[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 108 (Monday, July 22, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8454-S8465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


               current efforts to protect salmon habitat

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise to take note and compliment the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service's current efforts to encourage 
and provide technical assistance to private landowners who have salmon 
habitat on their property. In coordination with the Northwest Power 
Planning Council's plan for fish and wildlife protection, and other 
Federal agencies, the NRCS is working with conservation districts 
across Idaho, Oregon and Washington to assist local property owners on 
basin-wide and watershed specific plans to protect and restore habitat 
for dwindling runs for coho salmon, steelhead, sea-run cutthroat, and 
many chinook salmon runs.
  These efforts have been widely popular in my home State, in 
particular in the Clearwater and Lemhi Valleys where local landowners 
appreciate having the support to take the initiative to preserve this 
important cultural and economic resource. Conservation districts have 
proven to be a most effective method to successfully involve all 
important local stakeholders in a mutually acceptable way.
  Mr. President, it is my intention to commit the Senate to exploring 
in future legislation the ways in which we might better foster this 
growing partnership. Would the chairman of the subcommittee agree that 
this is the sort of incentive approach that merits further 
consideration?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the committee agrees that this is the 
sort of cooperative, incentive-based relationship that should be 
fostered in order to protect natural resources, as is the goal of the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service.


                       yellowstar thistle control

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I rise to clarify this Congress' 
commitment to research that will develop controls for noxious weeds 
that are problems across this country. In particular, I would like to 
highlight research being done with the Agricultural Research Service to 
control yellowstar thistle.
  Yellowstar thistle is a problem across the West. Over 5 million acres 
across the western United States are currently infested with this 
noxious weed. Scientists at the University of Idaho tell me that it 
costs an average of $1 per acre in lost production and costs to control 
this weed. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we're 
talking about $5 million lost annually across the West.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I concur with the remarks of Senator 
Kempthorne. In addition, I understand that, currently, it is nearly 
impossible to eradicate yellowstar thistle once it has infected the 
narrow, arid canyon lands of the West, and in particular, the canyons 
of the Clearwater, Snake and Salmon Rivers of my home State.
  Mr. President, it is my understanding that the research to control 
this weed is reaching a critical stage, where practical biological 
controls should be available for public use within the next few years. 
Is it the intention of this bill to fund research with direct and 
immediate practical applications for the agricultural industry?
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I also noted that the committee specifically directed 
the ARS to continue funding the Albany, CA yellowstar thistle 
initiative. Is it the intention of the committee that the ARS continue 
current yellowstar thistle research contracts associated with that 
program, including the research efforts with the University of Idaho?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, it is.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy 
with

[[Page S8455]]

the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee to clarify the intent of 
language included in the committee report providing funding for ongoing 
research at the Plant Materials Center [PMC] in Golden Meadow, 
Louisiana, in collaboration with the Crowley Rice Research Station in 
Crowley, LA; ongoing research on nutria-resistant plant varieties; and 
funding to test application technologies for recently developed 
artificial seed for cord grass used to prevent coastal erosion. It is 
my understanding that it was the committee's intent, in the committee 
report, to continue the work at the Golden Meadow Plant Materials 
Center, in collaboration with the Crowley Rice Research Station, on 
smooth cord grass at the fiscal year 1996 level. In addition, work 
underway at Crowley on the development of nutria-resistant materials 
would also continue at the fiscal year 1996 level. Finally, it is also 
my understanding that the $100,000 mentioned in the committee report to 
test application technologies for smooth cord grass seed would be in 
addition to the funding provided to maintain this ongoing work. Is that 
the chairman's understanding as well?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I appreciate the questions of the distinguished Senator 
from Louisiana, and I am happy to provide further clarification. The 
Senator is correct in his description of the committee's intent in its 
report accompanying the bill.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. I appreciate this clarification.


  ars funding for integrated low-input crop and livestock production 
               systems at university of wisconsin-madison

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased that funding is provided 
through this bill for the ARS Integrated Farming Systems Program, to 
pursue long-term research on farming systems that integrate livestock 
and resource enhancing crop rotations--all aimed at answering farmers 
urgent questions of how to be profitable and farm in environmentally 
responsible ways. This new initiative, as requested by the President's 
fiscal year 1997 budget, recognizes expertise in the farming community 
by building research partnership teams with State researchers, 
extension agents, farmers, and nongovernmental organizations.
  In this regard, Wisconsin has a nationally recognized program, the 
Wisconsin Integrated cropping systems trial, with long-term research 
trials and an excellent team of farmers, researchers, extension and 
nongovernmental groups collaborating to address questions that go right 
to the heart of the future of farming in the Midwest.
  As specified in the committee report accompanying this bill, $500,000 
has been included in this bill to support research through the ARS/IFS 
Program into integrated low-input crop and livestock production 
systems, to be carried out at the Wisconsin-Madison Experiment Station. 
It is my intent and understanding that this funding is to support the 
Wisconsin Integrated cropping systems trial. I would ask the Senator 
from Mississippi, the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations 
Subcommittee, if he would concur with me on this matter.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I would say to the Senator from Wisconsin that I agree 
with his comments regarding the ARS/IFS funds provided for the 
Wisconsin-Madison Experiment Station.
  Mr. LEAHY. More than $1 billion a year in Federal funds is saved by 
WIC infant formula cost containment allowing over 1.6 million more 
women, infants and children to receive WIC benefits than would 
otherwise have been the case. One of the most important factors in the 
success of the WIC cost containment is competition. Until recently 
there were four infant formula manufacturers in the United States. In 
January, one of the four, Wyeth Laboratories announced its withdrawal 
from the domestic market. Now, alarmingly, a move is beginning among 
States to alter their competitive bidding procedures in a way that 
restricts competition and makes it impossible for Carnation to compete. 
If this third small company, Carnation, can't compete, it ultimately 
could follow Wyeth out of the market. If that occurs, only the two 
largest manufacturers, Ross and Mead Johnson will remain, and the 
prospects for sustaining large savings will be bleak. Without a third 
company seeking to increase market share by winning WIC contracts, cost 
containment is not sustainable.
  In the past, States typically have awarded their WIC contract to the 
company whose net wholesale price--the wholesale price minus the rebate 
per can the company offers to pay the state WIC Program--is the lowest. 
But recently, a few states instead awarded their contracts to the 
company that offered the highest rebate per can, regardless of the 
company's wholesale price.
  There is one circumstance where a State may have a legitimate case 
for awarding a WIC contract on the basis of the highest rebate rather 
than on the basis of the lowest net wholesale price. This occurs in 
States where retailers charge about the same price for all formula 
brands and take a much larger mark-up for Carnation products than for 
those of the other companies.
  This problem can be readily addressed by directing States to award 
contracts on the basis of the lowest net wholesale price--as most 
States currently do--rather than on the basis of the biggest rebate, 
except where the State has reliable data showing that retail prices for 
different formula brands are similar in the State. In any State where 
this is the case, the State would retain full flexibility as to the 
basis on which to award its contract.
  In 1990, the GAO wrote:

       Because only three firms are responsible for almost all 
     domestic infant formula production, coordination of pricing 
     and marketing strategies between the manufacturers is always 
     a potential danger. Competitive bidding will successfully 
     yield high rebates only to the extent that infant formula 
     manufacturers act independently. Consequently, efforts to 
     assure competition in the infant formula industry will be an 
     important element in State efforts to maximize cost-
     containment savings. (GAO, Infant Formula: Cost Containment 
     and Competition in the WIC Program, September 1990.)

  This remedy of awarding contracts on a lowest net wholesale price 
would help avert the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in cost 
containment savings and thereby prevent hundreds of thousands of women 
and children from being dropped from the program. Nearly one of every 
four WIC participants is served with cost containment savings--and 
would have to be removed from the program if cost containment 
collapses.
  The Senate, unlike the House, has managed to correct this problem in 
the Agriculture appropriations bill. Therefore, in conference, it is 
imperative that the Senate language on WIC cost containment prevail.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight a provision in 
the agriculture appropriations bill that I think makes an important 
improvement to the WIC Program. I want to highlight the importance of 
this provision with hope that we can maintain it in the conference 
committee.
  The WIC infant formula cost containment program saves more than $1 
billion a year in Federal funds and allows over 1.6 million more women, 
infants, and children to be served through WIC each month than would 
otherwise be the case. Nearly one of every four WIC participants is 
served with cost containment savings and would have to be removed from 
the program if cost containment collapsed.
  There is a danger now developing that threatens to undermine WIC cost 
containment and we need Federal action to counteract this development. 
In the past, States typically awarded their WIC contract to the company 
whose net wholesale price is the lowest. The net wholesale price 
represents the wholesale price of the product minus the rebate per can 
the manufacturer will pay the State WIC program. Recently, though, 
States have begun to award their WIC contracts to the company that 
offered the highest rebate per can, regardless of the company's 
wholesale price. A provision contained in this bill requires that 
States award contracts on the basis of the lowest net wholesale price--
as most States currently do--rather than on the basis of the biggest 
rebate. An exception would exist if the State has reliable data showing 
that it makes no difference in the cost outcome whether the contract is 
awarded on the basis of rebate or net wholesale price.
  Let me take a few moments to describe to my colleagues the flaws of 
the rebate methodology. This methodology is faulty for two reasons:
  First, it discriminates against a company that charges low wholesale 
prices.

