[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13836-S13840]
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 Senate continued with consideration of the bill.


               Amendments Nos. 2700 through 2706, En Bloc

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we do have a list of amendments which we 
will present to the Senate and ask for their approval.
  An amendment offered by Senators Dorgan and Conrad on flooding at 
Devils Lake, North Dakota; an amendment offered by Senator Dole 
providing funds for the Agricultural Research Service Grain Marketing 
Research Lab; an amendment offered by Senator Abraham eliminating 
certain USDA advisory committees; an amendment for Senator Gorton 
regarding a timber regulation.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, on that amendment, is that the Gorton-
Murray amendment?
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is an amendment proposed by Senators Gorton, Murray, 
and Burns.
  Mr. BUMPERS. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. And an amendment offered by Senator Bennett regarding 
the Colorado River Basin salinity control program; an amendment offered 
by 

[[Page S13837]]
Senator Feingold regarding rural development program; an amendment 
offered by Senator Leahy regarding a research facility.
  Mr. President, these are amendments that we have reviewed and have 
been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I send the amendments to the 
desk en bloc and ask they be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. Cochran] for other 
     Senators, proposes amendments Nos. 2700 through 2706.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 2700 through 2706) are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1700

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on United States-Canadian 
 cooperation for relief of flooding in Devils Lake Basin, North Dakota)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON UNITED STATES-CANADIAN 
                   COOPERATION CONCERNING AN OUTLET TO RELIEVE 
                   FLOODING AT DEVILS LAKE IN NORTH DAKOTA.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) flooding in Devils Lake Basin, North Dakota, has 
     resulted in water levels in the lake reaching their highest 
     point in 120 years;
       (2)(A) 667,000 trees are inundated and dying;
       (B) 2500 homeowners in the county are pumping water from 
     basements;
       (C) the town of Devils Lake is threatened with lake water 
     nearing the limits of the protective dikes of the lake;
       (D) 17,400 acres of land have been inundated;
       (E) roads are under water;
       (F) other roads are closed and will be abandoned;
       (G) homes and businesses have been diked, abandoned, or 
     closed; and
       (H) if the lake rises another 2 to 3 feet, damages of 
     approximately $74,000,000 will occur;
       (3) the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of 
     Reclamation are now studying the feasibility of constructing 
     an outlet from Devils Lake Basin;
       (4) an outlet from Devils Lake Basin will allow the 
     transfer of water from Devils Lake Basin to the Red River of 
     the North watershed that the United States shares with 
     Canada; and
       (5) the Treaty Relating to the Boundary Waters and 
     Questions Arising Along the Boundary Between the United 
     States and Canada, signed at Washington on January 11, 1909 
     (36 Stat. 2448; TS 548) (commonly known as the ``Boundary 
     Waters Treaty of 1909''), provides that ``. . . waters 
     flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either 
     side to the injury of health or property on the other.'' (36 
     Stat. 2450).
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the United States Government should seek to establish a 
     joint United States-Canadian technical committee to review 
     the Devils Lake Basin emergency outlet project to consider 
     options for an outlet that would meet Canadian concerns in 
     regard to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to let my 
colleagues know about the very serious flood my State is experiencing. 
Devils Lake is located within a completely closed basin with no 
outlet--much like the Great Salt Lake.
  Due to several years of above-average rainfall, the lake has risen 
over 13 feet and increased in size by two-thirds within the past 2 
years. The ever-advancing waters of Devils Lake have caused millions of 
dollars in damage to roads, farmland, public facilities and private 
property.
  The Devils Lake flood has been especially difficult for farmers and 
ranchers in and near the basin. Eighty to 90 percent of the pasture and 
hayland around the lake are affected by the flood. Fields are flooded, 
roads used by producers are inundated with water, and wet conditions 
kept many farmers from planting last spring.
  If water levels continue to rise--as they are likely to do for the 
foreseeable future--the lake could overrun the dike protecting the city 
of Devils Lake, threatening lives and causing millions more dollars in 
damage.
  Let me give you just a few facts about this terrible flood: The water 
level of Devils Lake has risen 13 feet in the past 2 years, and is at 
its highest level in 120 years; Federal agencies have spent over $30 
million to mitigate this disaster, including more than $21 million from 
the Federal Highway Administration to fix flood-ravaged roads; The 
Corps of Engineers recently placed a protective berm around the 
Minnewaukan city sewage lagoon because it was about to be overtaken by 
the lake. When constructed in 1956, the lagoon was more than 8 miles 
from the lake--8 miles, Mr. President; 1,768 Disaster Survey Reports of 
damage to public property have been submitted to FEMA's Disaster Field 
Office. 2,082 claims for Disaster Unemployment Assistance have been 
approved; and 2,500 homes in Devils Lake are pumping seepage from their 
homes, and many have basement floors that are heaving because of high 
water levels.
  Much has been done to deal with the flood so far.
  Federal Emergency Management Director James Lee Witt formed an 
interagency task force to deal with this disaster. Director Witt formed 
the task force to bring every relevant Federal, State and local agency 
togther--with the active participation of many Devils Lake Basin 
residents--to examine every feasible solution and work to find answers 
to this flood. The task force recently issued its report which 
identifies 17 action items to help mitigate the flood's damage.
  One of the most promising of those action items is the construction 
of an outlet from Devils Lake. An outlet could drain water from the 
lake and help prevent further--and catastrophic--damage. The Corps of 
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation are in the process of studying 
a long-term lake stabilization plan that would make an outlet possible. 
Mr. President, this problem is of such enormity that every option must 
be considered.
  However, an outlet raises international considerations. Water drained 
through an outlet would flow into the Sheyenne River, which in turn 
flows into the Red River of the North, which flows northward into 
Canada. Canadian officials have expressed concern about an outlet due 
to water quality issues. The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 provides 
the basis for protection of boundary waters interests of both the 
United States and Canada.
  As a result, it is critically important that both the State of North 
Dakota and the U.S. Government work with Canadian officials as outlet 
plans are considered. The U.S. State Department participated in the 
interagency task force which has considered Devils Lake flood relief 
options. I was in Devils Lake recently and encouraged efforts to 
involve Canadian officials, especially from the province of Manitoba, 
in discussions of flood relief efforts.
  Mr. President, it is precisely because of our desire to work with our 
neighbors to the North that my colleague and I introduce this 
amendment. Allow me to read from the amendment before us:

