[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 108 (Monday, July 22, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8426-S8451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the agriculture appropriations bill.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3603) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1997, 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. 3603

       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, 
     1997, 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, $2,836,000: 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[: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be 
     used to detail an individual from an agency funded in this 
     Act to any Under Secretary office or Assistant Secretary 
     office for more than 30 days]: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds made available by this Act may be used to enforce 
     section 793(d) of Public Law 104-127.

                          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 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, $4,231,000.


                       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, $11,718,000.


                 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, $5,986,000.

                        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, $4,283,000: Provided, That the Chief Financial 
     Officer shall actively market cross-servicing activities of 
     the National Finance Center.

          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, $613,000.

        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, and for the operation, maintenance, and 
     repair of Agriculture buildings, $120,548,000: 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, 
     [$5,000,000], $25,587,000 to remain available until expended; 
     making a total appropriation of [$125,548,000] $146,135,000.

                       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 Departmental Administration, [$28,304,000] $30,529,000, 
     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: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, not less than $11,774,000 shall be made 
     available for civil rights enforcement.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations


                     (including transfers of funds)

       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, [$3,728,000] $3,668,000: 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: Provided further, That not less than 
     $2,241,000 shall be transferred to agencies funded in this 
     Act to maintain personnel at the agency level.

                        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, $8,138,000, 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


                     (including transfers of funds)

       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, 
     $63,028,000, 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 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 the Inspector General participates, or

[[Page S8427]]

     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, $27,749,000.

  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, 
     $540,000.

                       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, [$54,176,000] $53,109,000: 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, marketing surveys, 
     and the Census of Agriculture notwithstanding 13 U.S.C. 
     142(a-b), as authorized by the Agricultural Marketing Act of 
     1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) and other laws, [$100,221,000] 
     $98,121,000, of which up to $17,500,000 shall be available 
     until expended for the Census of Agriculture: 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

       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, [$702,831,000] 
     $721,758,000: 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 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.
       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, [$59,600,000] $59,200,000, 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 [$163,671,000] $168,734,000 to 
     carry into effect the provisions of the Hatch Act (7 U.S.C. 
     361a-361i); [$19,882,000] $20,497,000 for grants for 
     cooperative forestry research (16 U.S.C. 582a-582-a7); 
     [$26,902,000] $27,735,000 for payments to the 1890 land-grant 
     colleges, including Tuskegee University (7 U.S.C. 3222); 
     [$44,235,000] $46,068,000 for special grants for agricultural 
     research (7 U.S.C. 450i(c)); $11,769,000 for special grants 
     for agricultural research on improved pest control (7 U.S.C. 
     450i(c)); [$96,735,000] $93,935,000 for competitive research 
     grants (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)); [$4,775,000] $5,051,000 for the 
     support of animal health and disease programs (7 U.S.C. 
     3195); [$650,000] $500,000 for supplemental and alternative 
     crops and products (7 U.S.C. 3319d); [$500,000] $700,000 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); $3,000,000 for higher 
     education graduate fellowships grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(6)), 
     to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); 
     $4,000,000 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); [$2,000,000] $1,500,000 for 
     an education grants program for Hispanic-serving Institutions 
     (7 U.S.C. 3241); $4,000,000 for aquaculture grants (7 U.S.C. 
     3322); [$8,000,000] $8,100,000 for sustainable agriculture 
     research and education (7 U.S.C. 5811); $9,200,000 for a 
     program of capacity building grants (7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4)) to 
     colleges eligible to receive funds under the Act of August 
     30, 1890 (7 U.S.C. 321-326 and 328), including Tuskegee 
     University [7 U.S.C. 3152(b)(4),] to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b); $1,450,000 for payments to the 
     1994 Institutions pursuant to section 534(a)(1) of Public Law 
     103-382; and [$9,605,000] $10,644,000 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, 
     [$411,849,000] $418,358,000.
       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, 
     [$30,449,000] $55,668,000 (7 U.S.C. 390 et seq.), 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, [$260,438,000] $268,493,000; $2,500,000 
     for extension work at the 1994 Institutions under the Smith-
     Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 343(b)(3)); payments for the nutrition 
     and family education program for low-income areas under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, [$58,695,000] $60,510,000; payments 
     for the pest management program under section 3(d) of the 
     Act, $10,783,000; payments for the farm safety program under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, [$2,855,000] $2,943,000; payments 
     for the pesticide impact assessment program under section 
     3(d) of the Act, [$3,214,000] $3,313,000; 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), [$7,549,000] $7,782,000, to 
     remain available until expended; $1,700,000 for institutional 
     capacity building grants at the 1994 Institutions (7 U.S.C. 
     301 note), to remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 
     2209b); payments for the rural development centers under 
     section 3(d) of the Act, [$908,000] $936,000; payments for a 
     groundwater quality program under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     [$10,733,000] $11,065,000; payments for the agricultural 
     telecommunications program, as authorized by Public Law 101-
     624 (7 U.S.C. 5926), [$1,167,000] $1,203,000; payments for 
     youth-at-risk programs under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     [$9,554,000] $9,850,000; payments for a food safety program 
     under section 3(d) of the Act, [$2,365,000] $2,438,000; 
     payments for carrying out the provisions of the Renewable 
     Resources Extension Act of 1978, [$3,192,000] $3,291,000; 
     payments for Indian reservation agents under section 3(d) of 
     the Act, [$1,672,000] $1,724,000; payments for sustainable 
     agriculture programs under section 3(d) of the Act, 
     [$3,309,000] $3,411,000; payments for rural health and safety 
     education as authorized by section 2390 of Public Law 101-624 
     (7 U.S.C. 2661 note, 2662), [$2,628,000] $2,709,000; 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,

[[Page S8428]]

     [$24,337,000] $25,090,000; 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. 301 note), and to coordinate and provide 
     program leadership for the extension work of the Department 
     and the several States and insular possessions, [$6,271,000] 
     $11,331,000; in all, [$409,670,000] $431,072,000: 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, $618,000.

               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, [$435,428,000] 
     $432,103,000, of which [$4,500,000] $5,000,000 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 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 
     disease 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 1997 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.
       Of the total amount available under this heading in fiscal 
     year 1997, $98,000,000 shall be derived from user fees 
     deposited in the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection User Fee 
     Account.

                        buildings and facilities

       For plans, construction, repair, preventive maintenance, 
     environmental support, improvement, extension, alteration, 
     and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities, as authorized 
     by 7 U.S.C. 2250, and acquisition of land as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 428a, $3,200,000, 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, [$37,592,000] 
     $47,829,000, 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 $59,012,000 (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 $10,576,000 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.

                   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 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1623(b)), $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, $22,728,000: 
     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 service expenses

       Not to exceed $43,207,000 (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, $446,000.

                   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, [$574,000,000] $557,697,000, 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, $572,000.

                          Farm Service Agency

                         salaries and expenses


                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the administration 
     and implementation of

[[Page S8429]]

     programs administered by the Farm Service Agency, 
     [$746,440,000] $795,000,000: 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 $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.


                        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), $1,000,000, 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, $600,000,000, of 
     which $550,000,000 shall be for guaranteed loans; operating 
     loans, $2,345,071,000, 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, $1,000,000; for 
     emergency insured loans, [$25,000,000] $75,000,000 to meet 
     the needs resulting from natural disasters; for boll weevil 
     eradication program loans as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1989, 
     $15,384,000; and for credit sales of acquired property, 
     $25,000,000.
       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, $27,975,000, of which $22,055,000 shall be for 
     guaranteed loans; operating loans, $96,840,000, of which 
     $19,210,000 shall be for unsubsidized guaranteed loans and 
     $18,480,000 shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans; Indian 
     tribe land acquisition loans as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 488, 
     $54,000; for emergency insured loans, [$6,365,000] 
     $19,095,000 to meet the needs resulting from natural 
     disasters; for boll weevil eradication program loans as 
     authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1989, $2,000,000; and for credit sales 
     of acquired property, $2,530,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $221,046,000, of 
     which $208,446,000 shall be transferred to and merged with 
     the ``Farm Service Agency, Salaries and Expenses'' account.

                       [Office of Risk Management

       [For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized 
     by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
     (7 U.S.C. 6933), $62,198,000: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $700 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1506(i).]

                              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 1997, such sums as may be necessary to 
     reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized 
     losses sustained, but not previously reimbursed (estimated to 
     be $1,500,000,000 in the President's fiscal year 1997 Budget 
     Request (H. Doc. 104-162)), but not to exceed $1,500,000,000, 
     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 1997, 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, 
     $693,000.

                 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, [$619,392,000] $638,954,000, to 
     remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b), of which 
     not less than $5,835,000 is for snow survey and water 
     forecasting and not less than $8,825,000 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): Provided further, 
     That of the total amount appropriated, no more than $250,000 
     may be available for purposes authorized under sections 351-
     360 of Public Law 104-127.

                     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), [$10,762,000] $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

[[Page S8430]]

     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, 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, $101,036,000, to remain available until expended 
     (7 U.S.C. 2209b) (of which up to $15,000,000 may 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), the Act of April 27, 1935 
     (16 U.S.C. 590a-f), and the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 
     (16 U.S.C. 3451-3461), $29,377,000, to remain available until 
     expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b): 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.

                               TITLE III

           RURAL ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

       For necessary salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Under Secretary for Rural Development to administer programs 
     under the laws enacted by the Congress for the Rural Housing 
     Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural 
     Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture, $588,000.

                         Rural Housing Service


              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: $3,300,000,000 for 
     loans to section 502 borrowers, as determined by the 
     Secretary, of which $2,300,000,000 shall be for unsubsidized 
     guaranteed loans; $35,000,000 for section 504 housing repair 
     loans; $15,000,000 for section 514 farm labor housing; 
     $58,654,000 for section 515 rental housing; $600,000 for 
     section 524 site loans; $50,000,000 for credit sales of 
     acquired property; and $600,000 for section 523 self-help 
     housing land development loans.
       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, $89,210,000, of which $6,210,000 shall be for 
     unsubsidized guaranteed loans; section 504 housing repair 
     loans, $11,081,000; section 514 farm labor housing, 
     $6,885,000; section 515 rental housing, $28,987,000[: 
     Provided, That no funds for new construction for section 515 
     rental housing may be available for fiscal year 1997]; credit 
     sales of acquired property, $4,050,000; and section 523 self-
     help housing land development loans, $17,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct and guaranteed loan programs, $366,205,000, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation for ``Rural Housing 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 debt forgiveness or 
     payments for eligible households as authorized by section 
     502(c)(5)(D) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, 
     $493,870,000; 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 1997 shall be funded for a five-year 
     period, although the life of any such agreement may be 
     extended to fully utilize amounts obligated.

                  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), $26,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended (7 U.S.C. 2209b).


                    rural housing assistance program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, agreements, 
     and grants, as authorized by 7 U.S.C. 1926, 42 U.S.C. 1472, 
     1474, 1479, 1485, 1486, and 1490(a), except for sections 
     381E, 381H, 381N of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act, [$73,190,000] $136,435,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for direct loans and loan 
     guarantees for community facilities, community facilities 
     grant program, rental assistance associated with and direct 
     loans for new construction of section 515 rental housing, 
     rural housing for domestic farm labor grants, supervisory and 
     technical assistance grants, very low-income housing repair 
     grants, rural community fire protection grants, rural housing 
     preservation grants, and compensation for construction 
     defects of the Rural Housing Service: Provided, That the cost 
     of direct loans and loan guarantees shall be as defined in 
     section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as 
     amended: Provided further, That the amounts appropriated 
     shall be transferred to loan program and grant accounts as 
     determined by the Secretary[: Provided further, That no funds 
     for new construction relating to 515 rental housing may be 
     available for fiscal year 1997]: Provided further, That of 
     the funds made available in this paragraph not more than 
     $1,200,000 shall be available for the multi-family rural 
     housing loan guarantee program as authorized by section 5 of 
     Public Law 104-120: Provided further, That if such funds are 
     not obligated for multi-family rural housing loan guarantees 
     by June 30, 1997, they remain available for other authorized 
     purposes under this head: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $1,200,000 shall be 
     available for the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and 
     grants to be made 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, 
     1997, they remain available for other authorized purposes 
     under this head.

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Rural Housing 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, [$53,889,000] $66,354,000: 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 $520,000 may be used for 
     employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                   Rural Business-Cooperative Service


              rural development loan fund program account

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For the cost of direct loans, [$18,400,000] $17,270,000, 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 [$40,000,000] 
     $37,544,000: Provided further, That through June 30, 1997, of 
     the total amount appropriated $3,345,000 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, 
     $7,246,000.

            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, $2,830,000. In addition, 
     for administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct 
     loan program, $654,000, 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), [$6,000,000] $10,000,000 is appropriated 
     to the alternative agricultural research and 
     commercialization revolving fund.

[[Page S8431]]

             rural business--cooperative assistance 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, except for 
     381E, 381H, 381N of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act, [$51,400,000] $53,750,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for direct loans and loan 
     guarantees for business and industry assistance, rural 
     business grants, rural cooperative development grants, and 
     rural business opportunity grants of the Rural Business--
     Cooperative Service: Provided, That the cost of direct loans 
     and loan guarantees shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided 
     further, That $500,000 shall be available for grants to 
     qualified nonprofit organizations as authorized under section 
     310B(c)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 1932): Provided further, That the amounts 
     appropriated shall be transferred to loan program and grant 
     accounts as determined by the Secretary: Provided further, 
     That, of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed 
     $3,000,000 shall be available for cooperative development: 
     Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated, not 
     to exceed $1,300,000 may be available through a cooperative 
     agreement for the appropriate technology transfer for rural 
     areas program: Provided further, That, of the total amount 
     appropriated, not to exceed $148,000 shall be available for 
     the cost of direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to be 
     made available for business and industry loans for 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities as authorized by 
     Public Law 103-66 and rural development loans for empowerment 
     zones and enterprise communities as authorized by title XIII 
     of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993: Provided 
     further, That if such funds are not obligated for empowerment 
     zones and enterprise communities by June 30, 1997, they 
     remain available for other authorized purposes under this 
     head.

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Rural Business-Cooperative 
     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; $25,680,000: 
     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 $260,000 may be used 
     for employment under 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                        Rural Utilities Service

   rural electrification and telecommunications 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, $125,000,000, 5 percent rural 
     telecommunications loans, $75,000,000; cost of money rural 
     telecommunications loans, $300,000,000; municipal rate rural 
     electric loans, $525,000,000; and loans made pursuant to 
     section 306 of that Act, rural electric, $300,000,000, and 
     rural telecommunications, $120,000,000, 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, $4,818,000; cost of 
     municipal rate loans, $28,245,000; cost of money rural 
     telecommunications loans, $60,000; cost of loans guaranteed 
     pursuant to section 306, $2,790,000: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 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, 
     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 1997 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), 
     $2,328,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the loan programs, $3,500,000.

               distance learning and medical link program

       For the cost of direct loans and grants, as authorized by 7 
     U.S.C. 950aaa et seq., as amended, [$7,500,000] $10,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, to be available for loans 
     and grants for telemedicine and distance learning services in 
     rural areas: Provided, That the costs of direct loans shall 
     be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974.


                   rural utilities assistance 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, except for 
     381E, 381H, 381N of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act, [$496,868,000] $657,942,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for direct loans and loan 
     guarantees and grants for rural water and waste disposal, and 
     solid waste management grants of the Rural Utilities Service: 
     Provided, That the cost of direct loans and loan guarantees 
     shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974, as amended: Provided further, That the 
     amounts appropriated shall be transferred to loan program and 
     grant accounts as determined by the Secretary: Provided 
     further, That, through June 30, 1997, of the total amount 
     appropriated, $18,700,000 shall be available for the costs of 
     direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to be made 
     available for empowerment zones and enterprise communities, 
     as authorized by Public Law 103-66: Provided further, That, 
     of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed $18,700,000 
     shall be for water and waste disposal systems to benefit the 
     Colonias along the United States/Mexico border, including 
     grants pursuant to section 306C of the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act, as amended: Provided further, That, of 
     the total amount appropriated, not to exceed [$5,000,000] 
     $5,400,000 shall be available for contracting with qualified 
     national organizations for a circuit rider program to provide 
     technical assistance for rural water systems: Provided 
     further, That an amount not less than that available in 
     fiscal year 1996 be set aside and made available for ongoing 
     technical assistance under sections 306(a)(14) (7 U.S.C. 
     1926) and 310(B)(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932).


                         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, and cooperative 
     agreements, $33,195,000: 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 $105,000 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, [$454,000] $554,000.


                        child nutrition programs

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751-1769b), except section 21, and the 
     Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772-1785, and 1789); 
     except sections 17 and 19; [$8,652,597,000] $8,654,797,000, 
     to remain available through September 30, 1998, of which 
     [$3,218,844,000] $3,221,044,000 is hereby appropriated and 
     $5,433,753,000 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 none of the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be used for new studies 
     and evaluations]: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000,000 of 
     the funds made available under this heading shall be used for 
     studies and evaluations: Provided further, That up to 
     $4,031,000 shall be available for independent verification of 
     school food service claims.