[[Page S8456]]

An industry heavyweight can sell the product for, say $2.50 per can and 
then give the State a rebate of $2.00 per can of formula. Under that 
scenario, the net wholesale price to the program is 50 cents per can of 
infant formula. A smaller company, on the other hand, may not be able 
to demand as high a retail price and they may charge only $1.95 per can 
of formula. At a $1.95 retail, the smaller company can't begin to 
compete on the basis of rebate, they'd be losing money on every can of 
formula. What the company could do is offer a rebate of $1.50, setting 
the net wholesale price at 45 cents per can. Ultimately the smaller 
company will save the WIC Program a lot of money. But they will never 
have the opportunity to do so if the only thing the State looks to is 
the rebate amount.
  The second problem with this contract methodology is apparent in the 
scenario I've just described. Not only does the highest rebate 
methodology discriminate against small companies, it could cost the WIC 
Program up to $1 billion a year.
  Approaching WIC infant formula contracts on the basis of who offers 
the highest rebate just doesn't make sense. We know from experience 
that a truly competitive bidding process will save the WIC program more 
than $1 billion a year.
  I'll close by thanking Senator Cochran and Senator Hatfield for 
including this cost containment measure in the Agriculture 
Appropriations bill we're now discussing, and I urge my colleagues 
serving on the conference committee to support this provision in the 
conference bill.


               Amendments Nos. 4972 through 4974, En Bloc

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there are a few amendments which I am 
going to send to the desk and ask that they be considered en bloc and 
approved en bloc. All have been cleared.
  The first is an amendment making technical corrections to the bill by 
Senator Cochran. The second is an amendment by Senator Stevens dealing 
with appropriated funds for rural water and waste systems, the third is 
an amendment for Senator Murkowski concerning seafood inspection 
requirements, and the fourth is an amendment by Senator Jeffords 
dealing with the FSIS/APHIS accounts or the National Farm Animal 
Identification Pilot Program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those amendments be 
considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes 
     amendments numbered 4972 through 4974, en bloc.

  The amendments (Nos. 4972 through 4974) en bloc, are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 4972

          (Purpose: To make technical corrections to the bill)

       On page 81, after line 8, add the following:
       ``This Act may be cited as the `Agriculture, Rural 
     Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997'.''
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 4973

  (Purpose: To appropriate funds for rural water and waste systems as 
             authorized by Sec. 757 of Public Law 104-127)

       On page 47, line 17, before the period add the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     not to exceed $10,000,000 shall be for water and waste 
     disposal systems pursuant to section 757 of Public Law 104-
     127''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 4974

       On page 24, line 16, before the ``:'' insert the following: 
     ``: Provided further, That not to exceed $1,500,000 of this 
     appropriation shall be made available to establish a joint 
     FSIS/APHIS National Farm Animal Identification Pilot Program 
     for dairy cows''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I am constrained on behalf of a Member on 
our side to object to the Murkowski amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard on the Murkowski amendment.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The remainder are cleared on this side.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendments numbered 4972, 4973, 
and 4974 en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 4972 through 4974) were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments 
were agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.


                           Amendment No. 4975

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself and Mr. Kohl, which I think has been cleared on the other 
side, dealing with the Wetland Reserve Program which would allow 
additional wetland reserve acreage to be added to the program as long 
as non-Federal funds were used. I ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] for himself and Mr. 
     Kohl, proposes amendment numbered 4975.

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

       On page 71, strike all after line 22 through page 72, line 
     2 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       ``Sec. 721. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act, or made available through the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation, 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: Provided, 
     That additional acreage may be enrolled in the program to the 
     extent that non-federal funds available to the Secretary are 
     used to fully compensate for the cost of additional 
     enrollments: Provided further, That the condition on 
     enrollments provided in section 1237(b)(2)(B) of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985, as amended (16 U.S.C. 3837(b)(2)(B)), 
     shall be deemed met upon the enrollment of 43,333 acres 
     through the use of temporary easements: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary shall not enroll acres in the wetlands 
     reserve program through the use of new permanent easements in 
     fiscal year 1998 until the Secretary has enrolled at least 
     31,667 acres in the program through the use of temporary 
     easements''.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4975) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4976

    (Purpose: To increase funding for certain agriculture research 
                      activities, with an offset.)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Kohl dealing with special research grants which I think has 
been cleared on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for Mr. Kohl, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4976.

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

       On page 12, line 25, strike ``$46,018,000'' and insert 
     ``$46,330,000''.
       On page 14, line 10, strike ``$418,308,000'' and insert 
     ``$418,620,000''.
       On page 21, line 4, strike ``$47,829,000'' and insert 
     ``$47,517,000''.

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased that the managers of the bill 
are willing to accept my amendment to correct a problem that has arisen 
with regard to special research grants section of the Agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  Specifically, when the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee 
requested information from USDA/CSREES regarding special research grant 
projects, the Babcock Institute for International Dairy Research and 
Development at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was mistakenly 
listed as one of the several projects slated for completion at the end 
of fiscal year 1996. Unfortunately, that information was not accurate. 
However, this error was not noticed until after the committee had acted 
on the bill, and funding for the Babcock Institute was omitted from the 
Committee Report entirely.
  Therefore, my amendment will simply restore funding for the Babcock 
Institute in the CSREES special grant

[[Page S8457]]

section of the bill. The funding provided is $312,000, the same as 
provided in fiscal year 1996.
  The importance of the research conducted by the Babcock Institute has 
never been more important than it is today. The domestic market for 
many U.S. dairy products will grow less rapidly in the future as the 
population ages and consumption patterns change. Further, the dairy 
provisions of the 1996 farm bill also signal the need for dairy farmers 
to look more toward international markets for their livelihoods. 
International markets for dairy products are changing in ways that 
crate opportunities for U.S. dairy farmers, as well as dairy exporters. 
But along with these developments come many research questions, related 
to how foreign competitors operate, and the risks associated with 
export markets. Through its research on many of these topics, the 
Babcock Institute will continue to play an important role for the U.S. 
dairy industry as it seeks to turn its attention more toward 
international markets.
  Again, I thank the managers for their support of this amendment, and 
look forward to working with them to retain funding for this valuable 
program in conference.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4976) was agreed to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I could speak very briefly about a 
particular provision in the legislation which is a matter of some 
concern. I do not intend to take time this evening nor do I intend to 
delay consideration, but I would like to bring to the attention one of 
the provisions that has been included here that I think the Members 
should have at least some awareness of.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.