       . . . It is the sense of the Senate that the United States 
     Government should seek to establish a joint United States-
     Canadian technical committee to review the Devils Lake Basin 
     emergency outlet project to consider options for an outlet 
     that would meet Canadian concerns in regard to the Boundary 
     Waters Treaty of 1909.

  In short, the amendment says two things. First, Devils Lake Basin 
flooding is a serious problem. Second, we want to work with the 
Canadians to find a treaty-compliant way to resolve it. The committee 
would seek to find a way to construct an outlet while fully complying 
with the treaty. Only by seeking the active participation of Canada can 
this project go forward.
  Let me be clear, Mr. President, it is in the best interest of my 
State and of our Nation to work with Canadian officials to assuage 
their concerns about an outlet. That is why this amendment emphasizes 
the importance of the treaty, and states that the committee should work 
to meet Canadian concerns regarding the treaty.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this sense of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 
1976 is in response to the devastating flooding being experienced 
within the State of North Dakota. This amendment will provide for a 
joint United States-Canadian technical committee to review the Devils 
Lake basin emergency outlet project and consider options for an outlet 
that would meet Canadian concerns regarding the Boundary Waters Treaty 
of 1909.
  The Devils Lake basin is an enclosed basin (no outlet) with water 
loss through natural evaporation from the lake surface during periods 
of drought. With more rain than drought in recent 

[[Page S13838]]
years, the surface of the lake has been rising dramatically. In 1993, 
the surface of Devils Lake totaled 44,000 acres, today it covers over 
72,000 acres. Eighty to 90 percent of the pasture and haylands around 
the lake have been flooded, saturated, or isolated by flood waters. 
There are eight counties represented in the Devils Lake basin. In just 
two of these eight counties, flooding has impacted 247,000 acres 
(nearly 386 square miles). For comparison, the District of Columbia 
covers only 67 square miles.
  In the basin above the lake level, where crops can still be grown, 
the rains of this spring allowed only about half of the normal planting 
of small grains (wheat, durum, barley, and oats). Wet conditions also 
prevented proper weeding with the result that crop yield is expected to 
be significantly reduced.
  Six hundred sixty-seven thousand trees in the basin are now flooded 
and will probably die within the next year.
  Tribal roads and facilities have also been flood damaged. Tribal 
authorities report that their manufacturing (Dakotah Tribal Industries, 
Sioux Manufacturing) has declined in an area where unemployment is 
about 60 percent.