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

       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, 
     1998: Provided, That none of the funds made available under 
     this heading may be used to begin more than two studies and 
     evaluations: 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, of the total amount of fiscal year 
     1996 carryover funds that cannot be spent in fiscal year 
     1997, any funds in excess of $100,000,000 may be transferred 
     by the Secretary to other programs in the Department of 
     Agriculture, excluding the Forest Service, with prior 
     notification to the House and Senate Appropriations 
     Committees]: Provided further, That once the amount for 
     fiscal year 1996 carryover funds has been determined by the 
     Secretary, any funds in excess of $100,000,000 may be 
     transferred by the Secretary of Agriculture to any loan 
     program of the Department and/or to make available up to 
     $10,000,000 for the WIC farmers' market nutrition program: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available to pay administrative expenses of WIC clinics

[[Page S8432]]

     except those that have an announced policy of prohibiting 
     smoking within the space used to carry out the program: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this 
     account 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): Provided 
     further, That State agencies required to procure infant 
     formula using a competitive bidding system may use funds 
     appropriated by this Act to purchase infant formula under a 
     cost containment contract entered into after September 30, 
     1996 only if the contract was awarded to the bidder offering 
     the lowest net price, as defined by section 17(b)(20) of the 
     Child Nutrition Act of 1966, unless the State agency 
     demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the 
     weighted average retail price for different brands of infant 
     formula in the State does not vary by more than five percent.

                           food stamp program

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Food Stamp Act (7 
     U.S.C. [2011-2029] 2011 et seq.), [$27,615,029,000] 
     $28,521,029,000: Provided, That funds provided herein shall 
     remain available through September 30, 1997, in accordance 
     with section 18(a) of the Food Stamp Act: Provided further, 
     That [$100,000,000] $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 none of the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be used for new studies 
     and evaluations]: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $6,000,000 of the funds made available under this heading 
     shall be used for studies and evaluations: 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 $1,174,000,000 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)), the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, as 
     amended, and section 110 of the Hunger Prevention Act of 
     1988, $166,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 
     1998: Provided, That none of these funds shall be available 
     to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for commodities 
     donated to the 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)), [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), [$205,000,000] 
     $141,250,000, to remain available through September 30, 1998.

                      food program administration

       For necessary administrative expenses of the domestic food 
     programs funded under this Act, [$104,487,000] $107,769,000, 
     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: 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 and General Sales Manager


                     (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), [$128,005,000] $138,561,000, of which 
     [$2,792,000] $3,231,000 may be transferred from the Export 
     Loan Program account in this Act, and [$1,005,000] $1,035,000 
     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)[: Provided further, That funds provided for 
     foreign market development to trade associations, 
     cooperatives and small businesses shall be allocated only 
     after a competitive bidding process to target funds to those 
     entities most likely to generate additional U.S. exports as a 
     result of the expenditure].
       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) 
     [$216,400,000] $218,944,000 for Public Law 480 title I 
     credit, including Food for Progress programs; (2) $13,905,000 
     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) $837,000,000 is hereby appropriated for 
     commodities supplied in connection with dispositions abroad 
     pursuant to title II of said Act; and (4) [$29,500,000] 
     $40,000,000 is hereby appropriated for commodities supplied 
     in connection with dispositions abroad pursuant to title III 
     of said Act: 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, [$177,000,000] 
     $179,082,000.
       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] 
     $1,818,000.

       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] $3,820,000; 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] $3,231,000 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 Farm 
     Service Agency.


                             export credit

       The Commodity Credit Corporation shall make available not 
     less than $5,500,000,000 in credit guarantees under its 
     export credit guarantee program extended to finance the 
     export sales of United States agricultural commodities and 
     the products thereof, as authorized by section 202 (a) and 
     (b) of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5641).

                                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; $907,499,000, of which 
     not to exceed $87,528,000 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 1997 shall be subject to the fiscal year 1997 
     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.
       In addition, fees pursuant to section 801 of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act may be credited to this account, 
     to remain available until expended.
       [None of the funds appropriated or made available to the 
     Federal Food and Drug Administration shall be used to 
     implement any rule finalizing the August 25, 1995 proposed 
     rule entitled ``The Prescription Drug Product Labeling; 
     Medication Guide Requirements,'' except as to any specific 
     drug or biological product where the FDA determines that 
     without approved patient information there would be a serious 
     and significant public health risk.]

                           General Provisions

       Section 601. Effective Medication Guides.--
       (a) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services shall request that national 
     organizations representing health care professionals, 
     consumer

[[Page S8433]]

     organizations, voluntary health agencies, the pharmaceutical 
     industry, drug wholesalers, patient drug information database 
     companies, and other relevant parties collaborate to develop 
     a long-range comprehensive action plan to achieve goals 
     consistent with the goals of the proposed rule of the Food 
     and Drug Administration on ``Prescription Drug Product 
     Labeling: Medication Guide Requirements'' (60 Fed. Reg. 
     44182; relating to the provision of oral and written 
     prescription information to consumers).
       (b) Plan.--The plan described in subsection (a) shall--
       (1) identify the plan goals;
       (2) assess the effectiveness of the current private-sector 
     approaches used to provide oral and written prescription 
     information to consumers;
       (3) develop guidelines for providing effective oral and 
     written prescription information consistent with the findings 
     of any such assessment;
       (4) develop a mechanism to assess periodically the quality 
     of the oral and written prescription information and the 
     frequency with which the information is provided to 
     consumers; and
       (5) provide for compliance with relevant State board 
     regulations.
       (c) Limitation on the authority of the secretary.--The 
     Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services 
     shall have no authority to implement the proposed rule 
     described in subsection (a), or to develop any similar 
     regulation, policy statement, or other guideline specifying a 
     uniform content or format for written information voluntarily 
     provided to consumers about prescription drugs if, not later 
     than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     national organizations described in subsection (a) develop 
     and begin to implement a comprehensive, long-range action 
     plan (as described in subsection (a)) regarding the provision 
     of oral and written prescription information.
       (d) Secretary review.--Not later than January 1, 2001, the 
     Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services 
     shall review the status of private-sector initiatives 
     designed to achieve the goals of the plan described in 
     subsection (a), and if such goals are not achieved, the 
     limitation in subsection (c) shall not apply, and the 
     Secretary shall seek public comment on other initiatives that 
     may be carried out to meet such goals. The Secretary shall 
     not delegate such review authority to the Commissioner of the 
     Food and Drug Administration.
       Sec. 602. Section 3 of the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act 
     (21 U.S.C 348 nt.) is amended by striking out ``May 1, 1997'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``May 1, [2002] 1998''.
       Sec. 603. Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act.--
       (a) Imports for export.--Section 801(d)(3) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is amended--
       (1) by striking ``accessory of a device which is ready'' 
     and inserting ``accessory of a device, or other article of 
     device requiring further processing, which is ready'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``is intended to be'' 
     and inserting ``is intended to be further processed by the 
     initial owner or consignee, or''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (C)--
       (A) by striking ``part,'' and inserting ``part, article,''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``incorporated'' and inserting 
     ``incorporated or further processed''.
       (b) Labeling of exported drugs.--Section 801(f) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``If a drug'' and 
     inserting ``If a drug (other than insulin, an antibiotic 
     drug, an animal drug, or a drug exported under section 
     802)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following 
     new sentence: ``A drug exported under section 802 is exempt 
     from this section.''.
       (c) Export of certain unapproved drugs and devices.--
     Section 802(f)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     is amended by striking ``if the drug or device is not 
     labeled'' and inserting ``if the labeling of the drug or 
     device is not''.

                        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, $21,350,000, 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 $10,290,000.

                          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; [$55,101,000] 
     $56,601,000, 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 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


                 [limitation on administrative expenses

       [Not to exceed $37,478,000 (from assessments collected from 
     farm credit institutions and from the Federal Agricultural 
     Mortgage Corporation) shall be obligated during the current 
     fiscal year for administrative expenses as authorized under 
     12 U.S.C. 2249.]

                     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 1997 under this Act shall be 
     available for the purchase, in addition to those specifically 
     provided for, of not to exceed 667 passenger motor vehicles, 
     of which 643 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 (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, fruit fly program, and integrated 
     systems acquisition project; 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 1996 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

[[Page S8434]]

     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. 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 1997 shall remain available until expended to 
     cover obligations made in fiscal year 1997 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 
     1997 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 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 and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
     Service may use cooperative agreements to reflect a 
     relationship between Agricultural Marketing Service or the 
     Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and a State or 
     Cooperator to carry out agricultural marketing programs or to 
     carry out programs to protect the Nation's animal and plant 
     resources.
       Sec. 718. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     retire more than 5% of the Class A stock of the Rural 
     Telephone Bank or to maintain any account or subaccount 
     within the accounting records of the Rural Telephone Bank the 
     creation of which has not specifically been authorized by 
     statute: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used to transfer to the Treasury 
     or to the Federal Financing Bank any unobligated balance of 
     the Rural Telephone Bank telephone liquidating account which 
     is in excess of current requirements and such balance shall 
     receive interest as set forth for financial accounts in 
     section 505(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
       Sec. 719. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to provide food stamp 
     benefits to households whose benefits are calculated using a 
     standard deduction greater than the standard deduction in 
     effect for fiscal year 1995.
       Sec. 720. 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/market access 
     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. 721. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to enroll in excess of 
     130,000 acres in the fiscal year 1997 wetlands reserve 
     program, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3837.
       Sec. 722. Of the funds made available by this Act, not more 
     than $1,000,000 shall be used to cover necessary expenses of 
     activities related to all advisory committees, panels, 
     commissions, and task forces of the Department of Agriculture 
     except for panels used to comply with negotiated rule makings 
     and panels used to evaluate competitively awarded grants.
       Sec. 723. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel who carry out an export enhancement 
     program if the aggregate amount of funds and/or commodities 
     under such program exceeds $100,000,000.
       [Sec. 724. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel who carry out a farmland protection 
     program in excess of $2,000,000 authorized by section 388 of 
     Public Law 104-127.
       [Sec. 725. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel who carry out a wildlife habitat 
     incentives program authorized by section 387 of Public Law 
     104-127.
       [Sec. 726. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to pay the salaries and 
     expenses of personnel who carry out a conservation farm 
     option program in excess of $2,000,000 authorized by section 
     335 of Public Law 104-127.]
       Sec. 727. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay the salaries of employees of the Department of 
     Agriculture who make payments pursuant to a production 
     flexibility contract entered into under section 111 of the 
     Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
     (Public Law 104-127; 7 U.S.C. 7211) when it is made known to 
     the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend 
     such funds that the land covered by that production 
     flexibility contract is not being [used for the production of 
     an agricultural commodity] or is not devoted to a conserving 
     use, unless it is also made known to that Federal official 
     that the lack of agricultural production or the lack of a 
     conserving use is a consequence of drought, flood, or other 
     natural disaster] used for an agricultural or related 
     activity, including conserving use, as determined by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 728. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to extend any existing or 
     expiring contract in the Conservation Reserve Program 
     authorized by 16 U.S.C. 3831-3845.
       [Sec. 729. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to maintain the price of raw cane sugar (as reported 
     for an appropriate preceding month for applicable sugar 
     futures contracts of the Coffee, Sugar, and Cocoa Exchange, 
     New York) at more than 117\1/2\ percent of the statutory loan 
     rate under section 158 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement 
     and Reform Act (title 1 of Public Law 104-127).]
       Sec. 730. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to carry out the provisions of section 918 of Public Law 
     104-127, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act.
       [Sec. 731. (a) In General.--Any owner on the date of 
     enactment of this Act of the right to market a nonsteroidal 
     anti-inflammatory drug that--
       [(1) contains a patented active agent;
       [(2) has been reviewed by the Federal Food and Drug 
     Administration for a period of more than 96 months as a new 
     drug application; and
       [(3) was approved as safe and effective by the Federal Food 
     and Drug Administration on January 31, 1991, shall be 
     entitled, for the 2-year period beginning on February 28, 
     1997, to exclude others from making, using, offering for 
     sale, selling, or importing into the United States such 
     active agent, in accordance with section 154(a)(1) of title 
     35, United States Code.
       [(b) Infringement.--Section 271 of title 35, United States 
     Code shall apply to the infringement of the entitlement 
     provide under subsection (a).
       [(c) Notification.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this section, any owner granted an 
     entitlement under subsection (a) shall notify the 
     Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and the Secretary for 
     Health and Human Services of such entitlement. Not later than 
     7 days after the receipt of such notice, the Commission and 
     the Secretary shall publish an appropriate notice of the 
     receipt of such notice.]
       Sec. 732. [Funds] Hereafter, funds appropriated to the 
     Department of Agriculture may be used for incidental expenses 
     such as transportation, uniforms, lodging, and subsistence 
     for volunteers serving under the authority of 7 U.S.C. 2272, 
     when such volunteers are engaged in the work of the U.S. 
     Department of Agriculture; and for promotional items of 
     nominal value relating to the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
     Volunteer Programs.
       [Sec. 733. It is the sense of Congress that, not later than 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture should--
       [(1) release a detailed plan for compensating wheat farmers 
     and handlers adversely affected by the karnal bunt quarantine 
     in Riverside and Imperial Counties of California, which 
     should include--
       [(A) an explanation of the factors to be used to determine 
     the compensation amount for wheat farmers and handlers, 
     including

[[Page S8435]]

     how contract and spot market prices will be handled; and
       [(B) compensation for farmers who have crops positive for 
     karnal bunt and compensation for farmers who have crops which 
     are negative for karnal bunt, but which cannot go to market 
     due to the lack of Department action on matching restrictions 
     on the negative wheat with the latest risk assessments; and
       [(2) review the risk assessments developed by the 
     University of California at Riverside and submit a report to 
     Congress describing how these risk assessments will impact 
     the Department of Agriculture policy on the quarantine area 
     for the 1997 wheat crop.]
       Sec. 734. Not to exceed 10 percent of the amounts 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act for the 
     Rural Housing Assistance Program, the Rural Business-
     Cooperative Assistance Program, and the Rural Utilities 
     Assistance Program may be transferred between these programs 
     for authorized purposes.
       Sec. 735. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of Agriculture by this Act may be 
     used to detail or assign an individual from an agency or 
     office funded in this Act to any other agency or office for 
     more than 60 days, unless the Secretary provides notification 
     to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that an 
     employee detail or assignment in excess of 60 days is 
     required.
       Sec. 736. Section 747(e) of the Federal Agriculture 
     Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 is amended by inserting, 
     ``effective October 1, 1996'' following ``The Secretary shall 
     make grants'' in Section 747(e)(2).
       Sec. 737. Labeling of Raw Poultry Products.--
       (a) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to implement or enforce the 
     final rule related to the labeling of raw poultry products 
     promulgated by the Food Safety and Inspection Service on 
     August 25, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 44395), and the final rule 
     shall not be effective during fiscal year 1997.
       (b) Final rule.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     issue a revised final rule related to the labeling of raw 
     poultry products that--
       (1) maintains the standard that the term ``fresh'' may be 
     used only for raw poultry products the internal core 
     temperature of which has not fallen below 26 deg. Fahrenheit;
       (2) deletes the requirement that poultry products the 
     internal core temperature of which has ever been less than 
     26 deg. Fahrenheit, but more than 0 deg. Fahrenheit, be 
     labeled as ``hard chilled'' or ``previously hard chilled'', 
     except that--
       (A) the products shall be prohibited under the rule from 
     being labeled as ``fresh'' but shall not be required to bear 
     any specific alternative labeling; and
       (B) nothing in this section shall be interpreted as 
     modifying the requirements for labeling of all poultry 
     products the internal core temperature of which has ever 
     fallen to 0 deg. Fahrenheit as ``frozen'';
       (3) provides for a tolerance from the 26 deg. Fahrenheit 
     standard established by the rule of--
       (A) 1 deg. Fahrenheit for poultry products within an 
     official processing establishment;
       (B) 2 deg. Fahrenheit for poultry products in commerce;
       (4) exempts from temperature testing wings, tenders, 
     hearts, livers, gizzards, necks, and products that undergo 
     special processing, such as sliced poultry products; and
       (5) in all other terms and conditions (including the period 
     of time permitted for implementation) is substantively 
     identical to the rule referred to in subsection (a).
       (c) Revised labeling standards.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the issuance of a revised final rule under subsection 
     (b), the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, 
     shall issue a compliance directive for the enforcement of the 
     revised labeling standards established by the rule, including 
     standards for--
       (1) temperature testing that are based on measurements at 
     the center of the deepest muscle; and
       (2) sampling methods that ensure that the average of 
     individual temperatures within poultry product lots of each 
     specific product type (such as whole birds, whole muscle leg 
     products, and whole muscle breast products) meet the 
     standards.
       (d) Severability.--If any provision of this section or the 
     application thereof to any person or circumstance is held 
     invalid, the validity of the remainder of this section and of 
     the application of the provision to any other persons or 
     circumstances shall not be affected.
       Sec. 738. Section 7 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2016) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Electronic Benefit Transfers.--
       ``(1) Definition of electronic benefit transfer system.--In 
     this subsection, the term `electronic benefit transfer 
     system' means a system under which a governmental entity 
     distributes benefits pursuant to this Act by establishing an 
     account that may be accessed electronically by a recipient of 
     the benefits or payments.
       ``(2) Applicable law.--Disclosures, protections, 
     responsibilities, and remedies established by the Federal 
     Reserve Board under section 904 of the Electronic Fund 
     Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1692b) shall not apply to benefits 
     under this Act delivered through any electronic benefit 
     transfer system.
       ``(3) Replacement of benefits.--Regulations issued by the 
     Secretary regarding the replacement of benefits and liability 
     for replacement of benefits under an electronic benefit 
     transfer system shall be similar to the regulations in effect 
     for a paper-based food stamp issuance system.''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to present to the Senate 
today the bill making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture 
and related agencies for the fiscal year 1997. This bill provides 
funding for all of the activities under the jurisdiction of the 
Department of Agriculture, except for the U.S. Forest Service. It also 
funds the activities of the Food and Drug Administration, the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission, and pays for expenses and payments of the 
Farm Credit System.
  This bill recommends total new budget authority of $54.3 billion. 
This is $9 billion less than the 1996 enacted level for these programs 
and these activities. It is $4 billion less than the President's fiscal 
year 1997 budget request. It is $1.2 billion more than the level 
recommended by the House.
  Over 76 percent of the total to be spent under this bill will go for 
funding of the Nation's domestic food assistance programs. That 
represents $40.5 billion of this $54.3 billion bill. This is up from 63 
percent of the total funding in the bill in 1996. These programs 
include food stamps, the national school lunch and elderly feeding 
programs, and the supplemental feeding program for women, infants and 
children.
  The bill recommends total discretionary spending of $13.118 billion 
in budget authority and $13.409 billion in outlays for fiscal year 
1997. These amounts are consistent with the allocation the subcommittee 
has received under the Budget Act.
  Senators should also be aware these allocations are approximately 
$510 million in budget authority and $440 million in outlays less than 
what would be required under a freeze. The suggestion this year, for 
those who are following the budget debate, was that spending under the 
discretionary programs of the Federal Government ought to be held level 
with last year's spending. That was the goal, that was the objective. 
This bill meets that target and then some. There is actually a 
reduction in spending from the freeze level in this bill as compared 
with last year's or the current fiscal year's budget and appropriations 
levels.
  We do have some parts of this bill where spending is increased. Among 
the discretionary spending increases recommended are an additional 
$12.8 million to continue the efforts of the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service to ensure the safety of our Nation's food supply. The level 
recommended for the Food Safety and Inspection Service is adequate to 
maintain the current inspection system and to provide the needed 
investments required to implement the new hazard analysis and critical 
control point meat and poultry inspection system. We are hopeful that 
by bringing this new system online we can take advantage of new 
technologies, new scientific advances, in the detection of those 
contaminants in the food supply that we would not be able to detect 
otherwise, and we will help ensure that we are doing everything that 
possibly can be done to safeguard the food supply and the consumers of 
food in America from harm and ill health.
  In order to implement the system, the bill provides funding to fill 
all inspector vacancies, funding to train inspectors in the new 
inspection system, and funding for the annualization of fiscal year 
1996 pay raises and anticipated 1997 pay raises. This demonstrates the 
high priority this committee places on the safety of our Nation's meat 
and poultry and our commitment to ensure that American consumers 
continue to have the safest food in the world.
  Another area of emphasis in this bill is agriculture research. The 
bill provides $1.1 billion for funding of agriculture research. This is 
approximately $7.3 million below the level requested by the 
administration, but it is $25 million above the House-recommended 
level. Included in this amount is $52 million for food safety research. 
The committee has provided the full increase of $7.5 million requested 
for food safety research.
  For extension activities, the bill recommends $431 million, which is 
$3.3 million above the fiscal year 1996 level. The Smith-Lever and 
Hatch Act formula funding are continued at 1996 levels. The increase 
recommended for extension activities will provide first-time funding 
for institutional capacity

