[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8532-S8552]
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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report H.R. 3603.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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


[[Page S8533]]


  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       Gregg amendment No. 4959, to prohibit the use of funds to 
     make loans to large processors of sugarcane and sugar beets, 
     who has an annual revenue that exceeds $10 million, unless 
     the loans require the processors to repay the full amount of 
     the loans, plus interest.
       McCain amendment No. 4968, to reduce funds for the 
     Agricultural Research Service.
       Gregg amendment No. 4969 (to amendment No. 4959), to 
     prohibit the use of funds to make loans to large processors 
     of sugarcane and sugar beets, who has an annual revenue that 
     exceeds $15 million, unless the loans require the processors 
     to repay the full amount of the loans, plus interest.
       Bryan amendment No. 4977, to establish funding limitations 
     for the market access program.
       Kerrey amendment No. 4978, to increase funding for the 
     Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration and 
     the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
       Kerrey amendment No. 4979, to provide funds for risk 
     management.
       Kerrey amendment No. 4980, to provide the Secretary of 
     Agriculture temporary authority for the use of voluntary 
     separation incentives to assist in reducing employment 
     levels.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 4968

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the McCain amendment No. 4968. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have been requested by the Senator from 
Arizona to ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays that had been 
ordered on the McCain amendment be vitiated. I, therefore, ask 
unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4968) was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was rejected.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 4969 to Amendment No. 4959

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question now 
occurs on agreeing to the Gregg second-degree amendment No. 4969 on 
which the yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the parties 
involved in this amendment be given 2 minutes equally divided to 
present the terms of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous-consent 
request to give 2 minutes equally divided on the Gregg amendment? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire will be recognized when the Senate is 
in order. The Senate will not proceed until the Senator from New 
Hampshire can be heard.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment deals with the sugar program 
which, over the years, has been debated at considerable length on this 
floor. It does not deal with the issue of the price of sugar, which is 
outrageous and the manner in which it is maintained at almost 10 cents 
more than the world price. It does not deal with the fact that there is 
a $1.4 billion tax which is basically assessed against the American 
consumer as a result of the sugar program.
  What it does do, however, is deal with the issue of those instances, 
rare--in fact, I doubt that they would occur often--when someone 
defaults on their loan on sugar.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, could we have order? The Senator is 
entitled to be heard. I do not agree with what he is entitled to be 
heard on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will Senators conversing in the aisles remove 
themselves from said aisles?

  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in light of the position of the Senator 
from Arkansas, I am especially appreciative of his courtesy.
  The proposal is outlined on this yellow sheet. Somebody from one of 
the sugar-producing States accused me of yellow journalism, but I hope 
the Members of the Senate will take time to review the sheet.
  It essentially says the sugar program and producers will be put on 
the same level as students, veterans and homeowners who, when they 
default on a loan to the Federal Government, are personally responsible 
to pay it.
  Under the program, as currently structured, that is not the case. I 
could have offered an amendment which would deal with the essence of 
the sugar program in the pricing policy, which is this outrageous 
ripoff of the American consumer to the extent of $1.4 billion.
  But rather than do that, I have limited this to the issue of 
liability in the area of a sugar processor who fails to repay their 
loan. And it only applies to sugar processors with more than $15 
million of annual sales. Therefore, I think it is a very reasonable 
amendment. And I would appreciate the consideration by the body.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Gregg 
amendment to the agriculture appropriations bill.
  I believe it is time to reform the sugar program. The sugar program 
has become nothing more than corporate welfare for a small group of 
growers which operates to the detriment of consumers and sugar refiners 
like Domino Sugar in Baltimore and other refiners around the country.
  The Gregg amendment simply requires growers to repay their loans to 
the Federal Government. It is shocking that sugar growers are the only 
group of people who do not have to repay their loans to the Government. 
If students and veterans have to re-pay their loans to the Government, 
then so should sugar growers.
  While the sugar program gives growers a significant advantage, sugar 
refiners have no such benefits or protection. Sugar refiners must use 
imported raw product in order to stay in business because there is not 
enough domestic supply to satisfy demand.
  While growers receive artificially high prices, refiners must bear 
the high cost of domestic product without any benefits or protection. 
It is time this Government recognize the value of our sugar refining 
industry and the jobs that depend on it.
  Since 1981, the sugar refining industry has lost forty percent of its 
capacity not to mention the thousands of blue collar jobs that went 
with it. Sugar refining is one of the few manufacturing industries 
still left in our inner cities. Domino Sugar in Baltimore employs 
almost six hundred people. Their jobs are just as important as the jobs 
of growers.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Gregg amendment and vote for 
fairness in the sugar program.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time against the amendment?
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will join with me and 
others this afternoon in a motion to table this amendment. We have just 
crafted a new 7-year farm bill. In a rough and tumble way, we have 
planned for agriculture, at least as it relates to Government's 
involvement.
  We made major changes in the sugar program. We eliminated marketing 
allotments, we implemented a 1-cent penalty on loan rates, we created 
the assessment of $300 million coming into the Treasury all in a sense 
to create a more balanced field for the production of sugar in our 
country while there is a more equitable flow of import sugar into our 
refiners.
  The Senator says, let us change the game one more time. I hope that 
the Senate will work its will, but understand that once we have crafted 
a farm bill that we would stay with that farm bill for the period of 
time of that policy. And that is why I hope we will support a motion to 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the Gregg amendment No. 
4959, and 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion

[[Page S8534]]

to lay on the table the amendment No. 4959. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 
is absent due to a death in the family.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 63, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]

                                YEAS--63

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frahm
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--35

     Ashcroft
     Biden
     Bradley
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cohen
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Gregg
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Inouye
     Kassebaum
       
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 4959) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is our hope that we will be able to 
propound a unanimous-consent agreement and get an agreement to take up 
the remaining amendments on this bill tonight, and for any votes that 
are required, put them over until tomorrow. That is the effort that we 
are making now.
  There are a number of amendments that we have listed in this proposed 
agreement. I can read them now. We have given copies to both sides of 
the aisle. Senators are looking at them in an effort to determine 
whether this agreement can be reached. I hope it can. I know Senators 
are tired. They have been here all day.
  The leader wants us to finish this bill tonight, but it looks like we 
cannot because of the long list of amendments. But we can take up the 
amendments and dispose of the amendments. Those that we cannot dispose 
of, which require votes, can be voted on tomorrow. That is the 
suggestion for the further disposition of this Agriculture 
appropriations bill.
  I will be happy to yield to anyone who wants to ask a question about 
that, or to my distinguished friend from Arkansas, the manager on the 
Democratic side.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Harkin be added as a cosponsor on amendments Nos. 4979 and 4978.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Frahm). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, regarding what the Senator just said--
and I certainly do not want to take any more time--this is going to be 
a rather burdensome evening. I am not too hot for this agreement, to 
tell you the truth. But if we can move expeditiously and get these 
amendments disposed of--and I defer to the chairman on this--according 
to my list, we have about five amendments here that have not been 
cleared. I think that probably the first thing we ought to do is to 
take the amendments that have been cleared and accept them on both 
sides and narrow down the list. I think, perhaps, of the remaining 
amendments, two or three of them will fall. I think that would be an 
expeditious way to get a resolution of this thing. I do not know 
whether we are going to get an agreement tonight to say that any 
amendments that will not be laid down tonight will be in order 
tomorrow.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I would like to understand a bit more 
about where we are at the moment. I have noticed an amendment dealing 
with barley and the problem that has come about as a result of the 
change in the payment rate for barley under the Freedom To Farm Act.
  As some of you might know, those who signed up under freedom to farm 
to raise barley signed up with the understanding that their original 
payment under the freedom to farm bill was going to be 46 cents a 
bushel in 1996. Then they were told later that the calculation under 
the Freedom To Farm Act was inaccurate and that their payment would be 
32 cents. That probably doesn't sound like too much to some, but it is 
a 30 percent reduction from what the estimate would be and the basis on 
which they signed up for the program--a 30 percent reduction from that 
level. It is somewhere around $35 million to $39 million. No State in 
the country raises more barley than North Dakota, and the folks that go 
out and plant that barley, and expect to harvest it, did so under the 
provisions of this farm bill, fully expecting to do so receiving 46 
cents a bushel as original payment.
  Now, I guess the question that I have is whether we can address this 
issue in this appropriations bill. This appears to be the only 
opportunity to address this issue on behalf of the barley growers. And 
before we agree to a unanimous-consent request of some type in order to 
compress the time and limit the opportunities to address this issue, I 
say to the manager and ranking member that I very much would like to 
discuss, at some length, with them how we can address this issue.
  I do not think this is a circumstance where we can say this doesn't 
matter; it won't be addressed. This is a substantial amount of money 
coming out of the pockets of those who signed up for this program 
expecting to get a payment of 46 cents a bushel, which, under current 
circumstances, they will not get. Before I agree to a unanimous-consent 
request of any kind, I would like to see if we can work through and 
solve this problem.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, let me say to the Senator from North 
Dakota that his amendment actually is a farm bill amendment. The 
chairman and I have both said in our opening statements that we hope we 
will not get into trying to amend the farm bill that we passed last 
year.
  I have strong empathy for the Senator from North Dakota because he 
has a great interest in the issue of barley. But I hope that the 
Senator would be willing to take the manager's word for the fact that 
this really needs to be considered by the chairman and ranking members 
of the Agriculture Committee, because that is where this really 
belongs. To say that if there is a package of farm bill amendments that 
might be approved by the authorizers at the conclusion of this bill, 
there might possibly be a chance--and I do not want to guarantee or 
promise the Senator from North Dakota this, but we might be able to do 
something at the end in the way of a package of amendments.

  In any case, whether we deal with it that way or not, there might be 
a possibility of doing something with it in conference. I know the 
Senator from North Dakota feels strongly about this, but I really feel 
that we probably ought to deal with this in a slightly different way, 
because it really is an amendment to the farm bill.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, that distinction is obviously lost on 
people who are out there planting barley and who signed up for a 
program in which they felt they were going to get a 46-cent-per-bushel 
payment because they were promised that. Then it turns out there was a 
miscalculation determined by USDA in the process of constructing this 
farm bill, which results in a 30-percent reduction in the payment they 
expected.
  Now, the Senator from Arkansas is generous, and I appreciate working 
with him. But he knows, and I know, that we may not have another 
opportunity to correct this. It seems to me

[[Page S8535]]

that while one can make the case that this is an authorizing committee 
issue, one can also make the case that this is an appropriations issue, 
because the Secretary of Agriculture needs to have the money in order 
to restore this payment that was promised to family farmers.
  This is not a circumstance where there is confusion about what the 
promise was. The Freedom To Farm Act made specific representations 
about, if you planted a certain commodity, what kind of payment you 
would receive for that planting. In the case of barley, there is no 
confusion. The promise was 46 cents a bushel. Now we are told, for 
those who fuel up the tractor and plant barley seeds, the thing has 
changed, the deal is off, there is a 30-percent reduction. That just, I 
say to my colleagues, is not satisfactory to me. I do not think it is 
satisfactory to the farmers who believe that we ought to keep our word 
on this.
  So I just would say that I am not interested in any sort of unanimous 
consent request until we can work through this. I am not trying to draw 
a line in the sand here. I am just saying that we can work through 
this. This can be done. This can be solved. This is not a problem for 
which there is no solution. There is a solution. I think there are no 
two better people in the Senate to help us address it than the Senator 
from Mississippi and the Senator from Arkansas. Both of them are about 
as good at doing these things in the Senate as anybody I know. But I 
really want us to address this.
  As the Senator from Mississippi, for whom I have great respect, 
knows, I am not sure the amendment is the right amendment, and I am not 
sure the method I have chosen to pay for this is the right method. In 
fact, I might prefer a different method. But I gave notice a day or two 
ago that I would want to deal with this issue on the floor of the 
Senate when this bill came to the floor.
  I also understand those who manage this legislation--and the majority 
leader, for that matter, and others--would like to just package this up 
tight, wrap a bow around it, and run it through to final passage in the 
morning. Gee, I would like to see that happen as well, and I am 
perfectly willing to see that happen as long as the result of this bill 
addresses their question of how we make good on our word as a Congress 
to those that produce barley.
  So I know my colleague, Senator Conrad, has an interest in this as 
well. But I really do hope that we can visit and find a way to address 
this problem the way farmers would expect us to address it. They were 
given a promise. We need to keep that promise. A failure to keep that 
promise will be a failure on all of our parts. We do not need to fail. 
We can in this piece of legislation find $35 million and keep the 
promise that was made to those that raise barley.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I hesitate to extend the discussion of 
this matter. I would like to rivet the point and confirm what my 
colleague from North Dakota is saying.
  Barley farmers in this country were made a clear promise. They were 
told they were going to get 46 cents a bushel under this farm bill. 
Somebody made a miscalculation. We do not know yet whether it was USDA 
or the Agriculture Committee staffs of the Senate and the House. But we 
know with great precision what promise was made--46 cents a bushel. 
That is already a significant reduction from what they would have 
gotten under previous legislation. But now they are told they are not 
going to get 46 cents. They are going to get 32 cents.
  Farmers have already planted understanding that they were going to 
receive a certain level of payment. So they have moved on the promise 
that was made to them. They have planted the crop. It is there. Nothing 
can be done about it. But we now cannot go back on the pledge that was 
made to these people and say, ``Well, you know that is the way 
Washington works sometimes. You were told you were going to get 
something, and on that basis you acted, and now we are going to go back 
on our word and instead of 46 cents you are going to get 32 cents.''
  That is an economic disaster to literally thousands of people who 
plant barley in this country--barley that goes into making beer which 
is important to our country. You have to have beer. If you do not have 
beer, what kind of a country have you got?
  [Laughter.]
  The next thing you know we will have the Germans over here selling 
all the beer. We do not want to do that to America--to deny those in 
our country who enjoy a tall cool one; that they are going to have to 
buy German barley or Canadian barley. They ought to be able to get 
American barley. And those barley farmers ought to be getting what they 
were promised.
  So I would be very hopeful that our colleagues would recognize this 
is an extraordinary circumstance that somehow we have to keep our word 
with respect to what barley farmers were promised.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I do not want those listening who do not know anything 
about barley to believe that barley is only used to produce beer. Of 
course, malting barley is used in the production of beer. But beef 
barley is used for a great amount of animal feed in this country.
  The Senator from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, makes a point. I would 
like to stress it. There is not any other commodity in the farm bill 
that is affected like this. Every other commodity got what they were 
promised they would get. Every other commodity got what they were 
promised they would get. But this farm bill contains a provision that 
says barley will get 46 cents a bushel, and then now it contains 
another provision that says, ``Oops. Oops''. Someone made a mistake. 
Oops. We are $35 million short.'' ``Oops'' does not mean very much 
unless that $35 million comes out of your pocket. Then ``oops'' is a 
real serious problem.

