 1996, for assistance to 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as authorized 
     by title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1993, after which any funds not obligated shall remain 
     available for other authorized purposes under this head: 
     Provided, That $500,000 shall be available for grants to 
     qualified nonprofit organizations to provide technical 
     assistance and training for rural communities needing 
     improved passenger transportation systems or facilities in 
     order to promote economic development.]


          rural technology and cooperative development grants

       For grants pursuant to section 310(f) of the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development 

[[Page S 13687]]
     Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1932), [$1,500,000] $1,500,000, of which 
     $1,300,000 may be available for the appropriate technology 
     transfer for rural areas program.

                        Rural Utilities Service


       rural electrification and telephone loans program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Insured loans pursuant to the authority of section 305 of 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     935), shall be made as follows: 5 percent rural 
     electrification loans, $90,000,000; 5 percent rural telephone 
     loans, $70,000,000; cost of money rural telephone loans, 
     $300,000,000; municipal rate rural electric loans, 
     [$500,000,000] $550,000,000; and loans made pursuant to 
     section 306 of that Act, $420,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct and guaranteed loans authorized by 
     the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 
     935), as follows: cost of direct loans, $35,126,000; cost of 
     municipal rate loans, [$54,150,000] $59,565,000; cost of 
     money rural telephone loans, $60,000; cost of loans 
     guaranteed pursuant to section 306, $2,520,000: Provided, 
     That notwithstanding [sections 305(c)(2) and] section 
     305(d)(2) of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, borrower 
     interest rates may exceed 7 percent per year.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, [$29,982,000] 
     $32,183,000, which shall be transferred to and merged with 
     the appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses''.


                  rural telephone bank program account

       The Rural Telephone Bank is hereby authorized to make such 
     expenditures, within the limits of funds available to such 
     corporation in accord with law, and to make such contracts 
     and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out its 
     authorized programs for the current fiscal year. During 
     fiscal year 1996 and within the resources and authority 
     available, gross obligations for the principal amount of 
     direct loans shall be $175,000,000.
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, including the cost of 
     modifying loans, of direct loans authorized by the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 935), 
     [$770,000] $5,023,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the loan programs, [$3,541,000] $6,167,000.


               distance learning and medical link grants

       For necessary expenses to carry into effect the programs 
     authorized in sections 2331-2335 of Public Law 101-624, 
     $7,500,000, to remain available until expended.


          [rural development performance partnerships program

                    [(including transfers of funds)

       [For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants, 
     as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 1928, and 1932, $435,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, to be available for loans 
     and grants for rural water and waste disposal and solid waste 
     management grants: Provided, That the costs of direct loans 
     and loan guarantees, including the cost of modifying such 
     loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated, not to exceed $4,000,000 shall 
     be available for contracting with the National Rural Water 
     Association or other equally qualified national organization 
     for a circuit rider program to provide technical assistance 
     for rural water systems: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $18,700,000 shall be 
     available for water and waste disposal systems to benefit the 
     Colonias along the United States/Mexico border, including 
     grants pursuant to section 306C: Provided further, That of 
     the total amount appropriated, $18,688,000 shall be for 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities, as authorized 
     by Public Law 103-66: Provided further, That if such funds 
     are not obligated for empowerment zones and enterprise 
     communities by June 30, 1996, they shall remain available for 
     other authorized purposes under this head.
       [In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to 
     carry out direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants, 
     $12,740,000, of which $12,623,000 shall be transferred and 
     merged with ``Rural Utilities Service, Salaries and 
     Expenses''.]


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Rural Utilities Service, 
     including administering the programs authorized by the Rural 
     Electrification Act of 1936, as amended, and the Consolidated 
     Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, [$19,211,000] 
     $18,449,000, of which $7,000 shall be available for financial 
     credit reports: Provided, That this appropriation shall be 
     available for employment pursuant to the second sentence of 
     706(a) of the Organic Act of 1944, and not to exceed $103,000 
     may be used for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                                TITLE IV

                         DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services to 
     administer the laws enacted by the Congress for the Food and 
     Consumer Service, [$440,000] $540,000.

                       Food and Consumer Service


                        child nutrition programs

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751-1769b), and the applicable 
     provisions other than [section 17] sections 17, 19, and 21 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772-1785, and 
     1789); [$7,952,424,000] $7,952,610,000, to remain available 
     through September 30, 1997, of which [$2,354,566,000] 
     $2,354,752,000 is hereby appropriated and $5,597,858,000 
     shall be derived by transfer from funds available under 
     section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c): 
     Provided, That up to $3,964,000 shall be available for 
     independent verification of school food service claims[: 
     Provided further, That $1,900,000 shall be available to 
     provide financial and other assistance to operate the Food 
     Service Management Institute.
       [Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds other 
     than provided in this Act may be available for nutrition 
     education and training and the Food Service Management 
     Institute.]


special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children 
                                 (WIC)

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the special 
     supplemental nutrition program as authorized by section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), 
     $3,729,807,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     1997: Provided, That for fiscal year 1996, $20,000,000 that 
     would otherwise be available to States for nutrition services 
     and administration shall be made available for food benefits: 
     Provided further, That $4,000,000 from unobligated balances 
     for supervisory and technical assistance grants may be 
     transferred to and merged with this account: Provided 
     further, That up to $6,750,000 may be used to carry out the 
     farmers' market nutrition program from any funds not needed 
     to maintain current caseload levels: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act shall be available to pay 
     administrative expenses of WIC clinics except those that have 
     an announced policy of prohibiting smoking within the space 
     used to carry out the program: Provided further, That on or 
     after July 1, 1996, any funds recovered from the previous 
     fiscal year in excess of $100,000,000 may be transferred by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture to the Rural Community 
     Advancement Program and shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That none of the funds provided 
     in this Act shall be available for the purchase of infant 
     formula except in accordance with the cost containment and 
     competitive bidding requirements specified in section 17 of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786) (as in 
     effect on September 13, 1995).


                  COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM

       For necessary expenses to carry out the commodity 
     supplemental food program as authorized by section 4(a) of 
     the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 
     612c (note)), including not less than $8,000,000 for the 
     projects in Detroit, New Orleans, and Des Moines, $86,000,000 
     to remain available through September 30, 1997: Provided, 
     That none of these funds shall be available to reimburse the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities donated to the 
     program: Provided further, That twenty percent of any 
     Commodity Supplemental Food Program funds carried over from 
     fiscal year 1995 shall be available for administrative costs 
     of the program.


                           food stamp program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7 
     U.S.C. 2011-2029), [$27,097,828,000] $28,097,828,000: 
     Provided, That funds provided herein shall remain available 
     through September 30, 1996, in accordance with section 18(a) 
     of the Food Stamp Act: Provided further, That $1,000,000,000 
     of the foregoing amount shall be placed in reserve for use 
     only in such amounts and at such times as may become 
     necessary to carry out program operations: Provided further, 
     That funds provided herein shall be expended in accordance 
     with section 16 of the Food Stamp Act: Provided further, That 
     this appropriation shall be subject to any work registration 
     or workfare requirements as may be required by law: Provided 
     further, That $1,143,000,000 of the foregoing amount shall be 
     available for nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico as 
     authorized by 7 U.S.C. 2028.


                     [commodity assistance program

       [For necessary expenses to carry out the commodity 
     supplemental food program as authorized by section 4(a) of 
     the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 
     612c(note)), section 204(a) of the Emergency Food Assistance 
     Act of 1983, as amended, and section 110 of the Hunger 
     Prevention Act of 1988, $168,000,000, to remain available 
     through September 30, 1997: Provided, That none of these 
     funds shall be available to reimburse the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation for commodities donated to the program: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act or any other Act 
     may be used for demonstration projects in the emergency food 
     assistance program.]


              food donations programs for selected groups

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 4(a) of the 
     Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 
     612c (note)), 

[[Page S 13688]]
     section 4(b) of the Food Stamp Act (7 U.S.C. 2013(b)), and section 311 
     of the Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
     3030a), [$215,000,000] $217,250,000, to remain available 
     through September 30, 1997: Provided, That notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, for meals provided pursuant to 
     the Older Americans Act of 1965, a maximum rate of 
     reimbursement to States will be established by the Secretary, 
     subject to reduction if obligations would exceed the amount 
     of available funds, with any unobligated funds to remain 
     available only for obligation in the fiscal year beginning 
     October 1, 1996.
       For necessary expenses to carry out section 110 of the 
     Hunger Prevention Act of 1988, $40,000,000.


                 THE EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

       For making payments to States to carry out the Emergency 
     Food Assistance Act of 1983, as amended, $40,000,000: 
     Provided, That, in accordance with section 202 of Public Law 
     98-92, these funds shall be available only if the Secretary 
     determines the existence of excess commodities: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act or any other Act 
     may be used for emergency food assistance program 
     demonstration projects.


                      food program administration

       For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic food 
     programs funded under this Act, [$108,323,000] $107,215,000, 
     of which $5,000,000 shall be available only for simplifying 
     procedures, reducing overhead costs, tightening regulations, 
     improving food stamp coupon handling, and assistance in the 
     prevention, identification, and prosecution of fraud and 
     other violations of law; and $750,000 shall be available for 
     investing in an automated data processing infrastructure for 
     the Food and Consumer Service: Provided, That this 
     appropriation shall be available for employment pursuant to 
     the second sentence of section 706(a) of the Organic Act of 
     1944 (7 U.S.C. 2225), and not to exceed $150,000 shall be 
     available for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                                TITLE V

                FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service, 
     including carrying out title VI of the Agricultural Act of 
     1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1761-1768), market development 
     activities abroad, and for enabling the Secretary to 
     coordinate and integrate activities of the Department in 
     connection with foreign agricultural work, including not to 
     exceed $128,000 for representation allowances and for 
     expenses pursuant to section 8 of the Act approved August 3, 
     1956 (7 U.S.C. 1766), [$123,520,000] $124,775,000, of which 
     $5,176,000 may be transferred from Commodity Credit 
     Corporation funds, $2,792,000 may be transferred from the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation program account in this Act, and 
     $1,005,000 may be transferred from the Public Law 480 program 
     account in this Act: Provided, That the Service may utilize 
     advances of funds, or reimburse this appropriation for 
     expenditures made on behalf of Federal agencies, public and 
     private organizations and institutions under agreements 
     executed pursuant to the agricultural food production 
     assistance programs (7 U.S.C. 1736) and the foreign 
     assistance programs of the International Development 
     Cooperation Administration (22 U.S.C. 2392).
       None of the funds in the foregoing paragraph shall be 
     available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
     products.


               public law 480 program and grant accounts

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses during the current fiscal year, not otherwise 
     recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including 
     interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1691, 1701-
     1715, 1721-1726, 1727-1727f, 1731-1736g), as follows: (1) 
     $291,342,000 for Public Law 480 title I credit, including 
     Food for Progress programs; (2) $25,000,000 is hereby 
     appropriated for ocean freight differential costs for the 
     shipment of agricultural commodities pursuant to title I of 
     said Act and the Food for Progress Act of 1985, as amended; 
     (3) $821,100,000 is hereby appropriated for commodities 
     supplied in connection with dispositions abroad pursuant to 
     title II of said Act; and (4) $50,000,000 is hereby 
     appropriated for commodities supplied in connection with 
     dispositions abroad pursuant to title III of said Act and 
     shall be financed from funds credited to the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation pursuant to section 426 of Public Law 103-465: 
     Provided, That not to exceed 15 percent of the funds made 
     available to carry out any title of said Act may be used to 
     carry out any other title of said Act: Provided further, That 
     such sums shall remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b).
       For the cost, as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, of direct credit agreements 
     as authorized by the Agricultural Trade Development and 
     Assistance Act of 1954, as amended, and the Food for Progress 
     Act of 1985, as amended, including the cost of modifying 
     credit agreements under said Act, $236,162,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     Public Law 480 title I credit program, and the Food for 
     Progress Act of 1985, as amended, to the extent funds 
     appropriated for Public Law 480 are utilized, $1,750,000.


                        short-term export credit

       The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available not 
     less than $5,200,000,000 in credit guarantees under its 
     export credit guarantee program for short-term credit 
     extended to finance the export sales of United States 
     agricultural commodities and the products thereof, as 
     authorized by section 202(a) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 
     1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641).


                    intermediate-term export credit

       The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available not 
     less than $500,000,000 in credit guarantees under its export 
     credit guarantee program for intermediate-term credit 
     extended to finance the export sales of United States 
     agricultural commodities and the products thereof, as 
     authorized by section 202(b) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 
     1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641).


       commodity credit corporation export loans program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the Commodity 
     Credit Corporation's export guarantee program, GSM-102 and 
     GSM-103, $3,381,000; to cover common overhead expenses as 
     permitted by section 11 of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     Charter Act and in conformity with the Federal Credit Reform 
     Act of 1990, of which not to exceed $2,792,000 may be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for the 
     salaries and expenses of the Foreign Agricultural Service, 
     and of which not to exceed $589,000 may be transferred to and 
     merged with the appropriation for the salaries and expenses 
     of the Consolidated Farm Service Agency.

                                TITLE VI

           RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Food and Drug Administration, 
     including hire and purchase of passenger motor vehicles; for 
     rental of special purpose space in the District of Columbia 
     or elsewhere; and for miscellaneous and emergency expenses of 
     enforcement activities, authorized and approved by the 
     Secretary and to be accounted for solely on the Secretary's 
     certificate, not to exceed $25,000; $904,694,000, of which 
     not to exceed $84,723,000 in fees pursuant to section 736 of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act may be credited to 
     this appropriation and remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That fees derived from applications received during 
     fiscal year 1996 shall be subject to the fiscal year 1996 
     limitation: Provided further, That none of these funds shall 
     be used to develop, establish, or operate any program of user 
     fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 9701.
       In addition, fees pursuant to section 354 of the Public 
     Health Service Act may be credited to this account, to remain 
     available until expended.