[[Page S8436]]

grants and extension work at the 29 tribally controlled colleges, or 
1994 Institutions.
  Farm credit programs are funded by the bill, which provides $3.1 
billion in loan levels for the coming fiscal year. This is an increase 
of $65 million over the House-recommended level.
  The bill also recognizes that efficiencies can be gained through the 
consolidation of programs to improve their efficiency in terms of 
administrative costs and paperwork and the like. So the bill 
consolidates funding for 14 rural development grant and loan programs 
into a rural community investment program. It is divided into three 
subprograms: housing, business cooperative assistance, and rural 
utilities assistance. The 1996 appropriations act created the first of 
these consolidations for rural utilities. The funding levels provided 
for all three of the programs were equal to the comparable levels 
requested in the budget.
  On an aggregate basis, the funding levels in the bill represent an 
increase of $231 million more than the House-passed bill. The bill 
funds, as I mentioned before, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
and the Food and Drug Administration. We are trying to provide levels 
of funding that will enable these two agencies to do the job they are 
required to do by law and that will enable them to discharge their 
responsibilities under the law.
  The bill also carries a provision to ensure the continuation of WIC 
Program funding and Food Stamp Act funding, as well. The bill includes 
a provision to amend the Food Stamp Act, to exclude electronic benefit 
transfer systems for the delivery of food stamp benefits from the 
Federal Reserve Board's ``Regulation E.''
  There are other provisions of the bill that seek to deal with 
challenges in the food service area, and we hope Senators will find 
that we have demonstrated a sensitivity to the needs of those who 
cannot adequately provide for their own nutrition needs and need 
Government help to do it. But we also reflect in this bill changes and 
reforms that have been made by law to try to ensure that there is a 
sense of personal responsibility for one to take care of himself and 
his family, and that also is reflected in this legislation.
  Senators may remember that, last year, when this bill was on the 
floor, there was a big debate over a regulation being proposed by the 
administration--the Food Safety and Inspection Service, specifically--
dealing with when poultry products could be labeled as ``fresh'' or 
``frozen.'' Well, I am happy to report to the Senate that a compromise 
has been reached among those who were directly interested in the debate 
last year, so that the definition of the term ``fresh,'' as used in 
labeling of raw poultry products, is reflected and included in this 
legislation. We hope that resolves the issue. Of course, the 
administration still has differences of opinion about it, and those may 
be heard at some point in the debate.
  We think this is a responsible way of resolving that issue. There are 
other provisions related to legislative changes the House recommended 
that we deleted. The House rewrote some provisions that were included 
in the farm bill, and we did not go along with those House provisions. 
So Senators will notice that we do not provide a cap on the price of 
raw sugarcane, for example. We do not approve a provision relating to 
planting requirements under the farm bill that would be required to 
meet eligibility standards for a market transition payment. We revised 
that to make it consistent with the language of the law, the farm bill 
that was passed by both Houses and signed by the President. So we do 
not try to go in and rewrite the farm bill in this bill. We urge 
Senators not to try to do that with amendments.
  Only 24 percent of the total funding recommended by this bill is 
discretionary. These have been difficult challenges for the committee 
to resolve, trying to determine how to allocate scarce funds that are 
made available to this subcommittee under the budget resolution. We 
hope Senators will agree that we have undertaken this and presented a 
bill that is done in a fair way, so that those essential activities in 
the Department of Agriculture that are authorized and required by law 
are funded. But we have tried to be responsible, and we hope Senators 
agree that we have. These are recommendations that we make to the 
Senate, which we hope will be approved.
  Let me say that this bill could not have been written without the 
excellent cooperation and dedicated and intelligent assistance of the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas, the ranking Democrat on the 
subcommittee. He has served as chairman of this subcommittee in the 
past, and it has been a pleasure to work with him and the members of 
his staff in the development of this bill.
  We had hearings all through the earlier parts of this year. We heard 
from all of the agencies and departments, whose budgets were reviewed 
by our subcommittee very carefully. We have considered the suggestions 
of others outside of the Congress, who have opinions to be expressed on 
these subjects. So we have tried to consider all of the relevant 
evidence and facts that ought to be considered before presenting this 
bill to the Senate. We hope the Senate will approve it, and we 
recommend that it be adopted.
  We know that Senators may have amendments. If they do have 
amendments, we will be glad to debate them. Let me repeat the 
suggestion of the majority leader when he was asking consent to go to 
this bill today. We hope to complete action on this bill today. That 
means that all amendments that are going to be offered should be 
offered today and debated today. We will reserve any votes on those 
amendments, and any vote on final passage, until tomorrow. We 
appreciate the cooperation of Senators that will enable us to 
accomplish that goal.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Has there been a 
unanimous-consent agreement entered that we would start back-to-back 
votes on welfare bill amendments in the morning?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 9 o'clock, yes, that is correct.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Does the consent agreement continue on what we will do 
after those votes and final passage on the welfare bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is reminded that it is at 9:30 that 
we vote and 9 o'clock that we meet. After getting rid of the list of 
votes, we will resume consideration of the agriculture bill.
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is the reason I was asking. I hope we do not have 
to resume. I hope we can finish the bill this afternoon and this 
evening.
  I am pleased to join my very able colleague, Senator Cochran, in 
bringing to the Senate floor the fiscal year 1997 appropriations bill 
for Agriculture, rural development, the Food and Drug Administration, 
and related agencies. This bill, reported by the Senate Committee on 
Appropriations, provides $54.276 billion in total obligational 
authority for the coming year. That is $1.224 billion more than the 
House provided and $4 billion below the President's request. It is 
within the subcommittee's 602(b) allocation. This bill is nearly $10 
billion below the amount under which we are operating this year, 1996. 
That will be $10 billion less than in 1997. The subcommittee's 
discretionary allocation has again been reduced this year from $13.31 
billion in budget authority for 1996 to $12.102 billion for 1997. That 
is a reduction in discretionary spending of $529 million dollars. 
Unfortunately, we have received an increase of $300 million-plus in our 
allocation, which gets us a little closer to last year's level, but 
still the bottom line is that we have less to spend again this year.
  Mr. President, in all of my years on this subcommittee, the 
Agriculture Subcommittee, this year has been the most difficult. That 
causes me to, again, congratulate Senator Cochran for his leadership in 
working through these very difficult problems and crafting a bill to 
meets the expectations of most Senators. It meets the hard-pressed 
needs of rural America and, also, America's dependence on a safe supply 
of food and drugs.

  There are still plenty of unmet needs in rural America, but, given 
the constraints under which we are operating, this is an excellent 
bill.
  One item in the bill is very important to all of us, and it is 
greatly improved over last year's funding level.

[[Page S8437]]

 The Water and Sewer Program in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 
my opinion, is just about the very best investment we make. It improves 
the quality of life for all people when they have pure water and sewer 
systems that are safe. Last year, these programs were severely 
underfunded. But this year, Senator Cochran has been able to provide an 
increase that almost brings us to our budget request. That is an 
admirable achievement.
  Let me digress to point out that people who travel around the world 
find that there are very few countries that you can visit where you can 
turn on the tap water and feel relatively safe in drinking it. As a 
matter of fact, I can only think of one or two right now where you can 
do that. The people who live in and near Washington, DC, have just 
recently found that not only happens in other countries but it happens 
right here in the United States in some of the major metropolitan 
areas.
  In other areas, this bill provides level funding for the WIC 
Program--women, infants and children. Historically, this program has 
witnessed annual increases in funding that have actually exceeded the 
caseload. So we have been carrying over money in the WIC Program. This 
program has accumulated, and it has reduced the pressure on us to 
continue increasing the amount of money every year. Even considering 
the general budget constraints, we are within reach of full funding for 
WIC, a goal which I believe is shared by every Member of the U.S. 
Senate.
  As WIC administrators work this coming year to provide nutritional 
assistance to women, infants, and children, I hope that next year we 
will finally reach the goal of full funding and the more important goal 
of full participation.
  Last year, Congress passed and sent to the President a new farm bill. 
This year, when the bill was considered by the House, a number of 
provisions were included to change some of the underlying philosophy of 
the farm bill. I did not vote for the farm bill. I did not like it, and 
I still do not like it. But that is beside the point at this stage of 
the game.
  Contracts that farmers all across America thought would guarantee 
them payments for 7 years were being reduced by the House 
Appropriations Committee even before the farmers got their first 
payment. Regardless of my views of the so-called freedom to farm 
payments, we need to remember that farmers are now in the middle of 
their growing season. Their investments are on the line, and they 
deserve to know what to expect and that the rules are not going to be 
changed in the middle of the game. The chairman has already alluded to 
the fact that he hopes Senators will not try to redebate that bill. In 
the bill before us, we have taken great pains not to amend the basic 
rationale for last year's farm bill.
  There is one major concern I have that deserves mention. When the 
President's budget was presented to this subcommittee, loan authority 
assumptions were much too high to be met considering the small subsidy 
provided. Mr. President, let me just explain that.
  Every loan program is scored by OMB and the Congressional Budget 
Office as to how much money you have to assume you are going to lose. 
If you are going to loan $1 million, you have to put some amount in 
there for what the banks would call reserve for loan losses. That is 
called the subsidy rate. The subsidy rate in this bill as provided by 
the administration, in my opinion, is much too small to fund the 
authority of loans set out in all of these different Federal programs. 
In my opinion, we are not going to be able to loan as much unless we 
have a supplemental appropriation sometime next spring to raise that 
subsidy level.
  We are including in the managers' package an amendment that will 
allow the Secretary to transfer excess WIC funds to meet the needs of 
loan programs such as those tied to water and sewer programs in rural 
housing.
  Mr. President, before anybody thinks that is cruel and taking money 
from women, infants and children to fund a subsidy rate for water and 
sewer programs, bear in mind that this is money not used by WIC. This 
is similar to an amendment I offered last year that provided an 
additional $36 million in the Water and Sewer Program with no 
detrimental effect to the WIC participation. This amendment will help, 
but it probably will not provide enough additional budget authority to 
achieve full program levels. That is the reason I mention additions to 
the subsidy in some supplemental appropriations next spring.
  I hope in future budget submissions, the administration will take 
greater care to make sure that rising interest rates or other economic 
conditions do not provide falsely optimistic assumptions of what may be 
the reality on the first day of the following fiscal year.
  I also want to mention an issue which I raised during subcommittee 
consideration of this bill related to an FDA proposal to require 
certain labeling requirements for prescription drugs--the so-called 
med-guide rule.
  Let me digress just a moment to say that--this is a little personal--
I recently had an illness. I went to the drugstore to get four 
different medications. I have studiously avoided taking aspirin all of 
my life. I hate medicine. I do not like to take it. But in this case it 
was required. For the first time in my life, the pharmacist with each 
of the four prescriptions handed me a rather detailed description of 
the medicine--what it was designed to do, contraindications to look 
for, any reactions that you might have. I read it very carefully. It is 
the first time I had ever gotten anything like that.
  As it turned out, I was allergic to one of the drugs, which caused me 
to have a fever, a rash, and I had to quit taking it. But the 
informational sheet that the pharmacist gave me had pointed out that 
that very thing might happen.
  That is good information. It is the information that the 
pharmaceutical-buying public is entitled to. I understand--and I agree 
with the concerns of the Food and Drug Administration--that consumers 
need to be provided with this information.
  As I pointed out, some pharmacies are already doing it on a voluntary 
basis. Of course, they are getting their information from the 
pharmaceutical manufacturers of those drugs. But all pharmacies are not 
doing this now. In some cases, the information is not totally accurate 
or complete.
  So in the full committee, I offered report language that will help 
relieve some of the concerns that Commissioner Kessler expressed to me 
about the statutory language contained in this bill. I understand the 
House has similar language but of a nature more to the liking of the 
commission. In my report, language is designed to give FDA assurances 
that the information to be provided to consumers will be appropriately 
crafted and higher rates of participation by pharmacies will be 
obtained.
  Mr. President, that concludes my remarks. Again, I want to 
congratulate my good friend and colleague, Senator Cochran and his able 
staff in drafting the bill now before us.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Arkansas for his kind remarks and again repeat my expression of 
appreciation for his hard work and his good assistance in the 
preparation of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments 
which are at the desk to H.R. 3603 be considered and agreed to en bloc; 
that no points of order be waived thereon; 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.
  The committee amendments were agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I know that some Senators are considering 
amendments. One Senator has just come to the floor--Senator Gregg of 
New Hampshire--who wanted to give the Senate notice that he intended to 
offer an amendment on a subject. Maybe, if he can tell us when he wants 
to do that, we can reach some agreement as to the time. I know there 
are a couple of other Senators who have asked that they be permitted to 
offer amendments early in the consideration of the bill. Senator McCain 
is one, and there may be others.
  So we are ready to accept the suggestions of Senators for changes in 
the bill. I would be happy to yield to my

[[Page S8438]]

friend from New Hampshire if he would like to respond to my inquiry.
  Mr. GREGG. I am happy to respond to the inquiry of the Senator from 
Mississippi. I would like to offer my amendment when it is convenient 
to the Senator from Mississippi.
  I ask if he would ask unanimous consent that no second-degree 
amendments be offered to my amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I can say that we have gotten notice--and 
maybe the Senator from Arkansas has heard of this--from one Senator on 
this side of the aisle who asked that no unanimous-consent agreement be 
made on any amendment relating to the issue of sugar.
  Having heard that--I do not know whether the Senator has heard that 
or not--I do not know of any objection to any agreements on this side 
of the aisle on that subject. We have not heard of any. My thought 
would be if the Senator has an amendment to simply go ahead and offer 
it and let us see what happens. If Senators want to debate it, they can 
come and debate it.
  Mr. GREGG. In a prior discussion with the Senator from Mississippi, 
it was my understanding this was going to be subject to a time 
limitation of 40 minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I have no objection to that. I have heard there may be 
an objection on the other side of the aisle. There is no objection on 
this side.
  Mr. BUMPERS. There will be an objection, I say to the Senator from 
Mississippi, on this side.
  Mr. GREGG. I guess if I had known that I would not have foreclosed my 
rights on other parts of this bill.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator has all of his rights. There are no rights 
of his whatsoever that have been extinguished in any way or diminished 
in any way.
  Mr. GREGG. There are a few that have been extinguished and 
diminished, I point out to the Senator, in allowing----
  Mr. COCHRAN. The committee amendments to be adopted.
  Mr. GREGG. The committee amendments to go forward. It was my 
understanding that committee amendments would go forward because I was 
going to be given a specific time and time limit. That does not appear 
to be the case. I find that to be inconsistent with the understanding I 
had. And I guess I just have to accept the fact things happen that way 
around here.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If I may just in a general colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman of the committee say that normally when we have 
a series of amendments to be offered on a bill like this, we sort of go 
back and forth between the Democratic side and the Republican side. I 
would suggest that that is fine if you have the Republicans and 
Democrats waiting to offer amendments, but that very seldom happens on 
this bill. And if there are three Republicans and no Democrats in the 
Chamber waiting to offer amendments, then I suggest we take them and 
not sit around waiting for somebody on the other side to come and offer 
amendments in order to accommodate a protocol we have used in the past.
  Would the Senator agree with that?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I certainly agree with the Senator. We want to complete 
action on all the amendments. The majority leader wanted to have votes 
on whatever amendments have to be voted on tomorrow and final passage 
tomorrow. To do that we are going to have to move along because I have 
seen a list of amendments that we have heard may be offered, and there 
are some 20 on that list. So in order to expedite the handling of those 
amendments, I agree with the Senator that we should move along. We 
would like for Senators to come now to the floor and start offering 
these amendments so we could dispose of them.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I noticed that the Senator and I each have an amendment 
which I think have been agreed to. The Senator has one to provide for 
electronic warehouse receipts, is that correct? Could we dispose of 
that one now?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Senator Pressler was going to offer that. We could offer 
it for him, but if he wants to be here and offer that amendment, we 
will give him an opportunity to do so.
  Mr. BUMPERS. All right.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Maybe we will let him know he should come and offer that 
amendment if it is convenient at this time for him. We are actually 
waiting on some language before we could offer that. The Senator could 
go ahead and proceed to offer his amendment, if he would like.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, we are scratching through here trying to 
find this amendment. Until we can find it, let me suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislate 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.