                          MEDGUIDE REGULATIONS

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to draw attention to provisions in 
the appropriation bill that deal with a matter of priority for the FDA, 
and that is on the proposed Medguide regulations which would establish 
goals for industries to meet on the issues of prescription drugs. I 
just want to speak for a few moments on this issue this evening, then 
indicate to the managers some alternatives that we are thinking about 
and want to talk over with the managers again tomorrow.
  This appropriation bill contains an unwarranted provision that will 
undermine the Food and Drug Administration's efforts to prevent adverse 
reactions that cost the American economy an estimated $100 billion a 
year in direct and indirect costs. That cost is as much as, if not 
more, than the country spends on prescription drugs in the first place.
  The provision would forbid the FDA from going forward with a proposed 
regulation, called the Medguide regulation, to ensure that patients get 
adequate information when they buy a prescription.
  The FDA's efforts to ensure that the American consumer gets good 
information when they buy prescription drugs have been under attack by 
a consortium of pharmacists and other businesses who claim they are 
already doing an effective job of getting information to consumers 
without Government regulation.
  The facts are to the contrary. For example, in 1992, FDA required a 
boxed warning--the most serious kind of warning--on labeling for 
Seldane and Hismanal, two of the most popular antihistamines for 
allergies. When taken in association with certain antibiotics and 
antifungals, there have been deaths and serious cardiovascular events.
  These same warnings also appeared in the FDA-approved consumer 
advertising and magazines such as People, Time, and Newsweek. These 
warnings about taking these drugs in combination did not appear on the 
information sheets that pharmacists gave to consumers--information that 
was written after these warnings went into effect. In fact, consumers 
were given better information in magazine ads than they were given by 
the pharmacists who dispensed their prescriptions.
  Even today, after concerted efforts to educate physicians and 
pharmacists about the dangers of prescribing Seldane with certain 
antibiotics, 2.5 percent are coprescriptions written in conjunction 
with one of those antibiotics, erythromycin. As a result, tens of 
thousands of patients are presently at risk.
  FDA's concerns are not speculative. A 29-year-old woman taking 
Seldane died because she was not warned about the risk of taking it 
with an antifungal. If she had been warned of this possibility of a 
fatal interaction she might be alive today.
  Leaving out critical warnings is unacceptable. In these types of 
life-and-death cases, FDA oversight is clearly warranted. The health 
and the lives of too many patients is at stake.
  FDA has rightfully decided that consumers deserve more protection 
than the status quo. The Medguide regulation is intended to correct 
this gross deficiency in our consumer protection laws.
  Today, we go into a supermarket to buy a loaf of bread, a carton of 
milk, or a box of cereal, and we know there is complete nutritional 
information on the package. When we buy an over-the-counter drug like 
aspirin or Tylenol in the same grocery store, FDA regulations require 
the drugs to have complete information so that those who take the pills 
understand what they are doing, how to take it, the side effects to 
watch out for, what foods or drugs it interacts with.
  But, if we buy a prescription drug in the pharmacy or one of these 
same grocery stores, there is no guarantee that we will get the same 
kind of information when the prescription is filled. Current laws 
require more information about breakfast cereals than dangerous 
prescription drugs.
  The costs of this lack of information are high. Mr. President, 30 to 
50 percent of adult patients do not use their medications properly, and 
lack of information is one of the primary reasons. In children, 
noncompliance exceeds 50 percent. In the elderly, who rely most heavily 
on medication, noncompliance is often higher.
  If patients do not take medication properly, they are poorly served 
by their health care system. The public health is put at risk if 
unsecured infections are transmitted and resistant infections develop.
  The cost of misuse of prescription drugs and adverse reactions to 
drugs is estimated at $20 billion a year in the elderly alone. 
Industry's own estimates place the indirect costs at five times 
higher--$100 billion a year when lost productivity and reduced quality 
of life are included.
  To avoid further tragedies and lower costs, the proposed Medguide 
regulations would establish concrete goals for industries to meet. By 
the year 2000, FDA seeks to ensure that at least 75 percent of patients 
with new prescriptions would obtain adequate, useful, easily understood 
written information. By the year 2006, 95 percent of patients with new 
prescriptions would receive this information. That is a goal by the 
year 2000, that 75 percent would receive adequate information; and 95 
percent by the year 2006. It does not seem to me to be enormously 
prohibitive.
  Working with drug companies, pharmacists, physicians and consumers, 
FDA plans to establish nonbinding guidelines on such information. These 
guidelines will help pharmacies ensure that the written information 
they give out is adequate.
  If the goals set out in the proposed regulation are not met, FDA 
would either institute a mandatory program or seek public comment on 
what steps to take next.
  This approach is reasonable. It gives the private sector the 
opportunity to achieve compliance without regulatory requirements over 
the next 4 years. Yet industry still objects. It claims that neither 
the Medguide regulation, nor any binding requirements are necessary. 
Clearly, if the industry meets the health goals by the year 2000, no 
binding requirements would be imposed. These goals were established in 
a bipartisan fashion during the Bush Administration. They should be 
honored by Congress today. The guidelines that have been established 
were established under the Republican administration with the support 
of the industry at that particular time.
  The industry has already failed to deliver on its promise of 
voluntary action. In 1982, a regulation mandating that information be 
given to patients

[[Page S8458]]

when they buy new prescriptions was withdrawn, because the private 
sector promised it can do better without regulations.
  This whole proposal that is out there builds on a long history of 
relationship between the agency and the industries which are affected, 
and an agreement had been worked out. Now there is an attempt to 
circumvent that agreement to the disadvantage of consumers.
  FDA then monitored the industry's efforts of 1982, and found that few 
patients were getting information, and much of the information was not 
adequate, and that failure led to the rulemaking that the industry is 
now trying to avoid.
  The provision in the appropriation bill states that if the private 
sector develops a plan within 120 days of enactment, FDA's rulemaking 
is suspended. We understand that now. The provision in the 
appropriation bill states if the private sector develops a plan within 
120 days of enactment, FDA's rulemaking is suspended. However, the 
Secretary of HHS and the commissioner cannot review the voluntary 
program to determine if it is, in fact, adequate. The only action that 
HHS or FDA is allowed to take is to order the plan to see if it meets 
the goals set by the industry. So this is an industry plan. They could 
develop it within 120 days. The FDA is prohibited from protecting 
consumers. The only ability FDA has is eventually auditing the industry 
program to find out if there has been compliance with the industry 
program.

  Mr. President, this is on an issue of such vital importance to the 
consumers. We have a solid record in our committee on adverse drug 
reactions and on what the industry has been willing to do, what they 
have not done, and what we have reviewed in our committee and is a part 
of the FDA reform program, which the leader indicated they are going to 
call up. But we have just heard about this proposal in the last several 
hours. The bill further hamstrings FDA by precluding activities such as 
guidelines that might assist the private sector.
  This provision is an abdication of Congress' responsibility to 
protect the public health. Instead of responsible action by the FDA, an 
industry with an unsatisfactory track record is permitted to regulate 
itself without any FDA oversight of their program. That is inadequate.
  Mr. President, tomorrow, I will have an amendment to address that 
particular issue. I will consult with the floor managers to find out 
about whether they share the sense or concern which I have spoken to 
this afternoon and if they have a way to try to address it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4977

       (Purpose: To limit funding for the market access program)

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

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for himself, Mr. 
     Kerry, and Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 4977.

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

     SEC.   . FUNDING LIMITATIONS FOR MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM.

       None of the funds made available under this Act may be used 
     to carry out the market access program pursuant to section 
     203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5623) if 
     the aggregate amount of funds and value of commodities under 
     the program exceeds $70,000,000.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, this amendment is regarding the Market 
Access Program. The Market Access Program, or MAP, was created to 
encourage the development, maintenance, and expansion of exports of 
U.S. agricultural products. MAP is the successor to the Market 
Promotion Program [MPP], which in turn was the successor to the 
Targeted Export Assistance Program [TEA], established in 1986. TEA was 
originally created to ``counter or offset the adverse effect of 
subsidies, import quotas, or other unfair trade practices of foreign 
competitors on U.S. agriculture exports.'' Since 1986, over $1.43 
billion has been spent for TEA, MPP and now MAP.
  MAP is operated through about 64 organizations that either run market 
promotion programs themselves or pass the funds along to companies to 
spend on their own market promotion efforts. In fiscal year 1994, about 
43 percent of all program activities involved generic promotions while 
57 percent involved branded promotions.
  The General Accounting Office [GAO] has pointed out that the entire 
Federal Government spends about $3.5 billion annually on export 
promotion. While agricultural products account for only 10 percent of 
total U.S. exports, the Department of Agriculture spends about $2.2 
billion, or 63 percent of the total. The Department of Commerce spends 
$236 million annually on trade promotion.
  While the stated goal of MAP is to benefit U.S. farmers, the program 
has benefited foreign companies. In fiscal years 1986-1993, $92 million 
on MPP funds went to foreign-based firms. This amount represented 
nearly 20 percent of the total funds allocated for brand-name 
promotions during the 8-year period. In fiscal year 1995, 49 foreign-
based firms received MPP funds; in fiscal year 1994 over 110 foreign 
firms received MPP funds from the U.S. Treasury. I found this to be 
unfathomable, and I offered an amendment to remedy this to the 1996 
farm bill. My amendment passed, and I am pleased to say that MAP money 
can no longer be given to foreign corporations.
  Still, many problems exist with the MAP program:
  First, wasted dollars: There is still no proof that MAP funds are not 
simply replacing funds that would have been spent anyway on 
advertising. USDA does not have any good data on this phenomenon. 
Commercial firms still have the opportunity to substitute MAP funds for 
promotional activities they would have otherwise undertaken with their 
own funds.
  Second, graduation: Current regulations require MAP assistance to 
cease after 5 years. However, the 5-year clock started running in 1994. 
This means that some companies will have been in the program for 13 
years at the end of 1999. Thirteen years is enough time to overcome 
barriers and develop markets. Already, 136 firms have participated in 
this program for 6 to 8 years and have received the bulk of the brand-
name funds.
  Third, efficiency: GAO states that taxpayers do not have reasonable 
assurance that the considerable public funds expended on export 
promotion are being effectively used to emphasize sectors and programs 
with the highest potential returns. MAP supporters use examples of 
increased exports to defend this program. However, even if a brand-name 
promotion effort results in identifiable increases in exports, unless 
the Foreign Agriculture Service [FAS] can convincingly demonstrate that 
the promotion effort would not have been undertaken without MAP 
assistance, those increases in exports cannot be attributed to the 
program.
  Since 1986 there have been over 100 participants in the program, and 
yet the Foreign Agriculture Service has completed only 12 program 
evaluations. Only 9 of 26 participants who have received over $10 
million have been evaluated.
  Fourth, U.S. content: MAP regulations issued in August 1991 do not 
restrict program participation to products that have 100 percent U.S. 
content. Regulations permit full funding for products that have at 
least 50 percent U.S. content by weight.
  There is no dependable data on percent of U.S. content. The Foreign 
Agriculture Service relies on statements made in MAP applications about 
U.S. content and not-for-profit organizations rely on unverified 
statements regarding U.S. content from their branded participants. In 
1993, the Foreign Agriculture Service began to review the support for 
the certifications made

