[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.
____________________