                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, improvement, extension, 
     alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of 
     or used by the Food and Drug Administration, where not 
     otherwise provided, [$15,350,000] $8,350,000, to remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).


                         rental payments (fda)

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For payment of space rental and related costs pursuant to 
     Public Law 92-313 for programs and activities of the Food and 
     Drug Administration which are included in this Act, 
     $46,294,000: Provided, That in the event the Food and Drug 
     Administration should require modification of space needs, a 
     share of the salaries and expenses appropriation may be 
     transferred to this appropriation, or a share of this 
     appropriation may be transferred to the salaries and expenses 
     appropriation, but such transfers shall not exceed 5 percent 
     of the funds made available for rental payments (FDA) to or 
     from this account.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                      Financial Management Service


  payments to the farm credit system financial assistance corporation

       For necessary payments to the Farm Credit System Financial 
     Assistance Corporation by the Secretary of the Treasury, as 
     authorized by section 6.28(c) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, 
     as amended, for reimbursement of interest expenses incurred 
     by the Financial Assistance Corporation on obligations issued 
     through 1994, as authorized, $15,453,000.

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Commodity Exchange Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), 
     including the purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) in the 
     District of Columbia and elsewhere; and not to exceed $25,000 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109; [$49,144,000] 
     $54,058,000, including not to exceed $1,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided, That the 
     Commission is authorized to charge reasonable fees to 
     attendees of Commission sponsored educational events and 
     symposia to cover the 

[[Page S 13689]]
     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.

                       Farm Credit Administration


                        administrative provision

       Sec. 601. (a) For purposes of the administration of chapter 
     89 of title 5, United States Code, any period of enrollment 
     under a health benefits plan administered by the Farm Credit 
     Administration prior to the effective date of this Act shall 
     be deemed to be a period of enrollment in a health benefits 
     plan under chapter 89 of such title.
       (b)(1) An individual who, on September 30, 1995, is covered 
     by a health benefits plan administered by the Farm Credit 
     Administration may enroll in an approved health benefits plan 
     described under section 8903 or 8903a of title 5, United 
     States Code--
       (A) either as an individual or for self and family, if such 
     individual is an employee, annuitant, or former spouse as 
     defined under section 8901 of such title; and
       (B) for coverage effective on and after September 30, 1995.
       (2) An individual who, on September 30, 1995, is entitled 
     to continued coverage under a health benefits plan 
     administered by the Farm Credit Administration--
       (A) shall be deemed to be entitled to continued coverage 
     under section 8905a of title 5, United States Code, for the 
     same period that would have been permitted under the plan 
     administered by the Farm Credit Administration; and
       (B) may enroll in an approved health benefits plan 
     described under sections 8903 or 8903a of such title in 
     accordance with section 8905A of such title for coverage 
     effective on and after September 30, 1995.
       (3) An individual who, on September 30, 1995, is covered as 
     an unmarried dependent child under a health benefits plan 
     administered by the Farm Credit Administration and who is not 
     a member of family as defined under section 8901(5) of title 
     5, United States Code--
       (A) shall be deemed to be entitled to continued coverage 
     under section 8905a of such title as though the individual 
     had, on September 30, 1995, ceased to meet the requirements 
     for being considered an unmarried dependent child under 
     chapter 89 of such title; and
       (B) may enroll in an approved health benefits plan 
     described under section 8903 or 8903a of such title in 
     accordance with section 8905a for continued coverage on and 
     after September 30, 1995.
       (c) The Farm Credit Administration shall transfer to the 
     Federal Employees Health Benefits Fund established under 
     section 8909 of title 5, United States Code, amounts 
     determined by the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management, after consultation with the Farm Credit 
     Administration, to be necessary to reimburse the Fund for the 
     cost of providing benefits under this section not otherwise 
     paid for by the individual's covered by this section. The 
     amount so transferred shall be held in the Fund and used by 
     the Office in addition to the amounts available under section 
     8906(g)(1) of such title.
       (d) The Office of Personnel Management--
       (1) shall administer the provisions of this section to 
     provide for--
       (A) a period of notice and open enrollment for individuals 
     affected by this section; and
       (B) no lapse of health coverage for individuals who enroll 
     in a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5, United 
     States Code, in accordance with this section; and
       (2) may prescribe regulations to implement this section.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. Within the unit limit of cost fixed by law, 
     appropriations and authorizations made for the Department of 
     Agriculture for the fiscal year 1996 under this Act shall be 
     available for the purchase, in addition to those specifically 
     provided for, of not to exceed 665 passenger motor vehicles, 
     of which 642 shall be for replacement only, and for the hire 
     of such vehicles.
       Sec. 702. Funds in this Act available to the Department of 
     Agriculture shall be available for uniforms or allowances 
     therefor as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 703. Not less than $1,500,000 of the appropriations of 
     the Department of Agriculture in this Act for research and 
     service work authorized by the Acts of August 14, 1946, and 
     July 28, 1954, and (7 U.S.C. 427, 1621-1629), and by chapter 
     63 of title 31, United States Code, shall be available for 
     contracting in accordance with said Acts and chapter.
       Sec. 704. The cumulative total of transfers to the Working 
     Capital Fund for the purpose of accumulating growth capital 
     for data services and National Finance Center operations 
     shall not exceed $2,000,000: Provided, That no funds in this 
     Act appropriated to an agency of the Department shall be 
     transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the approval 
     of the agency administrator.
       Sec. 705. New obligational authority provided for the 
     following appropriation items in this Act shall remain 
     available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): Animal and Plant 
     Health Inspection Service, the contingency fund to meet 
     emergency conditions, and integrated systems acquisition 
     project; Consolidated Farm Service Agency, salaries and 
     expenses funds made available to county committees; and 
     Foreign Agricultural Service, middle-income country training 
     program.
       New obligational authority for the boll weevil program; up 
     to 10 percent of the screwworm program of the Animal and 
     Plant Health Inspection Service; Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service, field automation and information management project; 
     funds appropriated for rental payments; funds for the Native 
     American institutions endowment fund in the Cooperative State 
     Research, Education, and Extension Service, and funds for the 
     competitive research grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) shall remain 
     available until expended.
       Sec. 706. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 707. Not to exceed $50,000 of the appropriations 
     available to the Department of Agriculture in this Act shall 
     be available to provide appropriate orientation and language 
     training pursuant to Public Law 94-449.
       Sec. 708. No funds appropriated by this Act may be used to 
     pay negotiated indirect cost rates on cooperative agreements 
     or similar arrangements between the United States Department 
     of Agriculture and nonprofit institutions in excess of 10 
     percent of the total direct cost of the agreement when the 
     purpose of such cooperative arrangements is to carry out 
     programs of mutual interest between the two parties. This 
     does not preclude appropriate payment of indirect costs on 
     grants and contracts with such institutions when such 
     indirect costs are computed on a similar basis for all 
     agencies for which appropriations are provided in this Act.
       Sec. 709. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     commodities acquired by the Department in connection with 
     Commodity Credit Corporation and section 32 price support 
     operations may be used, as authorized by law (15 U.S.C. 714c 
     and 7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide commodities to individuals in 
     cases of hardship as determined by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       Sec. 710. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to reimburse the General Services Administration for payment 
     of space rental and related costs in excess of the amounts 
     specified in this Act; nor shall this or any other provision 
     of law require a reduction in the level of rental space or 
     services below that of fiscal year [1994] 1995 or prohibit an 
     expansion of rental space or services with the use of funds 
     otherwise appropriated in this Act. Further, no agency of the 
     Department of Agriculture, from funds otherwise available, 
     shall reimburse the General Services Administration for 
     payment of space rental and related costs provided to such 
     agency at a percentage rate which is greater than is 
     available in the case of funds appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 711. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to restrict the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to lease space for its own use or to lease space on behalf of 
     other agencies of the Department of Agriculture when such 
     space will be jointly occupied.
       Sec. 712. [None] With the exception of grants awarded under 
     the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, Public 
     Law 97-219, as amended (15 U.S.C. 638), none of the funds in 
     this Act shall be available to pay indirect costs on research 
     grants awarded competitively by the Cooperative State 
     Research, Education, and Extension Service that exceed 14 
     percent of total Federal funds provided under each award.
       Sec. 713. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, 
     all loan levels provided in this Act shall be considered 
     estimates, not limitations.
       Sec. 714. Appropriations to the Department of Agriculture 
     for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans made available in 
     fiscal year 1996 shall remain available until expended to 
     cover obligations made in fiscal year 1996 for the following 
     accounts: the rural development loan fund program account; 
     the Rural Telephone Bank program account; the rural 
     electrification and telecommunications loans program account; 
     and the rural economic development loans program account.
       Sec. 715. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     1996 pay raises for programs funded by this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act.
       Sec. 716. (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--None of 
     the funds made available in this Act may be expended by an 
     entity unless the entity agrees that in expending the funds 
     the entity will comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act 
     of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c; popularly known as the 
     ``Buy American Act'').
       (b) Sense of Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement 
     made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any 

[[Page S 13690]]
     contract or subcontract made with funds made available in this Act, 
     pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility 
     procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 717. Notwithstanding the Federal Grant and Cooperative 
     Agreement Act, marketing services of the Agricultural 
     Marketing Service may use cooperative agreements to reflect a 
     relationship between Agricultural Marketing Service and a 
     State or Cooperator to carry out agricultural marketing 
     programs.
       Sec. 718. 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 [Agriculture] 
     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, 1995, and 1996 crop years.
       Sec. 719. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     retire more than 5 percent of the Class A stock of the Rural 
     Telephone Bank.
       Sec. 720. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to provide benefits to 
     households whose benefits are calculated using a standard 
     deduction greater than the standard deduction in effect for 
     fiscal year 1995.
       Sec. 721. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for any program, project, or activity when it is made 
     known to the Federal entity or official to which the funds 
     are made available that the program, project, or activity is 
     not in compliance with any applicable Federal law relating to 
     risk assessment, the protection of private property rights, 
     or unfunded mandates.
       [Sec. 722. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used to increase, from the fiscal year 1995 level, 
     the level of Full Time Equivalency Positions (whether through 
     new hires or by transferring full time eqivalents from other 
     offices) in any of the following Food and Drug Administration 
     offices: Office of the Commissioner, Office of Policy, Office 
     of External Affairs (Immediate Office, as well as Office of 
     Health Affairs, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of 
     Consumer Affairs, and Office of Public Affairs), and the 
     Office of Management and Systems (Immediate Office, as well 
     as Office of Planning and Evaluation and Office of 
     Management).
       [Sec. 723. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide assistance to, or to pay the salaries of 
     personnel who carry out a market promotion program pursuant 
     to section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 
     U.S.C. 5623) that provides assistance to, the U.S. Mink 
     Export Development Council or any mink industry trade 
     association.]
       Sec. 724. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to enroll in excess of 
     100,000 acres in the fiscal year 1996 wetlands reserve 
     program, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3837.
       Sec. 725. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries of 
     personnel who carry out an export enhancement program 
     (estimated to be $1,000,000,000 in the President's fiscal 
     year 1996 Budget (H. Doc. 104-4)) if the aggregate amount of 
     funds and/or commodities under such program exceeds 
     $800,000,000.
       Sec. 726. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used to pay the salaries of personnel to provide 
     assistance to livestock producers under provisions of title 
     VI of the Agricultural Act of 1949 if crop insurance 
     protection or noninsured crop disaster assistance for the 
     loss of feed produced on the farm is available to the 
     producer under the Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended.
       Sec. 727. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to enroll additional 
     acres in the Conservation Reserve Program authorized by 16 
     U.S.C. 3831-3845: Provided, That 1,579,000 new acres shall be 
     enrolled in the program in the year beginning January 1, 
     1997.
       Sec. 728. Disaster Assistance for Insect Damage to 1995 
     Cotton Crop.--(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, such sums as may be necessary, not to 
     exceed $41,000,000, of funds of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation shall be available, through April 15, 1996, to 
     producers of the 1995 crop of cotton that was adversely 
     affected by insect damage under terms and conditions 
     determined by the Secretary of Agriculture.
       (b) Additional Assistance.--Any assistance provided under 
     subsection (a) shall be in addition to any assistance 
     provided under Public Law 103-354 or any other provision of 
     law.
       Sec. 729. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to develop compliance 
     guidelines, implement or enforce a regulation promulgated by 
     the Food Safety and Inspection Service on August 25, 1995 (60 
     Fed. Reg. 44396): Provided, That this regulation shall take 
     effect only if legislation is enacted into law which directs 
     the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate such regulation, 
     or the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry receive and 
     approve a proposed revised regulation submitted by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this bill proposes fiscal year 1996 
funding for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug 
Administration, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and expenses 
and payments of the farm credit system. As reported, the bill 
recommends total new budget authority for this new fiscal year of $63.8 
billion. This is $5.2 billion less than the fiscal year 1995 level. It 
is $2.6 billion less than the President's fiscal year 1996 budget 
request. But it is $1.2 billion more than the level recommended in bill 
passed by the House of Representatives.
  One interesting thing to observe about this bill is that over 63 
percent of the funds proposed to be appropriated in this legislation 
for the Department of Agriculture will go to funding the Nation's 
domestic food assistance programs. I can recall, when I was first 
honored by being given the opportunity of chairing this subcommittee in 
1981, the majority of the funds appropriated to the Department of 
Agriculture for its activities went to funding support activities for 
production agriculture-- reimbursements to the Commodity Credit 
Corporation, for example, for net realized losses; funds for 
agriculture research; for soil and water conservation; for rural 
development. And included in these activities were, of course, the food 
and nutrition programs such as the Food Stamp Program, Women, Infants, 
and Children Program; the School Lunch Programs, elderly feeding 
programs, commodity distribution programs, a wide variety of domestic 
food assistance programs.
  But, today, we have seen a trend which has now reached a point where 
the clear majority of the funding required by the Department of 
Agriculture is for the food and nutrition programs rather than for 
traditional agriculture programs. So, as we discuss and consider any 
amendments that Senators will offer to this bill, we must keep in mind 
that we are doing our part in this bill to meet the challenge of 
deficit reduction, in trying to control the growth of spending at the 
Federal level.
  We have $5.2 billion proposed in this bill, less than the amount of 
budget authority in this fiscal year. I think it is a clear 
illustration of the commitment of this subcommittee to fulfill the 
commitment that we have all made in the budget resolution to get better 
control over our spending practices at the Federal level and to meet 
the challenge of balancing the budget under the plan to do so over the 
next 7 years.
  To compare the 63 percent level of funding of domestic food programs 
in this bill with previous years, in this fiscal year those funds total 
58 percent of the budget authority in this bill. Including 
congressional budget scorekeeping adjustments and prior-year spending 
actions, this bill recommends total discretionary spending of $13.310 
billion in budget authority and $13.608 billion in outlays for fiscal 
year 1996. These amounts are consistent with the subcommittee's 
discretionary spending allocations.
  As a result of these constraints of allocation and the budget 
resolution assumptions and directions, few funding increases are 
recommended in this bill for any programs and activities under the 
jurisdiction of the subcommittee. Most programs are funded at or below 
this current fiscal year level.
  There is one significant program increase provided in this bill, a 
$260 million increase for the WIC Program, the Women, Infants, and 
Children Program. This is the same as contained in the bill passed by 
the House. This increase is necessary if we are going to maintain the 
1995 WIC caseload levels during the next year.
  Other discretionary spending increases include an additional $17.9 
million for rural housing rental assistance to meet the estimated costs 
of contract renewal and servicing requirements; an increase of $42.9 
million to continue the efforts of the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service to assure the safety of our Nation's food supply; a $5.1 
million net increase in rural housing loan program authorizations; a 
$50 million increase in farm operating loans; and a $33 million 
increase for the food donations program on Indian reservations. Except 
for rural housing, all of these increases fall well below the increased 
levels requested by the President in the 