  All we ask is that we find a way somehow to address this dilemma. The 
failure to address it now means it will not get addressed. That is why 
we do not want to miss this moment.
  We are not talking about some mountain. We are talking about a 
relatively small problem that can be fixed--a big problem for barley 
growers, but a problem that can be fixed without great difficulty, in 
my judgment,
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I appreciate very much the remarks of 
the distinguished Senators from North Dakota on this barley issue. This 
is also a subject that is addressed in an amendment that has been 
crafted and proposed by Senator Burns of Montana. And the other Senator 
from Montana, Senator Baucus, mentioned to me his interest in the 
issue. So it is something that Senators on both sides have an interest 
in.
  We would like to see it resolved. Our problem on this appropriations 
committee is that we have a limited amount of money to allocate among 
all of these programs administered by the Department of Agriculture. We 
are advised variously that it would cost up to $40 million. It may not 
go that high, as the Senator says. It may be $38 million, or something 
like that.
  Rather than spell out specifically a support level in the legislation 
before the Senate, I hope that we would consider as an option language 
directing the Secretary of Agriculture to study the suggestion that the 
Barley program be revised on the grounds and for the reasons stated by 
the Senators who have spoken and direct that he has the authority to 
make changes that would result in a fair solution and equitable 
resolution of the difficulty holding harmless those producers in other 
commodity programs that already have their signups approved and already 
have their farm plan in operation.
  The reason I say that is one concern I have is that, if we do not 
have some language like that, the Secretary could take the funds from 
other commodity programs and give it to the barley producers. And I 
think we would have a furor on our hands, and that would be 
understandable.
  But so long as the other producers are not harmed by this change, I 
would have no objection to including language like that in this bill. I 
think it does have to be cleared by the legislative committee. Senator 
Lugar and

[[Page S8536]]

Senator Leahy ought to be consulted about it.
  What I can say at this point is that the Senators have my assurance 
that I will try very hard to get language of that kind approved here in 
the Senate. If we cannot get it spelled out in this bill, we can do it 
in conference, but at some point to make sure that this problem is 
addressed in this bill.
  I cannot--like the Senator from Arkansas said--guarantee it because I 
just have 1 vote in here, and there are 99 others. But we can recommend 
and we can work with the Senators to craft that kind of language. I 
pledge to them my best efforts to do that.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I guess what I would encourage us to do 
is to work this evening and tomorrow morning to see if we can craft a 
solution to include in this bill that solves the problem. As the 
Senator knows, he has been a veteran of these many battles in the 
Congress directing the Secretary to study something, suggestions that 
it may or may not get solved, and it may or may not get solved in the 
next 5 years.
  Mr. COCHRAN. If the Senator will yield, there are two parts: The 
study to do something equitably to address and resolve the issues; and 
we have to worry, too, about how the Congressional Budget Office may 
score language like that.

  I do not know what their scoring would be. I am sometimes mystified 
and dumbfounded by the scoring decisions that are made by the 
Congressional Budget Office on something like this.
  So we will have to reserve judgment on that basis. We do not want to 
put ourselves out of business because of some scoring decision that 
they make.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand that. My point was that I do not know that 
the problem needs much study. I understand the problem. We understand 
that those who signed up with the program who raise barley find out now 
that they are going to get 30 percent less than the freedom to farm 
bill proposed at 46 cents a bushel.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, it has to be 
studied. There was a misinterpretation of estimates provided by 
Department of Agriculture for the payments for barley producers. But 
the barley producers were told that an erroneous support level would be 
made a part of the barley program. Then they found out later that they 
were wrong and it would be a lower level. Now they are caught in this 
situation where they do not want to have to admit that the facts were 
misrepresented about the support level and the basis on which it was 
calculated.
  That is why it ought to be studied because there is a difference of 
opinion at the Department of Agriculture as to what this level ought to 
be. I do not know what the level ought to be. You are saying one level. 
The barley producers are expecting that level that you are talking 
about. That is the part of the problem.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Department indicates that the majority party in 
constructing the freedom to farm bill made the error. I do not know who 
made the error. I do know this. That when someone signs up for a 
program and is told they will get 46 cents a bushel for a barley 
payment under a contract, and then are told later, ``Well, gee. That 
was wrong. You actually are going to get 30 percent less than that,'' 
and, where this is the only crop in the country that is put in that 
position, our position is let's go ahead and make them whole.
  We do not have to wait forever to do that. Let us try to find a way 
to do that now. It has been kicking around here for a while. I have 
talked to the Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, so I know you have been 
working with him, and Senator Baucus. My understanding is some of the 
original discussions about that would be maybe to fix part of the 
problem.
  I would very much like to fix this problem so that those who signed 
up on the basis of getting 46 cents a bushel for barley will be able to 
understand that is what they are going to get. That is what everybody 
else got. Everybody else got exactly what this Congress told them they 
would get as a payment under freedom to farm. It was a fixed payment. 
It did not require rocket scientists to understand what it was going to 
be; it was a fixed payment. Everybody signed up and understood what 
they were going to get.
  The only crop that is disadvantaged this way, the only farmers who 
are going to be short-changed will be those who raise barley who were 
told it is not 46; something happened in between with calculations and 
it will be 30 percent less than that. Our position is that is not the 
right way to deal with these growers.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe that the distinguished chairman of the 
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has offered to work with the 
Senator and the other Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from 
Montana, Mr. Burns, and has an amendment reservation pending to try 
work this out in a way that is acceptable to Senators.
  We need to get an agreement on how we are going to proceed tonight 
and in the morning. I would like to propound a unanimous consent 
agreement, and the chairman, I am sure, is going to be prepared to work 
with Senators right now and see if he can find something that is 
acceptable. As he said, he is in an awkward position because he is, in 
effect, trying to represent what he understood the Agriculture 
Department's position might be. We are not all barley experts, but he 
is willing to work with Senators on that.
  So let me ask consent so that we try to get agreement on how we 
proceed. By the way, I want to say the distinguished Democratic leader 
has been working with me to come up with a fair and equitable way to 
handle this bill and amendments. There is a lot of emotion on 
agriculture bills and commodities, and we have worked together to try 
to come up with a procedure here that will be a fair process that 
everybody can get their case made and maybe we can go ahead and be 
working on barley and water rights and peanuts and FDA and everything 
that is pending.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only 
remaining first-degree amendments in order to the pending agriculture 
appropriations bill, that they be subject to relevant second-degree 
amendments, that no motions to refer be in order and no points of order 
be considered as having been waived by this agreement. The amendments 
are as follows and must be offered and debated prior to the close of 
business this evening with the exception of the Kennedy amendment 
regarding FDA: Burns regarding barley; Brown regarding water rights; 
Santorum regarding peanuts, eight amendments, which I hope will wind up 
being no more than one; the Mikulski amendment regarding FDA; Leahy 
regarding milk orders; Craig regarding GAO study; Lugar regarding 
double cropping; Kerrey Nos. 4978, 4979 and 4980; Kennedy regarding an 
FDA amendment; Simpson regarding wetland easements; a Pell amendment 
unspecified; Thurmond regarding agriculture research; a Frahm amendment 
regarding section 515, rental housing program; Bryan No. 4977; and 
Gregg No. 4955.
  I further ask that following the conclusion of debate on the above-
listed amendments, any votes ordered with respect to the amendments be 
stacked to occur beginning at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, tomorrow, with the 
first vote limited to the standard 15 minutes and any stacked votes 
thereafter limited to 10 minutes with 2 minutes for debate to be 
equally divided prior to each vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, would the distinguished majority leader 
note on his list instead of an amendment by me on milk orders, that it 
is an amendment on the Northern Forest Stewardship Act.
  Mr. LOTT. Northern Forest Stewardship Act.
  Mr. LEAHY. I suspect it is going to be accepted anyway, but it will 
not be on milk orders.

[[Page S8537]]

  Mr. LOTT. I amend my unanimous-consent request to reflect that.
  Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate it.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, it is not my intention to 
hold up the Senate, and I do want to help this process move along. I am 
constrained to object at the moment.
  What I would like to suggest is that we sit down here for a few 
minutes and see if we can divine a way by which we can address this 
problem so that we can have a UC that I would not object to. I do not 
want to be in a circumstance where we now lock in a process so that at 
11:30 in the morning this thing is done and gone and our opportunity to 
address this issue is over and we are told, well, we are very 
sympathetic; we think you had an awfully good case; we have 16 people 
studying it; we have 86 staff people looking at it. And the fact is, 
nothing will get done and we know that.
  So what I want to do, if we can, is spend a few minutes, perhaps in 
the next few minutes, seeing if we can find a way to solve this problem 
now that we have the opportunity to solve it, and if we can find a way 
to do that and find a process by which that can be done, then we can 
have the unanimous-consent request that I would not object to.
  It is not my intention to hold this up. I want to be helpful, but I 
do also want to be helpful to some thousands of farmers out there who 
signed up for something that under the current circumstances they will 
not get, and that is not fair and we ought to fix it. So I do object. I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi still has the 
floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, as I stand here before you, amendments are 
coming in. It is growing. If we do not get a unanimous-consent 
agreement, it is going to continue to grow. We need to get the 
agriculture appropriations bill done. I understand Senators want to 
work it out. The Senator has indicated he is willing to do that. But 
maybe we should just go ahead and go on with the business and get a 
recorded vote up as soon as we can. I believe we have one we could do 
on maybe market research, something, but we have to get our work done. 
If we cannot get a UC, then let us start voting.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Is there a unanimous-consent request pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
  Mr. LOTT. I do not know if the Senator actually objected or not.
  Mr. DORGAN. I did.
  Mr. LOTT. He did.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I made the point that if we can take 
just a couple minutes here, we may be able to solve this problem. I 
suggest that we have a brief quorum call and see if we could through 
some discussion solve this problem. It is not my intention to hold up 
the Senate. I understand exactly what the majority leader wants to do.

  Mr. LOTT. I think that is a fair request. Let us make a run at it.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. If I may direct a comment to the majority leader on 
this--
  Mr. DORGAN. Excuse me. Did the Chair note my objection?
  Mr. LOTT. The objection was heard, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection was heard.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Let me say, first of all, I want to cooperate with the 
majority leader. I am afraid, as they say, he has poured out more than 
we can smooth over this evening. There are a lot of amendments here 
that are going to require a lot of debate. For example, Senator 
Santorum does not have one amendment; he has eight amendments.
  To suggest that all of these amendments will be debated tonight, and 
we start voting at 11 o'clock in the morning, we would be lucky to 
finish by 11 o'clock in the morning if we stayed here all night the way 
I look at this thing. So I would suggest that we try to craft this in 
such a way that we say, first, these amendments be the only ones in 
order. I sympathize with that totally, and I think that is the first 
part of the agreement that we get, if we possibly can, to stop the very 
hemorrhaging you are talking about of new amendments.
  Second, I think we ought to limit the time agreement on these 
amendments so that we do not take 2 hours. I know Senator Kennedy feels 
very strongly about one amendment and wants 2 hours. So I am just 
saying that if we could limit the amendments in the unanimous-consent 
agreement--and I do not believe the Senator from North Dakota would 
object to that--I think we could get that done now, and that would be a 
major step toward getting this bill finished.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, let us see if we can get the sticking 
point we have before us worked out. In the meantime, while the 
interested parties are talking about that, we will see how we can craft 
a unanimous consent that would reflect that.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I am glad to either file the amendment 
which I would hope we would have an opportunity to debate--but I am 
glad to send that at an appropriate time to the desk this evening. I 
was told by the floor managers they preferred to deal with the 
agricultural issues this evening. I said I would speak tonight on this 
amendment. They indicated that, as much as they wanted to hear me 
speak, they would rather deal with particularly agricultural amendments 
and then go over until tomorrow.
  I want to indicate I am not interested in an undue delay, but I have 
had a number of Members who have spoken to me, saying that they would 
like to speak on this issue. I can file the amendment here this 
evening. We will be prepared to be on the floor at a time to be 
designated by the leader to either follow those amendments that deal 
with agriculture or whatever order the majority leader wants. But I 
want to be able to preserve both my right and time tomorrow to address 
this issue, which is of major importance and really not relevant to the 
subject at hand.
  The subject at hand is the agricultural appropriations. This is 
dealing with the Food and Drug Administration. It is a part of a bill 
that is currently before the Senate and also before the House, where 
there are good-faith negotiations, allegedly, taking place to try to 
work out some of the differences. I want to have an opportunity to 
speak to that issue, but I want to also indicate I have been requested 
to restrain that now to deal with the agricultural issues. I will 
follow that request.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, we have been working as the Senator has 
been talking. If the Senator will allow me to renew this unanimous-
consent request, I think we have something we can get done.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Certainly


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the following 
amendments be the only remaining first-degree amendments in order to 
the pending agriculture appropriations bill, that they be subject to 
second-degree amendment, that no motions to refer be in order, and no 
points of order be considered as having been waived by this agreement. 
The amendments are as follows. My intent here is to lock in this list 
of amendments so it will not continue to grow as the night progresses. 
Here is the list:
  Burns, regarding barley; Brown, regarding water rights; Santorum 
amendments, regarding peanuts; Mikulski, regarding FDA; Leahy, 
regarding Northern Forest Stewardship Act; Craig, No. 4971; Leahy, 
regarding double cropping; Kerrey, Nos. 4978, 4979, and 4980; Kennedy, 
regarding FDA; Simpson, regarding wetlands easements; Bumpers, 
regarding agriculture research; Thurmond, regarding agriculture 
research; Frahm, regarding section 515, rental housing program; Bryan, 
No. 4977; Gregg, No. 4959; Burns, relevant; Smith, relevant; Hatfield, 
two relevants; Brown, relevant, one,