[[Page S8459]]

regarding U.S. content during their audits of participants. Their work 
is limited to the not-for-profit organizations and they do not, as a 
rule, audit the commercial entities performing brand-name promotions.
  Who should get these funds? Although new guidelines say small firms 
should have priority--one third of fiscal year 1994 funds went to large 
companies. For that reason, large corporations such as Sunkist, Sun-
Maid, Welch's, and Pillsbury still receive large sums of money. In 
1992, the average amount awarded to the top 50 firms was $1 million. 
Eight of those firms had sales over $1 billion.
  There were 17 MAP participants receiving more than $1 million for 
fiscal years 1993-95:
  Sunkist, $11.1 million.
  Ernest & Julio Gallo, $9.1 million.
  Sunsweet, $4.6 million.
  Blue Diamond, $4.5 million.
  American Legend, $2.9 million.
  North Am. Fur Producers, $2.3 million.
  Dole, $2.1 million.
  Tyson Foods, $1.9 million.
  M&M Mars, $1.8 million.
  21st Century Genetics, $1.5 million.
  Welch Foods, $1.4 million.
  Pillsbury, $1.3 million.
  Campbell Soup, $1.2 million.
  Hansa-Pacific, $1.1 million.
  Hershey, $1.1 million.
  Canandaigua Wine, $1.1 million.
  Seagram, $1.0 million.
  Private, for-profit companies are the ones who benefit from this 
program. Taxpayers should not pay for advertising particular products. 
These companies should take over the costs themselves. MAP, like MPP 
and TEA before it, is a convenient source of free cash for wealthy 
businesses, such as McDonald's, to help pay for their overseas 
advertising budgets.
  While the Federal Government does have a legitimate role in promoting 
exports to foreign countries, we should use our considerable Federal 
expertise to assist companies in cutting red tape in foreign countries 
and providing them with technical assistance. We should not do it by 
granting scarce taxpayer dollars to private, for-profit companies for 
activities they would otherwise conduct on their own.
  Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is nearly identical to the 
position the Senate took on the Federal Agricultural Improvement and 
Reform Act, or farm bill, of 1996. The Senate voted 59 to 37 in 
February to accept the Bryan amendment on the MPP program. That 
amendment restricted use of MPP program moneys to small businesses, as 
certified by the Small Business Administration, and Capper-Volstead 
cooperatives. Because the amendment eliminated foreign companies from 
the program, the funding level for MPP was capped at $70 million.
  In the House-Senate conference on the farm bill, my language 
prohibiting foreign companies from participation in MPP was retained, 
but the level of funding was raised to $90 million. So while the 
conferees were attempting to reform the MPP program by removing foreign 
companies, they also enacted a 29-percent increase in funding. My 
amendment would return the MAP program to the originally approved 
Senate funding level of $70 million. This represents no real cut to the 
program as foreign companies may no longer participate. This frees up 
funds for domestic businesses.
  Mr. President, reiterating, I am renewing an effort that I had been 
involved in--as Members will be familiar with--for some years. It is a 
program that was originally known as the Targeted Export Assistance 
Program. A little later iteration referred to it as the Market 
Promotion Program, and it has now evolved into the Market Access 
Program.
  The historical genesis, as well as the ostensible premise for its 
continuation, is an effort to encourage the development, maintenance, 
and expansion of exports of U.S. agricultural products abroad, 
originally designed to counter or offset the adverse effects of 
subsidies, import quotas, and other unfair trade practices.
  Since 1986, TEA, MPP, and now MAP, has resulted in the expenditure of 
$1.5 billion. This program is operated through about 64 different 
organizations, as I know the distinguished Presiding Officer and the 
chairman of the committee are both very familiar with. In fiscal year 
1994, about 43 percent of all program activities involved generic 
promotions, while 57 percent involved branded promotions. By that, Mr. 
President, we mean specific products of company A, B, C, or D.
  We will talk later about some of the companies who have received very 
generous amounts of taxpayer dollars to support a program which, in the 
view of this Senator, amounts to a corporate entitlement program that 
could not have been justified even in the most affluent circumstances 
at the Federal level. Now, while we are trying to downsize, streamline, 
cut expenditures, and reach targeted goals for balancing our budget by 
2002 or 2003, this is precisely the kind of program that is still a 
legacy of the past and, in my judgment, one I cannot support on its 
merits.
  I think it might be helpful to note that the Federal Government 
spends about $3.5 million annually on export promotion activities. 
Agricultural products represent about 10 percent of the total U.S. 
exports. Yet, of that $3.5 billion spent at the Federal level, about 
$2.2 billion, or 63 percent of the total amount, is spent on 
agricultural export promotion. The Department of Commerce, for example, 
spends about $236 million annually on trade promotion.
  Now, earlier this year, Mr. President, one of the objections that 
this Senator and others raised was that a substantial amount of the 
funding on this program went not to American companies, but went to 
foreign companies. So joining with the distinguished occupant of the 
chair, and other colleagues on both sides of the political aisle, we 
were able to get an amendment through that, as it ultimately worked its 
way through the legislative process, dealt with one issue which, in my 
judgment, was inconceivable, unfathomable, in that we would continue to 
provide money to foreign companies with taxpayer dollars. I am happy to 
report that, in the legislation that passed, we have now eliminated 
moneys that previously went to foreign-based firms. So, prospectively, 
that can no longer occur, and the money that we are talking about here 
this afternoon will no longer be given to foreign corporations. But the 
fundamental objections to the programs remain.
  First, the General Accounting Office, which has evaluated this 
program, has determined that these are wasted dollars. There is no 
evidence to support the proposition that money which ostensibly is 
given to companies to augment or increase their promotional activities 
has simply not been used to replace existing dollars already in these 
major corporations' advertising accounts. So rather than a McDonald's 
spending $500 million a year, if they get $4 million or $5 million, 
they reduce the amount of their own budget allocation to $496 million 
--the point being that there is no extra dollar outlay spent on the 
promotion and advertising of these products. That is to even accept the 
proposition that you can target or trace a correlation between the 
amount of money that is spent on advertising dollars and the kind of 
products that these companies are able to market overseas.
  So that is the first objection raised, and that is as valid today as 
it was when the General Accounting Office did its evaluation some 5 
years ago that there is no assurance of companies simply not trading 
their own corporate dollars and replacing them with dollars that the 
American taxpayers pay.
  The second is a graduation problem. There is no graduation formula. 
How long does one remain as part of the program? Current regulations, 
enacted in response to criticisms made by this Senator and others about 
the merits of the program, ultimately caused the reevaluation of the 
regulation so that this MAP assistance will cease after 5 years. 
However, those who continue to benefit from this financial allocation 
provided at taxpayer expense target it to 5 years to run prospectively 
from the date of the enactment of the regulation, so you can still stay 
on this program up until 1999.
  Now, for some companies, that would mean being a part of this program 
for 13 years. That is an incredibly long period of time. If you find 
any merit to this program--and I must say I am one who finds none--how 
do you justify keeping a particular company as part of this program for 
up to 13 years? Already, 136 firms have participated in

[[Page S8460]]

the program for 6 to 8 years and have received the bulk of the brand-
name funds.
  The third objection is a question of efficiency. GAO states that 
taxpayers do not have any reasonable assurances that the rather 
considerable public funds expended on export promotion are being 
effectively used to emphasize sectors and programs with the highest 
potential returns. It is frequently said in the course of debate--and I 
am sure will be again in the context of this amendment--where 
supporters of this program cite increased exports as an example of why 
this program is so needed, why it is so beneficial, why it does so much 
good. But there is no analytical correlation between those increases in 
exports and moneys being expended from the program. That is to say, 
would those increases have occurred notwithstanding the allocations 
made under the MAP program? Since 1986, there have been over 100 
participants in the program, and yet the Foreign Agricultural Service 
has completed only 12 program evaluations. Only 9 of 26 participants 
who have received more than $10 million have been evaluated.