[[Page S 13691]]
budget submission we received this year.
  There are funds in the bill for agriculture research and extension 
programs. In my judgment, the $1 billion--a little over $1 billion--
appropriated for these activities are funds well invested. We are 
confronted right now with a real challenge in the production 
agriculture area because of increased competition from overseas, 
producers in the international marketplace.
  We are confronted with new challenges of pest management, of trying 
to improve yields while at the same time preserving in a more 
aggressive way our soil and water resources. To accomplish all of that, 
and to still make it possible for farmers to operate profitably, we 
have to invest in upgrading and maintaining our modern technological 
advantage.
  That is the key to the future productivity of our Nation's farmers. 
That is the key to the realization of the expectations of the American 
people to have an adequate supply of reasonably priced food and 
consumer products. So that is why this part of the bill, in my view, is 
so important.
  I wish we had the ability under the constraints of the budget and our 
allocation to appropriate more money for these purposes. Much of this 
research is done in Agriculture Research Service facilities throughout 
the country. These are Department of Agriculture-operated research 
facilities such as here in the Washington area, in Beltsville, MD, and 
throughout the country. Other research is done through the Cooperative 
State Research, Education, and Extension Service account that is funded 
in this bill, where funds are made available to university and college-
research facilities and other sponsoring entities, where funds are 
matched by the Federal Government to help pay the costs of important 
research in the agriculture food production and related areas of 
concern.
  So although the $1.025 billion for agriculture research and extension 
program activity is $22 million less than this current year's level and 
$17 million less than the President's request, it is $30 million more 
than recommended in the House-passed bill. So, in conference we will 
have a challenge to negotiate what we hope will be an increase in the 
allocation of funds for these purposes.
  For extension activities, the bill provides $2 million less than the 
current year's level. But that level of funding is still $24 million 
over the House bill level.
  For farm credit programs, the bill provides $3.2 billion in loan 
levels, which is an increase of $174 million from the House-recommended 
level.
  The bill also recommends funding for a new Rural Community 
Advancement Program. We have recommended the consolidation of funding 
for seven rural development grant and loan programs under one account, 
consistent with the Senate Agriculture Committee's actions on these 
programs.
  Senators will remember that we have just completed authorizing a 
reorganization of the Department of Agriculture. This has principally 
been driven by the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Indiana 
[Mr. Lugar] who, as the ranking Republican member of the Agriculture 
Committee a few years ago, strongly urged our committee to pressure the 
administration to embark upon a reorganization program. As a matter of 
fact, current law authorized many of the steps that were urged to be 
taken by Senator Lugar, and others, in this area.
  But the administration wanted the Congress involved because obviously 
there were controversies. There were differences of opinion about how 
far to go, how much to change, which offices to close, how to 
consolidate regional offices, and where the new offices would be 
relocated--a wide range of controversial and political hot potato-type 
issues which the Senate Agriculture Committee worked on very hard.
  Senator Leahy was chairman when our effort began and now, under the 
chairmanship of Senator Lugar with Senator Leahy as ranking member, we 
are monitoring. We are monitoring the reorganization effort to ensure 
that, first of all, it is consistent with the new authorities for 
reorganization granted by the Congress to the President and the 
administration and that it also is undertaken in a way that makes the 
Department more efficient and saves money and cuts down the costs that 
are unnecessary--in many areas, where there has been duplication and 
overlapping--unnecessary expenditures of funds.
  So this bill we are presenting today carries forward some of the 
principles contained in the Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
Act and emphasizes consolidation for the purpose of improving delivery 
of services as well as the efficiency of the Department of Agriculture.
  So we spell out in this bill the consolidation of funding for some of 
these programs so that our bill will reflect the changes and the 
efforts that have been made or proposed by both the administration and 
the Congress.
  The administration proposed to consolidate a number of programs that 
we disagreed with them about--their total number was 12 programs--into 
something called the rural performance partnership initiative. But our 
proposal consolidates only 7 programs, and represents a reduction of 
15.9 percent from the current appropriations level versus the House 
bill, which proposes a 17.7-percent reduction.

  One thing that we were concerned about--I will have to be candid with 
Senators--is that the administration was suggesting almost a block-
grant-type approach to the administration, that they could then 
allocate to State administrators and give them a wide range of 
discretion without oversight authority in the Congress for how these 
programs were to be administered.
  I think it would be an abrogation of congressional responsibility if 
we went along with that recommendation as I understood it. We are for 
giving more flexibility to managers and administration officials, but 
we are not prepared at this point to just simply send a lump sum 
appropriation to the Department of Agriculture and say, ``Why don't you 
use this any way you think is appropriate.''
  We are here in a representative capacity for the States, and on the 
House side for individual citizens, and we have a role to play in this. 
We are taking that role very seriously. So in our oversight hearings 
and in the hearings we had in the beginning of this year, where 
administration officials came to testify about their proposals and how 
the funds that we would appropriate would be needed, we questioned them 
very carefully about their intentions in using these funds and how they 
would shift funds from one activity to another based on local 
situations.
  So what I am saying is that we are in favor of consolidation, we are 
in favor of giving managers more authority than they may have been 
given in the past in the strict categories of funding, but we are not 
willing to turn loose completely of our responsibilities to monitor 
carefully the administration of these programs and the expenditure of 
these funds for rural development activities. Rural water and sewer 
system projects and loans to help build infrastructure facilities in 
areas that are economically disadvantaged are all a part of this 
effort. Housing programs, which have been given less than the funds we 
think are needed by the other body, are also very important.
  There are a lot of unmet needs in many parts of the country in this 
area of concern. In my State of Mississippi, we hope to continue to 
have a very aggressive effort by the Federal agencies in that State to 
help improve the economic opportunities of those who live in the small 
towns and rural communities, opportunities for jobs, opportunities to 
enjoy a standard of living that will be attractive rather than so 
unattractive that people are forced to move into the cities. We think 
that is bad public policy, to see the rural communities deteriorate to 
such a point where they are uninhabitable and folks do not want to live 
there anymore.
  That is a real problem we face, and we are trying to do something 
about that in the way we are funding programs in this legislation. 
States have responsibilities, too. Of course, the private sector does. 
But we have in this bill some special efforts that we hope will provide 
incentives for economic activity in rural areas and small towns. We are 
going to continue to monitor the administration's activities to be sure 
they are working.
  For discretionary conservation programs, the bill recommends $6 
million 

[[Page S 13692]]
more than the House level. It also provides $2.9 billion in total rural 
housing loan authorizations. This is $457 million more than the House 
level and $146 million more than the President's request. So we are 
committed in this legislation to doing something about rural housing.
  The other agencies that are funded in this bill, as I mentioned at 
the outset, include the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Food 
and Drug Administration, and expenses of the Farm Credit 
Administration.
  We trust that the funds proposed to be appropriated for these 
agencies meet the needs of these agencies. There is always a request 
for more funding than we are able to provide because we are cutting 
spending, and we have to remind those who come to testify before our 
committee that this applies to everybody. There is very little 
opportunity to provide increases. I have highlighted some of the 
increases. But it is very rare to see any account in this bill that is 
funded above the current level of funding. However, the bill does allow 
increases in funding for some FDA activities, food and drug activities, 
supported by the authorized Prescription Drug Act, and mammography 
facilities inspection user fee collections.
  This, incidentally, is the same amount as recommended by the other 
body.
  The bill also provides a $1 billion Food Stamp Program reserve which 
was not recommended by the House. The administration strongly urged the 
inclusion of a reserve, and traditionally there has been a reserve to 
allow for unforeseen activities, economic problems, natural disasters 
which would cause an emergency need for food stamps that might run the 
program above the expected level of funding. The administration wanted 
us to appropriate $2.5 billion, but we think the amount we have in the 
bill will be sufficient to protect the continuation of benefits in the 
event of any unexpected rise in program participation levels.
  In addition, the bill provides $20.5 million above the House level 
for the Consolidated Farm Service Agency as well as $10 million for 
InfoShare. This is the Department's project to integrate its 
information systems, to improve service delivery to those who depend 
upon farm and rural service agency activities.
  Most of the money in this bill--80 percent--is required to be 
appropriated under the mandates of Federal law. Only 20 percent of the 
total amount funded in this bill is discretionary. And so when Senators 
are looking at this bill and they are saying, well, we can add money or 
we can take money out, you are only going to be able to suggest 
amendments to 20 percent of the total $63.8 billion contained in this 
bill. The other funds that are appropriated are required to be spent by 
law. We do not have any choice. That is why it is important for us to 
continue our efforts on the second track of changing the law in many 
areas so that the future requirements for funding will be less than 
they are today in those areas in which Congress decides to make 
changes. If we are going to get to that balanced budget figure in 7 
years, we are going to have to make changes not only in the 
appropriations of funds as these bills come up but, more importantly, 
in the requirements of law that force Congress to spend money every 
year. So this bill contains 80 percent mandatory expenditures.
  To conclude, Mr. President, almost all agriculture and rural 
development programs have been reduced below current levels to meet the 
subcommittee's lower discretionary spending allocations. Further cuts 
in spending limitations have been necessary to offset the few increases 
that are provided in the bill.
  Mr. President, it has been a distinct pleasure and privilege for me 
to continue to have the honor of working with the distinguished ranking 
member of the subcommittee, Senator Bumpers of Arkansas.
  He is my neighbor. He is my friend. He has been my colleague now in 
the Senate for 16 years. I have been here 16 years. I think he was 
elected to the Senate the same year I was elected to the House.
  So we have been here for long enough, I suppose, to know the accounts 
and to know and understand the needs of our States. And this bill 
reflects a consensus of Republican and Democratic interests as 
represented on our subcommittee. And I believe that the bill represents 
a balanced and responsible level of funding recommendations within the 
limited resources available to this subcommittee.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I know there may be 
some differences of opinion on specific items in the bill. But if there 
are, I hope Senators will bring them up. If they have amendments, we 
will be glad to consider them. We hope to be able to complete action on 
this bill tomorrow. And under the unanimous-consent agreement, there 
will not be any votes on any amendments today before the hour of 5:15 
p.m.
  I also want to thank all the members of the subcommittee who have 
helped us develop this legislation. We had a lot of hearings. We had an 
opportunity to look at the President's budget request. Other requests 
that Members have suggested we considered. We have tried to be fair 
with everybody. And I hope that Senators will agree and also agree that 
this bill does recommend an investment of funds and an allocation of 
available resources that will help sustain our effort to continue to be 
the most productive agriculture economy in the world. We have a lot at 
stake in maintaining this ability, not only to feed and clothe our own 
citizens here in the United States, but to use this great resource as 
an economic benefit to create jobs through the sale of agriculture 
commodities and foodstuffs throughout the world.
  We are the largest economic exporter of food commodities in the 
world. This year we are going to bring into our economy a total of 
about $50 billion that would represent the value of exports that have 
been generated by our farm and food industries. So there is a 
tremendous amount depending upon the support activities that we have 
funded in this bill. So I hope Senators will support the legislation. 
And we would appreciate it very much, if you do have amendments, to 
please bring them to the floor and let us debate them today, complete 
our debate on as many as we can so we can pass the bill tomorrow.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first, I want to thank my distinguished 
colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, chairman of this 
subcommittee, for his very kind and generous remarks directed toward 
me. And I would like to reciprocate by saying that this committee has 
always been marked by a lot of conciliation and cooperation. I chaired 
the subcommittee for a couple of years. I did my very best to 
collaborate and cooperate with Senator Cochran when he was ranking 
member. And we have had that kind of relationship. And I think the 
Senate would be well served if every committee chairman and ranking 
member could stand on the floor and honestly say that they have had 
fine cooperation with each other.
  That is not to say that Senator Cochran and I have agreed on every 
jot and tittle in the bill. We have not. But considering the 
limitations under which he has been laboring, namely, what we call the 
602(b) allocation, I think he has performed an outstanding--an 
outstanding--job of cutting this budget dramatically in accordance with 
the 602(b) allocation and yet funding programs that both he and I 
believe are absolutely critical to rural development and agriculture in 
this country.
  Some $40.2 billion, or 63 percent, of the total funds in this bill go 
to funding the Nation's domestic food assistance programs: food stamps, 
national school lunch program, elderly feeding programs, supplemental 
feeding programs for women, infants and children, usually described as 
the WIC program. Everybody believes--it is a strange thing--I must say 
this, some of the social programs which have fallen into disrepute 
around here and everybody wants to cut has not been true of the WIC 
program. Everybody knows that if a poor pregnant woman does not get a 
decent protein diet, the child is going to be brain deficient. And 
everybody knows that for virtually pennies that can be curbed and 
eliminated. And the WIC program is designed to make sure that poor 
pregnant women get a decent diet because we all benefit from that. 