         we desperately need relief from this natural disaster

  The Corps of Engineers in association with the Bureau of Reclamation 
plus other Federal and State agencies is investigating the feasibility 
of solutions to perennial flooding in the Devils Lake basin. Among the 
potential solutions, there are expected to be an outlet from the basin 
to relieve the flooding and an inlet to stabilize the lake level during 
periods of drought.
  The outlet would allow basin water to reach the Red River and 
eventually the Hudson Bay in Canada. Some Canadian officials are 
concerned that releasing water from the Devils Lake basin could 
potentially allow the introduction of foreign biota and higher levels 
of dissolved solids to their vital waters. The Boundary Waters Treaty 
of 1909 between the United States and Canada states, in part, that ``. 
. . water flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either 
side to the injury of health or property on the other.'' It is implicit 
from our treaty obligations that the governments involved in this issue 
should commence technical discussions.
  I urge my colleagues to approve this ``no additional cost'' amendment 
to establish a joint United States-Canadian technical committee for the 
review of the Devils lake emergency outlet project. I understand that 
this amendment has been cleared on both sides, and I thank the 
chairman, Senator Cochran, and the ranking member, Senator Bumpers, for 
their support and cooperation.


                           amendment no. 2701

(Purpose: To fund the Grain Marketing Research Laboratory in Manhattan, 
                                Kansas)

       On page 13, line 23, insert the following after ``law'': 
     ``: Provided further, That of the funds made available under 
     this heading for the National Center for Agricultural 
     Utilization Research, not less than $1,000,000 shall be 
     available for the Grain Marketing Research Laboratory in 
     Manhattan, Kansas''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2702

    (Purpose: To eliminate certain unnecessary advisory committees)

       At the appropriate place in title VII, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 7  . ELIMINATION OF UNNECESSARY ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

       (a) Swine Health Advisory Committee.--Section 11 of the 
     Swine Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 3810) is repealed.
       (b) Global Climate Change Technical Advisory Committee.--
     Section 2404 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and 
     Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 6703) is repealed.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2703

       On page 84, line 1, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 730. Upon the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of Agriculture shall immediately withdraw Federal 
     regulation 36 CFR Part 223 promulgated on September 8, 1995, 
     for a period of no less than 120 days; provided that during 
     such time the Secretary shall take notice and public comment 
     on the regulations and make the necessary revisions to 
     reflect public comment. Any fines assessed pursuant to 36 CFR 
     Part 223, from the effective date of said regulation to the 
     date of enactment of this Act, shall be null and void. During 
     the 120 day period, the interim regulatory guidelines 
     published pursuant to 55 CFR 48572 and 56 CFR 65834 shall 
     remain in effect.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I offer an amendment to the fiscal 
year 1996 Agriculture Appropriations bill that would delay final 
regulations implementing the 1990 Forest Resources Conservation and 
Shortage Relief Act. This act governs the export of State and Federal 
logs in the Western United States.
  Since 1990 the timber industry in the States of Washington, Oregon, 
Idaho and Montana has operated under interim regulations promulgated to 
enforce the 1990 law. The legislation is very complicated, and sets up 
a series of requirements for companies that wish to export State or 
Federal logs. Consequently, the regulations implementing the law must 
be very precise, and an entire industry--for the most part--must react 
to any regulations on this subject with painstaking attention to the 
details.
  On Friday, September 8, the Department of Agriculture implemented--
effective immediately--final regulations implementing the 1990 log 
export law. Let me say this again--the regulations were made effective 
immediately. The final regulations were dramatically different than the 
regulations as initially proposed, and, as a result completely and 
totally overwhelmed the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest.
  The regulations are overly burdensome, and must be re-written. Let me 
give you a brief example of the specificity of these regulations, and 
why any rational person would not make the effective date immediate on 
the regulations.
  For example, the regulation establishes a procedure for exporting 
finished lumber. When a company exports lumber, the new regulations 
require that company to keep in its possession for each shipment or 
order, a lumber inspection certificate, and a company certificate to 
ensure that export restricted timber is in fact processed before 
export.
  The regulation establishes a procedure for marking Federal and 
private timber that originates from within a sourcing area. All private 
timber that is harvested inside a sourcing area must be marked on both 
ends of the log with highway yellow paint, before it can be removed 
from the harvest area. This paint signifies that the logs must be 
domestically processed. Based upon the industry reading of the 
regulation, this provision appears to apply to logs that will be 
processed in the company's own mill. The log must be marked throughout 
the entire process, from harvest to ``mill in-feed,'' no matter how 
many times it has been cut.
  The regulation establishes a procedure for disposing of private 
timber that originates from within a sourcing area. The regulations 
mandate a complex procedure of identification, notice, paperwork and 
record keeping process. The process is as follows:
  Before a company sells any export restricted private timber, that is, 
private timber that originates from within a sourcing area, the selling 
company must do the following: Give notice to the purchaser that the 
timber cannot be exported; give notice that the timber has been marked 
and the mark must be retained; agree to send in the transaction 
statement to the Regional Forester within 10 calendar days; retain 
records of acquisition and disposition for 3 years from the date of 
manufacture or disposition, and make such records available for 
inspection by the Forest Service; acknowledge that failure to identify 
the timber as mentioned above and to accurately report is a violation 
of the act, and the ``False Statement Act''; certify that the form has 
been read and understood. The purchasing company is required to follow 
a similar set of requirements.
  As you can tell, the regulations are specific, and would require some 
major adjustments to current operating practices. When this is coupled 
with the fact that a violation of each aspect of the regulation carries 
with it a potentially heavy fine, it is clear that these regulations 
must be delayed.
  According to the regulations, fines can be assessed for each 
violation--which includes the omission of just one paint stripe on a 
log. In addition, civil penalties are high--the Forest Service has the 
discretion, based upon the nature of the violation, to assess penalties 
of up to $500,000 or three times the gross value of the timber 
involved, 