[[Page S8538]]

and the second would be water rights task force; Murkowski, two 
relevant amendments; Domenici, regarding drought; Cochran, two relevant 
amendments; Hatch, regarding FDA; Lott-Bumpers-Wellstone with two; 
Daschle with two; Leahy, regarding agriculture; Sarbanes, regarding 
agriculture; Leahy, regarding wild rice; Dorgan, regarding barley; and 
Dorgan, regarding a sense of the Senate on Canadian trade; that we 
would have stacked votes at 11 o'clock on those that have been debated 
and debate completed, then we would resume after those stacked votes 
with the remainder of these amendments until we complete the list, many 
of which I hope will not be offered.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. DASCHLE. For clarification purposes, the majority leader did not 
note, I do not believe, second-degree amendments would have to be 
relevant, but I am sure that was the intent.
  Mr. LOTT. I may have read over that because I was reading it fast: be 
subject to relevant second-degree amendments.
  Mr. DASCHLE. And there is no time limit on the amendments for 
purposes of debate?
  Mr. LOTT. Not at this time. We are just trying to lock in the list of 
amendments, which is a lengthy list, and all of our agriculture 
friends, I am sure, would like to have an agriculture appropriations 
bill. So we need a little cooperation here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Further reserving the right to object, I hope we could 
agree with this. The majority leader and I have been working. As he 
made the list, I am quite sure there are at least as many Republican as 
Democratic amendments, so this is true bipartisanship. There is as much 
interest in amending this from the Republican side as there is from the 
Democratic side, so I certainly hope no one would come to any 
conclusion that it was only the Democrats that were holding this up.
  But I do believe this unanimous consent works for both sides. It 
protects Senators to offer their amendments, and it gives us an 
opportunity to work tonight to address some of them. I hope we could 
finish the work sometime tomorrow.
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Democratic leader for his effort to be helpful 
in this regard.
  Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I ask the able majority 
leader that I be added, a Conrad amendment with respect to barley, so 
we have another slot. So, hopefully, we can get this worked out in a 
way that achieves a result. If we could reach that understanding, I 
would not object.
  Mr. LOTT. I will amend my unanimous-consent request to that extent: 
Senator Conrad regarding barley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. If I could ask the distinguished majority leader, did that 
list include under my name an aquaculture reauthorization?
  Mr. LOTT. I had it listed as agriculture. Is it supposed to be 
aquaculture?
  Mr. LEAHY. Aqua. You have to forgive my New England accent.
  Mr. LOTT. You talk a little funny.
  Mr. LEAHY. We talk a little funny up in New England, but we do our 
best. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Put my name down for an amendment on dairy.
  Mr. LOTT. Heflin regarding dairy. We need to get dairy in here. It 
would not be a normal agriculture bill without it. All right, sir. We 
have added that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object to 
this request, the majority leader does not, by this request, limit the 
time on the bill. He attempts to limit the amendments that will be 
offered. I only want to make certain the amendment that he has 
referenced, the barley amendment that I would offer--you are describing 
an amendment about barley, not necessarily the amendment that I have 
sent to the committee. I may want to change the method of paying for 
that. I assume the unanimous-consent request simply allows me a 
relevant barley amendment; is that correct?
  Mr. BUMPERS. That is right.
  Mr. LOTT. Yes, you are on the list for a relevant barley amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. But I am not necessarily tied to the amendment I 
submitted to the committee. I assume I will be able to modify that 
amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. Any Senator can modify his amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Then I further ask, as I did earlier, when we begin the 
stacked votes at 11 o'clock, the first vote be 15 minutes and the 
stacked votes thereafter be limited to 10 minutes, with 2 minutes of 
debate equally divided prior to each vote.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Reserving the right to object, I sort of feel like some 
of these things are a little complicated. Could we have, on peanuts, 4 
minutes equally divided instead of 2?
  Mr. LOTT. If there are any peanut amendments, then 4 minutes on the 
first of those that might be offered, equally divided. Is that all 
right?
  Mr. HEFLIN. First two. We have eight.
  Mr. LOTT. Four minutes on first two equally divided with the hope 
there would not be more than one. That agreement is included in our 
request.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, as I 
understood the unanimous consent agreement, the first part was these 
amendments would be an exclusive list.
  Mr. LOTT. Right.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The second part of the agreement, the second unanimous 
consent agreement said that we would stack votes beginning at 11 
o'clock in the morning.
  Mr. LOTT. Right, sir.
  Mr. BUMPERS. It did not say all of these amendments would be disposed 
of prior to that time?
  Mr. LOTT. No, just those debated and ready for votes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I am confused by the Senator's request for 4 minutes on 
peanut amendments.
  Mr. HEFLIN. If they come up. If we can get everyone to agree to a 4-
minute time agreement, maybe we could finish tonight.
  Mr. LOTT. He wants 4 minutes immediately prior to the votes in the 
stacked order.
  Mr. BUMPERS. OK.
  Mr. LOTT. I renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I think the best thing to do at this point, as laboriously 
as that agreement was worked out, let us go forward now with the 
efforts to get an agreement on barley and start taking up the 
amendments and turn it over to the very able managers of the 
legislation. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, if I could have the attention of the two 
managers, I do have an amendment on behalf of myself, the Senators from 
Maine, Ms. Snowe and Mr. Cohen; the Senators from New Hampshire, Mr. 
Gregg and Mr. Smith; the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords; and 
Senators Moynihan, Kennedy, and Kerry regarding the northern forest 
stewardship.

  If the managers are in a position to accept this, I am willing to 
offer it and go forward. If they prefer we wait until a later time, I 
am willing to do that. I just understand some people want to get some 
things moving forward. So I ask the distinguished managers, if that is 
the case, I will offer it on behalf of those Senators, otherwise I will 
withhold until a later time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, if the President will yield, let me 
respond by saying this is an issue that is not an agriculture 
appropriations issue, as the Senator knows.
  Mr. LEAHY. That is right.
  Mr. COCHRAN. It is related to forestry and comes under the 
jurisdiction of other committees. So I am not able to accept the 
amendment or recommend it be accepted. I understand there are some 
objections to it.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will withhold, Madam President. If I can ask the Senator 
from Mississippi a further question, my

[[Page S8539]]

understanding is that under the unanimous-consent agreement we are now 
operating under, this amendment, however, is protected at least to the 
extent of being able to bring it up, subject to all the other 
conditions. If I do not bring it up tonight, it is still protected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. As I understand it, he has the right to offer the 
amendment at any time. He can offer it now, and it will become a 
pending amendment which will have to be laid aside temporarily to 
consider other amendments, or he can offer it later.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I believe, then, I will offer it now and 
then yield to the Senator from Mississippi who will then move to set it 
aside and make the bill available for other amendments.


                           Amendment No. 4987

(Purpose: To implement the recommendations of the Northern Forest Lands 
                                Council)

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Senators Snowe, 
Gregg, Jeffords, Smith, Cohen, Moynihan, Kennedy, and Kerry, and that 
it be reported and become the pending business.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am attempting to understand this 
amendment and would like to work with the Senator from Vermont. It has 
not had the kind of airing I would hope for, and there is a question, 
as the chairman just said. I do not want to object this evening to 
this, but I would like to sit down with the Senator from Vermont prior 
to the consideration of it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, let the distinguished chairman move to 
set it aside, but it will be there. Under the unanimous-consent 
agreement, I have the right to bring it up at any time. I will offer it 
just so I can now leave the floor and it is there. Obviously, it will 
not be brought up until such time as the distinguished Senator from 
Idaho and I have had a chance to talk.
  Mr. CRAIG. Under that understanding and consideration of the Senator 
from Vermont, I will not object.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I was going to say for point of 
clarification, there are other amendments pending as well, so it is not 
like this is the only amendment offered. There is a market access 
amendment, Senator Kerrey has three amendments pending, and there are 
others, all of which are pending before the Senate now. This is not 
unusual. The only reason you were asking unanimous consent was so that 
those could be set aside and you could offer that amendment. I suggest 
that the clerk report the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself, Ms. 
     Snowe, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Smith, Mr. Cohen, Mr. 
     Moynihan, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Kerry proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4987.

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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. LEAHY. Madam President, I rise to seek the Senate's approval of 
S. 1163, the Northern Forest Stewardship Act, the result of a joint 
effort on the part of my colleagues from New England and New York--
Senators Jeffords, Gregg, Smith, Snowe, Cohen, Moynihan, Kennedy, 
Kerry, and thousands of constituents who live in our region, one 
characterized by some 26 million acres of forest spanning four States.
  The Northern Forest Stewardship Act of 1995, S. 1163, is an example 
of what Congress can achieve when it heeds the public's voice. The 
bipartisan legislation that I introduced with several other northern 
forest Senators on August 10, 1995, is founded on extensive research, 
open discussion, consensus decisions, and visionary problem solving by 
the people who have a stake in the future of the forest.
  Legislation rarely embodies such a thorough effort by so diverse a 
constituency. Our goal was to accurately reflect the recommendations of 
the northern forest communities, envisioned in the final report of the 
Northern Forest Lands Council.
  The council process was initiated to avoid the conflicts that have 
divided communities in some regions of our country. These conflicts 
have very often been fueled by misinformation, politics and short-term 
economic gain.
  Over the past 4 years, northern forest communities have made a 
dedicated effort to develop a shared vision for their future. They have 
worked hard to arrive at a consensus and our job is to insure that 
their efforts are rewarded.
  This legislation is guided solely by the council's recommendations--
it goes no further, nor does it fall short. The bill includes a package 
of technical and financial assistance which the Congress can and should 
support.
  Between the Family Forestland Preservation Act (S. 692) and the 
Northern Forest Stewardship Act (S. 1163), Congress can meet the 
recommendations made by the people of the northern forest.
  The Northern Forest Stewardship Act includes provisions on the 
council's fundamental principles; formation of forestry cooperatives; 
defining measurable benchmarks for sustainability; a northern forest 
research cooperative; interstate coordination and dialog; forest-based 
worker safety and training; funding for land conservation planning and 
acquisition; landowner liability; and nongame wildlife conservation.
  The legislation embodies the conservation ethic of the 1990's--non-
regulatory incentives and assistance to realize community-based goals 
for sustainable economic and environmental prosperity. The rights and 
responsibilities of landowners are emphasized, the primacy of the 
States is reinforced, and the traditions of the region are protected. 
Yet, the bill also promotes new ways of achieving our goals and a 
common vision that did not exist several years ago.
  Moving ahead with the Council's work, we will pursue enhanced forest 
management, land protection that supports the recreational and wildlife 
needs of the region, integrated research and decision making, and 
increased productivity in the traditional as well as new compatible 
industries.
  Through this bill, we can boost sustainable development and protect 
the ecological integrity of biological resources across the landscape. 
The Nation has taken notice of this highly successful effort as a model 
for meeting the conservation challenges of the country, and I am 
confident of its inevitable success.
  We welcomed the constructive input of many people and organizations 
who compared our legislation with the final recommendations, research, 
and public participation of the Northern Forest Lands Council.
  It was our goal to create the best possible representation of the 
future described in the report to Congress, Finding Common Ground: 
Conserving the Northern Forest--to make the Council's solutions work, 
and work well. I want to thank the many citizens for their hard work 
which helped shape the final product.
  The Northern Forest Stewardship Act is the work of many people. I 
want to congratulate the members of the council for their success, and 
most importantly the people of the northern forest for their enthusiasm 
during the long process. Thousands of people took time to turn out for 
public meetings and share their views on the northern forest. Hundreds 
more put pen to paper or picked up the phone to register their 
thoughts.
  Senators Gregg, Jeffords, Cohen and Snowe deserve particular thanks 
for their contributions to this effort.
  The Northern Forest Lands Council recommendations reflect the first, 
true consensus vision of northern forest communities. We must reward 
that cooperation by providing a fair and true legislative reflection of 
their combined wisdom.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I rise in support of the Northern 
Forest Stewardship Act and commend Senator Leahy for his leadership on 
this initiative.
  It was almost a decade ago that a sudden sale of a large tract of 
forest land in northern Vermont and New Hampshire forced people to take 
notice of the value and vulnerability of the timber lands in an area 
which has become known as the Northern Forest.

[[Page S8540]]

  Foresters, conservationists, and recreationists became somewhat 
alarmed at the prospects that these forest lands, long valued for the 
aforementioned traditional uses, might instead be parceled and sold to 
bidders whose intentions and values did not necessarily match those of 
the landowners who had long provided stewardship of these lands.
  The States of Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont marshaled 
their resources and convened a study group to investigate the nature 
and extent of the matter. We learned, frankly, that some of our 
concerns were overstated. A study of land transfers did not reveal an 
imminent threat of large scale land sales. But we also learned how 
fragile the economics of forestry has become. And if the business of 
forestry cannot be sustained, then neither can we take for granted the 
benefits of the wooded lands.
  So the Northern Forest Lands Council studied these issues in depth 
and in 1994, issued its recommendations. These recommendations, it is 
important to note, reflect a consensus among many sectors concerned 
with forest issues. The council worked hard to ensure a high level of 
agreement between diverse constituencies, and we here in Congress have 
sought to continue in that mode.
  We have followed two tracks to implement the consensus 
recommendations, and the Northern Forest Stewardship Act represents the 
conservation and stewardship part of the equations. Our goal here has 
been to closely follow the council's suggestions, and I greatly 
appreciate the efforts and energies of the many stakeholders who have 
helped move this initiative forward. This Stewardship Act is designed 
to help the States and private owners to move forward on many 
initiatives designed to protect and enhance the forest health, forest 
economies, and community development.
  The other part of the equation has been put forward in a bill 
sponsored by Senator Gregg. These measures would implement the many 
Federal tax policy changes recommended by the council. My desire would 
be to merge the two bills, as one complements the other. As I have 
said, there is broad agreement that it is increasingly difficult to 
make a living as a forester, and the tax changes contained in the Gregg 
bill would be of great benefit to Vermont forestry professionals. While 
it is not practical or possible to move the Gregg bill in concern with 
the Stewardship bill at this time, I think it is something toward which 
we should work, and I know several of my colleagues share this view.
  Madam President, this bill is an important step for the Northern 
Forest. As our progress here tonight is only possible because of the 
work already done by the Lands Council and all those involved in 
developing the consensus recommendations, I ask unanimous consent that 
the mission statement of the Northern Forest Lands Council be printed 
in the Record. This statement reflects the guiding principles of the 
council, and serves as our benchmark, as well.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows;

                     Northern Forest Lands Council


                           mission statement

       The mission of the Northern Forest Lands Council is to 
     reinforce the traditional patterns of land ownership and uses 
     of large forest areas in the Northern Forest of Maine, New 
     Hampshire, New York, and Vermont, which have characterized 
     these lands for decades. This mission is to be achieve by:
       Enhancing the quality of life for local residents through 
     the promotion of economic stability for the people and 
     communities of the area and through the maintenance of large 
     forest areas;
       Encouraging the production of a sustainable yield of forest 
     products, and;
       Protecting recreational, wildlife, scenic and wildland 
     resources.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I thank my distinguished friend from 
Mississippi for his usual courtesy and help, and the rest of the Leahy 
family thanks him, because I think this will make my evening somewhat 
easier than his.
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator 
from Idaho, who is chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee of the Senate 
Committee on Agriculture. He is familiar with these issues, and his 
help and efforts to understand the implications of this amendment will 
be deeply appreciated.
  I am hoping that other Senators can come to the floor and offer their 
amendments or debate amendments that are pending. We had a lot of 
debate yesterday on the market access program. I suggest we probably 
debated that enough. We can vote on that at 11 o'clock in the morning, 
in accordance with the request of the majority leader.
  There may be other amendments that can be voted on at that time as 
well. Certainly, the market access program is one we fully debated 
yesterday, and I expect a vote can occur at 11 o'clock on that 
amendment. There are probably others as well.
  There may be some amendments that have been cleared. I do know 
Senator Thurmond had an amendment that we talked about involving 
research by the Department of Agriculture. It might be cooperative 
State research. I am prepared to submit that amendment. I ask unanimous 
consent that the pending amendments be set aside for the purpose of 
offering this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4988

   (Purpose: To provide funding for the Cooperative State Research, 
                   Education, and Extension Service)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, on behalf of the Senator from South 
Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] and the other Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings], I send an amendment to the desk and ask it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Thurmond, for himself, and Mr. Hollings, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4988.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam 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:
       On page 12, line 25, strike ``$46,330,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$46,830,000''.
       On page 14, line 10, strike ``$418,620,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$419,120,000''.
       On page 21, line 4, strike ``$47,517,000'' and insert 
     ``$47,017,000''.