  Finally, Mr. President, on the question of U.S. content, MAP 
regulations issued in August 1991 do not restrict program participation 
to products that have 100 percent U.S. content. Regulations permit full 
funding for products that have no more than 50 percent of U.S. content 
by weight.
  There is no dependable data on the percent of U.S. content. The 
Foreign Agricultural Service relies on statements made in MAP 
applications about U.S. content to ascertain the amount of U.S. content 
without doing an independent analysis. So these are self-certified 
statements without any type of independent verification whatsoever.
  The question is: Who should get these funds? Although new guidelines 
say some small firms should have priority, one-third of fiscal year 
1994 funds went to large companies. It is for that reason that some of 
the largest corporations in America--among them Sunkist, Sun Maid, 
Welch's, and Pillsbury--still receive large sums of money. In 1992, the 
average amount awarded to the top 50 firms was $1 million. Eight of 
those firms have sales over $1 billion.
  I am sure most Americans would ponder, with a company that has a 
sales volume of $1 billion, should the American taxpayer be subsidizing 
the advertising account of a firm of that size? I must say again that I 
do not believe that should justify defending those appropriations.
  But to give you some more current data, there were 17 MAP 
participants receiving more than $1 million for the past 2 fiscal 
years, fiscal year 1993 to fiscal year 1995: Sunkist, $11.1 million; 
Ernest & Julio Gallo, $9.1 million; Sunsweet, $4.6 billion; Blue 
Diamond, $4.5 million; American Legend, $2.9 million; North America Fur 
Producers, $2.3 million; Dole, $2.1 million; Tyson Foods, $1.9 million; 
M&M Mars, $1.8 million; 21st Century Genetics, $1.5 million; Welch 
Foods, $l.4 million; Pillsbury, $1.3 million; Campbell Soup, $1.2 
million; Hansa-Pacific, $1.1 million; Hershey, $1.1 million; Seagram, 
$1 million.
  Mr. President, those are some of the great household names of 
America. These are companies that have been exceedingly successful, and 
all of us as Americans quite curiously share in their success. We are 
delighted when American firms prosper and do well. But why should they 
do well at the expense of the taxpayer who is being asked to pay his 
and her hard-earned dollars to supplement the advertising accounts of 
some of the largest companies in America?
  I believe that the Federal Government has a legitimate role in 
promoting exports to foreign countries, but we should certainly use our 
considerable expertise to assist companies in cutting red tape in 
foreign countries and providing them with technical assistance. We 
should not do it by granting scarce taxpayer dollars to private 
companies, either, for-profit companies, or activities that they would 
otherwise conduct on their own.
  So, Mr. President, that brings me to the point of what our amendment 
that I offer this afternoon would do. It is identical virtually to the 
position that the Senate took on the Federal Agricultural Improvement 
and Reform Act, commonly referred to as the farm bill of 1996. The 
Senate voted by 59 to 37 in February to accept the Bryan amendment on 
the MPP program, and that amendment restricted use of MPP moneys to 
small businesses certified by the Small Business Administration and 
Capper-Volstead cooperatives. Because the amendment eliminated foreign 
companies from the program, the funding level for MPP was capped at $70 
million. That is to say, based upon the recent experience of the Market 
Promotion Program, out of an appropriation of $110 million it was 
projected that $40 million was being allocated to foreign companies. So 
if you flatten out the program and keep it at its present level, $70 
million would continue to fund the program other than for foreign 
company participation.
  I make it clear that I think none of my colleagues are misled about 
this. My preference would be to zero out this program for all of the 
reasons that I have outlined. And I daresay I think the distinguished 
occupant of the chair shares the view of the Senator from Nevada. But 
yielding to pragmatic imperatives, it is clear that this body is not 
yet prepared to go that far.
  So what this amendment would do would be to cap the current level at 
$70 million. The current appropriations bill provides for $90 million. 
So when you factor out that none of this money can go to foreign 
companies, in effect, this program would be increased by 29-percent--a 
29-percent increase.
  The amendment that I have offered would return this program to the 
originally approved Senate funding level of $70 million. That, I 
believe, is a reasonable compromise, and I believe that my colleagues 
having voted once before by 59 to 37 to cap the program at that level 
and to carry out the intent of the farm bill of 1996, we ought to hold 
the appropriations to the level authorized in that bill.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend from Nevada, 
Senator Bryan, in another attempt to save American taxpayers from 
funding U.S. corporate advertising in other countries. The Market 
Promotion Program is one of the most blatant examples of corporate 
welfare in the budget--the American taxpayers have footed a bill of 
more than $1 billion to pay for corporate advertising since its 
inception. And Senator Bryan and I have been as tenacious as it is 
possible to be in trying to eliminate this program.
  This is a subsidy program which has been roundly criticized by 
research institutes across the political and economic spectrum--the 
National Taxpayers' Union, the Progressive Policy Institute, Citizens 
Against Government Waste, and Cato Institute.
  Taxpayers in Massachusetts would be shocked if they knew that the 
Federal Government is collecting taxes from them and using their hard-
earned money to embellish the advertising budgets of corporate America.
  I have taken to the floor time and time again to speak about wasteful 
spending in the budget. And I have been an outspoken critic of this 
Market Promotion Program. Our colleagues have heard me discuss how we 
have paid the Gallo Bros. to peddle their wine to the French; how we 
helped advertise Japanese-made underwear in Tokyo; how we promoted 
fashion shows of mink coats and fur stoles; how we have subsidized 
M&M's and Chicken McNuggets.
  We have tried to reform the MPP program over the past few years. Last 
year, we prohibited the mink industry from receiving Federal subsidies 
to promote fashion shows abroad. That was a step in the right 
direction. And, Mr. President, I am very pleased the distinguished 
chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator 
Cochran, has agreed to exclude mink subsidies in this year's bill. In 
addition, Mr. President, last year, in the Department of Agriculture 
appropriations bill, the Senate voted to curb the Market Promotion 
Program--we passed the Bryan-Bumpers-Kerry amendment to limit the 
program to small businesses and agricultural co-ops. This was a good 
start to curb corporate welfare, but the provision was dropped in 
conference. So, the program continues despite the Senate's vote.
  Accordingly, my friend from Nevada, Senator Bryan, and I are making 
the effort once again to halt this unnecessary flow of funds from the 
Treasury.

[[Page S8461]]

 We must not force American taxpayers to keep subsidizing multimillion-
dollar corporations. When my friends and neighbors in Massachusetts 
measure this program against the extraordinary reductions we are facing 
in programs that really matter to working Americans, they ask me how 
Congress can continue to justify this type of corporate welfare. There 
is no good answer to that question. This program is unjustifiable in 
the current budget environment.
  Mr. President, I am grateful Senator Bryan is willing to lead the 
charge. Together, we will continue to fight this waste of taxpayer 
money until this program is eliminated. We fought the wool and mohair 
subsidy, and that is now gone. We fought the mink subsidy, and that is 
now gone. Ultimately, we will win this battle, too, because the Senate 
will recognize that it is a monumental waste of money. I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this Market Promotion Program has been 
one that has attracted an awful lot of attention and some controversy 
over the last several years. Senators have heard the arguments for it 
and against it, and why it is important for us to continue to support 
those who are trying to market their commodities and food products in 
overseas markets, particularly when they are confronted with trade 
practices that are developed by our competitors, or even those 
countries in which we are trying to export our products that operate 
against our interests.
  Under the rules of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, we 
have tried to reduce barriers to trade, make the playing field fair, 
and have as a principle for our international trade that if we are 
going to make available our market here in the United States, we are 
going to insist that other countries do the same. But from time to 
time, even though this is the general understanding and the general 
basis for these international agreements, we run into specific 
problems--structural difficulties, bureaucratic redtape, call it what 
you will. It is all an effort to prefer one of our competitors over our 
exporters in these markets, or to keep us out of the markets 
altogether.
  These funds have been very helpful, I am told at our hearings with 
the Foreign Agriculture Service, in breaking down barriers to trade, to 
overcoming these efforts to keep our suppliers and our exporters out of 
international markets.
  There is no question that this is an area of economic activity that 
has benefited American business, agriculture, and industry. We have 
seen a growing amount of jobs created in our own economy here at home 
because of access to overseas markets for our products. There is a 
direct correlation between the amount of exporting we do and the amount 
of benefit we get economically here in terms of jobs, pay for workers, 
and renewed and invigorated business activity.
  It has been consistently shown on the basis of experience that we 
have had using these funds that as we provide assistance to exporters 
and suppliers in international markets, we do better; we sell more; we 
are more successful. I hope the Senate will not be persuaded to further 
reduce the ability of the Foreign Agriculture Service to go to bat for 
our exporters, to try to help where help is needed, and use these funds 
in a targeted way, in a way that is designed to help us sell more of 
what we produce in these emerging markets around the world.
  I know that we are not going to resolve this issue tonight, and we 
have a lot of information that will be available to Senators, but 
almost all the Senators who are going to vote--and I presume we are 
going to go to a record vote on this unless the Senator decides to 
withdraw his amendment on the basis of my overwhelmingly persuasive 
remarks in opposition to his amendment. I presume we are going to vote 
on this amendment tomorrow.
  Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I will be happy to yield to my friend from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I always find my friend from Mississippi extraordinarily 
articulate. Without any derogation intended, he has not persuaded this 
Senator. At this particular point, it would be my intent to ask for a 
rollcall vote at the appropriate time. And I can assure the Senator I 
do not intend to prolong the debate tonight, but when he finishes, I 
might just make a very brief comment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator. I know he is committed on this 
issue. He raises it from time to time. I do appreciate the fact we do 
not have all the charts and other things that he has brought to the 
floor in the past to persuade Senators on the correctness of his 
position, but he is certainly correct in pointing out that this issue 
was debated fully, extensively in the discussion of the farm bill 
earlier this year. The farm bill did have provisions relating to the 
program, and so Senators are familiar with it, and they are familiar 
with the arguments for and against.
  I am not going to belabor the issue again. I hope Senators will 
reject the amendment and support the committee's funding level for this 
program. It is, I would say, consistent with the authorization 
contained in the conference report of the farm bill.
  I rest my case, and I am happy for the Senate to work its will on 
this subject. I hope they will support the decision that we made in the 
committee.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished senior 
Senator from Arkansas be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. If I may very briefly respond to my friend from 
Mississippi, and then I will yield to my friend from Arkansas, it seems 
to me that we talk a lot about sacrifice--the need for us to notch up 
the proverbial belt and slim down, streamline Government, all of these 
sorts of things, and we ask most segments in our society to do more 
with less.
  I must say, with all due respect to my friend from Mississippi, it 
seems to me that those who are part of this corporate entitlement 
program that has been culturally ingrained as part of this Federal 
budget process, we never ask them. I do not think it is asking too much 
of our friends, the McDonald's hamburger people, Pillsbury, the 
Welch's, Sunkist, Sun Maid, Seagrams, all these other marvelous 
corporations to say, look, this is a program we thought we could afford 
at one time but this is 1996 and you folks have followed our debate on 
balancing the budget. Both parties, both the Congress and the White 
House have agreed that a balanced budget ought to be our goal, that 
ought to be a national priority. There are benefits that inure to our 
society, to our economy, and we cannot do that if we continue the old 
ways, as comfortable as they may have become.
  So I conclude with the observation that the $70 million is $70 
million more than I would like to spend, but this appropriations bill 
sets a funding level of $90 million, so it does represent a 29 percent 
increase over the $70 million that would be available under the 
parameters of the farm bill because we have deleted the money for 
foreign companies. It seems to me that a spirit of sacrifice and 
fairness would say, look, those who are the giants of corporate 
America, they ought to be asked to trim their sails and to cut their 
spending a bit by enabling us to wean ourselves gradually from this 
program.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record a letter that I received as chairman of the subcommittee 
from the Coalition of U.S. Exporters in support of the Market Access 
Program.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         Coalition to Promote U.S.