[[Page S13839]]
plus the option to cancel all Federal timber contracts.
  This Senator believes that a regulated entity--whether it's a small 
business or a big business--deserves to understand a set of regulations 
before it is implemented. This is just common sense. To do the 
opposite, as was done in this case--to blind-side an industry with 
draconian regulations that have never been reviewed by the regulated 
community--certainly fans the flame of anti-government sentiment.
  My amendment, co-sponsored by Senator Murray and Senator Burns, would 
delay the regulations for 120 days. During that 120-day period the 
regulations issued on September 8 would be treated as proposed 
regulations, affected parties would have the opportunity to comment on 
the regulations, and the Department is required to make the necessary 
revisions based upon such comments. During this 120 day period, the 
interim regulations would remain in place, and any fines assessed based 
upon the September 8 regulations would be null and void.
  This amendment is not controversial. This amendment makes common 
sense, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.


                           amendment no. 2704

       On page 25, line 14, strike $564,685,000 and insert 
     $563,004,000.
       On page 37, line 8, strike $1,000,000 and insert 
     $2,681,000.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2705

  (Purpose: To clarify that tourist and other recreational businesses 
  located in rural communities are eligible for loans under the Rural 
 Business and Cooperative Development Service's Business and Industry 
                        Loan Guarantee Program)

       On page 44, line 16, before the period insert the 
     following: ``Provided further, That loan guarantees for 
     business and industry assistance funded under this heading 
     shall be made available to tourist or other recreational 
     businesses in rural communities''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 2706