[[Page S 13693]]

  I might digress just a moment to say, Mr. President, that everybody 
in this world was not so favored as I was. I chose my parents very 
well. A lot of people have not had that opportunity. And so this idea 
of, ``Smell me, why can't everybody be rich and beautiful like me?'' 
has come into too much vogue in the U.S. Congress.
  There are an awful lot of people who never had a chance from day one. 
And some of these programs that everybody thinks were put in over the 
past years, starting with Franklin Roosevelt, were done just on a whim 
and caprice or to get votes--there is enough of that to make that 
characterization credible--but people should realize that these 
programs were designed to fulfill a purpose. Why does anybody think we 
have Social Security?
  Incidentally, now I am not here just to deliver a moral sermonette 
this morning, but just to make a few points I do not think hurts 
occasionally. Why do you think we have Social Security? I am not going 
to belabor the point. Everybody knows why we have Social Security. It 
is because parents were oftentimes sort of thrown on the mercy of 
society because their children either would not or could not take care 
of them.
  So Franklin Roosevelt very wisely decided everybody is entitled to a 
little dignity in their old age. And that is the reason it is easily 
the most popular social program that has ever been developed in this 
country. And now it is not particularly a social program because it is 
self-funding.
  And why is it we have food stamps, which is within the jurisdiction 
of this committee? We have food stamps because we made a conscious 
decision in about 1972 that we did not want any child in this country 
going hungry.
  I just returned from a trip abroad which included Mongolia. I notice 
that the First Lady visited Mongolia about a week after some of us were 
there. You always learn more on those trips than you think you are 
going to. Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia, which is struggling to 
democratize, which needs our help, has 4,000 children under 10 years of 
age on the streets. And they die in the wintertime. Strangely enough, 
that city's motto is ``The coldest capital in the world.'' They need a 
new PR agent. I cannot imagine anybody wanting to visit a city because 
it is the coldest city in the world as a capital city.
  But my wife Betty, who has spent her life in children's programs, got 
extremely concerned about that when we got there and discovered that. 
And she went to some of the facilities where they care for children. 
And she said these children--they have a central heating system there, 
which serves virtually the whole city. Can you imagine--can you imagine 
being dependent on one gigantic pipe to heat an entire city? Well, 
anyway, these children live in those pipes in the wintertime, but even 
so they die in great numbers. They are cast out by their families, 
abandoned by their families through no fault of their own.
  In this country, we decided in 1972 that we did not want street 
children, we did not want any child to suffer from lack of food. So 
that is the reason we have food stamps.
  I use those illustrations simply because they are two of the most 
powerful I can think of. But back to the WIC Program, we have fully 
funded WIC, as long as I can remember in this committee, whether the 
Republicans or the Democrats are in charge. The Senator from 
Mississippi has very consciously and nobly made sure that that program 
was fully funded in this budget.
  Mr. President, while we have an awful lot of money in this budget, 
the amount that the chairman and the committee has to deal with is very 
small by comparison. Out of $60 billion plus in the bill, virtually all 
of it is entitlements, such as food stamps--$28 billion this year, with 
a $1 billion reserve. The President wanted a $2.5 billion reserve. That 
simply is not possible within the framework of the amount of money with 
which we had to deal. Of the $60 billion plus this committee deals 
with, only $13.6 billion is available to us in outlays; that is, the 
money that will actually be spent in 1996. So we met our allocation. We 
cut in places where it hurts.
  The President says he will veto the House bill, for reasons I am not 
going to belabor here. I do not believe the President will veto this 
bill, though he has voiced some concerns.
  So, Mr. President, having said all of those things, I would be remiss 
if I did not say there is one thing that still troubles me about the 
bill and the only really serious disagreement--and this is a friendly 
disagreement with my distinguished chairman--and that is the Market 
Promotion Program.
  Both the House and Senate have funded the Market Promotion Program, I 
believe, at $110 million. The House put $110 million in, and that is 
what the Senate bill has. Senator Bryan and I will attempt to strike 
that from this bill at some point during the deliberation on it.
  Again, I am not going to belabor that except simply to say I have 
always--no, not always, I think I may have supported this once or 
twice--but for the past 3 or 4 years, I have been very much opposed to 
the Market Promotion Program because it gives money to the biggest 
corporations in America to help them sell not wheat, not corn abroad--
we have $2 billion in export incentives now, this is only $110 million. 
This helps McDonald's, for example, introduce the Big Mac around the 
world.
  I do not know what McDonald's sales are. My guess would be somewhere 
between $10 billion and $15 billion a year. My question is, why on 
Earth should we be subsidizing McDonald's? Why should we be subsidizing 
Gallo Wine, another company not exactly a pauper? There are literally 
hundreds of corporations on the list, and virtually every one of them 
are quite able to do these things on their own.
  I just simply cannot support that. Last year, we got beat badly. I 
think we got 36 votes last year--37. We only got 37 votes last year to 
kill this program. So it seems to me well and healthy. The phones are 
ringing off the wall now by the companies who enjoy the few million 
bucks they get out of that program every year.
  It is an amazing thing, is it not, how everybody knows exactly when 
these appropriations bills are coming up. This morning, I watched an ad 
by the Boeing Corp. It shows all these children in the classroom 
talking about how wonderful space is, shown intermittently with people 
space walking. It just so happens that the space station is on the 
agenda this week. So all these ads start flooding television, and I 
know that my efforts to kill the space station are probably dead on 
arrival.
  When I think about how we had to labor over this bill to provide 
money for wastewater and drinking water for rural areas, and as we cut 
education unbelievably, and as we cut welfare unbelievably, as we are 
now proposing to cut the earned income tax credit, which I think is one 
of the best programs to deal with welfare we have ever invented, and 
then I see us headed toward a $94 billion--$94 billion--to throw 
something into space that we might use to go to Mars. Forget all that 
medical science research. The Russians have had space stations up for 
20 years. If they have gotten anything out of it, they have very 
carefully guarded it. Nobody knows what it is.
  We have been sending shuttles up for as long as I can remember now, 
and what have we gotten out of it? I noticed this week they developed 
some tools that they say will work to put the space station together.
  I do not want to do the space station debate here. I am simply saying 
that the deficit is the No. 1 problem in the country, and everybody 
wants to do something about it, including yours truly. I have been 
standing back there at my desk since I have been in the Senate saying 
that. It is a question of priorities. We do not need the space station; 
we need to educate our children. We do not need the Market Promotion 
Program; we need to build water and sewer facilities for our rural 
people under the heading of rural development. We need it for Head 
Start.
  This morning when I went downstairs, Betty was sitting with a man who 
used to be the dean of the department of public health at Harvard, 
Howard Hyatt. Over the years, because of Betty's activities in the 
immunization programs and the peace movement, she got to know Dr. 
Hyatt. He is secretary of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. So 
I got a chance to visit with him for about 30 minutes before I came to 
work. 

[[Page S 13694]]

  He says the American Academy of Arts and Sciences have a lot of 
projects going, but one of their new ones is literacy. That does not 
sound very sexy; everybody talks about literacy. But what they want to 
do, of course, is to develop a program, as they are doing in a pilot 
program in Boston right now, to try to develop early intervention, 
which is the key to everything. If a child cannot read, the child has 
not a dog's chance.
  So I told him I would try to help. That is what Head Start is all 
about, early intervention, teaching children to read.
  Mr. President, one of the things trendy in this country is everybody 
wants to jump on agriculture. You read all those stories lately about 
how terrible agriculture is and how much they suck out of the Federal 
Treasury. The truth of the matter is, the American farmers still 
produce food for the American consumers at a smaller price than any 
nation on Earth. Happily, commodity prices are at a point now where 
these subsidies do not amount to nearly as much as they used to, but 
everybody wants to do away with them. We produce rice in our State and 
we will ship it to Japan for $250 a ton. The Japanese farmers get $900 
a ton for growing rice in their own country.

  Mr. President, I understand that Senator Reid has an amendment and 
will be here shortly to offer it. I hope that during the course of the 
day, we can dispose of some of these amendments, start voting on them 
at 5:15 this afternoon, and finish this bill no later than tomorrow.
  Again, my sincere thanks and congratulations to Senator Cochran for 
the magnificent job he has done under unbelievably difficult 
circumstances.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas for his kind remarks and for his help and hard work in putting 
together this legislation.
  When we presented this bill to the full Committee on Appropriations, 
a number of committee amendments were adopted and approved at that 
point. I am going to propose a unanimous-consent request that these 
committee amendments be considered and agreed to, en bloc, with some 
exceptions which will include two amendments that we adopted, one of 
which had to do with an earmark of funds that would be available to the 
Secretary of Agriculture for additional and supplemental disaster 
assistance and, in addition, to the catastrophic crop insurance 
benefits that are available to agriculture producers. During the full 
committee markup, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska indicated that he would 
offer an amendment to strike that provision. So that is exempted from 
this request.
  There is also a provision in the bill dealing with a regulation 
promulgated by the Department of Agriculture relating to the labeling 
of frozen poultry products. One or more of the Senators from California 
will offer an amendment on that subject. So that amendment is exempted 
from this proposal.
  With that explanation, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the committee amendments to H.R. 1976 be considered and agreed to, en 
bloc, with the exception of the portion of the committee amendment 
appearing on page 83, line 4, down through and including line 2 on page 
84, provided that no points of order are waived thereon, and that the 
measure, as amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of 
further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  So the committee amendments were considered and agreed to, en bloc, 
with the exception of the committee amendment beginning on page 83, 
line 4, through page 84, line 2.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I hope Senators will--as suggested by the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas--come to the floor now and offer 
amendments. We will be happy to debate them and consider them.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Phil Schwab, 
a congressional fellow in the Democratic leader's office, be granted 
floor privileges during floor consideration of the agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
committee amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2685

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of any funds appropriated under this act 
                       for Board of Tea experts)

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for himself and Mr. 
     Brown, proposes an amendment numbered 2685.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . BOARD OF TEA EXPERTS.

       None of the funds appropriated under this Act may be used 
     for the salaries or expenses of the Board of Tea experts 
     established under section 2 of the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     prevent the importation of impure and unwholesome tea'', 
     approved March 2, 1897 (21 U.S.C. 42).

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have heard my friend, the senior Senator 
from Arkansas and ranking member and comanager of this bill, on many 
occasions stand on this floor and talk about things he has done or 
tried to do over the years that keep coming back. Well, this amendment 
takes second fiddle to none of the amendments that the Senator from 
Arkansas has offered.
  Mr. President, 2 years ago, I offered an amendment to do away with a 
tea tasting board. The amendment passed. Everyone thought the tea 
tasting board was history. Wrong. This organization, which was founded 
and formed in 1897, is back with a vengeance. How? No one seems to 
know. But it is back spending taxpayers' money tasting tea.
  Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of myself and 
Senator Brown of Colorado. I would like the Record to reflect that.
  Mr. President, when I offered this amendment 2 years ago, there was 
general acceptance that this was the right thing to do. Why? Because it 
does not seem appropriate anymore that we need people to swish tea 
around in their mouth to determine if the texture is right and the 
taste is just right. This is an anachronism that should have gone out 
right after the turn of the century. Yet, with the new century fast 
approaching, they are still swishing tea.
  I have learned in recent months that my efforts to eliminate the 
Board of Tea experts somehow was lost in the bureaucratic shuffle that 
takes place during the conference held on this bill and that takes 
place in the bowels of the Agricultural Department.
  There is no reason for this tea tasting board. The reason people are 
upset with Government is because of things like this. You would think 
that a group of gentlemen and ladies working together would have had 
the courtesy to say, ``Senator Reid, we are going to keep the Tea 
Tasting Board; we do not care what you do on the floor.'' But rather 
than do that, they sneak around in the dark of the night in some office 
room here in Washington and figure out a way to thwart the will of 
Congress.
  My amendment passed both bodies 2 years ago, but the Board is still 
here. This is the reason people are upset about Government.
  Is there a single human being in the United States that favors a tea 
tasting board or the Board of Tea experts? Is there anybody that favors 
this? The answer is no, unless you are one of the tea tasters. There is 
no reason for this. Yet, we are spending a couple hundred thousand 
dollars a year of taxpayers' 