                           Amendment No. 4958

  (Purpose: To transfer $50,000 from CSREES research and education to 
                         extension activities)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask 
that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4958.

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

       On page 12, line 25, strike ``$46,068,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$46,018,000''.
       On page 14, line 10, strike ``$418,358,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$418,308,000''.
       On page 17, line 8, strike ``$11,331,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$11,381,000''.
       On page 17, line 8, strike ``$431,072,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$431,122,000''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment would reduce the total 
recommended for special research grants under research and education 
activities of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service by $50,000 and increase the amount recommended for Federal 
administration under extension activities of the service by the same 
amount.
  The amendment would affect only funds recommended for research and 
extension work in Mississippi. It would create a new grant under 
Federal administration for an extension specialist in Mississippi of 
$50,000 to cover an unfunded requirement which was just brought to my 
attention. To offset this additional funding, the amount recommended 
for aquaculture research in Mississippi would be reduced from the 
$642,000 to $592,000, eliminating the additional funds recommended to 
enable the National Center for Physical Acoustics to provide additional 
support to the National Warmwater Aquaculture Center.
  Mr. President, we have shown this amendment to the other side, and we 
understand there is no objection.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, that amendment is acceptable to this 
side. Has it been agreed to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not been agreed to.
  Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4958) 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, 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. GREGG. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, since it is 3 o'clock, this being the time 
I was advised to bring this amendment to the floor and at that time 
there was to be a time agreement, which appears now will not occur, I 
thought I would discuss my amendment and point out some of the problems 
with the sugar program and then make a decision later on as to whether 
or not I will

[[Page S8439]]

offer it in this context or not. But essentially what this amendment 
deals with is the sugar program.
  For those who may be following this debate in some other venue other 
than this floor, because I know everybody who is a Member of the Senate 
understands the sugar program, the sugar program is the last vestige of 
gross corporate welfare in the farm community.
  In the farm bill that was just recently passed, there was a major 
initiative undertaken to try to put the farm community generally on a 
more market-oriented approach, although some arguments might claim it 
is even less market oriented. At least it was an attempt to have some 
forces brought to bear on what farmers would plant, how much they would 
plant of a certain commodity which would be something other than a 
decision made by a Government leader. It would be the marketplace.
  However, there still exists this sugar program which has just the 
opposite approach toward financing and growing and creating of sugar in 
this country. The sugar program, as it is basically structured today, 
is a classic, what can best be defined as a Marxist system of 
economics. Essentially, the Government sets a price for a commodity 
which far exceeds what the marketplace would set for that commodity 
were the marketplace allowed to work in its ordinary fashion, and then 
it requires the consumer to pay that price no matter what the 
consumer's interest may be. As a result, the growers of that product 
grow it, make a great deal of money and have no relationship between 
what they grow and what the market wants or what they grow and what the 
market wishes to pay. It is a classic definition of Marxism.
  In fact, this program is so outrageous that it costs the American 
consumer approximately $1.4 billion a year of subsidies to a very small 
cadre of very influential sugar growers. In fact, I think the number I 
saw was something like less than 70 sugar growers obtaining a huge 
percentage of the income from this program.
  This subsidy is a function of the fact that it costs about 23 cents a 
pound for sugar in the United States, whereas on the world market, it 
costs about 13 cents a pound for sugar. Think about that for a minute. 
It is hard to believe that an American product would cost American 
consumers twice what the world market is. You might expect that in the 
old Soviet Union. You might even expect it in Cuba today. But in the 
United States, for somebody to be paying twice the cost of a product 
that is paid by people in other countries for that same product when 
that product is fully fungible around the world is incomprehensible. It 
just runs against the whole concept of a market economy, of an American 
system, what the United States theoretically stands for in the 
international community, what we stood for years against the Soviet 
system and what has theoretically, at least, won the debate of 
international economics--something called market forces.
  If a commodity costs 10 cents or 13 cents in Brazil, or let's take a 
more industrialized state--although Brazil is a very industrialized 
state--say, Spain, Japan, or France, and that commodity, that item you 
want to buy costs 13 cents, in this case that is called a pound of 
sugar--if you wanted to make some chocolate chip cookies maybe or a 
cake--and in the United States, it costs 23 cents, you would say, 
``Well, that can't be, that can't be. Why would that be?''
  Why, in a country that professes a free-market approach to economics, 
an international world free market, would one commodity that we grow in 
the United States that is grown around the world and moves from country 
to country with fair ease, why would that commodity cost 10 cents more 
in the United States per pound than it does in some other reasonably 
industrialized nation?
  The reason is because the influence of the people who make all the 
money on this product is so great that they are able to set up a system 
which benefits a few at the cost of many. It is pretty much the last 
surviving system of this type of productivity in our country in the 
farm program area. There is still some of this, obviously, in the 
peanut area, and to a slighter degree, you can argue in the dairy area, 
but a much slighter degree. But clearly, sugar is unique in having this 
level of perversion of the marketplace for the benefit of a few at the 
expense of the many, at the rather significant expense, $1.4 billion of 
expense.
  You might think that people who would be getting a $1.4 billion extra 
price for their product beyond what the market usually bears or would 
reasonably bear, would think that they were satisfied, but that is not 
the case here. I suppose greed feeds on greed, and it is inevitable, if 
you have proven that you can be really greedy and successful, you can 
get even greedier.
  So this group of great troughers--by troughers, I mean porker, 
corporate pork--this group of magnificent troughers--these folks would 
win just about any contest at any country fair in the pork-producing 
category--decided that not only do they have to have a price that is 
almost twice the world price for the product, which the American 
consumer has to pay, they do not even want to have to pay off--when 
they borrow from the Federal Government to produce that product, should 
they by some unbelievable process lose money, they do not even want to 
pay it off.
  Not only do they want a product that is priced at twice what it is 
worth, but should they actually lose money producing a product that is 
priced twice what it is worth--it is hard to believe they might lose 
money--but should they lose money, they do not even want to have to pay 
it off. They have something called the Nonrecourse Loan Program. This 
is almost beyond belief. It is so egregious in its attack on all 
sensibility relative to the marketplace--a nonrecourse loan.
  If you are a student in the United States and you find yourself going 
to a school that costs you more than you can afford to pay from the 
summer job you have been working for the last 5 or 6 years, and it 
costs more than your parents can afford to pay because they cannot 
simply scrape together enough, because a college education has become 
so expensive, if you are a student and you borrow $1,500, $2,000 from 
the Federal Government, and you cannot pay it back, does the Federal 
Government say, ``That's OK, forget it, you don't have to worry about 
it''? No. The Federal Government requires you to pay it back. We do not 
do a very good job of collecting it. I admit that. We have to change 
our collection system. But to those people who are honest and sincere--
that is the majority of our American students--they have to pay their 
loans back.

  But not the sugar industry. No. The sugar industry, after ripping the 
American public off, after the $1.4 billion a year, after being the 
biggest porkers in America, they do not even want to pay back their 
loans.
  If you are a veteran, and you get a VA loan, have served this 
country--maybe you have even given blood for this country, maybe you 
are even a wounded veteran--and you get a VA loan, and you find that 
you cannot pay that loan back, does the American Government say, ``OK. 
OK. Forget it. We won't collect that debt''? No. It does not. It duns 
your VA benefits, probably garnishes them, takes them as payment even 
though you may not be able to afford it because you may have other 
expenses at that time.
  But do we say that to the sugar producers in this country? No. We do 
not. To the sugar producers, we say, because they have the power to 
demand it, ``If you don't want to pay your loans back, tens of millions 
of dollars of loans back, it's OK. Forget it. That's all right. The 
American taxpayers are already paying $1.4 billion to your industry. 
Why not pay a little bit more through a nonrecourse-loan process?''
  If you happen to be a homeowner who borrows money through the HUD 
program, and you have your first home, and something goes wrong with 
your family finances, and the Government comes in and takes your home--
which might be similar to a recourse loan--does the Government stop 
there, to the nonrecourse loan? No. It does not. No. It does not. If 
there is a debt above the obligation that is available through the 
repossession of your home, the Government has the right--may not 
exercise it--but it has the right to collect that extra debt from your 
wages.
  So if you own a home, and through some real tragedy or some 
unfortunate situation your home is taken from you as a result of your 
not being able to

[[Page S8440]]

pay back that debt--and it is a Government loan--the Government has the 
right to sell the home, and to the extent that the price of that home, 
as sold, does not cover the cost of your loan, and you personally are 
liable, you personally, you, John or Mary Jones, working down at the 
pizza store or working on an assembly line in Detroit or working at a 
computer shop in New Hampshire, you are personally liable for that 
loan.
  Is the sugar producer--even though his or her company may have 
borrowed millions of dollars--are they liable for that loan? No. They 
are not. No. They are not. It really is hard to believe that that would 
be the case in this economy, in this structure we would have that sort 
of situation. But that is the way it is. That is the way it is 
structured, as unbelievable as it may seem.
  I guess it survives because of the fact that it has what is known as 
logrolling. ``You scratch my back; I'll scratch your back.'' There are 
enough people producing this product in the country, although many of 
them are not very large compared to the big guys, that they all feel 
they have to protect the program and, therefore, everybody helps 
everybody else out. But it is pretty hard to defend this program under 
any sort of--you do not have to look through a magnifying glass to 
defend this, to look at this program, and see it is an outrage. You can 
take this glass of water, and put this on top of the program, and you 
would see that this program is just an unbelievable outrage on the body 
politic of the American consumer, and $1.4 billion a year in the 
process.
  Nonrecourse loans. Just imagine it. If you are a student you have to 
pay your loan back. If you are a home-owner, you have to pay your loan 
back. If you are a veteran who served this country, you have to pay 
your loan back. Even if it is only $1,000, you have to pay it back.
  If you are a sugar grower, processor, you do not have to pay it back. 
You do not have to pay it back. That is after you made the price of the 
product twice what it is worth. Pretty outrageous. ``Sweetheart deal'' 
I think is the term that most appropriately comes to mind. Corporate 
pork would be an understatement.
  There is some logic, I suppose, to say that small farmers need to be 
protected. Maybe you will hear small farmer stories. Well, maybe small 
farmers do need to be protected. And to the extent we have good stories 
about small farmers, I suspect there will be some nice sad stories 
told. But the fact is that the amendment I am going to offer is not 
going to affect any small farmers. It is going to affect farmers of 
over $10 million in sales. And that is not a small farm. This is not a 
small farm in New England, not small anyplace. And $10 million is a 
good many sales. So small farm stories are not applicable to this issue 
at this time, although certainly they will be raised.
  This issue, the issue of the sugar program, has been brought up on a 
number of occasions in this body. It has always been defeated. Any 
attempt to address the sugar program has been defeated. It was defeated 
last year even in the midst of major rewriting of the farm programs 
generally, as I mentioned earlier. Defeated a couple of years ago. It 
has always lost, but usually the amendments have been directed at 
substantive reform of the pricing mechanism. You know, this fact that 
you, the consumers, are paying 23 cents for a pound of sugar when your 
neighbors, maybe relatives in Canada, are paying 13 cents.
  So that has been the usual target of the amendments. That has been 
soundly defeated because the influences I mentioned of so many 
different groups growing this product around the country is so 
pervasive. So my amendment--which the recourse issue does not take on 
that core issue of pricing policy, although pricing policy certainly 
should be addressed. And I would be happy to do it if I thought I had a 
chance of being successful. But I know I do not. My amendment takes on 
the issue of recourse.
  As a practical matter nobody in this body should object to this, 
because, as I mentioned, the price of the product has been made so high 
that how can you object to the concept of having to pay back your loans 
when you are already getting such a huge subsidized price? Then if you 
compare the fact that you are requiring people to pay back their loans 
who are fairly large businesses--$10 million in sales--well, that is 
not too outrageous, not too outrageous, to require them to pay back 
their loans.
  So I am talking about really a peripheral amendment here. I have to 
admit to that. I wish it was more at the heart of the sugar program. I 
wish it went to the pricing mechanism. But you know, I accept reality. 
I cannot win that one. I got 35 votes last year, probably about the 
same this year. So what this amendment does--I hope my fellow Members 
of the Senate will take a look at it who voted against affecting the 
pricing mechanism. It does not address that. So all the sugar beet 
growers and all the sugarcane growers are still going to get their 23 
cents a pound out of the American consumer. They are going to get their 
pound of sugar out of the American consumer.
  What they should not get, however, is this nonrecourse treatment that 
we do not give to students, we do not give to homeowners, we do not 
give to veterans. I mean, let us have some decency around here. Let us 
admit that we will let them go to the trough and maybe eat everything 
in it, but let us not let them eat the trough, too. It is getting a 
little outrageous.
  So that is the purpose of this amendment. And I regret that the 
context of offering this amendment puts me in a difficult position, 
because I understand that I am not going to be protected on second-
degrees, and I understand I am not going to be protected on time. I 
will say this, however, that I do think this is an important issue to 
vote on, that we will vote on this issue, I hope, before we complete 
this bill. I have no desire to delay this bill.
  I know the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Arkansas 
have worked hard to move this bill quickly, and they have done a superb 
job of getting it out of committee. On the general farm programs, they 
have done an extraordinary job of funding those in, I think, a 
responsible way. This program, really, is independent of that effort. 
They have done an excellent job on this bill. I do not want to delay 
it. I want the bill to get through as soon as it can.
  I do think this has to be voted on. I hope when I send this amendment 
to the desk, it will not be subject to a second-degree amendment. It 
can be couched in a variety of terms, so obviously we can return to 
this issue if it is, ad nauseam.


                           Amendment No. 4959

     (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to make loans to large 
 processors of sugarcane and sugar beets unless the loans require the 
    processors to repay the full amount of the loans, plus interest)

  Mr. GREGG. I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4959.
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC.    . REPAYMENT OF CERTAIN SUGAR LOANS.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be used to make a loan to a processor of 
     sugarcane or sugar beets, or both, who has an annual revenue 
     that exceeds $10 million, unless the terms of the loan 
     require the processor to repay the full amount of the loan, 
     plus interest.