  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleague 
from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, to introduce an amendment to 
restore funding for three agricultural research projects that are 
conducted by Clemson University. While I am aware that funding is 
limited this year for all programs, these particular research projects 
will benefit all American farmers.
  The alternative cropping systems project is a joint research effort 
with Clemson University, the University of Georgia, and North Carolina 
State University, which is conducting research in production and 
marketing of alternative crops to the traditional agronomic crops grown 
in the southeast. To continue this research, $232,000 is needed.
  The peach tree short life research project is currently conducting 
field trials to determine if a ground cover used in peach orchards 
inhibits reproduction of ring nematodes, a contributing cause of peach 
tree short life. This disease causes the premature death of peach 
trees. Of the $500,000 included in this amendment, $162,000 would be 
used to continue this research.
  The last program this money would be used for is the pest control 
alternatives research project. Currently, Clemson University is working 
to develop innovative pest control techniques which help reduce 
environmental concerns and increase returns to farmers. For this 
research program, $106,000 is requested.
  The consumer is asking for safer food production methods. Further, 
our farmers need research assistance to help reduce pesticide usage on 
fruits and vegetables and increase the marketing potential of our 
crops. These research projects will help find solutions to these 
problems, thus aiding farmers as well as consumers.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides. It deals with research in the State of South Carolina. I know of 
no objection to the amendment.

[[Page S8541]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4988) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4989

   (Purpose: To make necessary reforms to the rural multifamily loan 
                 program of the Rural Housing Service)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to set aside the pending amendments and send an amendment to 
the desk on behalf of the Senator from Kansas, Mrs. Frahm.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mrs. Frahm, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4989.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam 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 in title VII of the bill, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 7  . RURAL HOUSING PROGRAM EXTENSIONS.

       (a) Extension of Multifamily Rural Housing Loan Program.--
       (1) Authority to make loans.--Section 515(b)(4) of the 
     Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1485(b)(4) is amended by 
     striking ``September 30, 1996'' and inserting ``September 30, 
     1997''.
       (2) Set-aside for nonprofit entities.--The first sentence 
     of section 515(w)(1) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 
     1485(w)(1) is amended by striking ``fiscal year 1996'' and 
     inserting ``fiscal year 1997''.
       (b) Extension of Housing in Underserved Areas Program.--The 
     first sentence of section 509(f)(4)(A) of the Housing Act of 
     1949 (42 U.S.C. 1479(f)(4)(A)) is amended by striking 
     ``fiscal year 1996'' and inserting ``fiscal year 1997''.
       (c) Reforms for Multifamily Rural Housing Loan Program.--
       (1) Limitation on project transfers.-- Section 515 of the 
     Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1485) is amended by inserting 
     after subsection (g) the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Project Transfers.--After the date of the enactment 
     of the Act entitled `An Act making appropriations for 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
     and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1997, and for other purposes', the ownership or 
     control of a project for which a loan is made or insured 
     under this section may be transferred only if the Secretary 
     determines that such transfer would further the provision of 
     housing and related facilities for low-income families or 
     persons and would be in the best interests of residents and 
     the Federal Government.''.
       (2) Equity loans.--Section 515(f) of the Housing Act of 
     1949 (42 U.S.C. 1485(t)) is amended--
       (A) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively.
       (3) Equity takeout loans to extend low-income use.--
       (A) Authority and limitation.--Section 502(c)(4)(B)(iv) of 
     the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472(c)(4)(B)(iv)) is 
     amended by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``or under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 
     514(j), except that an equity loan referred to in this clause 
     may not be made available after the date of the enactment of 
     the Act entitled `An Act making appropriations for 
     Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
     and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1997, and for other purposes', unless the 
     Secretary determines that the other incentives available 
     under this subparagraph are not adequate to provide a fair 
     return on the investment of the borrower, to prevent 
     prepayment of the loan insured under section 514 or 515, 
     or to prevent the displacement of tenants of the housing 
     for which the loan was made''.
       (B) Approval of assistance.--Section 502(c)(4)(C) of the 
     Housing Act of 1959 (42 U.S.C. 1472(c)(4)(C)) is amended by 
     striking ``(C)'' and all that follows through ``provided--'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(C) Approval of assistance.--The Secretary may approve 
     assistance under subparagraph (B) for assisted housing only 
     if the restrictive period has expired for any loan for the 
     housing made or insured under section 514 or 515 pursuant to 
     a contract entered into after December 21, 1979, but before 
     the date of the enactment of the Department of Housing and 
     Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, and the Secretary 
     determines that the combination of assistance provided--''.
       (C) Technical correction.--Section 515(c)(1) of the Housing 
     Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1485(c)(1) is amended by striking 
     December 21, 1979'' and inserting ``December 15, 1989''.
       (d) Equity Skimming Penalties.--
       (1) Insurance of loans for the provision of housing and 
     related facilities for domestic farm labor.--Section 514 of 
     the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1484) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) Equity Skimming Penalty.--Whoever, as an owner, 
     agent, or manager, or who is otherwise in custody, control, 
     or possession of property that is security for a loan made or 
     insured under this section willfully uses, or authorizes the 
     use, of any part of the rents, assets, proceeds, income, or 
     other funds derived from such property, for any purpose other 
     than to meet actual or necessary expenses of the property, or 
     for any other purpose not authorized by this title or the 
     regulations adopted pursuant to this title, shall be fined 
     not more than $250,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, 
     or both.''.
       (2) Direct and insured loans to provide housing and related 
     facilities for elderly persons and families in rural areas.--
     Section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1485) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(aa) Equity Skimming Penalty.--Whoever, as an owner, 
     agent, or manager, or who is otherwise in custody, control, 
     or possession of property that is security for a loan made or 
     insured under this section willfully uses, or authorizes the 
     use, of any part of the rents, assets, proceeds, income, or 
     other funds derived from such property, for any purpose other 
     than to meet actual or necessary expenses of the property, or 
     for any other purpose not authorized by this title or the 
     regulations adopted pursuant to this title, shall be fined 
     not more than $250,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, 
     or both.''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this deals with the 515 housing 
program, the low-income housing program.
 Mrs. FRAHM. Madam President, this is an amendment to H.R. 
3603, the 1997 agriculture appropriations bill, to remedy a problem 
with an important low-income housing program.
  My amendment specifically addresses the Rural Housing Services 
Program administered by the Department of Agriculture--the so-called 
section 515 program. This multifamily rural rental housing program is 
one of the few resources available to give very low-income and low-
income residents of rural America access to decent, safe, and 
affordable housing. My staff has been informed by the CBO that this 
amendment will not increase the deficit.
  While I firmly believe that housing issues and problems are best 
resolved on the State and local level, as the Agriculture Department 
still retains control of these programs we should make them work as 
efficiently as possible. I hope that in the near future we can make 
sweeping reforms that push these responsibilities to State and local 
governments; just as our forefathers originally intended when they 
wrote the tenth amendment.
  Despite improvements in housing quality, 2.7 million families still 
live in substandard housing. According to 1990 census data, rural 
renters were more than twice as likely to live in substandard housing 
as people who owned their homes. With lower median income and higher 
poverty rates than homeowners, many renters simply cannot find decent, 
affordable housing.
  The section 515 program assists the rural elderly, the disabled, and 
families. The average tenant served by the program has an income of 
$7,300. In my home state of Kansas the average tenant income is even 
lower, only $6,590. Make no mistake, these people would not be able to 
afford decent housing without this program.
  My amendment would make several changes to the section 515 program 
that help alleviate existing problems. It would limit project transfers 
to instances when the Secretary determines that such transfer would be 
in the best interest of the Federal Government.
  Currently, when a project begins to fail financially, the Rural 
Housing Service transfers the property to another owner rather than 
institute foreclosure proceeding. When the property is transferred, the 
new owner assumes the terms of the old debt, but at the fair market 
value at the time of the transfer. As many of these properties have 
decayed and experienced vacancy problems, the appraisal will often be 
for much less than the previous loan amount. The losses the Government 
incurs can be substantial as properties age and tax credits are 
exhausted.
  Under current law, an account is established in the Department of 
Agriculture to offset the cost of guarantees for private-market equity 
takeout loans. Owners pay a certain amount into the account to offset 
the future cost of those loan guarantees.
  Current law requires each owner to deposit $2 per unit rent into the 
reserve account each month. It further allows the owner to increase the 
per unit rent by this amount to pay for these deposits. Since tenants 
are limited as to how

[[Page S8542]]

much they can pay for rent, these payments must come from additional 
rental assistance. My amendment would reduce the cost of rental 
assistance by no longer letting owners increase the rents to fund their 
deposits into the reserve.
  The most important part of the amendment is the addition of criminal 
penalties for any owner, agent, or manager who willfully uses or 
authorizes the use of rents or income of the property for any purpose 
other than to meet actual or necessary expenses. This provides an 
effective deterrent to wrongdoing by unscrupulous participants.
  Madam President, I believe these modifications to the section 515 
program are a good first step toward getting the program back on track. 
They return the program to its important public purpose, one that has 
worked in Kansas, of creating safe and sanitary rental alternatives for 
very low-income residents in America's rural communities. I ask that my 
colleagues support my amendment and urge its adoption.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I rise to support the amendment 
sponsored by the gentlelady from Kansas which would reform the 
Department of Agriculture's section 515 Rural Rental Loan Program. I 
salute Senator Frahm for her dedication and commitment to reforming and 
improving this program which serves as the only source of affordable 
rental housing in much of our Nation's rural areas. As chairman of the 
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs I would like to 
personally commend our newest Member for her quick action in proposing 
bipartisan reform measures which should become law this year.
  I would also like to express appreciation to Senator Cochran and 
Senator Bumpers for their consideration of this amendment at the 
request of the Banking Committee. The Banking Committee will consider 
more comprehensive reforms to the section 515 program in the context of 
an overall examination of housing programs within the Rural Housing 
Service of the Department of Agriculture. However, Senator Frahm's 
amendment includes changes to section 515 which are overdue and should 
be made in advance of a thorough analysis of this important program.
  This amendment would respond to a February, 1996 evaluation report 
entitled ``Legislative Proposals to Strengthen the Rural Housing 
Services' Rural Rental Housing Program'' issued by the Department of 
Agriculture's Office of Inspector General. Specifically, the amendment 
would include the inspector general's No. 1 legislative objective--the 
enactment of civil and criminal penalties for participants in the 
program that misuse rural rental housing project assets or income. It 
is absolutely imperative that those in criminal violation be swiftly 
and severely punished. Specifically, any owner, agent or manager of 
section 515 or section 414 farm labor housing projects that willfully 
uses or authorizes the use of any part of the rents, assets, proceeds, 
income or other funds derived from the property for an unauthorized 
purpose may be fined up to $250,000 or imprisoned for up to 5 years.
  In addition, the amendment would make reforms to the section 515 
program which include: the prohibition of transfer of ownership of a 
project unless the Secretary of Agriculture--Secretary--determines that 
such transfer would further the provision of low-income housing and be 
in the best interests of residents and the Federal Government; the 
elimination of the occupancy surcharge charged to residents to fund 
equity loans; and the requirement that an equity loan may not be made 
unless the Secretary determines that available incentives are not 
adequate to provide a fair return on the investment, prevent 
prepayment, and prevent resident displacement.
  Finally, the amendment would extend the section 515 program for 1 
year, from its current expiration date of September 30, 1996 to 
September 30, 1997. A permanent extension will be considered during 
comprehensive reform of the program.
  The need for affordable housing in rural areas is severe. The 1990 
census estimated that 2.7 million rural Americans live in substandard 
housing. The section 515 program is one of the few resources available 
to respond to this critical unmet housing need. Since its inception in 
1962, the section 515 program has financed the development of over 
450,000 affordable rental units in over 18,000 apartment projects. The 
program assists elderly, disabled, and low-income rural families with 
an average income of $7,300.
  I thank Senator Frahm for her recognition of the great need for this 
program and her steadfast commitment to ensuring that every Federal 
dollar appropriated serves the greatest number of rural poor. I look 
forward to working with her to further improve this much needed program 
in the future and I support immediate passage of this amendment. Thank 
you.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I know of no objection to this 
amendment, and I recommend its approval.
  Mr. BUMPERS. The amendment has been cleared on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4989) 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. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, on the authority of the majority 
leader, I can announce there will be no further rollcall votes this 
evening. That information is being hotlined to all Senators' offices, 
but for those who might be watching their television monitor, there 
will be no more votes this evening. The first vote will occur tomorrow 
no earlier than 11 o'clock a.m.


                           Amendment No. 4990

     (Purpose: To reauthorize the National Aquaculture Act of 1980)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Leahy, I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending 
amendments are set aside, and the clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4990.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam 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 end of the bill, and the following:

     SEC.   . REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIONAL AQUACULTURE ACT OF 1980.

       Section 10 of the National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (16 
     U.S.C. 2809) is amended by striking ``1991, 1992, and 1993'' 
     each place it appears and inserting ``1991 through 1997''.

  Mr. BUMPERS. This is an amendment offered on behalf of Senator Leahy 
dealing with reauthorization of the aquaculture program. It has been 
cleared on both sides.
  Mr. COCHRAN. We have no objection to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4990) was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                 Amendments Nos. 4991 and 4992, En Bloc

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I send two amendments to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Kerrey of Nebraska that I understand have been 
cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] for Mr. Kerrey, 
     proposes amendments numbered 4991 and 4992, en bloc.