[[Page S 13695]]
money having people meet in some fancy office room and swish tea around 
in their mouth.
  I see no reason, Mr. President, why those in this country who enjoy 
drinking tea need someone else to tell them what tastes good. I guess I 
should not feel as upset as I am, because I have to tell you, these tea 
tasting people have resiliency. When I was a little kid, we would chase 
lizards, grab a lizard and sometimes jerk off the tail by mistake. But 
it did not matter, the tail grew back.
  These tea-tasting people are just like the lizards. You grab them and 
jerk something off and they are right back.
  I repeat, I should not feel alone because President Nixon tried to 
get rid of the tea-tasting board. They outsmarted him. He was not easy 
to outsmart.
  I tell you, Mr. President, as long as I am here, I am going to stand 
and talk about this board of tea experts and tell the American people 
what an absolute waste of taxpayers' money it is to have them spend 
$200,000 a year swishing tea around in their mouths so they can get 
their expenses paid for a little jaunt to wherever they hold this event 
every year.
  The tea expert board was created as part of the Tea Import Act of 
1897. I did not make a mistake. I did not say 1987, I said 1897. There 
are six outside experts and there is even a person from the FDA that 
comprises this board.
  They are supposed to set standards for tea. As part of their duties, 
of course, they taste this tea. As I have indicated, Mr. President, the 
cost of this is about $200,000 a year. The industry brags that they 
offset this by about $70,000 a year with some fee they charge the tea 
importers.
  This might not seem like a lot of money when we talk about billions 
of dollars every year. This is the kind of thing that causes people to 
lose their good feeling about government.
  No matter how often you stamp this insect out, it comes back. Nobody 
wants them. We have to do away with this.
  Now, I think that probably the Food and Drug Administration and other 
organizations may need to set some standards on tea. I hope so. Just 
like they set standards on other things that are imported. But a tea-
tasting board? A Board of Tea experts? I think the only tea party we 
need is a congressional tea party to once and for all drown the 
organization. Put it out of its misery. There is not anybody in the 
United States that is going to stand up and cheer for the Board of Tea 
experts. It seems inappropriate and, I think, morally reprehensible to 
expend moneys from the Treasury for a program like this.
  Mr. President, I always try to do things the right way. Maybe what we 
should do is have a vote on this. I have the exact words of the Senator 
from Arkansas--the exact words. ``I have some very good news indeed for 
the Senator from Nevada. I am not about to stand here and defend an 
appropriation for a tea-testing board. We will accept his amendment.''
  Well, maybe what we need to do is get a vote on this thing. When the 
managers of a bill, I learned a long time ago, say they will accept an 
amendment, I think that is usually the way to go but maybe what we need 
to do is have 100 Senators walk up here and vote on this tea-testing 
board and maybe that will send a bigger message to the House and maybe 
to these people in the Agriculture Department that there are certain 
things we need to get rid of.
  Now, Mr. President, I have worked on other things that are really 
hotly contested and debated issues. The wool and mohair subsidy; that 
was an issue that had some merit on both sides. I acknowledge that.
  As the Senator from Mississippi and the managers of this bill know, 
either on this bill or at some subsequent time, I am going to do some 
work on the sugar subsidy. There are merits on both sides of that. I 
understand that.
  The same on the peanut subsidy. Although I think we should get rid of 
the sugar subsidy and peanut subsidy, there is at least an argument 
that can be made for those programs. No one is going to get on the 
floor and defend a Board of Tea experts.
  Mr. President, I think we should have a vote on this. I think we 
should walk in here and rather than have this just accepted, I think we 
will have a vote on this, whether the U.S. Senate really sincerely 
wants to send a message to the Agriculture Department that we ought to 
get rid of this. We want to send a message to the Federal Government 
generally, these are the kinds of programs that are wasteful and we 
need not spend taxpayers' money on them.
  When we are cutting personnel to our National Park System, when we 
are debating how much we are going to hurt agriculture, when we are 
talking about Medicare cuts, can we not cut, once and for all, the tea-
tasting board?
  Mr. President, I understand the unanimous-consent request that was 
granted last Friday that we will have votes at a later time. On this 
amendment, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, as the Senator discussed his amendment, I 
recalled that we had this issue before the Senate, as he said, 2 years 
ago. My recollection is that we agreed at that time that there should 
not be any Federal funds appropriated by the Congress for this Board of 
Tea experts, and we specifically included language in the bill that 
prohibited any funds appropriated in the legislation be used for that 
purpose.
  I am told, as we were sitting here trying to recall the exact details 
of that, that the FDA does have some responsibility, under its 
authority to inspect imported foodstuffs, to determine whether they are 
safe for human consumption. There is some authority for them to inspect 
imported foods, and this is an imported consumable food, but that no 
funds would be used that were appropriated especially for paying 
expenses of this Board of Tea experts. Our recollection is that 
industry decided that they would provide the funds to carry out the 
work that was being done.
  I thought that is what was being done. We are checking with the FDA 
right now to get a reaction from that agency and to find out exactly 
what their side of the story is. Are they using funds we are 
appropriating after we have specifically prohibited the use of Federal 
funds for that purpose?
  I want to know the answer to that because I agree with the Senator 
from Nevada, if we have legislated a prohibition on the use of 
appropriated funds and this agency continues to use funds that are not 
authorized, we need to know about it. We need to get somebody up here 
to answer to that.
  I am sympathetic with the amendment the Senator is offering. I urge 
the Senate approve it.
  If, in fact, they are not using appropriated funds, I do not see any 
point in kicking a dead mule. We could bring the dead mule in here and 
have all 100 Senators line up here and come kick it if that would make 
us all feel better, but I do not see any point in going through that. I 
do not see any need for voting on it if it is not happening and they 
are not using the appropriated money. I sympathize with the Senator and 
appreciate his bringing it to the floor of the Senate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the manner in which the Senator 
from Mississippi has responded. I could not agree more. The information 
we have is until recently the American taxpayers directly paid more 
than 60 percent of the Board's $200,000 annual cost.
  In 1993, the cost was shifted to the American Tea Consumers by 
raising the fee of 3.5 percent per hundred weight of tea imported to 10 
cents. Nonetheless, the taxpayers continue to fund the salary of the 
chief tea taster, maintain the Federal tearooms, and other related 
activities. That is what the taxpayers should not be involved in.
  I am all for the Food and Drug Administration making sure that the 
tea that is very popular in this country is safe and is good to 
drink. But, Mr. President, we have coffee, we have all other kinds of 
programs that the FDA is involved in, and we do not believe we need a 
board of coffee experts.

  I accept what the Senator has said. If it can be shown, of course, 
they are not doing this--which I think will be hard to show, because 
vouchers have already been expended--I will be happy to withdraw my 
request for a recorded vote. I really think Senator Brown and I have 

[[Page S 13696]]
something to say, and that is let us stop this. This is outrageous.
  I appreciate the support of the managers of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I, like the Senator from Mississippi, 
thought we put this thing to bed 2 years ago. I may be mistaken. These 
things have a way of resurrecting themselves, even when Senators think 
they have taken care of it. But I think the vote, if there is a 
rollcall vote, will be 100 to zip to discontinue this program, or at 
least discontinue any Federal taxpayers' money being used in it.
  I hope either way the Senator will vitiate his request for the yeas 
and nays because rollcalls take 20 to 30 minutes. My guess is, the way 
we compute costs of the operation of this body, the rollcall vote will 
take up almost enough time to cancel out any savings we get by 
torpedoing the Tea Board. So I hope the Senator will think about that 
during the day and possibly vitiate his request for the yeas and nays, 
because I can assure him, every single Senator in the U.S. Senate feels 
the same way he does.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me respond to the managers of this bill. 
The only reason we need a rollcall vote is so the Senate is on record 
strongly supporting this amendment. I have the greatest confidence in 
the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Arkansas. I do not 
know of two more qualified people to handle an appropriations bill, 
especially an agriculture appropriations bill, than these two 
distinguished Senators.
  Therefore, based on the statements that they just made and regardless 
of what we find out during the course of the day from our staffs, which 
I think will confirm basically what I have stated here today--but based 
on the assurance they will do everything they can to make sure the 
conference language is very clear that the Federal Government should no 
longer be involved in the Board of Tea tasting experts, if they need 
one let it be paid for out of the private sector, I withdraw my request 
for a recorded vote.
  I also believe each time 100 Senators come over here with staff and 
everything, it costs the taxpayers money and we should not do that 
needlessly.
  So based upon what they have just stated here on the Senate floor, I 
ask unanimous consent my request for a recorded vote on the amendment 
now before the Senate be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada not only 
for his decision to vitiate the yeas and nays on his amendment, but for 
his kind comments about the managers of the bill and our efforts to 
manage this bill for the Senate. He is a good friend and one of the 
best friends I have in the Senate. I admire and respect him. We 
continue to enjoy working with him on matters of mutual concern that 
come before the Senate.
  Mr. President, I do not know we have adopted the amendment. We 
probably need to do that.
  If there is no further debate, we ask the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2685) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we do know of a number of amendments 
Senators intend to offer to this legislation. We hope we can proceed to 
consider them in an orderly way. It would be a shame to have periods of 
time when we do not have amendments being debated or considered by the 
Senate during today and then wait until tomorrow and everybody wants to 
offer their amendments tomorrow just before we are going to vote on 
final passage.
  So I encourage Senators to come to the floor now, as Senator Reid 
from Nevada has done, to present their amendments and let us dispose of 
the amendments or at least debate them, and if we need to have record 
votes then we will order record votes. We could have a record vote--I 
know at least one is ordered under the agreement, maybe two; one, at 
least, after 5:15 today. Then the other votes, if they are needed, will 
occur tomorrow. We have an order already entered for two amendments to 
be voted on, and final passage of the welfare reform bill tomorrow at 
2:45. There is a period of time tomorrow set aside for concluding 
remarks on welfare reform.
  So as Senators can see, we need to make progress today so we can 
complete action on this bill and all amendments to it, if at all 
possible, by noon tomorrow. That was our commitment to the majority 
leader when we were authorized to take this bill up today, and that is 
why we began on the bill at 10 o'clock, so Senators could come and 
offer their amendments and have them debated today. So we hope Senators 
will cooperate with the managers of the bill in that regard.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Amendment No. 2686 to Committee Amendment on Page 83, Line 4, through 
                            Page 84, line 2

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Kerrey and Kohl, I 
send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), for Mr. 
     Kerrey, for himself and Mr. Kohl, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2686 to committee amendment on page 83, line 4, 
     through page 84, line 2.

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

       On page 83, strike line 4 through line 15;
       On page 43, line 17; strike $528,839,000 and insert in its 
     place $563,839,000;
       On page 52, line 18; strike $17,895,000 and insert in its 
     place $22,395,000;
       On page 52, line 24; strike $30,000,000 and insert in its 
     place $37,544,000;
       On page 55, line 1; strike $1,500,000 and insert in its 
     place $3,000,000.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be laid aside until later today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate to my colleagues that we are 
on the Agriculture appropriations bill. The managers are available, 
ready to do business, but nobody is coming forth with amendments. So I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bring over their 
amendments. Senator Cochran is here. Senator Bumpers is available. They 
are ready to do battle or do business, whichever.
  We need to finish six appropriations bills before October 1. As I 
have also indicated, if we finish the six appropriations bills, there 
is a possibility we will have a recess period for 5 days, which I hope 
will be an incentive to some of my colleagues to speed up the process.
  So, after this bill tomorrow, of course, we will vote on the historic 
welfare reform bill at probably about 3:30, after disposing of a couple 
other amendments. But we would like to complete action on the ag 
appropriations bill by noon tomorrow and then move to another 
appropriations bill, possibly foreign operations, which we think we 
could finish in a day and a half. And then it gets a little more 
difficult. But my view is, with the cooperation of everyone with the 
managers, we could complete action, say, by September 30, a week from 
Saturday, probably with a Saturday session.
  We probably would not finish all the conference reports, but at least 
have completed action on the appropriations 

[[Page S 13697]]
bills. That would help avoid what some have referred to as a train 
wreck because we could continue the Government with a continuing 
resolution. It would not be a very--we can do that quite easily.
  On behalf of the managers, I want to make a plea to my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle that they are here, they are ready for 
business, and we would like to complete action on this bill by noon 
tomorrow. Thank you.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


 Amendment No. 2687 to Committee Amendment on page 83, line 4, through 
                            page 84, line 2

            (Purpose: To eliminate the Board of Tea Experts)

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

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2687 to committee amendment on page 83, line 4, 
     through page 84, line 2.
       At the appropriate place in the amendment insert the 
     following:
       (a) None of the funds appropriated or made available to the 
     Federal Drug Administration by this Act shall be used to 
     operate the Board of Tea Experts and related activities.
       (b) The Tea Importation Act (21 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) is 
     repealed.