                                         Agricultural Exports,

                                     Washington, DC, July 9, 1996.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and 
         Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As Congress considers the FY 1997 
     agriculture appropriations bill, we want to emphasize again 
     the need to maintain funding for USDA's export programs, 
     including the Market Access Program and FAS Cooperator 
     Program, as authorized under the new Farm Bill.
       Such action is critical to the success of the new Farm 
     Bill, which gradually eliminates direct income assistance to 
     producers, while providing increased planting flexibility. 
     Within this framework, the long term viability of American 
     agriculture is even more dependent on ensuring access to 
     foreign markets and maintaining and expanding U.S. 
     agricultural exports.

[[Page S8462]]

       It is also vital to our nation's economic well-being. For 
     example, U.S. agricultural exports this year are now 
     projected to reach a record $60 billion. This is expected to 
     result in a record agriculture trade surplus of approximately 
     $30 billion, generate as much as $100 billion in related 
     economic activity, and provide jobs for over one million 
     Americans.
       The Market Access Program, along with the FAS Cooperator 
     Program, are among the few programs specifically allowed 
     under the Uruguay Round Agreement and not subject to any 
     reduction or discipline. When other countries are 
     increasingly pursuing such policies to help their agriculture 
     industries maintain and expand their share of the world 
     market, now is not the time for the U.S. to continue to 
     unilaterally reduce or eliminate such programs.
       Under the new Farm Bill, the Market Access Program already 
     has been reduced from $110 million to just $90 million 
     annually. The new Farm Bill also makes permanent the reforms 
     included in the FY 1996 agriculture appropriations bill, 
     including limiting any direct cost-share assistance to small 
     businesses, farmer cooperatives and trade associations.
       Clearly, the Market Access Program and other USDA export 
     programs remain an essential element of our nation's overall 
     agriculture and trade policy. They are key to helping boost 
     U.S. agricultural exports, strengthening farm income, 
     promoting economic growth and creating needed jobs throughout 
     our entire economy. Accordingly, we urge your strong support 
     to ensure such programs continue to be fully funded and 
     aggressively implemented.
           Sincerely,
       Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports.

             Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports


                       coalition membership 1996

       Ag Processing, Inc.
       Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.
       American Farm Bureau Federation.
       American Forest & Paper Association.
       American Hardwood Export Council.
       American Meat Institute.
       American Plywood Association.
       American Seed Trade Association.
       American Sheep Industry Association.
       American Soybean Association.
       Blue Diamond Growers.
       California Canning Peach Association.
       California Kiwifruit Commission.
       California Pistachio Commission.
       California Prune Board.
       California Table Grape Commission.
       California Tomato Board.
       California Walnut Commission.
       Cherry Marketing Institute, Inc.
       Chocolate Manufacturers Association.
       Diamond Walnut Growers.
       Eastern Agricultural and Food Export Council Corp.
       Farmland Industries.
       Florida Citrus Mutual.
       Florida Citrus Packers.
       Florida Department of Citrus.
       Ginseng Board of Wisconsin.
       Hop Growers of America.
       International American Supermarkets Corp.
       International Apple Institute.
       International Dairy Foods Association.
       Kentucky Distillers Association.
       Mid-America International Agri-Trade Council.
       National Dry Bean Council.
       National Grape Cooperative Association, Inc.
       National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
       National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
       National Confectioners Association.
       National Corn Growers Association.
       National Council of Farmers Cooperatives.
       National Cotton Council.
       National Milk Producers Federation.
       National Peanut Council of America.
       National Porl Producers Council.
       National Potato Council.
       National Renderers Association.
       National Sunflower Association.
       National Wine Coalition.
       NORPAC Foods, Inc.
       Northwest Horticultural Council.
       Produce Marketing Association.
       Protein Grain Products International.
       Sioux Honey Association.
       Southern Forest Products Association.
       Southern U.S. Trade Association.
       Sun-Diamond Growers of California.
       Sun Maid Raisin Growers of California.
       Sunkist Growers.
       Sunsweet Prune Growers.
       The Catfish Institute.
       The Popcorn Institute.
       Tree Fruit Reserve.
       Tree Top, Inc.
       Tri Valley Growers.
       United Egg Association.
       United Egg Producers.
       United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association.
       USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council.
       USA Poultry & Egg Export Council.
       USA Rice Federation.
       U.S. Feed Grains Council.
       U.S. Livestock Genetics Exports, Inc.
       U.S. Meat Export Federation.
       U.S. Wheat Associates.
       Vodka Producers of America.
       Washington Apple Commission.
       Western Pistachio Association.
       Western U.S. Agricultural Trade Association.
       Wine Institute.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first, let me say that my good friend, 
the distinguished manager of the bill and the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, and I very seldom disagree, 
and we have worked on a number of bills when I was chairman of this 
subcommittee and now the last 2 years he has been chairman of the 
subcommittee, and I think we have worked together well and produced 
really good bills for the Senate's consideration. This is one of those 
rare occasions when we disagree.
  I feel very strongly, and have for many years, that the Market 
Promotion Program, recently renamed the Market Access Program, is just 
short of outrageous. When I first got involved in it, the General 
Accounting Office had just done a study. We were putting millions of 
dollars in a program to encourage McDonald's to sell Big Macs in 
Moscow. In addition, we were spending money to encourage one of the big 
companies in my own State, Tyson Foods, a company I am more than happy 
to champion on most occasions, to advertise their products overseas. 
Further, Gallo wine was a big recipient. The liquor industry was 
getting millions to export liquor.
  I said last year, where is the Christian Coalition when we need them? 
But we finally, through the determined efforts of the Senator from 
Nevada, last year were able to change the people who were eligible to 
put a little bit of sense in it. We made a substantial contribution to 
common sense last year on the Senate floor, but unfortunately the 
conferee committee was not satisfied until they worked in a loophole 
big enough to drive a Fortune 500 company through.
  Having said that, let me say if I had a chance to eliminate the whole 
program as it currently operates at this moment, if I had the power to 
do it, I would be more than happy to do it. But at least because of the 
efforts of the Senator from Nevada, we have been able to make it a 
little more palatable.
  But think about this, Mr. President. We have capped the Export 
Enhancement Program now for 1997 at $100 million. But when you take the 
Export Enhancement Program, Public Law 480, which has been on the books 
for decades--and there are three titles in that program, I, II, and 
III, all designed and calculated to enhance agricultural exports--
everybody is for agricultural exports. The USDA also has the GSM 
Program as an export tool. There are the COAP and SOAP Programs. If it 
were not for agricultural exports, the trade deficit in this country 
would be really staggering. I am not sure what the correlation is in 
the amounts between how much oil we import from around the world 
compared to how many agricultural products we export, but I think the 
two are very similar. That will give you some idea how staggering the 
deficit would be if we did not do a lot of agricultural exporting.
  But when I think of the programs that run into hundreds of millions 
of dollars to export agriculture products and then here is this 
questionable--well, it is not insignificant. It is $90 million. Where I 
come from, that is considered sizable. Last year, we were able to cut 
that program from $90 million to $70 million, and this year, lo and 
behold, it is back to $90 million. So while we have been able to get 
the Gallo Bros. and McDonald's and people like that out of the program, 
at least directly, and allow cooperatives such as my own Riceland 
Foods, and their farmer-members, to benefit from the program, we should 
certainly not in the days of budget constraints that we are 
experiencing now be raising that program by about 25 percent.
  So, Mr. President, I will not belabor it. I see the Senator from 
Nebraska here. He, apparently, wants to offer an amendment. I do not 
want to delay his opportunity to do that. But I say I am more than 
happy to cosponsor the amendment of the Senator from Nevada, which does 
not eliminate the program but simply puts the funding level from $90 
million back to $70 million, where we put it last year.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