  Mr. GREGG. I thank the clerk for reading the amendment. I did want 
the whole amendment read so it would be understood. It is an amendment 
which on its face says, as I stated, if somebody is going to borrow 
from the Federal Government, even when they are getting twice the price 
for their product they should be getting, if somebody is going to 
borrow from the Federal Government, they ought to pay the Federal 
Government back.
  Now, some will claim they can take the sugar and then the Federal 
Government can sell the sugar. That is true, but if there is a 
difference, the Federal Government eats the difference. There is no 
reason the Federal Government should be put at that risk. They are not 
put at risk for students, veterans or homeowners, so we should not be 
put at that risk for sugar growers simply because they have the 
capacity to protect themselves in the legislative arena better than 
students, homeowners or veterans.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page S8441]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is now a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was listening attentively to the Senator 
describe his amendment dealing with the issue of sugar. He finished by 
talking about sugar growers. Of course, the Senator understands that no 
one grows sugar; they grow sugar beets, to be sure, and the beets are 
processed into sugar.
  The issue as presented by my colleague is an interesting issue and an 
important issue. This morning in North Dakota and elsewhere in the 
country, some folks got up and ate breakfast early. These were families 
with a full day's work to do. They need to keep their machinery in 
order, tend to their land, look over their sugar beet crops. Farmers 
work pretty hard. They invest a fair amount of money into a farmstead 
and try to make a living.
  One of the circumstances we find in the farm programs is that there 
are difficult times for people who are out there living. There are 
difficult times for those trying to make a living because there is so 
much uncertainty. You can plant, and in no time at all through a whole 
series of things over which you have no control, you see everything 
gone. Acts of nature, a whole range of circumstances can conspire to 
wipe you out completely and quickly.
  For that reason, the Federal Government has had a farm program. The 
Federal Government has said we believe there ought to be a network of 
family farmers in this country who have an opportunity to make it. So 
for a whole series of farmers raising crops, we have tried to create a 
safety net.
  Now, within that farm program is a sugar program. The sugar program 
tries to provide a safety net for those folks, particularly in my part 
of the country, who raise sugar beets. As I listen to this debate, it 
is interesting how this issue is described because the description is 
so at odds with what the reality is.
  I hear people stand on the floor of the Senate and talk about 10 
cents being the world price for sugar. Well, that is not a legitimate 
free-market price for sugar. That is the dump price for sugar. People 
who study this issue understand that most sugar is traded country to 
country through long-term contracts. Only the residual sugar produced 
over that is dumped on the open market, at dump prices, dirt-cheap 
prices, and then some people say that is the true market price. 
Nonsense. That is not the true market price. It has nothing to do with 
a true free market price. It is a dump price for residual sugar 
supplies above that which is needed and above that which is traded 
country to country.
  In this country, we have developed a program that provides loans. 
Those loans, through the Commodity Credit Corporation, cannot be made 
directly to sugar cane and sugar beet growers because sugarcane and 
sugar beets are not storable commodities. So the loans are made to the 
raw cane farmers and the beet sugar processors. I must point out, in 
North Dakota, those processors are by and large cooperatives. Those 
cooperatives are owned by the growers. The growers are the farmers.
  The fact is I am proud of what has happened under this sugar program. 
I am proud because we have a circumstance where one part of this farm 
program, at least, works well and works to provide some stability in 
price to the beet growers--yes, in North Dakota and other parts of the 
country.
  Now, that stability has given them an opportunity to make a living 
out there on the land. This is not, as some would suggest, some giant 
giveaway program. It is not a program that will require people at the 
grocery store to pay an extraordinarily high price for sugar. That is 
not what the program is about.
  This program happens to be one of the programs that I think is good 
for both the producer and the consumer. It is especially good for those 
consumers who care about whether producers are able to live on a family 
farm, who understand that this matters to our country. I think it does 
matter to our country. It is good not only for those objectives, but it 
is also good for the general consumer.
  You go back some years and evaluate what happened in this country 
when we had a shortage of sugar, and sugar prices jumped up, 
skyrocketed at the grocery store counter. Then there was a lot of 
concern about what this meant to the consumer. Well, the consumer, 
then, had to pay more for sugar because we had uncertain supplies, 
unstable supplies.
  What the sugar program has done is merge two different approaches. 
One side of the approach says that we will try to provide something 
that gives some price stability to those who raise beets. The other 
side of the approach says that we are going to provide an advantage to 
the consumer who will have price stability on the grocery store shelf.
  Is that price stability higher than it might be if, during years of 
world surpluses, we could have accessed the cheapest possible dump 
price for sugar? Sure. But is that price lower than it would be in 
times of shortage because we have a more stable capability in this 
country of providing for those needs? Yes. My point is this kind of 
program advantages both the producer, the family farmer being the 
producer, and also the consumer.
  We have fought this battle before. We have had those persons who feel 
strongly about it come to the floor and say this is a program 
completely without merit. They say that it is a program that ought to 
be abolished, and they have tried to abolish it in a dozen different 
ways.
  I must admit this amendment is a crafty technique, I say to my 
colleague, to try to essentially obliterate the sugar program. However, 
Congress has reviewed this and Congress has said this program makes 
sense. This program is not costing the taxpayers money. It is a program 
that has worked well. It is a program that has achieved its objectives 
of trying to provide some stability and some help for the family 
farmers out there, who in my part of the country raise sugar beets. It 
is a program also that has the ancillary benefits of helping the 
consumers in this country with some price stability.
  Let me mention one other thing. As all of us know, in this debate 
there are competing forces. There is a force out there in our country--
maybe I should not name it--that uses a great deal of sugar. The 
companies that make candy bars and other things use a great amount of 
sugar, and they very much want to see the dump price of sugar prevail 
for a while in this country as the U.S. price. I understand that. I 
suppose if that were my business, I would be arguing for the same 
thing. But that happens to be, in my judgment, a selfish position, 
looking after only their own interests.
  But there are other considerations. The Senate and the House have 
gone through this and debated to try to determine where the 
reconciliation is here. We have tried to discover how we do this the 
right way, and is there a need to provide some stability in the price 
of these commodities. Is there a reason to give a hard working family 
farmer an opportunity to take advantage of that stability? The answer 
has been yes. Do we want that level of stability to be something that 
is so artificially high that it injures others that are involved in 
other businesses? The answer to that is no. That is what the compromise 
has been.
  This compromise has been worked and reworked. I must say that I 
compliment the Senator from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, and so many 
others. Let me compliment someone who is leaving this Congress--
Congressman Kika de la Garza. This is his last year in Congress. But 
those who understand the sugar program, especially in modern days, and 
its genesis, understand that Kika de la Garza has played a large role 
in shaping it. Republicans and Democrats have thought this through to 
determine what is the best public policy here. They have, I think, come 
to a reasonable position of supporting the provisions that are now in 
law, provisions that I think make sense for this country.
  On a broader question, one can always, it seems to me, on almost 
every issue, come to the floor of the Senate and argue some kind of 
global construct that persuades us that there is a cheaper price 
somewhere. You can always find a price or position, in some nook or 
cranny of the economy, that you can access and that somehow

[[Page S8442]]

would be beneficial for the country. I do not think that is what we are 
searching for. I think what we are searching for is public policy, 
especially in the area of commodities, that represents this country's 
interests.
  Part of this country's interests lie in trying to maintain a network 
of family farms in our country. I am proud to tell you that at least 
North Dakota, one of the most agricultural States, has a network of 
family farms. The Red River Valley contains a network of those family 
farms that are trying to raise sugar beets. They have come together in 
cooperatives that process the sugar beets and have been quite 
successful. I commend them for it. I only wish that our farm programs 
for other commodities were as successful as this program is.
  It seems to me that it ill-behooves this Congress to take a look at 
what works and take that apart and stop it, as opposed to evaluating 
what does not work and seeing if we cannot fix it. It really does not 
serve our interests to start deciding that those things that do 
function well are things that we ought to try to mess up in one way or 
the other.
  So I very much admire the Senator who is the author of this 
amendment. We have worked together on many things, and will again, but 
he is dead wrong, in my judgment, on the sugar program. It is not new 
to him. He has been dead wrong on it for some long while. I know he 
feels strongly about it. We have a fundamental disagreement. I do hope 
that the Senate recognizes the balance that has been struck. I think it 
is good for producers and good for consumers.
  It is a balance that augurs for this kind of a program to try to help 
family farmers in our country. I hope the Senate will, at the 
appropriate time, reject the amendment offered by Senator Gregg.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon, once 
again, to find myself in opposition to my colleague from New Hampshire 
on an issue that we both feel very strongly about. So for the next few 
moments let me say to my colleague from New Hampshire that while I 
disagree with him on this issue--and we very clearly disagree--we 
remain good friends and working partners on a lot of other issues. I 
must look at his amendment and what he has said about his amendment in 
relation to the sugar program in the new farm bill and take issue with 
it on an item-by-item basis, as I think is necessary. It is important 
for the record, so that the facts of this issue come forward.
  Mr. President, when I first came to Congress in 1980, I came from a 
farming and ranching background, and for the 1980's, I remained 
actively involved with my family in farming and ranching. But I must 
say that my family never was involved in raising program crops. So I, 
frankly, did not know a lot about farm programs. I did not know a great 
deal about farm programs and program crops. It was not until I became a 
Congressman, representing the First Congressional District of Idaho, 
that I found it necessary to look at these programs on a program-by-
program basis, Mr. President, and try to understand what they were all 
about.
  My colleague from New Hampshire and I are pretty much alike. We are 
fiscal conservatives. We tend to be free marketers. And so when I began 
to look at the sugar program, I saw something that I had heretofore not 
understood. One of the first things I found out about it was that no 
check went to the farmer. The farmer, whether he be a cane grower or a 
sugar beet raiser, never received a check from the Federal Government. 
They received their payment from the sugar processor, who they were 
contracted with to raise the beets, or to raise the cane. So there was 
no, if you will, direct subsidy to the farmer, direct check to the 
farmer, as is true in other program crops.
  One of the reasons this program had been developed, in a way, in that 
nature was because both the plant itself, the sugar beet, and the beet 
itself, in storage, are quite perishable. Because it was a nonrecourse 
loan program, it would not have been wise for the Federal Government, 
in this instance, to produce a loan when there was no collateral. And 
so as a method of even marketing into the system, it became the sugar 
processor who was the individual who took loans out from the Government 
inside a Government program, a sugar program, and they used, as 
collateral, refined sugar. So there was no direct payment to the 
farmer.
  So the Senator from New Hampshire is wrong today. We will not hear a 
story about the plight of the small farmer. The small farmer, in this 
case the sugar beet raiser, whether it is in North Dakota or whether it 
is in Idaho, does not receive a check from the Federal Government. They 
receive a stable price for their product from a refiner that is engaged 
in a nonrecourse loan program with the Federal Government, which allows 
that refiner to market sugar into the market in a stable way.
  So I am sorry that I will disappoint my colleague from New Hampshire. 
No story about the plight of the small farmer. Although I am very much 
concerned about the small farmer, I will tell my colleague from New 
Hampshire, with the hundreds of thousands of acres of sugar beets in 
Idaho, it is a good and profitable crop. One of the reasons it is is 
not because they get a check from the Government, but because the 
industry, through the program, is allowed to develop a loan 
relationship with the Federal Government, which creates stability in 
the marketplace. Therefore, it affords a stable price for the crop, and 
that creates stability at the farm itself. That is a point that I think 
is very important to remember.
  So, in essence, the amendment that my colleague from New Hampshire is 
offering today, which is a cap, if you will--or it says loans are 
limited to those under $10 million--there is not a refiner in the 
market that grosses less than $10 million. So the amendment, for all 
intents and purposes, destroys the sugar program as we know it.
  The second point, this is not just a refinement of the existing 
program. This is a killer amendment of a program that we spent over 12 
months negotiating about with the industry and the growers 
associations. The reason we did that is because I, along with my 
colleague from New Hampshire, said it was time to reform the farm bill 
and get Government out of agriculture as much as we could. As a result 
of that, we put major reforms into the sugar program.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a moment on that point?
  Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator talked about family farmers. I want to try to 
understand the point he made.
  The point, as I understand it, is not that this does not help family 
farmers. This ultimately does help family farmers. But it helps family 
farmers through price stability--not a Government check. I think that 
is the point the Senator from Idaho was making.
  The reason I asked the question is that I was making the point that 
this matters to a lot of family farmers. It matters because if you 
destroy this program you destroy their price stability; and, frankly, a 
lot of them will not be farming anymore. But this is not a Government 
check to those farmers. As the Senator from Idaho properly said, it 
helps the processors to provide price stability for farmers, which is 
exactly what makes this a successful program and one that does not cost 
the taxpayers' money.
  I appreciate very much the Senator yielding.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, so the point I think that my colleague and 
I are trying to make here is that, if there is a role for Government in 
agriculture--I think there is one, and I think it ought to be a very 
limited one--I see it in one of two or three areas. That is not to 
directly prop up or to subsidize a producer who has to produce to a 
market but allowing Government to help facilitate at no cost to the 
taxpayers anomalies within a market environment that only the 
Government can maybe help in because of their scope and their size, or 
in an instance where there is direct competition from foreign markets 
in which cheap product is produced either because of ``near slave 
labor'' or because of subsidized Government programs in other producing 
areas of the world than the necessity of a relationship there where our 
Government can facilitate without it being a cost to the taxpayer.

[[Page S8443]]

  In all of those instances the sugar program meets those tests. In the 
area of trade, where you have real political consideration and 
political powers vying against each other that distort the marketplace, 
I believe our Government can be a facilitator to production 
agriculture, and it works in this instance. And it works so to create 
stability in the marketplace. When you create stability in the 
marketplace you benefit the small farmer producer, and you do in real 
terms because you do not have the kind of gyrations in the market where 
one year wheat is worth a great deal of money and the next year you 
ought to plow it under because it is worth no money. That is the kind 
of instability we saw in the sugar pProgram in the late 1970's and the 
early 1980's.
  Those are some of the issues and items that I learned, Mr. President, 
when I got here as a freshman Congressman and I knew very little about 
sugar. I also learned something else: That when we began to make 
reforms in the program starting back in 1980 when we found out that we 
could not operate under the kind of program we were living under, and 
because of the boom and bust in the marketplace, with the tremendous 
influence of dumping raw cheap foreign sugar on our market we came back 
to a Government program, or at least a program where the Government 
became a participant to facilitate.
  When we did that we said something very important. We said that this 
ought not be a subsidy--that it ought to be no net cost to the 
taxpayer.
  Since 1980 my colleague from New Hampshire knows as well as I do that 
this has been a no net cost to the taxpayer because that is what the 
law says. And in that context, while I was listening to my colleague a 
few moments ago, I became frustrated when he began to insinuate that 
this was costing the taxpayer money--or that in fact it was costing the 
Government money--that is a nonrecourse loan if defaulted upon costs 
the taxpayer money.
  Two years ago, when we did have some default because the loans were 
collateralized on refined sugar, the Government took the sugar, sold 
it, and made money--no net cost. Technically inside the law my 
colleague from New Hampshire, the Senator from New Hampshire, is right. 
From a technical point of view he is absolutely right--that, if the 
price of refined sugar had dropped dramatically, there might be a loss. 
But the law says no net cost to taxpayers.
  As a result of that we have put the loan rate at a rate to cover 
those margins, and it has no cost. He used an example of the veterans; 
the homeowner. I must tell my colleague from New Hampshire, my Senator 
friend, that he knows this--that when the Government loans money on a 
house they have the house as collateral. And if the person who borrows 
walks away from the house--and that happens--the Government has the 
house and they sell the house. They have the sugar and they sell the 
sugar.
  He used student loans. Student loans are the only area where 
Government loans do not have collateral. Many students have walked away 
from their loans and the taxpayers had to eat them. That was 
increasingly so until the Senator from New Hampshire and I came in the 
early 1980's and said, ``No. You can't do that kind of thing anymore. 
If we are going to loan money to students they have to pay it back.'' 
That became an increasing prerequisite of student loans throughout the 
1980's and into the 1990's as we increasingly provided more money in 
the student loan program.
  So if you loan money to a GI, in many instances on education, that is 
an outright gift. If you loan money to a student, you hope they pay it 
back. They are obligated to pay it back. If they declare bankruptcy and 
walk away from it, even though we put a no-bankruptcy clause in, some 
of them do not. Most of them do, thank goodness. But if the Federal 
Government borrows money on a house and the person walks away from the 
house, they can follow the person legally through the channels; and, if 
the person does not have any money, the Government has the house. That 
is the reality. We know those things.
  In a nonrecourse loan to the refiner the Government has the sugar. 
The example of default cannot be painted to be dramatic because it 
hardly exists. It rarely exists. Over the last 2 years it has existed, 
and, when it did, the Government took the refined sugar, sold it, and 
made a little money above and beyond their expenses.
  Mr. President, if the Government can operate a program like that that 
creates stability in the marketplace, that keeps thousands of farmers 
producing, that disallows the dumping of cheap sugar in our market and 
does so in a way that is of no net cost to the taxpayer, I would say 
that is probably a pretty good program. Maybe that is the way 
Government ought to work in this instance. It creates the kind of 
stability we want.
  The amendment that the Senator from New Hampshire offers imposes an 
eligibility test for participation in what is now a new sugar program. 
For over 12 months we worked at defining a new program, and we put it 
in a 7-year farm bill. Growers began to plant to that farm bill this 
spring.
  I would have hoped that my colleague would have accepted those 
reforms. But I understand that he does not. He wants the program 
eliminated. That is his choice to offer on the floor his amendment, and 
clearly he does that because nobody in my opinion can largely agree 
with his $10 million revenue threshold to establish it. If a refined 
cane miller or a sugar beet processor has annual revenue which exceeds 
$10 million they are not eligible for the program as written in the 
farm bill. Currently all U.S. raw cane millers and sugar beet 
processors have annual revenues above $10 million. Thus, no domestic 
produced sugar would be eligible for current loan programs if this 
amendment were enacted. This amendment will invalidate and render 
useless the hard-fought reform that I have just mentioned that won on 
this floor of the Senate by 61 to 35 vote.
  In the loan program, while I think I have discussed that in a 
reasonably thorough way, Mr. President, USDA cannot make loans directly 
to the sugarcane or the sugar beet grower, as I have mentioned.
  The reason is that raw sugarcane and beets are perishable, and 
although my colleague did not specifically speak to the 
collateralization of the loan, the loans are collateralized by refined 
sugar, and that is why the Government has not lost any money on this, 
not only by actual practice but by the law itself.
  The loan rate for raw cane sugar is 18 cents under the new program 
and has been frozen at that level since 1985. The farm bill makes that 
freeze level a permanent one. The current loan rate is well below the 
domestic market price of 22 cents. So you have that cushion of 
protection between the 18 cents and the 22 cents.
  USDA loans on sugar have consistently been repaid, as I have 
mentioned, with interest. It sounds as if our Government, in this 
instance, was a pretty good banker. The sugar program has been operated 
at no net cost. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers continue to buy sugar at a 
price some 28 percent below the average price in the rest of the 
world's developed countries.
  For just a moment, Mr. President, let me speak briefly again about 
the nonrecourse versus recourse loans that go to the heart of the 
amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire. Currently, all sugar 
loans, along with wheat, cotton, rice, and corn, are nonrecourse loans. 
This means that the only way to collect repayment of the loan is to 
assume the collateral. Rather than collect massive stocks, USDA 
operates the program so that there are no loan forfeitures or cost to 
the Government.
  What the opponents suggest is that this system be changed to 
basically a recourse loan program and the $10 million threshold. Under 
this system, the Government could use any means necessary to collect 
the value of a loan. No other commodity has a recourse loan.
  Those are some facts that I think are extremely important as we deal 
with this issue.
  Mr. President, because we are now just at the beginning of a new farm 
bill, and while all of us spent nearly 2 years crafting this document--
and the Senator from New Hampshire was directly involved in trying to 
change it with amendments in this Chamber, which was certainly his 
right and his prerogative, so he and I and everyone