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I am not sure the amendment makes it clear, 
but I ask unanimous consent that this be considered as an amendment to 
the committee amendment that is before the body at this point.
  Mr. President, I know the body has already discussed the tea-tasting 
board. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
has correctly pointed out we no longer fund in the ag bill the cost of 
their activities, at least in terms of their per diem.
  As I understand it right now, the per diem of $50 a day is now paid 
for by the tea-tasting experts themselves. In addition, they pay their 
own cost of travel and living expenses going to and from Washington to 
perform their duties.
  But, Mr. President, there also exists in our Federal law a 
requirement for the Food and Drug Administration to pay for the 
employees that sample the tea. And that is what this amendment gets at. 
It gets at that cost that is mandated by the Tea Importation Act by 
repealing it.
  Thus, this amendment will not only forbid the paying of the salaries 
by the FDA employees, but will also repeal the Tea Importation Act. Mr. 
President, this is a significant step because it says a lot about our 
commitment as a country to competition.
  Currently, the Tea Importation Act can be used to keep out a product 
from the United States. In effect, what it does is give to the industry 
the ability to determine what quality is allowed to come into the 
United States, rather than our consumers. The fundamental question 
Members will have to ask themselves is whether or not it is the 
Government's responsibility, through the tea-tasting board of experts 
to determine what tea is allowed to come into this Nation and which 
ones these experts should exclude.
  I have great faith and confidence in the ability of consumers in this 
country to determine for themselves what tea they like and what they do 
not like. As a matter of fact, it seems ludicrous that in this day and 
age that we should have delegated to a Government board or agency the 
ability to decide which tea is permissible to enter into the Nation.
  So this amendment is quite straightforward. It forbids the FDA to pay 
for the employees or eliminates from the bill the ability to pay for 
the employees that FDA is required to hire. It also repeals the Tea 
Importation Act.
  Mr. President, some will say there is danger to consumers here. 
Someone could get a bad cup of tea if this amendment is adopted. 
Indeed, Mr. President, I suspect that is true. It is also possible 
whether this Board exists or not. But this, more than anything, is an 
effort to bring competition to our economy and eliminate artificial 
barriers to trade and to competition.
  Moreover, it says a lot about what we envision the purpose is of the 
Federal Government's role. Those who think the Federal Government 
should have an all-pervasive role will want to retain those people who 
gather periodically to taste tea from around the world at Government 
expense, at least for the employees' salary. But others will think that 
Americans are competent and capable enough to decide what tea they 
want.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator has completed his 
statement and yields the floor, let me say we already this morning had 
an opportunity to talk about this issue during the discussion of the 
Reid amendment, the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from 
Nevada. We discussed during the pendency of his amendment the fact that 
2 years ago an amendment was adopted on the floor of the Senate 
prohibiting the use of any appropriated funds to pay the expenses or 
the costs of this so-called Tea Board.
  It was our understanding at the time that FDA, as part of its 
responsibility to inspect imported food consumables, had a role to play 
in determining the fitness for human consumption of imported tea 
because it was an imported consumable product, and that was the 
justification Congress was given when inquiries were submitted to the 
agency about this program and the need for these funds.
  It was the sense of the Senate at that time, and we debated the issue 
then and we agreed, that there should be in the legislation a 
prohibition against the use of funds to pay the costs of this Tea 
Board, this expert Board of persons, one of whom had to be employed 
under this law the Senator from Colorado talks about to serve on this 
board.
  I have no quarrel whatsoever with insisting upon the language that 
has previously been approved by Congress on this subject. We have 
inquired already this morning about the reaction of the FDA to 
accepting the language offered by the Senator from Nevada earlier 
today. We have accepted that amendment. It has been approved by the 
Senate on a voice vote. He, likewise, had asked for the yeas and nays 
and agreed to vitiate the yeas and nays. I do not know of anybody who 
is going to vote against the amendment.
  I certainly am not going to defend the continued use, if it is going 
on, of federally appropriated funds for the so-called tea tasters that 
the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Colorado have brought to 
our attention again.
  I do not know what the reaction of the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas to this amendment would be. The only thing that is new in this 
amendment that was not contained in the Reid amendment is the repeal of 
a legislative enactment which is spelled out in the amendment offered 
by Senator Brown.
  I hope that we will refrain from using this appropriations bill as a 
vehicle for the adoption of amendments that strike out previously 
enacted legislation. This is not a bill to rewrite farm legislation, 
Food and Drug Administration authorities, or any other legislative 
enactment. It is not appropriate on this bill to revisit the body of 
Federal law on a number of different subjects, including the 
authorization for this so-called inspection or tea board.
  So I hope that Senators will not get the idea that since I am not 
opposing this amendment that I agree that it is the thing to do, to 
take up proposals to repeal certain previously enacted laws by the 
Congress.
  I know there are Senators who want to make changes in different kinds 
of farm program language. I hope that Senators will resist offering 
those on this bill and wait until we have the farm bill on the floor, 
wait until the Agriculture Committee has completed its review of all 
laws on the subject of production agriculture and food inspection and 
the like. If there are amendments that should be made to existing laws 
on those subjects, it seems to me the best practice would be to wait 
until we have that bill on the floor and offer the amendments at that 
time to that legislation.
  This bill appropriates money to fund the programs, it does not write 
the authority to fund the programs. So we are not talking in this 
amendment about a funding level, except to say, 

[[Page S 13698]]
and I agree with the Senator, that we should prohibit the use of funds 
appropriated in this bill to carry out the activities described in the 
Senator's amendment.
  So with that caveat, I suggest that we accept the amendment. I hope 
the Senator will consider vitiating the yeas and nays. I do not know of 
any Senator who would vote against this. Maybe it is controversial, but 
I do not think it is controversial to me. I think the Senator is on the 
right track, and we ought to do what he says.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this is somewhat different than the Reid 
amendment that was offered earlier in the day in this respect: It does 
repeal the underlying act which the distinguished chairman from 
Mississippi has just outlined for the Senate, one other thing in terms 
of cost.
  The Reid amendment eliminated the salaries for the Board of Tea 
experts. It did not eliminate the funding of the salaries of the staff. 
I am advised that the FDA's field force expanded by 6.9 direct FTE's in 
support of the Tea Importation Program. The average cost is $6,000 per 
FTE, and the program cost the agency approximately $52,500. That was in 
fiscal year 1994. So it is slightly different than the Reid amendment 
in that it repeals the underlying Tea Tasters Act and it also 
eliminates funding for the staff, which the Reid amendment did not.
  I very much appreciate the distinguished chairman's support of the 
amendment. In light of that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
request for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Abraham be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, one other caveat, if the Senator has 
completed his statement. We have inquired of the Food and Drug 
Administration what requirements of law, if any, might be repealed by 
this amendment related to their obligation to inspect on the basis of 
determining the fitness for human consumption of imported consumable 
products. And we are advised that the FTE's, the staff hours that are 
used for this purpose, are directly related to the obligation of the 
FDA to certify the fitness for human consumption of imported 
foodstuffs. So I am told that is their reaction. So that is not the 
sole purpose of the employees who are described by the Senator from 
Colorado, to see whether or not the tea tastes good. That has been the 
big issue.

  It sounds kind of ridiculous that people are telling us whether tea 
tastes good or not. Anybody can decide whether or not something tastes 
good. That is not what we are suggesting ought to be protected in terms 
of any statutory language that may be affected by this amendment.
  But if we find that there is a legitimate responsibility to determine 
whether or not imported foodstuffs will be dangerous for human 
consumption by citizens of the United States, that is another matter. I 
hope, as we proceed with the consideration of this issue, whether it is 
in the markup of the agriculture legislation this year, the rewriting 
of the farm bill, or wherever else we might have to consider this, that 
we keep in mind that the FDA is not in the business, or should not be 
in the business, of just determining whether food tastes good, but 
whether it is dangerous, whether it has potential harm or consequences. 
I think we do want to keep in place the authority for those 
determinations.
  Having said that, I think the Senator knows what he is doing, and he 
is not trying to put anybody in jeopardy of contaminated imported tea. 
We will make sure that, as we review this statutory language, either on 
this or other legislation, we keep in mind that important 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment No. 2687?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am told Senator Bumpers, the 
distinguished manager on the Democratic side of the legislation, wishes 
to express his views on this amendment. So if the distinguished Senator 
will permit me, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside, temporarily, 
this amendment so that he may proceed to offer whatever other 
amendments he may wish to offer at this time; or if he would like to 
debate this issue further, that we proceed to do that. I would not want 
to go to a vote on the amendment until the Senator from Arkansas has 
had an opportunity to be heard.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for that. Certainly 
that is appropriate. There are a couple of points I thought might be 
worthy of making.
  This underlying act was passed originally in 1897. It is nearly a 
century old. Perhaps its length of time says something about the need 
to take a fresh look at it. The language of the act talks about the 
purity and quality and fitness of imported tea. Largely, purity and 
quality, it strikes me, are consumer decisions, not decisions 
appropriate for the Government.
  Certainly, the chairman hits the nail on the head when he says the 
FDA has a responsibility to make sure that we do not have poisonous 
foodstuffs harming consumers, and that function, I think, is clearly 
established under other sections of the law.
  Right now, only about 1 percent of the 209 million pounds of tea 
imported every year is currently rejected due to bad quality. But, Mr. 
President, I think what is important here is the potential of an 
industry abusing this kind of law to discourage price cutting and to 
restrict competition when there is a glut on the market.
  Mr. President, the first and only term that I served in the Colorado 
State Senate was a wonderful experience. In 1973, I got a chance to 
observe human nature. Colorado had a statute on its books that provided 
for the testing of plumbers. The State of Colorado wanted to make sure, 
I guess, that there were not any unqualified plumbers preying on the 
public. So they would test plumbers for their ability to perform 
services. On a regular basis, of the plumbers that applied, 90 to 95 
percent would pass the exam. Sometimes 100 percent passed. It was not a 
terribly tough exam.
  Colorado, like Arizona and Mississippi, had gone through years of 
growth. There were always jobs for plumbers in the State. Many came in 
from out of State. I think they were drawn not only by Colorado's 
beautiful environment but, I think and suspect, by the job availability 
as well.
  But there was a downturn, as Members will recall, in 1973 and 1974. 
In 1974, the passage rate on the exam dropped. All of a sudden, 
plumbers coming into the State, instead of 90 to 95 percent passing, 
some 70 to 80 percent flunked the exam. What caused this dramatic drop 
in the qualifications of plumbers? Was it the degradation of their 
abilities? No. It was a surplus of plumbers within the State. The fact 
was, what they did was they used a Government board to test and 
determine who is qualified for admittance into the State in the 
profession of plumbing as a way of eliminating competition. So when 
prices were in the process of dropping, they used the Government tool 
that had been handed them as a way of eliminating new competition.
  Leaving this tea tasters statute on the books gives the industry a 
handle to use against someone who might try to cut prices. It leaves 
the industry a handle they might use against somebody who would flood 
the market and reduce prices for the consumer and increase competition.
  I think that concept, as well as that fear, that concern--we, the 
Government, ought to be about protecting and helping the consumer, not 
endangering the consumer, which is what has drawn me to offer this 
amendment. It is not just the waste of money under current 
circumstances. I guess in 1994, we mentioned $253,500. It is not just 
that waste of money. It is the concept that we would place in the hands 
of an industry the ability to restrict or penalize people who might 
reduce the ability to bring in a product, to reduce prices, and provide 
options for the consumer.
  It seems to me that we need to be very wary about items that reduce 
competition. There is the potential that this statute could be abused 
in a difficult market. That is why I think repealing the underlying 
statute is so important, not just for the cost, not just because of the 
concept of what Government should and should not do, but because of the 
potential abuse of 

[[Page S 13699]]
this statute in an anticompetitive fashion.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have conferred with Senator Bumpers' 
staff and also conferred with the legislative committee staff that has 
jurisdiction over the Food and Drug Administration in this specific 
legislation which is the subject of the amendment of the Senator from 
Colorado.
  It is our understanding there is no objection from the legislative 
committee to accepting this amendment.
  Under the status of the debate, as I understand it, while the yeas 
and nays were requested and the yeas and nays were ordered, a 
unanimous-consent order was entered to vitiate the yeas and nays if we 
were going to accept it on a voice vote.
  We are prepared now to accept the amendment on a voice vote and we 
are prepared to proceed to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment 2687?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2687) was agreed to.
  Mr. BROWN. 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.


 Amendment No. 2688 to Committee Amendment on Page 83, Line 4 through 
                            Page 84, Line 2

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds to carry out the 
                            peanut program)

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  Mr. President, I ask this be considered as an amendment to the 
committee amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2688 to the committee amendment on page 83, line 4 
     through 84, line 2.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . PEANUT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--None of the funds made available under 
     this Act may be used to carry out a price support or 
     production adjustment program for peanuts.
       (b) Assessment.--The Secretary of Agriculture may charge 
     producers a marketing assessment to carry out the program 
     under the same terms and conditions as are prescribed under 
     section 108B(g) of the Agriculture Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 
     1445c-3(g)).