  The amendments (Nos. 4991 and 4992) are as follows:

[[Page S8543]]

                           Amendment No. 4991

  (Purpose: To provide the Secretary of Agriculture authority through 
  fiscal year 2000 for the use of voluntary separation incentives to 
     assist in reducing employment levels, and for other purposes)

       In lieu of the pending amendment insert the following:

     SEC.   . DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE VOLUNTARY SEPARATION 
                   INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``agency'' means the Department of 
     Agriculture;
       (2) the term ``employee'' mean an employee (as defined by 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code) who is employed 
     by the agency (or an individual employed by a county 
     committee established under section 8(b)(5) of the Soil 
     Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C. 
     590h(b)(5))), is serving under an appointment without time 
     limitation, and has been currently employed for a continuous 
     period of at least 3 years, but does not include--
       (A) a reemployed annuitant under subchapter III of chapter 
     83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, or another 
     retirement system for employees of the agency;
       (B) an employee having a disability on the basis of which 
     such employee is or would be eligible for disability 
     retirement under the applicable retirement system referred to 
     in subparagraph (A);
       (C) an employee who is in receipt of a specific notice of 
     involuntary separation for misconduct or unacceptable 
     performance;
       (D) an employee who, upon completing an additional period 
     of service as referred to in section 3(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the 
     Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 (5 U.S.C. 5597 
     note), would qualify for a voluntary separation incentive 
     payment under section 3 of such Act;
       (E) an employee who has previously received any voluntary 
     separation incentive payment by the Federal Government under 
     this section or any other authority and has not repaid such 
     payment;
       (F) an employee covered by statutory reemployment rights 
     who is on transfer to another organization; or
       (G) any employee who, during the twenty-four month period 
     preceding the date of separation, has received a recruitment 
     or relocation bonus under section 5753 of title 5, Untied 
     States Code, or who, within the twelve month period preceding 
     the date of separation, received a retention allowance under 
     section 5754 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Agency Strategic Plan.--
       (1) In general.--The head of the agency, prior to 
     obligating any resources for voluntary separation incentive 
     payments, shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight of the House of Representatives a strategic plan 
     outlining the intended use of such incentive payments and a 
     proposed organizational chart for the agency once such 
     incentive payments have been completed.
       (2) Contents.--The agency's plan shall include--
       (A) the positions and functions to be reduced or 
     eliminated, identified by organizational unit, geographic 
     location, occupational category and grade level;
       (B) the number and amounts of voluntary separation 
     incentive payments to be offered; and
       (C) a description of how the agency will operate without 
     the eliminated positions and functions.
       (c) Authority To Provide Voluntary Separation Incentive 
     Payments.--
       (1) In general.--A voluntary separation incentive payment 
     under this section may be paid by an agency to any employee 
     only to the extent necessary to eliminate the positions and 
     functions identified by the strategic plan.
       (2) Amount and treatment of payments.--A voluntary 
     separation incentive payment--
       (A) shall be paid in a lump sum after the employee's 
     separation;
       (B) shall be paid from appropriations or funds available 
     for the payment of the basic pay of the employees;
       (C) shall be equal to the lesser of--
       (i) an amount equal to the amount the employee would be 
     entitled to receive under section 5595(c) of title 5, United 
     States Code; or
       (ii) an amount determined by the agency head not to exceed 
     $25,000 in fiscal year 1997, $20,000 in fiscal year 1998, 
     $15,000 in fiscal year 1999, or $10,000 in fiscal year 2000;
       (D) shall not be a basis for payment, and shall not be 
     included in the computation, of any other type of Government 
     benefit; and
       (E) shall not be taken into account in determining the 
     amount of any severance pay to which the employee may be 
     entitled under section 5595 of title 5, United States Code, 
     based on any other separation.
       (3) Limitation.--No amount shall be payable under this 
     section based on any separation occurring before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, or after September 30, 2000.
       (d) Additional Agency Contributions to the Retirement 
     Fund.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to any other payments which it 
     is required to make under subchapter III of chapter 83 of 
     title 5, United States Code, the agency shall remit to the 
     Office of Personnel Management for deposit in the Treasury of 
     the United States to the credit of the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund an amount equal to 15 percent 
     of the final basic pay of each employee of the agency who is 
     covered under subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of 
     title 5, United States Code, to whom a voluntary separation 
     incentive has been paid under this section.
       (2) Definition.--For the purpose of paragraph (1), the term 
     ``final basic pay'', with respect to an employee, means the 
     total amount of basic pay which would be payable for a year 
     of service by such employee, computed using the employee's 
     final rate of basic pay, and, if last serving on other than a 
     full-time basis, with appropriate adjustment therefor.
       (e) Effect of Subsequent Employment With the Government.--
     An individual who has received a voluntary separation 
     incentive payment under this section and accepts any 
     employment for compensation with the Government of the United 
     States, or who works for any agency of the United States 
     Government through a personal services contract, within 5 
     years after the date of the separation on which the payment 
     is based shall be required to pay, prior to the individual's 
     first day of employment, the entire amount of the incentive 
     payment to the agency that paid the incentive payment.
       (f) Reduction of Agency Employment Levels.--
       (1) In general.--The total number of funded employee 
     positions in the agency shall be reduced by one position for 
     each vacancy created by the separation of any employee who 
     has received, or is due to receive, a voluntary separation 
     incentive payment under this section. For the purposes of 
     this subsection, positions shall be counted on a full-time-
     equivalent basis.
       (2) Enforcement.--The President, through the Office of 
     Management and Budget, shall monitor the agency and take any 
     action necessary to ensure that the requirements of this 
     subsection are met.
       (g) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect October 
     1, 1996.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 4992

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

       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, of which 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): Provided, 
     That this appropriation shall be available only to the extent 
     that an official budget request for a specific dollar amount 
     is submitted by the President to Congress.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be agreed to, en bloc.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, we have reviewed the amendments, and 
they have been cleared on this side.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I urge the adoption of the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments 
Nos. 4991 and 4992, en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 4991 and 4992), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4993

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4993.
       On page 12, line 25, strike ``$46,830,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$47,080,000''.
       On page 14, line 10, strike ``$419,120,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$419,370,000''.
       On page 21, line 4, strike ``$47,017,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$46,767,000''.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, this deals with a project in Rhode 
Island. I think it has been cleared by both sides.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, that amendment has been cleared on this 
side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 4993.
  The amendment (No. 4993) was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S8544]]

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendments be set aside so I may offer this amendment on behalf 
of Senator Heflin of Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4994

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, on behalf of Senator Heflin I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] for Mr. Heflin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4994.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam 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:

       At the appropriate place, insert: ``Section 101(b) of the 
     Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-98; 7 U.S.C. 
     608c note) is amended by striking ``1996'' and inserting 
     ``2002''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, this deals with the dairy issue, and it 
has been cleared on this side of the aisle.
  Mr. BUMPERS. It has been cleared on this side of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 4994.
  The amendment (No. 4994) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I do not know of any other amendments 
we have cleared at this point. Senators, of course, who would like to 
offer their amendments tonight should do so. We are going to try to get 
as many amendments dealt with tonight as we can. But if Senators do not 
come and offer them, we cannot do anything.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I would like to fortify what the 
chairman just said. And that is, that we should not be required--and I 
do not think we are going to be required--to sit here all night pending 
some Senator deciding to come over and offer his amendment.
  The unanimous-consent agreement has been entered into. Everybody 
knows which amendments are going to be in order. Senator Cochran and I 
do not have any interest in sitting here during numerous quorum calls 
hoping that somebody will show up. So I hope Senators will be 
considerate enough to get them offered and disposed of this evening, if 
we can. And with that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I understand that the majority leader is 
working on an agreement of some sort. So I will not begin any kind of 
formal amendment proceedings. But I do have an amendment at the desk, 
which I would like to talk about.
  I am not going to offer this amendment. I want to talk about it 
because I think it is important to realize the cost of the peanut 
program. Not only do I refer to the cost of the peanut program to the 
American peanut farmers, to the millions of processing jobs, and to the 
consumers, but the cost to the Federal Government of the peanut 
program.
  As a result of the past farm bill, we now have a no-cost peanut 
program. Well, that may be true within the confines of the peanut 
program, but the program does two things. It limits the amount of 
peanuts grown for domestic consumption. It is a program that says here 
is how much will be grown in this country for use in this country. The 
Department of Agriculture sets that amount. In addition, it doesn't 
just limit the amount of the peanuts that are grown, it also sets the 
price.
  You might think that I am talking about the former Soviet Union here. 
No, this is America. We set how much farmers can grow, and we set what 
we are going to pay for that--all done by the Federal Government--which 
is an amazing thing, but that is how the peanut program works.
  Well, the fact is that the Federal Government is a consumer of 
peanuts. We have a variety of nutrition programs in the Federal 
Government. We have TEFAP and the school lunch programs, and all down 
the list. You would not be surprised that a lot of these programs are 
focused on kids, and you probably wouldn't be further surprised that 
one of the major staples of young kids is peanuts and peanut butter. I 
have a 5-year-old who loves peanut butter. Guess where we have to buy 
our peanuts for domestic consumption with the Federal programs; we have 
to buy quota peanuts.
  Quota peanuts sell between $600 and $700 a ton. The world market 
price for peanuts--the price for additional peanuts not grown under the 
blessings of the Federal Government, which can be sold here but have to 
be exported--is about $350 to $400 a ton. So the Federal Government has 
to pay roughly twice what the world pays for peanuts. All these 
nutrition programs have to pay twice what the world pays for peanuts to 
go ahead and feed our kids.
  The GAO--this was some 6 years ago, and the quota price has jumped 
around a bit, but it is relatively the same as 6 years ago--said that 
over $14 million a year the Federal Government spends. Where? Out of 
the mouths of people who could be fed through Federal nutritious meals. 
To where? To wealthy quota farmers. That is where that money goes, 
instead of feeding more kids.
  We heard Member after Member, frankly, on both sides of the aisle, 
say, ``What about the kids? Don't you care about the kids? We should 
have more money to feed these children. We should have more money to 
take care of these kids.'' So what do we do with the peanut program? We 
suck money out of these nutrition programs to go to help kids, and it 
goes where? To a bunch of wealthy quota owners, many of whom don't even 
farm the land. They sit all over the world with their little quota that 
they got passed down from their granddaddies. They take money right out 
of the mouths of kids in our Federal Government programs.

  I had an amendment at the desk that would say that USDA, who 
purchases peanuts and peanut products for the variety of the nutrition 
programs that they operate, would not have to buy quota peanuts, would 
not have to pay twice the world price to feed our poor kids in America.
  The problem with that amendment, as I find out, is that the quota has 
already been set for this year. Thereby, if we took those quota peanuts 
that--the way they calculate the market and the production--would have 
ordinarily come to the USDA, we would, in a sense, have more peanuts go 
on loan, which means the price of the peanut program would go up about 
$5 million. So we score it as a $5 million loss this year.
  Unfortunately, because this is an appropriations bill, I cannot 
change the law in the future. As a result, the savings in the future 
are tens of millions of dollars. But because of the quirk in the way 
this bill is structured, and the way the amendment had to be structured 
to comply with the bill, the amendment that I have to offer, in fact, 
would not be a cost-effective amendment. Therefore, I am not going to 
offer it. But the principle is a solid one.
  We just finished welfare reform. We just finished saying that we need 
to make sure that those resources that we do have dedicated to helping 
the poor should be used as efficiently and effectively as possible. A 
lot of the reform we saw in the nutrition programs out of the 
Department of Agriculture, particularly the Food Stamp Program, were 
focused in on making this system a more effective and efficient system 
in delivering services to people who need them in this country. Yet, we 
have this dinosaur of a program that looks more like something that 
came out of Communist Russia than out of the United States, which is 
costing children food.

[[Page S8545]]

  Let us just lay it on the line. We are taking food out of the mouths 
of children and putting money in the pockets of wealthy quota holders. 
Now, that is wrong. That is wrong by anybody's standard. We should fix 
that.
  Unfortunately, again, because of the legislative vehicle we have 
before us, we cannot fix that. But I will tell you that I will be back. 
We will talk about this issue. I am anxious to hear how those who 
defend the peanut program can defend money being taken away from these 
necessary feeding programs for children to put money in the pockets of 
wealthy quota holders, most of whom don't even farm their own land to 
grow peanuts.
  At this point, because I understand the majority leader is working on 
something, I will yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I rise in disagreement with the Senator 
from Pennsylvania. I do not want to prolong this, so I will make a 
brief statement.
  I assume the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania was speaking of 
the amendment he had at the desk, No. 4962, which was the prohibition 
on purchase of quota peanuts for domestic feeding programs. I assume 
that is what he had. He was talking about the School Lunch Program. As 
I understand it, he was saying that, because of the program, the 
Government has to pay twice the world price--twice as much for peanuts 
that go to the School Lunch Program and other programs that the 
Government might be involved in. Unfortunately, I believe that the 
distinguished Senator is not really familiar with the School Lunch 
Program and the other USDA commodity distribution programs.
  We have a chart here that I will point out briefly, which is based 
upon USDA calculations. This chart here is designed to show the 
manufacturer's cost, based on USDA figures, of two jars of peanut 
butter, both being the same size, both being generic.
  This chart shows that the manufacturers are able to make and sell 
peanut butter to the USDA School Lunch Program at 81 cents a pound. 
Yet, consumers at the market would pay $1.87 a pound. Eighty-one cents 
doubled is $1.62. So already when you have a program by which the 
manufacturers, in effect, bid against each other for the school lunch 
purchases, it ends up that there are considerable savings.
  I would like to point out the pack of peanuts and the jar of peanuts. 
This chart was prepared before the bill was passed dealing with the 
farm bill which had the peanut program and in which the peanut program 
was substantially reformed. In fact, it was reformed to the extent that 
it is about a 30-percent cut to the producer. But this is where it was 
prior to that time. A bag of peanuts that cost 50 cents is 99 percent 
peanuts. This is the jar of peanuts, and of peanut butter, which shows 
that the farmer was getting 7 cents out of the 50. Then on peanut 
butter where it is 90 percent peanuts, the farmer was getting 54 cents. 
That would have been $1.64, and then 44 cents in addition to that, 
which would be $2.08 for a jar of peanuts which had 90 percent peanuts. 
But with the cuts that have now taken place under the farm bill and 
under this reform, you would have to take away 30 percent, which would 
show 4.9 cents that the farmer got. And here, in regard to the 30 
percent, it was changed; the farmer, instead of getting 54 cents, is 
going to get 38 cents.
  There has been a lot of talk that there would be pass-ons by which 
the savings would be passed on to the consumer. The GAO, in a study, 
consulted and talked to the manufacturers, and the manufacturers had 
indicated that they could not guarantee any savings would be passed on 
in that the money would be used to develop new products and 
advertising.
  It is sort of interesting what has occurred recently in regard to 
cereals. This is not about peanuts but about cereals. Corn and other 
grain prices today are at an all-time high. Corn, for example, was at a 
5-year historical average of $2.30 a bushel, and the price today on 
corn is $5.35 a bushel, which is substantially more than double. But 
yet, the cereal manufacturers have recently reduced the price of their 
breakfast cereal by as much as 25 percent to 30 percent.
  I think this demonstrates that there is very little relationship 
between what the farmers are paid for their commodity and what food 
products are sold for at retail.
  So, therefore, it ought to be plain that any savings to the 
manufacturers through reduced or capped costs on the farmer would not 
translate into savings to the retail consumers.
  To give you some idea as to the cost, we have a chart showing what a 
jar of peanut butter sells for in the United States, being an 18-ounce 
equivalent jar of brand name peanut butter, not generic. It sells for 
$2.10. These are USDA figures. In Mexico it is $2.55, and so on.
  Actually, ours are the lowest in the world and by far the safest. 
There are matters pertaining to inspection of foreign peanuts coming in 
that raise questions concerning food safety because there is a problem 
that is known as aflatoxin, and aflatoxin in the United States is 
controlled. It is a disease, and it is such that can cause cancer. But 
the peanuts that come in from foreign countries do not have the 
standards that we have in the United States.
  I could go on, but I do not want to unduly take time to talk about 
this. The matter of peanuts could be discussed for a great while. The 
peanut program has been substantially reformed. The Department is now 
in the process of implementing the law. I just do not believe that we 
ought to move at this time to try to change it. Let us see what is 
going to happen with the program.
  So I would say that this is not the time. Most of the peanut farmers 
have gone to the bank, and they have made their loans. They have made 
their plans for the year. They have signed up relative to the crop 
insurance and other things. Now in the middle of a crop year, I just do 
not believe is the time for us to be changing the peanut program.
  I appreciate very much the fact that the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania is not planning to offer the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside in order to offer a couple of amendments that 
have been agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an amendment 
by myself, which was inadvertently left off the unanimous consent 
agreement list, be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendments Nos. 4996 and 4997, En Bloc