[[Page S8444]]

else have had a substantial part in shaping the new farm policy, but we 
did it. We put it in effect for 7 years. As a result of that, scores of 
farm organizations around the country have said now it is time to leave 
it alone and let it work for a while under the promises that the 
Government collectively made would be a part of the program.
  The American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Sheep Industry, the 
Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, the Soybean Association, 
National Association of Wheat Growers and Barley Growers, the National 
Corn Association, the National Cotton Council, the National Council of 
Farm Cooperatives, the National Sorghum Producers, the National Milk 
Producers Federation, the National Peanut Growers Association, the 
National Pork Producers Association, and the National Sugar Farmers and 
Processors, all of them have basically said now that you have crafted a 
farm bill, we urge you to stay with it because this is something you 
just do not change overnight. Certainly in my State of Idaho, the 
millions and millions of dollars of investment it takes to farm and to 
produce means that you do not quickly change the program if you change 
it overnight. Of course, the Congress has the right to do that. But we 
understand the importance of making sure that the program is stable.
  I hope I have portrayed my opinion of the effects of this amendment 
by the Senator from New Hampshire. If not, I am sure he will correct 
me, and I will stand corrected if I am wrong. But I think it is 
important to remember that this is a program that since the early 
1980's we have refined and shaped and reshaped so that we create 
stability in the market; that we offer a supply of sugar which is 
substantially less expensive than sugar and sweetener around the world; 
that we are in compliance with GATT, and as we move toward that, one of 
the things which is clearly understandable is that our level of 
participation in the program reduces as other governments around the 
world subsidize, sugar levels reduce because of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade. All of that is part of how our Government has 
worked, and I believe properly so, under the direction of the Congress 
and under the new farm bill that we have before us.
  So I hope that my colleagues in reviewing this amendment will reject 
it. I certainly do not plan to second degree it, and I do not know of 
anyone else who does. It is not my intention to want to put cute words 
around it, to try to hide the impact. I believe this program is strong 
enough to stand on its own, as it has in the past, as it did by a 61 to 
35 vote several months ago on the floor of the Senate. And I hope that 
Senators, in reviewing this, could reject it out of hand and allow the 
program, which we have effectively refined and developed, to operate 
for a period of time to see if we get the savings.
  Let me also conclude by saying that one of the things which is very 
important to remember--and I am not sure whether the Senator's 
amendment would therefore forfeit this figure--one of the results of 
the program and the no net cost to the taxpayer is the assessments that 
are generated through the new program that will produce about $300 
million in deficit reduction.
  Now, if the Senator is still going to say let us keep the assessments 
but let us kill the program, then, in essence, he has created a new tax 
on producers, because we not only eliminated marketing allotments, we 
implemented a 1-cent penalty effectively lowering loan rates and we 
have an assessment that will generate about $300 million in deficit 
reduction to the Treasury over the life of the program of 7 years. As a 
result of that, we think we have put together a positive reform package 
not only for the American taxpayer, but, in this instance, for the 
producer-processor to create a stable market for the commodity that 
they produce.
  I yield back the time.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I certainly appreciate the eloquence and the 
aggressiveness and obviously the effectiveness of the Senator from 
North Dakota and the Senator from Idaho in defending the sugar program 
as it impacts their sugar beet growers who, in most instances, I 
suspect--I suspect in all instances--are very hard working, farm 
community votes. However, the sugar program itself is structured in a 
way that it benefits a lot of major corporate farm activity, and that 
farm activity, as I mentioned before, is extraordinarily expensive to 
the American consumer in an unfair and unjust and unmarket-oriented 
way.
  The argument on the other side appears to have fallen into a few 
categories. Let me try to respond to them in some sort of argument.
  The first argument is that this amendment would eliminate the program 
because any processor doing more than $10 million in business would be 
out of the program. No, that is not true. I think that is simply not 
true. It would say that any processor who generates more than $10 
million in annual sales would have to pay their loans back--just like a 
student, just like a veteran, just like a homeowner.
  Now, there was some representation that we do not collect veterans' 
loans and maybe they are an outright gift. I do not think so. I think 
most veterans pay back their loans, but if they are not paid back, the 
Federal Government has the right to go after them individually. The 
same thing of a student. If a student does not pay back his or her 
loan--it happens a lot, unfortunately--the Federal Government has the 
right to collect that. Of course, in the homeowner's situation, that is 
a collateralized event. The Federal Government takes the home, sells 
the home, but if there is a deficiency, in other words, if there is a 
difference between what that home is sold for under foreclosure and 
what the note is paid out for and the note exceeded the foreclosure 
price of the loan, the individual remains personally responsible for 
that amount.
  What we are suggesting is that a $10 million processor as a 
consortium, as a co-op or as a manufacturing cooperation, the $10 
million processor should have to be liable also just like the student 
is, just like the veteran is, just like the homeowner is for that loan. 
So the program is still very much available. It is available under 
approximately the same terms and conditions relative to default and 
recovery that a loan to a student is, that a loan to a veteran is, and 
that a loan to a HUD recipient of a home ownership loan is. You have to 
pay the loan. You have to pay back the Government. That is all we are 
asking.

  So the program is very much vibrant and alive. To reflect the fact 
that there is a sort of inherent contradiction in this debate that I 
hear from the other side, the position of the other side, on the one 
hand, they are saying this proposal, which is to allow people to borrow 
the money but to have to pay it back, versus borrow the money and then 
if they decide they do not want to pay it back they can just turn over 
their sugar to the Government--that this proposal is going to have a 
disastrous, debilitating, totally scorched earth effect on the farm 
program; and then I heard that nobody has ever defaulted, or if there 
has been a default they sold the collateral for more than the loan was 
worth.
  So why is this such a terrible event? Why is it such a terrible event 
to make it a matter of public policy that people who borrow money from 
the Federal Government should pay it back? I guess it is a terrible 
event because it happens to be perceived, I think, as a threat to the 
sugar growers and the sugar processors. They maybe see it as a camel's-
nose-under-the-tent approach to the issue of their $1.4 billion subsidy 
which they are taking the American consumer to the cleaners with.
  But, as a practical matter, the debate on the other side of this 
issue has defended the position I have proposed in this amendment, 
because they have stated accurately that there have been no defaults 
that would have created recourse beyond the collateral, and, therefore, 
why should it matter to the industry if they find themselves subject to 
recourse loans? Especially when you have an Agriculture Department that 
is controlling the importation of sugar so it keeps the price of sugar 
4 to 5 cents above what the loan price is? I mean, really. It is like 
going into a blackjack game and saying, ``You have to deal me both an 
ace and a jack. If you do not deal me the ace and the jack, I am not 
going to play.''
  In this case we are going to give them the ace and the jack, I guess. 
But

[[Page S8445]]

it makes no sense, that if they should, by some strange coincidence end 
up losing, they should not at least expect the Federal Government 
should be paid back. It is hard to believe there is a scenario where 
under the present scenario they would lose. As long as the Department 
of Agriculture is going to keep the price 4 cents or 5 cents above the 
loan price, how do you ever end up with the collateral being less than 
the loan? It is pretty hard to see that fact pattern occurring.
  But I am told this amendment devastates the program. How does it 
devastate a program when the defense of the opposition has been that 
there has never been a default, and when the numbers, on their face, 
speak for themselves that if there were a default, there would not be 
any recourse?
  No, I do not think it devastates the program. It does not affect the 
program at all. That was my point when I first started this. I said, 
``Gee, I would really like to do something about this program but I 
know I cannot win. But let us at least get ourselves on some sort of 
even keel relative to the American taxpayer and relative to fairness. 
If we are going to say to the homeowner and the student and the veteran 
you have to pay your loans back, let us say to the processor you have 
to pay your loan back, too. That is the purpose of this.''
  So I do not think there is any substance to that argument. I think 
the substance of it was undermined by the presentation of the defense. 
To the effect there was a substantive point made in the opposition, it 
went to the issue of this price stability, which was specifically 
stated by the Senator from North Dakota and clearly implied and alluded 
to by the Senator from Idaho.
  Essentially, the theme of that position was that if you do not have 
price stability in sugar, then you are going to have up-and-down years, 
you are going to have years when the price will go down, when there is 
dumping, and years when the price will go up. So the idea is to have 23 
cents or 22 cents all the time for sugar, even though the world market 
price is 13 cents. Granted that may be a dump price, for all I know. It 
may not be, but it could be a dumped price. But there is clearly a heck 
of a lot of difference, there is a big difference between 22 cents, 23 
cents, and 13 cents. So somewhere in there is the real price of sugar 
one presumes, between those two numbers. It is pretty obvious the 
American consumer is paying a lot more than the real price, if the 
world dump market is 13 cents.
  So, if that is the case, if the purpose here is to maintain a stable 
price for sugar, if that is the real gravamen of the argument, and that 
price always has to be 23 cents or 22 cents--and why is that number 
picked? That number is picked because the loan price is 18 cents and 
they do not want anybody defaulting on their loan. If we apply that 
logic to all the commodities made in this country: All right, let us 
see, now. A couple of weeks ago my son bought a MacIntosh computer. I 
bought it for him for his birthday. The price of that computer, as I 
recall, was somewhere in the $1,500 range. It was a pretty expensive 
item, but it was for schooling. It seemed like a good investment. His 
sisters can use it.
  All prices of all computers should be $1,500--right? The theory of 
the sugar program is the price for a commodity should be the same price 
at all times, because the prices might go up and the prices might go 
down; if you want to maintain stability--we have a lot more people 
working in the old computer industry in this world, in the Apple 
computer industry, I suspect, than make sugar. I bet there are probably 
more people that work for Apple Computer than produce sugar.
  What has happened to Apple computers because they have not had a 
Department of Agriculture fixing the price of that product? The prices 
went down. I found out a few days ago I could have bought the same 
computer I bought a few months ago for $400 less, because there is 
something called a price war going on in the computer industry. And, 
worse than that, for the folks at Apple, they are in serious trouble. 
They have had to lay off thousands of people, because their product was 
not able to maintain the employment. And the prices of computers and 
other computers that have been brought on the market that have made 
that Apple computer, which is a heck of a good computer, I think--
especially the software in it--be not as competitive with whatever the 
appropriate other computer that is competing: Dell, AST, Gateway, 
Digital. Digital is a great computer, by the way--made in New 
Hampshire.
  The point here, of course, is: It is called a marketplace. It is 
called America. It is called a market system. It is called capitalism. 
It is called ``what made this country great.'' It is called 
competition, worldwide, sometimes.
  Take another little commodity called cars. Shall we fix all 
Chevrolets at the price of Chevrolets sold in the year 1979 or 1985? We 
could, I suppose. Then we would not allow the Japanese to import to 
compete.
  I think we went through that, did we not? That is why the Big Three 
had such a tough time, because their quality went down because they did 
not have the competition. Prices stayed up. Then, when they did get the 
competition, it took them a while to turn around. Of course, with 
American know-how they did it pretty quickly, didn't they?
  Now you have the most viable and energized car producers in the 
world, and they are American again. For a while, of course, we had a 
huge Japanese threat to our industry, but we responded.
  Are we to say that the sugar growers in this country would not be 
able to compete? I do not know, I guess that is exactly what we are 
saying in this plan. But, essentially, this concept of stable prices, 
which has been alluded to specifically by the Senator from North Dakota 
and clearly highlighted or addressed by the Senator from Idaho, is 
another term for non-market-place economy. It is another term for price 
fixing. Price fixing does not benefit the consumer. It does not benefit 
the marketplace. It benefits that small group of people who are able to 
benefit from the fixed price which, in this case, happens to be a very 
small group of sugar growers, and it is extremely expensive to the 
American economy.
  There was a statement that there are no tax dollars at risk; the 
taxpayers pay nothing. Well, if you say that the dollar that a taxpayer 
pays in taxes and a dollar a taxpayer takes out of his wallet to pay 
for sugar does not come out of the same wallet, then I guess taxpayers 
are not impacted. If the taxpayers are some mythical beings out there 
who don't go to the marketplace and buy food then, yes, there is no 
impact on the taxpayers.
  But if the taxpayers happen to be real, live Americans who go down to 
the grocery store and buy food with those dollars that are left over 
after the Government takes their money for taxes, well, then it does 
impact them quite a bit, because they are paying somewhere around twice 
the going rate for the price of sugar. They are paying $1.4 billion a 
year more to buy that sugar than they should have to. But this 
amendment does not address that issue, that outrageous issue which I 
would love to address. Unfortunately, I cannot get the votes to address 
it. But this amendment does not address that issue. This amendment 
addresses the fact that these are loans that do not get paid back if 
they go bad.
  Granted, it may never happen. It may never happen that the 
Agriculture Department is able to manipulate, through controlling 
imports, something that comes close enough to the loan price so that 
there never is a loan that goes bad. But there ought to be a statement 
of policy, at least, that this Congress expects the $10 million 
processor to at least be as liable for his or her loans or its loans 
from the Federal Government as we expect the struggling student, the 
veteran and the homeowner.
  There were a couple of ancillary issues that were raised that I think 
need to be addressed. Maybe I already addressed them. I was even more 
thorough than I thought in my statement, so I yield back the remainder 
of my time.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me compliment those who participated 
in this debate for the efforts they made to fully acquaint the Senate 
with the issue that is before us with the amendment offered by the 
Senator from New Hampshire.

[[Page S8446]]

  My reaction to it at this point is that this is an issue that has 
been before the Senate, was before the Senate, was fully debated when 
we were undertaking to write the new farm bill, which contained a lot 
of market transition reforms, included reforms in the Sugar Program and 
many others, and this issue has been resolved, or at least a bill was 
passed by the House and Senate, a conference occurred, a conference 
report was written.
  This is the conference report that was compiled by conferees on the 
part of the House and the Senate, almost 500 pages in length, devoted 
to farm programs and the role of the Federal Government and the private 
sector in trying to make available to Americans abundant supplies of 
reasonably priced foods and commodities.
  The President signed the bill, and this is the law. The bill before 
the Senate today simply funds the activities of the Department of 
Agriculture and related agencies. It doesn't seek to address suggested 
changes in agriculture or farm policy, as such, but simply to undertake 
to allocate to this Department the funds it needs to carry out its 
responsibilities as defined by the law.
  So this is a proposal by the Senator from New Hampshire to change the 
law and, therefore, it seems to me ought not to be adopted by the 
Senate. It is very technical, obviously. I was reading section 156 in 
the conference report that deals with the Sugar Program, and it talks 
about the nonrecourse and the recourse loans that are a part of that 
program, and it is very, very technical.
  I was thinking, how is a Senator who is not a member of the 
Agriculture Committee, has not been a party to the hearings and 
discussions about how this is going to work as a practical matter, how 
is he going to be able to decide, how is she going to be able to decide 
whether this is an amendment they want to vote for or against.
  These are arguments that have been made on both sides of the issues. 
I compliment the Senators involved. I think the only thing we can be 
sure of is we will vote on this. We will vote on this amendment. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered, and the vote will occur in due course 
of proceeding on this bill. It will not occur today. But under the 
order entered for the consideration of the bill today, it would be put 
over and a vote will occur tomorrow.
  I am going to have to come down on the side of the Senator from Idaho 
and the Senator from North Dakota in arguing that the amendment be 
voted down. I hope Senators will vote against the amendment, with due 
respect to my very good friend from New Hampshire, whom I admire 
greatly.
  Mr. President, we are prepared to receive other amendments, or any 
further debate on this amendment would be in order if Senators care to 
debate the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 4968