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this amendment is different than the 
previous amendment. What it does is deal with the expenditures for 
administrative costs for the peanut program. It does not attempt to 
modify or repeal the underlying program itself.
  The reason I do not attempt to repeal the underlying program is 
because, as I understand it, the Agriculture Committee is diligently 
reviewing the peanut program and will have recommendations. My 
understanding is that those recommendations are in effect necessitated 
by the fact that the passage of the NAFTA agreement has opened up our 
market which is a protected market, in which peanuts sell for 
significantly higher amounts in the United States than they do 
overseas.
  NAFTA has opened that market up for competition from Mexico. Mexico 
has a significant ability to produce peanuts and produce them at world 
market prices dramatically lower than United States market prices.
  The change in the peanut program will be essential. I expect we will 
be seeing the Agriculture Committee move on that in a diligent fashion.
  My amendment is less ambitious in its scope. What it simply suggests 
is that the administrative costs of the program should not be paid for 
by the taxpayers of this country, but it does empower the Secretary of 
Agriculture to charge producers a marketing assessment to carry out the 
program under the same terms and conditions as prescribed under the 
law.
  What it does is shift from the taxpayers the cost of administering 
this program over to the people who benefit by this program.
  It seems to me that this amendment is fair and reasonable. The 
savings, we are advised, is in the neighborhood of $2 million for this 
year, a potential savings of $11 million over 5 years should this apply 
in future years.
  I would be remiss if I do not note that the cost to the consumers of 
this country and to the taxpayers of this country of the peanut program 
itself is many, many times beyond that.
  I am advised that the peanut program costs the American taxpayers 
$120 million a year. Let me repeat that: $120 million a year. That is 
not peanuts.
  This peanut program has placed us in a situation where the taxpayers 
get hit for $120 million a year, to support a program that is then 
priced significantly above the world market.
  The costs to the American taxpayers for peanuts is not just the $120 
million a year. It is the American consumer that really pays the price.
  Estimates from a GAO report in 1993 indicate that the cost to the 
consumer could range between $300 million and $500 million a year.
  What we have is a very unusual agriculture program. The peanut 
program is much different than most other programs, but not all. In 
effect what this peanut program does is makes us uncompetitive in the 
world market, gouges American consumers for between $300 and $500 
million a year, and impacts the Treasury by $120 million a year for the 
program itself.
  This amendment is modest. All it does is talk about saving the $2 
million of administrative costs. Mr. President, it is $2 million we 
ought to save.
  Farmers in America are the most competitive farmers in the world. 
They are productive. They are creative. They are efficient. The areas 
where the Americans are not competitive, the areas where the American 
economy has fallen behind the rest of the world are areas where we have 
not had vigorous competition. Areas where we do have vigorous 
competitions, we compete and we outcompete anyone in the world.
  While this is a modest move, I look forward with great interest to 
the actions of the Agriculture Committee in dealing both with the cost 
for consumer and the cost for the general treasury.
  I think this amendment sends a signal. It sends a signal of our 
commitment to begin to respect the taxpayers with regard to a program 
that has clearly outgrown its usefulness.
  I suspect this will be controversial, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me say that my concerns at this early 
point in the debate on this amendment surround the fact that we are 
working in the Agriculture Committee at this time and a meeting is 
called for this week to consider changes in existing farm legislation, 
including proposals to modify and reform the peanut program.
  I have introduced legislation, for example, that seeks to reduce the 
overall costs of these programs, but to do so in a way that does not 
undermine the ability of farmers to continue to produce efficiently and 
operate at a profit, but how to go about downsizing the expenses of 
agriculture programs and still maintain that ability to produce what we 
need in our country, the food and fiber needs, to meet those needs and 
to still have a sufficient amount to export to contribute to our 
overall economic health is a big challenge.
  I do not think we will be able to adopt incremental change on an 
appropriations bill that modifies this or any other commodity program 
that will achieve the goal in a coherent, rational, and orderly way.
  This may be an excellent amendment in terms of improving the 
efficient administration of this program. But I would hate to see us 
adopt this amendment and have it undermine or in any way adversely 
affect the effort that we are making for comprehensive reform of 
agriculture programs in the legislative subcommittee. So that is the 
concern that I want to raise at this point.
  I know there are others who may have more experience and are more of 

[[Page S 13700]]
  an expert in the understanding of the workings of the peanut program 
and how this particular amendment might affect the administration of 
the peanut program, but I express that concern, still hoping that we 
can fulfill the commitment that we have made to reduce the costs of 
these programs.
  I know the Congressional Budget Office, for example, has estimated 
that the reforms I have suggested in my bill to reform the peanut 
program could achieve savings of over $300 million over 7 years. This 
amendment will reduce the cost of the program somewhat. But if we adopt 
this amendment and then we ask CBO to analyze the effect of the Cochran 
bill, that is going to have a negative effect. And in our overall 
effort at comprehensive reform and meeting the targets of 
reconciliation, we could actually be penalized in our efforts to reform 
the farm bill by adopting amendments like this one in an appropriations 
bill. Then we might have to cut other programs, nutrition programs, 
school lunch program, other farm programs, in order to make up the 
difference.
  So I am hopeful the Senate will take that into account and consider 
that as we look at this amendment.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Brown amendment 
would address the commodity program that deals with peanuts, and it 
would assess peanut growers throughout the United States for the 
theoretical administrative costs of the program, or approximately $2 
million a year.
  Mr. President, this program is over 60 years old. It has been the 
focus of intense, deliberate, significant debate and discussion within 
the Agriculture Committee. The Senator from Mississippi, who is here on 
the floor with us, has been very instrumental in managing the vast 
array of details related to this program.
  And to come into the appropriations process ad hoc and intervene into 
that process, in my judgment, is inappropriate, and intrudes in a very, 
very intense process to try to deal with this program and all those 
Americans that are affected by it and all the complexities. It does not 
need ad hoc intervention. It does not need ad hoc amendments. I welcome 
the Senator, who is not a member of this committee, to come forward and 
work with us with his suggestions. But this is not the way to manage 
this intensely complicated program.
  So I rise against the amendment. I rise against its appropriateness. 
This is not the place for it. In fact, it will only make more 
complicated and difficult that which we are trying to do.
  Now, Mr. President, I wish I could say that all U.S. programs were 
producing the kind of economic impact and social good that this program 
represents. In the United States, the program represents $1.2 billion 
in annual farm revenue, 150,000 U.S. jobs, $200 million in annual 
exports, and $6 billion in annual economic impact.
  I mentioned a moment ago that the program is about 60 years old. All 
of the farm community and rural communities that are affected over this 
extended period of time obviously have become ingrained with the 
program.
  The reach of the program goes beyond those that are directly involved 
with growing. The reach of this program, over the lengthy period of 
time which it has existed, now reaches into the financial community, 
the agribusiness community, the agricultural equipment community, and 
represents thousands and thousands of jobs and is an economic 
stabilizer in communities that have suffered immensely over the last 25 
or 30 years and continue to suffer from economic decline.
  I do not suppose any of us here, if we were designing the program, 
would design it the way it is today. But those of us who have inherited 
it have also inherited a social responsibility to the communities 
affected by it.
  Seventy-five percent--Seventy-five percent--of the counties involved 
in producing this commodity in the United States have a poverty level 
in excess of 20 percent. These are hard-hit communities. These are 
communities that have suffered many of the changes that have been 
occurring when we move from rural to urban.
  Most people I hear around here talk about their grave concern about 
rural America. I hear it everywhere I go. This is where, as they say in 
my part of the country, the rubber hits the road, because we are 
talking about a Government partnership, much of rural America 
represented by this program where changes that are not thought through 
can create massive--massive--economic instability. They not only affect 
immensely the health of the family farm in these communities, they 
affect the financial integrity of the loaning institutions and they 
affect significantly the extended economic suppliers of the industry.
  There are some counties in my State if you just turn the switch off 
tomorrow will be out of business, flat out of business. These are 
people who were playing under the rules that were designed by this 
Government, as I said, over a 60-year period, and they have been 
playing by those rules.
  Having said that, let me say that I take my hat off to this community 
that surrounds this commodity. I came here a little over 2 years ago. 
Everybody already knew we were going to be paying a lot of attention to 
these programs, because this is an era of change.
  These people came to the table. Over the last 2 years, they have been 
working with their Senators, with the Agriculture Committee, and they 
have been endeavoring to represent and be a part of change. They have 
proposed and they have stood behind significant reforms in this 
commodity program. But they do want to be treated responsibly. They do 
want to be treated as partners. They do want us to appreciate that this 
arrangement was put in place by this Government, not them. And they do 
not want it dealt with in an ad hoc way. They want it to be dealt with 
as the good Senator from Mississippi has been doing.
  I see my colleague from Alabama has come to the floor. The Senators 
from North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia have produced reforms that are 
no net cost to the Government. Those reforms will result in a 30-
percent loss of income in the farm communities that I represent, but 
they have supported those kinds of reforms.
  Throughout the process, they have been willing to discuss how it can 
be changed to make it satisfactory to the taxpayer, to the Federal 
Government and to the economic fragility of these communities. I think 
they have done so in good faith. I have become an admirer of the 
dedication to finding a way to make this program satisfactory to the 
American taxpayers, satisfactory to the producer, and satisfactory to 
the communities that are represented by this.
  I have to say, Mr. President, that I have been struck by the 
dictionaries we find in Washington. I heard it a lot in the Agriculture 
Committee. When we talk about something we are doing in urban America, 
we often talk about our ``investment.'' Somehow, when we get over to 
the rural communities, that word becomes ``subsidy.'' When it is a 
Federal program that is working on the economic viability of rural 
America, that is a subsidy, but if we are talking about building 
bridges and roads to deal with the issues in urban America, that is an 
investment.
  Both are investments. We are talking about the economic viability of 
vast rural regions in our country that have very high poverty rates. Of 
all the various programs that I have viewed, there are very few I have 
ever seen that cost so little, that produce so many jobs and so much 
economic good. That is sort of a rarity here, but that is what I see in 
this program. Not that it is perfect, and we have all acknowledged that 
and we are all working to change, but that ought to be done in the 
committee. That ought to be done by the people with the expertise. That 
ought to be done in good faith with the people that have come to the 
committee and said, ``We are willing to sit down and work out 
compromises, and we are willing to do things to lower the burden on the 
American taxpayer.''
  It should not be done ad hoc in a frittering manner that destabilizes 
the entire effort that we have been about for the last 2 years. This 
should be done in the farm bill.
  I commend all those Senators for the time they have expended on 
behalf of trying to reach an appropriate compromise. I commend the 
communities, as I said earlier, for their willingness to work, and I 
rise in opposition, in closing, to ad hoc management of a very 
complicated program that affects thousands of Americans in our country. 


[[Page S 13701]]

  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Georgia withhold?
  Mr. COVERDELL. Certainly.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I want to say I think the distinguished 
Senator from Georgia has really given a very eloquent, accurate, and 
persuasive statement about why this amendment should be rejected. There 
is no doubt about it; he is a very insightful Senator, and he has come 
to the Agriculture Committee with a great deal of good common sense and 
judgment which shows very clearly during his discussion of this 
amendment.
  We are dealing with an appropriations bill. We are at work, on the 
other hand, trying to reform all of the commodity programs so that we 
can make them more cost effective, we can make them respond to the 
challenge of deficit reduction, but at the same time maintain stability 
in the agriculture sector and the capability for the future, and that 
is the most productive country in the world.
  It is an enormously important sector of our economy, and to start 
nitpicking on this bill with these programs, like this peanut program 
that the Senator describes, we are running a great risk. It may sound 
good, it may make some feel good to vote for a change like this that is 
being recommended, but it is not going to serve the economic interests 
of our country as a whole and certainly not those regions of our 
country that are involved in this program.
  I commend the Senator for his eloquent statement and his hard work as 
a member of our Agriculture Committee. I hope the Senators who heard 
him will pay attention and vote like he suggests--vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on amendment No. 2688?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2688, as Modified

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to 
modify my amendment on the peanut program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2688), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . PEANUT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--None of the funds made available under 
     this Act may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of USDA 
     employees who carry out a price support or production 
     adjustment program for peanuts.
       (b) Assessment.--The Secretary of Agriculture may charge 
     producers a marketing assessment to carry out the program 
     under the same terms and conditions as are prescribed under 
     section 108B(g) of the Agriculture Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 
     1445c-3(g)).

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the modification is the product of the 
diligent work of the senior Senator from Alabama, and thanks to him a 
drafting error was spotted and corrected. The language that is in the 
modification makes it clear that this deals only with the 
administrative costs.
  Mr. President, I will read the language that has been added, as it 
stands, to the modification.

       None of the funds made available under this act may be used 
     to pay the salaries and expenses of USDA employees who carry 
     out the price support or production adjustment program for 
     peanuts.

  The following paragraph on assessments, which remains exactly as it 
was in the original amendment, is simply an ability to, through 
assessments, raise that money that the taxpayers have provided to pay 
for the salaries and expenses of USDA employees who administer the 
program.
  Mr. President, as I say, this is intended to save about $2 million a 
year. It is not a substitute in any way for the changes in the peanut 
program which will be necessitated regardless of Members' feelings 
about the program. Those changes will be necessitated by NAFTA and the 
new competition of peanuts from the Mexican market. But it is, I 
believe, a step in the right direction to ask the people who benefit by 
the program to at least pay the administrative costs and not stick the 
taxpayers with that cost.
  Mr. President, I believe this measure will be controversial. It is my 
understanding there are other Members who want to address it. I 
understand that the manager of the bill would prefer that the measure 
to be voted on tomorrow.
  So I yield the floor.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, as I understand it, the distinguished 
Senator from Colorado has modified the amendment to apply to only 
administrative costs, of which there are about $2 million, and that 
there would be an assessment charged against the producers to carry out 
the program.
  I am sure that the peanut program is controversial and that many 
programs are controversial. Agriculture programs are controversial, and 
under the Department of Agriculture every agricultural program is 
carried out and administered by the Department of Agriculture. Are we 
going to say that the wheat program, therefore, which is carried out 
and administered by the Department of Agriculture, if we were to follow 
the same concept, that on the wheat program there ought to be an 
assessment against the wheat producers relative to the administration 
of the wheat program?
  If we stop and think about other programs, does this mean that if you 
carry this philosophy out, the Social Security recipients, therefore, 
should pay an assessment to the Government for carrying out the Social 
Security program? Or the Medicare Program? Does this mean that the 
recipients in this program ought to be assessed the costs to carry out 
and administer the program?