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
together with an amendment that I would like to offer on behalf of 
Senator Sarbanes and Senator Mikulski be considered en bloc. They have 
been agreed to by both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I send those amendments to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] proposes amendments 
     numbered 4996 and 4997, en bloc.

  The amendments (Nos. 4996 and 4997), en bloc, are as follows:
       On page 42, line 22, after ``development'', add the 
     following, ``as provided under section 747(e) of Public Law 
     104-127''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 4997

    (Purpose: To restore funding for certain agricultural research 
                       programs, with an offset)

       On page 5, line 8, strike ``$25,587,000'' and insert 
     ``$23,505,400''.

[[Page S8546]]

       On page 5, line 10, strike ``$146,135,000'' and insert 
     ``$144,053,400''.
       On page 10, line 18, strike ``$721,758,000'' and insert 
     ``$722,839,600''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendments have been cleared on this 
side of the aisle.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I urge their adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there no further debate?
  Without objection, the amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 4996 and 4997), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4998

(Purpose: To require that certain funds be used to comply with certain 
  provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act relating to 
                          approval deadlines)

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in behalf of Senator Hatch and Senator 
Harkin, I send an amendment to the desk and ask it be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Hatch, 
     for himself and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4998.

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

       On page 55, line 7, after the colon, insert the following: 
     Provided further, That a sufficient amount of these funds 
     shall be used to ensure compliance with the statutory 
     deadlines set forth in section 505(j)(4)(A) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(4)(A)):''.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is simple. It 
directs the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] to devote sufficient 
resources to making sure that generic drug applications are reviewed 
within the statutory deadline, which is 180 days.
  Many of my colleagues may be surprised to know that the FDA is not 
meeting this deadline. In fact, it has fallen woefully short of meeting 
the law's requirement.
  It is obvious to me that the Senate has learned one thing from our 
extensive debate on GATT and pharmaceutical patents over the past 8 
months. We all want to do what we can to speed less-costly 
pharmaceutical products to the marketplace.
  And that is the goal of our amendment.
  There are two compelling points I want to leave with Members of this 
body.
  The first is that FDA resources devoted to review of generic drugs 
are insufficient, and are dwindling from an alltime high in 1993.
  The second is that the FDA's actual review time for generic drugs is 
increasing, even while their estimates of that review time would have 
us believe the time is falling.
  Let me elaborate.
  On the first point, the FDA estimates that they will devote 390 full-
time equivalents [FTE's] to generic drug review in fiscal year 1997, 
which is down from the fiscal year 1996 estimate of 397 FTE's. It is 
also down from the actual number of 396 FTE's in fiscal year 1995 and 
432 FTE's in fiscal year 1994.
  As a matter of fact, statistics provided by the FDA itself indicate 
that there has been a build up over the past decade from 227 FTE's 
devoted to generic drug reviews in fiscal year 1986, steadily 
increasing to the all-time high of 448 FTE's in fiscal year 1993, and 
now declining each year.
  Perhaps not coincidentally, the start of the decline was the exact 
time when the Prescription Drug User Fee Act [PDUFA] was enacted, the 
law which guaranteed subsidization of innovator drug reviews through 
new user fees. Those fees were not applied to generic drug reviews.
  On the second point, I would like to note that there is a substantial 
gap between the FDA's estimates of how long it will take them to review 
generic drugs and the actual review time.
  For 2 recent years for which I have statistics supplied by the FDA, 
there has been a large discrepancy between the time FDA thinks it will 
need to review generic drug applications and the actual review time. In 
fiscal year 1995, for example the FDA told the Appropriations Committee 
it would take an average of 24 months to review generic drug 
applications; in fact, it took 34.2 months. The next year, the current 
fiscal year, even though the FDA had not come close to meeting its 
target from the year before, FDA estimated that the approval time would 
fall--to an average of 20 months. In fact, the current estimates are 
that it is taking an average of 30 months.
  What is really astonishing is that the law mandates a 6-month review 
time.
  Instead of seeking the resources to meet that statutory deadline, the 
FDA has been seeking to expand its regulatory purview, by dusting off 
old regulations such as ``Medguide'' or starting new initiatives such 
as tobacco, each of which undoubtedly requires new funding.
  While the FDA blindly rushes to make a case for both initiatives, 
only part of which is compelling from a public health perspective, I 
find it intriguing that the Agency has chosen to ignore a statutory 
mandate on the one hand while it voluntarily seeks to expand its 
purview on the other.
  What is particularly compelling is that, as the review times for 
generic drugs increased, the review times for innovator drugs has 
decreased dramatically. It is now about 24 months on average; the 
median is estimated at 17.5 months.
  And so we find ourselves in the ironic position that review times for 
new drugs--both actual and projected--is shorter than the review time 
for the generic copies, a position I find untenable.
  Mr. President, generic drugs represent a very cost-effective means of 
controlling health care expenditures.
  Any delay in sending these drugs to market increases costs to 
patients, who may end up paying more for pharmaceuticals, and it 
increases costs to taxpayers through Government-funded programs such as 
Medicare and Medicaid.
  It is clear to me that the FDA should be giving generic drug 
applications more attention, not less.
  That is the motivation for the amendment we offer today, and I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that deals with a 
generic drug issue in the Food and Drug Administration jurisdiction. We 
support passage of the amendment and recommend its approval.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on this 
side. It is agreeable to us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4998) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 4999

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, in behalf of the Senator from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Smith], I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it 
be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Smith, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4999.

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

       On page 47, line 17, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 
     section 306(a)(7) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(7)), the town of Berlin, 
     New Hampshire, shall be eligible during fiscal year 1997 for 
     a grant under the rural utilities assistance program''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on this 
side. It deals with a water issue in the State of New Hampshire. I 
understand it has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me ask the indulgence of the Senator 
from Mississippi for a moment. We have not seen the language on this 
yet. We probably will have no objection but before agreeing to it, we 
would like to see the language.

[[Page S8547]]

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 4999) was withdrawn.


                          cane sugar refining

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, cane sugar refining has been around in 
America since the beginning of the Republic. Christopher Columbus 
introduced sugarcane from West Africa to Santo Domingo on his second 
voyage in 1495. Our Nation's leading cane sugar refiner, Domino Sugar, 
which is headquartered in New York City, has been in business for 
nearly 200 years. Domino's Brooklyn refinery has been in operation for 
119 years.
  The refining industry is an important part of our economy, employing 
thousands of Americans in good-paying manufacturing jobs. The Domino 
employees at the Brooklyn plant, for instance, make about $40,000, on 
average. Domino alone employs over 800 people in New York and 2,000 
nationwide. Refined Sugar Inc., located in Yonkers, employs another few 
hundred. These refining jobs are, for the most part, located in inner 
cities and along urban waterfronts where other manufacturing jobs are 
scarce.
  But the refining industry is on the brink of collapse. In the last 10 
years, the number of cane sugar refineries nationwide has been cut in 
half, from 22 to 11. Plants in Boston and Philadelphia have closed; a 
refinery in Hawaii may have to close later this year. Other domestic 
refiners, including Domino and Refined Sugar Inc., have had to shut 
down several times because they have been unable to obtain adequate 
quantities of the raw product and affordable prices.
  The domestic refining industry--one of the last bastions of 
manufacturing in some of our cities--is being crippled by overly 
restrictive administration of the sugar price support program. The loan 
rate for sugar is 18 cents per pound. But bowing to pressure from beet 
sugar producers, the administration has kept cane imports so low that 
the domestic price for raw sugar has fluctuated between 22 and 25 cents 
per pound. These prices are far higher than what is necessary to 
prevent loan forfeitures, and they have stimulated beet sugar 
production, which has driven down the price of refined sugar. Cane 
refiners operated in the red throughout 1995.
  The situation has eased somewhat this year as the administration 
belatedly and sporadically increased the quotas. But more is needed, 
and it is needed urgently, or we will lose this industry.
  I understand my colleagues' concerns about potential disruptions to 
sugar growers in their States. In turn, I would expect them to share my 
concern about the very real disruptions refiners in my State and 
elsewhere are experiencing.
  The House version of H.R. 3603 includes an eminently sensible 
provision, section 729, designed to ensure that the sugar price support 
program is operated in a fashion beneficial for both growers and 
refiners. The provision stipulated that no Federal funds could be spent 
to support raw cane sugar prices at more than 117.5 percent of the 
statutory loan rate of 18 cents per pound. This amounts to a little 
more than 21 cents per pound. A very reasonable price for producers. 
More than the loan rate, more than enough to prevent forfeitures--a 
price sufficient to repay loans and cover interest and transportation 
of raw sugar to market. And a price at which refiners can operate. In 
practice, the House provision would require the Secretary of 
Agriculture to allow sufficient imports from existing quota holders so 
that the price does not exceed 21.1 cents per pound. Growers would 
profit. Refiners could stay in business. Adequate supplies would be 
available at affordable prices.
  Let me be clear. I'm no fan of the sugar price support program. It's 
Soviet-style intervention in the market. But if we are stuck with it--
for the time being--at least we can operate the program so that it 
doesn't drive our refiners out of business.
  The House provision does not abolish the sugar program. It does not 
lower the loan rate for sugar. It will not induce loan forfeitures or 
cost the Federal Government any money. Indeed, revenue from import 
duties would increase. And the provision does not open the door for 
``subsidized European sugar.''
  I think the House provision is a very fair compromise that balances 
the interests of producers, refiners, and end users. I urge the Senate 
conferees to H.R. 3603 to agree to the House provision, or something 
much like it. Last year, when Congress reviewed the sugar price support 
program and a majority decided to retain it, there was an understanding 
the program would be operated in a way that is beneficial not only to 
producers, but to refiners, users, and consumers alike. Implementation 
of the program has left something to be desired in this respect. 
Section 729 would help. I entreat the Senate conferees to H.R. 3603 to 
support the House provision. Otherwise, we will be driving thousands of 
manufacturing jobs overseas.


                    emergency disaster loan program

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me first commend the Chairman on the 
outstanding work he has done on this important appropriations bill. I 
would like to bring his attention to one provision in the bill that is 
especially important to New Mexico and the Southwest in general. The 
entire Southwest is currently in the grip of the worst drought in half 
a century. Despite recent rains, stream flows in New Mexico are 
predicted to be 33 to 100 percent below average through the summer, 
with no end in sight. This drought has devastated crops and livestock 
in my State to such an extent that every single county in New Mexico is 
currently eligible for USDA's disaster assistance programs. I know that 
every State in the Southwest is suffering just as greatly.
  One of the USDA programs that has been critical in helping the 
citizens of my State cope with this drought is the emergency disaster 
loan program. The Western Governors' Association has identified funding 
this program at the maximum level possible as one their top priorities 
in combating the effects of the drought. Sadly, the Clinton 
administration chose to zero this crucial program out of its fiscal 
year 1997 budget. In addition, the House has allocated the program a 
mere $25 million for fiscal year 1997. Fortunately, under the 
Chairman's leadership, the Senate has included $75 million for 
emergency disaster relief. I would like his commitment to fight to 
maintain the Senate funding level for this much-needed program.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I understand just how important the emergency disaster 
loan program is to those people whose farms and ranches have been 
devastated by this drought, and I agree with the Senator that it was 
unfortunate that the Clinton administration chose to zero out the 
program just when those farmers and ranchers will need it the most. The 
Senator has my commitment that I will seek to maintain the Senate level 
of $75 million when this bill goes to conference.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chairman for his outstanding leadership on 
this important issue.


                         raw cane sugar supply

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I commend the chairman for his work on 
this bill and recognize the delicate balance he must strike in 
satisfying the varying interests of each Member. I would like to bring 
to the chairman's attention a situation that has plagued many of our 
domestic sugar refineries with regard to raw cane sugar supply. Is the 
chairman aware that the Secretary of Agriculture has administered the 
Sugar Program in such a manner as to cause shutdowns and cutbacks in 
certain sugar refineries across the country?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, I am aware of this.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Is the chairman also aware of the fact that it is the 
Secretary's responsibility to administer the program in such a manner 
that provides an adequate supply of sugar to satisfy our domestic 
needs?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I am aware of this and am cognizant of the Senator's 
point.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I would like to advise the chairman that we have a 
recurring problem with regard to supply of raw sugar for cane 
refineries in the current administration of the sugar program. I would 
appreciate the chairman's support in reviewing report language 
addressing this supply issue as the bill moves to conference. I will be

[[Page S8548]]

happy to provide him with such language.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The comments of the Senator from Georgia are appreciated 
and his points are well received. We will review such language that the 
Senator provides in conference.
  Mr. COVERDELL. The Senator's overture is appreciated.