       On page 14, strike on line 12, ``40,670,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof, ``42,670,000''.
       On page 15, strike on line 17, ``$419,622,000'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``$421,622,000''.
       On page 82, reduce ``$800,000,000'' by $4,444,000.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the managers for accepting this 
amendment. It is my intention, and our understanding, that the 
additional funds included by this amendment, will be used to find the 
President's request submitted by the Department of Agriculture on page 
9-32 of the fiscal year 1996 budget request of the Department of 
Agriculture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendments en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 2700 through 2706) were agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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.
  Mrs. BOXER. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service recently issued a proposed rule governing the 
importation of Mexican Hass avocados into the United States. The 
proposed rule would allow Hass avocados to be imported into the 
Northeastern United States during the winter months of November through 
February.
  I support the House report language concerning the Department of 
Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service proposed rule 
on the importation of Mexican avocados.
  The House Committee report language, although not a permanent 
solution, adequately cautions the USDA to ensure scientific credibility 
on pest risk assessment and risk management, ensure that the USDA will 
commit the resources necessary to ensure sufficient oversight, 
inspection, and enforcement of any importation system which may result, 
and ensure that the avocado industry is provided the opportunity to 
give input on any proposed regulatory changes.
  California avocado growers have expressed their continued concerns 
that a USDA proposed rule inadequately protects their industry from 
harmful pests or disease that imported avocados may carry.
  I am very concerned about the potential impact of the proposed rule 
on avocado growers in California. There are about 7,300 avocado growers 
in the United States, 6,000 of whom are in California. On average, 
these hard-working farmers produce about 300 million pounds of avocados 
a year, and last year they produced $250 million worth of fruit.
  But this proposed rule is not just about the avocado industry. It is 
about pests that threaten the $18 billion a year California 
agricultural industry: an industry that generates $70 billion a year in 
economic activity. California's agricultural industry is primarily 
export-driven, and even the hint of pest infestation threatens trade, 
as we have recently seen with Japan and the medfly threat.
  The State of California and the Federal Government have spent more 
than $217 million since 1980 to combat periodic fruit fly infestations. 
Even with this significant commitment of resources, certain 
Mediterranean fruit fly eradication efforts remain under-researched and 
under-funded. The 34 pests that APHIS claims are commonly found in 
avocados grown in Mexico could devastate California agriculture. Many 
pests found in Mexico infest citrus, grapes, apples, and other 
agricultrual products.
  California avocado growers are very concerned that APHIS lacks the 
resources to enforce the phytosanitary restrictions in the proposed 
rule. I share their concern. APHIS states in the proposed rule that it 
``agrees that adequate resources and personnel, especially inspectors, 
would have to be devoted to prevent introduction of avocado and other 
plant pests into the United States.''
  The Agriculture Quarantine and Inspection budget is primarily user-
fee funded. Funds are kept in a dedicated account and are subject to 
annual appropriations. Although the budget is not slated for cuts in 
the fiscal year 1996 agriculture appropriations bill, the question 
remains whether it is realistic to assume that the current funding 
level is sufficient to cover the additional needs created by this 
proposed rule. For example, the transhipment of Hass avocados within 
the United States will be very difficult to control without an 
aggressive monitoring program.
  Since 1914, it has been the policy of the United States to prohibit 
the entry of fresh avocados with seeds from Mexico and certain other 
countries of Central and South America. This quarantine, although 
specifically directed at seed weevils and moths, has also proven 
effective in preventing infestation of fruit flies, and other pests 
found in Mexican avocados which would adversely impact not only U.S. 
avocado production but numerous other fruit and vegetable crops in 
California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, and other States. I believe that 
current policy should continue until all of the legitimate concerns of 
the avocado industry are addressed.
  Our quarantine against Mexican avocados is not unique. It is 
important to remember that pest-free fresh avocados enter the United 
States from other countries, such as Chile, which also prohibits entry 
of Mexican avocados due to pest risks.
  Mexico has yet to implement an effective pest eradication or control 
program. As recently as July 1993, USDA officials concluded that 
Mexican avocados continue to pose a significant threat of introducing 
plant pests into the United States. Although the proposed rule details 
safeguards to be taken by Mexican growers and packers as well as strict 
oversight by APHIS, there is still no evidence that effective pest 
control and eradication programs have been developed and implemented by 
Mexico.
  Unless Mexico implements a comprehensive and effective pest 
eradication and control program in its growing areas, USDA policy must 
ensure that the health of U.S. agriculture and consumers is not 
threatened.
  Unfortunately, in the Senate committee report language on Mexican 
avocados the Senate committee does not concur with the House language 
and says that the Department published regulations to address the 
concerns about the protection of domestic avocado production after 
House action on this issue. While it may be true that the proposed rule 
was published after House action, the rule does not sufficiently 
address concerns and would allow Hass avocados to be imported into the 
Northeastern United States 