 (Purpose: To restore funding for the Agriculture Research Service at 
          the level approved by the House of Representatives)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4968.
       On page 10, line 18, strike ``$721,758,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$702,831,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would restore the funding 
level for the Agriculture Research Service at the House-passed amount. 
Simply, if the amendment is adopted, we will save $18,927,000, which 
represents a 3-percent cut from the Senate level.
  No Agriculture Research Service programs will be put in jeopardy. No 
dire outcome will result. Mr. President, it is a very simple amendment. 
While the Senate does not and should not function as a rubber stamp of 
House action, the other body was entirely correct when it funded the 
Agriculture Research Service at $702,831,000.
  Mr. President, in the Department of Agriculture appropriations bill, 
a lot of the unnecessary spending is in the Agriculture Research 
Service program. Certainly, there is a legitimate need for agricultural 
research. We all agree on that point.
  Let me emphasize, voting for this amendment will not contradict that 
point. Voting for the amendment does affirm our belief that we must 
scale back our spending in a responsible manner.
  The House funded the Agriculture Research Service at a very 
reasonable level at $702 million. Again, I want to note that this is a 
3-percent cut from the Senate level. I believe that we could cut this 
nearly $1 billion program by 3 percent.
  Mr. President, there is other language in the bill and in the 
accompanying committee report that concerns me. I would like to raise 
some of those issues at this time. On page 51 of the bill, the House 
had language that stated no funding made available under this title 
shall be used for new studies and evaluations. I applaud the House for 
inserting this prohibition in the bill. Unfortunately, the Senate 
struck the House provision and inserted instead the $6 million cap on 
studies and evaluations. Unfortunately, many of these studies are not 
necessary or could be privately funded. I hope that when the bill is 
conferenced, the Senate will recede to the House on this matter.
  The committee report continues to recommend funding for a wide 
variety of specific industry areas. I believe that such earmarking is 
detrimental to the agriculture industry as a whole because it 
encourages funding to go to those industries with the best lobbyists or 
those favored by the members of the committee. All research grants 
should be based on national priority and competitive bid.
  As an example, I would like to comment briefly on the shrimp 
aquaculture research provisions contained on page 39 of the committee 
report. The committee recommended a $300,000 increase in Federal 
funding for shrimp research. Mr. President, the U.S. shrimp industry is 
a profitable, multibillion-dollar-a-year industry. While it is true 
that the Asian shrimp industry is much larger than the U.S. shrimp 
industry--I understand that some desire that we should have an American 
source of shrimp--it seems that increased Government funding of the 
shrimp industry is not needed at this time.
  Mr. President, my staff met with shrimp industry representatives who 
explained their ongoing concern with foreign diseases infiltrating our 
national shrimp farms. I share their concern. However, since the shrimp 
industry is a profitable industry, and since the Federal Government 
already spends over $3 million a year on shrimp aquaculture research, 
this new financial need should be met by the shrimp industry itself.
  Again, I hope when the bill goes to conference that the House demand 
its language on this matter and that Federal involvement with the 
shrimp industry be kept at a minimum.
  I also want to express my concern that the Senate added language to 
the bill on page 33 that funds the National Natural Resources 
Conservation Foundation at no more than $250,000. This sounds very 
good, but it raises many questions. First, according to the act which 
established the National Natural Resources Conservation Foundation, 
Public Law 104-127, the foundation is ``a charitable and non profit 
corporation * * * [and] is not an agency or instrumentality of the 
United States.''
  The law also notes the numerous duties of the foundation, many of 
which I agree with. But I want to note that the last of the duties 
proscribed in the law for this private corporation is ``[to] raise 
private funds to promote the purposes of the foundation.'' The law 
states this is a private organization that should raise funds and 
promote certain agricultural activities. I think we should let the 
corporation follow that law.
  Mr. President, isn't the concept of a private corporation that it is 
private, therefore, not funded by the Federal Government? In general, 
private corporations should not be funded with Federal dollars. I hope 
the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture will not use any 
appropriated money to fund this organization. While there is a 
legitimate role for some Federal dollars to be used by private 
corporations for certain select activities that are necessary but which 
might otherwise go

[[Page S8447]]

unfunded, this is not one of those exceptions.
  Again, Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. It represents a 3-
percent cut in the Agriculture Research Service program and restores 
the House of Representatives-passed funding level for the program. I 
hope the Senate will adopt the amendment.
  Mr. President, I have read the report language of the bill rather 
carefully. There are many worthwhile and worthy causes. Some of them I 
do not quite understand. Some of them are somewhat unusual, to say the 
least. Grape research, hops, insect rearing, goat grass control, 
nutrition intervention projects, cotton value-added/quality research, 
apple research, alfalfa research, corn germplasm research.
  Mr. President, all these, I am sure, are worthwhile, but many 
Americans who are facing cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid, cuts in 
food stamps, Social Security being in financial jeopardy would ask the 
question--and I think it is a legitimate one--should the taxpayers be 
paying for a fish farming experiment laboratory? Should the taxpayers 
be paying for cotton value-added/quality research? Should the taxpayers 
be paying for corn germplasm research? Apple research? Alfalfa 
research? Funding children's hospitals?
  Mr. President, the question, I think, is a legitimate one. I have no 
information that the apple industry in America is in such dire straits 
that they need to have Federal dollars spent on apple research. I 
wonder if the apple industry in America could pay for apple research. I 
have no information that the Arkansas children's hospital is in such 
bad shape that it needs to have an additional $425,000 of taxpayers' 
dollars.
  Bee research. I did not know that the Hayden Bee ARS Laboratory in 
Tucson, AZ, required earmarked funding. Mr. President, I did not know 
that the wheat industry was in such bad shape that it needed an 
additional $450,000 above the 1996 level for the ARS Pacific Northwest 
Club Wheat Breeding Program.
  What I am saying, Mr. President, is it all gets down to the question 
about the role of government in our society. I was under the distinct 
impression that, at least on this side of the aisle, Members felt that 
the role of government in our society should be prioritized to provide 
for national security and for those in our society who are unable to 
take care of themselves who need our help, and certainly otherwise 
important programs.
  I do not understand the logic behind funding with taxpayers' dollars 
industry, whether it be fish farms or grapes or cotton or wheat or 
bees, when those industries are not only not in need, but according to 
the information I have received that agriculture is one of the 
healthiest industries in America.
  So I hope that we will make a modest cut and restore the House level 
of funding. Mr. President, I have very few illusions as to the 
prospects of this amendment, but I would suggest that sooner or later 
the American people will continue to question and question severely 
this kind of funding. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me respond to the Senator from 
Arizona by saying that when we looked at the President's budget request 
for funding of the Agriculture Research Service activities, we, too, 
thought that the request was too high. Our careful evaluation of the 
needs for research done by the Agriculture Research Service resulted in 
our reducing the amount available for this activity by $7 million. So 
the proposal that is before the Senate is $7 million less than 
requested by the administration.
  Let me also point out one other thing. I noticed the Senator's 
amendment would cut $18 million from the Senate-recommended figure, $18 
million from what the Senate recommended. We are already $7 million 
below the President's request. He does that, he says, to bring our 
number to the point where we would agree with the House on the level of 
funding for these activities. The House number is $702 million in 
total. The bad part is, if you look at the House numbers individually 
in all the items in the bill that the House says should be funded, it 
adds up to $710 million more or less.
  Draw the bottom line and put $702 million. He wants us to join that 
hocus-pocus and suggest we want individual projects funded up and down 
the line in their bill, and if you add them all up it is $710 million, 
round numbers, but they draw the bottom line and put $702. I will not 
submit a bill to the floor of this Senate and do that and say I am 
cutting spending more than we really are recommending when you look at 
the individual items.
  What they are forcing the Department of Agriculture to do, if the 
Senate goes along with that, we are misrepresenting to the general 
public, we are misrepresenting to the Department of Agriculture, what 
our recommendation is. We are forcing the Department to pick out $7 
million in cuts and impose them somewhere, and disavowing any 
connection with it. We are disavowing paternity with a $7 million cut.
  If we are going to impose the cut to $702 million, identify where the 
cuts are going to be. If you are going to cut the Arkansas Research 
Program that the Department of Agriculture runs, you have to spell it 
out. If you are going to cut an Arizona cotton research activity that 
is a substantial investment of dollars in a new facility, say it. Say 
you are cutting western cotton research, and point out it is done in 
Arizona. Just to simply say we are spending more than we need but not 
say how, where, when, or to what extent, that is not right.
  Now, after the Senator completed his proposal where he makes this $18 
million cut, he then talked about other parts of the bill he found 
obnoxious that do not have anything to do with Agricultural Research 
Service funding. If there are programs that should not be funded, I 
suggest we ought to spell it out. Amendments ought to target those 
projects. If that is what the complaint is, offer an amendment that 
does that. But to offer an across-the-board cut which if we passed 
would force the Department to make the decisions, we would not have any 
responsibility for doing that. That is irresponsibility. That is not 
accountability.
  I sympathize with the Senator's proposal that we make sure the 
dollars that are invested in research are, No. 1, needed, serve some 
public interest, are reviewed carefully. I can assure the Senate and I 
can assure the Senator from Arizona that will be undertaken here.
  He did specifically mention shrimp research for shrimp farming 
operations and how they were money-making enterprises and they did not 
need the research dollars. I convened a hearing just on that issue last 
year to determine what some of the problems were in aquaculture in 
fresh water, some salt water shrimp and other aquaculture activities. I 
found out there was an epidemic of exotic viruses that have attacked 
the shrimp in those operations and we were, in exchange, importing huge 
quantities of shrimp from China and other foreign sources because we 
could not meet the supplies needed here for wholesome, safe shrimp and 
other seafood. This was a growing industry. It was one that had a lot 
of promise but it was about to be wiped out. These funds that are made 
available are made available on condition that the industry come up 
with its own money to help match the dollars that are put up by the 
Government to get to the bottom of this problem, and it is a problem.
  Here is the hearing. This is a hearing record. This is not something 
the industry just came in and tried to push over on us. I am convinced 
the dollars that are made available for that activity are needed. The 
purpose, to provide high health and genetically improved stocks, to 
control disease agents, to enhance environmental protection, and to 
develop animal husbandry methods. All of this is needed if we are going 
to save this industry from a doom, a doom that will cause us to have to 
rely on foreign sources of these products. We already do. But we will 
be completely reliant on them if we are not careful, if we let this 
virus problem spread, if do not figure out how to stop it. That is 
needed. I will stand behind it. The record supports the need. I hope 
the Senate will reject the amendment.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

[[Page S8448]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask for the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the Senator's amendment 
number 4959.


                Amendment No. 4969 to Amendment No. 4959

     (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to make loans to large 
 processors of sugarcane and sugar beets unless the loans require the 
   processors to repay the full amount of the loans, plus interest.)

  Mr. GREGG. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4969 to amendment No. 4959.

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

       Strike all after the word ``SEC.'' and insert the 
     following:

     REPAYMENT OF CERTAIN SUGAR LOANS.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be used to make a loan to a processor of 
     sugarcane or sugar beets, or both, who has an annual revenue 
     that exceeds $15 million, unless the terms of the loan 
     require the processor to repay the full amount of the loan, 
     plus interest.

  Mr. GREGG. This is the same as the underlying amendment, but it 
changes the amount that is required of processors to have recourse on 
from a $10 million threshold to a $15 million threshold. After that, it 
is a more lenient amendment than the first, if we presume we are 
requiring people to pay back loans.
  It does not, I think, aggravate the situation and should not from the 
standpoint of my colleagues who feel differently on this amendment than 
I do. I offer it to protect my position in the batting order here.
  I make one additional point. There was a point made on the other 
side, and this is, really, ancillary to the overall debate but needs to 
be responded to. There was a point made on the other side that the 
Sugar Program as presently structured actually causes a net ``infloat'' 
of the Treasury because this is an assessment process. However, if you 
take into effect in the calculation the cost to the Federal Government 
of having to buy sugar for products which it uses and food stamps and 
military feeding and child nutrition at the inflated rate we must pay 
because the Federal Government is a fairly large consumer--also as I 
mentioned, and I suspect ad nauseam for my colleagues, the price here 
is dramatically more than the price the market would be were this a 
market-oriented program versus price-control program.
  GAO has advised us the cost to the Federal Government, by letter of 
July 18, the cost in 1994 to the Federal Government for purchasing 
products which had inflated prices due to the cost of sugar was 
approximately $90 million annually. So that exceeds, by, I think, a 
factor of three, what is alleged to be the positive cash flow of this 
program to the Treasury.
  Let me read the operative sentences:

       In 1994, total expenditures on food were approximately $647 
     billion. Of this amount, approximately $42 billion was 
     government expenditures for food purchases and cash transfers 
     to consumers for food purchases. This represented 6.5 percent 
     of all domestic food expenditures. Applying this to the $1.4 
     billion cost of the sugar program, we estimate that the 
     government's additional cost of purchasing food and providing 
     the level of food assistance it delivered in 1994, was 
     approximately $90 million.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    General Accounting Office,

                                    Washington, DC, July 18, 1995.
     Congressional Requesters,
       In our report entitled Sugar Program; Changing Domestic and 
     International Conditions Require Program Changes (GAO/RCED-
     93-84, Apr. 16, 1993), we estimated that the U.S. sugar 
     program costs sweetener users an average of $1.4 billion 
     annually. In this context, you requested that we estimate how 
     much the sugar program increases the government's costs of 
     purchasing food and conducting food assistance programs.
       While it is impossible to precisely quantify the direct 
     costs of the sugar program to the government, we have 
     approximated the government's additional costs, based on its 
     share of total domestic food expenditures. In 1994, total 
     expenditures on food were approximately $647 billion. Of this 
     amount, approximately $42 billion was government expenditures 
     for food purchases and cash transfers to consumers for food 
     purchases. This represented 6.5 percent of all domestic food 
     expenditures. Applying this percentage to the $1.4 billion 
     cost of the sugar program, we estimate that the government's 
     additional cost of purchasing food and providing the level of 
     food assistance it delivered in 1994, was approximately $90 
     million.
       Table I provides more detail, by program, on the 
     government's expenditures on direct food purchases and cash 
     assistance for consumer food purchases. These calculations 
     are approximated, using the best available information.

  TABLE I.--GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON FOOD PURCHASES AND CASH PAYMENTS FOR 
                      CONSUMER FOOD PURCHASES, 1994                     
                        [In millions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Program                               Amount 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Stamps..................................................    $22,880
Child nutrition food subsidies \1\...........................      6,262
Direct distribution to families..............................         46
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)................        142
The Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and           
 Children (WIC)..............................................      2,396
Commodity supplemental.......................................         84
Direct distribution to institutions..........................      1,561
Direct distribution to the elderly...........................        177
Correctional institutions \1\................................      1,564
Hospitals \1\................................................      1,017
Nursing homes \1\............................................      2,038
Other homes and schools \1\..................................        266
Military food purchases \2\..................................      1,055
Military subsistence payments \3\............................      2,401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA Economic Research Service.                                 
Note: Data are for calendar year 1994, except where otherwise noted.    
\1\ Includes federal, state, and local spending.                        
\2\ Fiscal year 1994 data provided by the Defense Logistics Agency.     
\3\ Fiscal year data provided by each of the Armed Services.            

       While raising the costs of purchasing food and conducting 
     food assistance programs, the sugar program generates some 
     revenues through marketing assessments on sugar. On average, 
     these marketing assessments total $30 million annually. If 
     the sugar program did not exist, these assessments would not 
     be collected.
       If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at 
     (202) 512-5138 or Bob Robertson at (202) 512-9894.

                                           Robert C. Robertson

                              (For John W. Harman, Director, Food,
                                          and Agriculture Issues.)

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment 
in the second degree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  They yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 4968

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Arizona 
is arbitrary at best and capricious at worst.
  The year 1995 culminated a series of cuts in agricultural research 
over a period of years. In other words, agricultural research funds had 
been cut every year for several years. In 1995, for the first time in 
this Nation's history, agricultural yields per acre failed to increase. 
That was on an apples-and-apples basis, where rainfall and so on was 
taken into consideration.
  Now, the suggestion is, and I am not familiar enough with that study 
to know, but the suggestion is that as we have cut agricultural 
research money, we are finally being caught up by lower yields of 
agricultural products per acre.
  When I was a youngster, 15 or 20 bushels of soybeans per acre in much 
of my State was ordinary. Today, even unirrigated beans ought to make 
30 to 40 bushels per acre. Rice, I can remember when 50 to 75 bushels 
of rice per acre was a big crop, and today it is not uncommon, at all, 
in my State, for rice farmers to make 200 bushels of rice per acre.
  Cotton. When I was a kid, because we did not have any antidote to the 
boll weevil, a half-bale of cotton to the acre was considered a pretty 
good crop. And everybody knows what Norman Borlaug did for wheat 
production in this country. All of those things were not accidental. 
They were done because the Federal Government put money into 
agricultural research. Right now, the fire ant is moving north. 
Southern Arkansas is covered with fire ants. They do a tremendous 
amount of damage. Killer bees are moving up from Mexico.
  Mr. President, I am one of the people who think we probably made a 
mistake when we eliminated the honey program. The honey program cost 
very little. The reason I had real trouble with that amendment is 
because bees pollinate plants; 15 percent of all the pollinization in 
this country is done by native honey bees. The killer bees coming up 
from Mexico are killing our bees, and, in addition, there are strains