                           Amendment No. 4995

  (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to provide a total amount of 
   nonrecourse loans to producers for peanuts in excess of $125,000)

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4995 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4995.

  Mr. SANTORUM. 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.   . LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF NONRECOURSE LOANS FOR 
                   PEANUTS.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be used to provide to a producer of a crop of 
     quota peanuts a total amount of nonrecourse loans under 
     section 155 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7271) in excess of $125,000.

  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am offering an amendment here that I think remedies 
a huge inequity in the peanut program that makes the peanut program, 
frankly, different than any of the other traditional commodity programs 
in existence. The other commodity programs in existence have a 
limitation on payments for a particular entity that farms that product, 
that produces that product. Under the freedom to farm act, the 
limitation per commodity, per entity--entity can be either a single 
person or a partnership, corporation or whatever--the limitation of a 
commodity payment--and for the purposes of making it easier on me--per 
person is $40,000. Prior to the freedom to farm act the limitation was 
$50,000 per payment to an entity, to a person. We reduced it to $40,000 
in the freedom to farm bill.
  Now, unlike all of these other commodity programs, there is no 
limitation on how much Government support a peanut quota holder can 
receive. And in fact there are quota holders who receive in Government 
subsidized quota payments $6 million a year --$6 million in guaranteed 
income from the Federal Government as a result of the peanut program.
  We made some reforms in the freedom to farm bill. This is one area 
that slipped through the noose. What this amendment does--it is a very 
simple amendment. It says we are going to limit the benefits of the 
peanut program to small- and medium-size farmers.
  I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle and, frankly, on 
this side of the aisle who support the peanut program say: You know, 
Rick, if you go after this program, there are thousands of small 
farmers in my State you will destroy, the small- and medium-size 
farmers in my State, if you change the peanut program.
  I have been sensitive to that. I understand the rural economy. In 
many areas where peanuts are grown, there is a limited number of crops 
that can be grown. Many areas are impoverished. I understand that, and 
I sympathize with the Members who represent those areas. But what we 
are talking about here are not small farmers.
  Let me review. I have talked about this many, many times, and I have 
talked about the peanut program. But just let me report to you what a 
GAO study reported: That 22 percent of the peanut growers in this 
country receive 85 percent of the quota benefits. What does that mean? 
You have a bunch of big farmers who get almost all the benefits of this 
program.
  What I am doing here is actually a very modest change, one I would 
think, if Members want to target these funds, target the benefits of 
the program to the farmers who need it, then they should be supportive 
of this. This is one I am hoping we can get some support for.
  It is an amendment that says that every entity, person, can get up 
to--are you ready for this?--$125,000 of loan payments from the Federal 
Government--$125,000. That means every entity can get that much. If you 
have $6 million of peanuts to sell, you still get $125,000 at the 
guaranteed quota price, but the rest you have to sell on your own. If 
you are producing $6 million worth of peanuts, I would think you have a 
pretty good slice of the market and you can probably get a pretty good 
price for your peanuts. What we have done here is focus the program in 
on the folks who need it the most.
  I want to step back and give a little bit of the origin of the peanut 
program, to show how it has evolved over the years to concentrate more 
and more of these quotas in the hands of bigger and bigger quota 
holders. I mentioned before who holds 68 percent of these quotas. A 
quota is the right to grow peanuts and sell them in this country. You 
get a quota from the Federal Government. It is passed on from 
generation to generation. They are sold like stocks. It is a right. It 
is worth something. It is worth a lot. It is worth $200 to $300 a ton, 
if you are growing peanuts.
  Mr. President, 68 percent of the quota production in this country is 
held by people who do not touch one speck of dirt. They do not farm a 
lick. They rent it to somebody else to do it for them. These are people 
who sit in--I am from Pennsylvania. We have quota holders in 
Pennsylvania. We do not grow a whole lot of peanuts in Pennsylvania. 
There are quota holders in New Hampshire, and I am sure they do not 
grow any peanuts in New Hampshire.
  What we are trying to do here is deal with those folks who have sat 
back and said, ``This looks like a pretty good investment. Let's buy 
some quota shares and make a little money on the Federal Government 
program.'' They have done that. They have done very well for many 
years. Now we are going to say, ``Look, you folks, start selling those 
quotas back to the small farmers.''

  If anything, what this will accomplish, in my mind, is not to really 
affect the overall amount of quota peanuts grown. What it will do is 
make some of these big barons, quota barons, sell their quotas to folks 
who are out there leasing land right now to grow their additional 
peanuts, which are peanuts that do not get these big, high prices. 
Imagine. This is the United States of America. If you do not have a 
quota to grow peanuts, if you do not have a license from the Federal 
Government to grow peanuts, you cannot sell your peanuts in this 
country. This is America. If you do not have a license from the Federal 
Government to grow peanuts, you cannot sell your peanuts here.
  I know some may have just tuned in and thought, ``Am I looking at the 
Russian Duma?'' No. This is the U.S. Senate, not the Russian Duma. You 
are not getting a translation from an interpreter. My lips actually 
match the words that I am saying. But, in America this goes on every 
day. This is a program that started during the Depression. They handed 
out these quotas during the Depression, prior to World War II.
  You can imagine who got these quotas. It is no surprise that most of 
the quotas are held by wealthy landowners. You had to own your land to 
qualify for a quota. There were a lot of sharecroppers back then, many 
of them minorities, who did not own their land. Who were these quotas 
given to? They were given to these local associations to distribute 
around to their buddies and themselves. It is no shock that a lot of 
the unwashed never ended up with any quotas. This is a system that, 
from its origin, is rife with injustice, injustice to the people who 
grow peanuts, injustice to the consumers who have to pay higher prices 
as a result.
  What we are trying to do here is put one little--little--restriction 
in, to say $125,000 of guaranteed income from the Federal Government of 
50 percent more than what your peanuts are really worth is a pretty 
good deal. Take it. Be happy. And sell some of those quotas to other 
people who can use them and maybe benefit from them a little bit more.
  If I was a Senator from the peanut States, I would say this is a good 
amendment because what this will do is divest a lot of these peanut 
quotas

[[Page S8549]]

and give more people a stake in this program. That means more people 
who want to see this program survive. There are a lot of people in 
peanut-growing States who do not have quotas who would very much like 
to see this program go away. We are giving you an opportunity to say 
let us get some of these benefits, if they are going to continue. I 
know the powerful Senator from Alabama--and I will miss him, I will 
miss him as a person, I will not miss him as an adversary on this issue 
because he whips me every time we come to the floor--but I will tell 
the Senator from Alabama that he has an opportunity here to broaden his 
coalition, to get more folks to participate in the quota system because 
of the limitation on what people can benefit from the program.
  I would think, if you are truly concerned about small- and medium-
size farms, farms of 100 or 200 acres, if you really are concerned 
about those folks, then give them a chance here. They will be fine 
under this amendment. They will not be hurt at all under this 
amendment. They will not be hurt one bit by this amendment.
  I am hopeful that maybe we can get this amendment accepted. It is a 
change to the peanut program. I know nobody likes to change programs. I 
heard the Senator from Idaho come down here and say: You know we have 
7-year farm bills and 5-year farm bills for a reason. We do not like to 
change and monkey with these programs year by year, and we want to keep 
the farm communities stable.

  I do not think this will have a major impact on the farm communities. 
I think what it will do, it will have a major impact on small farmers, 
on farmers who do not have quotas right now, who will be able now to go 
out and have quotas available to them because a lot of these wealthy 
quota barons will have to divest themselves of all these quotas they 
hold.
  Who are they going to sell them to? They are going to sell them to 
folks who right now have to sweat, toil as hard as the folks who get 
$650 a ton for their peanuts, and they sweat and toil for $350 a ton 
for their peanuts. Now we are going to give them a chance at the pot at 
the end of the rainbow that Washington has created in this program. We 
are going to get the small and medium-size farmers in Alabama, in 
Georgia, in Mississippi, in Oklahoma, in Texas, in New Mexico, all over 
the United States where they grow, now we are going to have people who 
have heretofore never had the opportunity to enjoy the fruits and 
benefits of this very generous program, to participate in it. I am 
hopeful that we can get this amendment accepted.
  I think this is an amendment that probably, contrary to my own good, 
will broaden the base of support of this program by including a lot of 
small farmers who have heretofore been boxed out by folks who have 
gobbled up, used their masses of wealth to gobble up these quotas and 
make money out of this Federal program.
  Now we are going to get this money out of the boardrooms in 
Pittsburgh and in Concord and Boston and Paris and all the other places 
they own these quotas, and get them back into the hands of the folks 
who go out everyday and till that soil and make sure those crops are 
healthy and produce a good yield.
  That is the way it should be. If we are going to have a program--and 
I am resigned to the fact that the Senator from Alabama, the Senators 
from Georgia and the others, have whopped me fair and square--but I am 
saying, if we are going to continue this program, let's continue this 
program to where it benefits everyone--all of the small farmers, all of 
the medium-size farmers.
  If you folks really believe that is who you are representing and you 
are not representing the big peanut interests, the big guys who come 
down here in force and lobby and the big guys who are very influential 
lobbyists, very influential in the political process in these States, 
if that is not who you are representing, then you will be for this 
amendment. You will be for an amendment that says ``get the big guys 
out of the big money of big Government and put it back to the little 
guy who really needs the help.''
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, let me say that one aspect of his argument 
was agreed to in the recently passed farm bill, when he talks about 
these people who had quotas and lived in Boston and farmed in Alabama. 
There was a provision in the farm bill where production was shifted to 
the family farm, and that was one of the accomplishments that the 
Senator from Pennsylvania brought about.
  He has already brought about several changes in this bill which was 
in the farm bill. The production will shift to the family farms. Public 
entities and the out-of-State nonproducers are ineligible now for 
participation in the program.
  What he was talking about, in giving his illustration, he has already 
accomplished. So that argument, I do not think, is applicable to this 
amendment.
  Originally, the amendment had a $40,000 figure on it. We figured up 
at 2,500 pounds of production per acre that this would come out to 
about a farm of about 52 acres, and the national average of the peanut 
farmer is 98 acres. But he then, in effect, by raising it to 125, has 
tripled it, which means that basically he is talking about a farm of 
about 156 acres which would be involved.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania confuses payments with a loan. They are 
two separate and distinct things. You put a commodity in loan; 
therefore, it is sort of like going to the bank, you get some money. 
But the commodity is in loan, and it is designed for farmers to use in 
order that if the price goes up, then they can make money. It is a sort 
of hedge. The loan program is a Government program designed to allow 
for generally and, in most of the commodities, for 12 months that it 
stays in the loan. During that time, the price may go up and down, 
and the farmer can choose when he wants to sell. It is sort of an aid 
and assistance, it is not a payment.

  Payment limitations, as we have it, have been in the past, up until 
this farm bill was passed, a limitation on what is known as target 
prices in a deficiency payment, and that is where the limitations came 
in as to how much a farmer could draw relative to a deficiency payment.
  For example, in cotton, there was a target price that they hoped a 
cotton farmer might be able to obtain in order to be able to meet the 
cost of production. As I recall, up until this year, it was 72.9 cents 
a pound. If the cotton price per pound fell below that price, then that 
deficiency payment paid the difference between the market price and the 
target price, but there was a limitation in that.
  Loans are different. They are not any type of limitation relative to 
that. It is a different situation.
  Now the farm bill came along and we have a contract price, and there 
is a limitation relative to contract price. But peanuts have never had 
any deficiency payments. It has only had a loan; therefore, it is 
entirely different. You are mixing apples with oranges here, and, 
therefore, it is a confusing situation.
  In regard to peanuts and the fact that he is talking about these 
people who have these quotas and they do not farm, that is more of the 
factor of what is known as tenants or leasing. In regard to all of the 
commodities--these are based on the Bureau of Census figures--actually 
there are more farmers who farm their land in peanuts than there are in 
wheat, than there are in soybeans, than there are in cotton. So that 
argument relative to that, I think, is one that is just misunderstood 
and a lot of people misunderstand it because of the fact of quotas.
  In regard to price, this next chart shows the relationship between 
the peanuts and the peanut support price and the farm value and the 
retail price of a 16-ounce jar of peanut butter over a period from 1984 
to 1992. That is basically the same as to the present time. The blue 
shows the support price. The red shows the farm price. And then the 
green here shows the retail price.

  Well, note that really that in the loan price, it has always in each 
of these years been lower than the farm price that they got on the 
market. In none of these years has it been where the loan rate of where 
the Government is involved in it, with the payment--that could be made 
in the event that the peanuts have defaulted to the loan

[[Page S8550]]

to the CCC--but in all of those years, the price has always been above 
the loan rate where he wants to put a limitation in regard to it. So 
again, that is a misunderstanding of the program as it has occurred 
over the years relative to this.
  Then the argument is made that you have to have a license to sell 
peanuts in the domestic market. I think you find here that this is a 
chart which shows that we have had a substantial increase from 1986 now 
here to 1995 of the number of new farms that receive quotas.
  Farmers have easy access into the peanut program. More than 10,000 
new farmers received quotas under the peanut program over the last 10 
years, proving the point that the program is not closed to outsiders. 
And so we have had a situation that has developed over the years that 
has shown that you can grow peanuts, you can start growing peanuts, you 
can gain quotas, you can do it. And the people that grow peanuts can 
sell in the U.S. market.
  There is, in regard to the national eatable market, restrictions 
relative to that. But as to the other aspects of it, they can be sold. 
And you do not have to have a license. You can start growing additional 
peanuts today anywhere you want to. There are many farmers that are 
doing that that have started growing it.
  In the new farm bill that we had, the peanut is open to new 
producers, more so than even in the past. Access to the program has 
been made easier for producers desiring to grow peanuts. So I think 
there is some confusion.
  I think, No. 1, that the Senator from Pennsylvania is to be 
congratulated relative to the fact that out-of-State people in these 
nonentities, that are public entities, that held it before --he moved 
and was able, with the help of his staff, to get that changed.
  But we now find that we are in a situation where I think there is 
confusion here, particularly on a payment as opposed to a loan. They 
are just two different things. He wants to limit the ability to use the 
loan. And what he is saying, in arguing on all the rest of the 
commodities, they have a payment limitation on Government payments to 
them. So I think there is a distinction there that has sort of been 
overlooked relative to this.
  So we are really talking about small farmers here, when the average 
peanut farm in the country is 98 acres. And we are talking about here 
at the utmost this would apply to a farm of about 150 acres. And those 
are not big farmers, the people involved in it. They are just slightly 
above what is the average farmer in this country. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator from Alabama is a clever man. And he 
focuses in on a number of farmers. I have never said that there are not 
a lot of farmers who have a little quota. The point I have tried to 
make is 22 percent of the farmers own 80 percent of the quota. Sure 
there are people who have, you know, a little quota here, a little 
quota there. But it does not amount to much. This program is stacked 
with the big farmers.