[[Page S13840]]
during the winter months of November through February.
  I urge my colleagues to carefully reconsider this issue as they 
prepare to go to conference with the House, and urge them to defer to 
the House on this issue.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I request permission to engage the senior 
Senator from Maine and the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee in a brief colloquy. As the chairman knows, new fungicide-
resistant strains of the late blight potato fungus are causing serious 
damage to potato crops in a number of potato-growing States. Maine has 
been hit particularly hard by late blight over the past several years. 
To address this problem, the Congress provided $1.4 million for late 
blight control and research in Maine through extension in 1994, and it 
provided $800,000 for the Maine program in the current fiscal year 
through the Smith-Lever pest management funds. USDA officials have 
informed our offices that another $800,000 has been included in the 
President's budget for this purpose in fiscal year 1996 under pest 
management.
  Mr. COHEN. I fully concur with Senator Snowe that this funding is 
critical to helping potato growers in Maine and other States protect 
their crops from the devastation of late blight. We note that the 
committee has provided $10.9 million for pest management in its fiscal 
year 1996 bill, which is the same as the amount appropriated in the 
current fiscal year. Is it the chairman's understanding that the 
President's fiscal year 1996 budget request for this account includes 
$800,000 to continue this late blight control program in Maine?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I would like to point out that the 
committee recognizes the very serious threats to potato production 
posed by late blight, and the heavy damage that has been incurred to 
date in Maine and other States. In response to the Senators' question, 
I can confirm that the President's fiscal year 1996 budget request for 
pest management does include $800,000 to continue the late blight 
control program described by the Maine senators.
  Ms. SNOWE. On behalf of the Maine delegation, I would like to thank 
the Chairman for clarifying this matter.


                     agricultural research service

  Mr. CONRAD. As the Senator from Arkansas is aware, H.R. 1976 provides 
funding for the Agricultural Research Service to continue operating the 
ARS potato research facility in East Grand Forks, Minnesota, as an ARS 
worksite. Research direction and administration will be shifted to a 
primary ARS laboratory. The ARS Red River Valley Agricultural Research 
Center Northern Plains Area office in Fargo, North Dakota is located 
just 75 miles away, and is well equipped to handle administrative 
functions for the East Grand Forks facility. Is it the Senator's 
understanding that ARS should transfer the administrative 
responsibilities called for in this legislation to the Fargo ARS 
facility?
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator is correct. ARS should transfer 
administration of the East Grand Forks facility to the ARS research 
center in Fargo, North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Would the Chairman of the Subcommittee indicate whether 
he has the same understanding?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I do agree with the Senator regarding the Fargo ARS 
center.
  Mr. DORGAN. In addition, the bill contains funding for the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service to continue a cattail management 
program for blackbird control. Is it the Subcommittee's intention that 
APHIS should continue to use a portion of those funds for cattail 
management and blackbird control in North Dakota?
  Mr. BUMPERS. The Senator is correct. APHIS should continue using a 
portion of available funds to continue the cattail management program 
in North Dakota.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Let me add that I share Senator Bumpers' understanding.


               distance learning and medical link funding

  Mr. KERREY. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman for 
assistance in dealing with two matters that are very important to me 
and the people of Nebraska.
  The Distance Learning and Medical Link Program was designed to 
demonstrate the ability of rural communities to utilize existing or 
proposed telecommunications systems to achieve sustainable cost-
effective distance learning or proposed medical link networks.
  In Nebraska, there is a distance learning partnership between the 
School at the Center Project, the Nebraska Math and Science Initiative, 
Project EduPort and the Nebraska Rural Development Commission that 
would provide access to advanced telecommunications services and 
computer networks and improve rural opportunities.
  Another program designed to provide much needed technology to rural 
communities is the Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP). Included 
in RCAP is the Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program.
  The Nebraska Department of Economic Development operates a program 
for innovative information technology applications that assists small 
and rural Nebraska businesses in becoming more competitive through 
effective use of information technology and telecommunications.
  I feel that these are the types of projects contemplated under the 
Distance Learning and Medical Link Program and the Rural Business 
Enterprise Grant Program, and I would ask the chairman to join me in 
encouraging the Department to give consideration to funding both of 
these proposals.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The committee did urge the Department to give 
consideration to funding a number of applications for both of these 
programs. I appreciate the Senator bringing these proposals to my 
attention. I would urge the Department to give equal consideration to 
these applications as those included in the committee report.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I have been advised that Senator Heflin 
has two colloquies. These have not been submitted and will be submitted 
tomorrow.
  Mr. President, let me make this unanimous consent request: Following 
the final vote on the Bumpers amendment, that it be in order if the 
colloquy has been submitted at that time and accepted by the floor 
managers, that a colloquy by Senator Heflin and Senator Cochran be 
eligible to be submitted for the Record, and a Heflin colloquy with 
Senator Cochran on agricultural weather stations, that those two be in 
order to be inserted in the Record prior to final vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________