[[Page S8449]]

of virus and other threats to honey bees that need to be understood. 
That takes research. Once we understand the problems, solutions will 
follow.
  I saw a story the other day that was interesting to me because the 
cranberry farmers of Massachusetts, for example, are getting terribly 
upset because they depend on bee farmers to bring their hives to their 
crops and pollinate them. I am not sure New Hampshire does not have 
some crops similar to that, which honeybee farmers bring into New 
Hampshire. And now the average life of a beehive has gone from 3 years 
to 1 year. Oh, yes, we spent Federal dollars every year subsidizing the 
honey industry through research. But I can tell you that is peanuts--if 
you will pardon the expression--compared to the benefit that honey bees 
do for the American farmers in pollinating their crops.
  The Senator from Arizona mentioned aquaculture. Thirty years ago, the 
farmers of Arkansas started raising catfish, domestically raised 
catfish. And all the world, if they are not already familiar, should 
know that it is the most beautiful, delicious, delicate, succulent fish 
ever known. We went into the catfish farming business almost out of 
necessity because we irrigate our rice crops and we store the water in 
the wintertime. The farmers decided that as long as they have these big 
ponds of stored water that they use to irrigate rice with, why not 
figure out another use for those rice irrigating ponds.
  My predecessor in the U.S. Senate, Bill Fulbright, helped come up 
with the idea of raising catfish in those ponds. Mr. President, would 
you like to know how many pounds of catfish we could raise a year per 
acre? Seven-hundred pounds. And so at least we started a couple of 
catfish research projects called aquaculture--all fish-raising is 
aquaculture. We have one in Mississippi and one in Arkansas. In 
Arkansas we think continued research is important and 2 years ago we 
made substantial investments to improve our aquaculture research 
facilities in Stuttgart. The 1996 farm bill redesignated that facility 
as the National Aquaculture Research Center, and I can tell you we are 
all very proud of it. Some of the magazines called it a $7 million fish 
farm. It had nothing to do with fish farming beyond its application of 
new information for fish farmers; it was all research. But over the 
period of the last 30 years, because the Federal Government has put 
money into fish farming research, catfish farming research, production 
of catfish per acre has gone from 700 pounds per acre per year to 4,400 
pounds per acre per year. And unless we continue to fund agriculture 
research, we are going to be sitting around the breakfast table looking 
at each other wondering what we are going to eat that day.
  On the front page of the Metro section of the Post this morning there 
was an interesting article concerning blue crab in the Chesapeake Bay? 
The crop this year is so sparse that 500 crab pickers are out of work. 
And the ones who are working are working 3 days a week. Now, if 
somebody came in here and said they had a beautiful idea for 
replenishing the crab population of the bay, I might vote for it. I can 
assure you that those employed in the crabbing industry around 
Chesapeake Bay and consumers who enjoy reasonably priced crabmeat would 
be asking us to vote for it.
  The Senator from Arizona mentioned Children's Hospital in Arkansas. I 
can remember when the Children's Hospital in Arkansas was just a small 
hospital to treat severely burned children. Today, it is one of the 
finest state-of-the-art children's hospitals in America. And this is 
the third year we have put money in that. What is the Department of 
Agriculture doing giving money to the Children's Hospital in Arkansas? 
It is for a really sophisticated nutrition program. Do you know 
something else? The Children's Hospital in Little Rock is putting up a 
lot of money--millions--to build a facility to house this nutrition 
program. I never knew what a children's hospital was. A hospital was a 
hospital to me, until my daughter became ill and the pediatrician said, 
``You ought to take her to Boston.'' The finest children's hospital in 
the world is in Boston, MA. That is where I took her. Today, I would 
not have to go to Boston because of the tremendous strides of the 
Arkansas Children's Hospital.
  A member of my family left a week ago and went to the emergency room 
of one of the hospitals in Washington, DC, and there were three 
residents standing there. This new doctor, a young man, walked in. He 
had just joined Georgetown University Hospital. When he found out I was 
from Arkansas, he said, ``You know, when I finished my training and 
started looking for a place to settle, believe it or not, I went to 
Little Rock, AR. I looked over your Children's Hospital, and I never 
got such a shock in my life. It is one of the finest facilities I have 
ever been in. I nearly decided to stay in Little Rock, not only because 
of the facilities but because of the quality of the people there.''
  There is $425,000 in this bill to continue funding what we hope will 
be one of the finest children's and nutrition programs in the United 
States. Now, I can remember when it took 9 to 12 weeks to grow a 
broiler, a chicken, for the retail fresh market. Today, you do it in 6 
weeks. Do you know why? Because of agriculture research.
  So I cannot say much more than the chairman has already said. He made 
a beautiful speech on the McCain amendment a moment ago. I hope when 
the time comes that the amendment, which, as I say, is arbitrary at 
best, will be soundly defeated.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Robert Hedberg, who is 
working for the Senate Agriculture Committee, be given floor privileges 
during the debate on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I rise to simply advise the Senate that 
the Senator from Massachusetts came over a while ago to ask if he could 
have 10 minutes as if in morning business to talk about a subject that 
he discussed in the Senate earlier, and hadn't been able to complete 
his remarks. I suggested that he come over around 4:30, thinking that 
there might be a lull in the action so that he could proceed with 
morning business remarks. But I know the Senator from North Dakota is 
here to talk about the issue before the Senate. I hope we can resolve 
it so that the Senator from Massachusetts can have a few minutes 
following the Senator from North Dakota, or preceding the Senator, 
whatever is their pleasure.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 4959

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, they are at it again. The critics of farm 
programs are suggesting bad policy for agriculture and are trying to 
break the promise just made to the American farmer.
  On April 4 this year, the President signed into law the 1996 farm 
bill. That is April 4 of this year. The proponents of that bill claim 
they had a 7-year plan for agriculture, one that promised to be 
reliable, one that promised to provide certainty, one that promised to 
reduce Government interference.
  The farm bill passed, and now we see how quickly their promises have 
been broken. The House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee proposed 
additional cuts in addition to those already made in commodity payments 
under the freedom to farm legislation. They broke their promise to the 
American farmer--not 7 years later, but 7 weeks later. So much for 
reliability and certainty.
  Thankfully, those additional cuts in commodity payments were rejected 
at the full committee level. But the critics of the farm program did 
not stop there. They proposed, on the House side, capping raw sugar 
prices. Imagine, people who advocate market orientation are placing 
into law a limit on what prices could be in an industry. If that is not 
Government interference, I do not know what is.
  Under that amendment, the Republican-led House would be telling the 
Government to reach into the sugar market and place an arbitrary cap on 
prices. It is the ultimate irony--Government interference at its worst. 
Once again, a promise was broken.
  Now today we are faced with an amendment to interfere even more with 
what was just agreed to months ago. The Gregg amendment eliminates the 
safety net U.S. producers have

[[Page S8450]]

against heavily subsidized foreign competition.
  The Senator from New Hampshire I think is well-motivated, well-
intended, but I think sadly misinformed as to international sugar and 
about what happens in these markets. And I would say to my colleague 
from New Hampshire that this is not like Dell Computer, or Apple 
Computer, or IBM. Oh, no, that is not the way the sugar market works in 
the world. This is not a free market. That is a nice idea--a textbook 
idea--but it is not the real world. The sugar industry worldwide works 
in a much different way. Every major producing country has a program--
every one. We are not talking about a free market. We are talking about 
heavy Government involvement in every one of these producing countries.
  What the Senator from New Hampshire wants to do is say to the U.S. 
industry, ``You go out there and compete against all these other 
countries, but without the benefit of a program. You go out there, and 
we are going to engage in unilateral disarmament here in America.'' We 
are going to say to our folks, ``You go out and compete not only 
against other countries' farmers, but against the governments of other 
countries, and good luck. We hope everything will work out.'' 
Everything will not work out.
  Anybody who has looked at the sugar industry and what has happened 
knows better, knows precisely what will happen, if we say to our 
producers, ``You go out there and compete against heavily subsidized 
foreign sugar and see what happens.'' We all know what will happen. Our 
folks will go broke, because the treasuries of these countries with 
whom we are competing are a lot bigger than the treasuries of the 
individual producers.
  That is the reality of what we face here. This notion that the 
Senator advocates that U.S. sugar policy unfairly inflates U.S. prices 
over world prices is absolutely untrue--absolutely untrue. All of us 
know what happens if you take away the sugar program. This chart shows 
what has happened the two times we eliminated the sugar program. Here 
is what happened to prices. They skyrocketed in both cases in the early 
1970's and in the early 1980's. Prices skyrocketed. Why? Because the 
market knew we were headed for turbulence, a lack of certainty, that 
people would dramatically reduce their plantings. And what would happen 
is you would see shortages, spot shortages. And those who are producers 
of sugar, refiners, bid up the price in order to assure themselves of a 
stable supply. That is what has happened repeatedly.
  Unfortunately, when my colleague says, ``Gee, look at the price. The 
sugar price is 22 cents a pound, and the world price is 13 cents. Well, 
there is evidence, there is clear evidence that this sugar program is 
gouging consumers.'' Nonsense, absolute nonsense.
  Eighty-five percent of the sugar that is marketed in the world moves 
under contract. This sugar is not in the world market at all. It is 
moved under a contract. For this reason, the so-called world market is 
not a world market. It is a dump market. It is where the sugar sells 
that is not under contract. That is why you see the prices in the so-
called world market, the dump market, selling for 13 cents.
  Look at what happens if you eliminate the sugar program. We know what 
happens. Every time it has been tried, prices skyrocket. And who got 
hurt? I will tell you who got hurt. The consumer got hurt. This is not 
a free-market model. That is not what is happening in world sugar 
production.
  Make no mistake: The Gregg amendment kills the sugar program. If you 
want to kill the sugar program, there is a way to do it--pass the Gregg 
amendment. If you want to sock it to consumers, pass the Gregg 
amendment. Prices will skyrocket. We know, it has happened before 
whenever somebody actually got a mind to pursue this course. But not 
only will it hurt consumers, it will hurt American producers, because 
even though prices will go up, American producers will be hurt. Why? 
Because we will get a flood of foreign sugar into the U.S. market.
  We know what will happen. It happened every time in the past when 
this and the other Chamber has decided that we should eliminate the 
sugar program, that we were going to be free from the world and act as 
though there is some free market in world sugar. There is no free 
market.
  Let me just say that the Gregg amendment is not a program. It is a 
recipe for disaster. It will force dozens of millers and processors and 
thousands of farmers out of business. This is not some insignificant 
amendment.
  In my State, there are thousands of farmers that depend on sugar for 
a substantial part of their income. Kill this program, and you kill 
them. And they know it. They know exactly what is happening in these 
world markets. They know exactly what has happened with other 
countries' programs. They know exactly what we are up against in these 
world markets.
  For those less familiar with sugar policy, loans are not made to 
these producers, because beets and cane are not storable commodities. 
It is unlike other commodities such as grains, such as corn and wheat. 
Those are programs that have a payment that goes directly to producers 
because those are storable commodities.
  That is not the case in sugar. Sugarcane and sugar beets are not 
storable. So what we have is a program where the loans are made to the 
millers and processors who store the raw cane or the processed beet 
sugar. As a result, producers are intricately tied to the millers and 
processors. If millers and processors are no longer able to use the 
loan program, they will simply go out of business and they will take 
farmers with them, make no mistake.
  Let us just look at how many beet processors and cane mills have 
already gone out of business. This chart clearly shows that this 
industry is already facing hard times. This shows what has happened to 
beet and cane processing mills that have gone out of business since 
1990. If anybody thinks there is some big windfall out here, somebody 
is getting rich on this program, let us look at the record.
  Why did all these folks go out of business if it is so good? Let us 
look at beet and cane processing mills. This is just since 1990. The 
record since 1980 is a whole lot darker.
  Let us just look since 1990. Delta Sugar Co., beet plant, California, 
went under in 1993; Holly Sugar, California, beet plant, 1993; Columbia 
Sugar, cane plant, went out of business, Louisiana, 1994; Hamakua 
Sugar, cane plant, Hawaii, 1994; Hilo Coast Processing, again, cane 
sugar, went out of business in 1994; Oahu Sugar, cane plant, Hawaii, 
1994; Spreckels Sugar, again, a California plant--this is a beet 
plant--went out of business in 1996; Holly Sugar, Hamilton City, CA, 
beet plant, went out of business in 1996; Ka'u Agribusiness Co., cane 
plant, Hawaii, 1996, went out of business; Kaialua Sugar Co., cane 
plant, Hawaii, 1996, went out of business; McBryde Sugar, cane plant, 
Hawaii, went out of business in 1996; Western Sugar, Mitchell, NE, beet 
plant, went out of business in 1996.
  One after another, right out of business, and you pass the Gregg 
amendment and we will be able to provide next year chart after chart 
after chart just like this one of companies that have gone out of 
business. That is what we are talking about. The stakes are high.
  Let me be clear. The Gregg amendment benefits the sugar refiners. 
That is who is the beneficiary if this amendment passes, not consumers. 
They will not benefit. In fact, they will be hurt. Not farmers, not 
beet processors, not cane mills, but refiners, they will be the 
beneficiaries.
  Let us look at charts that show the efforts made to increase the 
supply of raw sugar in the U.S. market and the activity it caused in 
the market. This chart shows what we have seen with respect to raw 
sugar prices and the import quota increases over the past year and a 
half as USDA allowed quota increases four consecutive times, all to the 
benefit of refiners.
  This chart shows raw sugar prices from 1995 to 1996. On November 9, 
1995, USDA allowed another 330,000 tons to come in over quota--that is, 
foreign sugar to come into the United States--and look what happened to 
prices. Prices went down markedly. Then they came back up. January 17 
of this year they socked it to the domestic producer again bringing in 
more foreign sugar and predictably prices plunged again. Then we saw 
price recovery. All of this is moving in the 22\1/2\ to 23 cents a 
pound range.
  On April 1, they did it again, brought in another 220,000 tons from 
abroad.

[[Page S8451]]

 Prices plunged. And again, June 12, just a month ago, another 165,000 
tons. Look what happened to prices; a steep decline as more foreign 
sugar was brought in, that benefited whom? Benefited the refiners 
because they were getting more sugar to process through their plants, 
more throughput, more activity, more profit.
  I do not begrudge them and their profit. But let us look at what is 
happening with respect to the throughput of the refiners, because the 
Gregg amendment is misnamed. It ought to be called the ``refiners 
benefit bill.'' That is really what we are talking about. You are 
picking sides in an economic fight and you are saying we want to give 
the refiners more than they are getting now.
  Let us look at what the throughput has been through cane refiners' 
plants in the last 10 years--1985-86 to 1995-96.
  Back in 1986-87, we were looking at 5.3 million short tons. Had a bad 
year in 1987-88. Then we went to 5.4 million short tons. Went up to 5.9 
million--that is the peak--in 1990-91. Then we saw some pulling back. 
But in 1995-96 we see a record for the refiners in terms of throughput, 
6.4 million short tons--6.4 million short tons. And yet what do we have 
before us? The refiners benefit bill. They have just had record 
throughput. That is the amount of product going through their plants. 
They just had a record year.
  Well, throughput alone does not tell you what the refiners are 
experiencing. You have to look at the difference between the raw sugar 
price and the refined sugar price. That will tell you, combined with 
throughput, how well our refiner friends are doing.
  What do we find when we look at that? Well, it is very, very 
interesting--very interesting, indeed. This chart shows from 1990 to 
1996 raw sugar prices. That is in red. I hope there is nothing in the 
way of their seeing exactly what has happened to raw sugar prices.
  They have been stable for 10 years. This awful program that is 
gouging consumers has provided them with stable prices for 10 years. 
Name anything else that people buy in this country that has been stable 
for 10 years. Tell me one thing that has been stable for 10 years. But 
sugar prices, raw sugar prices have been stable. I wish I could say the 
same thing for refined sugar because refined sugar, you can see, 
starting in 1995, took off like a scalded cat. Refined sugar prices 
jumped, and jumped dramatically at the same time raw sugar prices were 
falling. Raw sugar prices were falling; refined sugar prices were 
skyrocketing. I have already shown you the record throughput for 
refiners in 1995-96. And yet what we have before us is a refiners 
benefit bill. That is the Gregg amendment.
  Why should we be passing a refiners benefit bill when they have just 
had the biggest throughput in their history and, No. 2, the best 
margins--the best margins--that you can find in the last 10 years?
  Mr. President, what has happened, I believe, is very clear. This is a 
transparent argument. The refiners want to continue to make more money 
by refining cheap sugar from the world market. This amendment not only 
breaks the promises of reliability, certainty, and reduced Government 
interference in agriculture that was made to American farmers only 4 
months ago, but it is bad policy that would send shock waves through a 
domestic industry, a domestic industry that produces tens of thousands 
of jobs in this country.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in soundly rejecting the Gregg 
amendment.
  Let me just conclude by saying this is, again, not like the typical 
industry. Senator Gregg refers to the computer industry, and says there 
is no Government involvement there. He is right. That is a whole 
different ball game than the worldwide sugar industry, where every 
single major producing country has a program. Every single one of them 
aggressively supports their producers. If we are to abandon ours, the 
results will be very, very clear.
  No. 1, we have seen what has happened in the past in terms of prices. 
Prices will skyrocket. That is undeniable. The world price the Senator 
refers to as 15 percent of the market is a dump market. It has no 
relationship to supply/demand relations in the world. The vast majority 
of sugar moves under contract in the world. So that dump market and its 
so-called world price is not a world price at all, it is a dump price. 
That is what people get for sugar produced above and beyond their 
contractual requirements. If you take away the program you are going to 
get exactly what we saw the last two times: Prices skyrocket. So 
consumers are not going to be helped, they are going to be hurt.
  No. 2, the processors in this country, beet processors and cane 
processors, are going to be hurt. I have already shown all the plants 
that have closed in 1994, 1995, and 1996. A lot of plants have closed. 
Only one refiner but a lot of processing plants have closed. So those 
folks would be hurt. When they are hurt the farmers are hurt because 
the farmers are directly tied with those processing facilities. All of 
a sudden, if you yank out from U.S. producers any support, what you 
have done is changed the balance of power in these world markets.
  Who have you helped? You have helped our foreign competitors. The 
Gregg amendment is great if you represent a foreign country and you 
produce sugar. They would look forward to the day the United States 
pulls the plug on its producers and its processors. They are just 
waiting for the opportunity to come in and take over this industry, 
take the jobs, take the economic growth, and take the economic 
opportunity.
  American farmers who produce sugar are the most efficient in the 
world. We are ready to compete head to head with anybody at any time. 
But what our producers are not prepared to do is to take on not only 
the farmers of another country but the governments of other countries. 
That is not a fair fight. And our Government should not abandon our 
producers and our processors, helping foreign governments, foreign 
producers, foreign processors against the refiners of this country. 
That is what this amendment is really about. I hope this Chamber will 
do as it has done before and reject the Gregg amendment and reject it 
in a resounding way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

                          ____________________