  So he makes these arguments that, you know, well, you look at peanuts 
and cotton and soybeans and that, you know, peanut farmers are a 
disproportionate number of them, more of them own the farms that they 
grow peanuts on than cotton, soybeans, and the like. What he does not 
say in the chart--maybe it is true--he does not say whether those 
peanut farmers are quota holders or nonquota holders.
  Probably a lot of these peanut farmers do own their land but they did 
not own a quota. He said, well, you know, there are some restrictions. 
I know it was an euphemism, but he said there are some restrictions on 
the domestic sale of additional peanuts. I will tell you what those 
``some restrictions'' are. You cannot sell them for eatable use. That 
is some restriction. I think maybe he meant to say that is sum 
restriction instead of saying that is some restriction. Maybe it was 
the emphasis. But that is a complete restriction. You cannot sell them 
here. You have to sell them overseas. And you have to sell them at a 
heck of a lot less than what the quota price is.
  He said there are, you know, there are no restrictions. Everybody 
wants to go out and plant peanuts. That is right. No restrictions. Go 
out and plant peanuts and sell them at $300 a ton, if you own quota, at 
$400 a ton or $700 a ton, but there is no restriction to sell your 
peanuts for half the price to the guy next door that has a quota. You 
are absolutely right. It is a good deal.
  But I would just suggest that this amendment, which says that every 
person who owns a quota of peanuts can put on loan up to $125,000 worth 
of peanuts, and get a price double the world market, that that is a 
pretty good deal. I mean, that is a pretty generous offer.
  How many peanut growers are we talking about? How many would be 
covered by this amendment? Oh, about 1,900. So 1,900 farmers would be 
limited as to how much they could put on loan, a very select few of the 
tens of thousands, and maybe hundreds of thousands of peanut growers in 
this country. Talking about 1,900 of the wealthiest farms.
  I have made this sound like this is a dramatic change for those folks 
who are the 1,900 select few. The point of fact is, and the Senator 
from Alabama knows this, this is not. This is not a substantial 
amendment. The Senator from Alabama, and folks who know this issue, 
realize that the only reason you would put your peanuts on loan is if 
you could not sell your peanuts for more than the quota price.
  As we know, as a result of the farm bill, the Secretary of 
Agriculture has an interest in keeping demand above supply, in other 
words, shorting the market, keeping the price well above the quota 
price. Why? Because in the farm bill we say we want peanuts to be a no-
cost program. We do not want peanuts to be put on loan and have the 
Federal Government buy this crop. That is what ``put on loan'' means. 
That means the quota holder will sell the peanuts to the Government for 
that quota price.
  We do not want that to happen. The only way you can stop that from 
happening is to control the amount of peanuts that are open. If you 
short the market, prices go up. So the only time that this might--this 
amendment, as minor as it is, as limited as it is to the number of 
farmers that we are talking about--the only time that this could even 
have an impact is if there is a huge crop of peanuts in excess of what 
the Secretary thought could be grown by the number of quota holders.
  In that case you are talking about a lot of farmers who have a lot of 
product, who will sell a goodly amount at the quota price. And they 
have to sell the rest out on the market and make, I suggest, well above 
what additional farmers are making. So this is an amendment that is 
fair.
  This is an amendment that has limited scope with respect to the 
number of people involved and is limited to an occurrence that is not 
likely to happen, given the controls of the Secretary of Agriculture 
over the amount of peanuts grown in this country. This truly is an 
amendment that is more principle than it is of tremendous substance.
  That is why I was hoping the Senator from Alabama, who made a lot of 
arguments about the difference between loans and deficiency payments--
and I understand the difference--that is why deficiency payments were 
limited to $50,000 and I put $125,000 as a loan payment. It is 
substantially more. There is a reason: Because there is a difference. I 
recognize that difference. I set a limit that was a very small 
percentage of the people who farm peanuts. I wanted to get at the hoi 
polloi of the peanut growers. We have done that. I think this is a fair 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside amendment 4995.


                           Amendment No. 4967

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to carry out a peanut program 
    that is operated by a marketing association if the Secretary of 
 Agriculture determines that a member of the Board of Directors of the 
  association has a conflict of interest with respect to the program)

  Mr. SANTORUM. I send to the desk an amendment No. 4967.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4967.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S8551]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC.   . PROHIBITION ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN PEANUT PRICE 
                   SUPPORT PROGRAM.

       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be used to carry out a peanut program under 
     section 155 of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7271) or part VI of subtitle B of title III of the 
     Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (7 U.S.C. 1357 et seq.) 
     that is operated by a marketing association if the Secretary 
     of Agriculture determines, using standards established to 
     carry out title II of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 
     U.S.C. App.), that a member of the Board of Directors of the 
     association has a conflict of interest with respect to the 
     program.

  Mr. SANTORUM. This is an amendment that gets, again, to what I see as 
a group of very influential, wealthy, graced quota holders who have 
been put in a position to profit extraordinarily by this program, and 
have put themselves in a position that is, I think, virtually unique in 
the agriculture industry.
  Most of the commodity programs, all but a couple, have been run 
historically by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That would make 
sense. USDA has the authority to oversee these programs, and, as a 
result, the USDA has taken the responsibility of running the program, 
of operating their loan programs or deficiency programs, of carrying 
out the price of programs, of penalizing wrongdoers, of promulgating 
regulations--all of that has been done within the Department of 
Agriculture, with the soybean program, the cotton program, and a whole 
lot of other programs. All of them have been run and operated by a 
bureaucrat out of USDA, but not the peanut grower. Not the peanut 
grower.
  The Government, USDA, contracts with what are called marketing 
associations or cooperatives to administer the program. What does that 
mean? These are associations--get this--these are the people who 
operate the program, who oversee it, penalize wrongdoers, help 
promulgate regulations for the program. And who are the people who 
compose the marketing associations? I will give three guesses--you are 
right, the quota growers. The people who participate in the program run 
the program.
  Now, some of the skeptics among us might consider that to be a 
conflict of interest, that people who own the quotas are responsible 
for overseeing the program of which they benefit, of administering the 
program of which they benefit, of promulgating regulations of which 
they benefit, of punishing the wrongdoers among them, of which they 
benefit.
  My amendment is a very simple amendment dealing with conflicts of 
interest. My amendment is very straightforward. It says you have to 
comply with the Government standards for conflict of interest. Since 
you are in a sense an agency of the Federal Government carrying out 
this program, we will hold you to the same standards as someone who 
would, in fact, be a member of the Government in administering this 
program, and that is, you cannot have a conflict of interest.
  Now, if they are, in fact, vested, as they are, with the authority to 
carry out this program and have, in fact, the ministerial duties and 
other policymaking duties and other programs reserved to USDA, they 
should be held to the conflict-of-interest standard of a USDA employee 
administering the program.
  I know that sounds like a very radical idea. What that will cause is 
a much more arm's-length regulation of this industry than the folks who 
are running it now, for their benefit. Maybe you need to look back 
historically how these associations--and they have run them for a long 
time, and maybe this anomaly that has occurred with a small percentage 
of the farmers owning a big percentage of the quotas is a result of who 
runs the program. I suggest if we look at these marketing associations 
that run the programs locally, they probably are not a lot of the folks 
who have just a ton or two of quota. They are folks who have the big 
quotas, who have the big interest in this program, and run the program 
to benefit themselves.
  That clearly is a conflict of interest. This has nothing to do with 
denying anybody a quota. This has nothing to do with, really, reforming 
the program per se. What this is, again, these are two amendments that 
I am offering today on peanuts, where I have accepted the fact this 
program is going to continue. We are going to have a peanut program. I 
will not mess around with it. Like the Senator from Idaho, Senator 
Craig said, ``Do not mess around with these programs; keep them in 
place so we have some certainty.'' Well, I am for that. If that is what 
happens, that is the way it has to be, then that is the way it has to 
be, but at least have a program that does not benefit the wealthy, 
which is what my first amendment deals with, and, No. 2, does not have 
what appears to be a blatant, bald-faced conflict of interest between 
the people who benefit from the program who also happen to be the very 
same people who operate and regulate the program.
  What I am offering here is an amendment that, again, I hope, given 
the nature of the amendment, we can get an agreement on this and maybe 
adopt it tonight with little discussion after mine. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. HEFLIN. There are marketing co-ops. There is the Virginia-
Carolina peanut growers marketing cooperative and the Georgia-Florida-
Alabama co-op, and the Southwest peanut growers co-op, who are allowed 
under the USDA regulation to enter into various activities pertaining 
to the operation of the peanut program.
  In regard to this, it is my understanding that the manufacturers are 
in the process of having a lawsuit pertaining to this issue. They have 
filed a protest letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but the 
issue over the years has been worked out with the co-op with the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture in such a manner as to be within the purview 
of the ethics rules and regulations. And therefore the concept is not a 
violation of a conflict of interest. The associations and co-ops are 
closely supervised by the U.S. Department of Agriculture personnel. 
They have extensive in-house audits by Government officials, which are 
conducted each year. It results in cost savings to the Government 
because the operation is contracted out. These are conducted in small 
towns where the cost is less than it would be if operated in 
Washington.

  Now, there have been large groups of merchants pertaining to it that 
have attempted to bid for these positions and to qualify to administer 
the program, and that has been several years ago, but they did not 
qualify pertaining to this matter. This is a matter that if there is 
any violation or any conflict of interest, in our judgment, it ought to 
be determined by the courts rather than by the Congress at this time, 
because there is a law firm that is very much involved. They have 
already filed some letters, and they certainly are in the process of 
working themselves into a court case pertaining to this matter. But 
under it, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has clearly looked at this 
over the years, and they do not feel that this is any violation of any 
conflict of interest.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I just say to the Senator from Alabama 
that my amendment merely says

       if the Secretary of Agriculture determines, using standards 
     established to carry out title II of the Ethics in Government 
     Act of 1978, that a member of the Board of Directors of the 
     association has a conflict of interest with respect to the 
     program.

  You say that is something informally being done. If we have an 
agreement here, I would be happy to move the amendment and, hopefully, 
we can adopt it by consent.
  Mr. HEFLIN. We can consult with the Department of Agriculture before 
any agreement relative to this matter. As I understand it, this has 
been submitted to them and they have objections to it.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I can't hear the Senator.
  Mr. HEFLIN. As I understand it, this has been shown to the Department 
of Agriculture, and they have reservations pertaining to this. They are 
in the process right now of probably becoming involved in a lawsuit. 
Therefore, they object to it, and because they object to it, I cannot 
agree to it.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.

[[Page S8552]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4995

  Mr. SANTORUM. I call up amendment No. 4995 and ask for the yeas and 
nays on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield the floor to the Senator from Mississippi, so 
we can all go home.


                Amendments Nos. 4979 and 4980, Withdrawn

  Mr. COCHRAN. Earlier tonight, the Senate adopted two amendments 
offered by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Kerrey. These were 
modifications of previous amendments that he had filed and were at the 
desk.
  I, therefore, ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendments Nos. 4979 
and 4980, offered previously by the Senator from Nebraska, Senator 
Kerrey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 4979 and 4980) were withdrawn.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there have been cleared two additional 
amendments--one we offered earlier and had withdrawn, and another 
amendment.
  I will send one up on behalf of Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, dealing 
with rural utilities assistance program, and the other offered on 
behalf of the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, and others.


                 Amendments Nos. 5000 and 5001, En Bloc

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk, en 
bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran] proposes 
     amendments numbered 5000 and 5001, en bloc.

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


                           amendment no. 5000

 (Purpose: To provide that the town of Berlin, New Hampshire, shall be 
eligible during fiscal year 1997 for a grant under the rural utilities 
                          assistance program)

       On page 47, line 17, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 
     section 306(a)(7) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1926(a)(7)), the town of Berlin, 
     New Hampshire, shall be eligible during fiscal year 1997 for 
     a grant under the rural utilities assistance program''.
                                                                    ____



                           amendment no. 5001

  (Purpose: To require a review and report on the H-2A non immigrant 
                            worker program)

       At the end of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
     amendment, insert the following:

     SEC.   . REVIEW AND REPORT ON H-2A NON IMMIGRANT WORKERS 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Sense of the Congress.--It is the sense of the Congress 
     that the enactment of this Act may impact the future 
     availability of an adequate work force for the producers of 
     our Nation's labor intensive agricultural commodities and 
     livestock.
       (b) Review.--The Comptroller General shall review the 
     effectiveness of the H-2A nonimmigrant worker program to 
     ensure that the program provides a workable safety valve in 
     the event of future shortages of domestic workers after the 
     enactment of this Act. Among other things, the Comptroller 
     General shall review the program to determine--
       (1) that the program ensures that an adequate supply of 
     qualified United States workers is available at the time and 
     place needed for employers seeking such workers after the 
     date of enactment of this Act;
       (2) that the program ensures that there is timely approval 
     of applications for temporary foreign workers under the H-2A 
     nonimmigrant worker program in the event of shortages of 
     United States workers after the date of enactment of this 
     Act;
       (3) that the program ensures that implementation of the H-
     2A nonimmigrant worker program is not displacing United 
     States agricultural workers or diminishing the terms and 
     conditions of employment of United States agricultural 
     workers; and
       (4) if and to what extent the H-2A nonimmigrant worker 
     program is contributing to the problem of illegal 
     immigration.
       (c) Report.-- Not later than December 31, 1996, or three 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is 
     sooner, the Comptroller General shall submit a report to 
     Congress setting forth the findings of the review conducted 
     under subsection (b);
       (d) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``Comptroller General'' means the Comptroller 
     General of the United States; and
       (2) the term ``H-2A nonimmigrant worker program'' means the 
     program for the admission of nonimmigrant aliens described in 
     section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am authorized to announce to the Senate 
on behalf of the Senator from Arkansas that these two amendments have 
been cleared on both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments (No. 5000 and No. 5001) were agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________