[[Page S8463]]

                           Amendment No. 4978

  (Purpose: To increase funding for the Grain Inspection, Packers and 
 Stockyards Administration and the Food Safety and Inspection Service, 
                            with an offset)

  Mr. KERREY. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4978.

  Mr. KERREY. 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 18, line 12, strike ``$432,103,000'' and insert 
     ``$421,078,000''.
       On page 20, line 10, strike ``$98,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$86,975,000''.
       On page 23, line 8, strike ``$22,728,000'' and insert 
     ``$24,228,000''.
       On page 24, line 11, strike ``$557,697,000'' and insert 
     ``$566,222,000''.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I have brought this problem to the 
attention of both the chairman, the distinguished Senator from 
Mississippi, as well as the ranking member, the distinguished Senator 
from Arkansas. This amendment would increase funding for the Food 
Safety and Inspection Service as well as for the Grain Inspection, 
Packers and Stockyards Administration, the first by $8.5 million, the 
second by $1.5 million. The increases are offset by a reduction in 
funding available for the Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Program. 
This is a user fee account within the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service.
  I understand there have been some problems. I understand the 
committee has asked the Department of Agriculture, under the FSIS, the 
Food Safety Inspection Service, to give the Congress an evaluation of 
its computer programs. I understand this has just occurred today. But 
we are now moving, the Department is moving from an old carcass-by-
carcass system of evaluating product--which in many cases did not 
improve the safety of the meat coming out to the consumer because the 
inspection system was not able to apply good science to determine 
whether or not there were pathogens on the animals--we are moving from 
that old system to a new system called HACCP. HACCP is, to my mind, a 
vastly preferable system. But it will be very difficult in my judgment 
to do that if we underfund FSIS in the process.
  Let me say parenthetically, I believe across the board in those areas 
where Republicans and Democrats agree the Government function is 
important--and there are still some disagreements between Republicans 
and Democrats, or sometimes, as we have just heard, inside, even, each 
party; sometimes it does not break along party lines, with the Market 
Promotion Program as an example, the Sugar Program and so forth--but in 
many cases we have reached agreement: The FAA should be funded. FSIS is 
important to fund. That increases the quality of our product and the 
confidence of the consumer. It makes our economy more productive and, 
as a consequence, is a very important function of the Government.
  Very often we find ourselves in those areas as a result of an 
unwillingness to fund the program because we will not allocate money 
from other places. I will make the point again, typically it is not 
this kind of temporary reallocation, which is all this is, internal to 
USDA. Very often it is a problem of not being willing to either say we 
are going to raise taxes to pay for it, which very few people at this 
point want to do, or we are going to get it out of the growth of 
entitlements, or we are not going to build the F-18C, or some other 
thing, some other major program like that.
  If we do not fund FSIS this year and next year and the year after, as 
the appropriations accounts get smaller, I believe we are going to pay 
a big price for it. So I understand there may be some language that can 
be worked out in this particular reallocation out of concern for the 
very specific program I would like to fund, the field automation and 
information management project. I have a great deal of respect for the 
chairman and ranking member's concerns for that particular effort.
  The second thing that is being funded in here is a bit easier and a 
lot more straightforward. That is just a $1.5 additional million for 
the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. A lot of 
us have expressed concern this year as the price of beef has gone down. 
Once again the concern is, is the market working? That is to say, has 
the concentration in the beef and the concentration of the pork 
industry reached a point where we no longer have competition, where we 
no longer have price discovery, where we no longer have a market that 
is working to the advantage of either the consumer or for the American 
economy?
  That question is a difficult one to answer. Last year there was an 
advisory committee that was put together. A couple of months ago they 
made their recommendations to us. The dominant recommendation, at least 
the recommendation at the top of the list, was we should just do more 
of what the Packer and Stockyards Act says the USDA should do. Even if 
we are able to get an additional $1.5 million, I must say a $24 or $25 
million budget against the Packer and Stockyards budget, against a 
$120-billion industry, is not likely, even by some sort of commonsense 
evaluation, to provide this agency with enough money to get the job 
done.
  For all Members who have issued press releases expressing enthusiasm 
about this Commission's report, this panel report, this amendment would 
provide for: An industry structure performance surveillance of 
$550,000--it was in the concentration recommendations; $480,000 for a 
packer market competition study--that, again, was in the recommendation 
that was made; and a quarter of a million dollars for an electronic 
filing system, also in the Commission's recommendation.
  It is impossible for us to be able to go from saying ``we are 
concerned about whether or not the market is working'' to a point 
where, particularly for the smaller packers as well as the great number 
of feedlot operators and growers out there who say ``the market is not 
working,'' unless we fund this particular agency.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4979

    (Purpose: To provide funds for risk management, with an offset)

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay that 
amendment aside and move immediately to the consideration of second 
amendment I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4979.

  Mr. KERREY. 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 25, line 16, strike ``$795,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$725,000,000''.
       On page 29, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

                            Risk Management

       For administrative and operating expenses, as authorized by 
     section 226A of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization 
     Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6933), $70,000,000, except that not to 
     exceed $700 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses, as authorized by section 506(i) of 
     the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1506(i)).

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this amendment establishes a separate 
appropriation for salaries and expenses for the Risk Management Agency 
inside the Farm Service Agency's account. I wish the administration of 
the Department of Agriculture had sent up a separation. I think it is 
clear to most of us who look at the new farm program that increasingly 
it is going to be the farmers managing their own risks that will 
determine how well they do in a market that is increasingly volatile. 
The risk management program, the combination of Government and, 
increasingly, private sector insurance, is going to determine whether 
or not a producer, a farmer, or small business person out there 
operating in the marketplace, is going to be successful. This

[[Page S8464]]

establishes this risk management agency and sets up a separate account 
for it so we make sure the U.S. Department of Agriculture does allocate 
a sufficient amount of resources to do so. I pull $70 million out of 
the FSA to do that. I believe it is much more likely, as a consequence 
of doing this, that the risk management program is going to be executed 
in the fashion that both Republicans and Democrats desire. Again, as we 
look at this new age of farmers on their own establishing what the risk 
is and purchasing coverage for that risk, it is much more likely, if 
this agency is funded separately, that the market, the consumer out 
there, will determine what the nature of that product is going to be 
and that the agency itself will, as a consequence, be sufficiently 
funded.
  Mr. President, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4980

 (Purpose: To provide the Secretary of Agriculture temporary authority 
 for the use of voluntary separation incentives to assist in reducing 
               employment levels, and for other purposes)

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay this 
pending amendment aside and I ask immediate consideration of a third 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4980.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this third amendment is one of those sort 
of good Government amendments. I have spoken with the authorizing 
committee about this. They raise some concerns that I will attempt to 
address in a moment. This gives the U.S. Department of Agriculture the 
authority to conduct a voluntary buyout in order to meet its downsizing 
needs. No question, under this appropriations bill, the Department of 
Agriculture, particularly in FSA, is going to have to downsize and, 
equally important, Mr. President, no question, that is a desirable 
thing to do, given the substantial reduction in work that is likely to 
be required under the new farm program.
  So it is not that I am objecting to that downsizing, I am merely, 
with this amendment, trying to provide the Department with the 
authority to do buyouts which very often can save them substantial 
money and save the taxpayers substantial money in the process.
  I note there has been considerable attention to giving buyout 
authority to other agencies in the Federal Government, Treasury in 
particular. I am well aware of the work others have done in this area. 
As indicated, I have had discussions with the authorizing committee--
that is to say, the Committee on Governmental Affairs--in gaining 
acceptance for my amendment.
  Thus, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
amend my amendment before it comes to a vote tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the third 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. I yield the floor.