  You could go on with every conceivable program that the Government 
has that therefore this philosophy would be relative to. Or the same 
concept could be applied in regard to Senators. Should Senators, 
therefore, in order to have an accounting system for receipt of their 
salaries be assessed fees for the Government to carry out that program 
or to administer that program?
  I do not agree with this overall philosophy, and I just point out 
questions pertaining to it.
  I will have a good deal more to say about this later on, but I do 
want to point out right now that the concept of charging the producers 
of a program an assessment to administer the program is rather unusual 
and, if we start it, it ought to be applied across the board to every 
conceivable program--the orange juice program, the corn program, every 
program, wherever you are going to do it.
  And then there are also other people in the chain that are recipients 
of a program such as, in the peanut program, the shellers, and then 
there are the market people, the manufacturers that use it--all of 
these people who are in effect beneficiaries of a program that ought to 
be considered rather than just the farmer. We have had a situation 
where we are looking at farmers today in some of the sections of the 
country who have had terrible disasters, and I just do not think this 
is the proper time to be doing something like this.
  Overall, the peanut program has cost the taxpayers a relatively small 
amount of money over the period of time it has been in existence--
sometimes as prices go up and prices go down because of market 
conditions or, on the other hand, because of weather conditions like 
drought and other things, but in the last 10 years, the peanut program 
has averaged out costing the Government an average of $13 million a 
year. And I do not think any other farm program has been operated as 
economically and at as little cost to the Government over a like period 
of time in history.
  It will vary. It has gone up sometimes, and then there have been 
years in which actually the peanut program has made the Government 
money.
  So I think when we look at this matter of saving $2 million, it 
certainly calls for a concept, and if we are going to look at it in 
some equitable and fair way across the board, we ought to consider all 
other programs. But the major thing is that here we are, as the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from Mississippi, has 
mentioned in a situation where this week we go to 

[[Page S 13702]]
markup relative to a farm bill, and various and sundry approaches may 
be offered and considered there. I think, therefore, it is premature at 
this time to be considering it. Certainly, the Agriculture Committee 
ought to be given an opportunity to look at this before we move forward 
in this regard.
  I yield at this point and will have something else to say later.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, first of all, I want to extend my thanks to 
the distinguished Senator from Alabama. I believe he was off the floor 
working on another matter when I extended my thanks the first time. But 
I appreciate his reviewing the amendment and pointing out the need for 
corrective language, and we have adopted that through a modification. I 
very much appreciate his kindness and his indulgence in helping to have 
the amendment accurately brought forward. And by that I do not mean 
necessarily it says what the Senator would like it to say, but I do 
mean that he was very helpful in making sure it represented what my 
wishes were to offer to the body.
  Mr. President, the Senator quoted the $13 million a year cost for the 
peanut program. The $120 million cost that I had used in the Chamber 
was the estimate we had gotten from the Congressional Budget Office for 
1995. I believe the Senator was talking about was historic costs. I 
think both figures are correct and I think it is perfectly appropriate 
for him to point out the historic cost. That is a reasonable and 
balanced way to look at it.
  Mr. President, he also raised an important point. If this program is 
to cover its own administrative costs, why not the wheat program? While 
he was too kind to say it, we produce a lot of wheat in Colorado, and 
that is a fair question. In my mind--and certainly this is not meant to 
speak for all the Members, but in my mind this peanut program is 
different. It is different in that we maintain a price of peanuts in 
this country that is significantly higher than the world market.
  Most of our programs and most of our products in the United States 
sell for the lowest price in the world. We have the most efficient, 
productive, creative agriculture of any nation on the face of the 
Earth, and it shows in our prices. Consumers in America enjoy low 
prices for farm commodities. Our price for products, including wheat, 
sets the base.
  That is, Europe and Japan not only import wheat, but by importing it 
they pay more than American consumers because of the costs involved in 
shipment. People around the world pay a higher price for wheat 
generally than we do in the United States, so the wheat program goes to 
a different focus. It does go to market stabilization which is thought 
to be of help for the consumer. Certainly the wheat program is a 
program that merits debate at the appropriate time.
  At least in my mind, however, the wheat program is a dramatic and 
different program than the peanut program. Why? It is dramatically 
different because the peanut program is designed to market our peanuts 
at a significantly higher price in the world market. That has a 
dramatically different effect upon consumers and producers than the 
wheat program that does not attempt to have a significantly higher 
price for wheat in America than we have in the world market.
  Nevertheless, I think the Senator's point is a valid one, and it goes 
to the heart of the amendment. Should the taxpayers pay for the 
administrative costs and which ones should the users?
  It had been my understanding that, indeed, in Social Security and 
Medicare the cost of administration was borne by the taxes levied that 
go into a trust fund, and we are asking to check that right now. I 
certainly will want to make that point clear for the Record. I think 
the Senator is right to raise that issue. He does come to the heart of 
this amendment. That is the suggestion that the roughly $2 million a 
year cost of administering this program, that markets a commodity at 
significantly above the world prices, be borne by the participants.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am a supporter of the wheat program. I 
did not necessarily mean to be picking Colorado. I have always 
supported the wheat program. I think it is a good program. But there 
are some distinctions between the wheat program and the peanut program 
relative to the cost of Government, as there are with a number of 
commodities.
  Basically, the peanut program has a loan rate. That loan rate allows 
for farmers to--in bad times when the price is low or when there are 
weather conditions and such--put their product that they have produced 
into a loan. And then the CCC can take it out of the loan and set it. 
They have to pay interest on it when they do, or else the Government 
can, of course, have a nonrecourse loan and can sell it on the world 
market.
  But the wheat program and most commodities have a greater cost rather 
than just the loan. That is the target price or deficiency payment. And 
there is no deficiency payment, there is no target price in peanuts at 
all. I think sometimes we have misunderstood various farm programs and 
other things also. But the peanut program does not have the deficiency 
payments at a great number. I am a supporter of the farm programs that 
allow for the target prices and allow for the deficiency payment. But I 
do make that distinction, the distinction being raised about that at 
this time.
  So we will be discussing it further.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know there may be other Senators who 
want to speak on this amendment. I have expressed my concerns already. 
We have heard from the distinguished Senator from Alabama. It is likely 
that we will be able to vote on this tomorrow, rather than today. There 
are other amendments that we know will be offered today and debated. We 
can dispose of those amendments.
  Because we have had a pretty full discussion of this suggested change 
in the bill, I am going to ask unanimous-consent that we set aside this 
amendment and proceed to take another amendment up for consideration 
that the Senator from Colorado will offer. So I make that unanimous 
consent request to set aside the amendment temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to add to the record with regard to 
the debate on the peanut amendment. I would ask, while that amendment 
is not presently before us, that I be allowed 60 seconds in which to 
address the peanut amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, in the discussion on the peanut amendment, 
the question was raised as to whether or not this, asking users or 
beneficiaries of a program to pay the administrative costs, was 
appropriate or not and whether or not it was done in other areas, and 
myself and others had speculated about the social security fund. I am 
advised that indeed, the administrative costs for the Social Security 
program do indeed come from the fund. I think some of the confusion may 
come in that the discretionary spending is considered part of funding 
that comes under the discretionary caps for the budget function. But 
indeed, the source of the money is from the fund itself.
  I yield back, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Amendment No. 2689 to Committee Amendment on Page 83, Line 4, Through 
                            Page 84, Line 2

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of appropriated funds to administer 
   tobacco grading and inspection, tobacco price support, quota, and 
                          allotment functions)

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

[[Page S 13703]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2689 to the committee amendment beginning on page 
     83, line 4.

       At the appropriate place in the amendment, insert the 
     following:

     SEC.   . PRICE SUPPORT AND GRADING AND INSPECTION OF TOBACCO.

       (a) In General.--None of the funds made available under 
     this Act may be used to pay the salaries or expenses of the 
     employees of the Department of Agriculture to grade or 
     inspect tobacco or to administer price support functions for 
     tobacco.
       (b) Assessment.--The Secretary of Agriculture may charge 
     producers a marketing assessment to grade or inspect tobacco 
     and to administer the price support functions under the same 
     terms and conditions as are prescribed in the Agricultural 
     Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1445-1 and 1445-2).

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, this amendment calls for the tobacco 
program to be no net cost to the American taxpayer. Some Members will 
say, ``I thought it was already a no net cost.''
  Indeed, there was legislation offered in 1982 that came under the 
heading of ``no net cost'' for the tobacco program. And yet, Mr. 
President, some Members may be surprised to learn that did not cover 
all of the costs of the program. That no-net-cost concept is a good one 
and one that this amendment attempts to complete.
  But left out of the legislation in 1982 was an effort to cover the 
administrative cost that involves maintaining the price support and 
both the grading and inspection of tobacco. So administration of the 
program, grading and inspecting of tobacco, are still an expense to the 
taxpayers.
  Mr. President, it is one thing to be upset about tobacco smoking in 
this country and urge people not to use the product or suggest that 
perhaps the FDA ought to regulate it and extend additional regulations. 
But, Mr. President, it is quite another thing to tax the American 
citizen to pay for a product that we turn around and then urge them not 
to use. Good common sense indicates that we should not subsidize a 
product that we think is harmful to people and that they should not 
use. I am one who believes that this country is all about freedom, and 
to the maximum extent possible, we ought to maximize people's freedom 
to choose.
  So I have not been one that wants to outlaw all forms of tobacco or 
follow other circuitous routes that simply eliminate that choice. I 
think all Americans agree that our children should not consume tobacco 
products. But for adults, while we would all have strong feelings about 
the subject and many of us feel that we would be better off without 
tobacco, I am not one who wants to ban it. But, Mr. President, I am one 
who wants to have the tobacco producers pay for the cost of their own 
program.
  It makes no sense to tax working men and women of this country to 
subsidize a product and then turn around and tax them to urge people 
not to use a product they have just subsidized. That makes no sense at 
all. That is what this amendment is all about. It simply says that when 
tobacco producers say they have a no-net-cost program, that it is in 
fact a no-net-cost program.
  So this amendment does two things. One, it makes it clear that there 
will be no taxpayers' funds appropriated in this bill that will be used 
to pay the salaries and expenses of Department of Agriculture employees 
to grade or inspect tobacco or to administer the price support 
functions for tobacco.
  Second, Mr. President, it makes it very clear that the Secretary has 
the ability to assess producers a marketing assessment for these 
functions. So it gives the Secretary a way to carry out these 
functions, but at the expense of the producers, not at the expense of 
the taxpayers.
  Mr. President, some will note that the Secretary already has the 
ability to levy an assessment for this program. Indeed, the Secretary 
does. I added that assessment section so there could be no doubt that 
there would be no question but that the Secretary could levy it for 
this purpose. I think it is arguable one way or another that he already 
has the authority to levy this assessment. But it seemed to me clarity 
was a virtue in this circumstance. So we go the extra mile to make sure 
it is clear that he has the ability to raise funds for this purpose.
  But, Mr. President, the American men and women who pay our taxes 
cannot understand why in the world we would have Government functions 
that work to opposite purposes, why in the world we would subsidize a 
product which our Government turns around and tells us is hazardous to 
their health and urges people, at taxpayers' expense, not to consume 
it.
  This amendment, I think, adds consistency to our functions. It adds 
some consistency in the way we spend taxpayers' money.
  Mr. President, it is my impression this will be a controversial 
amendment; that there will be other Members who wish to voice their 
concerns and objections about it. I hope there may be others who may 
want to say a good word or two on its behalf. So I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator has completed his 
statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am confident there are Senators who 
wish to be heard on this amendment before we vote on it. I am also sure 
that it is probable that this vote will be postponed until tomorrow. 
But I hope that those who do want to speak on the amendment will come 
to the floor and do that so we can complete our debate on the amendment 
and leave to tomorrow the vote on the amendment, if that is the will of 
the Senate.
  There have been, of course, in the past, amendments similar to this 
that have been before the body, so it is not a new issue. We have 
debated this from time to time. I am confident that there are arguments 
that can be made on the other side and will be by Senators who are 
experts in this program.
  From the point of view of the managers of the bill, though, I would 
say that this is another example of an effort to modify with 
legislative language, in effect, programs that are now under 
consideration and review by the Agriculture Committee. We have this 
week a markup scheduled on commodity program changes that are designed 
to meet the challenge of the budget reconciliation and resolution that 
was adopted by the Congress to reduce the cost of the programs under 
the jurisdiction of all the legislative committees.
  This is under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee, and it 
may very well be that changes are going to be directed or recommended 
by the Agriculture Committee in this program. I do not know the extent 
to which this amendment, if it is adopted, will affect those 
comprehensive changes that may be recommended by the Agriculture 
Committee.
  When we were talking about the peanut amendment that the 
distinguished Senator had offered, I mentioned that I had included the 
peanut program in a proposal that I have submitted to the committee 
which is designed to reform that program and reduce the costs of the 
program over time. I know that if we adopt the peanut amendment as 
proposed by the Senator from Colorado, it would reduce the savings that 
are now estimated by CBO to be attributable to the farm bill I am 
proposing.
  There may be other Senators who have suggestions to make in the 
Agriculture Committee about the tobacco program. I do not know the 
extent to which this amendment would affect those projected savings. 
But I do know that there will be some effect, and the question before 
the Senate is whether we ought to adopt amendments such as this, 
knowing that they are going to be legislative in nature and will 
encroach on the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. So I voice 
that concern as a concern that applies not only to this amendment but 
other amendments like it.
  I discourage Senators who do have changes in legislative language and 
suggest that it would be more appropriate and in better keeping with 
the way we should do business here in the Senate to bring those up when 
the legislative committees' bills are on the floor--or bring them up in 
the committees of jurisdiction, even better, so those committees can 
review these suggestions.
  I respect very much the Senator from Colorado. He is one of the best 
minds in 

[[Page S 13704]]
the Senate. He is a Senator who has always been on the lookout for ways 
to improve the efficiency of Government programs and reduce unnecessary 
costs. He is a leader in achieving results. Again, he is showing his 
ability to carefully analyze Federal programs and look for ways that we 
can improve them in terms of their efficiency. The savings of 
taxpayers' dollars that will result from the changes are quite obvious. 
This is another example which shows his diligence and his ability in 
this regard. So I commend him for his continued efforts to do what he 
is trying to do. I applaud that effort.
  Having said that, I hope that if Senators do want to comment on the 
legislation and the proposed amendment, they will come to the floor to 
do so, and I will put in a quorum call to ascertain whether we do have 
Senators who want to speak further on this amendment at this time.
  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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I understand there is nobody at the moment 
waiting to bring up any amendments so I ask unanimous consent that I be 
able to proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________