                         fair act credit title

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to inquire of my friend, Senator 
Lugar of Indiana, about a provision in the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act [FAIR Act] which became law on April 4, 
1996. Specifically, I am concerned with the way the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture has interpreted section 663, the section of the credit 
title that provides a transition period for elimination of the 
Leaseback/Buyback program.
  The statutory language says that only those borrowers who have 
submitted complete applications to acquire inventory property prior to 
the date of enactment will be considered for this form of loan 
servicing. The language is clear that applications must have been fully 
submitted on or before April 4, 1996, but a difficulty has arisen with 
regard to whether or not the property--on which the application is 
being made--must actually be in Federal inventory prior to the date of 
enactment. The statute is not clear on this point. The Department has 
interpreted the clause, ``Applications to acquire inventory property,'' 
to mean the property must already be in Federal inventory. This is 
called a ``post-acquisition'' application--``acquisition'' referring to 
when the Government takes ownership of the property.
  I am concerned that this ``brightline'' has stranded a number of 
``pre-acquisition'' applicants in the pipeline. These borrowers have 
submitted complete applications for leaseback/buyback servicing within 
the valid timeframe, but for a variety of reasons, the Government has 
not yet acquired their property.
  I certainly do understand the desire of the Department to 
expeditiously resolve as many debt servicing cases as possible. and I 
am supportive of the FAIR Act's marked advances in streamlining the 
farm loan programs and returning Government to its proper role as a 
``lender of last resort.'' I do believe, however, that we should 
grandfather those applications that were submitted prior to the change 
in law.
  I would ask my friend from Indiana whether he agrees with me that 
USDA's interpretation is incorrect?
  Mr. LUGAR. Senator Simpson raises a valid issue regarding the 
interpretation of section 663 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement 
and Reform Act of 1996. Although I disagree with your statement that 
the statute is not clear on this point, I agree that USDA has 
incorrectly interpreted this section.
  Section 663 clearly states that a complete application to acquire 
inventory property must have been submitted prior to the date of 
enactment of the FAIR Act. The issue is whether the property in 
question has already come into the Government's possession. Until that 
time, the property should not be deemed inventory property.
  If a borrower had submitted an application that the Secretary would 
have deemed complete except that the steps necessary for the Government 
to acquire the property had not been fulfilled, those borrowers' 
applications should be considered complete so that once the property 
does enter the Government's inventory, the lease back-buyback agreement 
can be executed.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Then you agree that borrowers who had completed 
applications for inventory property that had not yet been acquired by 
the Government should be grandfathered?
  Mr. LUGAR. Yes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank my fine friend for his assistance in this 
matter.


                 Amendments Nos. 4981 and 4982, En Bloc

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc:
  The first is offered for the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. 
Pressler], dealing with electronic warehouse receipts.
  The second is offered for the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Inhofe], 
dealing with research facilities in Oklahoma of the Agriculture 
Research Service.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes 
     amendments numbered 4981 and 4982, en bloc.

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


                           amendment no. 4981

        (Purpose: To improve the issuance of warehouse receipts)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC.   . WAREHOUSE RECEIPTS.

       (a) Electronic Warehouse Receipts.--Section 17(c) of the 
     United States Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 259(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``cotton'' and 
     inserting ``any agricultural product'';
       (2) by striking ``the cotton'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``the agricultural product''; and

[[Page S8465]]

       (3) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``in cotton'' and 
     inserting ``in the agricultural product''; and
       (B) in the last sentence of subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking ``electronic cotton'' and inserting 
     ``electronic''; and
       (ii) by striking ``cotton stored in a cotton warehouse'' 
     and inserting ``any agricultural product stored in a 
     warehouse''.
       (b) Written Receipts.--Section 18(c) of the United States 
     Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 260(c)) is amended by striking 
     ``consecutive''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 4982

  On page 11, line 22, add the following proviso after the word 
``law'': ``: Provided further, That all rights and title of the United 
States in the property known as the National Agricultural Water Quality 
Laboratory of the USDA, consisting of approximately 9.161 acres in the 
city of Durant, Oklahoma, including facilities and fixed equipment, 
shall be conveyed to Southeastern Oklahoma State University.''

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, those amendments have been cleared on 
this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Nos. 4981 and 4982) were agreed to, en bloc.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendments were agreed to.
  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, it appears that Senators who were 
prepared to offer their amendments have come to the floor and offered 
and discussed the amendments that they have to this bill. We understand 
there are other amendments that Senators would like to offer to this 
bill.
  I have a list, which I am prepared to read just for the information 
of all Senators. It is obvious we are not going to be able to complete 
action on this bill tonight. We do have amendments that votes have been 
ordered on that will occur tomorrow, and during the wrap-up tonight, an 
agreement will be proposed for an order in which those amendments will 
be taken up and voted on tomorrow.
  Let me suggest, if Senators can still this evening come to the floor 
to offer their amendments, we are prepared to be here for that purpose.
  We have this list:
  Senator Burns, an amendment on barley; Senator Brown, an amendment on 
water rights; Senator Santorum, who has eight amendments on peanuts; 
Senator Mikulski, an amendment on the Food and Drug Administration; 
Senator Leahy on milk orders; Senator Craig on GAO study on agriculture 
workers; Senator Lugar on double cropping; Senator Kerrey, which he has 
now offered, three amendments; Senator Murkowski on seafood inspection; 
Senator Kerrey, another amendment, which he has offered; Senator 
Kennedy on Food and Drug Administration; Senator Thurmond on 
agriculture research; Senator Frahm on section 515 rental housing 
program; Senator Simpson on wetland easements.
  We know of no other amendments. We hope those will be the only 
amendments, and maybe if Senators will let us know about suggested 
changes, we may be able to work out accepting some of these amendments 
tonight or when we reconvene on this bill tomorrow.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I think Senator Pell has a small 
amendment that he wants to offer that we probably should add to that 
list.
  Mr. COCHRAN. OK.
  Mr. President, we understand that it will be unlikely that we can get 
an agreement tonight to limit the amendments to those that I have just 
read. We had hoped to be able to get that agreement. We understand, if 
we propounded that request, there would be an objection. So we will not 
propound a unanimous-consent request, but we hope that will be all the 
amendments we will have to this bill, and we will take them up when 
Senators come to the floor to offer them. If they don't come to offer 
them tonight, we will be here tomorrow.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, to direct a question to the distinguished 
chairman and floor manager, as I understand it, we are going to have a 
whole slew of votes in the morning on the welfare bill, as many as 20. 
I was wondering if the chairman will be willing to make a unanimous-
consent request that immediately following final passage of the welfare 
reform bill tomorrow that we proceed immediately, while the Senators 
are still here on the floor, to a vote on the Gregg amendment and the 
McCain amendment.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, that will be in the proposed request 
which the majority leader will propound. That is an excellent idea. We 
are going to try to include that in the request of the majority leader 
as we wind up business tonight.
  I am told now the amendment of the Senator from Alaska, Senator 
Murkowski, which we had tried to clear earlier, has now been cleared 
for adoption.


                           Amendment No. 4983

(Purpose: To reconcile seafood inspection requirements for agricultural 
   commodity programs with those in use for general public consumers)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, with that understanding, I send an 
amendment to the desk on behalf of the Senator from Alaska, [Mr. 
Murkowski], on the subject of seafood inspection and ask that it be 
reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 4983.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Hereafter, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any domestic fish or fish product produced in compliance 
     with food safety standards or procedures accepted by the Food 
     and Drug Administration as satisfying the requirements of the 
     ``Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing and 
     Importing of Fish and Fish Products'' (published by the Food 
     and Drug Administration as a final regulation in the Federal 
     Register of December 18, 1995), shall be deemed to have met 
     any inspection requirements of the Department of Agriculture 
     or other Federal agency for any Federal commodity purchase 
     program, including the program authorized under section 32 of 
     the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c) except that the 
     Department of Agriculture or other Federal agency may utilize 
     lot inspection to establish a reasonable degree of certainty 
     that fish or fish products purchased under a Federal 
     commodity purchase program, including the program authorized 
     under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 
     612c), meet Federal product specifications.

  Mr. BUMPERS. There is no objection on this side, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4983) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I also understand that Senator Hatch is 
going to propose an amendment on the subject of generic drugs. We will 
add that to our list.

                          ____________________